Kerry Shropshire

WLF 440
Side 1: ESA recovery efforts for the Selkirk caribou should be stopped.
Main Point 1: This population is not viable in the long term.
The number of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the U.S. has been
steadily decreasing, with the bulk of the population found in British Columbia. Between 1987
and 1996, 103 animals have been moved from British Columbia to the Selkirk Mountains,
without long-term improvement as a result. A large amount of these caribou died within one year
of the move (Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 2012). If translocated individuals have high
mortality, then moving more individuals will just result in less caribou surviving and reproducing.
The populations we take caribou from are also losing potential breeders by this translocation.
Woodland caribou are non-migratory, but translocated individuals are migratory mountain and
northern caribou, and within the first year individuals often left the study area. These
translocated individuals also formed a new subpopulation farther south than the original, and
have produced calves, but no increase in the growth rate. To create a viable population, large
numbers of translocated caribou would be needed (Warren et. al 1996). Due to anthropogenic
effects on the landscape and global warming, woodland caribou have suffered changes in species
range overlap in seral forest stands instead of the preferred old growth and mature forest stands.
The populations overlap with those of moose (Alces alces), elk (Cervis elaphus) and deer
(Odocoileus spp.), resulting in a high predator populations. This shift in predator-prey dynamics
has a poor effect on caribou, with highly depredated populations. Caribou populations are slow
to recover from these effects even under better circumstances (Vors et. al. 2009). The increased
range overlap could lead to disease transfer, such as meningeal worms (Maughan 2015). This
population does have high allelic diversity, with 6.9 alleles per locus as opposed to 4.1-5.7 in
other populations (Courtois et. al 2003), but that is due to these past cases of introducing
individuals from outside the populations and the limited success of these actions (Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) 2012). A growth trend reversal would require long term, aggressive
management actions, and that is assuming that everything remains as is, with no environmental
changes that could damage these populations further. The recovery of the Selkirk populations

would be costly in time and money, and is not guaranteed to be successful in the long term,
although small positive changes may be observed.
Main Point 2:Caribou (Rangifer Tarandus) are classified as being of Least Concern on
IUCN red list.
Caribou (Henttonen & Tikhonov 2008) Under the ESA(Endangered Species Act) they are
considered Endangered. In Idaho specifically, the woodland caribou are considered as a DPS
(Discrete Population Segment). The Fish and Wildlife Service stated that, the DPS analysis was
not conducted relative to this taxon (Fish and Wildlife(FWS) 2014) . The analysis was not
specific to the woodland caribou subspecies, meaning that the classification of this very small
and specific population is based on incorrect data. This animals is still considered endangered in
the US and Canada. To make management decisions based on the best scientific data, you must
look at long term trends and large scales. The broad picture reveals a different story about
caribou. Globally, caribou are classified as being of least concern. Conservation efforts should be
focused on species that are in Broad spatial and temporal scales should be used in this case to
determine conservation efforts.
Main Point 3: Herd and individuals alternate between U.S. and Canada.
This population of caribou is located on and near the border between Idaho and
Washington and British Columbia. Woodland caribou do not migrate long distances, but they do
travel short distances for forage or mating. The translocated individuals are removed from a
different subpopulation, with different behavior. The mountain and northern caribou
subpopulations both exhibit migratory behavior due to seasonal requirements. Translocated
individuals were known to leave the study area completely as a result of this behavior (Warren et.
al 1996). If we translocate the large amount of caribou required, what will the behavior be? If the
caribou do not stay in the area, they will not interbreed and there will be no positive effects.
Main Point 4: Caribou presence and habitat designations limits economic activities in
Northern Idaho.
Human disturbance has a negative effect on caribou. Timber harvest, an important aspect
of Idaho's economy, is one of the primary human disturbances. As an important (Stevenson

1979). Snowmobiling, a popular winter pastime and tourist attraction, is also restricted due to
caribou.

Works Cited
Apps, C.D., B.N. McLellan, T.A. Kinley, and J.P. Flaa. 2001. Scale dependent habitat selection
by
mountain caribou, Columbia mountains, British Columbia. The Journal of Wildlife
Management
65:65-77.
Courtois, R., L. Bernatchez , J.P. Ouellet, and L. Breton. 2003. Significance of caribou (Rangifer
tarandus) ecotypes from a molecular genetics viewpoint. Conservation Genetics 4: 393
404
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2012. Endangered and threatened wildlife and Plants;
designation
of critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou.
Federal Register 77(229):71041-71082.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12Month
Finding on a Petition To Delist the Southern Selkirk Mountains Population of Woodland
Caribou and Proposed Rule To Amend the Listing; Proposed Rule. Federal Register
79(89):26503-26535
Foreyt, W.J., and B.B. Compton.1991. Survey for Meningeal Worm (Parelaphostrongylus tenuis)
and

Ear Mites in White-tailed Deer from Northern Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Diseases
27(4):716-718.
Henttonen, H. and A. Tikhonov. 2008. Rangifer tarandus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species.
Maughan, R. 2015. Controversy in Idaho Legislature over the threat posed by the meningeal
worm to
elk, mule deer, and moose. The Wildlife News.
Servheen, G., and L.J. Lyon. 1989. Habitat use by woodland caribou in the Selkirk Mountains.
The
Journal of Wildlife Management 53:230-237.
Stevenson, S. 1979. Effects of selective logging on arboreal lichens used by Selkirk caribou.
Ministry
of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations.Victoria B.C.
Terry, E.L, B.N. McLellan, and G.S. Watts. 2000. Winter habitat ecology of mountain caribou in
relation to forest management. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:589-602.
Vors, L.S., and M.S. Boyce. 2009. Global declines of caribou and reindeer. Global Change
Biology
15(11):2626-2633.
Warren, C.D., J.M Peek, G.L. Servheen, and P. Zager.1996. Habitat use and movements of
two ecotypes of translocated caribou in Idaho and British Columbia. Conservation
Biology
10:547-553.