Amaia Demaray

29 October, 2015
Wlf 440 Debate
ESA recovery efforts for the Selkirk caribou should be stopped.
Side 1: Endangered Species Act recovery efforts for the Selkirk
caribou should be stopped
Main Point 1: Climate change is an underlying cause that limits
habitat availability and forage.
Selkirk Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) favor four different habitat types
in correlation with the seasons. The seasons of concern are the winter
months and the time in which females are calving (Servheen and Lyon 2015).
During the winter, caribou favor high elevations in mature forest stands
because it reduces the snowpack under the canopy, and increases the forage
availability (Servheen and Lyon 2015). Disturbance events, such as fires, are
a threat to these mature stands along with logging and development. This
leads to a management concern of impacts of seral stands (Apps et al.
2013). However, there is little supporting evidence that caribou have a
higher mortality rate in early-seral stands that is the result of prior
disturbances (Apps et al. 2013). Instead, the mortality rate is influenced by
static features (Apps et al. 2013). Taking this into consideration, managers
cannot alter the terrain or climate in order to better the survival of the
Selkirk caribou. With the climactic pressures influencing the habitat in Idaho,
Selkirk caribou may be continually pushed north in order to find the
resources they need.
Main Point 2: Predation and apparent competition are driving
causes for declines in Selkirk caribou population in Idaho.
The Selkirk caribou population in Idaho has fluctuated from about fifty-five
individuals to thirteen over the decades (Zager et al. 1995, Fisher 2008).
Logging has been attributed with being a major contributing factor to
population decline, but it does not contribute to it do to an increase in
predation (Wittmer et al. 2005). Instead, the caribou are becoming a part of
a multi-species landscape that consists of moose (Alces alces), mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) as

prey species in the ecosystem (Apps et al. 2013). The other prey species
have drawn in mountain lions (Puma Concolor), gray wolves (Canus lupis),
grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and black bears (Ursus americanus); this has
subsequently added pressure on the caribou from the north and the south
(Apps et al.2013). Deer is the predominate prey species in this region, and
there is concern about if the population declines (The Forestry Chronicle
2014). The outcome is speculated to be one of two things: the wolf
population will decline and will have a lesser impact on the caribou, or the
wolf packs will heavily prey on the caribou and eradicate them from Idaho
(The Forestry Chronicle 2014). Caribou management will have to be
reevaluate to become a multispecies management plan to counteract this
effect (Wittmer et al. 2005). However, there is a high chance of public
backlash occurring since this would require either extirpating wolves or
having to drastically reduce the deer population, both of which have little
evidence on what the true outcomes would be (Apps et al. 2013).
Main Point 3: Conserving Selkirk caribou is not cost effective,
especially since there is a larger population in Canada.
Translocation of caribou has been attempted in the pas, but it has only
achieved a minor success in increasing population sizes (Warren et al. 1996).
Caribou from different populations that exhibit different behavioral traits,
tend to migrate back to their home range, or die in the following year or two
after being translocated (Warren et al. 1996). In the 1980s, sixty caribou
from British Columbia were translocated to Idaho in attempt to establish a
new herd (Zager et al. 1995). In the Selkirk mountains today, there are only
13 descendants from that augmented heard (Zager et al. 1995).
Translocating caribou within a close proximity to another herd led to a higher
success, but there was still a twenty-one percent mortality attributed to
malnourishment (Warren et al. 1996). The estimated cost of caribou
conservation is $26 million over seven years in Idaho (Kramer 2014).
However, the conservation impact extends into surrounding communities.
With the proposed critical habitat area, the Idaho Department of Lands (IDL)

is be expected to lose $23 million in dollars in revenue and would forgo

nearly 2,000 jobs over thirty years (Groeschl 2012). Including the foregone
income from said jobs, the total goods and services lost totals $285 million
dollars in the northern Idaho economy (Groeschl 2012).
A rough population analysis for the mountain caribou population in Alberta,
Canada has estimated population sizes to be between 3,600 to 6,700
individuals and is listed as threatened in that country (McLoughlin et al.
2003). Even though the populations in that area are declining at a rate of
greater than twenty percent over three decades, the International Union for
the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) states that only populations declining at a
rate of greater than fifty percent over three generations can be candidate for
being listed endangered (McLoughlin et al. 2003). The species in Canada do
not fit this criteria, and have the potential to become stable with better
management practices (McLoughlin et al. 2003). Instead of spending money
to conduct research on the small population in Idaho, the money should be
invested into harnessing better relations with the Canada managers in order
to sustain the healthier population in Canada instead of trying to keep a sink
population alive with translocated caribou (McLoughlin et al. 2003, Zager et
al. 1995).
Main Point 4: There are many stakeholders in Northern Idaho that
will be impacted by the Selkirk critical habitat range.
Bonners County, which resides near the Selkirk mountains, is a highly
desired winter recreation destination for snow mobiling (OSullivan 2012). On
average, individuals invest $50,000 to $100,000 in this sport with the notion
of utilizing the land (OSullivan 2012). The proposed critical habitat area of
375,000 will heavily reduce the area for recreation (OSullivan 2012). One
factor that the stakeholders are holding onto is the initial listing criteria of
the Selkirk caribou being a distinct population segment (DPS) being
unverifiable for being listed (Fisher 2008). The Office of Species Conservation
replied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) by arguing that the DPS
of caribou in Idaho is neither discrete nor significant to the species to which

is belongs (2008). In addition to that, the Office further argues this point by
stating, The endangered Selkirk population is the mountain ecotype. Both
ecotypes [woodland and mountain] are within the same subspecies; there is
no genetic distinction between caribou inhabiting the northern ecotype and
those inhabiting the mountain ecotype (Service 1994 as cited in Fisher
2008). Therefore, it fails to list the Selkirk caribou under the ESA as a distinct
population segment (Fisher 2008).

Literature Cited
Apps, C. D., B. N. McLellan., T. A. Kinley., R. Serrouya., D. R. Seip., and H. U.
Wittmer. 2013. Spatial factors related to mortality and population
decline of endangered mountain caribou. Management and
Conservation 77:1409-1419.
Fisher, Nathan. A. 2008. Re: Notice and request from comments for woodland
caribou draft 5-year status review. Office of Species Conservation,
Boise, ID.
http://species.idaho.gov/pdf/Caribou_status_review_comments_2008.pd
f.
The Forest Chronicle. 2014. Alberta woodland caribou recovery research and
monitoring program to support sustainable forest management.
Directorate of Coldwater Fisheries 90:462-467.
Groeschel, D. 2012. Re: Propose rule for woodland caribou critical habitat.
Idaho Department of Lands. Coeur dAlene, ID.
http://species.idaho.gov/pdf/State_of_Idaho_Comments_on_proposed_c
aribou_critical_habitat_5-21-12.pdf.
Kramer, B. 2014. South Selkirk caribou herd protections being revised. The
Spokesman-review, Spokane, WA.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/jun/26/south-selkirk-caribouherd-protections-being/ (accessed October 2015).
McLoughlin, P. D., E. Dzus., B. Wynes., and S. Boutin. 2003. Declines in
populations of woodland caribou. Wildlife Society 67:755-761.
OSullivan, J. 2012. The last of the herd. Inlander, Foundation, Spokane, WA.
http://www.inlander.com/spokane/the-last-of-the-herd/Content?
oid=2137991 (accessed October 2015).
Servheen, G., and L. J. Lyon. 1989. Habitat use by woodland caribou in the
Selkirk mountains. Wildlife Society 53: 230-237.
Warren, C. D. J. M. Peek., G. L. Servheen., and P. Zager. 1996. Habitat use and
movements of two ecotypes of translocated caribou in Idaho and
British Columbia. Society for Conservation Biology 10:547-553.

Wittmer, H. U., A. Sinclair., and B. N. McLellan. 2005. The role of predation in

the decline and extirpation of woodland caribou. International
Association for Ecology 144:257-267.
Zager, P. L., S. Mills., W. Wakkinen., and D. Tallmon. 1995. Woodland caribou:
a conservation dilemma. Endangered Species Update 12:p1.