Mixed Results: Wildlife Management of Caribou, Moose, Elk and Deer
From the majestic woodland caribou that roam the boreal forest, to the lumbering moose that marvel motorists en route to cottage country, Ontario’s native cervid species – caribou, moose, American elk and white-tailed deer – are symbols of the wilderness. They are also important components of the province’s biodiversity and integral parts of functioning ecosystems.
Cervid is a scientific term used to denote members of the deer family: hoofed animals that bear antlers. Despite any similarities in appearance, Ontario’s cervids differ in their biology, range, habitat needs, and population status. Each species, therefore, has its own distinct management program and objectives. Moose and white-tailed deer management programs have focused on controlling populations through hunting and habitat management, while management programs for Ontario’s elk and threatened woodland caribou have focused on population restoration and recovery, respectively. Although cervid ranges overlap throughout most of Ontario and different species may require conflicting habitat and management objectives, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has historically not considered the effects on one species when managing another.
Contents |
The Cervid Ecological Framework
In November 2009, MNR released a Cervid Ecological Framework (the “framework”) to strategically address cervid management at the landscape and ecological level. The framework provides strategic policy guidance to consolidate and integrate Ontario’s species-specific cervid policies and programs, while considering the broader ecosystems and multiple stressors (e.g., disease, climate change and hunting) Ontario’s cervids share. The framework guides MNR’s decisions on where and how to manage populations of different cervid species in relation to each other, considering economic, social and ecological factors, including species resilience, reproductive potential and conservation status.
The Cervid Ecological Framework divides the province into nine Cervid Ecological Zones based on species ranges, overall management intent, habitat and climate. The framework provides broad management guidance for each zone to assist in setting local population and habitat objectives at the Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) level. (Ontario is divided into 95 areas called WMUs, which MNR uses to regulate harvest levels and hunting seasons of many species.)
As an illustration of the framework’s management guidance, for Zone A (a large area that covers most of Ontario north of Lake Nipigon), the direction is to:
- minimize impacts and maintain/restore the woodland caribou population;
- maintain a low density population of moose;
- manage for a low density population of white-tailed deer; and
- emphasize caribou habitat management through land and resource planning processes, such as Crown land use plans, municipal land use plans, Forest Management Plans and provincial park plans.
The ECO applauds MNR for moving toward a cervid management framework that takes an integrated, adaptive and landscape-level approach. Cervid management requires the consideration of many factors, including the population sizes, habitat requirements of their competitors and predators. In some areas of the province, populations of particular wildlife species, such as moose in northern Ontario and deer in southern Ontario, may merit suppression because their unnaturally high numbers can have significant effects on other species. The ECO expects that the Cervid Ecological Framework will be a useful tool for setting the management agenda for Ontario’s cervids.
Nevertheless, the ECO believes it would be useful if the framework explained the ecological benefits and risks associated with the management guidance for each zone. The ECO notes that MNR clearly presented the advantages and disadvantages of different management options in its analysis of potential calf harvest systems as part of the moose program review. Likewise, it would be informative if MNR explained how the Cervid Ecological Zone boundaries had been determined.
The framework states that “an adaptive management approach will be applied to ensure that policy guidance is continually evaluated and improved based on new information” and that the framework “will be reviewed periodically as needed.” While the ECO agrees that MNR should take an adaptive approach that systematically uses new information to modify the framework and species-specific policies, the ECO believes that specifying a minimum review period, such as every five years, would codify this commitment and instill public confidence that new knowledge would be incorporated at appropriate stages of program implementation using constructive time scales.
While the framework contains broad direction on how to integrate the management of Ontario’s four cervid species, MNR states that details on management direction are contained within species-specific policies and programs, such as Ontario’s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan and Moose Management Policy. The implementation and success of the framework, therefore, depends on the content and execution of these species-specific management programs. This year, the Ontario government released a number of policies related to the management of specific cervid species.
Recent Environmental Registry Notices Related to Cervid Management
| Environmental Registry # | Notice Title | Notice Type |
|---|---|---|
| 010-5395 | Cervid Ecological Framework | Policy Decision posted Nov. 2, 2009 |
| 010-4421 | Development of MNR policy to guide Woodland Caribou conservation and recovery efforts in Ontario | Policy Decision posted Oct. 13, 2009 |
| 010-5396 | Ontario’s Moose Management Policy and supporting guidance documents: Moose Population Objectives Setting Guidelines and Moose Harvest Management Guidelines | Policy Decision posted Nov. 2, 2009 |
| 010-5965 | Ontario Moose Program Review Phase 2: Consultation on Concepts for Enhancing the Resident Tag Draw System | Policy Proposal posted Feb. 24, 2009 |
| 010-8381 | Ontario’s Elk Management Plan | Policy Proposal posted Nov. 23, 2009 |
| 010-5648 | Amendments to Ontario Regulation 670/98 (Open Seasons – Wildlife) under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 to Create a New Resident January Deer Archery Hunting Season in Specific Wildlife Management Units in South-western Ontario | Regulation Decision posted April 1, 2009 |
| 010-5338 | Amendments to Ontario Regulation 670/98 (Open Seasons – Wildlife) under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997 to Create New and Streamline Existing Deer and Moose Hunting Seasons in Specific Wildlife Management Units | Regulation Decision posted April 1, 2009 |
Caribou
In October 2009, MNR released its finalized Ontario’s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan. The forest-dwelling boreal population of woodland caribou is listed as a threatened species under the province’s Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA). This conservation plan outlines the measures the Ontario government intends to take to protect and recover this species at risk and its habitat.
It is estimated that 20,000 woodland caribou remain in Ontario, of which approximately one-quarter inhabit the boreal forest and are described as the “forest-dwelling” population. Although MNR speculates that about 3,000 forest-dwelling woodland caribou remain in the area set aside for commercial forestry (i.e., south of roughly 51°N), only crude estimates of woodland caribou numbers in Ontario are available, partially due to the lack of monitoring. The majority of Ontario’s woodland caribou are part of the “forest-tundra” population; this population is currently under assessment by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO) to determine if it too should be identified as at-risk.
The forest-dwelling boreal population of woodland caribou has lost approximately half its range in the province since the end of the 19th century and is now found mainly north of Hearst and Dryden. This massive range contraction has resulted in the loss of approximately 35,000 km2 of habitat per decade in Ontario over the last century, equating to a northward range recession of roughly 34 km per decade. A driving cause of this range recession is the loss, fragmentation, and alteration of forested habitat caused by commercial forestry, land clearing, and linear disturbances such as road building. Other threats include the effects of climate change, the alteration of natural forest fire cycles, changes to predator-prey dynamics, and disease transmission from other ungulates (hoofed animals).
The Ontario government has struggled for decades with how to deal with woodland caribou. It has avoided making the tough policy choices that would provide a basis for coherent actions and practical steps to protect and recover this threatened species and its habitat. Released in 2009, Ontario’s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan is meant to articulate what actions the Ontario government as a whole will take to at least safeguard this species at risk and, ideally, to strive to de-list the population once it is no longer in a state of jeopardy.
Ontario’s Woodland Caribou Conservation Plan focuses almost exclusively on mitigating, rather than eliminating, threats to this species at risk. It provides little reassurance that woodland caribou will not be extirpated from Ontario by the end of the 21st century. It fails to take a precautionary approach, all but ignoring why the forest-dwelling population of woodland caribou became at-risk. Ignoring history is the antithesis of caution.
MNR touts this conservation plan as “science-based.” The central pervading assumptions of the conservation plan are that development can be tweaked to mitigate disturbances and, at some point in the future, woodland caribou will re-occupy habitat that has been impacted by development. In effect, this approach is a reiteration of the very status quo that has caused the northward range recession of woodland caribou.
The conservation plan’s emphasis on testing whether woodland caribou will re-occupy logged habitat is of great concern. While the Ontario Woodland Caribou Science Review Panel, an arm’s length panel appointed by MNR, did generally support research that would test this hypothesis, it cautioned that “resource extraction should never be justified under the guise of research.” Testing this hypothesis in the parts of the Area of the Undertaking (AOU) that have already been logged is starkly different from how MNR should approach the management of intact forest. If commercial forestry is to be approved north of the current cut-line, as envisioned by Bill 191 (Far North Act, 2009), MNR’s approach contains an inordinate amount of risk and gambles with woodland caribou habitat. This risk is underscored by the approximate 20-year time lag between forest harvesting and range recession.
It is inexcusable that MNR has failed to develop and implement a monitoring program to-date for woodland caribou. Without such monitoring, it is impossible to detect failure and determine whether a program is achieving its objectives. In this case, failure is the continued loss of woodland caribou and their habitat. The ECO first called for a monitoring program in our 2001/2002 Annual Report, calling MNR’s approach to forestry a “grand experiment” and that properly understanding the “impacts of forestry operations on the boreal population of woodland caribou is dependent on effective monitoring.” In our 2006/2007 Annual Report, the ECO noted that MNR’s provincial wildlife monitoring program fails to include woodland caribou as a species to be actively monitored despite the well-accepted fact that it is an indicator species of forest sustainability. Moreover, members of the public filed an EBR application in 2006 requesting a monitoring program for woodland caribou to which MNR has yet to respond.
Little or no direction is provided in the conservation plan about if, when or how woodland caribou habitat will actually be set aside and protected. The Ontario government had committed to passing a species-specific habitat regulation under the ESA for the forest-dwelling population of woodland caribou by June 2009. This commitment was not fulfilled. Indeed, the conservation plan appears to place little value or urgency on permanently protecting habitat for this threatened species. Given the conservation plan’s overriding assumption that development can proceed under most conditions, the forthcoming habitat regulation will likely be of limited conservation value for protecting woodland caribou habitat.
The conservation plan also does not contain any interim measures to protect woodland caribou and their habitat until population assessments, range assessments and disturbance thresholds have been completed. Given the large areas that this species requires to survive, it is disappointing that the conservation plan contained little discussion about how the Premier’s commitment to protect to at least 225,000 km2 of the Far North would align with woodland caribou conservation.
The conservation plan causes arguably even greater uncertainty for all concerned stakeholders and, more importantly, for the survival of woodland caribou. It frequently uses ambiguous and vague language, without any supporting explanation of key terms. Moreover, the conservation plan off-loads many key policy decisions to the future, making it more like a ‘faith-based’ approach rather than a “science-based” approach. As a result, stakeholders can only hope that key details will be worked out. It also reduces many important concepts to the level of jargon, such as the precautionary principle and ecosystem-based management.
The conservation plan fails to adequately describe who is responsible for what actions. It gives the strong impression that ministries outside of MNR have little or no concrete responsibilities. For example, the conservation plan’s use of cumulative impact assessment as a decision-making tool does not specify who will do the assessment, how it would be conducted transparently, which ministries it applies to, or how existing approvals processes would be amended to reflect this new direction. It is also silent about how such a decision-making framework will be applied when no approvals processes exist per se, such as with mineral staking under the Mining Act. Therefore, the assumption must be that it will not apply.
The conservation plan states that its success – the protection and recovery of woodland caribou – will require “a long-term commitment to an adaptive management approach.” However, it also states that “not all recovery actions will be funded and implemented simultaneously.” While it is reasonable to focus initially on high priority actions, such as addressing local population ranges along the southern edge of continuous distribution, it is critical that the Ontario government provides the necessary resources to support all aspects of protecting and recovering this species at risk in the long-term. The science panel cautioned that “monitoring is extremely vulnerable to cuts in funding and the exigencies of new government priorities. Arbitrary changes in support can seriously impair, or ruin, the stream of management information.”
Many aspects of the conservation plan lack timelines. This problem is compounded by the historical failure of MNR to meet many self-imposed timelines related to actions for woodland caribou. Reference is made to the finalization of an “implementation plan” by April 2010, which might fill in some details that are lacking in the conservation plan. However, as with other caribou-related deadlines, this plan was not released on time. MNR’s repeated pattern of putting off key decisions to future dates is not reassuring.
Moose Management
In 2007, MNR announced that it was reviewing Ontario’s moose management program in two parts: Phase 1 would focus on enhancing Ontario’s moose management program, and Phase 2 would focus on improving Ontario’s system for allocating tags to resident moose hunters. MNR completed Phase 1, which was initiated in May 2008, when it released its finalized Moose Management Policy (the “policy”) in November 2009. This policy replaces Ontario’s 1980 Moose Management Policy. As of 2007, Ontario’s moose population was estimated to be approximately 109,000 animals.
The policy’s first objective is to manage moose populations sustainably according to overarching direction in the Cervid Ecological Framework. Strategies to support this objective include: developing population objectives for each Cervid Ecological Zone; understanding the potential effects of climate change on moose; assessing and monitoring population status; and collecting and managing harvest-related information.
The policy’s second objective is to provide an optimal mix of benefits from the moose population through harvest allocation and the management of moose-related activities. Strategies to support this objective include: apportioning the allocation and harvest of moose in relation to the available supply; providing a reasonable and equitable distribution of opportunities to harvest moose; and reducing human-moose conflicts.
The policy is complemented by two supporting guidance documents. First, the Moose Population Objectives Setting Guidelines provide direction for coordinating the development of moose population objectives within the broader context of the Cervid Ecological Framework. Second, the Moose Harvest Management Guidelines provide moose managers with a variety of potential harvest management options to achieve moose population objectives as set out for Cervid Ecological Zones. These options include limiting what type of moose can be hunted (bull, cow or calf), shortening or shifting moose hunting seasons, and managing where moose can be hunted. MNR states that the implementation of strategies in these guidelines may be subject to further consultation and posting on the Environmental Registry.
MNR is to be commended for revisiting its 30-year-old moose management policy to reflect the ministry’s new landscape and ecologically-based approach to wildlife management. Furthermore, the ECO compliments MNR for producing such thoughtful guidelines for setting harvest management and population objectives. These documents demonstrate a considerable amount of forethought and they, with the accompanying policy, will be valuable in implementing the overarching guidance provided by the Cervid Ecological Framework. Nevertheless, like the Caribou Conservation Plan, the Moose Management Policy lacks timelines and specifics on strategy implementation and responsibility. The ECO expects MNR to develop strategy specifics through public, Aboriginal and stakeholder consultations.
The effectiveness of a harvest control system depends on a reasonably accurate assessment of how many moose are killed each year. Not surprisingly, repeated studies have recommended mandatory reporting of moose kills so that moose managers can accurately assess annual harvest and quickly adjust harvest quotas. Despite these recommendations and the directive in the 1980 Moose Management Policy to phase in a mandatory registration and reporting system, currently only hunters in five WMUs and hunting guides and operators in the tourist industry are required to report their moose kills to MNR. To ensure that moose managers have sufficient data on harvest-related mortalities, MNR should require all moose hunters to report their harvest annually.
MNR should be commended for the extensive public consultation it has conducted for the Moose Program Review. In addition to meeting with almost 600 participants at over 20 public meetings focused on Phase 1 of the review, MNR met with over 4,000 moose hunters at more than 25 public consultations as part of Phase 2. The ECO looks forward to MNR’s continued use of the Environmental Registry and public consultation when implementing strategies that come out of the moose management policy and its supporting guidelines.
Elk Management
Ontario’s native elk populations were extirpated from the province in the late 1800s because of overharvesting and habitat change associated with human settlement. As a result of restoration efforts taken by MNR, partners and volunteers in the late 1990s, approximately 600 elk now inhabit several areas across Ontario. While some populations have shown declines since this reintroduction, others have shown steady growth. The ECO applauds MNR for its progress in restoring this extirpated species to Ontario.
In November 2009, MNR released a draft Elk Management Plan, which proposes to lead Ontario’s elk management from a population restoration program to a “sustainable management” program within the context of the Cervid Ecological Framework. This includes considering the implementation of an elk harvest to “achieve ecological and socio-economic elk management objectives.”
Some farmers have complained that MNR needs to be more aggressive in deterring elk from damaging their crops, fences and property. The majority of commenters on the Cervid Ecological Framework were concerned that the guidance for several Cervid Ecological Zones did not include managing conflicts between humans and elk. In response to this concern, MNR revised the framework to include guidance to “manage human-elk conflicts where necessary” in all zones containing elk. Moreover, one strategy of the draft Elk Management Plan is to “encourage preventative measures to reduce conflicts between elk and the agricultural community.”
White-tailed Deer Management
While MNR has a conservation plan for caribou, a management policy for moose and a draft management plan for elk, no management plan exists for Ontario’s white-tailed deer. Instead deer management in Ontario is applied almost exclusively through hunting regulations and the manipulation of harvest levels. The management of deer habitat is considered through forest management processes.
Since 1980, when MNR started controlling the harvest of adult female white-tailed deer, deer populations in most of southern Ontario have increased substantially. Ontario’s current deer population is estimated to be approximately 450,000 animals. An increase in deer abundance has the potential to increase wildlife-vehicle collisions, damage to agricultural lands, and the spread of transmittable diseases. In response, MNR has created additional and longer deer hunting seasons and allowed individual hunters to take several deer. Furthermore, in recent years MNR has established an annual deer cull in several provincial parks, a measure the ECO noted in our 2007/2008 Annual Report may be related to the virtual absence of deer predators, such as eastern wolves and cougars, in southern Ontario. The policy void regarding white-tailed deer management is particularly illustrated by the lack of a system-wide approach to culling deer in protected areas.
ECO Comment
From the restoration of the extirpated elk to the population control of overabundant white-tailed deer, the management of each Ontario cervid species involves unique challenges. Current population sizes and ranges of cervids have changed substantially since pre-colonization times. This radical change to Ontario’s ecology is the result of habitat loss, overharvesting and even population management. Historically, the intent of managing cervid species was to maximize harvesting and hunting opportunities. Each cervid was managed in isolation, with little regard for other wildlife, including other cervids, that may affect habitat and food availability.
The ECO applauds MNR for developing the Cervid Ecological Framework to consider cervid management on a landscape scale. The ECO believes the framework is a step in the right direction towards integrative and adaptive management. The success of the framework, however, will depend on how its broad guidance is included in species-specific policies and is implemented on the ground.
Unfortunately, while policies and plans, like Ontario’s Caribou Conservation Plan, are often littered with ecological buzzwords and foundational concepts, such as the precautionary principle and adaptive management, they provide little clarity as to how these concepts will actually be put into action. MNR must do more than pay lip service to the important conservation approaches necessary to effectively manage each cervid species. This will require a departure from the status quo and require an unwavering commitment to long-term monitoring and program implementation. Without monitoring, failure cannot be detected.
The ECO is pleased that MNR recognizes the intrinsic value of Ontario’s cervids and their ecological importance as part of Ontario’s native biodiversity. While these species have social, cultural and economic value to the people of Ontario, MNR’s priority must be to ensure ecological integrity, which includes healthy cervid populations that fulfill their natural role within the ecosystem. It is commendable that MNR’s guidelines for setting moose population objectives prioritize ecological considerations over socio-economic ones.
The ECO notes, however, that MNR’s prioritization of ecological integrity must extend to cases where cervid management conflicts with resource extraction and industrial activities. The ECO is concerned with MNR’s decision to use the forest management planning process as its primary mechanism for addressing cervid habitat management on Crown lands within the Area of the Undertaking. While species habitat management is an important consideration of forest management, it is clearly not its primary purpose. Not surprisingly, research by MNR staff suggests that Ontario’s current forest harvesting practices, which are based on coarse-level forest resource inventories, do not fulfill the intended goals for the provision of wildlife habitat.
| Recommendation 4:
The ECO recommends that the Ministry of Natural Resources ensure that caribou habitat be a prime consideration in how and where it plans to protect 50 per cent of lands in the Far North. |
| Previous section: Much Ado About Wood Turtles |
| Next section: Managing Black Bears: Thinking Beyond Harvest? |
| This is an article from the 2009/10 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2010. "Mixed Results: Wildlife Management of Caribou, Moose, Elk and Deer." Redefining Conservation, ECO Annual Report, 2009/10. Toronto, ON : Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 57-64.
