4. Presentation Summaries (cont.) |
| Caribou Response to Linear Developments in a West-Central Alberta Landscape |
Resource expansion into previously undeveloped areas requires increases in access, which may have detrimental effects for some wildlife species. Paula studied the response of migratory mountain caribou to linear landscape features, including streams, roads, and seismic exploration lines, in the foothills along the eastern slopes of the Canadian Rocky Mountains in west-central Alberta. Data from GPS telemetry collars during the two winters 1998-2000 were compared to a base map of linear features in a GIS, using distance buffers and compositional analysis. Caribou locations were distributed non-randomly around streams and roads, with preference increasing with distance from these linear features. This pattern of avoidance was also significant at a fine-scale, including only caribou that were in the vicinity of 0.5 km of linear features. Paula did not detect a significant avoidance or preference by caribou for seismic lines in either winter. This study adds evidence that caribou avoid linear landscape features in forested landscapes. The exact mechanism is not known, but may relate to the presence of natural predators or human disturbance on these corridors. The lack of response from seismic lines in the study area could possibly be due to differences in mountain caribou ecology from other regions, low statistical power in the study design, or the success in mitigation measures to reduce impacts. From these results, Paula highlighted approaches to reduce effects of linear features as prescribed by current operating guidelines for industrial activity on caribou ranges in Alberta.
|
| Working with the Caribou Forestry Guidelines: Putting It on the Ground |
Del reviewed the work involved in taking caribou habitat guidelines and actually translating them to a series of on-the-ground mature forest retention areas. He described the innovative forest management practices undertaken by the Revelstoke Community Forest Corporation to minimize caribou habitat impacts.
|
| A 21st Century Approach to Forest Management for Mountain Caribou |
This paper reports on the approach taken in the Cariboo region to address the needs of mountain caribou. The strategy is very much the product of a group of dedicated researchers, managers, foresters, and biologists (from the ministries of Forests, Sustainable Resource Management, and Water, Land and Air Protection) working closely with forest companies and conservation groups to find innovative yet workable solutions. Mountain caribou are an ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) that feed mainly on arboreal lichens (Bryoria spp. and Alectoria sarmentosa) during winter. Consequently, the habitat requirements of caribou are incompatible with clearcutting-the common silvicultural system within their range. To survive, mountain caribou need to be able to spread out over large areas of suitable habitat, where it is difficult for predators to find them. Suitable winter habitat has characteristics of old forest, including abundant arboreal lichens. Research on partial cutting to maintain caribou habitat has been ongoing in the Cariboo region since 1990 when a pilot trial was harvested to explore the possibilities of the partial cutting approach. A group selection silvicultural system was developed with the objective of maintaining the forest structure needed to retain arboreal lichens in the stand in perpetuity and therefore continually provide caribou habitat. This group selection system was the focus of a replicated trial harvested in 1992-93 with a 33% removal level. Three treatments, differing only in opening sizes (0.03, 0.13, 1.0 ha), were tested. A description of the project can be found at: http://www.pfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ecology/ferns/quesnel/index_e.html The results, now almost 10 years post-harvest, are encouraging. Windthrow in the residual stand is minimal. No significant difference in lichen biomass occurred among the treatments. Also, there was no difference in lichen biomass when comparing the uncut control to the residual trees in all treatments. Therefore, lichens are growing in the partially cut stands, and increased wind-scouring on the remaining trees is not occurring. Natural regeneration is successful but depends on a sufficient cone crop-a sporadic occurrence in high-elevation forests. Planted spruce and subalpine fir survives and shows adequate growth in all but the smallest openings at the highest elevations. Re-measurement of this replicated trial will continue over the long term. Some results can be found at: www.for.gov.bc.ca/cariboo/research/index.htm . Meanwhile, the Cariboo Chilcotin Land Use Plan (CCLUP), released in 1994, identified that the maintenance of mountain caribou habitat was an overriding objective. The CCLUP designated 53 509 ha of “modified harvesting” and 86 836 ha of “no harvesting” to meet the needs of mountain caribou. In 2000, a Mountain Caribou Strategy was completed for the Cariboo region. This document geographically designated the “modified” and “no harvest” areas within caribou habitat. Drawing on the ongoing research, it also defined “modified” harvesting as a selection silvicultural system with 33% removal at an 80-year cutting cycle. Although group selection was the preferred approach, it also made room for single-tree selection on appropriate sites and strip selection on steeper slopes. The full strategy is available at: http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/car/env_stewardship/wildlife/reports/cari_2000_rpt/cari_main.htm The process did not end with the release of the strategy because further steps were necessary to ensure successful operational implementation. A large adaptive management trial is being established at Mount Tom in the Quesnel Forest District to address caribou response, silvicultural options, and operational issues that could not be addressed at the scale of the replicated research trial. The logging started in March 2001 and will continue for at least four years to develop approximately 1400 ha of high-elevation forest. To date, 282 ha have been logged with two different logging methods applying group selection with openings ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 ha in area. Several 3 ha patches are also included to compare tree growth in a clearcut environment to that in the group selection system. A 2000 ha control will be left unharvested for at least 10 years after the logging is finished. This will allow a detailed examination to be made of caribou response using radio-telemetry. The Mountain Caribou Strategy provided a framework for the development of a predator management strategy. The strategy recommended two main components:
To address the first recommendation, the number of limited-entry harvesting permits for moose within the general caribou area has been increased from 267 to 390 annually. The objective is to keep moose numbers at approximately historic levels with the knowledge that reduction in predators will increase both caribou and moose survival. Additionally, a wolf management strategy was produced and approved at the ministerial level by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. This plan includes sterilization of dominant animals and removal of some of the subdominant wolves in packs that are preying on caribou. Currently, year two of a five-year plan to implement the strategy is under way. Packs that prey on caribou are being identified and some sterilisation has occurred. The development of an access management strategy was a recommendation of the Mountain Caribou Strategy and work has proceeded on several topics. After consultations with interest groups, options for zoning snowmobile use within caribou range were produced and have been presented to decision-makers. In the meantime, a major increase in heli-skiing has been approved for the heart of the caribou range, further complicating the access issue. Perhaps the greatest challenge to maintaining mountain caribou in this region lies in finding effective and socially acceptable solutions to motorized recreation in caribou habitat. The following are members of the CCLUP Mountain Caribou Strategy Committee: Harold Armleder, Chris Bauditz, Mike Lloyd, and Michael Pelchat of the Ministry of Forests; Michael Folkema and Robin Hoffos of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management; and John Youds and Jim Young of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. Additional contributors to the supporting research include: Teresa Newsome, Ordell Steen and Michaela Waterhouse of the Ministry of Forests; and Pat Dielman, Nicola Freeman, Lara Roorda and Randy Wright of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.
|
| Recruiting Caribou Habitats Using Silvicultural Treatments |
Introduction The report specifically:
In 2002, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection contracted Manning, Cooper and Associates to compile the existing guidelines and best management practices for recruiting habitat using silviculture, for a variety of species including caribou. The work is in draft and will be reviewed later this year before being posted on the Ministry website. Electronic copies are available from Colene Wood, and if you are interested in being part of the review please let Colene know. The objective of this presentation is to highlight the recommendations of Lauren and Rhonda’s report and the Manning, Cooper and Associates draft guidelines, and put these works into the current context of developing Sustainable Forest Management Plans and operational trials. Sustainable Forest Management Plans An SFMP must be consistent with legally established land-use objectives (higher-level plans). SFMPs can also address or incorporate the objectives of other resource plans that are not legally binding. Development of an SFMP, or components of an SFMP, may qualify as an activity that can be funded under the FIA in 2002/03. Commencing April 2003, a licensee will need to be a signatory to an existing SFMP or be actively participating in the development of an SFMP in order to receive FIA funding. (Note: this initial expectation is under review.) Planning documents, such as Silviculture Strategies or Pest Management Plans, can be incorporated or referred to in an SFMP. The intent is for licensees operating in a management unit (TSA or TFL) to cooperatively develop an SFMP. To a certain extent this is happening across the province; however, time is needed to get full coverage and develop effective tactical plans. The development of SFMPs provides an excellent opportunity for licensees operating in mountain caribou habitat to plan operational trials and activities to test the recommendations and guidelines in the two reports mentioned above. Recognizing that management cannot create old-growth forests, Lauren outlined the general management objectives for recruiting caribou habitat:
The SFMP needs to specify management objectives, and propose how to measure progress towards sustainable forest management. Management objectives and silvicultural strategies for caribou winter habitat can be taken from the Minister’s Advisory Plan (1999) and other planning documents. However, for the purpose of justifying FIA investments, silviculture treatments need a rationale specific to species recovery and timber harvesting. Information from the Timber Supply Analysis and Recovery Action Plans may support such a rationale. Lauren and Rhonda’s work also outlines how to prescribe specific stand-level management objectives, and assess forests to determine which stands within the landscape need silviculture treatment to encourage growth and to put them on a trajectory towards old growth sooner than without treatment. Their recommendations are very specific as to the need for operational trials and an adaptive management approach. Operational Trials In addition to this report, Lauren noted several innovative operational trials set up in Blue River by Weyerhaeuser in the Clearwater Forest District, which has timber types and terrain similar to the Revelstoke TSA. Some of the recommendations include:
This year, a number of trials are being conducted in the Cariboo Region, in partnerships between licensees and the Ministry of Forests. Ken Soneff, Research Program, in the Cariboo Region can be contacted for further information. The Manning, Cooper and Associates report, “Silviculture Guidelines and Practices for Maintaining or Recruiting Key Habitat Objectives,” 2002, proposes best management practices for pre- and post-harvesting activities, and various silviculture regimes to meet specific management objectives. These proposed practices should form the basis for any operational trials, in order to build upon existing knowledge and effectively invest in discovering better ways to manage caribou habitat. (The section on mountain caribou appears as Appendix One in this document.) The FIA is a source of funds for both research and operational trials. The FIA Research Program (under Forestry Innovation Investment Program [FIIP] and managed by Forintek) has strict criteria and a formal review process to determine eligibility and selection of projects. Under the FIA Land-base Investment Program (LBIP), PriceWaterhouseCoopers approves licensee-proposed operational trials that develop, assess, or refine existing or new practices, techniques, tools, standards, and best management practices, subject to adherence to:
There is a “grey area” where research and operational trials meld, and licensees may not be certain to which program they should apply. The Ministry of Forests will be clarifying the differences, in order to avoid duplication and disappointment. In general, an operational trial should be considered: 1) when research becomes adaptive management; 2) when a licensee is testing different standards; or 3) when a licensee is testing different forest practices. In either case, FIA funding can be guaranteed for only one year; however, the need for work in subsequent years contributes to the prioritization of future projects. When designing operational trials, the FIA criteria should be understood in order to capitalize on the funding source while meeting research and management objectives:
The licensee must do homework, and ensure that they are not unnecessarily duplicating other trials. On the other hand, if other similar trials exist, the licensee needs to follow the same or similar methodologies and contribute to the larger collection of data and information. In all cases, the results must be publicly accessible. Summary Colene Wood provided an excerpt from the draft “Silviculture Guidelines and Practices for Maintaining or Recruiting Key Habitat Objectives” (2002), which deals with mountain caribou. It appears as Appendix One in this document.
|
| Partial Cutting and Forage Lichens: New Results |
The use of selection silvicultural systems has been proposed as a possible means to harvest timber while maintaining habitat for mountain caribou. When a stand is partially cut, the arboreal forage lichens on the felled trees are lost from the system. But what happens to the lichens on the remaining trees? We have studied the short-term impacts of partial cutting on biomass, growth rates, and litterfall rates of forage lichens at Pinkerton Mountain in the wet cold Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir Zone (ESSFwc3) east of Prince George, British Columbia. The silvicultural systems trial includes a group selection area in which trees were removed in discrete groups with a mean size of 0.25 ha, a single-tree selection area in which trees were removed across a range of diameter classes, and an adjacent unlogged area. The level of volume removal was 30% in both selection prescriptions. Two years after partial cutting, lichen retention on residual trees in the group selection and single-tree selection units was similar to that in the unlogged area. There appeared to be a small post-harvest pulse of litterfall, but it was restricted to the single-tree selection area, and was largely masked by natural variation in litterfall among years. Deposition patterns of lichen litterfall suggest that lichen establishment on regeneration will be enhanced within about 12 m of the nearest large tree. Lichen growth rates were as high in the single-tree selection area as in the unlogged control area. In the group selection area, growth rates were reduced along the edges of openings, but we would not expect to see reduced growth in the interior of the residual stand. Our research findings suggest that low-volume partial cutting can meet short-term management goals for the retention of forage lichens in ESSF forests.
|
| Retention Systems Silviculture in Caribou Habitat |
Preface To date, the only purposeful retention harvests have been done in McRae Creek, in an area zoned as early winter caribou habitat. Examples of 10%, 15%, 20%, 40%, and 60% retentions are located in the lower ESSF. Significant analysis has been done in old Intermediate Utilization areas, age class 3-6 stands that originated from wildfire and in early partial cuts of 50-60% retention (1992+). What is a Retention Silviculture System? “Retention system” means a silvicultural system that is designed:
This is a fairly clear stand prescription. However, in order to implement this system the following strategic guidance is required:
Why consider this Silviculture System for harvest in Caribou Habitat?
Hypothesis that Variable Retention will obtain results:
|
| Hair Lichens, Snowpack Variation and the Fate of the Mountain Caribou: The LSC Hypothesis |
British Columbia’s mountain caribou are behaviourally adapted to survival in regions of heavy snow. In winter, when ground forage is buried out of reach, these animals subsist on a diet of tree-dwelling hair lichens. Caribou forage for hair lichens, especially Bryoria, in three contexts: 1) as litterfall; 2) in the crowns of recently windthrown trees; and 3) on the lower branches of standing trees. Litterfall and windthrown trees are especially important to caribou in their early winter habitats, often at lower elevations. The main winter range, however, is in the subalpine, and here they rely much more heavily on hair lichens growing on the branches of standing trees. Bryoria biomass is heaviest in old-growth forests, where these lichens increase in abundance with increasing distance from the ground. Three vertical zones of abundance can be recognized:
Bryoria is unable to withstand prolonged burial by snow. Winters with exceptionally deep snowpacks cause upward shifts in the A/B threshold as buried Bryoria dies off. Thereafter, especially at subalpine elevations, the lower Bryoria trimline is likely to be situated well out of reach of caribou in early winter. This can be predicted to delay the migration of caribou from their early winter habitat to their main winter range, because caribou are capable of foraging efficiently in subalpine forests only once deepening snows provide a feeding platform within about 1.5 - 2 m of the A/B threshold (or A/C in highly exposed sites). Once elevated, an A/B threshold is slow to readjust downwards to its original position, requiring perhaps a decade or more. During this period, caribou can be predicted to spend more time than usual in their early-winter ranges, particularly in years when snowpacks are slow to build. Such years are probably highly stressful for caribou. Firstly, because these animals, effectively trapped at lower elevations, are at higher-than-average risk of encountering predators (owing to greater concentrations of other ungulates). Secondly, because as old-growth forests continue to be replaced by clearcuts, the likelihood of locating Bryoria-rich windthrown trees must also decline. Cratering for falsebox and other forbs of course provides some nourishment (less, however, in clearcuts than in forest settings), though the question needs to be raised whether the increasing lack of availability of hair lichens at lower elevations could result in food shortages for these animals. The above Lichen-Snow-Caribou (LSC) hypothesis could provide a plausible explanation for the well-known tendency of caribou to perform annual vertical migrations much more pronounced in areas of heavy snows than in less snowy regions. It also suggests a framework against which to examine historic fluctuations in population size. In principle, caribou herds in areas of heavy snow ought to experience rapid episodic declines, followed by more gradual increases. Such declines, moreover, would be expected during the decade following a year of exceptionally deep snowpacks. Caribou populations in drier areas should be more stable. To the extent that the LSC hypothesis is eventually validated, resource managers would do well to heed the warning implicit in it: low elevation old-growth forests may be crucial, at least in regions of heavy snow, to the long-term survival of mountain caribou. If so, then recent declines in the Revelstoke and Central Selkirk subpopulations could be simply an inevitable downward adjustment to existing conditions brought on by clearcut logging at the landscape scale.
|
| Recreation and Caribou: What Do We Know about the Effects of Recreation on Caribou? |
Very little is known about the effects of recreation on mountain caribou. Not only is this topic difficult to quantify, it has been looked at only twice and for short periods of time. Where snowmobile use has increased gradually and snowmobiles are, due to topography or regulation, limited to a portion of the late winter caribou habitat, individual caribou appear to have habituated to snowmobile use and show little immediate response. These animals are the ones most often observed by snowmobilers. There is some indication that other animals have been displaced from areas where snowmobile use rapidly increased over the past decade and where their use is less limited across the late-winter habitat.
|
| Snowmobiles and Caribou: Perspectives from the Revelstoke Snowmobile Club and British Columbia Snowmobile Federation |
For information on the Revelstoke Snowmobile Club and information on area closures due to caribou, visit www.sledrevelstoke.com and look in the “Wildlife Issues” section. For information about the BC Snowmobile Federation and snowmobiling in BC, visit: www.snowmobilebc.ca.
|
| A Retrospective GIS Analysis of Spatial Interactions between Mountain Caribou and Helicopter Skiing |
Recreation-related impacts on mountain caribou are often cited but rarely studied. Helicopters used in commercial backcountry ski operations are considered by some to be a significant source of harassment during a critical season for caribou. As a result, we are currently conducting a retrospective analysis of the spatial interactions between mountain caribou and helicopter skiing. Our study area is comprised of two commercial recreation tenures held by Canadian Mountain Holidays (CMH) located within the range of the Central Selkirk mountain caribou herd in the West Kootenay region of British Columbia. The tenures cover approximately 2000 km2 within which CMH uses established ski runs. Records have been maintained for several years regarding the intensity of use of different runs. The Central Selkirk mountain caribou herd has been the focus of inventory work for 10 years. During that time, approximately 2000 radio telemetry locations have been collected on 40 collared caribou. In addition, caribou habitat has been mapped within the range of the herd using both expert-based and resource selection function approaches. The purpose of our study is to examine the interaction between caribou and heli-skiing habitat use during 1992-2002. Because this interaction is occurring on a multiple-use landscape, we are using a retrospective cumulative effects approach that also considers other resource uses such as industrial forestry and snowmobiling. The principal questions being asked in our study are:
We are conducting both a quantitative and qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis involves the calculation of resource selection functions for both early and late winter seasons, explicitly incorporating the intensity of heli-skiing activity as a factor. In addition, we are also examining evidence for changes in range use by individual caribou and by the herd (based on fixed kernel individual and composite seasonal home ranges) in relation to heli-skiing activity. The qualitative analysis involves a series of spatial overlays that illustrate the coincidence of heli-skiing and other resource uses with caribou and caribou habitat, by season and year. The overlays will highlight any geographic areas of management concern where the coincidence of landscape uses in areas important for caribou might warrant special management. The strength of this approach is that it leverages existing information to spatially illustrate, and statistically analyze, the interaction between caribou and human-related activities on a landscape. The approach is necessarily correlative, and is limited by the availability of data; however, it can quickly highlight areas of management concern, and can control statistically for the independent effects of different landscape uses on caribou.
|
| Does Human Activity Affect Woodland Caribou in Jasper National Park? |
Within the Rocky Mountain national parks, woodland caribou are close to extirpation in Banff National Park but continue to occupy northern and southern Jasper National Park. Aerial surveys on herds in southern Jasper indicate that this population has declined from approximately 500 animals in the 1960s to just over 100 animals in 2000. Moreover, a recent population viability analysis suggested that the South Jasper herds might be extirpated within the next 40 years, based on conservative population parameters. Unlike other declining caribou populations, this population has declined in the absence of resource extraction and other extensive landscape changes. Recreational activity has therefore been suggested as a possible cause for this decline. Human activity may directly displace caribou from preferred habitat, however literature supporting this hypothesis is weak. Alternatively, ploughed winter roads and packed trails may indirectly affect caribou by providing wolves with easy access to them. Over the next four years we will experimentally test the effects of recreational activity on caribou in the Maligne Valley of southern Jasper. We plan to place GPS collars on 10 caribou and four wolves in each of the next four winters. We also plan to close the Maligne Valley to vehicle and skier traffic in the latter two years. We will then examine changes in caribou response to road and trails pre- and post-closure. Preliminary data analysis for two radio-collared caribou (2001) suggests that these caribou avoided the Maligne Road and human-use trails. Results of this study will be used to develop human use management strategies for caribou wintering areas in Jasper National Park.
|
| Designing Credible Field Studies on the Effect of Human Disturbance on Mountain Caribou |
With the increase in front- and backcountry traffic associated with ecotourism and other “non-consumptive” wildlife uses has come an increase in concern about the effects of disturbance on wildlife populations. Disturbance responses of species such as mountain caribou can be stratified into three categories that correspond to different spatial and temporal scales:
Many studies have examined the short-term behavioural and/or physiological (e.g., heart rate) responses of ungulates to disturbance. Most studies on wild species have focussed on deer and sheep. Of these, many have involved captive populations. Caribou have been the focus of some longitudinal studies. A significant issue in the design of these studies is that the disturbance history of animals is unknown. In addition, these studies rarely involve marked animals, leading to pseudoreplication issues. Where marked animals are involved, sensitization to human-related disturbances is a key concern. Individual animals vary in their behavioural response to disturbance, and physiological measures have correlated poorly with observable behaviours. Casually linking these short-term responses to longer-term effects is difficult. As a result, defensible benchmarks and thresholds associated with acceptable levels of disturbance are unlikely to be outcomes of these studies. Few studies have causally linked disturbance events to habitat use. There are opportunities to conduct such studies on caribou herds in British Columbia, where good data exist on current and past distributions of mountain caribou. These studies are limited by available data, particular those related to non-commercial backcountry activities. These studies should be done in a cumulative effects context that accommodates other landscape uses that might be correlated with disturbance events. Studies demonstrating avoidance of areas affected by disturbances, or medium- to long-term changes in range use by mountain caribou in response to disturbance (where other factors are controlled statistically), can provide convincing evidence that populations are being adversely affected. Establishing the long-term, demographic consequences of disturbance events is difficult because of the long time scales required to detect population changes, and confounding factors that influence population dynamics. Given the challenges of designing studies to determine the effects of disturbance on mountain caribou, management is likely to remain based on acceptable management risks rather than on scientifically defensible benchmarks and thresholds.
|
| Tracking the Prolific Past: An Historical Overview of Caribou Abundance in the Columbia Mountains |
In Life is a Miracle, American essayist and conservationist Wendell Berry asserts that “We can begin ... only where our history has so far brought us …” He argues strongly for the role history can play in the formation of what he calls “locality”; in other words, a cultural attachment to and respect for our natural habitats. Locality, Berry believes, is enhanced by deep, multi-generational knowledge. This knowledge includes how things were as well as how they are. So, with that in mind, let us consider this mammal that interests us all, this large-footed creature of docile and communal nature. What is its history in relation to the human culture of the Southern Interior Mountain eco-region? The number of people gathered at this conference suggests that the caribou is a species of considerable value. Has it always been so? How much of our current understanding and valuing of caribou is informed by history? Originally, my interest in past landscapes grew out of the task of researching and writing a book about the Columbia Mountain region’s First People, the Arrow Lakes Indians, or Sinixt. But before too long, I had moved beyond the scope of aboriginal history. I became fascinated with any and all references to this interior wet-belt ecosystem as it once was: its animals, plants, pre-dam waterways and weather. I began to ferret out journals and diaries of obscure trade fort managers, travelling botanists, missionaries, and adventurers, always searching to understand more about how this landscape functioned prior to industrial use of natural resources. Scientists usually work in the here and now, making accurate, first-hand observation their sharpest tool. Decisions about habitat protection or enhancement, about herd augmentation or predation are not formed by focusing on the past. Instead, they are formed by gathering today’s evidence, studying the numbers and then suggesting hypotheses. The work of a scientist is distinct from that of an historian. Historians work with information passed down from often vague and sometimes unreliable sources. They work more conceptually, and with more qualitative information. Fact, for an historian, is a difficult beast to stalk; forming a hypothesis is a tricky business. For obvious reasons, conservation biologists and ecologists have not spent a lot of time bent over history books. But interestingly enough, both the Federal and Provincial governments have recently funded historical studies of mountain caribou. In 1996, Parks Canada published Graham A. MacDonald’s Caribou and Human Agency in the Columbia Mountains, Towards an Environmental History of a Species. And in the year 2000, the provincial Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks produced Wildlife Bulletin No. B-100, The Early History of Woodland Caribou in BC, written by David Spalding. This willingness to value historical cultural information as it relates to mountain caribou suggests that the past does indeed have something to offer those who presently work in this field. But what might that be? I’d like to explore the environmental heritage of the mountain caribou as it can be pieced together from various historical and ethnographic sources prior to about 1900. I will divide the information into three phases of time, each one of varying length. After a brief survey of the material, perhaps then we might consider what past knowledge of this creature’s place here can offer. Hunter-Gatherers in a Tangled Forest; 5,000 b.p. -- 1811 a.d. How long did the caribou co-exist with the hunter-gatherer culture? Archaeologists suggest that human beings arrived in the Columbia Mountains sometime after 5000 BP, probably coming up along the Columbia River from the Kettle Falls region. The descendants of these arrivals are the Sinixt. They and three other First Nations hunted the caribou in the vast Southern Interior Mountain eco-region. The Sinixt hunted primarily in the Monashee, Selkirk, and Purcell Ranges surrounding the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers. The Ktunaxa hunted between Tobacco Plains and Yahk as well as the mountains around Kootenay Lake. The Secwepemc came over from the west along the Inonoaklin Creek drainage, to share Sinixt hunting grounds along Lower Arrow Lake. And the Kalispel hunted caribou in lower Kalispel country, near the present-day Washington/Idaho border. While all four nations used caribou, ethnographers tell us that caribou was in particular a central aspect of the meat-rich diet of the Sinixt, who lived in the heart of the Upper Columbia watershed. Elder Martin Louie told researchers that caribou were prolific in Arrow Lakes country long ago. He described communal hunts when caribou were driven into the lake, where men in bark canoes would club or shoot them. Louie said that his grandfather participated in these drives in the 19th century; he told his grandson that if the hunters were not careful, the caribou would kick the canoe and then the hunters would be swimming alongside them. The Sinixt also stalked caribou individually, with bow and arrow. When a hunter returned to the village with fresh kill, the carcass was laid in a central location for all to share in its value. Waste was frowned upon. The hide was tanned and fashioned into clothing, shoes, or blankets, meat was eaten fresh or pounded and dried into jerky, the bones were pulverized for marrow, and the horns were polished for handles or utensils. Ethnographers James Teit and Verne Ray both recorded more testimony from other Sinixt native elders in the early 20th century that caribou could long ago be hunted in many places in the Columbia Mountains. Elders spoke of caribou in the floodplains around the Arrow Lakes, at the lower end of Trout Lake, in the mountainous area north of the Kootenay River, in the Kokanee Range between the West Arm and the Slocan River, around Nakusp, on the east side of Lower Arrow Lake, at Whatshan Lake, and to the west of the pre-dam Columbia River Narrows. The Ktunaxa, eastern neighbours of the Sinixt, also considered the caribou to be economically significant. “Yahk” a common place name in northern Montana and southeastern British Columbia, means “caribou” in the Ktunaxa language. According to the ethnographer Harry Turney-High, Ktunaxa elders told him that they considered the caribou to be a sort of “safety-valve” in their food supply, given their wide availability and docility for hunting. As well, the arrival from the west of the Secwepemc people to the Arrow Lakes each fall indicates that the mountains surrounding the Columbia River and the valleys themselves had a wide reputation for being prime caribou habitat. The Kalispel, living in the South Selkirks, also hunted caribou. Evidently, they did not round up caribou as they did deer, because the caribou would not run from a barking dog. There is evidence that the Kalispel mimicked mating calls to attract the animal. Though it is impossible to predict precise numbers or herd locations of the caribou in this pre-contact period, the record suggests that the mammal, like the mature forests that formed its primary habitat, was extremely common and may have even been prolific. Caribou appear to have ranged in the highest elevations only in the warmer months. The record suggests that they were more commonly hunted in areas close to or on valley bottoms where permanent village sites were located, and once the salmon had ceased to spawn in early autumn. The Fur Trade and the End of the Mini-Ice Age: 1811 - 1872 There is no reason to believe that caribou suffered any significant losses from industrial harvest of hides by the fur trade. Across the northwest, trade forts did not generally place value on ungulate hides. For example, the records of commodities traded by the Sinixt at Fort Colville at Kettle Falls, Washington in 1827 list the skins of 281 beaver, 72 marten, 76 muskrat, 15 otter, and 22 deer, as well as 235 pounds of fresh venison, but make no mention of caribou. A fur trade journal of March 1831 from Fort Colville lists 12 “carriboeufs,” still a relatively small number by comparison to other animals harvested. The journals of botanist David Douglas, recorded in April 1827 as he travelled north along the Columbia toward Rocky Mountain House, indicate that caribou continued to be plentiful and important to the First People of the region in the first several decades following European contact. Stopping briefly at a family of Sinixt living along the former Columbia River Narrows near present-day Nakusp to trade for some snowshoes, Douglas noticed that “not fewer than a hundred skins were inside this lodge.” The next day, he encountered another village of Sinixt people at Arrowhead near Galena Bay. There, inside a lodge, he found “many skins of Black-tailed, Rein, and Red deer being in their possession.” He observed that they seemed to live comfortably and “purchased of them a little dried reindeer-meat and a little black bear.” Later, as surveyors began to explore the region, they, too, noticed signs of the prolific presence of caribou. In 1859, John Sullivan, a member of Palliser’s expedition, was helping to forge a trail over the Summit Creek pass near the U.S./Canada border when, at the height of land, he came across what he thought was an Indian trail to help the expedition find its way. But, as he recorded, “our guide informed me that we had been travelling for the last half hour ... upon ... a carriboeuf road. Carriboeufs frequent this part of the country in large numbers, as the woods are traversed by their beaten tracks. They are induced to visit this tract of country in order to feed upon a very large leaf, which grows in great abundance on the moist lands high up in the mountains.” Near to that time, artist and adventurer Paul Kane also recorded seeing caribou along Upper Arrow Lake as he paddled in search of scenes to paint. By the time the trade centres of Fort Shepherd and Fort Colville had closed, between 1870 and 1872, gold seekers from the U.S. and Canada had already begun to enter the region with the intent to locate and extract minerals. The hunter-gatherers who had co-existed relatively peacefully with the fur trade industry spent less and less time in the valleys around the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers. Their traditional way of life as well as their thousands of years - old relationship with the caribou was increasingly disrupted by settlement pressures. Placer mining of creeks began. Then fires were set on the mountains to burn away timber and expose potential mineral deposits. These fires, occurring largely between 1880 and 1890, were often left untended and burned out of control, destroying vast sections of timbered hillsides. They must have caused catastrophic loss of habitat for forest mammals, though the direct impact on caribou is not known. Interestingly, a 1905 government forestry map demonstrates that mature forests in unsettled portions of valley bottoms and along major drainages, some of the prime winter habitat for caribou, were not always affected by the burns. In addition, as Spalding has pointed out, since some disturbance was common in the Columbia Mountain ecosystem, caribou may well have been conditioned to adjust more readily to the effects of the fires. Reports of a successful hunt of dozens of caribou along the Pend d’Oreille River in the winter of 1888-9 support this theory. Clearing and Tilling the Fertile Valleys, 1900 - 1950 In 1895, the Kootenay Mail newspaper reported the story of a settler near Beaton Arm named Evan Johnson, who described shooting a caribou that had swum across the arm. The animal was picked up by Sinixt hunters, who later annoyed Johnson when they came to him offering some of the meat for sale. In 1900, trophy hunter and English aristocrat W.W. Baillie-Grohman reported herds of caribou on the steep slopes around Kootenay Lake. But then in 1907, he suggested that herds around Kootenay Lake had moved north in response to the fires of the 1880s. In 1905, botanist John Macoun recorded that “the caribou ... are also growing scarce, but with a guide who is a sportsman and not afraid of a long walk, good sport can still be had ... We found caribou ... quite easily plentiful on the Gold Range.” There were apparently enough caribou still resident north and just west of Kootenay Lake to organize a limited commercial harvest in the Lardeau Valley in 1917. At most, however, the historical information from this period suggests sporadic abundance; caribou numbers were definitely in relative decline. This is not surprising, as settlement and agricultural development of valley bottoms continued in earnest. Any management of wildlife resources was still very much on the margin of the colonial government’s priorities. This summary of the pre-historical and early historical period that I have tried to offer paints a picture of a gradual shift from prolific numbers of caribou acting as a primary food source for hunter-gatherers to an animal of more and more marginal presence and significance in the Southern Interior Mountains. This occured as motorized technology, firearms, and extractive efficiency increased. It is not hard to project forward from the Lardeau commercial hunt of 1917 to the present day, when the caribou has become an elusive, almost ghost-like presence and is threatened with extinction. I don’t have time to detail the more recent past in this presentation, but I urge you to consult both MacDonald and Spalding for a fascinating look at caribou populations and land use decisions between World War II and the end of the 20th century, when industrial logging moved inland from the coast and hydroelectric projects flooded river valley bottoms in several places. There is no question to me that the First People of the Southern Interior Mountains valued and respected the caribou enormously: their survival depended on it. The early settlement European culture also appears to have appreciated the mammal for food and sport. But somewhere along the way, in the complex interface between nature and human culture, the tendency to value and prize an important animal developed into a tendency to make decisions that threatened its survival. How exactly that has happened is the subject of history, a history of sparse record, which is, unfortunately, little known or understood. The relationship between human beings and nature may well be the last frontier in modern ecology. The growing field of ecological restoration reminds us that, like it or not, we are definitely part of any ecosystem where we live. Our actions always make a difference. Certainly this has been my primary lesson as I have surveyed the history of caribou and human culture. And I suppose it is that, in the end, that fascinates me about early landscapes. Somehow, by taking into consideration the vast series of changes that have taken place between that shady, half-forgotten time we call “then” and this urgent, worrisome time we call “now,” a span of only 200 years, I have begun to understand how much influence human culture can exert on nature. But I do not say this in dismay. My research has also suggested to me how much potential we have to be part of the solution. Knowledge of our region’s environmental heritage can inform land use decisions by expanding our temporal framework, increasing our reverence and humbling our place. It seems to me that the formation of lasting solutions to the caribou problem involves learning the environmental heritage of these Southern Interior Mountains, the eco-home of the caribou as well as ourselves. Then, with any luck, we will be better able to judge past actions in order to forge future solutions.
|
| Field Trip |
Stop One Stop Two Stop Three
The group returned to Revelstoke at about 4:30 pm.
|
