Moose Abundance and Moose Hunting in the McGrath Region, Interior Alaska 2001 Review

Gordon C. Haber May 2001

State-sponsored predator control is widely viewed as a drastic, last-resort manage- ment action that should be used only rarely after passing rigorous standards of review. There are biological, ethical, and other reasons why high standards are appropriate for wolf and bear control in particular (Haber 1996). In Haber (2000, 2001), I concluded that an “adaptive management” wolf-bear control program being proposed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and others for GMU 19D east (19De), Interior Alaska – also referred to as the “McGrath” region – had not met minimum scientific standards and was not warranted based on existing information. Control is being proposed in response to an alleged moose decline and related moose hunting problems. If and when the alleged problems are demonstrated beyond reasonable scientific doubt, it will be appropriate to address important questions about (a) their causes and (b) the alternatives for any remedial action and respective biological as well as dollar costs/benefits. Adaptive management (Walters 1986) provides a way to address resource problems in the face of uncertainty about system responses. However it does not provide a scientific license to proceed with such controversial and potentially serious, long-lasting actions as wolf and bear control when there is still major uncertainty as to whether a serious problem even exists. The McGrath proposal has yet to clear this first hurdle – demonstrating there is a se- rious, solvable problem - primarily because of deficient, contradictory information about moose abundance and moose harvests:

Moose abundance Three moose censuses have been conducted in the McGrath region to date, all by ADF&G. In Haber (2000), I considered some of the problems with the way the first two, Feb- ruary 1996 and 1999, have been interpreted. A third census was undertaken in November 2000. This differed from the previous two not only in its timing (November vs. February) but also its larger size – 5,200 miles2 vs. 2-3,000 miles2 – and different, probably less reliable method for deriving a sightability correction. A problem noted briefly in Haber (2000) merits much more attention for all three censuses: Because of the migratory behavior of moose and 2 positioning of the census grid, all three censuses – especially in November 2000 – are likely to have excluded significant, varying migratory portions of the pertinent moose populations and/or subpopulations. Moreover, the results were probably applied to the wrong total areas to determine densities. For these reasons alone there can be little confidence in the use of the three censuses to estimate current abundance and trends or to measure responses to any future control actions. Moose, including in foothills and lowland areas north of the Alaska Range, migrate seasonally as a function of snowfall and other factors in a highly variable way for distances up to 30-40 miles or more (e.g., LeResche 1974; Haber 1977, 1988; Gasaway et al 1983; Ballard et al 1991). Little is known about moose migrations in the McGrath region except that they are significant (T. Boudreau, M. Fleagle, pers. commun. 1999, 2001) and probably closely resemble what the foregoing and other studies have reported. Seasonal migrations and shifts are especially prominent along major rivers and between foothills and lowlands. A census that excludes major segments of key drainages and/or covers a lowland area or adjacent up- lands but not both becomes highly vulnerable to error and misinterpretation. The McGrath moose censuses are subject to this uncertainty because of the way the overall census grid was delineated (the same grid [or central portions thereof] was used for all three censuses; the sampling quadrats for each census were randomly selected from within this grid). The census grid, indeed GMU 19De itself (the south boundary of which the grid follows), excludes more than half of most major drainages in the region – notably the entire upper (50%+) portions of Big River, Middle Fork, South Fork, Big Salmon Fork, Tonzona River, and Slow Fork, all of which flow into the East Fork and mid-lower North Fork of the Kuskokwim in the Nikolai-Telida area. Almost the entire upper half of the North Fork is ex- cluded. All of the Takotna drainage is excluded, even though this constitutes about a thou- sand square miles of the total management area. These exclusions are of particular rele- vance because it is in the Nikolai-Telida-North Fork and Takotna areas where it is claimed the moose problems are most serious. It should also be noted that even though the Takotna drainage and some nearby areas have become major components of the 19D east wolf-bear control proposal they are not located within 19D east. Moose typically concentrate more in upland areas during late summer-fall, thus the November 2000 census is the most vulnerable of the three to the upstream exclusions. This further emphasizes the unreliability of the 2000 census - despite its larger size – for deter- mining whether or not the current management goal of 3,000 moose has already been met. 3

Given the variable timing and extent of moose seasonal migrations, not even the two Febru- ary censuses are immune from this problem, although they are probably less affected. In short, ADF&G has censused undetermined, varying proportions of one or more migratory McGrath-area moose populations and/or subpopulations that use undetermined year-round ranges. From this, ADF&G argues that numbers declined from about 1,900 moose in 1996 to 1,000 in 2000 and that to generate an increase to 3,000 moose within an area of only vaguely specified size and delineation requires wolf and bear control across an 8,000 mile2 area which, like the census area, excludes upstream areas that many of the moose in question probably use on a seasonal basis. And this is happening adjacent to the 8,000-mile2 Nowitna area, where 25 years ago ADF&G initiated wolf control based on a simi- lar moose story. ADF&G claimed that Nowitna moose numbers had declined from 2,000 to 1,000 only to determine shortly thereafter from the first bona fide, drainage-wide censusing of the Nowitna that the actual number was ~3,500-5,000. The artificial boundaries of the “19De” moose census grid and of GMU 19De itself do not suffice for either research or management purposes. They preclude scientific use of the available census results in determining if wolf and bear control should proceed. At minimum, until good information is obtained on seasonal movements, censusing and management boundaries should be revised to include entire contiguous watersheds or other ecological units that delineate the year-round distribution of moose populations and subpopulations. Appendix A (bracketed portion – pp. 38-43) addresses this longstanding problem of moose censusing in greater detail, using results from stratified random sampling moose cen- suses in northwestern . These examples emphasize a series of questions relating to distribution that should be asked before and after a census. They are taken from a review (Haber 1988) of a major wolf control program that also featured other moose-related mistakes being repeated at McGrath. Hence I include the entire 14 pages (29-43) of the moose section and ungulate introduction.

Moose harvests Information about resident moose harvests in the McGrath region is sketchy. It is derived primarily from interviews with locals and voluntary reporting (per references in Haber 2000; see also ADF&G 2000, 2001). Recent discussions have focused primarily on claims about major 1984 to 1995 moose harvest declines in the Nikolai-Telida and Takotna areas and assumptions about related human population declines in these areas. There are also 4 samples of hunter success rates since 1992 (Haber 2000), but these are rarely if ever men- tioned. The conclusions about declining moose harvests generally ignore a key point: These are only the reported harvests. As across much of bush Alaska, the unreported annual McGrath-area resident moose harvest is known to be substantial and variable (T. Boudreau, pers. commun. 1999). With no way to determine the extent of underreporting or its year-to- year variability, there is no reliable way to use the harvest information to determine much about trends. This becomes all the more difficult in view of the likelihood of increased delib- erate underreporting. For example, in at least one area villagers prefer to hunt moose during winter rather than in the fall, because it is more difficult to keep the meat from spoiling in the fall. Winter moose harvests are now illegal, but this deters the reporting more than the hunt- ing. Increased underreporting is also to be expected as a consequence of the passionate lo- cal drumbeat that has developed for wolf and bear control. A resident of this area now goes against a strong social grain if he or she claims anything but a moose hunting hardship. Additionally, the relatively high, statistically stable hunter success rates (Haber 2000) are contradictory. There are pitfalls in interpreting this kind of harvest information (e.g., Haber 1988: 75-88); nonetheless it provides more reason to question than to agree with the asser- tions about steeply declining total harvests. Hunter success, like depensatory predation, can remain temporarily high in the face of declining prey numbers with increased search efficiency and other adjustments. However a lag of 7-8+ years seems unlikely for the severity of the moose and harvest declines being alleged in this case. The possibility of a harvest decline of lesser severity cannot be discounted entirely. Suppose more moose were harvested in the mid 1980s. Was this from a sustainable yield, against which current harvests (whatever they are) can be judged as too low? The hidden as- sumption is that the earlier yields were sustainable and hence provide a standard for what should be expected at present. Given the well-known importance of generally holding moose harvests in Alaska to a maximum annual rate of 4-7% (see discussion in Haber 2000) but virtual absence of past or present information with which to determine rates in the McGrath region, this assumption is not warranted. It is least of all warranted for the two areas where most of the concern is focused - Nikolai-Telida and Takotna - because of their vulnerability to overharvest. In the Nikolai-Telida area large expanses of relatively open terrain and major rivers allow easier hunter access. In the Takotna area poor moose habitat probably meant a low-density population to begin with, one that was capable of sustaining a rate only at the lowest end of the 4-7% range, if that. 5

If there were prolonged higher yields in the past they would not necessarily be sus- tainable at present for another reason: There are fundamental differences between the past and proposed wolf control. The only reason some Alaskans are willing to consider the pro- posed control is that advocates have led them to believe it can regenerate comparable moose yields on a long term basis with only temporary application. However in the past “control” was more-or-less ongoing, via widespread public land-and-shoot aerial hunting. This kind of hunting is now illegal and is unlikely to be permitted ever again. ADF&G may assume it can facilitate some form of ongoing control through locals after the formal control effort ends. Apart from whether this is possible it would amount to deception, given ADF&G’s marketing of the McGrath control proposal as short term (vs. ongoing). Wolves and bears end up just as dead from control when ADF&G helps others to do the killing as when it does the killing itself. Moose are probably a recent addition to the McGrath-area fauna. As sometimes happens with new biological arrivals, they may have substantially overshot the area’s habitat capacities one or more times. Skinner suggested this happened in the mid 1980s (Skinner letter of 2/01 to McGrath adaptive management task force; see also Appendix A, esp. p. 37, for a likely example in northwestern B.C). If this was the case in the McGrath area, the higher yields that would have been available at that time would not have been sustainable regard- less of predation or the harvest rate, nor would anything comparable be sustainable now.

Literature cited ADF&G. 2000. Moose in 19D. Background information on local subsistence harvests (and related 2pp 1/30/01 memo from M. Pete to R. Bosworth). Report to Alaska Board of Game, March 2000. Division of Subsistence, Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Fair- banks. 8 pp. ADF&G. 2001. ADF&G commissioner endorses wildlife plan for Nikolai, McGrath, Telida, Takotna area. Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game news release, March 2, with attached “Commissioner Frank Rue talking points,” Juneau. 2pp. + 4pp. Ballard, W.B, J.S. Whitman, and D.J. Reed. 1991. Population dynamics of moose in south- central Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 114. 49 pp. Gasaway, W.C., R.O. Stephenson, J.L. Davis, P.K. Shepherd, and O.E. Burris. 1983. Inter- relationships of wolves, prey, and man in Interior Alaska. Wildl. Monogr. 84. 50 pp. Haber, G.C. 1977. Socio-ecological dynamics of wolves and prey in a subarctic ecosystem. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of British Columbia. 817 pp. Special Report, 1978, Joint Fed- eral-State Land Use Planning Commission For Alaska, Anchorage (available from Arctic 6

Environmental Information and Data Center, Univ. of Alaska, Anchorage). Haber, G.C. 1988. Wildlife management in northern British Columbia: Ketchika-Muskwa wolf control and related issues. Wolf Haven International, Tenino, WA. 194 pp. (available from Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center, Univ. of Alaska, Anchorage). Haber, G.C. 1996. Biological, conservation, and ethical implications of exploiting and con- trolling wolves. Conservation Biology 10: 1068-1081. Haber, G.C. 2000. Moose hunting and wolf control in GMU 19D east, Interior Alaska. 2000 review. Report, available from Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau. 48 pp. Haber, G.C. 2001. Letter to T. Knowles, dated Feb. 13, 2001. 6 pp. (available from Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game, Juneau). LeResche, R.E. 1974. Moose migrations in North America. Naturaliste Can. 101: 393-415. Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New York. 320 pp. 7

Appendix A

Distribution-related problems in moose censusing (excerpt from Haber [1988] - see especially pp. 38-43) [:'Rsnrlaoea(rrsg) 29

fbr any reasoning process. Direct observationof predation - via prolongedsampling of i.S Zil'r wolf pack activity - should be given much more emphasis in evaluating predation ystcri irnpacts.Detailed studies by Peterson(1977) and Haber (7977)have demonstrated that lhis approach is feasible and can yield a more comprehensiveunderstanding of pt fil ivolf-ungulate interactions. Direct information on predation, as well as on ungulate uedt, rlensities,production, and related variables,can be used via simulation to determine rciallr "experimental functional responsesand apply components"analyses r thi lrredator (Holling,1965). Long ago,Pimlott (1967)recognized that wolf-ungulateanalyses were Wefi stagnating and specifically recommendedthat Holling's approachesoffered a )c?1]Sr y:romisingalternative. Haber et al (1976),Haber (1977),and Walters et al (1981) nm0ll successfuliyused this approach in one major wolf-ungulate fieid study, but it S, &nt: lemainsto be tried in others. ght t,

!,ingulatepopulation status lishc,: velo1r Major wolf control programs were initiated in Alaska during the 1970s to b, anri "disasterous" reverse ungulate declinesthat later proved to be non-existentor much :dato' lessserious than had been claimed(Haber, 1987). On this basis aloneit is healthy to S?t;, cxamine other wolf control programs by first questioning underlying claims about ariou, ungulate problems. The Kechika-Muskwa programs raise immediate questionsin C onlr 'ollarr t,irisregard simply by their failure to suppresswolf numbers except for short periods: lJnder such intense control plessures,how could/whywould wolves still rebound so suall', cluickly and maintain such high densities if the major prey populations were so &t at'r seriouslyand broadly depletedas alleged? v fort The follor,vingsections will consider information regarding population status lu ir and trends only for the ungulates that BCWB has emphasized in the recent northeasternmanagement controversies - i.e., moose,sheep, elk, and caribou. There are also substantial populations of mountain goats, scattered small groups of mule rsivel: cleer,and (in the southern Muskwa) smal1but increasing numbers of whitetailed I wol deerand -400-500bison. In addition,most of the 15 or so guide-outfittersand someof ed ol the packers of the Kechika-Muskwa regions typically range (unconfined) 30-50+ recenl irorsesyear-round within their areas,and in somecases as many as 200-400. One of 3r ant Lireguide-outfitters currently keeps about a dozencattle as we11,although these are lssibir {'encedand fed near his main camp. r risk

-,-- 30

1. Direct information on abundance The most direct and reliable way to determine ungulate population sizes and trends is through censusing,using a sampling procedure (e.g., stratifred random sampling for moose- Gasaway et al, 1981, 19BG)or, if possible,by direct counting throughout the area to which the resulting estimate will be applied (Haber, 7977, - 1987). Censusing generally has not been emphasizedby wildlife managers including in British Columbia, largely becauseit is expensive and other indices usually have been consideredadequate for monitoring abundance. Some of these "direct" indices will be consideredlater. The purpose of this sectionis to examine measures of abundance for the Kechika-Muskwa ungulates, inciuding availabie "counts," censusesbut also the rough related observations,and impressions of iongtime users, to determine if this can provide a basis for the specificciaims that have been made as to population sizesand trends. The user accounts,which sketch out a history of key events from as far back as the early 1900sand before, are also intended to provide broader perspectivefor the review as a who1e.

(a)Moose Mountain sheep and other ungulates are usually valued more highiy than moose as trophies and have typicalty captured more management attention. Nevertheless,moose are likely to be a much more important part of the prey basein sustaining current wolf populationsthroughout most of the Kechika-Muskwa, as in regionswhere similar multi-prey systemshave been studied intensively (e.9.,Haber, 1977;Gasawayet al, 1983;Ballard et al, 1987). This meansthat a major moosedecline could trigger a predation shift and correlated declines in the sheep and,/orother associatedungulates (Haber et al, 7976; Haber, 7977; Walters et a1, 1981). I emphasizedthis point in recommendinghigh mooseresearch./management priority for the Spatsizi region of northern B.C. (Haber, 1979). The same argument holds for the Kechika-Muskwa regions, and dictates special emphasis in reviewing their mooseinformation. Mooseare a relatively recent addition to the fauna of northern B.C., and to the province as a whole (e.g.,Hatter, 1950;Macgregor and Child, 1981; see esp. Hatler, 1988 for an overviewand re-evaluationof earlier information). However, it appears that mooseestablished a strong presencein the lowlands of northeastern B.C' (westward to the ) much earlier than most authors have fT,

31

concluded,and weil before they increasedin most mountain regions. This distinction and should be emphasizedbefore considering the Kechika-Muskwa information. dom According to GeorgeBehn (pers.comm)and Glen Gullackson(pers.comm. from "common" ting Behn and other Indian elders of the region), moosehave remained and generally "plentiful" 977, in the lowlands and certain east slope (of the Rockies) watersheds - including "and :IS - the Toad-Liard area, for most of the 1800s and 1900s since lices way before that." Behn, who was born in old Fort Nelson in 7924 and later hese becameChief of the Fort Nelson Indian band for 26 years, stressedto me that moose have rect" long occupieda central position in the subsistenceand cultural history of his people Iable and of other lowland bands,by providing them with meat, clothing,moccasins, (see rs o{' shelter, tools, etc. also Brody, 1981). He recalls that his grandfather and other elders that spokeoften about the establishedimportance of moosein the region. He notes that - :etch moose were the main, yedr-round staple of much greater importance than caribou - "early aiso in the days" when, according to what his grandfather told him, the Indian population was much larger and thus required much more meat and raw materials. He points out that the historical importance of moosein this region is reflectedby the prominencewith which they are featured in the stories and legendsof his people, than which he heard commonlyas a youth from his eiders,and which they had heard from tion. their elders. In "always se in contrast, while there were some" moosein mountain regions to the west, prior as in to the 1930s-early1940s they were generally at low enoughabundance - including aber, over much if not ali of the Kechika watershed and in at least some east slopevaileys (though :cline apparently at higher densitiesin much of the upper Peace)- so that Indians, trappers, prospectors, cther early guides,etc. consideredit a big event to see one and tended to remember places - "Once ). I by these experiences e.g., I saw a moose there." (E.McCook, ioritl' J.VanSommer,L.Rutledge, L.Callison, B.Groat, pers.comm.; Hatler, 1988). ls for The sameapparentiy was true for much of northwesternB.C. well into the 1940s. Frank (pers.comm) their Cooke recails that on a 1g45 pack (horse)trip with "we Skook Davidson -460 miles from Fort St.James to Teslin Lake, never sar,v20 moose." GeorgeBehn's (pers.comm) lo the mother-in-law,whose (Indian) family hunted the lower Kechika-Lower atler, Post-TooballyLakes region, spokeabout such a moose(and other game) "early pears scarcityin the 1900s"that there was much starvation among the Indians of B.C that time. Buster Groat, Lash Callison,and Leo Rutledge(pers.comm) describedsimilar Indian accounts have of relative scarcityand periodic starvation prior to 32 the 1920s-1930s.Hatler (1988)notes that in the early 1820sSamuel Black saw only fhree mooseand a few tracks at three other locations while traveling in the Thutade Lake-Stikine R.-Pitman R.-Turnagain R. region of northern B.C., and that although Black's Indian guides and hunters from this region were familiar with moose, he reported that they seldom encounteredthem. Johnny Rasmussen and Ron Campbell (pers.comm) were with Skook Davidson in 1939 when they first arrived in the Kechika valley, on a railroad survey. iSkook recognizedthe Terminus Mountain area as ideal for wintering horses for his packing operations throughout northern B.C. and northward, and thus settled there in 19391. Ludwig Smalsluat and Fred Forsberg, who were trapping the neighboring Rabbit valley then, told Johnny they had intended to trap the Kechika valiey in winter 1934-35but gave up and moved east to the Rabbit becauseof the scarcity of mooseand caribou for winter meat; at least there was an abundance of caribou in the Rabbit. Wolves, too, were scarcein the Kechika at that time (and perhaps before), except "Caribou"). when passing through with migrating caribou (see Smalsluat and Forsbergtold Rasmussenthey saw so little wolf sign in 1934 that they felt confident in leaving their 12 horses to range near Terminus Mountain, while they trapped the Rabbit in winter 1934-35. However,when they returned in spring 1935 expectingto "all fetch their horses to pack their winter's catch to Fort Ware, they found were 12 piles of bones and lots of scuffed-upground." Smalsluat and Forsberg concludedthat a wolf pack normally associatedwith caribou in the Rabbit had ventured over to the Kechika, found the horses and discoveredthey could kill them, and thus stayed awhile. "seemed Moosebegan increasing noticeably in the Kechikain -1937-1938, to be getting abundant" there by 1939-1940,and likewise in the Rabbit region by a few years later (Rasmussen,Campbeil, L.Callison, T.Mould, pers.comm). Wolves remained relatively scarceand not resident to the Kechika valley in noticeablestrength until -1946, after the moose buildup was well underway (Rasmussen,F.Cooke, pers.comm).A similar exampleof a rapid buildup of moosein the Muskwa region at about the sametime is describedlater. Large wildfires in the late 1930sand early 1940swere probably a major factor in triggering the 1940sKechika-Muskwa moose increases, directly in somecases and via irruptions in and later dispersals from adjacent burns in other cases. For "just example, the upper Buckinghorseburned before" Wes Brown (pers.comm) 33 rnly began hunting there in 1937, and he noted that substantial numbers of moosewere ade beginning to move into the area at that time. Construction of the ugh brought thousands of U.S. Army troops to northeastern B.C. in 7947-f942,and with all he of this activity came a rash of forest fires. One huge fire burned from Mile 101 (Blueberry) of the Highway northward -320 miles to Fort Simpson, bypassing Fort ook Nelson somewhat to the east. Within two years moosehad increasednoticeably in /ey. this region (L.Callison,pers.comm). Sometime between -1935-1940 a frre burned the his entire region from the Red River (lower Kechika) northwest -40 miles to the Dease Iere River. When Skook Davidson and Johnny Rasmussen(pers.comm) traveled through ing "lots" "deep this burn in 1941,they saw of moose,even though this was snow country" nter and, amidst the moose,there were about a half dozenwolf dens that had been used and earlier in the season. rbit. [The Indian people of northern B.C. (and elsewhere)were the first to :ept recognizethe importance of fire. As with guide-outfittersand others in subsequent and "Elk"), years (see they did limited habitat burning in the spring, to regenerate Ltin foraging opportunities for wildiife populations and (for those Indians who had them) the their horses (G.Behn,L.Rutledge, L.Callison, pers.comm.; Brody, 1981). In 1944,an gto old Ware Indian who had just lit a fire in Sifton Pass told Frank Cooke(pers.comm) z12 "I that, make moosecountry." Thirty years later, another Ware Indian was arrested bhat for setting a nearby moose habitat fire, which ended up (accidentally?) burning a the large area from WeissenerLake to the South Gataga (R.Campbell,pers.comm)1. ryed Buster Groat provided me with detailed obervationsof moose responsesto burned areas; I heard the same basic pattern described,repeatedly, by almost all of ;obe the longtime users.I interviewed. Referring to a large -1951 fire in the middle and ears lower Kechika and Turnagain, Groat observedthat mooseinvaded the burned area ined "within weeks, while it was still black." The area burned in June, but there were rntil "large" numbers of moose using it by that fall and winter, which attracted Indian oke, "They hunters. were the fattest moose I ever saw." He explained that they were nat eating the dead, dried strips of bark that were hanging everywhere on the large, fire-killed poplars. The heat of a fire often causesthe bark to peel, and mooseare rctor "immediately." attracted to this Soon afterward, new browse emerges and can and ensuregood eating for at least 15-20years. For "Little Hatler (1988) suggeststhat harsh weather associatedwith the lce mm) Age," which extendedinto the mid-1800s,could have much inhibited wildfires and J+AA other conditions conduciveto a moose increase during that period and somewhat afterward. This would help to explain a greater abundanceof moosein the adjacent northeasternlowlands then - i.e., harsh weather would exert its most severeimpacts at the higher elevations of mountain regions. But why did it apparently take another 80-100years for the mountain populations to establish densitiescomparable to those of the lowlands? Predation (human and wolf/bear) could easily prevent a low density population from increasing for a long period - perhaps via the kind of "Recruitment tightly-aiternating predator-prey fluctuations describedlater (p.103, "escape" data"), untii the moosewere finally able to via some major intervention' such as the series of large 1930s-1940swildfires describedabove. Low mooseand (resident)wolf abundanceappears to have generaliy characterizedthe Kechika and other mountain regionsof northern B.C. during the 1800sand early 1900s. However, there are a few hints of a somervhatmore complex moose-predatorpattern, which seempertinent to the abovehypothesis. For example,Lash Callison told me that in "10-year the 1980sthe older Indians spokeabout cycles"between wolves and moose; and, GeorgeBehn suggestedthat the Indian people sometimesoverhunted certain "go areas,causing moose populations to up and down." Much of the moose abundance information given to me by longtime users of - the Kechika-Muskwa for the next period - late 1940s-early1970s is contradictory, unlike the case for their information about sheep,elk, and caribou. Perhaps this is becausemoose are less apt to be found in open-terrain aggregationsand are thus more difficult to evaluate via ground observations;similar problems with ground - evaluationsof mooseare well known for other regions (e.g.Denali National Park Haber, 1g87). Moreover,in many areas (especiallyin the Kechika) moosewere of relatively low importance as a trophy species until recently, and hence guides, biologists,etc. expendediittle effort in trying to monitor them. Based on what I have heard, about all that I would concludefor the late 1g40s-early1920s is that there were periodic moose fluctuations in both regions. There was almost always a noticeableincrease after a frre and at least a recruitment increase following many of the numerous bouts of legal and illegal wolf poisoning (fire and poisoning frequently coincided or came in close sequence,complicating cause-effectassessments). There does appear to be a near-consensusof a fairly "high" generalmoose during the 1960s,related to heavy governmentwolf poisoning, followedby a signiflrcantdecline in many areas in the early 1970s. Again, though, Fg

35 rat there are contradictions. All of my Kechika sourcestold me of a relative abundanceof )nt moosein the 1960s;this included Frank Cooke and Buster Groat, who lived there. cts Yet, Skook Davidson, who also cal1edthe Kechika home, wrote to Moira Farrow in "The ler 1965(Farrow, 1975:15)that, wolveshave cleanedthe lKechika]valley of moose... :of Not a damn one ieft ..." itv of Three formal moose censuseshave been conductedin two areas of the :nt Kechika region, all by BCWB, r,ia stratifred random sampling procedures. The first "mid-late'rvinter" Ol' trvocensuses, in 1979and 1980,covered the same600 sq.milearea of rnd the Horseranch Range; the HorseranchRange was added to the Kechika project in rnd 1985 as a caribou-evaiuationsupplement, although it lies well outiide the core wolf ,QT, control-moosearea of the project - i.e., -60 miles northwest of it. The Horseranch ich moose censuseswere undertaken as a secondary objective to help interpret the ,in influenceof 1978-1980wolf removalson cariboustatus in that area (Blliot et al, rg}4; )se; Elliot, 1985c;Bergerud and Elliot, 1986;Wildiife ManagementSection, 1983, 1987; see "Caribou"). ain These censusesproduced mean estimatesand 90 percent confidence limits of .78+77o/oand 1.24+75c/omoose/sq.mile for 1979 and 1980,respectively. The "Middte sof third - Creek" - moosecensus u'as conductedin March 1984 within the core )rY' moose-sheeparea of the Kechika project,covering 161 sq.milesalong the east side of sis the Kechika va11eybetween Terminus Mountain and Horneline Creek (Elliot, 1984a). nus The resulting mean estimate and 90 percent confidencelimits were 1.8tI9Vo ,rnd moose/sq.mile.(BCWB has calculated90Va hrntts in giving censusresults, as have rk- wildlife biologistselsern'here in recentyears [e.g.,Gasaway et al, 1983];however, g5 or aof 99Voare the usual standards in scienceand should be used in wildlife reporting if Ces, only in the interest of consistency,even though the estimates might not look quite as good). late Five moose censuseshave been conductedin three areas of the Muskwa lns. region (Elliot, 1985b),three via stratified random sampling and two (1982 and 1985 "Core" rent Core) via random sampling without stratification. The moosecensuses were ring conductedin February-Malch 1982 and 1985,within the southwestern,and probably bing most important, moose-sheep-elkarea of the Muskwa project, covering531 sq.miles rirly from Kluachesi Lake north to ChlotapectaCreek (including the central Tuchodi and i.g, Gathto valleys),north and west of the Muskwa River. The resulting mean estimates rgh, and 90 percent confidencelimits were 2.59+33.IVoand 2.07X33.37ornooselsq.mile for 36

1982 and 1985,respectively (these and the Pink Mountain estimates,below, correct moose/sq.kmto moose/sq.mileconversion errors and other minor arithmetic "Tierney mistakes in Elliot, 1985b). One Creek" moose census was conducted,in February-March 1985, covering 157 sq.miles from the south boundary of the Core censusto the Muskwa River, likewise within the main portion of the Muskwa project area. The resulting mean estimate and 90 percent confrdencelimits were 4.3+27.3% "Pink moose/sq.mile. The Mountain" moose censuseswere conductedin February 1979 and December1984, but the area involved lies outside (south ofl the core wolf control-ungulate area of the Muskwa project. It was regarded as a transition area between the higher wolf densities of the Muskwa and iow woif densities of agricultural areas further south. The Pink censuscovered 355 sq.miles in 1979 and 522 sq.miles in 1984; no information is given as to how much the two areas overlapped. The resulting mean estimates and 90 percent confidencelimits were 4.54!29 .\Vo and 2.72+ 19c/o mo o s e/s q. mil e, resp e ctively. There are basic problemsin trying to interpret these estimates. But first, even "as considered is" - more-or-lessas BCWB has done - they would hardly seem to indicate moose populations that are depressedat all (e.g., vis-a-vis estimates throughout Bedard et al, 7974), let alone near the bottom of post-1970 declines anywhere approaching B0 percent severity (..g., Elliot, 1986b:1). The world's richest-known(and censused)moose regions, where there are few natural predators and favorable habitat manipulations - such as in central Sweden, southeastern Norway, southern Finland, and Newfoundland,have sustained overall densities(vs. densitiesin relatively small wintering areas) no higher than about 2-4 moose/sq.mile, with peaks to about 4-6lsq.mile(Markgren,1974; Lykke, 7974;Wilhelmson and Sylven, 1979;Lavsund, 1981;Sandegren et al, 1982;Mercer and Manuel, 1974;Mercer and Strapp, 1978). Likewise, the weli known 1960s-early1970s irruption on the Kenai National Moose Range reached an overall density of only 3-4 moose/sq.mile,even though this population had enjoyed25 years of ideal habitat in the 1947 burn, a series of mild winters, and a scarcityof both wolvesand moosehunters (Bishopand Rausch, I974; Peterson et al, 1984a). These are only crude comparisons,of course,among other reasonsbecause of hunting, habitat, and climatic differences. Nevertheless, they give reason to either question the claim about severeKechika-Muskwa moose declines or to accept that these regions may have sustained the highest moose densities ever reported, even higher than in areas of the world where naturai F= t.!.

37

predatorslong ago disappeared. |rect Moreover,the Kechika-Muskwaestimates almost certainly should be higher retic than given - and hencethe BCWB argument would imply even higher -1970 densities, J ;,. -l, rtl becausethe recent estimates are calculatedfrom the numbers of mooseseen on the Corc sampling plots, not the iikely higher numbers actually present - i.e., there was no oject sightability correction(LeResche and Rausch,1974; Gasaway et al, 1981,1986). This L.O7( considerationis especiallypertinent to the Kechika-Muskwa estimates,due to the uar)' heavy forest cover of these regions and the use of parallel transects instead of wol{' overlappingcircles to do the plot searches.Transect searches are likely to miss more area moose in heavy forest cover, even when a helicopter (vs. fixed wing) is used. )s ol (Searching with a small, fixed wing aircraft would probably also reduce K-M and censusing costs considerably,judging from the low costs I incurred using a rfeaS PA-12-180to censusmoose in the nearbySpatsizi region - seebelow). were The possibility of such extraordinarily high 1970 or earlier moosedensities seemsremote, exceptfor short periods. Recall that it was probably only 20-30years even earlier that moose first established substantial populations over much of the mto Kechika-Muskwa. With good habitat, low hunting levels, and initially low predator rates populations(depressed again later for short periods,by poisoning),it would be almost lines predictable for these moosepopulations to overshootcarrying capacitiesand irrupt to rrld's high densities, perhaps more than once. In the upper Muskwa-upper Prophet ators region, for example, long-time guides/trappers Leo Rutledge and Lash Callison stern "obvious (pers.comm)observed an explosion"of moosein the mid-late 1940s,while ; (vs. "overabundance;" wolves were still scarce. Rutledge feels that there was a clear he mile, observedmany dead,dlotrg, and weak moosethroughout the region at that time, and lven, much evidenceof overbrowsing. But these earlier periods of high densities were : and short-lived and do not provide a realistic baseline for establishings ustainable lenai popuiation goals at present. l\{oose,moose forage, wolves, and humans (and to some even extent elk, as will be seen later) are a relatively new interaction at high levels of ;eries abundanceover large areas of northern B.C. Much of what has transpired so far usch, "coarse-tuning" probably representsan initial of this interaction and thus would be f1ong expectedto be somewhatexaggerated and atypical. :less, Elliot (1985b:12)interpreted the 1982and 1985Core estimatesas indicating a 100se Muskwa populationdecline of -27 percent over that short period,which he noted was noose consistent with his earlier predictions of a continuins severe decline based on tural 3B

recruitment data. He arrived at the 27 percent frgure by comparing numbers of adult cows only - calculatedby applying correspondingsex/age samples to each of the mean population estimates, in order to exclude the effects of annual juvenile recruitment and hunting. However, the two Core means are subject to +33 percent uncertainty at the 90 percent confidencelevel. In other words, while the 1982 and 1985means of 2.59 and 2.07 might reflect somedecline, it can be concludedonly that 90 percent of a very iarge number of samplings of this censusarea in each of the two years wouid yield a densityfalling somewherebetween 1.71-3.39 and 1.32-2.64moose/sq.mile, respectively. The statistical uncertainty in each of the two means is too large to demonstrate a 27 percent differencebetween the two populations,even based just on cow segments. It would be almost as (in)va1idto argue, for example, that there had been a -55-60 percent increase, by choosingdensities from the low end of the 1982 confidence interval and high end of the 1985interval. Comparisonsbetween the 7979 and 1980 Horseranchestimates would be even more futile, becauseof their +75-77percent uncertainties. The 1979 and 1984 Pink Mountain estimates are probably widely enough separatedto indicate a significant decline, although it is diffrcult to interpret them without knowing more about the 355 vs. 522 sq.mile differencein censusareas. "atypical" Also, Elliot (p.13)emphasizes that the Pink Mountain area is becauseof the confoundingeffects of more cow/caifhunting than in most of the Muskwa. I The foregoingissues are secondaryto a more basic question:To what areas I I I should the existing moose estimates be applied? It is clear from a large body of t t I researchthat moosecommonly migrate long distancesbetween summer and winter I I ranges, and that there can be much variability in the timing and extent of these I i movements,especially as a function of snow depths (e.g.,LeResche, 1974; Coady, I .l 7974; Pulliainen, \974; Filonov and Zykov, I974; Haber, 7977;Sandegren et al, 1982; \il v Gasaway et al, 1983). British Columbia is no exception,with some of the longest seasonalmigrations reported anywhere - up to 35-40miles (Edwardsand Ritcey, 1956; LeResche;1,97 4). Densities on some winter ranges can increase to 40-60 moose/sq.mileor more during mid-late winter (e.g., Houston, 1968; Bishop and Rausch, \974), as a moose popuiation from a much larger summer-winter region convergeson prime wintering areas in years of deep snow. As a result, moose censusesin the same or nearby areas can produce widely differing density estimates- and conclusionsabout trends, dependingon how much of the popuiation'syear-round range (summer-winter combined)is censused,when it is censused,and what total ryt

VJao

1u1t areas are used in calculating densities. ean Details of a moosecensus that I conductedin the Spatsizi region of northern LeI'It B.c. in February 1979(to date, the only moosecensus there) can illustrate this point. yar There was an unusually deep snow cover throughout the Spatsizi region and much of 2.59 northern B.C. that winter (R.Bruns, R.Collingwood,pers.comm). I observedearly ,gry February snow depths of 2-3 ft. or more at Cold Fish Lake, in the Eaglenest Range, lda upper Spatsizi River, Buckinghorse and Beaver valleys, upper Ross River, upper 'ely Stikine-Chukachidaregions, and at Fort Ware, and 3-5 ft. at Teiegraph Creek. But t27 there was only 1-1.5 ft. in the lower Spatsizi valley, and moosefrom large upriver .lt regions had migrated there by early February (I observedsimilar high rvintering ;-60 concentrationsoniy at widely scatteredlocations at that time, notably in MooseFlats Y'l np fnorthwest of the Spatsizi Plateau], in the Caribou Hide area of the upper Stikine 980 lfrom ChapeaCreek to a few miles be]owAdoogacho Creekl, and in the Finlay vailey )ent between Reef Canyon and the ToodoggoneRiver). Fresh snowfalls enabledme to trace 1e1y moosemigrations to the lower Spatsizi from areas 20 miles upriver and from most of pret the side drainages, although low-medium densities still remained in some of the latter areas. It was possibleto determine that the entire upper half of the watershed the (aboveRed Goat Mountain) had been vacatedof essentiatlyall living moose. I began the censuswhen it was clear that the migration was either over or at least had slowed "ea-q to a point where counts in closelyspaced plots were unlikely to be confounded. First I yor stratifred the entire 252 sq.milesof the lower watershed that was in use, and then rter searchedfor moosein 10 randomly selectedsampling plots therein (mean plot size = iese 4.08 sq.miles;mean searchintensity = 5.54 min./sq.mile,via overlappingcircles in a rdy, PA-12-180on skiis). The resulting mean estimate and g5c/oconfidence limits were lRt. 2-78+23.7Vomooselsq.mile; this incorporatescorrections for estimated 7S-g0percent -^ ^ + (derived HtrD t sightability per plot from criteria describedin LeRescheand Rausch,j,gT4, 156; Haber, 1977, and Gasawayet al, 1981). "true" )-60 But 2.78!23.7Vocannot be consideredthe 7g7g density of this moose and population; it merely estimates the density of a temporarv winter concentration. The fon true density is calculatedon the basis of the much larger region that includes the )ose typical year-roundmovements of most of thesemoose, which leads to another choice: ,es- Should I use the overall region or just the moose habitat portions (excluding und mountaintops,etc.)? I estimated the former area to be -800 sq.milesand the latter otal -500 sq. miles, which would reduce the estimate to either .69!23.7oh or I.I+28.7Vo. 40 ,.3 When a secondcensus is undertaken, its usefulnessin identifying any population -.1 changessince 1979 will depend critically on consistencyin choosingboth the area to f'{} be censusedand the area to which the results are then applied. i'c I was lucky to do the 1979 censusin a winter when the snow was deep enough -l to produce a maximum or near-maximum concentration in the lower Spatsizi. Another censuscovering the same 252 sq.mile area in a mild winter could result in a much lower estimate simply because of a lesser and/or later migration from the upper regions. If the census area was located somewhat further upriver in a moderate winter, the estimate could turn out lower simply becausethere had been a partial migration or because fewer moose had migrated into the area (from still further upriver) than had departed downriver. Or, if the census was conducted earlier in another deep snow winter, either in the same area or upriver, the estimate could suggestor mask a population change simply becausethe migration had not yet begun in force. Clearly these problems and many variations thereof, together with the possibilitiesof applying the estimate to an inappropriate total area, can completely confoundcomparisons within the same region or between regions. It is likely that this has happenedoften in the mooseliterature to date. Sumanik and Demarchi (7977) surveyedthe major river valleys of northern B.C. for mooseduring February-March 1967-7977,recording the numbers observed per hour of flying (data map sheetson file at BCWB and Maps B.C., Victoria). This kind of information is not reliable for estimating densitiesor identifyengpopulation trends (Haber, 1987), as the authors themselves emphasize (D.Demarchi, pers.comm). However, together with later information it does provide some likely examples of how radically moosedistribution can change from one winter to another. {'ol For instance, Sumanik and Demarchi (map sheets 104H,94E) reported 45-59 moose/hr.(caiculated from shorter time intervals) in Beaver Valley, 30-44/hr.just .\'l I upriver from there along the upper Spatsizi, and 60-89/hr. along the Chukachida !,1,t River, where in all three casesI determined there were no moosein February 1979 rrri (there was a complete absenceof tracks in recent deep powder snow). I observed ul' moosein all three of these areas in summer 1978 (Haber, 1979). It appearedlikely Sr-r that most of the Chukachidamoose were winter:ing10-20 miles away in the Caribou lrL: Hide area of the Stikine, and thosefrom BeaverValley and upper Spatsizi20-30 miles 1t{, down the Spatsizi. Likewise, Sumanik and Demarchi (map sheets94L,M) reported ,rip increasing downstreammoose observations along the - 60-89/hr.from rJ

41

""3-10 miles aboveGataga Forks to a few miles aboveMoodie Creek, then 90+Ar. for on *'15-50 miles downstreamto the Red River, whereasthe adjacent 1984Middle Creek to ct't1sussuggested somewhat the reverse gradient - i.e., low density stratum from 'l't'r'minus Mountain downstreamfor -2 miles, then high for -5 gh miles, then iow for * l0 miles. zt. The positioningof the Kechika-Muskwamoose census areas relative to moose IA rrrigrationroutes along major river coursesraises the aboveconcerns, as he to both their trscfulnessin estimating true densitiesand in identifying trends. The Middle Creek d c{rnsusarea is located only about half way along the north-south distance that IA itcchika-Gatagamoose traverse in certain winters, although it is within the valley .il1 scgment(Gataga Forks to Turnagain River) that frequently seesthe least ,ed amount of :rrl0waccumulation and therefore becomesthe major wintering area (B.Groat, lte l.'.Cooke,J.Rasmussen, E.and J.Johnson,T.Southwick, pers.comm;Sumanik and rct l)cmarchi,7977).Moreover, since it coversonly one side of the valley, ith it doubtless lnrpties migrants into the valiey bottom (and thencedownstream), u,here neither ely they tror others passing through from the same population upstream 1vouldbe counted. rat 'l'he "deep Rabbit River valley to the eastis snow country,"u,hich raises the possibility ',f' additional confounding moose movements from there to the Kechika )rn valley i'I.Rasmussen,pers.comm), to or through .ed the Middle Creek censusarea. ln winters of'little or no migration, Middle Creek estimatesshould more closelyreflect his the true ilopuiation density. In other years quite the contrary will be the ron case, to widely lnrying degrees. Weather data are lacking, but hi snow depthsin the Kechika-Muskwa r.r'gionsare often enough (e.g., up to -Z ft. in the Core census area _ Elliot ely and Webster, 7982a:64)to trigger at least partial migrations, despite relatively rer. mild conditionsdue to snow shadoweffects and frequent chinookwinds. 59 The Tierney Creek censusarea, locatedaiong the north side of the mid-upper nst llr"rskwa,is subjectto the same problems. The Core censusarea is much larger ida and st.raddlesboth sides of the Tuchodi and Gathto va1leys,however it, t79 too, covers rnid-upperwatershed areas from which and through which highly variable red numbers rif'moose migrate from winter-to-winter (G.Behn, R.peck, G.Vince, pers.comm; e1y "Particularly -\umanik and Demarchi, 1977 - map sheets94F,G,J,K). high )ou snowfall liclts to the west" force mooseto move into [or beyond] the Core area during u,inter .1es (lt'Peck' pers.comm). Gien Guliackson (pers.comm)feels that in some winters ted rignificant numbers of moosemigrate from Core area (and other east slope) om valleys to A 4,/ lorver elevations as far eastward as the Alaska Highway and beyond. Whether or not the apparently major differencebetween the Tierney and Core densities(higher for Tierney) can be explained by movement variations, this at least illustrates the '.j potential problem in applying censusresults to the wrong total area. Eliiot (1982b:41, Table 5) gives aI9B2 estimate of 12,000moose for the 5,405 sq.mileMuskwa region. The derivation of this estimate is not shown, although it appears to come from an extrapolation of the 531 sq.mile 1982 Core moosecensus. Obviously this extrapolation would be highly questionablefor at least the Tierney area, even though Tierney is adjacentto Core. It might be possible to adjust the existing Kechika-Muskwa moose estimates for migratory variations, and to determine population areas for conversion to true densities. If the pertinent distribution and migration obser-vationsare available, they have not been describedyet. Such problemscould be avoidedin the first placeby delineatingsomething of the population'soverall and winter areas of use, for examplevia radio collars and/or track observationsafter fresh snowfalls, as a migration progresses(the latter data are often collectedeasily during repeated flights in the region for other surveys - €.9., Haber, 1977). Censusingmuch larger areas - i.e., severalor more entire, contiguous watersheds(e.g., Gasaway et al, 1983;unpubl. ADF&G censusdata in Haber, 1987), or at least one entire watershed,can eliminate many of the problems. Being lucky and opportunistic enough to do the censusin snow conditions that allow for tracing of movementsto a confinedwintering area also works, as in the 1979 Spatsizi census. (The next Spatsizi census should first determine where the moose are distributed at that time relative to the watershed boundaries, then stratify and sample that entire "active" area and only that area, and then apply the resulting estimate to either the -800 sq.mile watershed area or its moosehabitat portions. Obviously it would be cheaperand better to do this censusin a winter [and frrst month] of comparablesnow depth). In many regions, Kechika-Muskwa probably among them, the best alternative for identifying moose and other ungulate census areas, as well as for following a systems research/managementapproach in general - including doing wolf control if necessary(later), might be to rely heavily on the wolves themselves,via their territories or territorial mosaics (Haber, 7977, 1987). This would require first allowing an exploited wolf population to recover and stabilize. Other than in Fr'lr

43

i rot lgtt't'hernmostregions v"here migratory caribou are the only major prey, resident woif [or will generally St'ks defend long-iasting territories delineated in a way that can be he €flitrcted to minimize summer-winter as well as longer term variations in prey 11, *?rrilability(Mech, I97};Haber, Ig77;Walters et al, 1gg1). )n. an t*),5neep :On Sheepwere abundant in the Kechika-Muskwaregions in the 1980sand 1940s is *hrrrtLash Callison,Wes Brorvn,Tom Mould, Johnny Rasmussen,Ron Campbell, . Flr,nk Cooke, Leo Rutledge, Tud Southwick, Buster : Groat. and others who I ,ES : **lt'rvieq'ed began ranging there. And long before that, the Indian people knew these : ue &lr,rintains good as sheep country (G.Behn, pers.comm; plus info. to the above from ey Entiians in the 1930s-1940s). All of these observers consider that sheep have remained rclatively ("good") ill high levels over most of the period since then _ generally through of *t ltrastthe late 1970s. There are two notable exceptions. Byron Dalziel (pers.comm) /ot ft'r'lsthat sheep numbers have declined substantially since the mid 1960s - although Ire ?l| $'as possibly referring more to the mid-upper Turnagain than the area central to o b't tlris review (Kechika-lower Turnagain, Muskwa, etc). Garry Vince (pers.comm) feels US llrrrt sheep were at a low in the upper Muskwa when he began guiding there in 1951 7) 'btrt'then steadily increased following intensive wolf control shortly thereafter, to high ky aurnbersover the last 10-20 years. of The "ups consensus seems to be that, while there were some noticeable and rs. ett'rvlls," these wer.e usua115'related to fire or heavy hunting (of rams), not wolf at gtt'r'tlation, even where wolves were common. Of particular influence was a large fire ire in *1951 (mentioned earlier regarding moose), which cleared the forested hills of the he l*lt'cr "tremendous" Turnagain and allor'r'eda increase in sheep numbers there, from be *lntost none 10 years earlier (B.Groat, F.Cooke, J.Rasmussen,pers.comm). Tom )w &lould and (pers.comm) Otto Amundson felt that wolves had caused local sheep *lr.'t:linesin the Toad-Liard and Muncho Lake areas in the early-mid 1960s and iate :St t1l70s,respectively, but virtually all others I intervierved (many of whom have blamed br sc'rilVesfor other ungulate declines) considered that wolves have not influenced overall ng "fair 4fu'r'pnumbers much, even though they kill numbers" of them. ia Guided trophy hunting for sheep didn't begin very noticeably 'st in the Kechika r*gion untii the 1960s, and resident hunting became heavy about 10 years ago in {F.(-looke, B.Groat, pers.comm). Both began IE-20 years earlier in the more accessible