 |
| U.S. Dept. of Transportation photo via Wikimedia |
The Castle Special Place and other parts of southern Alberta are “crucial” to the survival of threatened American wolverine populations, according to new research.
Over the winter of 2013/14, Canadian biologists looked for wolverines in southwest Alberta, from Highway 3 in the Crowsnest Pass south to Waterton Lakes National Park and the Canada-U.S. border. Researchers used non-invasive methods such as camera and hair traps to obtain information that will lead to understanding wolverine movements, population numbers, habitat selection, and genetic diversity.
Preliminary findings suggest that wolverine numbers on public lands in southwest Alberta, including the Castle River watershed, are substantially lower than those in the protected national park complexes to north (Banff, Kootenay, and Yoho) and south (Waterton Lakes and Glacier).
“The implication of these preliminary findings is that the Castle and surrounding lands are important for linking populations to the north and south and for maintaining the health of wolverines in the larger landscape, including the U.S.,” says Karsten Heuer, President of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y). “It’s another reason why the entire Castle should be fully protected as a Wildland Park.”
Only 250-300 wolverines remain in the continental U.S. In August 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will decide whether or not to grant wolverines Endangered Species protection. Alberta’s wolverines are listed as a species of Special Concern under the federal Species at Risk Act.
Canmore-based Dr. Tony Clevenger, a biologist at Montana State University’s Western Transportation Institute, who oversees the three-year research program, said wolverines were detected at only three of the 20 study sites in or near the Castle/Waterton area. “The Castle Special Place and Waterton appear to be important landscapes for transboundary and regional-scale wolverine conservation,” says Clevenger.
“We risk losing wolverines in Alberta if we fail to protect wildlife corridors across public lands in the Castle and elsewhere in the South Saskatchewan region,” says Heuer. “In turn, that will have grave consequences for threatened wolverine populations in the U.S.”
Among other recommendations for the final South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP), due to be released in the next month, Y2Y is calling for:
- full protection for the Castle Special Place as a Wildland Park and
- a Wildlife Corridor land-use designation to allow wide-ranging species like wolverines to move freely from one protected area to another.
“We have a golden opportunity to help restore at-risk wolverine populations in both western Canada and the U.S., by making sure that the final SSRP protects key wolverine habitat in the Castle and elsewhere in southwest Alberta,” says Heuer.
On 1 hand they say they used camera's and hair traps to obtain information that will lead to understanding of wolverine movements, population numbers, habitat selection, and genetic diversity.Then they say wolverines were only found in 3 of 20 study sites. Well if you are using camera's and traps to obtain info and understanding of wolverine movements and habitats. You don't even know you put the camera's and traps in the right places to start with. Because you DON'T have that info yet, that is what you are trying to find out. You are just guessing. But that is what tree huggers like the y2y do. Guess and imply things to support their opinions. Don't use facts. They get in the way. If I go fishing in 20 different spots and only catch 3 fish. It doesn't mean there are not lots of fish around it just means. I was only fishing in the right spot 3 times. 20 places is not enough study points to even be called a study. Try 50 or 100 more and see if the results are the same. Then you can report on something more then guess work.
ReplyDeleteWow - there's some fancy-dancey logic of convenience. Here's how to extrapolate Anonymous 5/6/14's argument for doing nothing towards mitigation for ecological concerns. 1) - trash any proffered data that indicates concern. 2) - claim that data is insufficient anyway and 'further studies' are required. 3) - vilify any and all who would seek to express concern. 4) - maintain maximum 'traditional' usage and exploitation of the resource area in question (aka - anything, anytime, anywhere). 5) - claim inferred voodoo knowledge of phantom populations. 6) - regard any and all attempts to manifest moderation in the management of wild lands as the fanciful ravings of tree-huggers and radicals.
DeleteThis is exactly the form of logic that informs the legislative initiatives we have seen emanating from Ottawa for the last several years, particularly in association with climate change issues, the muzzling of science, Northern Gateway, stewardship of waterways, species at risk, and accelerating Oilsands exploitation. This gentleman's ancestor must have been one of the guys who saw three buffalo down in a coulee and quipped - "No reason to suppose there aren't a million more of 'em out there." - and shot one, thus ensuring the imminent extirpation of the Southern Prairie herd.
The whole point of trying to grapple with ever-more massive human population pressures is to give the natural world the benefit of the doubt whenever alarm bells go off - which is pretty much daily. Shooting the messenger, as is the tactic of the above-mentioned commenter, is a mug's game - insulting to the intelligence and blind to the bigger world in which we all live and hope to prosper.
Well said Phil, and to ANONYMOUS, if the "tree huggers" aren't looking out, who will protect those 3 fish you caught
DeleteAnonymous 5/6/14 wasn't trying to shoot the messenger. He said there needed to be more studys. 1 small study proves nothing. I agree. Do more and see it the facts remain the same. But some people only need 1 small preliminary study to have all the answers they need to justify their beliefs. Just because someone says something doesn't make it true Mr. Burpee. The evidence and facts make it true. And there are not enough of either to even start to make a conclusion. But Mr. Burpee already has by the sounds of it.
ReplyDeleteA fair point but a misplaced one. The initial commenter gave himself away with this - "But that is what tree huggers like the y2y do." Well, I know a reactionary outburst when I see one. I mean honestly - Y2Y is one of the most well-regarded and thoughtful initiatives of the last ten years - well researched and modest in its goals. Sloughing it off as 'tree hugger' propaganda does a disservice. If anybody wishes to express concern as to the appropriate collection of data pertaining to environmental issues, then perhaps better to refrain from cheap shots and basically motor-head type name-calling. Corridors for the passage of various wild animals, the essence of the Y2Y program, are broadly recognized to be of the utmost importance. Let us be thankful that somebody is making the effort to think outside the otherwise well-worn box.
DeleteAnd of course there need to be more studies - and more and more and more...............but hedging bets against future calamity requires some timely fish-or-cut-bait thinking - otherwise it's studies up the ying-yang until there's nothing much left alive to study.