Ungulate Management in National Parks of the United States and Canada Technical Review 12-05 December 2012 1 Ungulate Management in National Parks of the United States and Canada The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-05 - December 2012 Citation Demarais, S., L. Cornicelli, R. Kahn, E. Merrill, C. Miller, J. M. Peek, W. F. Porter, and G. A. Sargeant. 2012. Ungulate management in national parks of the United States and Canada. The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-05. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Series Edited by Theodore A. Bookhout Copy Edit and Design Terra Rentz (AWB®), Managing Editor, The Wildlife Society Jessica Johnson, Associate Editor, The Wildlife Society Maja Smith, Graphic Designer, MajaDesign, Inc. Cover Images Front cover, clockwise from upper left: 1) Bull moose browsing on subalpine fir near Soda Butte Creek in Yellowstone National Park. Credit: Jim Peaco, National Park Service; 2) Bison in Stephens Creek pen in Yellowstone National Park. The Bison herds in Yellowstone are actively managed to maintain containment within park boundaries. Credit: Jim Peaco, National Park Service; 3) Bighorn sheep ram in Lamar Valley, Yellowstone National Park. Credit: Jim Peaco, National Park Service; 4) Biologists in Great Smokey Mountains National Park use non-lethal means, such as the use of a paintball gun depicted in this photo, to move elk from undesirable areas. Credit: Joseph Yarkovich; 5) National Park Service biologists Joe Yarkovich and Kim Delozier (now retired) working up an elk in Great Smokey Mountains National Park. Credit: Joseph Yarkovich; 6) Fencing protects willow (Salix spp.) and aspen (Populus spp.) from overgrazing by elk (Cervus elaphus) in Rocky Mountain National Park. Exclusion fences allow localized timber regeneration, but are only a temporary fix without long-term reduction of elk numbers. Credit National Park Service. This report is copyrighted by TWS, but individuals are granted permission to make single copies for noncommercial purposes. To view or download a PDF of this report, or to order hard copies, go to: wildlife.org/publications/technical-reviews. ISBN: 978-0-9830402-4-8 Ungulate Management in National Parks of the United States and Canada i ii Ungulate Management in National Parks of the United States and Canada Technical Review Committee on Ungulate Management in National Parks of the United States and Canada Steve Demarais (Chair, CWB®) Craig Miller Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Human Dimensions Research Program Aquaculture Illinois Natural History Survey Mississippi State University Prairie Research Institute P.O. Box 9690 University of Illinois Mississippi State, MS 39762 USA Champaign, IL 61820 USA Lou Cornicelli James M. Peek (CWB®) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources 500 Lafayette Rd. University of Idaho St. Paul, MN 55155 USA Moscow, ID 83844 USA Rick Kahn William F. Porter (CWB®) Biological Resource Management Division Department of Fisheries and Wildlife National Park Service 13 Natural Resources Building 1201 Oakridge Dr. Suite 200 Michigan State University Fort Collins, CO 80525 USA East Lansing, MI 48824 USA ® Evelyn Merrill (CWB ) Glen A. Sargeant Department of Biological Sciences Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center University of Alberta U.S. Geological Survey Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9 CA 8711 37th Street SE Jamestown, ND 58401 USA The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane Bethesda, MD 20814 P: 301.897.9770 F: 301.530.2471 www.wildlife.org Promoting Excellence in Wildlife Stewardship through Science and Education Ungulate Management in National Parks of the United States and Canada iii iv Ungulate Management in National Parks of the United States and Canada Table of Contents Foreword vi Acknowledgements vii Executive Summary viii Purpose of National Parks 1 Ungulates in Park Management Goals and Objectives 7 Ungulate Conservation 7 Conservation of Ecological Communities 10 Disease and Parasite Management 14 Visitor Experiences 15 Conflicts with Other Agencies/Land Uses 16 Ungulate Population Management Objectives 19 Eradication 19 Regulation at Low Density 19 Regulation at High Density 20 Alternatives to Ungulate Density 20 Management Alternatives 21 No Action 21 Animal Removal 22 Fertility Control 29 Predator Management 32 Redistribution 33 Criteria for Selection of Management Strategies 35 Enabling Legislation, Historical Context, and Naturalness 35 Cost 35 Animal Welfare 36 Allowable Land Use 36 Population Viability and Genetic Diversity 37 Depredation 37 Findings 38 Literature Cited 39 Ungulate Management in National Parks of the United States and Canada v Foreword residents of The Wildlife Society (TWS) P occasionally appoint ad hoc committees to study and report on selected conservation issues. The resulting technical review presents technical information and the views of the appointed committee members, but not necessarily the views of their employers. This Technical Review focuses on management of ungulates in national parks of Canada and the United States. The review is copyrighted by TWS, but individuals are granted permission to make single copies for noncommercial purposes. All technical reviews are available in digital format on the TWS web page, www.wildlife.org, and additional copies may be requested from: The Wildlife Society 5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 Phone: (301) 897-9770 Fax: (301) 530-2471 [email protected] www.wildlife.org Bighorn sheep at Canyonlands National Park. Credit: Neal Herbert, National Park Service. vi Ungulate Management in National Parks of the United States and Canada Acknowledgments Pronghorn antelope in Yellowstone National Park. Credit: JR Douglass, National Park Service. his report represents significant efforts for publication in October 2012 by then- President T by committed wildlife professionals serving the Paul Krausman. membership of The Wildlife Society. We acknowledge the support of TWS presidents in office during We received exceptional cooperation from people in preparation of this report, including Presidents Bruce various state, provincial, and national agencies across Leopold and Paul Krausman and Past Presidents Tom Canada and the United States. People within these Ryder, Tom Franklin, and Dan Svedarsky. Members agencies responded with requested information, and of The Wildlife Society Council Gary White and, we specifically thank J. Powers with the National Park especially, John McDonald provided comments and Service. We especially appreciate E. Leslie, K. Leong, support. The Wildlife Society support staff, especially M. Foley, and B. Frost with the National Park Service, Christine Carmichael and Terra Rentz, provided J. Whittington and M. Bradley with Parks Canada, encouragement, invaluable suggestions, and edits. Mark Sherfy with the U.S. Geological Survey, and This review was approved for development September Bruce Stillings with the North Dakota Game and Fish 2009 by sitting President Bruce Leopold and approved Department for their critical reviews of the final draft. Ungulate Management in National Parks of the United States and Canada vii Executive Summary nabling legislation—that which gives Removals of ungulates from national parks have E appropriate officials the authority been controversial, and much of the debate has to implement or enforce the law—impacts revolved around methods of removal. Disease management of ungulates in national parks of issues limit the use of translocations as temporary Canada and the United States (U.S.). The initial solutions to abundance problems. Most ungulate focus of such legislation in both countries centered removals from U.S. national parks have been on preserving natural and culturally significant accomplished by shooting. Public involvement in areas for posterity. Although this objective remains shooting has been controversial and limited by primary, philosophies and practices have changed. A National Park Service (NPS) policies that do not Canadian vision for ungulate management emerged allow hunting of native wildlife in national parks per during the latter half of the 20th century to protect se. Costs of shooting programs depend on costs and maintain or restore the ecological integrity of of administration, payments to shooters, logistical representative samples of the country’s 39 distinct challenges, methods of carcass disposal, and landscapes, and to include provisions for traditional the degree of supervision by park management. hunting and fishing practices representative of past Shooting programs modeled after public hunting cultural impacts on the environment. The current programs (i.e., volunteers pay a modest fee, are ungulate management approach in the U.S. relies not directly supervised, and retain carcasses for on natural (ecological) processes, as long as normal personal use) have been successful in the few conditions are promoted and there is no impairment instances where attempted. of natural resources. Emphasizing natural processes as the basis has been a challenge because Removal management can be successful only where ecosystem dynamics are complex and management a superintendent is interested in building a program is multi-jurisdictional. Additionally, natural based on science, is able to garner the resources regulation typically will not prevent ungulates to do the planning, and is willing to take political from reaching and sustaining densities that are risks to achieve management goals. Fertility control incompatible with preservation or restoration