canadian rockies woodland caribou project - College of Forestry and ...

1 Canadian Rockies Woodland Caribou Project First Year Progress Report 

CANADIAN ROCKIES WOODLAND 

CARIBOU PROJECT 

First Year Progress Report 

Covering Field Activities from January 1, 2007 to May 1, 2008 

Prepared by: 

Mark Hebblewhite, Principle Investigator, Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana 

Marco Musiani, Principle Investigator, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary 

Greg McDermid, Project Collaborator, Department of Geography, University of Calgary 

Hugh Robinson, Post‐doctoral Fellow, University of Montana 

Nick DeCesare, PhD student, University of Montana 

Byron Weckworth, PhD Student, University of Calgary 

Saakje Hazenberg, Project Biologist, University of Calgary 

Luigi Morgantini, University of Alberta and Weyerhaeuser Company 

Prepared For: 

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 

Parks Canada, Banff and Jasper National Parks 

Weyerhaeuser Company 

Shell Canada Ltd. 

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division 

1 

Alberta Parks, Recreation and Tourism 

British Columbia Ministry of Environment


ACKNOWLEGEMENTS 

Primary funding was provided through the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) through 

the Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada (PTAC)’s environmental research program under the Broad 

Industry Initiatives Caribou Fund. Additional funding was provided by Shell Canada Ltd., Weyerhaeuser 

Company, Parks Canada, Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, British Columbia Ministry of Environment, 

and the Universities of Montana, Alberta, and Calgary. Funding for research activities in 2008/09 is also 

provided by WWF‐Canada through the Endangered Species Recovery Fund (ESRF) and the Alberta 

Conservation Association. 

Numerous individuals and organizations made this research possible. We thank Gary Sargent at CAPP for 

his support and administrative help to make our project successful. Many people within Alberta Fish and 

Wildlife Division run the ongoing caribou monitoring program within west‐central Alberta, most notably 

Dave Hervieux, Kirby Smith, Dave Stepnisky, Dave Hobson, Jan Ficht, and Mike Russell. We also thank 

Alberta Fish and Wildlife wardens for their assistance with spring/summer 2008 wolf trapping activities. 

Within the Alberta Caribou Committee we thank Anne Hubbs and Nicole McCutchen for facilitating data 

sharing agreements, and Stan Boutin for ongoing discussion. Within Parks Canada, we thank Mark 

Bradley, Layla Neufeld, Alan Dibb, Cliff White, Geoff Skinner, Landon Shepherd, Brenda Shepherd, Wes 

Bradford, Jesse Whittington, Dave Dalman, Jacqui Syroteuk, and the staff at Pallisades for their 

contributions to the caribou research program. For outstanding contributions to ground and aerial elk 

telemetry in Jasper National Park, we thank Heidi Fengler and Lucas Habib especially. Within the 

Foothills Facility for GIS in the McDermid Lab at University of Calgary, we thank Adam McLane and David 

Laskin for their assistance with remote sensing lab and field work throughout the project. We thank 

Bighorn Helicopters, especially Clay and Janice Wilson, and Brad Culling for enabling safe and humane 

animal capture and handling services. Mike Dupuis and Silvertip aviation provided aerial telemetry 

services, and Pacific Western, Precision, Highland and Yellowhead helicopters for safe air travel services. 

Mark Sherrington and Roger Creasey provided administrative and field assistance that was invaluable. 

On the British Columbia side of the border, we thank project partner Dale Seip from BC Ministry of 

Forests especially for his ongoing collaboration, as well as Doug Heard and Conrad Thiessen from BC 

Ministry of Environment, and Rick Roos from BC Parks for his facilitation of our field work in Kakwa 

Provincial Park BC. Matthew Wheatley and others within Alberta Parks, Tourism and Recreation ably 

facilitated our research in Alberta provincial parks. We also thank the administrative assistance from 

PTAC’s Tannis Such, the University of Montana’s Jeanne Franz, Jodi Todd, Jim Adams, Laura Plute, 

ReNeea Gordon, and the University of Calgary’s EVDS administration. Simon Slater at the University of 

Alberta continues to provide excellent monitoring of the Redrock‐Prairie Creek and Narraway herds in 

conjunction with Weyerhaueser. Nathan Webb (University of Alberta) provided expert advice regarding 

application of the StatScan software to GPS cluster identification for field work. We thank genetic 

collaborators Dr. Stefano Mariani and Allan McDevitt from the University of Dublin for their productive 

collaboration on our genetics research. Veterinary advice and assistance for safe and human animal 

capture protocols was provided by Dr.’s Todd Shury, Helen Schwantje, MaryAnne McCrackin, Geoff 

Skinner, and Mark Cattet. Fiona Schmiegelow was extremely helpful during this first year of our project – 

we couldn’t have made as much progress without her visionary leadership in the west‐central area over 

the last 10 years. Finally, we thank the caribou and wolves for the privilege of a glimpse into their lives in 

our effort to contribute to their long‐term persistence. 

2


FUNDING 

DISCLAIMER 

This progress report contains preliminary data from ongoing academic research directed by the 

University of Montana and Calgary that will form portions of graduate student theses and 

scientific publications. Results and opinions presented herein are therefore considered 

preliminary and to be interpreted with caution, and are subject to revision. 

COVER PHOTO CREDITS 

Cover photographs, from top left clockwise, are credited to Norm Munroe, Saakje Hazenberg, 

Mark Hebblewhite, Nick DeCesare, and Byron Weckworth. 

SUGGESTED CITATION* 

Hebblewhite, M., Musiani, M., G. McDermid, N. DeCesare, S. Hazenberg, L. Morgantini, H. 

Robinson, and B. Weckworth. 2008. Canadian Rockies Woodland Caribou Project. First year 

progress report, June 2008. 58 pages. 

Note* this is an interim report and not to be cited without express permission from the principle 

investigators Hebblewhite and Musiani. 

3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In December 2006, an interdisciplinary and multi‐university research project lead by Mark Hebblewhite 

at the University of Montana and Marco Musiani at the University of Calgary was initiated to broadly 

determine causes for declines in threatened woodland caribou populations in west‐central Alberta and 

east‐central British Columbia. Overall, the study aims at determining how human activities affect 

caribou population ecology through modification of predator‐prey relationships across the range of 

caribou. Specifically, the objectives are the following: 

1) To describe whether the present caribou herd delineation is supported on population genetic 

grounds (population genetics). 

2) To develop a reliable, dynamic, and consistent landcover, human footprint and spatial database 

platform (landcover mapping). 

3) To identify high quality habitat across the entire study area at multiple spatial scales to help 

management agencies define (defining critical habitat). 

4) To assess predator (wolf) efficiency change over a regional gradient of human development 

(predator‐prey relationships). 

5) To determine the extent in which human activities contribute to increased primary prey productivity 

in wolf‐caribou systems (predator‐prey relationships). 

6) To understand spatial relationships between fire, mountain pine bark beetles, wolves, elk, and 

caribou in the Canadian National Parks (caribou‐fire relationships). 

7) To assess how caribou migratory patterns and spatial separation from wolves change over a regional 

gradients in human development (caribou migrations). 

8) To model spatial population dynamics across west‐central Alberta to project future scenario’s and 

caribou population viability (Population viability and conservation strategies). 

This first year progress report describes the main research objectives of the project, and reports on 

progress over the period from January 1st, 2007 to May 1st, 2008. 

Population/herd genetics: Hair and blood samples were collected from all caribou captured during this 

report period, while project partners made available samples collected in previous years. Genotyping 

was conducted on 233 whole blood DNA samples from the following herds; Banff, Jasper, A La Peche, 

Little Smoky, Red Rock‐Prairie Creek, Narraway, Red Willow, Quintette, Moberly, Pine, Parsnip and 

Kennedy. A scientific publication stemming from this work has been submitted, and presented at the 2 nd 

annual Canadian Evolution and Ecology Society meetings in Vancouver, BC. 

Landcover mapping: An integrated geographic information system databases for the entire caribou 

study area is being developed in cooperation with the Foothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear Project 

(FMFGBP) through ground‐truthing data collection in BC portion of the study area, and BC MOE data 

acquisition. In addition, the Landover classification and integration of the BC portion of the study is 

being integrated into the overall FMFGBP Landover modeling framework. 

Defining critical habitat: Mark Hebblewhite served on the federal science advisory group for Boreal 

woodland caribou recovery critical habitat review panel, and he and Nick DeCesare have developed a 

framework to model caribou habitat across the region. Caribou and landcover data has been assembled, 

and modeling will be complete in the coming year. 

4


Animal capture: A total of 95 animals were collared during the reporting period; 39 Caribou, 20 elk, 12 

moose and 24 wolves. Jurisdictional breakdowns are provided in the report. 

Animal monitoring: Aerial telemetry flights were scheduled every 4‐6 weeks to relocate collared wolves 

or obtain GPS locations for field kill‐searches at clusters. Caribou were monitored for position and 

survival, and location data was downloaded from those with remotely‐downloadable GPS collars in the A 

La Peche and the Little Smoky herds, as well as for animals in the Highway 40 area collared by Foothills 

Model Forest. In collaboration with Alberta Fish and Wildlife, their collared caribou in the A La Peche and 

Little Smoky herds were also included. Weyerhaeuser and the University of Alberta continue to monitor 

the Narraway, Redrock‐Prarie Creek and Redwillow caribou collars. 

Primary prey aerial survey data was also collected in February in Jasper NP, optimized for elk but also 

surveying for moose, covering approximately one third of the study area. To understand primary‐prey 

habitat relationships, 20 elk were VHF collared in Jasper National Park with project partner Jasper 

National Park, and 11 Moose were GPS collared in the province of Alberta in coordination with Alberta 

Sustainable Resource Development (ABSRD). 

Predator‐prey relationships: Prey hair and wolf scat were collected from kill‐sites to use in stable 

isotope or scat‐based diet assessment to confirm primary prey species composition across the study 

area. Initial wolf cluster visits in February 2008 focused on developing a consistent search protocol and 

on exploring the potential use of dogs to help with finding deer remains in some areas. For efficiency and 

logistics reasons, cluster visits were primarily restricted to Jasper National Park this winter, but more 

time and resources will be dedicated to cluster visits across the entire study area starting this summer 

with a larger crew available for field work. 

Data management: Through data sharing agreements with Alberta SRD, Weyerhaeuser Company, Shell 

Canada, Parks Canada, and the University of Alberta, we have assembled a database of ~500,000 caribou 

GPS fix attempts and >100,000 wolf GPS fix attempts 

Future Activities: Field research activities during the upcoming year will continue to include wolf capture 

and collaring, continued caribou monitoring in coordination with ABSRD, Weyerhaeuser Company, and 

Parks Canada, aerial surveys for Moose in the northern part of the study area in cooperation with 

ABSRD, wolf kill‐site investigation, additional elk and moose GPS collaring, and ongoing aerial telemetry 

monitoring of collared moose and elk. Research activities will include completing the regional wide 

habitat modeling to help identify critical caribou habitat in the study area, design and implementation of 

the aerial survey models for moose, expansion of the population genetics research component to include 

comparisons with the boreal populations, and ongoing development of population viability models for 

caribou. 

5


SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION 

Woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) are classified as threatened in Alberta (under the Alberta 

Wildlife Act) and nationally (under the Species at Risk Act)(COSEWIC2002), and many local populations 

are declining throughout their range likely due to anthropogenic activities that are altering predator‐prey 

dynamics (Alberta Caribou Recovery Team 2005). In Alberta, woodland caribou are divided into the 

Boreal and Mountain caribou ecotypes (Alberta Woodland Caribou Recovery Team2005). In the Fall of 

2006, a interdisciplinary and multi‐university research project led by Mark Hebblewhite and Marco 

Musiani was initiated to broadly determine causes for declines in threatened woodland caribou 

populations in west‐central Alberta (the mountain ecotype) and east‐central British Columbia. Core 

funding was obtained in late fall 2007 provided by the Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada in 

association with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Additional project funding has 

included the University of Montana, the University of Calgary, Shell Canada, Weyerhaeuser Company, 

and Parks Canada Agency. Collaborating government agencies include Alberta Sustainable Resource 

Development – Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Community Development and Parks (Willmore 

Wilderness and Kakwa Wildland Provincial Parks), British Columbia Ministry of Environment, BC 

Provincial Parks, BC Ministry of Forests, and the Foothills Research Institute (formerly Foothills Model 

Forest). Collaborating researchers include Dr. Fiona Schmiegelow, Dr. Greg McDermid and his lab at the 

University of Calgary, and Dr. Stefano Mariani at the University of Dublin. This first year progress report 

describes the main objectives of the research project, and reports on progress in field activities and 

research over the period from January 1 st , 2007 to May 1 st , 2008. 

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW 

The overall goal of the research is to determine how human activities affect caribou population ecology 

through modification of predator‐prey relationships and develop appropriate conservation strategies 

across the range of caribou in west‐central Alberta and east‐central British Columbia (Figure 1). We will 

investigate the genetic, demographic, and ecological (e.g. predator‐prey) dynamics of caribou with the 

two primary mechanisms hypothesized for caribou declines in west‐central Alberta: 

1. Conversion by logging of old forests to early seral habitats that have high primary prey densities. 

Because of the strong numeric response of wolves (Canis lupus) to ungulate prey, logging 

increases wolf density and thus predation rates on caribou (Weclaw and Hudson 2004, Lessard 

2005, Sorenson et al. 2008). 

2. Seismic exploration lines and access roads are hypothesized to increase predator efficiency by 

increasing the rate at which wolves kill prey because wolves select for, and move faster on such 

linear features (James and Stuart‐Smith 2000, Dyer et al. 2002, Neufeld 2006). 

Our research will focus on the impacts of these two mechanisms on caribou demography, population 

genetics, and landscape ecology across all caribou populations in west‐central Alberta. First, we will use 

new landscape genetics approaches to understand natural vs. anthropogenic causes for population 

structuring and habitat fragmentation in west‐central caribou populations. This will also help us identify 

ecologically relevant herd designations using genetic approaches for subsequent herd‐level ecological 

analyses. We will apply new statistical approaches to examine effects of the two primary causes 

(predator efficiency, prey density increases) for caribou declines in caribou populations across a large 

human development gradient. Because of the huge spatial scale of predator‐prey relationships, 

6


Figure 1. Canadian Rockies study area along the Alberta – British Columbia divide, 

including 100% minimum convex polygons (MCPs) of woodland caribou populations, 1998 – 

2008. 

7


few studies have empirically linked linear features to increased wolf predation rates. Recognition of the 

importance of altered primary prey density is likewise hindered by few quantitative studies on this 

relationship. Furthermore, human‐triggered changes to predator efficiency and primary prey density are 

often confounded in space and time because forestry and oil & gas development co‐occur. Thus, 

managers face a problem of trying to understand the relative roles of increases in predator efficiency 

(primarily associated with oil & gas) vs. the production of primary prey habitat (primarily associated with 

forestry). By comparing caribou‐human relationships across a large gradient of caribou herds in west‐ 

central Alberta, our overall objectives will be to determine thresholds for the different types of 

development for caribou and to develop effective caribou recovery strategies in west‐central Alberta. 

The strength of our methods will be to compare caribou dynamics across the entire mountain 

caribou range in Alberta, contrasting protected areas to those in highly developed landscapes (Figure 1). 

While many caribou populations are declining (7 of 10 know local herds), several are stable or potentially 

increasing (Table 1.1). We will use the gradients in human activity and development that occur across 

these caribou ranges as the basis for our experimental design. Jasper National Park (JNP) is largely 

undeveloped by either forestry or human access and acts as a crucial baseline control area (Arcese and 

Sinclair 1997) and contains the south Jasper caribou herd(s) which may be up to three individual sub‐ 

herds (the Tonquin, Maligne, and Brazeau herds). Moving north, the A La Peche (ALP) herd has extensive 

forestry and oil & gas development on its winter range, but not on its summer range. The Little Smoky 

herd (LSM) is the most developed on winter and summer range and presently the subject of intensive 

management recovery efforts including wolf and moose control. The Redrock Prairie Creek (RPC) has the 

highest intensity of human activity and development on its winter range, with little development on its 

summer range. The Narraway (NAR) herd has moderate human development on its winter range, but 

even less development on its summer range. Finally, the newly identified caribou herd, the Red Willow 

herd (which may be an extension of the Narraway) is similar to the Narraway herd, but has even less 

development on its winter range. By comparing caribou dynamics across this range, we will be able to 

test for thresholds in responses of wolves to human development. Our research will make use of the 

substantial research invested in these caribou herds in cooperation with project partners 

Weyerhaeuser, Alberta Fish and Wildlife, BC Ministry of Environment, and Jasper National Park. 

We are also collaborating with Dr. Dale Seip, BC – Ministry of Forests through his research on the 4‐5 

caribou herds immediately North West of the Red Willow herd (Quintette, Moberly, Parsnip, Kennedy, 

and Burnt Pine herds), and through joint monitoring of both wolves and caribou in the Red Willow herd. 

Dr. Seip received funding from PTAC in 2007 and we are actively collaborating on population genetic and 

predation‐related questions to enable our research to be applicable over an even larger geographic area. 

8


Table 1.1 Caribou herd status and approximate population size. Estimates and status provided by Alberta 

Fish and Wildlife unpublished data, Parks Canada unpublished data, Hebblewhite et al. (2007), and Seip 

& Jones (2008) for the northern BC herds. 

Caribou Population Status Approximate Population Size 

Banff Immediate Risk of Extirpation 5‐7 

Jasper (all three herds combined) Stable ~100 

A La Peche Declining 150 

Little Smoky Immediate Risk of Extirpation 80 

Redrock‐Prairie Creek Declining ~300 

Narraway Declining ~100 

Redwillow – Bearhole Declining ~50 

Quintette Stable 173‐218 

Moberly Stable ~42 (minimum count) 

Burnt Pine Stable ~13 (minimum count) 

Parsnip Unknown Unknown 

Kennedy Unknown Unknown 

SECTION 2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 

The overall goal of the research is to determine how human activities affect caribou population ecology 

and develop appropriate conservation strategies through modification of predator‐prey relationships 

across the range of caribou in west‐central Alberta and east‐central British Columbia (Figure 1). 

Specifically, we will answer the following related research objectives: 

1) Population genetics: Using landscape genetic approaches (e.g., Musiani et al. 2008) we will first ask 

whether the present caribou herd delineation is supported on population genetic grounds, and how 

human‐caused habitat fragmentation may have lead to current caribou herd population structure. 

This research objective will allow the identification of effective management units for conservation 

and management. 

2) Landcover and human disturbance mapping: The foundation for addressing all habitat related 

research objectives for caribou is a reliable, dynamic, and consistent Landover and spatial database 

platform. To address both biophysical (Landover, canopy closure, stand age, etc) and anthropogenic 

attributes (human development, seismic lines, cutblocks) within our large interagency and 

transboundary (AB, BC) study area, we are working with project collaborator Dr. Greg McDermid at 

the University of Calgary to extend their Landover mapping products developed with Gordon 

Stenhouse at the Foothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear Project into the British Columbia portion of our 

study area. This will provide a consistent set of Landover products that will be useful for both caribou 

and grizzly bears, providing future management the potential to consider multiple species at risk in 

management (multi‐SAR). 

3) Defining critical caribou habitat across spatial scales: critical to the development of consistent 

conservation strategies across caribou herds in our study area is the identification of critical habitat 

across spatial scales for all caribou herds. 

9


4) Predator‐prey relationships: We will address the question of how does predator (wolf) efficiency 

change over a regional gradient of human development. To which degree does oil & gas vs. forestry 

contribute to any changes? 

5) Primary‐prey relationships: How does human activity (again, decomposing contributions of oil & gas 

vs. forestry) contribute to increased primary prey productivity in wolf‐caribou systems? To address 

this main research objective, we have developed two main complementary research approaches: 

5.1 Broad‐scale aerial surveys: Using existing aerial survey methods (Gasaway, sightability) or 

developing new methods (e.g., DISTANCE sampling), we will estimate relative or as close to 

real density of primary prey (moose, elk) across the study area as a function of human 

development covariates. 

5.2 Individual‐based habitat models for moose and elk: We will use standard GPS radio‐ 

telemetry based approaches to develop individual based, fine‐scale resource selection 

function (RSF) models for moose and elk. 

By conducting both broad‐scale (aerial) and fine‐scale (individual‐based) approaches, we will be able to 

improve both approaches. For example, collared animals can be used to provide sightability corrections, 

and the fine‐scale models can be used to validate broad scale approaches. 

6) Caribou‐fire relationships: Understand spatial relationships between fire, mountain pine bark 

beetles, wolves, elk, and caribou to test for the bottom‐up effect of fire on threatened caribou in 

the Canadian National Parks. 

7) Caribou migration: How do caribou migratory patterns and spatial separation from wolves 

change over regional gradients in human development? 

And finally, an interactive synergistic research objective to understand: 

8) Population viability and conservation strategies for threatened mountain caribou. Bringing 

together the spatial and population components of the research objectives, the research team 

will model spatial population dynamics across west‐central Alberta to project future scenarios 

and caribou population viability. 

The purpose of this progress report is to outline the specific research objectives in more detail and 

provide updates on progress made towards each individual research objective, as well as provide general 

field progress updates on animal capture and handling, telemetry, and field activities over the first year 

and 4 months of the research project. This progress report covers these activities from January 1 st , 2007 

to May 1 st , 2008. 

10


SECTION 3: RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND PROGRESS 

3.1 OBJECTIVE 1: CARIBOU POPULATION GENETICS IN WESTERN ALBERTA AND 

EASTERN BRITISH COLUMBIA 

Lead: Marco Musiani, Byron Weckworth, Stefano Mariani, Allan McDevitt, Luigi Morgantini, Dale Seip 

Funding: Weyerhaeuser Company, CAPP, Shell 

Scope: We will examine the genetic diversity of caribou at the individual, social, population, and meta‐ 

population levels. We will test genetic relationships and diversity within and among caribou populations 

characterized as migratory or resident, or including both migratory and resident individuals. Our genetic 

analyses will assist the Provincial Governments, Parks Canada and all stakeholders to evaluate their 

caribou population management and conservation programs. 

Data: 

Genetic Data: We will use whole blood and genetic samples provided to us by previous studies and 

project collaborators courtesy of the Governments of Alberta and BC, Parks Canada and the University of 

Alberta (Dr. Fiona Schmiegelow). A number of high‐quality tissue samples for genetic analysis are already 

available through previous studies. In total, we assembled 233 samples from 12 caribou herds; Banff, 

Jasper, A La Peche, Little Smoky, Redrock Prairie Creek, Narraway, Red Willow, Quintette, Moberly, Pine, 

Parsnip and Kennedy herds (these last 5 through collaboration with Dale Seip). 

Landscape GIS data: We will use an integrated Landover model for the entire study area as a spatial 

covariate in landscape genetics approaches. This will include an integrated digital elevation model and 

spatial measures of the degree of human caused habitat fragmentation. See Detailed GIS & Remote 

sensing remote plan below in supporting research activities. 

Objectives: 

This research objective will help understand caribou population structure and its implications for 

conservation and management. Specific objectives are the following: 

• Define the genetic relationships and gene flow within and between adjacent migratory and non‐ 

migratory caribou populations, and caribou herds including both migratory and non‐migratory 

individuals. 

• Examine gene flow and dispersal patterns among caribou populations with different levels of 

forestry and oil and gas development. 

• Identify the effects of human caused habitat fragmentation on caribou landscape genetics to identify 

barriers to geneflow. 

• Compare population genetics of mountain caribou within our study area to boreal woodland caribou 

populations in Northern Alberta and southern mountain caribou in adjacent areas of British 

Columbia. 

• Develop a spatial model representing gene flow within and between caribou populations based on 

results from genetic analysis and radio‐satellite‐telemetry. 

Schedule: 

11


• Spring 2007: Caribou tissue sample collection from archives. Preparation of samples. Implementation 

of DNA extraction and analysis. 

• Summer 2007: Tissue sample collection from archives. DNA extraction and analysis. 

• Fall 2007: Tissue sample collection from archives. DNA extraction and analysis. Genetic analyses of 

autosomal microsatellites, mitochondrial DNA and Y‐Chromosome microsatellites. 

• Winter 2008: Completion of DNA analyses. 

• Spring 2008: Integration of genetic and telemetry databases, analyses and models. 

• Summer 2008: Obtain DNA samples from the Alberta Caribou Committee in Edmonton for all Boreal 

caribou populations to help meet comparative research objectives with adjacent Boreal populations. 

• 2009 – Comparative population and landscape genetics analyses between ‘mountain’ and boreal 

woodland caribou in Alberta, part of Byron Weckworth’s PhD Dissertation. 

Progress to Date: 

• Collected 233 whole blood DNA samples from the following herds; Banff, Jasper, A La Peche, Little 

Smoky, Redrock‐Prairie Creek, Narraway, Red Willow, and the 5 herds from our project collaborator, 

Dale Seip from BC MOF; Quintette, Moberly, Pine, Parsnip and Kennedy (see Figure 3.0). 

• Successfully conducted PCR amplification and genotyping at 11 polymorphic loci for 223 whole blood 

DNA samples in Stefano Mariani’s lab at the University of Dublin. 

• Conducted genetic and telemetry analyses, and presented preliminary results at the second annual 

Conference of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, Vancouver, British Columbia, May 

2007. 

• A manuscript has been submitted for publication as of August 1, 2008. 

Deliverables: 

Progress and final project reports will address the following topic areas: 

1. Identification of meta‐population structure and dispersal among caribou herds in Western 

Alberta and Eastern British Columbia. 

2. Ecological, biophysical barriers and anthropogenic barriers to gene flow in our study area. 

3. Identification of management units for conservation within caribou in west‐central Alberta and 

east‐central British Columbia. 

4. Integration of demographic and genetic elements for assessing population viability of caribou. 

5. Preparation of several peer –reviewed manuscripts and a PhD thesis on the subject led by Byron 

Weckworth. 

12


Figure 3.0. Location of the 233 caribou DNA samples used in genetic analyses. 

13


3.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 2: LANDCOVER AND HUMAN DISTURNANCE MAPPING 

IN THE TRANSBOUNDARY STUDY AREA 

To achieve our research objectives, a consistent 

spatial database of spatial vegetation related 

(land cover, canopy closure, disturbance 

density, stand age) and anthropogenic 

(anthropogenic and natural features) data is 

required for the entire Alberta and BC portions 

of the study area (Figure 3.1). The 

transboundary nature of our study area results 

in over 7 different jurisdictions (Figure 1) and at 

least 3 different ecological or vegetation 

inventory methods between provinces and 

national Parks (ELC in Parks Canada, AVI in 

Alberta, TRIM data in British Columbia). 

Furthermore, many key portions of our study 

area were not inventoried during provincial 

vegetation/timber inventories (e.g., the 

Willmore). 

To navigate this significant barrier to achieving 

our research objectives, we set out in this first 

year of the project to develop remotely‐sensed 

GIS databases for land cover and other 

vegetative components for our study area. We 

worked in collaboration with the Foothills 

Model Forest Grizzly Bear Project (FMFGBP) 

Landover mapping initiative, led by Dr. Greg 

McDermid at the University of Calgary’s 

Foothills Facility for GIS in partnership with 

Gordon Stenhouse of the FMFGBP. Over the 

last 8 years, the FMFGBP has expended 

millions of dollars developing Landover and 

human disturbance layers for the Alberta 

portion of the study area, and our goals during 

Figure 3.1. Locations of vegetation sampling plots 

collected in British Columbia for the purposes of 

ground-truthing a new remotely-sensed land cover 

raster for the study area. Plots were visited in 

front country areas (McGregor and Red Willow 

River drainages) and along an 11-day backcountry 

hike during summer, 2007 

2007 were to extend this Landover mapping to the unmapped BC portion of the study area (e.g., Figure 

2.1). 

Personnel: DR. Greg McDermid (project collaborator and supervisor), Adam McLane (GIS/Remote 

sensing technician), Mark Hebblewhite, Marco Musiani 

Collaborators: AR‐SRD (Gordon Stenhouse), BC‐Ministry of the Environment (Doug Heard – Prince 

George, Jeremy Ayotte), BC – Ministry of Forests (Dale Seip), Parks Canada (Mark Bradley – Jasper 

National Park). 

14


Funding: CAPP, Shell, FMFGBP project collaborators (see http://www.fmf.ab.ca/pa_GB.html) 

Data: FMFGBP Land cover data: This includes assembled land cover and other anthropogenic and 

biophysical datasets managed under the auspices of the FMFGBP by Dr. Greg McDermid in collaboration 

with Gordon Stenhouse under the data sharing agreement signed 09/07/2007. 

BC Anthropogenic data: This data includes a geodatabase of human use data and features of the BC 

portion of the study area. Preliminary data were provided by Jeremy Ayotte (BC‐ILMB) and were 

transferred to Adam McLane in June 2007. 

SPOT imagery & Orthorectified airphotos: To facilitate error‐checking and digitizing of human‐use 

features, we have requested access to BC and Alberta Provincial mosaics of SPOT imagery (5‐meter 

resolution) and orthophotos. These images will also be of great value for field work and research 

activities. We have finalized data sharing agreements with Alberta SRD‐RIMB and BC‐ILMB‐BMGS for 

access to SPOT imagery for this objective. 

Ground field classification data from the BC portion of the study area: Required to ground truth the 

landcover modeling extension into BC following established methods developed by the FMFGBP and the 

McDermid Foothills Facility for GIS. Field sampling in summer 2007 was successful at collecting new 

ground truthing data for the BC portion of the study area (Figure 3.1). 

Fire boundaries: We are obtaining updated fire polygon boundaries from Parks Canada and AB‐SRD/BC‐ 

MOE for the study area and integrate it into the existing landcover modeling efforts. 

Schedule: 

• Summer 2007 – Ground‐truthing data collection in BC portion of the study area (Fig 3.1) 

– BC MOE ILMB, AB‐SRD RIMB data acquisition 

• Fall 2007 – Landcover classification and integration of the BC portion of the study 

into the overall FMFGBP landcover modeling framework 

• Summer 2008 – Digitizing and integration of anthropogenic database, error checking with 

SPOT imagery 

Deliverables: 

By end of December 2007 an integrated geographic information system databases for the entire caribou 

study area was delivered including: 

• Landcover models 

• % Conifer and % crown closure 

• Digital Elevation Models 

• Hydrology (water, lakes, etc) 

• Stand age 

By end of December 2008 delivery of human disturbance data for the study area including 

• Human use features (roads, trails, towns, seismic) 

• Disturbances (fires, forestry, etc). 

15


3.3 OBJECTIVE 3: DEFINING CRITICAL CARIBOU HABITAT ACROSS SPATIAL 

SCALES 

Lead: Nick DeCesare, Mark Hebblewhite, Hugh Robinson 

Funding: CAPP, Shell, Weyerhaeuser, Parks Canada 

Scope: The conceptual designation of “critical habitat” is currently underway for the boreal ecotype of 

woodland caribou, but has not occurred yet for the northern or southern mountain ecotype. Given a 

conceptual definition, regional delineation of critical habitat will be required, and several jurisdictions 

have undertaken large‐scale habitat modeling efforts for threatened woodland caribou in an effort to 

determine critical habitat (Apps et al. 2000, Johnson and Boyce 2005), example Figure 3.1). For example, 

relative habitat quality for both the southern mountain and portions of the northern mountain caribou in 

adjacent areas of British Columbia (Apps et al. 2000, Johnson and Boyce 2005) have been developed 

using resource selection functions (RSF; Boyce and McDonald 1999, Manly et al. 2002)). While RSF 

models have been developed individually for several of the herds in west‐central Alberta and east‐ 

central British Columbia (Saher 2005, Whittington et al. 2005, Neufeld 2006), differences between 

models hamper efforts to develop consistent definitions of critical habitat across jurisdictions. 

Therefore, we will develop a hierarchically‐scaled model assessing the relative ranking of habitats across 

the study area as estimated by resource selection analysis both at the regional scale, and within‐ 

population scale. We will include predictive variables in this model describing topography, vegetation, 

human disturbance, predation risk, and competitor densities and incorporate suites of predictor 

variables into a set of candidate models of selection. We will use this analysis of resource selection to 

assess basic correlates to caribou habitat quality. We predict these correlations will be the result of 

interacting mechanistic responses of caribou to features such as forage quality, forest fragmentation, 

and predation risk as potentially mediated by human disturbance, and will further elucidate these 

mechanisms. 

Data: 

Caribou telemetry data: We will use individual GPS‐ collared caribou as the sample unit in mixed‐effects 

RSF models stratified by appropriate seasons. Mixed effect RSF models will account for unbalanced 

sample sizes, habitat‐induced GPS bias, and can allow multi‐scale inferences to both the population and 

local herd scale (Gillies et al. 2006, Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008). 

Landscape GIS data: We will use an integrated Landover model for the entire study area as a spatial 

covariate in landscape genetics approaches. This will include an integrated digital elevation model and 

spatial measures of the degree of human caused habitat fragmentation. See Detailed GIS & Remote 

sensing remote plan below in supporting research activities. 

Objectives: 

This research objective will address the following research questions: 

• We will be to test for the strength of the two main hypotheses, primary prey augmentation and 

linear corridor development, on the spatial distribution of caribou habitat at the regional and local 

herd population scale. 

• We will address the degree of variation in habitat quality between local populations. 

16


• By incorporating variation in caribou populations between years, we will be able to address 

variation within and between herds over time using mixed effects models, explicitly modeling 

uncertainty in high quality habitat for caribou (Johnson and Boyce 2005). 

Schedule: 

• Spring 2007 – development of landscape GIS data layers for study area. Collection of field validation 

data for BC study area in summer 2008. 

• Fall/Winter 2007 – GPS database assembly for caribou from 7 caribou populations. 

• Summer 2008 – completion of seismic and anthropogenic disturbance GIS layer for entire study area 

• Fall 2008 – development of RSF models across caribou populations. 

• Winter 2008 – final model development and manuscript preparation. 


• We have completed the development of GIS layers and GPS data assembly for caribou from all 7 

caribou populations within our study area. 

• We are beginning GIS analyses during Fall 2008. 

Deliverables: 

1. Identification of high quality habitat for caribou in our study area at local and regional 

population scales. 

2. Testing hypotheses about which human disturbances have the greatest impact on caribou 

habitat at different spatial scales. 

3. Development of consistent spatially explicit maps of caribou habitat quality and uncertainty for 

conservation planning across the study area. 

4. Preparation of several peer –reviewed manuscripts, conference presentations and a PhD thesis 

on the subject led by Nick DeCesare. 

17 

Figure 3.2. Example of a 

regional scale RSF model 

for mountain caribou 

adjacent to the study area 

in central British Columbia 

(from Johnson et al. 2005)


3.4 OBJECTIVE 4: PREDATOR‐PREY DYNAMICS ACROSS CARIBOU RANGES 

Lead: Nick DeCesare, Mark Hebblewhite, Saakje Hazenberg, Marco Musiani 

Funding: CAPP/PTAC, Parks Canada 

Scope: We will use GPS‐based wolf movement data to address how anthropogenic changes to forest 

structure and linear features affect wolf predation efficiency and ultimately kill rates in a multi‐prey 

ecosystem. 

Intent: Wolf GPS data will enable us to 

detect the relationships between 

predation events (Figure 3.3) and both 

natural (topographic and vegetative) 

and anthropogenic (seismic lines, 

cutblocks, and roads) features (Webb et 

al. 2008, Franke et al. 2006). We will 

empirically estimate the predator 

functional response (search time and 

handling time) in a spatially‐explicit 

environment (e.g., Lessard 2005). 

Visiting kill‐sites will also allow us to 

determine prey‐specific kill rates, which 

can be used to assess the relative role of 

each ungulate species in regulating wolf 

density. Using these approaches, we 

will be able to evaluate predator‐prey 

dynamics across a gradient of 

anthropogenic disturbance regimes to 

determine thresholds in landscape 

alteration for unsustainable wolf predation rates on caribou. 

Schedule: 

• 2007 – GPS collaring of wolves 

• 2008 – GPS collaring of wolves and kill‐site inspections 

• 2009 – GPS collaring of wolves and kill‐site inspections 

• 2010 – Analysis and manuscript submission 

Progress to Date: Wolf Kill‐site GPS cluster sampling 

Figure 3.3. Wolf-killed elk detected in Jasper National 

Park by visiting GPS–delineated location clusters, 

Winter 2008. 

Remotely downloadable GPS collars allowed us to download up‐to‐the‐day wolf GPS data during 

telemetry flights. We then statistically analyzed these data to using program SaTScan to identify location 

clusters, or putative kill sites, following the methods of Webb et al. (2008). During the 2007 winter 

2007/08 pilot season, we visited a sample of clusters to test protocols, cluster screening algorithms, and 

determine effort. We visited clusters to assess if they were kill‐sites, and to indentify the prey species 

and other kill characteristics. 

18


Table 3.1 Summary of pilot wolf kill‐site visits during winter 2007–2008. Most visited clusters during 

this pilot session were from a small sample of wolves in Jasper National Park. 

Visits Kill‐ Elk Moose Caribou Deer Double‐ Beds Travel Unknown 

sites 

kills 

29 13 7 1 1 4 3 7 7 5 

We visited 29 clusters between January and March of 2008 (Table 3.1). The large number of 

non‐kill clusters visited is reflective of a sampling process that covered the entire range of statistically 

identified clusters, including very small, unlikely clusters that might have comprised only 2 location 

points. These were included for thoroughness and to test if cluster probability varied by prey species. 

Because none of the lowest‐probability clusters visited were kills, future efforts can be focused on 

higher‐probability clusters without inducing bias. We will develop a refined stratified sampling protocol 

that spreads kill‐site visits across wolf territories, while accounting for accessibility differences both 

among and within pack territories. This pilot year confirmed the ability to identify and collect data on 

wolf predation events and even find caribou mortalities using wolf GPS data. Field efforts in 2008/09 will 

include increased sampling across packs to locate kills from GPS collared wolves. 

The high proportion of elk reflects the fact that almost all clusters visited were in Jasper NP (data 

from wolf 81 in the Sunwapta pack); only the moose kill was from the A La Peche area (wolf 122 in the 

Smoky pack). The clusters classified as “unclear” indicate that many signs signaled a possible kill but no 

kill‐site was ever located. Other non‐kill classifications indicate clear tracks, travel routes, bed‐sites or 

open meadows / ice, and a high confidence level that the site is indeed a non‐kill. All sites where no kill 

evidence was found were searched systematically in a 200m search radius, but on occasion very poor 

snow conditions, excessive trampling or melting, or highly complex terrain resulted in an inability to 

make a confident assessment of whether the site was not a kill‐site or whether small deer remains were 

never spotted. Two dogs were used on occasion to help with searches, and experience suggests they 

may be useful in the future. 

One interesting kill‐site was that of caribou F64 from the Tonquin valley herd in Jasper (Figure 

3.4). Her collar was turned in by a skiier who found it along a snowmobile track on the Astoria river near 

the Tonquin valley. GPS data from the recovered collar indicated that she had died 2 weeks earlier, and 

when park wardens went in to the kill‐site, the only clear tracks were those of a wolverine; no wolf 

tracks were evident. However, when Sunwapta wolf 81’s collar was subsequently downloaded, a distinct 

cluster of GPS points matched the date and location of F64’s death. Had the wolf not been collared with 

a GPS collar, the caribou predation might have been mistakenly attributed to a wolverine instead of the 

wolves, illustrating the impressive information‐gathering power of GPS collars and the importance of 

collaring wolves in caribou ranges. 

19


Figure 3.4. Site where collared Wolf 81 killed collared Caribou 64 in the Tonquin 

caribou population, 26 Feb 2008, Jasper National Park. 

20


3.5 OBJECTIVE 5: PRIMARY PREY RELATIONSHIPS WITH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT 

Lead: Hugh Robinson, Nick DeCesare, Wibke 

Peters, Mark Hebblewhite 

Funding: CAPP/PTAC, ESRF, ACA, Parks 

Canada 

Scope: To address the research question of 

how human activity contributes to primary 

prey density and their habitat relationships in 

our study area 

Research Objectives: To address the 

contributions of human activities to primary 

prey in support of caribou recovery, objective 

three has two main research objectives. 

Within the different caribou herds in our study 

area, our goals are to: 

1) Estimate absolute or relative primary prey densities across different caribou herds within the 

study area 

2) Understand the habitat relationships of primary‐prey to test the spatial separation 

hypothesis and improve knowledge of primary prey – caribou dynamics (in support of 

Objectives 4 and 5). 

3.5.1 Broad‐scale Aerial Surveys for Primary Prey 

Figure 3.5. Parks Canada caribou biologist Layla 

Neufeld conducting aerial surveys in Jasper, 2008 

Because of large scale primary prey gradients in our study area, from elk in the southern National Park 

study areas (Jasper and Banff) to a predominantly Moose system in the Northern study area, different 

aerial survey methods may be adopted in the two different areas, but with the same objectives. 

Alternate prey such as deer (Odocoileus spp.) also occurs, increasing the complexity of the predator‐prey 

system. In Alberta, provincial wildlife agencies use a form of sightablity model, the Gasaway method 

(Gasaway and DuBois 1987) to estimate moose population densities. The Gasaway method works well 

for moose however it cannot be used for gregarious or herd animals such as elk (Unsworth et al. 1994, 

Allen 2005). Aerial survey methods for elk in Jasper and Banff have been developed as standardized 

surveys, but without any attempt to address sightability for elk. A preliminary sightability model for Banff 

National Park (Hebblewhite 2000) suggests that 10‐13% of elk populations are missed during late winter 

/ early spring aerial elk surveys. Therefore, developing some sightability correction model for elk 

dominated primary prey systems is important. 

Objectives: 

Develop absolute or relative primary prey density estimates using habitat‐based stratification for aerial 

moose and elk surveys to improve population inventory and to aid recovery monitoring and caribou 

recovery. This research objective has three components that are synergistic with Research Objective 5.2 

on individual‐based primary prey habitat modeling. 

21


1) Improving Aerial Survey Methods for Elk in Jasper National Park – we will develop sight ability 

survey models for elk in Jasper National Park that build on a preliminary sightabilty model for elk 

in Banff National Park that can be integrated into a user interface similar to Unsworth et al.’s 

(1994) Aerial Survey program. 

2) Improving Aerial Survey Methods for Moose– ABF&W uses the Gasaway method (Gasaway and 

DuBois 1987) to estimate moose density in high priority moose WMU’s (352, 353, 355), but do 

not regularly fly other WMU’s in caribou range (see Figure 3.6). Therefore, a major goal of our 

project is to obtain relative moose density estimates for these unsampled units overlapping 

caribou in Alberta and adjacent areas of BC. Preliminary results of DISTANCE sampling (Olson et 

al. 2005) by ABF&W in high priority moose units indicates that distance sampling may be a 

reasonable alternative, and we will work with ABF&W this upcoming winter 08/09 to develop 

these methods. The basic concept is to combine, in a double‐sampling method, a combination of 

traditional ABSRD Gasaway‐style (Gasaway and DuBois 1987) aerial moose surveys with a lower‐ 

cost form of sampling such as DISTANCE or relative abundance sampling to improve survey 

efficiency for both low and high priority moose WMU’s. 

3) Synergy between fine‐scale and broad scale habitat models – we will be able to combine the 

fine‐scale resource selection function (RSF) (Boyce and McDonald 1999, Manly et al. 2002) 

models developed in research Objective 3.5.2&3 with the broad‐scale aerial surveys to improve 

development of a relative moose (elk) density layer across the study area. The aerial survey data 

will also allow us to validate habitat models for moose developed with GPS collars, and vice 

versa, to test spatial relationships with vegetation communities and limiting factors (roads, wolf 

predation, etc. By combining these known population estimates in the intensively surveyed 

blocks as described above with low intensity aerial surveys over a much broader geographic 

scope (WMU’s 440, 442, 446, 445, and portions of 356, 344), we will be able to calibrate 

expected density estimates for primary prey following the methods of (Boyce and Waller 1998). 

Schedule: 

2008 

o Primary prey surveys in Jasper NP (see progress to date below) 

Deliverables: 

2009 

o Primary prey surveys in WMUs 352, 353, 355 (tentatively by ABSRD, Figure 3.5) 

o Primary prey surveys in WUMs 440, 442, 445, 446 (Lead by our project, Figure 3.6) 

o Second winter of aerial elk/moose surveys conducted in Jasper National Park 

2010 – Complete surveys, data analysis, manuscript preparation. 

• Evaluation of methods to estimate primary prey density over broad areas using aerial survey 

methods. 

• Primary prey density (relative) models for study area featuring moose, elk, and potentially alternate 

prey species (deer, sheep). 

22


• Database of spatial locations of observed primary prey species collected on aerial surveys 

• Preparation of publications, aerial survey methodology report, and master’s thesis lead by Wibke 

Peters and Mark Hebblewhite at the University of Montana. 

Figure 3.6. Aerial survey units to be surveyed by this project (blue) and 

those surveyed by Alberta SRD (yellow), 2007–2010. 

23


Progress to Date: Improving Aerial Primary Prey Surveys for Elk and Moose: Jasper Elk & 

Moose Surveys, Winter 2008 

The first of our aerial surveys was conducted in Jasper National Park during February 2008. The goals of 

the survey were to: 

1. Provide relative density of primary prey (elk and moose) within and adjacent to all caribou areas. 

2. Provide point locations to assess Resource Selection Function (RSF) models (Boyce and 

McDonald 1999) independently developed from existing telemetry data (i.e. elk models 

developed for Jasper from data collected in Banff). 

3. Be comparable to past surveys conducted within Banff and by Alberta Fish and Wildlife (AFW) 

outside the National Parks. 

During a meeting of stakeholders in Jasper in January 2008, we decided to pursue the use of a 

random stratified block design to quantify elk and moose during the first aerial survey. Sightability, or 

sighting probability, is the likelihood that an animal will be detected by an observer during a survey. 

Using logistic regression (sight/no‐sight) a sightability model quantifies detection probabilities across 

habitats, seasons, years, species, or distances (Unsworth et al. 1994). Sightability corrected estimates 

are generally regarded as better than regular index data as they account for variations in animal 

movements between years and within populations (i.e. differential habitat use from year to year and by 

differing age and sex classes). 

Aerial surveys followed guidelines set forth by Unsworth et al. (1994). The montane region of 

Jasper National Park was divided into 30 elk winter range subunits ranging from 23 km 2 to 39 km 2 (x = 

29.9 km 2 ) (Figure 3.7). Each subunit was classified into a high, medium, or low stratum for both elk and 

moose prior to the survey. Subunit classification was based on ground observations, a priori knowledge 

of Parks Canada biologists, and previous surveys. Twenty of the 30 subunits were selected at random to 

be sampled representing a mix of all three strata for both moose and elk. All units flown were included 

in the survey for both species. For instance, a unit that was flown as high for elk was considered low or 

medium stratum for moose. In addition to elk and moose, observations of deer and bighorn sheep were 

recorded during the survey although these observations were not sightability corrected. 

Subunits were flown in transects 100 m to 300 m apart at a speed of 60 to 80 km/hr as dictated 

by terrain and animal density (Unsworth et al. 1994). When animals were sighted, the location and total 

number animals observed in the group were recorded. Groups were then broken into sex and age 

classes (i.e. bull, cow, calf), or unclassified. The activity of the first animal observed (bedded, standing, 

moving), as well as vegetation class (grassland, aspen/deciduous brush, conifer), percent snow cover 

(10% increments in immediate area surrounding the sighted animal), and percent canopy cover (10% 

increments above sighted area) were recorded at each observation (Unsworth et al. 1994). In subunits 

where no animals were sighted, zeroes were entered in all fields for analysis. Sightability of elk was 

corrected using the Elk Hiller 12‐E Idaho model, and for moose using the Moose Hiller‐Siloy Wyoming 

model (Unsworth et al. 1994). The moose model contains a covariate for terrain ruggedness which was 

considered important in early iterations of the aerial survey program (Unsworth et al 1994), but which 

has since been removed (Anderson and Lindzey 1996). Although it has no effect on the population 

24


estimate, the input still requires that this field contain some value therefore it was set to 0 for all 

observations. 

The survey was conducted over four consecutive days from February 25‐28, 2008. Due to time 

and budgetary constraints, 18 of the original randomly selected 20 subunits were flown (two low strata 

units were omitted). A total of 491 animals were observed (Table 3.2) including 5 of 7 species of 

ungulate present in the park (Figure 3.7). 

Table 3.2. Aerial survey summary Jasper 2008 (strata, and sightability corrections provided for moose 

and elk only). 

Species Units Flown Total Units Raw Count Sightability 

(high, med, low) (high, med, low) 

Corrected (90% CI) 

Elk 18 

30 

291 410 (73) 

(6, 5, 7) (6, 10, 14) 

Moose 18 

30 

32 180 (130) 

(6, 6, 6) (7, 12, 11) 

Bighorn Sheep 18 30 105 

White‐tailed 

Deer 

18 30 29 

Mule Deer 18 30 26 

Wolves 18 30 8 

The aerial survey program corrects for missed animals using logistic regression models to 

quantify the probability that an animal or group of animals will be seen given a number of variables (i.e. 

group size, snow cover, vegetation cover, etc.). These corrected observations are then extrapolated to 

survey units not flown. This method introduces three sources of variance (sampling, sightability, and 

model). Sampling variance is reduced through accurate stratification of subunits and with increasing the 

percentage of units flown within each stratum. For instance flying all units within a single stratum 

reduces sample variance to zero, while observing equal numbers of animals in each unit within one 

stratum also reduces variance estimates. The high degree of variance calculated in the moose 

population estimate comes mostly from observations in the medium strata. This is likely due to only a 

single observation being made in each medium unit flown. Variance will be reduced as more surveys 

are flown and stratifications are adjusted. 

The use of models developed in other regions may introduce a form of bias in our population 

estimates. . Although this bias is constant and therefore can be discounted when making comparisons 

between survey years, a more accurate estimation of real populations will be possible through 

development of a local sightability model. Data collected regarding radio collared elk, both observed 

and unobserved, will be used to develop a sightability model based on conditions in Jasper National Park 

and combined with earlier data collected in Banff National Park (n=30 sightability observations) 

(Hebblewhite 2000) to develop a flexible sightability model for the Canadian Rockies for elk. 

25


Figure 3.7. Aerial survey for elk and moose in Jasper National Park, winter 

2008, showing montane survey blocks and moose and elk sightings. 

26


3.5.2 PRIMARY PREY RELATIONSHIPS ‐ MOOSE HABITAT MODELS FOR 

MANAGEMENT 

Lead: Wibke Peters, Nick DeCesare, Hugh 

Robinson, Mark Hebblewhite (Moose), 

Mark Bradley, Layla Neufeld, Hugh 

Robinson, Saakje Hazenberg, Mark 

Hebblewhite (Elk – Jasper) 

Funding: ACA, ESRF (Endangered Species 

Recovery Fund), AB F&W (provided 11 

GPS collars), Parks Canada, CAPP, Shell 

Scope: Moose populations in west‐central 

Alberta have not been studied, despite 

their key role in Alberta’s provincial 

moose harvest and caribou 

conservation via wolf‐mediated 

apparent competition. We plan to 

integrate aerial moose surveys, GPS 

collar technology (Figure 3.8), and resource selection modelling to 1) understand the habitat 

relationships of moose relative to forest characteristics and human disturbance, and 2) estimate moose 

population densities across the greater region to better guide management of moose harvest and the 

conservation of other sensitive species (woodland caribou) (Figure 3.9). 

Objectives: 

Figure 3.7. Eleven moose were captured and GPScollared 

throughout the study area in late winter 2008 

using helicopter net-gunning. 

Understand moose resource selection as a function of anthropogenic disturbance, abiotic and biotic 

factors, as well as overlap with caribou by developing a regional resource selection function (RSF) to 

address two key questions about moose management in west‐central Alberta. 

1. Moose resource selection as a function of forest condition and human disturbance. By examining 

patterns of seasonal resource selection, we will contribute to the identification and mapping of 

critical winter range for moose. 

2. The spatial separation hypothesis predicts that the survival and population dynamics of the 

threatened woodland caribou are driven, indirectly, by their spatial separation from moose, such 

that separation from moose is equivalent to separation from their primary predator, wolves. 

Insights into the mechanisms of caribou‐moose overlap will help guide future forest and ongoing 

moose harvest management to best conserve moose and caribou populations. 

3. Development of a regional GPS data RSF model to complement broad‐scale RSF models developed 

with aerial survey data and to link up with research objective 5.1, combining aerial surveys and RSF 

models to develop abundance models for west‐central Alberta (see Figure 3.9). 

27


Schedule: 

2008 

o Moose capture and deployment of 11 GPS collars (ATS store on board) provided by 

ABF&W (late winter), 

o Summer VHF aerial telemetry monitoring 

o MS Proposal preparation (fall, Wibke Peters) 

o Additional capture of 12‐18 Moose and deployment with GPS collars provided for by the 

ACA and ESRF (late fall, early winter 2008/2009), and Parks Canada. 

2009 

o Winter aerial moose surveys conducted with ABF&W 

o Aerial telemetry 

o RSF modeling 

2010 

o Field work completion (spring), analysis and MS defense (fall) 

Deliverables: 

• Preliminary primary prey biomass distribution model for winter to help stratify winter aerial 

ungulate surveys for ABSRD in the future. 

• Improved aerial survey methods for Moose developed in conjunction with ACA and ABSRD in 

the study area. 

• Evaluation of habitat –relationships for Moose that will cross‐validate fine‐scale individual 

animal based RSF models. 

• Stand‐age Moose density relationships for caribou PVA modeling (Objective 7) and 

conservation planning. 

Figure 3.9. Study design for moose aerial surveys in both high and low‐density strata, 

showing links between broad‐scale aerial and fine‐scale individual based RSF models. For 

example, RSF models will be used to help validate and distribute moose density spatially in 

the study area outside of sampled areas. 

28


3.5.3 PRIMARY PREY RELATIONSHIPS – ELK HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS IN JASPER 

NATIONAL PARK 

Lead: Hugh Robinson, Mark Bradley, Layla Neufeld, 

Heidi Fengler, Saakje Hazenberg, Mark 

Hebblewhite, JNP Warden Service 

Funding: Parks Canada, CAPP, Kinder – Morgan 

Pipeline 

Scope: To aid development of spatial caribou 

conservation plans for Jasper and Banff National 

Park, knowledge of spatial overlap between elk 

and caribou is required. Sufficient data exist in 

Banff National Park, but elk data are deficient in 

Jasper National Park. To fill a data deficiency for 

Jasper National Park, and to contribute to the 

overall project objective of modeling ungulate density as a function of human development gradients, 

we initiated an elk telemetry study in winter 2007/2008 working closely with Parks Canada wardens in 

Jasper National Park. During winter 2008/9 we will deploy 10 GPS collars on elk throughout Jasper to 

further address this research objective. 

Objectives: The goals of the elk telemetry study in Jasper are three‐fold: 

1) Develop elk‐habitat relationships in RSF models using VHF and GPS collared data for use in 

Objective 5 and for the overall research project goals of modeling primary prey across all caribou 

ranges. 

2) Contribute to development of aerial sightability models for elk surveys in Jasper and through meta‐ 

analyses of Banff National Park sightability models developed by Hebblewhite in research objective 

3.5.1 described above (Hebblewhite 2000). 

3) Finally, because of ongoing construction of the Trans‐Canada Kinder‐Morgan pipeline through 

Jasper in winter 2007/08, completion of a second winter survey in 2008/09 will be able to address 

the potential effects of pipeline construction on elk distribution. 

Schedule: 

2008 

o Elk capture and handling by Parks Canada wardens and aerial netgunning contractors 

during winter 2007/2008. Deployment of VHF collars (Figure 3.10). 

o Conduct aerial elk surveys overlapping with VHF collar deployment to develop aerial 

sightability sample of missed known elk herds. 

o Elk telemetry and monitoring. 

o Fall 2008 capture and handling, deployment of ~10 GPS collars purchased by Kinder‐ 

Morgan in association with the Trans‐Rockies pipeline. 

29 

Figure 3.9. Twenty elk were captured and 

VHF-collared throughout the study area in 

winter 2007/2008.


2009 

o Conduct second winter of aerial elk/moose surveys in JNP. 

o Complete deployment of elk GPS collars. 

o Continue aerial and ground telemetry monitoring of VHF and GPS collared elk. 

o Completion of Objective 6 (Hugh Robinson’s) analyses using VHF and available GPS data. 

Deliverables: 

• Elk habitat relationships quantified in an RSF modeling 

framework. 

• Improved aerial survey methods for Jasper and Banff National 

park for elk. 

• Development of a manuscript on aerial survey methods for elk in 

the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks. 

• Manuscript development on effects of pipeline construction on 

elk in winter. 

• Integration of elk telemetry data into post‐doctoral research 

project (see Objective 5). 

Progress to Date 

• Capture and VHF collaring of 20 adult female elk in Jasper 

National Park (Figures 3.10 and 3.11). 

• Aerial survey conducted in winter 2008. 

• GPS collars for deployment in Winter 2008/09 obtained. 

• Monitoring revealed 5 mortalities out of 20 total elk; leading cause of mortality was predation (n 

= 3, 1 highway, 1 unknown). 

• Collection of ~200 ground and aerial VHF telemetry locations. 

OBJECTIVE 5: CARIBOU‐FIRE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE CANADIAN ROCKIES 

NATIONAL PARKS 

Lead: Hugh Robinson, Mark Hebblewhite, Marco Musiani, Cliff White 

Funding: Parks Canada – Jasper & Banff National Park, Mark Bradley and Cliff White 

Scope: Fire may potentially negatively affect caribou directly, by reducing favored late seral habitat, and 

indirectly, by increasing primary prey, and thus wolves, following fire – a mechanism supported by 

research on elk‐fire relationships in Banff and Yellowstone (Shepherd 2006). Yet, restoration of the role 

of fire is a key National objective of Parks Canada’s management plans (Parks Canada 1997). To evaluate 

the relative roles of the direct and indirect effects of fire on caribou, we will examine the influence of the 

spatial arrangement of wolves, prey, and fire on caribou in the National Parks and larger study area. 

First, we will develop spatial models for wolves, elk and caribou as a function of stand age within the 

30 

Figure 3.11. Parks Canada 

warden and wildlife 

veterinarian Dr. Geoff Skinner 

handling an immobilized elk.


National Parks and non‐park Caribou herds using mixed‐effects RSF models. These new statistical models 

will allow for hierarchical structuring of resource selection by caribou or wolves being more similar 

within herds or packs than between, and will also accommodate functional responses in resource 

selection to changes in stand age distribution and availabilities between caribou ranges. In fact, it is likely 

the unique fire history of each caribou herd that contributes to some degree to the amount of herd‐ 

specific variation in resource selection that makes caribou habitat selection differ between ranges. 

Second, we will use these fire‐stand age relationships to model the effects of different prescribed fire 

strategies on the amount of wolf and caribou overlap mediated by changes in elk distribution. This will 

provide guidelines for the management of prescribed fire to minimize the direct and indirect effects on 

caribou populations. Finally, we will develop planning tools for Parks Canada and provincial fire 

managers to be able to use our statistical models in easy to use graphical user interfaces in common 

desktop GIS programs to aid management of fire. This research question is addressed in more detail in a 

separate agreement between Universities of Montana & Calgary and Parks Canada. 

Data: 

Existing Data: Global positioning system (GPS) telemetry data exist for wolves in South Jasper (Bradley 

and Neufeld, Parks Canada), Banff (Hebblewhite and White, Parks Canada), and for the southeast 

boundary of Jasper National Park (Webb, University of Alberta). Caribou GPS data exists for all known 

herds within the national parks (Bradley, Neufeld and Dibb, Parks Canada) as well as the trans‐boundary 

A la Peche herd in north Jasper (Bradley and Neufeld, Parks Canada). Elk GPS data exist for east‐central 

Banff national park (Hebblewhite and White, Parks Canada), and is being collected as part of research 

objective 5.2. Moose VHF data exist for southeastern Banff national park (Hurd, Parks Canada) and the A 

La Peche range in northern Jasper as part of research objective 5.3. In addition, we will use aerial survey 

data to provide relative prey availabilities, and for use in testing predictive elk and moose RSFs produced 

using only data from Banff. 

Objectives: 

This project will address three hypotheses considered to contribute to caribou declines within the 

mountain national parks. The habitat limitation hypothesis predicts that caribou are limited by the 

availability of preferred habitat, which may be lost due to fire or constrained by human use. The spatial 

separation hypothesis predicts that most caribou mortality occurs when wolves are drawn into caribou 

areas following seasonal movements of their primary prey, possibly in response to availability of young 

seral vegetation classes following fire. The numerical response hypothesis predicts that overlap between 

caribou and wolves are mainly reliant on the total population of wolves which is set by the total 

population of their primary prey (elk or moose). 

Schedule: 

• Fall 2007: Method development, data collection and preliminary analysis. 

• Winter 2008: Telemetry data analysis and resource selection model development. Ungulate 

aerial survey of Jasper National Park. 

• Summer / Fall 2008: Completion of RSF models for elk, moose, caribou and wolves (habitat 

limitation hypothesis and spatial separation hypothesis). Mapping product delineating areas of 

seasonal overlap between caribou and wolves. 

• Fall/winter 2008: Analysis of population trends in wolves and elk following fire (numerical 

response hypothesis). 

31


• Presentation of results at the International Association for Wildlife Fire conference Jackson 

Wyoming, September 2008. 

• Winter 2009: Completion of final deliverables by spring 2009. 

Deliverables: 

• Final report to Parks Canada summarizing results, including RSF models and mapping products 

clearly delineating areas of high risk of detrimental effects to resident caribou herds (high 

potential numerical response for wolves and high potential for seasonal overlap or aggregative 

response between wolves and caribou). 

• Recommendations for experimental fire treatments where the possibility to test model 

hypothesis exists. 

• Publication of results in peer‐reviewed journals. Oral presentation of results at related 

conferences/meetings. 

OBJECTIVE 6: CARIBOU MIGRATION AND THE SPATIAL SEPARATION 

HYPOTHESIS IN MOUNTAIN CARIBOU 

Lead: Nick DeCesare, Byron Weckworth, Hugh Robinson, Wibke Peters, Marco Musiani, Mark 

Hebblewhite 

Funding: CAPP, Shell, Parks Canada, ACA, ESRF, Weyerhaeuser 

Scope: It is hypothesized that woodland caribou historically evolved with anti‐predator strategies of 

occurring at low densities and maintaining spatial separation from alternate prey and ultimately 

predators (James et al. 2004). Anthropogenic forest fragmentation may result in increased predator 

efficiency (see Objective 4) and densities (see Objective 5), and boreal caribou in Alberta have been 

shown to avoid fragmentation vectors such as forestry (Smith et al. 2000) and seismic exploration (James 

and Stuart‐Smith 2000, Dyer et al. 2001). Mountain caribou (such as those in our study area) have 

traditionally migrated between alpine summer ranges and boreal foothill forest winter ranges, 

potentially to both maximize forage quality and minimize predation risk. Fragmentation is occurring 

predominantly within winter range habitats, and thus migratory winter ranges may hold increased 

predation risk and reduced spatial separation benefits than historically present. It will be important to 

understand how caribou behaviorally alter their migration patterns and forage‐predation trade‐offs to 

compensate for changes in the seasonal landscape of predation risk (e.g. Hebblewhite et al. 2005, 

Hebblewhite and Merrill 2007). 

Objectives: 

1. Test the spatial separation hypothesis for migratory caribou using GPS data for wolves, moose(elk) and 


32


2. Test whether human development is differentially affecting the effectiveness of different migratory 

strategies. 

Schedule: 

2008: Data compilation, GPS‐collaring of caribou, wolves, and prey, aerial surveys 

2009: GPS‐collaring of caribou, wolves, and prey, aerial surveys 

2010: Continued aerial surveys, data analysis and manuscript preparation 

Deliverables: 

• Temporally and spatially explicit consideration of spatial relationship between caribou, wolves, and 

primary prey 

• Assessment of migratory strategies relative to predation risk 

• Analysis of migration pattern change over 20 years of population monitoring 

OBJECTIVE 7: POPULATION VIABILITY AND CONSERVATION STRATEGIES FOR 

MOUNTAIN CARIBOU 

Lead: Nick DeCesare, Mark Hebblewhite, Marco Musiani, Byron Weckworth 

Funding: CAPP, Weyerhaeuser, Parks Canada, Shell, ACA, ESRF 

Scope: Conservation of woodland caribou will depend on our ability to effectively monitor population 

trends and population dynamics (and the mechanisms acting upon them) within and among 

subpopulations across the species range. We will use existing monitoring data collected in Alberta to 

assess the relationships between monitoring efforts, vital rates, and population growth to provide a case 

study for using spatially‐explicit population viability analyses in guiding conservation efforts. 

Objectives: 

We will use spatially‐explicit population viability analysis (PVA) techniques to assess: 1) the relationship 

between vital rates (adult survival and recruitment) and population growth, 2) the power in our ability to 

monitor trends or changes in population growth rates using estimates of these vital rates from currently 

established protocols, 3) the effects of misclassification errors in calf‐cow ratio data, and 4) the long‐ 

term viability of woodland caribou in Alberta as a case‐study in using spatially‐explicit PVAs to predict 

changes in meta‐population dynamics, while considering threats and population growth rates specific to 

each local population. 

Schedule: 

2008: Preliminary demographic analyses – completed (see Figure 3.8) 

2009: Vital rates, population growth, & monitoring sensitivities 

2010: Spatially‐explicit integration of population dynamics and predicted threats 

Deliverables: 

• Clarification of relationship between monitoring data and population growth rates 

• Consideration of classification errors in age‐ratio survey data 

33


• Spatially‐explicit population viability analysis for woodland caribou in west‐central Alberta and 

East‐Central British Columbia. 

• Development of a framework to consider PVA in the context of meta‐population structure of 

multiple caribou herds. 


• Attended an Environment Canada Population Viability Workshop in Vancouver in March 2008 as 

part of the Science Advisory Group for the Critical Habitat Boreal Caribou Recovery Review team 

lead by Dr. Fiona Schmiegelow, Stan Boutin, Carlos Carroll, and Carolyn Callaghan. 

• Conducted a literature review of over 40 woodland caribou populations and studies to develop a 

preliminary matrix population model to assess the relationship between adult and calf survival 

rates and population growth rate (see Figure 3.12). 

Adult Survival 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 

Calf Survival 

Figure 3.12. Preliminary simulation results estimating the 2-dimensional threshold 

between positive and negative population growth, as estimated by adult and calf survival 

rates. 

34


SECTION 4. ANIMAL CAPTURE, RADIOCOLLARING & MONITORING 

We summarize animal capture and radiocollaring by season of the project starting first with winter 

2006/07, Fall 2007, and Winter 2007/08. Animal capture protocols were approved by government and 

university animal care protocols and permitting processes in Appendix A. Summary tables of all caribou, 

wolves, moose and elk captured as part of this project, as well as a summary of animals captured by 

jurisdiction and year, are provided. Capture locations are provided in Appendix B. Full details of animal 

capture protocols are available upon request from any project personnel. 

4.1 WINTER 2006/07 

We supervised the capture of caribou and wolves during the 2006/07 winter capture season in two main 

capture sessions; February 12‐17, 2007, during which we captured wolves and caribou, and a second 

capture session from March 28‐31, 2007, where we captured only wolves. Capture operations were 

based out of Grande Prairie, AB., and were conducted by Bighorn helicopters based out of Cranbrook, 

BC. 

Caribou: From February 12‐17, 2007, we captured a total of 8 caribou, and deployed a total of 7 collars 

on 3 new adult female caribou and 4 recaptured animals in the A la Peche herd: 5 GPS4400 and 2 

GPS3300 collars. We collected blood/hair/pellet samples and body measurements from captured 

animals. All animals were in good condition, the 5 recaptured VHF animals showed no sign of neck wear. 

One animal, F86 was recaptured in Jasper National Park and had her old expired VHF collar removed, and 

was released without a collar. These new GPS 4400 and GPS 3300 collars are due to expire in February, 

2009. No capture mortalities occurred during capture. 

Wolves: During the first capture round from February 12‐17, we deployed a total of 12 wolf collars on 

new animals within the A la Peche (ALP), Redrock Prairie Creek (RPC) and Narraway (NAR) caribou ranges 

(see Figure B1 for capture locations). We captured wolves in five new wolf packs; the Kakwa pack, 

Narraway, Belcourt, A La Peche and Berland wolf packs (Figure Appendix B1). We collected blood/hair 

samples and body measurements from each animal. 

All animals were in good condition. The Belcourt wolf 

pack was captured while chasing an adult male goat 

high in an alpine pass, and the Berland pack was 

observed chasing caribou immediately before 

capture. Each pack was outfitted with 1 VHF and 1 

GPS4400 collar deployed in each pack, except the 

Kakwa wolf pack, which was split at the time of 

capture resulting in 4 collars being deployed in the 

same wolf pack once it coalesced after capture. 

Unfortunately, despite 4 wolves being collared in the 

Kakwa pack, by midsummer 2007, 2 wolves had been 

shot by hunters, 1 wolf dispersed, and the 

remaining wolf GPS collar failed. 

During the second capture round in March 2007, 

we captured an additional 8 new wolves and 

35 

Figure 4.1 Outfitting male wolf 106 from the Kakwa 

wolf pack with a GPS 4400 collar in February 2007. 

Wolf 106 overlapped the Redrock Prairie Creek 

herd, but was shot by a hunter within 2 weeks of 

capture.


deployed additional VHF and GPS collars in the Kakwa, Berland, Belcourt, and A La Peche wolf packs. In 

addition, we captured 2 new wolves in a new wolf pack, the Muskeg pack, at the Grande Cache Airport. 

In total, by end of winter 2007, we had over 18 wolves collared in 6 wolf packs not including wolves in 

Jasper National Park (see Figure B1 and Figure 4.6.2). No capture related wolf mortalities or injured 

occurred. 

4.2 ANIMAL CAPTURE, FALL 2007 

We conducted one capture session for just caribou in late October to take advantage of higher capture 

success of migratory caribou in the Narraway and Redrock Prairie creek herds while they were on their 

fall rutting ranges, typically on alpine ridges between the summer and winter ranges. 

Caribou: Eighteen caribou were captured over a 3‐day capture session from October 26‐28, 2007. In 

total, 14 RPC caribou were captured, 2 of which were in British Columbia, and 4 NAR caribou, 3 of which 

were in British Columbia. The remaining captures in the RPC and NAR herds occurred in Alberta. Of the 

12 RPC caribou captured in Alberta, 8 were captured in Kakwa Wildland Provincial Park and 4 in Wilmore 

Wilderness Park. Capture updates for this capture session were provided to BC MOE, BC Parks, and 

Alberta Parks, Recreation and Tourism in Fall 2007. No caribou mortalities occurred. See Figure B.2. for a 

capture map for caribou captured during this fall capture session. 

4.3 ANIMAL CAPTURE: WINTER 2007/2008 

We supervised the capture of caribou, wolves, moose, and elk during the 2007/2008 winter capture 

season. The winter net‐gunning season was hampered by poor snow conditions, bad weather and 

helicopter issues, resulting in limited captures despite several attempted capture rounds in December, 

January and March. Bighorn Helicopters battled uncompromising winds in Grande Cache from December 

10 – 14, 2007, the prevented successful capture operations. Bighorn returned January 3 – 5, 2008. 

Bighorn also worked with project partners Mark Bradley and Layla Neufeld in Jasper National Park to 

netgun elk this winter, and Geoff Skinner and Wes Bradford in Jasper darted additional elk from the 

ground. Brad Culling from Diversified Environmental Services flew unsuccessfully for wolves in the 

Narraway and Belcourt packs in February, and returned for a much more successful moose and caribou 

capture round March 10 – 13, 2008. Many thanks to Simon Slater for all his expertise with captures. 

Caribou: Six caribou were captured in the Narraway in December; project partner Weyerhaeuser (Luigi 

Morgantini) deployed 5 GPS collars on new animals and one VHF collar on a recaptured animal when its 

GPS collar was recovered. In coordination with this project and as part of their ongoing population 

monitoring program, project collaborators Alberta Fish and Wildlife also captured 7 new caribou in 

March in the A la Peche and Little Smoky herds; 5 VHF collars were deployed in the A La Peche, and 1 

VHF and 1 GPS collar were deployed in the Little Smoky. 

Wolves: Three wolves were captured this winter in the core project area, and one was captured by 

project partners Mark Bradley and Layla Neufeld (Jasper National Park) in Jasper. One GPS collar was 

replaced on a recapture in the Narraway pack in December 2007, and one new GPS collar and one VHF 

were deployed in the A la Peche / Smoky pack in January. Jasper National Park deployed a GPS collar on 

a wolf in the Sunwapta pack in Jasper in January. Due to the limited number of wolves captured, field 

efforts during spring and summer 2008 will be focused on collaring more wolves on the ground (foothold 

trapping) throughout the study area. 

36


Elk: Twenty elk were collared this winter by project partners Mark Bradley and Layla Neufeld (Jasper 

National Park), 10 by net‐gunning and 10 by ground darting, as part of the primary prey study 

(Robinson). Capture myopathy may have led to the death of one of the net‐gunned elk as it died fairly 

soon after capture, although the circumstances of its death are not clear. 

Moose: Eleven moose were captured in March 2008 and fitted with ATS GPS collars purchased by 

Alberta Fish and Wildlife. These captures comprised 6 females and 5 Bull Moose across 4 zones: 3 in the 

Little Smoky, 3 in the Kakwa area, 3 in the A La Peche (outside of both Wilmore and Jasper parks) and 2 

in the Narraway. Collars will be removed from bulls prior to the rut. There was also a twelfth moose 

captured that succumbed to capture myopathy and was put down after showing signs of continuing 

deterioration several hours after handling. 

37


Table. 4.1. Caribou captured since January 1, 2007, including method, collar and jurisdiction and location 

No. Date Species Herd Animal ID Sex Age Collar Type Jurisdiction 

1 17‐Feb‐07 Caribou ALP F123 Female Adult GPS3300 WWP 



4 17‐Feb‐07 Caribou ALP F99 (recap) Female Adult GPS3300 WWP 

5 17‐Feb‐07 Caribou ALP F97 (recap) Female Adult GPS4400 JNP 



8 17‐Feb‐07 Caribou ALP F86 (recap) Female Adult VHF removed JNP 

9 26‐Oct‐07 Caribou RPC F385 Female Adult VHF KWPP 

10 26‐Oct‐07 Caribou RPC F400 Female Adult VHF WWP 


12 26‐Oct‐07 Caribou RPC F402 Female Adult GPS KWPP 


14 26‐Oct‐07 Caribou RPC F‐‐ Female Adult GPS KWPP 

15 26‐Oct‐07 Caribou RPC F392 Female Adult VHF KPP‐BC 


17 26‐Oct‐07 Caribou RPC F404 Female Adult GPS KPP‐BC 



20 28‐Oct‐07 Caribou RPC F408 Female Adult GPS WWP 

21 29‐Oct‐07 Caribou RPC F409 Female Adult GPS WWP 


23 30‐Oct‐07 Caribou NAR F736 Female Adult VHF KPP‐BC 

24 30‐Oct‐07 Caribou NAR F738 Female Adult VHF AB 

25 31‐Oct‐07 Caribou NAR F740 Female Adult VHF BC 

26 31‐Oct‐07 Caribou NAR F757 Female Adult GPS BC 

27 11‐Dec‐07 Caribou NAR F721 (recap) Female Adult VHF AB 

28 13‐Dec‐07 Caribou NAR F758 Female Adult GPS4400 AB 

29 13‐Dec‐07 Caribou NAR F759 Female Adult GPS4400/ARG AB 



32 13‐Dec‐07 Caribou NAR F762 Female Adult GPS3300 BC 

33 10‐Mar‐08 Caribou ALP F126 Female Adult VHF JNP 





38 13‐Mar‐08 Caribou LSM F597 Female Adult VHF AB 

39 11‐Mar‐08 Caribou LSM F596 Female Adult ATS_G2000 AB 

38


4.4 ANIMAL CAPTURE SUMMARY 

We captured a total of 95 animals during the reporting period; 39 Caribou, 20 elk, 12 moose and 24 

wolves (Table 4.1). Jurisdictional breakdowns of captures are also reported in Table 4.1. Details by 

species are reported in Tables 4.2 to 4.6. In terms of capture mortality, no caribou or wolves were 

injured during captures. The one elk that may have died from capture‐myopathy would be 1 of 20 elk, or 

5% of elk captures. For moose, this capture mortality is equivalent to a mortality rate of 8.3%. We have 

reviewed our moose animal capture protocol with veterinarians in Jasper for elk, and with ABF&W 

biologists for Moose to improve capture success and decrease capture mortality during future animal 

captures. 

Table 4.2. Summary table of animal captures by year, jurisdiction and species. 

Species 

Year 

Jurisdictional Caribou Elk Moose Wolf Total 

2006 1 1 

BC 1 1 

2007 32 8 23 63 

AB 6 11 17 

BC 3 4 7 

JNP 4 8 4 16 

KPP‐BC 3 3 

KWPP 7 7 

WWP 9 4 13 

2008 7 12 12 3 34 

AB 2 12 14 

JNP 5 12 1 18 

WWP 2 2 

Grand Total 39 20 12 27 98 

Jurisdictions: AB‐ Alberta, BC‐ British Columbia provincial lands, JNP – Jasper National Park, KPP‐BC – Kakwa 

Provincial Park (BC), KWPP – Kakwa Wildland Provincial Park, and WWP – Willmore Wilderness Park. 

WWP‐ Willmore Wilderness Park; JNP – Jasper National Park, KWPP – Kakwa Wildland Prov. Park (AB), KPP‐BC – 

Kawka Prov. Park (BC), AB‐ Alberta provincial lands, BC – British Columbia provincial lands. 

39


Table 4.3. Wolf capture summary information for wolves captured since Jan 1, 2007 until May 1, 2008, including wolf pack, caribou range, 

age and sex‐class, color, weight, collar type, capture jurisdiction and fate as of May 1, 2008. Does not include Jasper National Park. 

Wolf Caribou 

No Date ID Pack Range Sex Age Color Weight Collar Jurisdiction Fate 

1 12/15/2006 W100* Unknown NAR Female Adult Gray ‐‐‐ VHF BC Dispersed, fate unknown 

2 13‐Feb‐07 W101 Kakwa RPC Female Young Adult Gray 93 VHF AB Hunter 

3 13‐Feb‐07 W102 Belcourt NAR Male Young Adult Black 106 VHF BC Hunter 

4 13‐Feb‐07 W103 Belcourt NAR Male Adult Black 126 GPS4400 BC GPS failure 

5 13‐Feb‐07 W104 Narraway NAR Male Adult Black 112 VHF AB Dispersed, fate unknown 

6 13‐Feb‐07 W105 Narraway NAR Female Adult Black 90 GPS4400 AB Active 

7 13‐Feb‐07 W106 Kakwa RPC Male Adult Gray 134 GPS4400 AB Hunter 

8 14‐Feb‐07 W107 A La Peche ALP Male Yearling Gray 96 VHF WWP Active 

9 14‐Feb‐07 W108 A La Peche ALP Female Yearling Black 92 GPS4400 WWP Active 

10 15‐Feb‐07 W109 Kakwa RPC Male Yearling Black 87 VHF AB Unknown 

11 15‐Feb‐07 W110 Kakwa RPC Male Adult Silver 110 GPS4400 AB GPS failure 

12 16‐Feb‐07 W111 Berland ALP Male Adult‐alpha Silver 132 VHF AB Unknown 

13 17‐Feb‐07 W112 Berland ALP Male Young Adult Gray 103 GPS4400 JNP Hunter 

14 28‐Mar‐07 W113 Berland ALP Female Adult‐alpha Gray 110 VHF JNP Unknown 

15 28‐Mar‐07 W114 A La Peche ALP Female Young Adult Gray 115 GPS4400 WWP Active 

16 29‐Mar‐07 W115 Belcourt NAR Female Adult Silver 110 GPS4400 BC GPS failure 

17 30‐Mar‐07 W116 Kakwa RPC Female Adult Black 95 GPS4400 AB Hunter? 

18 30‐Mar‐07 W117 A La Peche ALP Male Adult White 125 GPS4400 WWP Interference, unknown 

19 31‐Mar‐07 W118 Belcourt NAR Male Young Adult Black 105 VHF BC Unknown 

20 31‐Mar‐07 W119 Muskeg ALP Female Yearling Black 85 GPS4400 AB Active? 

21 31‐Mar‐07 W120 Muskeg ALP Male Young Adult Black 100 VHF AB Dispersed, fate unknown 

22 12‐Dec‐07 W105* Narraway NAR Female Adult Black 90 GPS4400 AB Dispersed to Red Willow 

23 3‐Jan‐08 W121 A La Peche ALP Male Young Adult Silver 95 VHF WWP Active 

24 5‐Jan‐08 W122 A La Peche ALP Female Young Adult Gray 100 GPS4400 WWP Active 

*W100 was captured in BC under Dale Seip’s research project. W105 was recaptured. Acronyms for Jurisdictions are the same as previous tables. 

40


Table 4.4. Moose capture summary for moose captured in winter 2008, including caribou range, 

collar type, and jurisdiction. 

Caribou 

No Species ID Range Capture Date Collar Type Sex (Age) Jurisdiction Fate 

1 Moose M01 LSM 11‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Female AB Alive 

2 Moose M02 RPC 12‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Male AB Alive 

3 Moose M03 LSM 11‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Male AB Alive 

4 Moose M04 LSM 11‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Female AB Alive 

5 Moose M05 NAR 12‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Male AB Alive 

6 Moose M06 NAR 12‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Female AB Alive 

7 Moose M07 RPC 12‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Female AB Alive 

8 Moose M08 RPC 12‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Female AB Alive 

9 Moose M09 ALP 13‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Male AB Alive 

10 Moose M10 ALP 13‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Female AB Alive 

11 Moose M11 ALP 13‐Mar‐08 ATS_G2000 Male AB Alive 

Capture 

12 Moose N/A RPC 12‐Mar‐08 N/A Female AB Mortality* 

*Moose died during capture. 

Table 4.5. Elk capture summary for elk captured in Jasper National Park, 2007/2008. 

No. Species ID Jurisdiction Date Collar Type Method Fate 

1 Elk E72 JNP 29‐Nov‐07 VHF Ground‐dart Alive 

2 Elk E74 JNP 29‐Nov‐07 VHF Netgun Predation 

3 Elk E75 JNP 16‐Dec‐07 VHF Netgun Alive 



6 Elk E78 JNP 17‐Dec‐07 VHF Netgun Predation 


8 Elk E80 JNP 18‐Dec‐07 VHF Ground‐dart Alive 

9 Elk E82 JNP 7‐Jan‐08 VHF Ground‐dart Alive 

10 Elk E83 JNP 8‐Jan‐08 VHF Ground‐dart Highway 

11 Elk E84 JNP 9‐Jan‐08 VHF Ground‐dart Alive 

12 Elk E85 JNP 15‐Feb‐08 VHF Ground‐dart Alive 

13 Elk E86 JNP 23‐Feb‐08 VHF Netgun Alive 




17 Elk E90 JNP 1‐Mar‐08 VHF Ground‐dart Alive 



20 Elk E93 JNP 1‐Mar‐08 VHF Ground‐dart Predation 

41


4.6 ANIMAL MONITORING (as of May 1, 2008) 

Aerial telemetry flights with Michael Dupuis (Wildlife Air) were scheduled every 4‐5 weeks throughout 

the winter, although high winds in the mountains and bad weather usually resulted in chronic 

rescheduling; flights will continue throughout the summer. Flights focused on relocating collared wolves 

to record locations and to download GPS collar data for field kill‐searches at clusters. Caribou were 

monitored for position and survival, and location data was downloaded from those with remotely‐ 

downloadable GPS collars every second flight for project caribou in the A La Peche and the Little Smoky 

herds, as well as for animals in the Highway 40 area collared by Foothills Model Forest. Two collared elk 

in the Snake Indian area were also relocated every flight as part of the ongoing primary prey modeling 

study (Robinson). In collaboration with Alberta Fish and Wildlife, their collared caribou in the A La Peche 

and Little Smoky herds were also included in scanning efforts to assist with population monitoring and 

early detection of mortalities. The collared moose will also be relocated each flight. Project partners Luigi 

Morgantini at Weyerhaeuser and Simon Slater at the University of Alberta continues to monitor the 

Narraway, Redrock‐Prarie Creek and Redwillow caribou collars. Project telemetry flights are summarized 

below. 

Table 4.6 Telemetry flights since December 2007. 

Date Areas flown Hours of flying 

13‐Dec‐07 NAR, ALP (included spotting for capture efforts) 5.5 

14‐Dec‐07 ALP 3.5 

23‐Jan‐08 NAR, KAK, MUS, ALP, HW 40 4.7 

24‐Jan‐08 LSM but turned back by rain 5.1 

21‐Feb‐08 NAR, MUS, ALP 4.7 

22‐Feb‐08 HW 40, LSM 6.5 

3‐Apr‐08 LSM (shortened by rain) 4.6 

29‐Apr‐08 NAR, MUS, ALP, KAK 5.3 

Caribou mortality and survival is monitored by ABF&W and summarized in annual progress 

reports prepared by ABF&W. Flights over the winter detected four caribou collars on mortality; 2 were 

mortalities in the Highway 40 and Little Smoky herds, one was in the A La Peche herd, and one was a 

collar drop‐off in the Little Smoky. Full data sets were successfully recovered from all collars but the 

causes of death were not recent enough to be discernable. A fifth caribou collar was turned in by a 

recreationalist in Jasper National Park from what was subsequently determined to be a wolf kill. 

Elk in Jasper National Park are being monitored by project partner Jasper National Park. Biologist 

Heidi Fengler triangulated telemetry readings from the ground weekly over the winter in collaboration 

with the primary prey component of the project (Objective 5). Four of the collared elk died during the 

reporting period; one appears to have become trapped by river ice, and one may have been due to 

capture myopathy; the third was eaten by wolves in April but may have initially been injured on the 

highway and subsequently scavenged by wolves, and the fourth killed by a car/truck. 

Many wolf collars have not been heard since before the current monitoring schedule began in 

December and have probably dispersed or failed; these animals are included in brackets. There are also 

several wolves from other projects who may now be in the area (wolves collared for Dale Seip, Tumbler 

42


Ridge; Doug Heard, BC; and Alberta Fish and Wildlife); these wolves are included in scanning efforts but 

are not listed in the project table below. Finally, one wolf radiocollared with a GPS collar north of 

Revelstoke in winter 2008 dispersed north into our study area, and travelled through the Jasper town 

site area in March 2008, and appears to have settled in the Robson valley (Figure 4.5, data courtesy of 

Rob Serrouya, BC‐ MOF contractor and University of Alberta PhD student). 

4.7 OTHER DATA COLLECTION 

Data collection over the winter focused largely on collecting location data for caribou and wolves, 

primarily through aerial telemetry and aerial collar‐downloading, although some ground‐based 

telemetry effort was also involved. Additionally, hair and blood samples were collected from all caribou 

captured as part of the population landscape genetics research (Weckworth and Musiani), and prey hair 

and wolf scat were collected from kill‐sites to use in stable isotope or scat‐based diet assessment to 

confirm primary prey species composition across the study area. 

Elk locations in Jasper National Park were collected weekly by Heidi Fengler using ground 

telemetry as part of the primary prey study (Robinson). The first round of primary prey aerial survey data 

was also collected in February in Jasper NP, optimized for elk but also surveying for moose, covering 

approximately one third of the study area. Initial wolf cluster visits in February 2008 focused on 

developing a consistent search protocol and on exploring the potential use of dogs to help with finding 

deer remains in some areas. For efficiency and logistics reasons, cluster visits were primarily restricted to 

Jasper National Park this winter, but more time and resources will be dedicated to cluster visits starting 

this summer with a larger crew available for field work. 

To date, we have collected the following data from wolves and caribou for which the core 

project personnel are directly responsible: the GPS‐collared caribou in the A La Peche (including those 

deployed by Foothills Model Forest), the GPS‐collared caribou in the Little Smoky, and all of the collared 

wolves. Location data collected by the core project is summarized in Table 4.8 below: 

Table 4.7 Project location data collection collected until April 2008 

Caribou 

herd Species / pack 

N 

(Locations) (n) wolf caribou 

NARR wolf ‐ Narraway 5040 1 5040 

wolf ‐ Belcourt 191 2 191 

RPC wolf‐ Kakwa 2175 3 2175 

ALP caribou ‐ Blue Ck. 17862 4 17,862 

caribou ‐ Hwy 40 33104 7 33,104 

wolf ‐ Smoky 4064 3 4064 

wolf ‐ Muskeg 3385 1 3385 

LSM caribou ‐ project 24094 5 24,094 

JNP wolf ‐ Sunwapta 1844 1 1844 

totals: 16,699 75,060 

43


Table 4.8. Status of radiocollared caribou, wolves and moose in each caribou herd in the study 

area, May 1, 2008. NAR‐ Narraway herd, RPC‐ Redrock‐Prairie Creek, ALP – A La Peche herd, LSM 

– Little Smoky Herd, JNP – Jasper National Park. 

Caribou 

Zone Species / pop’n Number GPS 

NAR 

RPC 

ALP 

LSM 

JNP 

Data 

Downloads Animal ID’s (Monitoring agency) 

caribou 23 10 7 monitored by Luigi Morgantini (Weyerhaeuser) 

wolf ‐ Narraway 3 1 1 w105 a , w100 b , w104 b 

wolf ‐ Belcourt 1 1 1 w115 a,b 

moose 2 2 M05, M06 

caribou 23 10 5 monitored by Luigi Morgantini (Weyerhaeuser) 

wolf ‐ Kakwa 2 1 1 w109 b , w116 a,b 

moose 3 3 M02, M07, M08 

caribou ‐ Blue Cr. 5 5 4 F94 a , F95 a , F97 a , F99 a , F125 a 

caribou ‐ Hwy 40 6 5 5 F117 a , F118 a , F119 a , F120 a , F121 a , F561 

caribou ‐ AF+W 14 

44 

F100, F102, F103, F104, F105, F110, F113, F114, F115, F126, 

F127, F128, F129, F130 

wolf ‐ Smoky 4 2 2 w107, w117 a,b , w121, w122 a 

wolf ‐ Muskeg 2 1 1 w119 a , w120 

wolf ‐ Berland 2 w111 b , w113 b 

moose 3 3 M09, M10, M11 

elk 2 E76, E77 

caribou ‐ AF+W 16 1 F519, F543, F575, F576, F578, F579, F580, F581, F583, 

F584, F585, F587, F588, F589, F596, F597 

caribou ‐ project 3 3 3 F591 a , F593 a , F594 a 

moose 3 3 M01, M03, M04 

caribou ‐ Brazeau 6 1 monitored by Mark Bradley and Layla Neufeld (JNP) 

caribou ‐ Maligne 2 1 monitored by Mark Bradley and Layla Neufeld (JNP) 

caribou ‐ Tonquin 13 3 monitored by Mark Bradley and Layla Neufeld (JNP) 

wolf ‐ Sunwapta 3 2 2 w56, w58 a,b , w73, w81 a 

elk 15 

a Indicates at least one successful GPS data download during the monitoring period 

b Indicates a mortality or collar failure during the monitoring period 

E72, E75, E79, E80, E82, E83, E84, E85, E86, E87, E88, E89, E90, 

E91, E92 (monitored by Heidi Fengler (JNP))


4.8 GPS DATABASE COMPILATION 

Through data sharing agreements with Alberta SRD, Weyerhaeuser Company, Shell Canada, Parks 

Canada, and the University of Alberta, we have assembled a database of ~500,000 caribou GPS fix 

attempts and >100,000 wolf GPS fix attempts (Table 4.6, Figures 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3). 

Table 4.9. Sample size of GPS‐collared animals and GPS fix attempts for study area populations of 

wolves and caribou, 1998–2007. These are data compiled into a single master database, current up 

to December, 2007; data since collected (see Table 4.8) have not yet been integrated. 

Species Data Source Population N (Animals) 

Caribou 

Wolf 

45 

N 

(Locations) 

This Study, Parks Canada, Alberta SRD, 

Foothills Model Forest 

A la Peche 15 29,140 

Parks Canada Banff 2 5,931 

Parks Canada Jasper NP ‐ Brazeau 6 19,296 

Parks Canada Jasper NP – Maligne 9 34,281 

Parks Canada Jasper NP – Tonquin 8 31,645 

Alberta SRD Little Smoky 36 79,892 

Weyerhaeuser Narraway 29 75,257 

Weyerhaeuser Redrock Prairie Creek 60 176,953 

Shell Canada Red Willow 2 3,036 

This Study 

Banff (Hebblewhite) 

University of Alberta (N. Webb) 

Belcourt 2 245 

Berland 1 3,258 

Kakwa 3 2,664 

Muskeg 1 3,402 

Narraway 1 3,501 

Smoky 2 4,073 

Bow Valley 1 4,011 

Cascade 1 11,282 

Ranch 1 19,831 

Red Deer 1 12,856 

Wildhorse 1 9,543 

Brazeau 4 11,782 

Maligne – Brazeau 1 1,115 

Medicine 4 6,175 

Rocky River 1 167 

Signal 6 8,671 

Sunwapta 2 4,750


Figure 4.2. GPS locations of collared caribou in all study area populations, Canadian 

Rockies, 1998–2007. 

46


Figure 4.3. GPS locations of collared wolves (showing only data from This Study and 

those collected in Jasper NP) and overlap with caribou population home ranges, Canadian 

Rockies, 2003–2007. 

47


Figure 4.4. GPS locations of collared wolves (showing only data from this study) and 

overlap with caribou population home ranges, Canadian Rockies, 2003–2007. 

48


Figure 4.5. GPS locations of dispersing wolf 37 from the Revelstoke wolf-caribou project 

in winter 2008. Data courtesy of Rob Serrouya. 

49


SECTION 5. PRESENTATIONS, PUBLICATIONS AND WORKSHOPS 

Publications 

1. Post, E., Brodie, J., Wilmers, C.C., Hebblewhite, M., & Anders, A.D. 2008. Global population dynamics 

and hotpots of climate change. Bioscience, In Review, August 2008. 

2. Webb, N., Hebblewhite, M., & Merrill. 2008. Statistical methods for identifying wolf kill sites from 

GPS locations. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72, 798‐806. 

3. Hebblewhite, M., Whittington, J., Bradley, M., Skinner, G., Dibb, A., White, C.A. 2007. Conditions for 

caribou persistence in the wolf‐elk‐caribou systems of the Canadian Rockies. Rangifer, 17: 85‐97. 

4. Hebblewhite, M. 2008. Linking wildlife populations with ecosystem change: state of the art satellite 

ecology for national park science. Park Science, In press (publication of the National Park Service, 

USA, Peer‐edited). 

5. Hebblewhite, M. 2008. A literature review of the effects of energy development on ungulates: 

implications for eastern Montana. Report prepared for the Montana Department of Fish Wildlife 

and Parks, Helena, MT, 114p. 

Presentations at Scientific Conferences 

1. Hebblewhite, M., Davis, W., Newton, D., Polfus, J., & Voyles, Z. 2008. The potential effects of energy 

development on ungulates in Eastern Montana: a literature review. Paper presented at the 

Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society Meetings, Missoula, MT, February 2008. 

2. Hebblewhite, M. 2007. Detecting climate‐predation interactions in large‐scale patterns: potential 

applications with Rangifer and Cervus datasets. Invited presentation to the Department of Arctic 

Biology, University of Aarhus, Roskilde, Denmark, December 2007. 

3. Hebblewhite, M., Boutin, S., Schmiegelow, F., Stenhouse, G., Frair, J.L., & Gates, G.C. 2007. Postcards 

from the edge: a review of the effects of oil and gas development on wildlife in Alberta. Invited 

presentation at the Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society meetings, Bozeman, MT, Feb 2007. 

4. McDevitt A.D., Mariani S., Hebblewhite M. & Musiani M. 2008. A new challenge for caribou (Rangifer 

tarandus) management in the Canadian Rockies: reconciling present–day demographics with 

Quaternary evolutionary history. Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, 

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, May. 

5. Robinson, H.S., Hebblewhite, M., & Musiani, M. 2008. Modeling relationships between fire, caribou, 

wolves, elk and moose to aid prescribed fire and caribou recovery in the Canadian Rocky Mountain 

National Parks. Presented at the Canadian Parks for Tomorrow Conference, University of Calgary, 

Calgary, AB., 2008 May. 

6. Robinson, H.S., Hebblewhite, M., & M. Musiani. 2008. Modeling relationships between fire, caribou, 

wolves, elk and moose to aid prescribed fire and caribou recovery in the Canadian Rocky Mountain 

National Parks. Montane Ecosystem Science Workshop. Banff, Alberta., 2008 January. 

50


Workshops / Project Partner Presentations 

1. Hebblewhite, M. 2007. Defining Critical habitat across spatial scales for threatened woodland 

caribou. Invited presentation to the Science Advisory Group for the Critical Habitat Review for Boreal 

Woodland Caribou recovery, Environment Canada, Toronto, ON. 

2. Hazenberg, S., Sherrington, M. 2008. Canadian Rockies Caribou project update to the South Peace 

Region Shared Stewardship Caribou Working Group meeting, Ft. St. John, British Columbia, March 

27, 2008. 

3. Hebblewhite, M., & DeCesare, N. 2008. Environment Canada Population Viability Workshop in 

Vancouver in March 2008 as part of the Science Advisory Group for the Critical Habitat Boreal 

Caribou Recovery Review team lead by Dr. Fiona Schmiegelow, Stan Boutin, Carlos Carroll, and 

Carolyn Callaghan. 

LITERATURE CITED 

Alberta woodland caribou recovery team. 2005. Alberta woodland caribou recovery plan, 2004/05 ‐ 2013/14. 

Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, AB, Canada. 

Allen, J.R..2005. Use of sightability models and resource selection functions to enhance aerial population surveys 

of elk (Cervus elaphus) in Alberta. University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta. 

Anderson, C.R.Jr. and F.G. Lindzey. 1996. Moose sightability model developed from helicopter surveys. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 24: 247‐259. 

Apps, C.D., B.N. McLellan, T.A. Kinley, and J.P. Flaa. 2000. Scale‐dependent habitat selection by mountain caribou, 

Columbia mountains, British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 65‐77. 

Arcese, P. and A.R.E. Sinclair. 1997. The role of protected areas as ecological baselines. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 61 : 587‐602. 

Boyce, M.S. and J. Waller. 1998. The application of resource selection functions analysis to estimate the number of 

grizzly bears that could be supported by the habitats in the Bitterroot ecosystem. Selway‐Bitteroot Grizzly 

Bear Reintroduction Environmental Impact Statement. Wildlife Society Bulletin: 231‐241. 

Boyce, M.S. and L.L. McDonald. 1999. Relating populations to habitats using resource selection functions. Trends 

in ecology and evolution 14: 268‐272. 

COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Woodland Caribou, Rangifer tarandus 

caribou, in Canada. Committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, Environment Canada, 

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 

Dyer, S.J., J.P. O'Neill, S.M. Wasel, and S. Boutin. 2001. Avoidance of industrial development by woodland caribou. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 531‐542. 

Dyer, S.J., J.P. O'neill, S.M. Wasel, and S. Boutin. 2002. Quantifying Barrier Effects of Roads and Seismic Lines on 

Movements of Female Woodland Caribou in Northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology‐Revue 

Canadienne De Zoologie 80:839‐845. 

Franke, A., T. Caelli, G. Kuzyk, and R.J. Hudson. 2006. Prediction of Wolf (Canis Lupus) Kill‐Sites Using Hidden 

Markov Models . Ecological Modelling 197:237‐246. 

Gasaway, W.C. and S.D. DuBois. 1987. Estimating moose population parameters. Swedish Wildlife Supplement 1: 

603‐667. 

Gillies, C., M. Hebblewhite, S.E. Nielsen, M. Krawchuk, C. Aldridge, J. Frair, C. Stevens, D.J. Saher, and C. Jerde. 2006. 

Application of random effects to the study of resource selection by animals. Journal of Animal Ecology 

75: 887‐898. 

Hebblewhite, M. and E.H. Merrill. 2007. Multiscale wolf predation risk for elk: does migration reduce risk? 

Oecologia 152: 377‐387. 

Hebblewhite, M. and E.H. Merrill. 2008. Modelling wildlife‐human relationships for social species with mixed‐ 

effects resource selection models. Journal of Applied Ecology Accepted October 2007. 

51


Hebblewhite, M., E.H. Merrill, and T.E. McDonald. 2005. Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource 

selection functions: an example in a wolf‐elk system. Oikos 111: 101‐111. 

Hebblewhite, M.2000. Wolf and elk predator‐prey dynamics in Banff National Park. Wildlife Biology Program, 

School of Forestry, University of Montana. Missoula, Montana. 

James, A.R.C., S. Boutin, D.M. Hebert, and A.B. Rippin. 2004. Spatial Separation of Caribou From Moose and Its 

Relation to Predation by Wolves. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:799‐809. 

James, A.R.C. and A.K. Stuart‐Smith. 2000. Distribution of Caribou and Wolves in Relation to Linear Corridors. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 64:154‐159. 

Johnson, C. and M.S. Boyce. 2005. A quantitative approach for regional environmental assessment: application of a 

habitat‐based population viability analysis to wildlife of the Central Canadian Arctic. CEAA Research and 

Development Monograph Series 1‐121. 

Lessard, R.B..2005. Conservation of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in west‐central Alberta: a 

simulation analysis of multi‐species predator‐prey systems. University of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta, 

Canada. 

Manly, B.F.J., L.L. McDonald, D.L. Thomas, T.L. McDonald, and W.P. Erickson. 2002. Resource selection by animals: 

statistical analysis and design for field studies. Second Edition. Kluwer, Boston, USA. 

Mcloughlin, P.D., E. Dzus, B. Wynes, and S. Boutin. 2003. Declines in Populations of Woodland Caribou. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 67:755‐761. 

Musiani, M., G.C. Cormack, J.A. Leonard, S. Mariani, D.A. Cluff, C. Vila, P.C. Paquet, and R.K. Wayne. In Prep. 

Differentiation of tundra‐taiga and forest wolves: genetics, coat color, and foraging ecology. Molecular 

Ecology 

Neufeld, L..2006. Spatial dynamics of wolves and woodland caribou in an industrial forest landscape in west‐ 

central Alberta. University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. 

Olson, K.A., T.K. Fuller, G.B. Schaller, D. Odonkhuu, and M.G. Murray. 2005. Estimating the Population Density of 

Mongolian Gazelles Procapra gutturosa by Driving Long‐Distance Transects. Oryx 39:164‐169. 

Parks Canada. 1997. Banff National Park Management Plan. Department of Canadian Heritage, Ottawa. 

Saher, D.J..2005. Woodland caribou habitat selection during winter and along migratory routes in west‐central 

Alberta. University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. 

Shepherd, L.K..2006. Caribou habitat selection in relation to lichen and fire in Jasper and Banff National Parks. 

Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. 

Smith, K.G., E.J. Fitch, D. Hobson, T.C. Sorenson, and D. Hervieux. 2000. Winter distribution of woodland caribou in 

relation to clear‐cut logging in west‐central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 1433‐1440. 

Sorenson, T.C., P.D. McLoughlin, D. Hervieux, E. Dzus, J. Nolan, B. Wynes, and S. Boutin. 2008. Determining 

sustainable levels of cumulative effects for boreal caribou: a management model. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 

Unsworth, J.A., F.A. Leban, D.J. Leptich, E.O. Garton, and P. Zager. 1994. Aerial Survey: User's Manual. Second 

Edition. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Biose, ID. 

Webb, N., M. Hebblewhite, and E.H. Merrill. In Review. Statistical methods for identifying wolf kill sites in a 

multiple prey system using GPS collar locations. Journal of Wildlife Management 

Weclaw, P. and R.J. Hudson. 2004. Simulation of Conservation and Management of Woodland Caribou. Ecological 

Modelling 177:75‐94. 

Whittington, J., C.C. St Clair, and G. Mercer. 2005. Spatial Responses of Wolves to Roads and Trails in Mountain 

Valleys. Ecological Applications 15:543‐553. 

52


APPENDIX A: RESEARCH PERMITS 

Table of permit numbers and agencies, contacts, timelines, and reporting requirements 

Permitting Agency Contact Permit Details Permit Number Dates 

1) Alberta Fish and 

Wildlife Division 











5) Alberta Parks, 

Recreation, and Tourism 

Dave Hervieux, 

Dave Stepnisky 











Matthew 

Wheatley 

Research Permit for wolves and caribou GP 21790 January 1, 2007 to April 

30, 2008 

Collection Permit for wolves and caribou; 

includes capture by aerial (netgunning and 

darting) and ground methods (foothold 

trapping for wolves) 

53 

CN 21803 January 1, 2007 to April 

30, 2008 

Research Permit for wolves and caribou GP 27809 May 1, 2008 to Dec 31, 

2010 

Collection Permit for wolves and caribou; 

includes capture by aerial (netgunning and 

darting) and ground methods (foothold 

trapping for wolves) 

Research Permit for Moose 

Collection Permit for Moose; includes capture 

by aerial (netgunning and darting). 

Research and Collection Permit; includes 

capture by aerial (netgunning and darting) and 

ground methods (foothold trapping for 

wolves) with some exclusions. Valid for 

Willmore and Kakwa Wildland PPs, Two Lakes 

Provincial Park amended summer 2008. 

Moose capture amendment not approved as 

of 7/1/08. 

CN 27088 May 1, 2008 to Dec 31, 

2010 

GP 27085 Feb 25, 2008 to Feb 25, 

2009 

CN 27086 Feb 25, 2008 to Feb 25, 

2009 

WILKA 101‐07 Mar 31, 2007 to Dec 31, 

2009


Permitting Agency Contact Permit Details Permit Number Dates 

6) Parks Canada 

7) British Columbia 

Ministry of Environment 

– Fish and Wildlife 

Division 

8) British Columbia 

Ministry of Environment 

– BC Parks Division 

9) University of Calgary 

Animal Care Committee 

10) University of 

Montana – Institutional 

Animal Care and Use 

Committee 

Dr. Geoff Skinner, 

DVM 

Dr. Helen 

Scwchantje DVM, 

Rick Roos, Prince 

George 

Research Permit; includes capture and 

handling of wolves, caribou and elk via aerial 

(netgunning and darting) and ground methods 

(foothold trapping under certain conditions for 

wolves). Valid for research in Banff and Jasper 

National Parks. 

Research Permit; includes capture and 

handling of wolves and caribou via aerial and 

ground methods. 

Covers caribou and wolf capture in the 

following provincial parks; Kakwa, Wapiti, 

Monkman, and Robson National Parks 

Ms. Mack Canadian Council for Animal Care approval. 

Covers capture and handling for wolves and 


Dr. MaryAnn 

McCracken, DVM 

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. 

Covers capture and handling for caribou, 

wolves and moose (amendment) with aerial 

(darting and netgunning) and ground capture 

(foothold trapping for wolves) methods. 

54 

JNP‐2007‐952 Jan 1 , 2007 to Jan 1 , 2010 

V107‐31411 Feb 27, 2007 to Dec 31, 

2009 

GP0710348 / PG 

0710276 

Feb 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 

2009 

BI‐2007‐57 Jan 1, 2008 to Feb 1, 2010 

056‐06MHECS‐ 

101027 

Jan 1, 2007 to Jan 1, 2010.


APPENDIX B: ANIMAL CAPTURE LOCATIONS FOR WOLVES, MOOSE AND CARIBOU, 2007‐2008. 

Figure B1. Capture locations of wolves and caribou in the study area from the February 13‐17, 2007 capture session. 

55


Figure B2. Capture locations for A La Peche Caribou during the February 17, 2007 capture session. 

56


Figure B3. Capture locations for adult female caribou captured during October 26‐29, 2007 capture session. 

57


58 

Figure B4. Animals monitored 

during the 2007/2008 winter 

capture season, within 

respective caribou population 

zones, 2007–2008.

canadian rockies woodland caribou project - College of Forestry and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?