Buffer Zones working report

1

Wolves have already been wiped out of some Canadian

National Parks… are the Central Rockies NEXT?

Prepared by Sadie Parr

250-344-7998 [email protected]

2

3

Contents The Role of the Wolf Pack in an Ecosystem .................................................................................................................. 6

Request for Buffer Zones .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Current Situation ........................................................................................................................................................ 12

Hunting Near National Park Boundaries ................................................................................................................. 19

Algonquin Provincial Park as an Example of Buffer Zones Success ............................................................................. 21

Historical and Current Wolf Ranges in the Central Rockies ........................................................................................ 24

Territory Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Historical Arguments and Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 27

Former Research ..................................................................................................................................................... 27

Bow Valley Study ................................................................................................................................................... 27

Central Rockies Wolf Project .................................................................................................................................. 29

Wolf mortalities from Central Rockies Wolf Study ............................................................................................ 29

Wolves in the Central Rockies and Transportation Routes ................................................................................. 30

Brief History of Wolves in the Central Rockies .......................................................................................................... 31

Policy Context : Parks Canada, UNESCO ..................................................................................................................... 32

Other Considerations .................................................................................................................................................. 41

Importance of Grey Wolves to Canada ....................................................................................................................... 44

Petition ....................................................................................................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX I : Petition Submitted in 2005 from Northern Lights Wildlife Wolf Centre Requesting Buffer Zones Around

Mountain National Parks ............................................................................................................................................ 47

APPENDIX II Statements Supporting Buffer Zones around Mountain National Parks ................................................. 49

APPENDIX III –Selected Public Comments from On-line Petition ................................................................................ 52

Table of Figures,

Figure 1 Yellowstone National Park with and without wolves ...................................................................................... 7

Figure 2 Canadian Mountain National Parks Boundaries and Wolf Pack Territories .................................................. 25

Figure 3 Wolf Pack Territories within and around the Mountain National Parks........................................................ 25

Figure 5 Wolves on Highway 1A, Bow Valley .............................................................................................................. 13

Figure 4 June 2012, young male 7 km west of Yoho ................................................................................................... 13

Figure 6 Beaverfoot Large Game Hunting Outfitters Adjacent to Yoho and Kootenay National parks ....................... 14

Figure 7 The location of grizzly bear hunter kills in the Kootenay Region 1990-2005 ................................................ 14

Figure 8 BC Trap Lines Surrounding Mountain National Parks.................................................................................... 19

Figure 9 BC Guide Outfits adjacent to Mountain National Parks ................................................................................ 20

Figure 10 Buffer Zones Surrounding Algonquin Provincial Park .................................................................................. 22

4

Acknowledgements:

This report is dedicated to future wild wolf families in and around the Central Rocky Mountains of Canada, and

wolves across the country. It would not have been possible without the amazing foundation for wolf preservation

set forth by individuals as well as the generous guidance, patience, and support of many individuals. A special

thanks goes out to those who have corresponded with me over the years; patiently answering my questions and

redirecting my search towards other important ones.

Paul Paquet, Chris Darimont, Ian McAllister and Pacific Wild, Anne Sherrod and Craig Petit, Valhalla Wilderness

Society, CPAWS Ottawa Valley Chapter, Earthroots Foundation, Amber Ellis, Animal Alliance of Canada, Fur Bearers

Defenders, Linda Rutledge, Caroline Callaghan, Brent Patterson, Peter Dettling, Jim Pissot, the Northern Lights

Wildlife Wolf Centre, Shelley and Casey Black, Algonquin Provincial Park, Reg Hawryluk and Yoho National Park,

John and Mary Theberge for their early Algonquin Research, the Spotted Dog Recue Ranch, Chad McPeak and the

entire Parr family.

5

Introduction:

Canada provides one of the greatest opportunities worldwide to ensure that wolves continue to thrive as

part of a functioning predator-prey ecosystem. Large carnivores are declining across Canada and the globe.

Presently, even the largest North American parks are inadequate in size to fully protect wolves (1,4,7,8).

Even though large carnivores such as wolves are protected within national parks, these predators are

threatened by stresses such as human use and development inside parks, as well as hunting, land development, and other pressures that occur outside park boundaries. From Ontario eastward, wolves are

gone from all national parks except Pukaskwa and La Mauricie. In the west, wolves have disappeared from

Elk Island and Grasslands national parks. In several national parks, wolf populations are low and have a

low probability of persistence. (16)

Wolf ecologists Paul Paquet and Lu Carbyn, who have been studying Canadian wolves both inside and

outside of protected areas for several decades assert that the ‘effectiveness of existing reserves that are too

small, or have unsuitable configurations, could be improved by the creation of buffer zones’.(8)

6

The Role of the Wolf Pack in an Ecosystem

“History has shown that if efforts are not made to conserve large carnivores, they are

doomed.” – World Wildlife Fund

In the past, decision-makers have neglected to recognize the difference between existence of a species

versus long-term persistence of ecological systems upon which the species depends (7). Although wolves

may remain as a species in many parts of Canada due to their resilient nature, most ecologists would view

this as an impoverished ecosystem which is not sustainable over the long term (7).

To avoid the extinction vortex often faced by small isolated populations of a species, habitats and regions

must be interconnected to allow for genetic exchange and dispersal over long-distances. For wolves,

whose territory requirements can be up to 3,000 square kilometers for a single pack in the Central Rocky

mountains, there is no exception (7, 8). Rather, by protecting the habitat requirements of wide-ranging

species such as wolves, ecological integrity can be maintained throughout the functioning ecosystem.

Biologists researching wolves on behalf of Parks Canada have recognized C. lupus as a keystone species,

capable of causing a trophic cascade when populations dip below a critical threshold, (Hurd, et al. 2002).

As wolves’ numbers decline, elk density increases and adversely affects the growth of aspen and willow,

with reduced plant biomass resulting in a reduction of active beaver lodges, negatively affecting songbird

abundance and diversity, (Hebblewhite, et al. 2002). As the number of grey wolves declines in the Central

Rockies, a cascade effect is observed in which small mammals, fish, insects, birds, amphibians, ungulates,

tree species and vegetation all suffer, (Banff National Park of Canada, 2004).

The combined role of indicator, umbrella, and keystone species for the wolf pack as a unit merits added

protection for this species, as ecological studies have shown that loss of a keystone species is more apt to

cause a series of linked extinction events, resulting in a degraded ecosystem where biological diversity

suffers. (7,10). Figure 1 demonstrates an ecosystem with biological diversity severely depleted in

Yellowstone National Park following the extirpation of wolves in the 1920’s, and thriving again after

wolves were reintroduced into the area in 1995 and 1996.

7

Figure 1 Yellowstone National Park with and without wolves

Canada is an important stronghold for wolves, Canis Lupus, as the species has been decimated or

completely extirpated from many areas of its former range (8). Merely having wolves present is one thing,

but preserving the species as part of a functioning ecosystem is a more challenging yet sound management

decision.

8

Figure 2 Yellowstone to Yukon Corridor; a critical piece for landscape connectivity lies in the Central Rocky Mountains.

The Yellowstone to Yukon Initiative, which has been adopted globally to meet ecological goals for

preserving biodiversity, was largely established due to the travel of one wolf named Pluie. After Pluie was

radio-collared, she travelled a distance equivalent to 15 Yellowstone National Parks, which has since been

determined to be normal. Pluie traversed 2 countries, 2 states and 2 provinces, before being shot just

beyond the boundaries of Kootenay National Park with her mate and a pup.

9

Request for Buffer Zones

Grey wolves (Canis lupus) used to roam the northern hemisphere, but they have declined significantly

throughout their former range due to habitat and human exploitation. Many countries are currently trying

to reintroduce wolves with limited success to restore ecological balance and return this awesome predator.

In Canada, wolves are not protected outside of National Parks. In the past few decades, human use has

intensified both within parks and surrounding these protected areas. Pressures from industrial, commercial,

and recreational activities are compromising the ecological integrity of these ‘wilderness areas’, (CPAWS,

2007).

As a keystone species, (Hurd, et al. 2002), wolves maintain balance and diversity within our natural

environment. If we wait to take action, it may be too late to save this ecologically important species, and

we will continue to lose biodiversity. Currently, most protected areas are too small and too isolated to

ensure adequate protection of biodiversity and ecological integrity, (CPAWS, 2007).

Source populations of wolves residing in Banff National Park (BNP) have historically come from

OUTSIDE the park, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues, 2002). Furthermore,

biologists researching wolves in BNP recognize that the mostly alpine and subalpine habitats within the

park provide less than optimal conditions for wolves to establish territories, (Regional Perspectives on

Ecosystem Indicators and Issues, 2002). Wolves that are able to stay within BNP have greater survival

rates than wolves outside the boundaries, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues,

2002). Jim Pissot, executive director of Defenders of Wildlife tells us that most packs that summer in

protected areas winter at lower elevations in non-protected areas where the elk are, (Alberta Wildlife

Enhancement Society, 2003). As of 2004, at least 2 of every 10 adult wolves were dying in BNP each year,

which is a rate considered to be sustainable, but definitely high for a protected area, (Parks Canada, 2004).

The park has stated “to have wolves inside the park, we need healthy wolf populations and accessible

habitat outside the park”, (Parks Canada, 2004). This will not be possible in the future unless we take steps

now.

Kootenay and Yoho National Parks (KNP and YNP) both share low ungulate densities as well, causing

wolves to require enormous territories to find an adequate prey base, (Kootenay National Park of Canada,

2008), and (Parks Canada, 2006).

The wolf pack in Kootenay requires a territory of almost 3, ooo km2, as only ¼ of the valley bottom is

suitable for prey, (Kootenay National Park of Canada, 2008). Wolves collared in KNP travel as far as 250

km outside of Park boundaries, (Kootenay National Park of Canada, 2008). The last pack residing in Yoho

covered an area of about 1,000 km2, (Parks Canada, 2006). As of 2000, Yoho National Park recognized

that it “did not contain sufficient habitat and prey animals to wholly support a wolf pack”, and stated that

Yoho wolves would “always be dependent on adjacent provincial lands”, (Parks Canada, 2006). YNP has

identified that in order for wolves to be present in the area, the park must work with private landowners,

local citizens and recreationists, (Parks Canada, 2006), quintessentially, this will require the formation of

buffer zones.

10

In 2002 the Central Rockies Wolf Project indicated that out of 12 packs, 9 needed protection beyond the

National Parks if ecological integrity were to be maintained without wolves being introduced from other

regions, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues, 2002). Researcher Carolyn Callahan

of the Central Rockies Wolf Project tells us that “very few wolves that occupy [the Bow Valley region in

BNP] are actually fully protected by national parks”, (Ellis, 2002).

A year-round ban on hunting and trapping in the areas surrounding these National Parks will likely reduce

the annual mortality rate of wolves and assist in achieving stable populations. For example, over a period

of 4 years (winter 1999 – spring 2004), 13 adult wolves died within the boundaries of BNP, which greatly

exceeds a sustainable rate of loss, (Banff National Park of Canada, 2004).

Banff National Park has already asked the province of Alberta to limit access to motorized vehicles

surrounding the Park, requesting a buffer zone be placed around the boundaries in this regard, (Syme,

2003). BNP has also recognized that wolf numbers reflect the level of human-caused mortality, (Parks

Canada, 2004).

Although wolves require and adequate prey base, the defining factor in wolf persistence is protection from

humans, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues, 2002). Human use and access can be

directly linked to wolf mortality rates and locations, (Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and

Issues, 2002). Where prey abundance is low, human use becomes even more significant to adversely affect

wolves.

In 2002 Banff National Park’s wildlife biologist Tom Hurd affirmed that in areas with low ungulate

populations, such as Yoho and Kootenay, emphasis needs to be placed on reducing human-caused

mortality of wolves, and developing co-ordinated inter-jurisdictional objectives, (Hurd, et al. 2002).

Indeed, biologists have recommended that human-caused mortality of wolves must be minimized to

manage the decline of wolves in the area, and it has even been suggested that population restoration may be

required, (Dalman, et al. 2002). We can prevent this.

World Wildlife Fund tells us ‘history has shown that, if deliberate efforts are not made to conserve large

carnivores, they are doomed’, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991). In the past 100 years, the interactions between

humans and parts of the ecosystem have changes significantly, resulting in cumulative effects detrimental

to wildlife. On crown land surrounding the parks, there has been an increase of land use for seismic lines,

oil and gas and timber, (Alberta Wildlife Enhancement Society, 2003).

Canada still has one of the healthiest wolf populations in the world. On a global basis, this provides us

with a unique and imperative conservation opportunity as well as responsibility. As WWF puts it,

“Canada has a chance to do something no other country has done: deliberately to conserve healthy wild

populations of different types of wolves on one of the last landscapes still capable of supporting such a

conservation goal”, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991). We need a national strategy in order to maintain this

situation.

11

Wolves’ numbers have not declined so far as to be lost...yet. But their numbers will not remain abundant

unless we RESOLVE that they will. We can learn from the majority of the world that has lost this species,

and not make the same mistakes.

“…species that are secure for now must become a priority because we still have a chance to do things

differently with them, and thereby maintain some of the last wild, viable populations of these magnificent

animals to be found anywhere in the world”, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991).

Ask yourselves as Canadians; “What has the rest of the world taught us about the fate of wolves? Are we

taking steps to ensure the same thing does not happen to our top predators?” If not, wolves will soon

become endangered as we continue to contribute to the causal factors of their decline.

Science has shown us that these designated wilderness areas are not big enough to maintain a

healthy population of wolves, and are too small to effectively conserve biodiversity. We wish to prevent a

trophic cascade within our Parks by increasing the protected areas of keystone species such as wolves.

The Rocky Mountain Corridor is essential in maintaining a healthy gene flow among wolves

between Canada and the United States, and a stretch of connected wilderness across North America.

By expanding protected areas for wolves, the ecological integrity of these National Parks will be

maintained. Top predators, such as wolves, are vital in maintaining the balance of a healthy ecosystem.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Manifesto on

Wolf Conservation recognizes the effects economic development has had on the environment, and states

that the importance and status of wolves should be taken into account by legislation and in planning for the

future of any region, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991). They also advocate excluding economic development

that is detrimental to the wolf and its habitat; the prohibition of hunting, poisons, bounty systems and use of

mechanized vehicles; and legislation requiring the registration of each wolf killed (Hummel & Pettigrew,

1991). We need to pass legislation to perpetuate existing populations where they occur, as recommended

by the IUCN’s guidelines on wolf conservation, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991). We have a worldwide task

of preserving biological diversity, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991).

Historically, the Canadian government has often favoured protecting the interests of industries over the

needs of wildlife. One view is that hunting and trapping, as well as industrial practices and resource

extraction are needed for the Canadian economy. Wilderness tourism can mean long-term financial benefits

for our country. For example, the wolves reintroduced to the Greater Yellowstone area benefits the U.S.

Northern Rockies’ economy to the tune of $35-million tourist dollars annually, (Defenders of Wildlife,

2006). By improving our conservation efforts, we can improve our environmental image and protect the

long-term health of our wilderness, which can attract millions of tourism dollars.

A broad legislative tool protecting buffer zones would enable us to properly manage the land use of

areas adjacent to protected land. Incompatible land use has been ranked as the most serious threat to parks

and protected areas by most Park jurisdictions across Canada, (Environment Canada, 2006).

12

Current Situation

Three wolves were killed on the Trans Canada Highway within Banff National Park in June 2012. Another

wolf was destroyed just east of Banff in Kananaskis Country after becoming human habituated to food

handouts during the summer of 2012 , the first in history for the area.

The following statement is from the Parks Canada web page (www.pc.gc.ca) under Ecosystem Stressors;

“Stresses from outside also cause problems, ranging from regional to global in nature. An example

of a regional stress is change in the landscape adjacent to national parks, from factors such as urban

development, logging, mining, agriculture and transportation.” (16)

Other stressors listed on this website include: habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, over-use, air pollution,

pesticides, and alien species. Unfortunately, this list of stressors affecting national parks is not complete; a

number of other activities are also threatening the natural state of parks’ ecosystems. (16)

SIMPLY PUT, the current size of the Mountain National Parks has been proven inadequate for long-term

sustainability of viable wolf populations in their natural family units (1, 4, 7), The most simple way to

remedy the situation is by enlarging areas of protection for wolves and other large carnivores, by removing

hunting and trapping pressures from adjacent land areas and to facilitate co-existence through outreach and

cooperation with adjacent land owners and land users.

Wolf biologists agree that the fate of the species ultimately depends upon the degree to which humans can

coexist with them (8). In National Parks that have exceptions such as ski hills, towns and major human

transportation corridors, there must be exceptional protection measures for wildlife that spills beyond the

park boundaries. These animals are often displaced and pushed outside of the reserves by human

pressures.

The Bow Valley Study (1) recommendations for Regional Management necessitated that Parks Canada,

Alberta and British Columbia should work together on initiatives to:

.1. manage garbage

. 2 prepare a wildlife response plan

. 3 manage hunting

. 4 reduce landscape fragmentation

. 5 coordinate fire management

Currently, some of these objectives are being met through provincial programs such as Wildsmart (Alberta)

and Bear Aware (BC). However, it should be noted that it will take a considerable amount of time for

necessary changes to happen (ie. changes in municipal waste management and bylaws, identifying wildlife

corridors beyond National Park boundaries for better land-use planning, etc) Fire management is being

administered across all jurisdictions. Hunting is not being managed beyond National Park boundaries (See

Appendix 1). This needs to change.

The Bow Valley Study recommended that one Principal for Human Use Management be: “All management

decisions about human use must be based on the principles of precaution. When there are no data to guide

13

managers in making decisions, the principles of precaution and the maintenance of ecological integrity

take precedence over social, economic or political choices. Uncertainty about the impact of a decision

necessitates a conservative approach.” Using wolves and grizzly bears as case examples, this principal is

not being followed. Beyond artificial boundaries these species are often shot or trapped due to their wide

ranging territories. It is essential that landowners adjacent to the parks be included in a matrix area that

does not allow the harvest of such species, and that proper education is invested towards understanding

ecological integrity and promoting coexistence. This is critical for people who ranch, have hobby farms,

beekeepers, etc.

Figure 4 Wolves on Highway 1A, Bow Valley

Furthermore, due to lax provincial regulations, poisoning, chasing, baiting, reactionary shooting by private

landowners, bounty programs and government control programs should also be forbidden due to the

limitations of the Parks to provide sufficient resources to these animals.

However, the Bow Valley Wolf Study, Central Rockies Wolf Project, Carnivore Conservation Project, and

many world-renowned ecologists agree that the Mountain National Parks require a greater protected area

for long-term survival of grey wolves in the long term. Presently, this concern has not been addressed,

although it merits global significance.

Banff National Park received its 2nd

biggest Parks grant in history in 2011 to revitalize Sulphur Hot Springs

Figure 3 June 2012, young male 7 km west of Yoho

14

Figure 5 Beaverfoot Large Game Hunting Outfitters Adjacent to Yoho and Kootenay National parks

Beaverfoot Outfitting is a hunting guide outfit that is located adjacent to

Yoho and Kootenay National Parks. It advertises grizzly bear hunts in

the spring (see figure). Regarding wolves the Beaverfoot Outfitting

website (www.beaverfootoutfitting.com) states:

“While we don't offer hunts for wolf alone, everyone will get a wolf

tag at no charge in case we get close to one while hunting another animal.”

Figure 6 The location of grizzly bear hunter kills in the Kootenay Region 1990-2005

Taken from Garth Mowats’ “Large Carnivore Population Review For the Kootenay Region, Sept. 25 2007. Garth Mowat is a Senior Wildlife Biologist for the BC Ministry of Environment, Kootenay Region.

The image above, (figure 7), taken from a Senior Wildlife Biologists report in 2007 on Large Carnivore

populations in the Kootenay Region demonstrates that parks Grizzly bears are also at risk of being killed

by legal hunting at the edge of the Mountain National Parks boundaries. There are even guided trophy

hunts at some of these locations, see figure 6.

15

Table 1 Regulations of Provincial Parks Surrounding Mountain National Parks

Provincial Parks Buffering MNP

Park Hunting Y/N and season Motorized Vehicles Y/N Resource Extraction

Present/Future

Bow Valley Wildland(Provincial Park ?)AB

Don Getty Wildland AB

Dry Gulch Provincial Park BC

Elbow Sheep Wildland Provincial Park AB

Elk Lakes Provincial Park BC

Hamber Provincial Park BC

Yes; season Sept. 1 - June 30, no hunting guiding rights,

Charter fly-in service - on a concessionaire contract basis to allow the public to charter aircraft flight to the Park, motor boats will be restricted to 10 horsepower or less

No, but conflicts with mineral and forest interests will force compromise on status and boundaries for park expansion is located at the high point of MacGregor Pass and road access to the quarry creates a significant management challenge

Height of the Rockies Provincial Park BC

James Chabot Provincial Park BC

Kakwa Provincial Park and Protected Area BC

Yes region 7-18, No region 7-19; season: regular hunting season

Snowmobiling permitted in zoned areas Dec 1st to April 15/30th

Two tenured quartzite deposits, Babette and Wishaw, pre-dated the establishment of Kakwa Recreation Area. Wishaw Quarry is located at the high point of MacGregor Pass and road access to the quarry creates a significant

16

Provincial Parks Buffering MNP

Park Hunting Y/N and season Motorized Vehicles Y/N Resource Extraction

Present/Future

management challenge.

Kakwa Wildland AB

Kananaskis AB Some yes and some no

Mount Assinaboine Provincial Park BC

Mt. Assiniboine is open to hunting. Limited Entry hunting for BC residents; two guide-outfitter operations for non-residents. No hunting in the Core Area. Season: Sept-June, wolves no closed season below 1100m; 2 guide outfits for non-resident hunters

No

Mount Robson Provincial Park (BC)

Yes but limited to Swift Current Creek section; season: regular hunting seasons. Trapping permitted but plan acquire trapline territory in the east end of the park, as it is inconsistent with conservation and recreation goals.

Limited motor boating takes place on Moose Lake and on the east section of Yellowhead Lake, no snomobiling, in 1990's trial on heli hiking and skiing to be assessed, still happening?

Eight parcels of land are owned by Trans Mountain Pipeline Company and CN Railway. Fifteen separate rights of way agreement are in place for Highway 16, CN Railway, Trans Mountain Pipeline, BC Tel and BC Hydro.

Mt. Terry Fox Provincial Park

Peter Lougheed Provincial Park AB

Rearguard Falls Provincial Park BC

Rock Lake-Solomon Creek Wildands AB

Yes

Siffleur Wilderness Area AB

No No

Spray Valley Provincial Park AB

White Goat Wilderness Area AB

No No

Whitehorse Wildland Provincial Park AB

Wilmore Wilderness Area AB

Yes No

17

18

Table 2 Wolf Mortalities Inside Jasper, Banff, Yoho, and Kootenay National Parks by Road and Rail 1999-2009

Year HWY Jasper Banff Roads

HWY Kootenay

HWY Yoho

RAIL Jasper

RAIL Banff

RAIL Yoho

Total for Year

1999 4 0 1 4 3 1 5 18 2000 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 2001 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 2002 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 7 2003 3 1 0 1 2 0 0 7 2004 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 2005 5 1 0 1 3 1 0 11 2006 5 3 0 2 2 0 0 12 2007 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2008 6 3 2 1 0 0 0 12 2009 3 1 2

6

TOTAL 34 10 4 16 13 4 5 93

Total 1999-2008 87

2009 data not complete 6

data as of Oct. 2009 93

© S.Parr / P.Dettling 2009

SOURCE: 1. Transportation Corridor Ungulate and Large Carnivore Mortality Statistics Jasper National Park 1980 to 2008, by Wes

Bradford, Wildlife Conflict Specialist

2. Banff, Yoho and Kootenay National Park Wildlife Mortality Master Database

19

Hunting Near National Park Boundaries Below is the data of wolves killed in BC in management units (MU”s) that border Canada’s National

Parks. Wildlife including wolves are protected from harvest pressures within these parks but wolves may

be hunted in the management unit’s adjacent to these parks. As these MU’s may be large, the data does not

distinguish the exact locality of the wolf mortality. Also see Figures 6 and 7 regarding Beaverfoot Hunting

Outfit and Guide.

Table 3Number of Wolves Killed Through Registered Hunting/Trapping Surrounding Mountain National Parks By Management Unit in BC

MU 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

4-1 0 9 0 1 0

*4-25 0 0 0 0 0

4-28 0 0 0 0 0

4-33 0 0 0 0 0

4-34 0 0 0 0 0

4-35 0 1 0 0 0

4-36 7 1 10 0 11

4-37 0 0 0 0 0

4-38 1 1 0 4 0

*4-40 0 0 0 0 0

*7-1 0 0 0 0 0

7-2 0 1 28 0 30

In 4-34 in 2002 there were 7 wolves killed ALSO NOTE: * = provincial park or protected area 4-25 (in provincial park) b/n 1979 – 2008: 32 wolf kills reported through res. And non-res. Hunters -from Gary, “Who Speaks For Wolf”

Figure 7 BC Trap Lines Surrounding Mountain National Parks

20

Figure 9 BC Guide Outfits adjacent to Mountain National Parks

NOTE: Ya Ha Tinda within Banff also allows hunting

Figure 8 Hunter with dead wolf

21

Algonquin Provincial Park as an Example of

Buffer Zones Success

There is increasing scientific evidence that “maintenance of family groups within species that exhibit kin-

based social structure can have fitness benefits associated with the adaptive evolution of sociality” (5).

This is often overlooked when populations meet a minimum viable threshold. The social structure of

wolves within national parks in the Central Rockies is constantly disrupted due to human harvest pressures

(as well as transportation routes within the parks). Previous and ongoing research in Algonquin Provincial

Park by John Theberge, Linda Rutledge, Brent Patterson and other biologists indicates that even without

significant changes in numbers, disruptions in the social structure of wolf packs may alter the behaviour of

wolves and the ability of wolf packs to adapt as a naturally-functioning population to environmental

changes ( 4,5, 6, 11).

Elevated social pressures on a wolf pack may even lead to inbreeding (4,5, 11), which was believed to have

occurred in the Bow Valley pack Spring 2009 as a result of extreme human pressures leading to a

struggling persistence (Peter Dettling personal communication). It is worth noting that the demise of this

Bow Valley pack went even further and no members remain. Another wolf pack has taken over the former

Bow Valley packs’ territory.

Following the establishment of a wolf and coyote harvest ban around Algonquin provincial park in 2001,

there was a marked increase in familial relationships within packs, although heterozygosity remained high

(5). This finding indicates that inbreeding occurred rarely if ever in a robust protected population. The

restoration and continued protection of family-based social structures for wolf packs should be a priority

for national parks as is demonstrated in Yellowstone National Park ,USA and the Bialowieza Primeval

Forest in Poland (5).

Wolf biologist Linda Rutledge has been researching Algonquin Parks’ Eastern Wolves since a permanent

harvest ban was implemented around the provincial park in 2001. Her findings show that:

“allowing wolves to express their natural social behaviour benefits ecosystems”(5).

The harvest ban, or buffer zones, prevent the harvest of wild canids in every township surrounding the

park. It resulted after decades of research by John and Mary Theberge indicated that the wolf population in

Algonquin relied on unprotected wolves outside of the park to keep the population stable. The exploited

wolves had smaller territories, more dispersers, less cooperative hunting methods, and mixed family

relations compared to post-ban wolves who functioned more as a family unit, shared bloodlines and died

from natural causes (5).

Exploited eastern wolf populations may also be leading to increased breeding between wolves and coyotes,

which is generally avoided when wolf populations are healthy, (5, Paul Paquet personal communication).

The original Bow Valley Study recommendations were rejected at a Parks Canada level but the plan was

revisited in 2006. Parks Canada should take note of the success and ongoing adaptive management of

ecosystems which include wolves through research and monitoring, such as Yellowstone National Park and

Algonquin Provincial Park. Current wolf research indicates that protection of wolf habitat beyond park

22

boundaries is critical, as indicated by Linda Rutledge and her team in 2009: “Legal and illegal killing of

animal near park boundaries can significantly increase the threat of extirpation of populations living

within ecological reserves, especially for wide-ranging large carnivores that regularly travel into

unprotected areas”(5).

Since the harvest ban in townships surrounding Algonquin Provincial Park, (ie. the establishment of buffer

zones), wolf density has remained relatively constant even though human-caused mortality has

significantly decreased (5).

The study done by Rutledge et al. in 2009 is evidence that

“even in a relatively large protected area, human harvesting outside park boundaries can affect

evolutionarily important social patterns within protected areas. This research demonstrates the

need for conservation policy to consider effects of harvesting beyond influences on population size”

(5).

Figure 10 Buffer Zones Surrounding Algonquin Provincial Park

23

Figure 11 from pg. 22 of Eastern Wolf Study by Rutledge et al. "Protection Restores Kinship in Wolf Packs" (4)

Figure 12 Wolf Density Pre and Post Harvest Ban (4)

Figure 13 Maternal and Paternal Hapoltypes in Post-Ban Packs from Rutledge et al. Study

24

Historical and Current Wolf Ranges in the

Central Rockies

In 2002 wolf researcher Caroline Callaghan published her PhD thesis “The Ecology of Grey Wolf (Canis

lupus) Habitat Use, Survival, and Persistence in the Central Rocky Mountains, Canada”. Her work

revealed the severe limitations the Central Rocky Mountain Parks pose upon wolves. Callaghan was also

involved in the Central Rockies Wolf Project.

”If the minimum area required to maintain a protected population exceeds the size of the protected area,

then a provision to expand the protected area is prudent”, argued Landry et al. 2001 (18). In her thesis,

Callaghan reasoned;”Alternatively, inter-jurisdictional human-use management, whereby human-caused

mortality of wolves adjacent to protected reserves is reduced or eliminated, may achieve results similar to

expanding the existing protected areas” (4).

Wolf researcher Caroline Callaghan’s Central Rockies Wolf Study took place between 1987 - 2001 and

covered approximately 18,670 km2 of land, where 42 wolves from 12 different packs were radio-collared

(4). 11,130 km2 of land within the study area was protected, including Banff National Park, Kootenay

National Park, Yoho National Park, Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, Bow Valley Provincial Park, Spray

Lake Provincial Park, and the Canmore Nordic Centre. 77% of wolves collared occupied territories both

inside and outside of protected areas (4).

Data from 4 Parks showed wolf preference for lower elevations and high quality prey habitat; therefore the

amount of wolf habitat available is far less than the total landscape area. Mountainous habitat can impose

limits to the natural resiliency of wolf populations because dispersal is compromised. Dispersal options

are also limited through habitat fragmentation in and surrounding the parks.

Through her research, Callaghan identified that in her study area, “Protected areas within the region are too

small to maintain population persistence without relying on immigrants from outside of protected

reserves”. She goes on to state “a co-ordinated approach to regional wolf management is recommended in

order to ensure wolf population persistence” (4).

25

Figure 14 Canadian Mountain National Parks Boundaries and Wolf Pack Territories

Figure 15 Wolf Pack Territories within and around the Mountain National Parks

26

Territory Requirements

The Central Rockies wolf population is one of the lowest recorded wolf densities in the world (4).

“Rugged terrain limits prey availability, which effects the carrying capacity of wolf populations occupying

such habitats, and consequently reduces the ability of existing protected reserves to support a viable

population of wolves” (4).

The average home range size of wolves in Central Rockies is 1,709 km2! Approximately one quarter of the

valley bottoms are suitable for prey, and thus wolves (4).

Table 4 Home Range Size of 8 wolf packs occupying the Central Rocky Mountains determined

through adaptive kernel 95% isopleths method taken from Caroline Callaghan’s PhD thesis (4).

Wolf Pack Home Range in Square Km’s

Bow 2581

Kootenay 2521

Cascade 1098

Lougheed 2852

Clearwater 801

Panther 1459

Highwood 1172

Yoho 1185

Banff covers an area 6,641 km2, yet only fully protects 1 wolf pack of 6 occupying the

park (4)

“Most (71%) of the radio-collared dispersers in the Central Rockies permanently left the protected

area that their natal pack occupied” (4).

Development has not stopped within the National Parks; highway construction is ongoing, proposals for

commercial development continue (eg. Skywalk in Jasper), and beyond park boundaries urbanization and

resource extraction loom ever nearer. If wildlife responds to human disturbance by avoiding areas, it is the

same effect as habitat loss/degradation (4).

27

Historical Arguments and Recommendations

Former Research Several studies have been done over the past few decades to reflect on the impoverished situation for grey

wolves and other wide ranging species (grizzly bears, wolverines, caribou) in the Mountain National Parks.

Within national parks wolves and other wildlife are faced with ever-increasing human pressures, such as

the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway, wildlife exclusion fencing, crossing structures, construction,

increased transport traffic, etc.

The future of wolves as part of an intact and functioning ecosystem within these parks depends upon

science-based management decisions (8), which have been advocating for buffer zones for decades. The

urgency of a protected matrix area beyond Park boundaries arises as people around the world continue to

watch individual wolves and packs being wiped out by trap lines beyond Parks boundaries, highway and

railway pressures within the parks, and increasing development with proposals for more. While the rate of

loss of wolves within the Mountain Parks may currently be sustainable, National parks must strive to

protect this species at the level of a social unit as well as at an individual level.

Bow Valley Study

More than a decade and a half ago, the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced the Banff-Bow Valley

Study to bring together a Task Force of qualified people with expertise in ecological sciences, tourism,

public policy and management in order to responsibly plan the “management of human use and

development “in a manner that will maintain ecological values and provide sustainable tourism”. (1)

When this was published in 1996, the study team already recognized that “Despite the fact that ecological

integrity is the primary focus of the National Parks Act and Parks Canada’s Policy, we have found that

ecological integrity has been, and continues to be, increasingly compromised. Park management, human

use, development, the highway and the railway have contributed to this situation, despite well-intended

remedial actions. We will present evidence to support this statement and recommend steps to restore

ecological integrity.” Evidence to back this statement was clearly provided by this group and various other

organizations and individuals over the years, including the Central Rockies Wolf Project, Paul Paquet,

Caroline Callaghan, Jim Pissot, Peter Dettling, the Canadian Wolf Coalition, and others. To date, the steps

and recommendations put forth by the Bow Valley study and various other groups and highly acclaimed

biologists and ecologists have been ignored, or abysmal.

The Bow Valley Study was prepared for the federal government in order to figure out how Banff National

Park could continue to be a world class tourist destination without destroying its ecological integrity. The

Study worked under the assumption that “Federal, provincial and municipal authorities cooperate in

protecting and managing the National Park and regional ecosystem. To achieve this, they nurture

cooperation with businesses, organizations, and individuals. Public participation processes contribute to

open, accountable, and responsible decision-making. Principles of precaution are exercised when the

effects on the ecosystem are uncertain.”

28

Personal research into this over the past seven years has proven that this is not the case. While cooperation

with certain businesses and individuals is achieved, it is usually for the purpose of improving tourism

through development rather than working towards lasting ecosystems. Parks is not working with all

trappers surrounding the boundaries to monitor harvest rates. Certain hunting regulations for provincial

parks and crown land surrounding the National Parks exploit animals protected within the National Parks

that require more habitat to meet their needs (eg. Beaverfoot Hunting Outfit adjacent to Yoho, Ya Ha Tinda

within Banff, Cascade wolf pack wiped out in trap line around 2008, Mount Assiniboine, Hamper

Provincial Park, Kakwa Provincial Park, Mount Robson Provincial Park).

Furthermore, during the last Mountain Parks Review and Management Plan in 2009 when I made several

attempts to bring Buffer Zones into the discussion through the internet, I was never successful in having

any of my arguments posted on-line due to technical issues, and when I finally was able to pass the

information on to someone who could relay the input and recommendations I was trying to put forward

regarding the establishment of Buffer Zones around the Mountain National Parks, I was advised that this

was not the time nor place for such considerations. This public participation process was clearly lacking.

The Bow Valley Study, produced for our Federal Government, made it clear that when it comes to

maintaining the ecological integrity of these National Parks “There is no doubt about who has the

responsibility to provide leadership – it is Parks Canada with its mandate under the National Parks Act.

Given the tremendous pressures on Banff National Park, restoring and maintaining ecological integrity

will be a complex and challenging task. Land use planning, managing human use, and environmental

actions will require the commitment and cooperation of visitors, businesses, Parks Canada, and

neighbouring jurisdictions.” (1)

The Bow Valley Study listed as one of its Key Actions (under Regional Management of the Bow Valley)

changes to hunting regulations for adjacent provincial areas which affect large carnivores and other

wildlife species requiring protection. Another key action listed was the creation of an integrated

research program and a shared data base. To date, this recommendation has not been acted upon

sufficiently.

The Bow Valley Study States that “If (growth in visitor numbers and development are) allowed to

continue, it will cause serious and irreversible harm to Banff National Park’s ecological integrity and its

value as a national park. Impairing the ecological integrity and natural beauty of the Park will also

weaken its attraction as a tourist destination, and the associated contribution to the local, regional and

national economies. What does this mean for the Park and for Canadians? It means that, unless we take

immediate action, the qualities that make Banff a national park will be lost. We will have failed in our

commitment to “dedicate national parks ....to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and

enjoyment...to remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” (National Parks Act 1930)(1)

The Bow Valley Study was based on a series of principles and assumptions guided by the National Parks

Act, and Parks Canada’s Guiding Principles and Operational Policies. Included in these guidelines were

the following:

“6. Ecosystem-based management means that issues must be dealt with in a wider context than just Banff

National Park and within a time frame that spans political and ecological time scales, as well as immediate

needs.

29

7. The sciences play a critical, ongoing role in guiding park operations and management.

8. Parks Canada’s regulatory role in enforcing the National Parks Act and Parks Canada’s Policy, on

behalf of all Canadians, cannot diminish. In the execution of this role, the public should be involved to the

greatest degree possible.” (1).

Central Rockies Wolf Project

The following information has been taken directly from Caroline Callaghan’s’ PhD thesis and Central

Rockies Wolf Study:

Wolf mortalities from Central Rockies Wolf Study

Wolf mortalities from the Central Rockies Wolf Study were mostly human-caused. In a truncated data set,

Human-caused deaths = 75% total

67% of these outside reserves

Out of 12 wolf packs that were studied, only 1 pack stays within a completely protected area

10 out of 12 packs occupied protected areas, but 11 packs lost members to humans beyond park

boundaries

even INSIDE protected parks, 5 out of 6 packs who had territories in parks lost members to auto

or train collisions

Researcher Caroline Callaghan stated:

“Conflicts between wolves and humans along reserve edges reduces wolf survival and

contributes to the reliance on immigrants from outside Parks to maintain viable

populations inside them,” (4).

1987-2000 Central Rockies Wolf Mortalities (out of 23 collared wolves)

Table 5 1987 - 2000 Central Rockies Wolf Mortalities

Highway 3

Hunting 11

Trapping 1

Railway 3

Natural 5

Human-caused

accident

1

Unknown 1

TOTALS: Banff = 11; Kananaskis = 4; Kootenay = 5; Yoho=4

In larger Parks such as Jasper and Banff, most wolves are killed by auto and train collisions (4).

Yoho and Kootenay wolves spend “considerable” time outside protection of parks and thus face

30

increased exposure to hunting and trapping pressures. In Kananaskis, Kootenay, and Yoho, most

wolves are killed by shooting (4). (See section on Former Research; Carolyne Callaghan’s Central

Rockies Wolves Study).

Wolves in the Central Rockies and Transportation Routes

In 1996 the Bow Valley Pack travelled to Kootenay in August and 3 out of 4 pups were killed by

traffic, crossing Hwy 1 four times and Hwy 93S twice. (Peter Dettling personal communication).

Wolves are attracted to roads and trails during winter months but pack territories occur in areas with

lower road densities.Roads occur at the same low elevations wolves use, providing easy access to

hunters/trappers (4). In winter decreased habitat availability means that wolves use roads more

(because high elevations have deeper snow).

“Topographical and climatic factors restrict wolf movements to low elevation areas during the

winter, and anthropogenic factors allow wolves to move more efficiently through the landscape as

well as restrict movements through areas of high human activity. The placement of roads in areas

of high winter wolf activity does not deter wolves from using habitat near roads but increases the

probability of wolf mortality from automobile collisions and exposure of wolves to human hunters

in non-protected areas” (4).

Between 1987 and 2000, automobiles killed 53 wolves in the Central Rockies Wolf Project study area (4)

15 = pups

3 = yearlings

35 = adults

During this period the Cascade pack made many failed attempts to use underpasses (4).

Table 6 Wolf Deaths/km in Central Rockies on Roads 1987 - 2000 (4)

Transportation Route No. of Wolf Deaths in 14 years Avg. Ratio of Deaths/10km

TCH 25 deaths 1.3 deaths/10km over 14 years

Hwy 93 S 17 deaths 1.3 deaths/10km over 14 years

Hwy 93 N 5 deaths 0.5 deaths/10km over 14 years

Hwy 1A 2 deaths 0.25 deaths/10km over 14

years

Hwy 40 1 death 0.07 deaths/10km over 14

years

Logging roads 2 deaths 0.03 deaths/10km over 14

years

31

Brief History of Wolves in the Central Rockies

Wolves have been extirpated or severely depleted twice during the 20th

Century in Canada’s Central

Rockies

1900’s scarce

1914 most eliminated

1930’s natural recolonization occurred

1940’s full re-establishment of population

1952-56 extensive predator control programs in AB and BC (including Mtn. Parks)

eliminated wolves from most of Central Rockies. This was largely due to a rabies scare for

other wild canids.

1970’s-1990’s recolonization began; by mid 1990’s 12 packs established

Fritz & Carbyn (1995:26) caution that:

“protected reserves are the most secure places…to which the (wolf) range could

collapse in future decades or centuries, facilitated by habitat fragmentation…”.

Callaghan reasons,

“ Thus, if wolf range in the Central Rockies collapses to protected reserves in the

future, population viability is unlikely.”

32

Policy Context : Parks Canada, UNESCO

Under the National Parks Act’s Guiding Principles and Operational Policies, ecosystems are accorded the

highest degree of protection to ensure the perpetuation of natural environments essentially unaltered by

human activity(2). The Guiding Principles and Operational Policies recognizes that ecosystems must be

managed in partnership with surrounding land owners and that park management must reflect Canada’s

national identity and its international responsibilities(2).

The Bow Valley Study team also recognized and pointed out that Banff National Park is critical in helping

Canadians fulfill their responsibilities under the 1992 International Biodiversity Convention, signed by

Canada in the company of 100 world leaders, in Rio de Janeiro (1).

“Under the umbrella of the United Nations and UNESCO, the international community negotiated the

World Heritage Convention in 1972 to conserve outstanding natural and cultural areas. In 1983, Canada

applied to have Banff, Jasper, Kootenay, and Yoho national parks designated as a World Heritage Site

under the Convention. The nomination was approved, on condition that adjacent provincial parks be

included.” (1)

“Given our national endowments, which include 20% of the worlds wilderness, 24% of its wetlands, 20%

of its fresh water, 10% of its forests – all for the benefit of 0.5% of the worlds population - it is now time to

demonstrate our trusteeship to the international community. In recent years our stewardship has been

subject to increasing international scrutiny. If we fail to meet international environmental expectations, we

can expect added complications in other areas of foreign policy such as trade (Christie 1995).” (1)

According to the National Parks Guiding Principles and Operational Policies (2) Parks Canada's purpose

is:

“To fulfill national and international responsibilities in mandated areas of heritage recognition and

conservation; and to commemorate, protect and present, both directly and indirectly, places which are

significant examples of Canada's cultural and natural heritage in ways that encourage public

understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this heritage, while ensuring long-term ecological and

commemorative integrity.”

The document goes on to say “Canada must continue to respond positively to increasing international

emphasis on the commemoration , protection, and presentation of places representing the world’s natural

and cultural heritage. The goal of sustainable development must include the goal of maintaining the

integrity of Canada’s natural and cultural heritage”.

Parks Canada’s Mandate summarizes these intentions by stating; “Parks Canada plays a leading role in

federal government activities related to recognizing places representative of Canada’s natural

heritage…and in protecting…these places …”(3). This is clearly not being demonstrated towards wolves

living within the Mountain National Parks nor most other parts of Canada. Wolves are recognized for their

ecological role as a keystone species but Mountain Parks wolves continue to die due to human activities

rather than natural causes.

33

The Guiding Principles and Operational Policies (GPOP) of Parks Canada includes a list of Shared

Responsibilities, stating that:

“Because heritage areas and sites cannot be managed in isolation, cooperative working relationships and

agreements are actively sought with agencies and individuals involved in the management of surrounding

or adjacent landscapes, ecosystems and communities. This helps all parties achieve mutually supportive

environmental, service, social, and cultural objectives for conservation and sustainability. The first priority

in relationships is always to ensure long-term ecological and commemorative integrity of heritage areas.

Therefore, it is important for Parks Canada to monitor and respond to existing or proposed activities

external to heritage areas.”(2)

However, Parks Canada does not know the numbers of wolves trapped at or just beyond Park boundaries,

the number of wolves harvested through hunting on adjacent land each year, nor the number of specific

species killed each year on the trans-Canada Highway, CPR, nor CNN adjacent to parks boundaries.

In 1994, the GPOP stated that “Parks Canada recognizes that while protected heritage areas often play a

major role in local economies, sustainable tourism must be based upon … maintaining and enhancing

ecological and commemorative integrity. Based on these guidelines, Parks Canada will cooperate with

other levels of government and tourism stakeholders to encourage a sustainable heritage tourism

industry.” (2).

This policy must be exercised by working with the surrounding provincial governments and landowners to

establish a complete ban on hunting and/or trapping of wide ranging species such as wolves, grizzly bears,

and wolverines around the Mountain National Parks. Parks Canada already recognizes and implies this

type of cooperation in the name of preserving ecological integrity, as outlined under The Family of

Heritage Places and Programs, “Agreements with provincial and territorial governments, as well as with

allied non-government organizations and Aboriginal peoples, can be significant means of ensuring

recognition, establishment and protection of heritage places”(2).

The first priority for Parks Canada, as well as a Guiding Principle is stated as that “Ensuring

commemorative integrity and protecting ecological integrity are always Parks Canada’s paramount

values….” (2).

The GPOP discusses the first guiding principle, Ecological and Commemorative Integrity, for Parks

Canada as follows:

“Protecting ecological integrity and ensuring commemorative integrity take precedence in acquiring,

managing, and administering heritage places and programs. In every application of policy, this guiding

principle is paramount. The integrity of natural and cultural heritage is maintained by striving to ensure

that management decisions affecting these special places are made on sound cultural resource

management and ecosystem-based management practices.

It is recognized that these places are not islands, but are part of larger ecosystems and cultural

landscapes. Therefore, decision-making must be based on an understanding of surrounding

environments and their management.

34

The various internal and external factors that contribute to the deterioration of heritage places and

ecosystems are carefully analyzed. Protection and presentation are afforded in ways appropriate to the

type, significance and sensitivity of the ecosystems and heritage resources involved.” (2).

The GPOP of Parks Canada states that “Using its influence, Parks Canada makes concerted efforts to

encourage compatible external activities and to discourage incompatible ones within the greater ecosystem

or cultural landscape setting of a heritage area.” (2)

This is not being exercised as part of Parks Canada’s Guiding Principles for Ecological and

Commemorative Integrity when it comes to large carnivore management.

Leadership and Stewardship is the second guiding principle of the GPOP, stating this will be carried out “

by demonstrating and advocating environmental and heritage ethics and practices, and by assisting and

cooperating with others.

A leadership role involves a broader responsibility to the conservation and interpretation community

within Canada as well as other countries. Therefore, training and other forms of cooperative assistance

are needed to share experiences and expertise.

A leadership role may be considered for additional heritage activities or programs where:

internationally acknowledged types of areas or programs are involved (e.g., Natural Monuments or

Landmarks); World UNESCO and heritage site, National Park.

appropriate approaches can be developed with provinces, territories and other potential partners

trappers and hunters, business operators, tourguides

heritage values are of national or international significance. Wolves have been lost from at least

60% of their former range, and there is a global concern for a worldwide loss of large carnivores

and biodiversity, World UNESCO and heritage site, National PARK

Parks Canada has not taken a leadership role in ensuring the ecological integrity nor sustainability of

wolves in the Mountain National Parks. Considering that Canada is one of the last strongholds in the world

to host wolves within a balanced predator-prey system, and that wolves are not protected outside of most

national parks, ensuring the future of wolves in the Central Rockies through the creation of buffer zones is

paramount. This is not only a global responsibility, but also an opportunity unrivaled by most other

countries; to deliberately set aside enough land to preserve large carnivores and naturally functioning

predator-prey ecosystems.

Accountability is listed as the tenth Guiding Principle for Parks Canada (2); “Parks Canada is accountable

for the application of, and adherence to, these principles and for the implementation of the activity

policies. This accountability will be formally reviewed through State of the Parks reporting.”(2).

As part of the GPOP under Part II – Activity Policies: National Parks Policy in the background section,

Parks Canada recognizes that “Throughout the last century, the growth in Canada’s population and the

exploitation of natural resources have decreased the areas available for national park establishment, and

have heightened competition for potential park lands, particularly in southern Canada. Opportunities for

Canadians to experience unspoiled natural areas have become more limited and thus the need for action

is more urgent”. (2) As Parks recognizes that haste is needed for land acquisition and proper management,

the need for urgent action is clearly demonstrated in Banff National Park, where two wolf packs were

35

recently wiped out due to human activities; the Bow Valley Pack and Cascade Pack (personal

communication).

Further along in the Background of GPOP Parks states that “Land-use conflicts and jurisdictional issues

will have to be resolved in cooperation with the provinces, territories, Aboriginal peoples, and all

interested parties including local residents.” Again, Parks is not currently exercising its leadership role nor

commitment to activity policy by allowing the current high rates of wolf exploitation through hunting and

trapping pressures within pack territory but beyond current protection offered by national park boundaries.

This would be expected as the background information on Activity Policy also states that “…Achievement

of this goal (ecological integrity), will require cooperation with individuals and other government agencies

in ecosystem management beyond park boundaries, recognizing that there are legitimate but often

different objectives for surrounding regions. Consequently, maintaining ecological integrity will be a

major consideration in proposing park boundaries…” Scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that the

boundaries of these Parks are inadequate for long-term survival of grey wolves within the parks and

adaptive management measures should be taken in light of this recent information (Central Rockies Wolf

Project, and personal communication with Paul Paquet, Caroline Callaghan).

Parks Canada identifies that as part of the National Parks System “Public support and the cooperation of

other levels of government are essential in establishing new national parks or adjusting the boundaries of

existing national parks. The park establishment process is therefore based upon public consultation and

intergovernmental cooperation”(2) .

This statement is violated when the signatures collected from recognized biologists, ecologists, wildlife

managers, local residents and international visitors indicate public support for the creation of Buffer Zones

surrounding the Mountain National Parks which would prohibit hunting and/or trapping of large

carnivores. The petitions submitted in previous years have been strongly reinforced by several scientific

studies and recommendations (Bow Valley Wolf Study, Central Rockies Wolf Project, Carnivore

Conservation Project).

The policies pertaining to a National Park System include:

“1.1.1.ii) “the area’s ecosystems must be in a healthy, natural state, or, if they are stressed or significantly

modified, the area must have the potential for being restored to a natural state”, and 1.1.3 “Representative

natural areas will be identified regardless of their current protected status or jurisdiction”(2).

Montane ecosystems where wolves play an important role as a keystone species are indeed representative

natural areas but are losing the “healthy, natural state” of things and are extremely stressed, representing

sinkhole populations. Thus, Parks does not currently meet the criteria of its own policies for wolves.

Clearly, the Policy of the National Parks System requires that adequate habitat is available for grey wolves

as identified through scientific research. Adaptive management should follow to ensure long term

ecological integrity and sustainability of wolves within the Mountain National Parks.

In section 1.2 of GPOP, under Selecting Potential National Parks, it should be noted that Parks Canada fails

to meet the many of these criteria for grey wolves within EXISTING national parks in the Central Rockies,

“ii) the potential for supporting viable populations of wildlife species native to the natural region;(2)

iii) the ecological integrity of the area’s ecosystems, as well as those of surrounding lands; (2)

36

vii) competing land and resource uses; (2)

viii) possible threats to the long-term sustainability of the area’s ecosystems. (2)

Implementing Buffer Zones could help to address this; and facilitate meeting these requirements (1,4).

Similarly, in section 1.3of GPOP, Assessing National Park Feasibility, it is unacceptable and false to claim

the following when this criteria is not being adhered to for existing national parks in the Central Rockies;

“ 1.3.3 In proposing the boundaries of a potential national park, Parks Canada will endeavor to

establish a park with a size and configuration that:(2)

i)protects ecosystems and landscape features representative of the natural region; (2)

ii) accommodates the habitat requirements of viable populations of wildlife species that are native to the

natural region; (2)

vi) protects exceptional natural phenomena, and vulnerable, threatened or endangered wildlife and

vegetation. (2)

Without a doubt, grey wolves residing within the Mountain National Parks are not receiving this type of

obligation. Parks Canada is required to ensure greater protection for wolves beyond protected boundaries

based on two more of its activity policies in this category:

“1.3.5 “Parks Canada will consider, in cooperation with agencies having jurisdiction over land resource

uses, ways to prevent the loss of ecological values during the feasibility assessment process” and

“1.3.7 Boundary adjustments intended to improve the representation of the natural themes or the

ecological integrity of an existing national park will be assessed according to the above policies” (2).

In the Federal Minister of Environment’s response to me in 2009, it was stated that Parks Canada did not

have jurisdiction beyond its boundaries onto Provincial Crown Lands. However, under GPOP section 1.4

National Park Agreements, 1.4.2 states:

“Areas which include Provincial Crown Lands will be established as national parks according to an

agreement between the Government of Canada and the provincial government setting out terms and

conditions for the acquisition of all third party interests and the transfer of administration and control of

Provincial Crown Lands to the Crown in Right of Canada”(2).

This indicates that cooperation can and should be maintained across and among inter-jurisdictional

governments in the name of Ecological Integrity. Sections 1.4.6 and 1.4.9 also suggest that Parks Canada

has the ability to establish buffer zones for wolves around Mountain National Parks to maintain ecological

integrity as stated under section 1.4.6:

“Private lands and interests will be acquired by negotiated settlement. Term interests may be allowed to

expire. In exceptional cases, where lands are essential for parks purposes, a settlement may require using

expropriation to establish clear title to some properties”(2)

37

and 1.4.9 “Cooperative arrangements for complementary use and management of lands adjacent to

national parks will be pursued with government and non-government agencies at the local, provincial,

territorial and federal levels in order to maintain ecosystem integrity and to foster sustainable

development”.

Ecological integrity is noted as the priority of the parks several times throughout the Parks Canada Guiding

Principles and Operational Policies. Under section 2.0 Management Planning;

“The 1988 amendments to the National Parks Act state that the maintenance of ecological integrity must

be the first consideration in management planning”.

The current wildlife management practices are not effective at maintaining the first priority if park wolves

continue to die due to human hunting and trapping pressures just beyond park boundaries, especially given

the high rate of human-caused wolf mortality within the parks due to highway and railway mortalities.

In accordance with section 2.1 Management Plans as a National Parks policy, 2.1.7 states:

“Parks Canada will cooperate with other levels of government, private organizations and individuals

responsible for the planning of areas adjacent to national parks to maintain ecological integrity and to

ensure that services and facilities are integrated in a positive manner with surrounding regions” (2).

It is essential to adhere to this policy to protect wolves in the Central Rockies as part of a functioning

ecosystem and to maintain ecological integrity as mandated, especially when the area also merits the

additional attention and designation as a World Heritage Site.

There are several instances of Parks Canada not meeting its own policies when it comes to grey wolves

within the central Rockies. For example, under GPOP section 3.0 Protecting and Managing Park

Ecosystems the policy states:

“Within a National Park effort is directed at maintaining ecosystems in as natural a state as possible” (2).

This is not, and cannot be accurate, unless wolves are protected beyond the boundaries of these given

parks while within their own territory. This section also recognizes the following:

“..combined with increasing and cumulative stress from sources such as adjacent land use…can result in

irreversible degredation of park ecosystems, the loss of biodiversity and impoverishment of gene pools”

(2).

While one can commend Park’s’ mention of ecology and ecosystem requirements, it can be challenged that

not enough is being done to ensure requirements are met for Park’s wolves. This remains the case even

after several renowned biologists and conservation groups have made recommendations for management

decisions that would help to ensure the long-term ecological integrity and biological diversity of wolves

within these naturally occurring ecosystems. Buffer zones would also aid in Parks Canada’s effort to

continue acting as a leader in conservation biology, as deemed important under section 3.0 of GPOP;

“National Parks are becoming increasingly important in national and international efforts to maintain

biodiversity and genetic resources. Consequently, Parks Canada negotiates specific agreements with

provincial and territorial planning and conservation agencies and also supports involvement in the

38

UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program as a means of integrating regional planning around the parks.”

(2)

Even more concisely, Parks Canada has committed under section 3.0 that “When research confirms that

the structure and function of park ecosystems have been seriously altered by human activities, and that

reliance on natural processes alone cannot achieve restoration objectives, intervention may be

warranted”(2).

It has been suggested in the past that augmentation efforts may be needed in the future for wolves in the

Central Rockies unless additional land is protected for them around the parks (1, 4). This can be prevented

through the establishment of buffer zones, and would be a measure of true leadership as well as proactive

management.

Parks Canada is in breach of the following statements when it comes to wolves under section 3.1 of GPOP:

Ecosystem Protection:

“3.1.1 National Park ecosystems will be given the highest degree of protection to ensure the perpetuation

of natural environments essentially unaltered by human activity”(2)

The territory requirements for wolf packs in the Central Rockies extends beyond the boundaries of

protected Park areas and thus a large number of Park’s wolves are dying due to human activities through

hunting and trapping on adjacent provincial land, (see sections on Current Situation and Former Research).

Furthermore, section 3.1.2 of GPOP states:

“Human activities within a national park that threaten the integrity of park ecosystems will not be

permitted. Where ecosystem integrity is threatened by human activities outside the park, Parks Canada

will initiate collaborative action with adjacent land management agencies or owners to try to eliminate or

reduce the threat”(2).

Clearly, if the entire Cascade pack from Banff National Park was lost to trapping just beyond park

boundaries in winter 2009, current collaborative actions with adjacent landowners are not effective and

must be addressed immediately. Pack structure is continuously fragmented due to human pressures (Bloch,

Paquet, Callaghan personal communication), which compromises the ecological integrity of the National

Parks as recent scientific evidence suggests that kin-relationships and unexploited wolf families are

essential in evolutionary success and fitness (5). Furthermore, kin relationships among wolves represent an

important part of a naturally-functioning ecosystem (5), as failing to achieve this policy within the

boundaries of ecological integrity may also affect other trophic levels (5) and long-term persistence of

wolves in this area. The study done by Rutledge et al 2009 clearly indicates that assessment of population

status cannot solely account for factors that contribute to long term fitness or persistence of wolf

populations, because maintenance of social structure with packs is equally important (5, 6).

Parks Canada is also in violation of several policies under section 3.2 of GPOP Ecosystem –Based

Management when it comes to ecosystems including grey wolves in the Mountain National Parks.

Specifically, section 3.2.1 states:

“In keeping with park management plans, Parks Canada will establish measureable goals and

management strategies to ensure the protection of ecosystems in and around national parks”(2),

39

and 3.2.2 “Decision making associated with the protection of park ecosystems will be scientifically based

on internationally accepted principles and concepts of conservation biology”.

In contrast to these policies the recommendations from several national and internationally renowned

biologists have continued to be ignored or rejected when advising for the establishment of Buffer Zones, or

areas where hunting and trapping are banned and resource extraction is limited for wolves and large

carnivores.

Section 3.2.6 of Parks Canada’s GPOP states that:

“ in order to monitor environmental conditions, as presented in the annual State of the Parks Report, Parks

will assemble baseline information and data requirements will regularly extend beyond park

boundaries(2)”.

Section 3.2.7 goes on to commit Parks Canada to work with other government agencies in the “collection,

storage, analysis and interpretation of data”.

Parks Canada does not have this type of data ready and available to be monitored, such as with the number

of Park’s wolves lost to traplines in the past 10 years. Scientific recommendations from researchers

collecting and interpreting this type of information in the past have recommended that buffer zones be

implemented around the national parks for long-term viability and ecological integrity to be maintained for

grey wolves in the Central Rockies (4, 11 ). In light of the Bow Valley Wolf Study and The Convention on

Biological Diversity, buffer zones are simple yet fundamental in realizing Section 3.2.9 of Parks Canada’s

Guiding Principles and Operational Policies:

“Parks Canada will take the lead role in establishing integrated and collaborative management

agreements and programs with adjacent land owners and land management agencies. Parks Canada will

seek mutually satisfactory solutions to trans-boundary concerns associated with the management of shared

ecosystem components, the effects of adjacent land use practices on park ecosystems, or the effects of park

management practices on the use of adjacent lands. Parks Canada will also participate in regional land

use planning and management initiatives sponsored by other jurisdictions to encourage the understanding

and cooperation of other agencies in protecting park ecosystems, and for Parks Canada to better

understand the management concerns of these other agencies”. (2)

GPOP section 3.2.14 states:

“Parks Canada will participate in environmental impact assessments for proposed developments outside

national parks that may affect park ecosystems”. The habitat requirements of wolves, grizzly bears,

wolverines, caribou and other wide-ranging species are not realizing this policy when their territories

extend to expanding communities such as Canmore, the Beaverfoot Valley, and Revelstoke which are

within territorial range of many National Parks “protected” animals. Historically these areas have acted as

sources for wolf and other wildlife populations within the parks through natural dispersal. With such a low

density of wolves in the parks it is essential that these areas are capable of supporting intact wolf families

in the long term, which requires the establishment of buffer zones as recommended through several studies,

including the Bow Valley Wolf Project.

The aforementioned obligations of Parks Canada are currently not being met. This paper is a

recommendation for the design and implementation of a Buffer Zone surrounding the Mountain National

40

Parks. A designated Buffer Zone, or prescribed matrix area banning harvest of large carnivores and species

at risk around these world heritage, UNESCO and National Park sites would be the most scientifically

sound and efficient solution to ensure ecological integrity is sustained into the future on several levels,

including; economical, ecological, and social.

October 29, 2009 I attended the 12th

Annual Banff National Park Management Plan Review, where 11 key

strategies were presented for the new and revised management plan. Number 1 was “Showcases of

conservation innovation”, claiming that Banff strives to be a world leader in conservation initiatives.(9)

The efforts thus far that include restoring wildlife movement corridors and the necessary construction of

wildlife crossing structures for the trans Canada Highway can be applauded, as wildlife movement has

proven essential in maintaining ecosystem processes and genetic connectivity. It is imperative to recognize

that these measures were taken as adaptive management through research. The research on wolves

indicates that they require Buffer Zones for long-term survival. This is another opportunity for Parks

Canada, and our country, to be a leader in collaborative efforts to ensure long-term wolf-survival in the

Central Rockies through the implementation of buffer zones. This area has increased significance for being

a central part of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, a world UNESCO and heritage site, and

Canada’s “crown jewel National Park” (13 ,1 ). In their “Blueprint for Wildlife Conservation”, the

Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative has identified the Rocky Mountain Parks as Lands within the

southern Y2Y landscape most important for carnivore conservation (13).

Number 3 of the eleven key strategies at the 12th

Annual Banff National park Management Plan Review

was “Sharing the excitement of science and stewardship” (9). Science and stewardship adhere to buffer

zones for wolves. Number 7 was “Connecting-Reconnecting” because Parks recognizes that it has

fragmented habitat for species and entire ecosystems through the development of human amenities. While

this incentive should be celebrated, it must be carried out at a broad and wide-ranging level (such as the

Y2Y initiative and Buffer Zones) if it is to hold weight on a long-term scale at the ecosystem level. The

eleventh and final Key strategy was Ecosystem Priorities (9). As a Canadian citizen raised to believe that

wilderness in Parks was protected, it is disheartening to see that this is at the bottom of the list. If in fact

ecosystem priorities are a priority, they should top the list and certainly and unequivicaly be treated as a

priority. The loss of two wolf packs (Cascade and Bow Valley) from a protected national Park within one

year in 2009 (Peter Dettling, Jim Pissot personal communication) is indicative that wolves and their status

as a keystone species are NOT being prioritized, thus compromising any long-term conservation goals for

ecological integrity within the Mountain National Parks.

41

Other Considerations

Land Stewardship, Ethics and Tolerance

Ecologists are promoting the critical evaluation of ethical implications of human activities that degrade the

environment (7). Adaptive management would require that changes are made to ensure the long-term

survival of a naturally functioning ecosystem with wolves in their most natural form in and around the

Mountain National Parks (1, 4). Minimal viable populations are not a commendable achievement for a

national park. In this era of greater understanding about healthy ecosystem and biodiversity requirements

combined with enhanced knowledge about wolf behaviour and biology, Rutledge’s research in Algonquin

Provincial Parks demonstrates that conservation is beyond just numbers (5).

The intrinsic value of individuals at their own level, the level of species, as well as the other species

affected by them in the web of life is becoming more important to prioritize for several biologists

(5,6,7,8,13). Scientists are striving to inform decision makers about the basic requirements of species,

often overlooked in the urgency to meet economical goals. Federal Parks are mandated to heed this type of

advice. Certainly, one would hope that our National Parks are eager to receive and act upon this type of

valuable information. The public trusts that wildlife, wilderness, and sustainable ecological integrity are

the priorities of the Parks, as well as a commitment to ensure that these functioning ecosystems are

maintained for the enjoyment of future generations.

What has the rest of the world taught us about the fate of large carnivores? As a world heritage and

UNESCO site, these National Parks have the opportunity to maintain functioning large predator-prey

systems. The ability to make this choice has been lost in many countries around the world. With respect to

wolves, Canada may be the last with this option. There is a global responsibility here as large carnivores

and biodiversity are declining around the world. As these are lost, so are ecosystem services such as air

and water purification, pollination, temperature moderation, buffering capacities and many more. How can

science calculate a value for the intrinsic worth of other species, or the emotional and spiritual gains

humans experience from coexisting with iconic species and healthy ecosystems? Cultural history, songs,

stories, dances and legends revere wolves.

Without deliberate changes to wolf management across Canada, it is very likely that what we know of

wolves will only remain as postage stamps, currency and team mascots.

Paraphrasing from Chief Dan George, “What we don’t understand we fear. What one fears, one destroys”.

Unfortunately when it comes to wolves and other large predators beyond Parks boundaries, this is often the

case.

Although the general public tolerance for wolves and other large predators began to grow in the 1960’s,

little outreach has ever come from the government level (whether local, provincial, or federal) to increase

the understanding of wolves. Perhaps if more efforts were made towards educating about the true nature of

wolves; their biology, behaviour, and role in the ecosystem, a greater level of tolerance could be achieved.

As it is, in both Alberta and BC a landowner may shoot a wolf on their own property (or within 5 miles) as

42

a perceived threat. Very little effort and funding has gone into educating ranchers and livestock producers

about predator friendly ranching techniques, while most livestock grazing still occurs on Crown Land.

Instead, regions of Alberta (Municipal District of Big Lakes and others) are using Bounties and Poison in

an attempt to reduce conflicts between producers and wolves.

In areas of British Columbia such as Williams Lake, hunting and trapping regulations have been removed

to allow for the killing of wolves year-round with no bag limits. Decades of scientific research into this

type of indiscriminate killing of wild canids show that these approaches are expensive to taxpayers and do

little to reduce depredations. This needs to be addressed across the country, but is critical to areas

surrounding National Parks and protected areas.

Often referred to as the ‘Grandfather of Conservation’, Aldo Leopold witnessed Yellowstone National Park

after wolves had been eradicated in the 1920’s. Leopold describes the time,

“Since then I have lived to see state after state extirpate its wolves. I have watched the face of

many a newly wolfless mountain, and seen the south-facing slopes wrinkle with a maze of new deer

trails. I have seen every edible bush and seedling browsed...to death. I have seen every edible tree

defoliated to the height of a saddlehorn....In the end the starved bones of the hoped-for deer

herd, dead of its own too-much, bleach with the bones of the dead sage....

I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in

mortal fear of its deer.” (12).

Perhaps this contributed to his insights about a land ethic. Leopold states the basic principle of his land

ethic as, "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic

community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise," (12). Unless Buffer Zones are implemented around the

Mountain National Parks, Leopold would have likely described their state as “wrong”.

43

Table 7 Wolf Hunting and Trapping Regulations across Canada

Province Population License* Bag Limit Open Season

Alberta 4,000-5,000 None 9 months British Columbia

8000-9000

None

2-7+

Below 1100m no closed

season New Brunswick Extirpated ~ ~ ~ Newfoundland Extirpated ~ ~ ~ Labrador Trapper 6 months Northwest Territories Unknown $10 tag none 10 months Nova Scotia Extirpated ~ ~ ~ Nunavut $10 tag None 9-10 months Manitoba None 1 8 months Ontario Some areas

wolf-specific. Other areas small game

2 +

Prince Edward Island Extirpated ~ ~ ~ Quebec 8,000 None None 4-5 months Saskatchewan Trapper None 6 months Yukon None 7 8 months TOTAL CANADA 52,000 -

60,000 ~ ~ ~

*none refers to furbearer, big game, or dual status as both

44

Importance of Grey Wolves to Canada

The Central Rockies represent a unique ecological region of Canada, and wolves (Canis lupus) here

have geographically distinct subpopulations, varying from B.C.’s coastal wolves and Eastern Canada’s red

wolves (Canis rufus). Goals must be set to conserve genetic diversity in large carnivores.

It is time for action, not further studies. Wolves will ALWAYS be partially dependent upon adjacent

provincial lands. A World Wolf Congress held in 2003 agreed that ‘co-operation between neighbouring

jurisdictions is needed to ensure the survival of wolves in the central Rockies’, (Alberta Wildlife

Enhancement Society, 2003).

Hummel and Pettigrew state, “Top predators are among the most outstanding achievements of wilderness,

evolving over hundreds of centuries to preside at the top of the natural food chain. Now we challenge

Canadians to wake up in time to make sure such outstanding achievements stay with us”, (Hummel &

Pettigrew, 1991). “If we’re not saving top predators, we’re not saving true wilderness. And if we are not

saving true wilderness, we will not save top predators”, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991).

KEY POINTS:

The Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) is endangered in many parts of its former range around the northern hemisphere, but not protected outside of Canada’s National Parks.

Our protected areas are not big enough to maintain a healthy population of wolves

The territory of wolf packs living in National Parks often extends OUTSIDE protected areas

Human-caused mortality is the biggest threat to long-term health of wolf populations

Pressure from industrial, commercial, and recreational activities are compromising the ecological integrity of Canadian National Parks.

Wolf numbers decline beyond park boundaries, with hunting and trapping being the major cause of

mortality, and human-caused mortality being the biggest threat to long-term health of wolf

populations.

The Rocky Mountain corridor is vital in maintaining gene flow of wolves between Canada and the United States.

These wolves are of significance to all Canadians & naturalists worldwide.

References

1. Hummel, M. & Pettigrew, S.1991. Wild Hunters – Predators in Peril. Key Porter Books Ltd.

2. Hurd, T. White, C., Pengelly, I., & Pacas, C. 2002. Humans, Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow

(HWEAW) Research Overview. From Proceedings of Humans, Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow,

and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop, Session 1: The Current Situation in the Banff

Bow Valley. Banff, Alberta.

3. Hebblewhite, M., Nietvelt, C., White, C., McKenzie, J. & Hurd, T. 2002. Wolves as a Keystone

Species in Montane Ecosystems of the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Proceedings of Humans,

Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop, Session 2:

Into the Future: Predation, Predation Risk, and Low Density Prey Populations. Banff, Alberta.

45

4. Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues. 2002. From Proceedings of Humans,

Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop, Evening

Session. Banff, Alberta.

5. Dalman, D., Shury, T., & White, C. 2002. Workshop Synthesis. From Proceedings of Humans,

Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop. Banff,

Alberta.

6. Ellis, C. 2002. Parks Canada Asks Alberta to Help Protect Wolves. Calgary Herald. Calgary,

Alberta.

7. Syme, I. 2003. Chief Park Warden for Banff Field Unit, Parks Canada. Alberta Wildlife

Enhancement Society. www.wildlife-enhancement.ca

8. Alberta Wildlife Enhancement Society. 2003. Co-operation Called For To Save Wolves.

www.wildlife-enhancement.ca

9. Kootenay National Park of Canada. 2008. Natural Wonders and Cultural Treasures. Kootenay

National Park Website. http://www.parcscanada.com/pn-np/bc/kootenay/natcul/natcul7_E.asp

10. Parks Canada. 2006. Yoho National Park of Canada – Natural Wonders – Wolf Research and

Management. www.pc.gc.ca.pn-np/bc/yoho/natcul20_E.asp

11. Parks Canada. 2004. Banff National Park of Canada. How Many Wolves are in Banff National

Park?

12. Defenders of Wildlife. 2006. Statistics. www.defenders.org

13. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Northern Alberta. 2007. Parks Watch Report.

14. Environment Canada, 2006. Canadian Protected Areas Status Report 2000 – 2005. Government of

Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.

15. Hebblewhite et al.2005. Human Activity Mediates a Trophic Cascade Caused By Wolves. Ecology

86 (8)

16. Banff National Park of Canada. 2004.HJD

17. Parks Canada Newsletter, Mount Revelstoke and Glacier National Parks of Canada, 2008.

46

Petition

In March of 2009 an Environmental Petition, Reference No. 273, was submitted through the Northern

Lights Wildlife Wolf Centre to the Honourable Jim Prentice, Environment Minister of Canada,

Environment Canada, the Parks Canada Agency, the Federal Government, the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Agency, and any other Responsible Departments requesting a permanent

Buffer Zone be established to protect wolves around the Canadian Mountain National Parks (see

Appendix I).

In a very short amount of time thousands of signatures, comments and support was garnered from all over

the world, see Appendices II and III.

1483 concerned Canadian residents, who support this initiative, signed their names between August 4,

2008 – February 14, 2009. 1702 signatures were also submitted by residents from around the world;

visitors to Canada who want to see our wildlife protected as part of a growing international community

working towards the global goal of conserving biodiversity.

Canada still has one of the healthiest wolf populations in the world. On a global basis, this provides us

with a unique and imperative conservation opportunity as well as responsibility. As World Wildlife Fund

puts it, “Canada has a chance to do something no other country has done: deliberately to conserve healthy

wild populations of different types of wolves on one of the last landscapes still capable of supporting such

a conservation goal”, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991). We need a national strategy in order to maintain this

situation.

Wolves’ numbers have not declined so far as to be lost...yet. But their numbers will not remain abundant

unless we RESOLVE that they will. We can learn from the majority of the world that has lost this species,

and not make the same mistakes.

“…species that are secure for now must become a priority because we still have a chance to do things

differently with them, and thereby maintain some of the last wild, viable populations of these magnificent

animals to be found anywhere in the world”, (Hummel & Pettigrew, 1991).

Ask yourselves as Canadians; “What has the rest of the world taught us about the fate of wolves? Are we

taking steps to ensure the same thing does not happen to our top predators?” If not, wolves will soon

become endangered as we continue to contribute to the causal factors of their decline.

47

APPENDIX I : Petition Submitted in 2005 from Northern Lights Wildlife Wolf Centre Requesting Buffer Zones Around Mountain National Parks Northern Lights Wildlife Wolf Centre 1745 Short Rd. Golden, British Columbia V0A 1H1 [email protected] 1-877-377-9653

Wolf Buffer Zones Around Canadian Mountain National Parks in the Central Rockies: Banff, Yoho, Jasper,

and Kootenay

To: the Honourable Jim Prentice, Environment Minister of Canada, Environment Canada, the Parks Canada Agency, the Federal Government, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and any other Responsible Departments.

1. We call on the federal government to review and improve environmental policy and regulation for wolves living in and around the National Parks in the Central Rocky Mountains. 2. We ask that you explain federal policy and involvement, as well as future plans for wolf management in and around the National Parks in the Central Rocky Mountains. If a management plan exists, what is it? If there is no National Wolf Management Plan, will you put a program in place to ensure that action is taken in a timely manner? 3. We ask that you provide information on what is currently being done to reduce the mortality rates of wolves in National Parks in the Central Rocky Mountains that step beyond park boundaries, while remaining in their territory. If there is nothing being done, will steps be initiated and what will they be? 4. We urge you to introduce legislation that would create a 200 km buffer zone surrounding each National Park in the

Central Canadian Rockies, affecting land use changes to:

i. Permanently ban the hunting, trapping or chasing of wolves year-round

ii. Restrict the use of motorized recreational vehicles

iii. Establish policy for land management use to restrict the development of

commercial, industrial, or resource extraction practices. If these practices are to continue, than at the very least we must enforce more strict land stewardship policies including the deactivation of roads and restoring habitat to natural conditions once resource extraction is completed. Although the Federal Government does not have jurisdiction over provincial lands adjacent to National Parks, it is still the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure that the National Parks are doing an adequate job of protecting and maintaining biodiversity as well as specific species within these parks. What are the responsibilities of the Federal Government in ensuring Parks objectives are met in maintaining ecological integrity? How is this being exercised? What can the Federal Government do in terms of ensuring sufficient habitat protection around National Parks and what is it currently doing to ensure the protected areas are adequate in size and ecological integrity?

48

5. We ask that you provide an explanation of how the Federal Government is working with the provinces to protect local wolf populations within the National Parks of the Central Rocky Mountains. Please explain how this is facilitated and if and how you plan on improving these methods. Sincerely, the undersigned staff of the Northern Lights Wildlife Wolf Centre

NAME (Printed) ADDRESS (Printed) SIGNATURE

49

APPENDIX II Statements Supporting Buffer Zones around Mountain National Parks

Incompatible land use has been ranked as the most serious threat to parks and protected areas by most

Park jurisdictions across Canada. (14) A World Wolf Congress held in 2003 agreed that ‘co-operation

between neighbouring jurisdictions is needed to ensure the survival of wolves in the central Rockies’.

(8)

In 2002 the Central Rockies Wolf Project indicated that out of 12 packs, 9 needed protection beyond the

National Parks if ecological integrity were to be maintained without wolves being introduced from

other regions (4).

Jim Pissot, executive director of Defenders of Wildlife tells us that most packs that summer in protected

areas winter at lower elevations in non-protected areas where the elk are (8)

Researcher Carolyn Callahan of the Central Rockies Wolf Project tells us that “very few wolves that

occupy [the Bow Valley region in Banff National Park] are actually fully protected by national

parks” (6)

For example, over a period of 4 years (winter 1999 – spring 2004), 13 adult wolves died within the

boundaries of Banff National Park, which greatly exceeds a sustainable rate of loss (17).

As of 2004, at least 2 of every 10 adult wolves were dying in Banff National Park each year (11). This

rate is considered to be sustainable, but definitely high for a protected area (11). Banff National Park has

stated that “to have wolves inside the park, we need healthy wolf populations and accessible habitat

outside the park” (11). This will not be possible in the future unless we take steps now.

Banff National Park has already asked the province of Alberta to limit access to motorized vehicles

surrounding the Park, requesting a buffer zone be placed around the boundaries in this regard. (7)

Banff National Park has also recognized that wolf numbers reflect the level of human-caused mortality

(11

In 2002 Banff National Park’s wildlife biologist Tom Hurd affirmed that in areas with low ungulate

populations, such as Yoho and Kootenay Parks, emphasis needs to be placed on reducing human-caused

mortality of wolves, and developing co-ordinated inter-jurisdictional objectives. (2)

Biologists have recommended that human-caused mortality of wolves must be minimized to manage

the decline of wolves in the area. (5) It has even been suggested that population restoration may be

required (5).

The last pack residing in Yoho National Park covered an area of about 1,000 km2 (10). As of the year

2,000, Yoho National Park recognized that it “did not contain sufficient habitat and prey animals to

50

wholly support a wolf pack”, and stated that Yoho wolves would “always be dependent on adjacent

provincial lands” (10).

Yoho National Park has identified that in order for wolves to be present in the area, the park must

work with private landowners, local citizens and recreationists (10), quintessentially, this will require

the formation of buffer zones.

The National Parks have stated that “to have wolves inside the park, we need healthy wolf populations

and accessible habitat outside the park” (11). This will not be possible in the future unless we take steps

now.

During an ecology workshop held in Banff in 2002, biologists recognized that even though wolves require

and adequate prey base, the defining factor in wolf persistence is protection from humans (4). Human

use and access can be directly linked to wolf mortality rates and locations (4).

“Canada has a chance to do something no other country has done: deliberately to conserve healthy wild

populations of different types of wolves on one of the last landscapes still capable of supporting such a

conservation goal”. (1)

The World Wildlife Fund tells us ‘history has shown that, if deliberate efforts are not made to conserve

large carnivores, they are doomed.’ (1)

John Theberge estimates that only 1.2 % of wolves current ranges in Canada are completely protected.

(1)

The Canadian Environmental Advisory Council (CEAC 1992) has recommended that protected areas

should be at least 4000 km2 to effectively conserve biodiversity and wilderness in an area. Out of

Canada’s 43 National Parks, only 10 meet these requirements (15)

We need to pass legislation to perpetuate existing populations where they occur, as recommended by

the IUCN’s guidelines on wolf conservation. (1)

Pressures from industrial, commercial, and recreational activities are compromising the ecological integrity

of these ‘wilderness areas’. (13) Because of this, the IUCN Manifesto on Wolf Conservation states that the

importance and status of wolves should be taken into account by legislation and in planning for the

future of any region (1).

Buffer zones protecting wolves around Algonquin Park in Ontario were accomplished for C. rufus in 2004

when 37 townships surrounding the park were permanently banned from the hunting, trapping and chasing

of wolves in and around the Park.

References:

18. Hummel, M. & Pettigrew, S.1991. Wild Hunters – Predators In Peril. Key Porter Books Ltd.

19. White, C., Hurd, T., Pengelly, I., & Pacas, C. 2002. Humans, Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow

(HWEAW) Research Overview. From Proceedings of Humans, Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and

51

Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop, Session 1: The Current Situation in the Banff Bow

Valley. Banff, Alberta.

20. Hebblewhite, M., Nietvelt, C., White, C., McKenzie, J. & Hurd, T. 2002. Wolves As A Keystone

Species in Montane Ecosystems of the Canadian Rocky Mountains; from Proceedings of Humans,

Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop, Session 2: Into

The Future: Predation, Predation Risk, and Low Density Prey Populations. Banff, Alberta.

21. Regional Perspectives on Ecosystem Indicators and Issues. 2002. From Proceedings of Humans,

Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop, Evening

Session. Banff, Alberta.

22. Dalman, D., Shury, T., & White, C. 2002. Workshop Synthesis. From Proceedings of Humans,

Wolves, Elk, Aspen and Willow, and Now Beetles (HWEAW + B) Science Workshop. Banff, Alberta.

23. Ellis, Cathy. Sept. 5, 2002. Parks Canada Asks Alberta to Help Protect Wolves. Calgary Herald.

Calgary, Alberta.

24. Syme, I. 2003. Chief Park Warden for Banff Field Unit, Parks Canada. Alberta Wildlife Enhancement

Society: www.wildlife-enhancement.ca

25. Co-operation Called For To Save Wolves. 2003. Alberta Wildlife Enhancement Society:

www.wildlife-enhancement.ca

26. Kootenay National Park of Canada, Natural Wonders and Cultural Treasures. 2008. Kootenay

National Park Website

27. Parks Canada – Yoho National Park of Canada – Natural Wonders – Wolf Research and Management.

2006. www.pc.gc.ca.pn-np/bc/yoho/natcul20_E.asp

28. Parks Canada – Banff National Park of Canada – How Many Wolves are in Banff National Park?

Update: Summer 2004.

29. Defenders of Wildlife (defenders.org), 2006 statistics, accessed June 2007

30. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Northern Alberta. 2007 Parks Watch Report.

31. Environment Canada, 2006. Canadian Protected Areas Status Report 2000 – 2005. Government of

Canada, Gatineau, Quebec.

32. Natural Resources Canada, 2007.

33. Hebblewhite et al., “Human Activity Mediates a Trophic Cascade Caused By Wolves”, Ecology 86 (8),

August 2005.

34. Banff National Park of Canada, HJD 7/30/2004

52

APPENDIX III –Selected Public Comments from

On-line Petition

# 287:

6:28 pm PDT, Sep 16, Meg Langley, Canada

We have only a few top predators remaining in North America and Canada is very fortunate to still have

relatively healthy populations of most of them. Wolves require large tracts of land and do not do well with

human encroachment. We need to prevent a situation where we need to reintroduce wolves and protect the

populations that currently exist. When predators leave the confines of National Parks they are often

targeted by hunters and trappers who will sometimes poison predators to protect the ungulates that they

hunt. This can have widespread impacts, wiping out entire wolf packs and other animals that get into laced

carcasses. Legislation is one step towards protecting all wildlife and will help to instill respect in those who

may wish to harm or decrease wolf numbers. Protection is our responsibility and we will regret not going

in that direction in years to come.

# 284:

11:12 pm PDT, Sep 15, Abigail Watkins, Canada

To be true custodians of this great land, we must learn to live in harmony with it. This includes living with

large predators such as wolves. The general public still holds an archaic view of wolves, dating back to

superstitious European times, which, in the end, left Europe with no wolves at all. We cannot continue to

persecute wolves in the thoughtless, un-scientifically based and cavalier way that we do, all in the name of

a 'progress' we don't even know has a future without the intact ecosystems we rely on for clean air and

water and the stable weather we have taken for granted. If we lose the wildness of this land, then we lose

much of ourselves, and leave a greatly diminished world for our children. Drive the speed limit to reduce

road kill. Enforce the speed limit to reduce irresponsible driving.

# 280:

53

5:04 pm PDT, Sep 15, Heather Bryan, Canada BIOLOGIST

Dear Mr. Baird, I am writing to voice my support for legislation that would provide better protection for

wolves and their habitat in Canada. Wolves are essential components of many Canadian ecosystems and

are symbols of wild places in Canada and around the globe. Currently, Canada's National Parks in the

Central Rocky Mountains are not adequate to ensure the long-term persistence of this important species.

Therefore, I urge the federal government to develop a National Wolf Management Plan for wolves

inhabiting the Central Rocky Mountain area. This plan should clearly define the government's role in wolf

protection, outline an action plan for wolf conservation, and address the issue of high wolf mortality from

human causes within park boundaries. Importantly, legislation should be introduced to create a 200 km

buffer zone around all National Parks in the Central Canadian Rockies where wolves would not be

disturbed by hunters, trappers, motorized recreation vehicles, or large-scale industrial activities. Thank you

for considering my comments. Sincerely, Heather Bryan

# 279:

9:00 am PDT, Sep 15, Sanne Van der Ros, Canada

We need to protect our wild wolves so that they have a better chance to survive on their own. They need

more habitat set aside for them, they need to have the protected status outside of parks, they need wildlife

corridors for safe traveling, and there needs to be no hunting of wild wolves.

# 273:

5:15 am PDT, Sep 10, Matt Trinneer, Canada

After being nearly eradicated 70 years ago, wild wolves are finally returning to the area surrounding my

grandmothers farm. Let's keep that trend going!

# 255:

7:30 pm PDT, Sep 4, Tanisha Cormier, Canada

Wolf are, and continue to be my favorite wild creature in Canada. And despite that i have never had the

honor of seeing one in the wild. I blame past and present Canadian and USA wildlife policies. Sure we

54

have come a long way in our countries, but the bottom line is it isn’t good enough. It has taken the human

race 150 years to destroy what took this planet billions of years to create. And although policies are

improving, and we are creating more protected parks, we are moving to slowly. At this rate the wolves,

among other creatures, are still going to go extinct, just at a slower rate. This one park is a chance to show

others there is still time, if we react now, and quickly enough. WE MUST PROTECT WHAT IS LEFT OF

WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DESTROYED! There is no surefire way to make up for the damage we

have done to our planet, but at least we can start trying, with a little more effort then putting up fuel

emission standards.

# 250:

Sep 3, 2008, Tara Anderson, Canada

Please help ensure that the next generation is able to witness such a magnificent species IN THE WILD.

# 245:

Sep 2, 2008, Ron Jorgenson, Canada

The continual degradation of remote areas to serve the needs of people at the expense of other significant

species is unacceptable. Preservation of the species in this case wolves and preservation of significant wild

space for them to live is an important issue in a country with as much space and as few people as we have.

The constant encroachment on these areas by commercial ventures whether ranching, oil or mining and the

opening up by road to these areas is a failure in our logic and appreciation for the needs of species beyond

our own.

National Parks by their very nature are meant to preserve what is part of our National Heritage and the

Wildness and those species that thrive in it are part of that package.

# 227:

55

Aug 29, 2008, Estelle Phillips, Canada

I don't have the words to describe how I feel about these beautiful animals that are hunted and killed for

"trophies".

# 223:

Aug 28, 2008, Chad McPeak, Canada

this is important. we need to take steps NOW to protect top predators from disappearing in Canada....they

are part of our natural heritage

# 197:

Aug 24, 2008, Susan Edgar, Canada

Wolves, and all predators, are essential to the healthy survival of our eco-system. For proof, look to

Australia and see what Man's interference has done! If Man keeps dominating the space as we've done in

the past, we will doom the planet to extinction... all of us! Please help protect these gorgeous, intelligent,

private yet social creatures from our harmful influence. In a nation as big as ours, what's a couple of

hundred kms?

# 70:

Aug 13, 2008, Michael Parr, Canada

I am appalled that Canada is not THE World Leader in all conservation areas but particularly in the area of

large predators. Soon it will be TOO LATE just as it is TOO LATE to save the environment even though

we (Humans) have known about the green house effect since 1970. Too little Too Late may cause not only

the extinction of Wolves but Humans too. Act NOW or change the government as soon as WE have the

opportunity. We have the money we just need the governments to realize that ALL Life is more important

than the economical welfare of corporations.

# 68:

56

Aug 13, 2008, Gudrun Pflueger, Canada BIOLOGIST

I am living at the park boundary of one of the above mentioned National parks and experience the fatal

pressure of humans on the local wolf- and wildlife population outside the park boundaries. I am a huge

advocate of generous buffer zones around the parks as being an absolute necessity for keeping a viable

wolf- und large carnivore population on the landscape

# 60:

Aug 13, 2008, Louise Williams, Canada

Wild wolves are not a threat to humans. We need to start limiting the hunting, not limiting the wildlife who

have every right to live!

# 13:

Aug 12, 2008, Anonymous, Canada

I'm appalled that as a Canadian citizen I have to donate money to organizations and sign petitions to

pressure our government officials to do their job. Canada needs a National Wolf Management Plan. Canada

became one of the first countries to sign the UN International Convention on Biological Diversity over 15

years ago. Scientists worldwide then acknowledged that the loss of biodiversity is one of the most critical

environmental issues facing our planet. Biodiversity is disappearing at an alarming rate in Canada, from

species to entire ecosystems. As a major species, the wolf has an important role to play, influencing the

entire ecosystem. The wolves in Canada's Central Rockies are a symbol of Canada's biodiversity under

threat. Over a decade of research has shown that Canadian wolves are in peril. Loss of habitat, high hunting

and trapping pressures outside our parks have been a major contributing factor. Further, please ban wolf

snares! Wolf snares are not only inhumane; they kill our pets, hurt our children, and are indiscriminate

killers of our wildlife - including endangered species. Canadians are proud to be among the few countries

in the world with wild wolf populations. Please take responsible action before it is too late.

# 241:

57

Sep 2, 2008, Coyote Buckthorn, California

The wolves do just as much for the environment and ecosystem in Canada as they do in America; also, the

wolf is a sure sign of wild territory. Wolves do not hurt humans. They are merely symbols of something

that we have come to think of, slowly, as something that needs protecting: the wilderness. There is less and

less of it available to us, and we have to work to keep it here for us and future generations, and for the rest

of the planet. We need the wolves to stay. Otherwise, we do not have true wilderness, we have human

hunting grounds.

# 251:

11:38 am PDT, Sep 3, Jill Vickerman, South Africa International Tourist

It is the one thing that I would love to see in my lifetime, wolves in the wild in Canada. When I think of

Canada that’s what I think of...Wolves. Please give them wilderness to live free in; it would be an

enormous tragedy if they were to lose their freedom

# 190:

Aug 22, 2008, Vince De Luca, United Kingdom International Tourist

I admire Canada for many many things and the protection of its wildlife is one of the most important.

Wolves are beautiful and very necessary in the ecology of the environment. All the animals need to be

respected and protected. It is always detrimental to the entire ecology to remove any item. Environments

should be cared for by people, but not altered to our own desires...that's not natural or beneficial. Predators

are a natural phenomenon and as such they are needed by the other animals otherwise we are changing

nature, and that’s just wrong. Vince De Luca.

# 58:

Aug 13, 2008, Sarah Parker, Florida

PROTECT THE WOLVES!! Why protect wolves only while they reside in National Park boundaries? It's

cruel and not fair to confine them to only one place to live. They're wolves, for goodness sake, they're

going to wander, especially if their natural prey leaves the area!! It's not fair!! WOLVES HAVE

RIGHTS!!! PROTECT THE WOLVES

58

# 304:

Sep 27, 2008, Crystal Springall, Canada

Let us learn from the mistakes of the past. Love them or hate them - wolves are not pests; they are

essential. We can go down in the history books as those who saved our ecosystem by taking drastic,

immediate action to save our wolves. Let us not be in bed with those who have turned their heads.

# 306:

Sep 29, 2008, Anita Still, Canada

When a keystone species declines or disappears, all other life within that ecosystem suffers. Take a

look at what happened in Yellowstone National Park prior to the reintroduction of wolves.

# 319:

Oct 6, 2008, Angela Hunter, Canada

Dear Mr. Baird, As a graduate student at the University of Victoria I have had the opportunity to

work first hand with some of Canada's leading biologists and their amazing research assistants. Time

and time again I hear stories of studies and reports that have been sent to the government outlining

essential conservation actions that must be taken in order to protect wildlife and endangered species

in Canada. Unfortunately the Canadian government has made many bad decisions by ignoring its

own scientists as well as university researchers in favour of following the norm and appeasing

commercial interests. The spotted owl is one example in BC. Eastern fish stocks also come to mind.

I urge you to listen to the researchers and public who make up the Coalition of Canadian Wolves.

Please take the steps necessary to protect wolves in Canada.

Sincerely, Angela Hunter

# 320:

Oct 7, 2008, Drew Betts, Canada

As a long term resident living right next to the National Parks we need to protect these wolves in any

way we can. A good start is creating buffer zones. All that would be is a start but let’s get going!!!!

# 328:

Oct 8, 2008, Gwen Burk, Canada

The wolves in Canada are as much a part of our history as the wilderness they live in. We need to

protect them and preserve our lands for the future

# 338:

Oct 10, 2008, James MacKay, Canada

It is imperative that top predators are protected if we are going to be able to protect and help our

ecosystems to thrive and survive. John Baird, if you are still environment minister in 5 days time, try

59

to achieve something environmentally relevant by protecting this species and more importantly the

territory it needs to ensure its survival, and the survival of all of the species that exist alongside with

it.

# 343:

Oct 11, 2008, Michel Héroux, Canada

Even if one were to disregard the crucial role that wolves play as a top predator, wolves and the

habitat that is necessary for them to thrive should be protected if only to preserve that intangible

feeling of awe and wonder that comes with knowing that such majestic animals still exist on this

planet.

Michel V. Héroux, professional photographer

# 347:

Oct 12, 2008, Royce Howland, Canada

As a Canadian who values the natural wonders we have in our country, I spend significant time each

year in the outdoors. I enjoy experiencing and photographing our landscape and wildlife, and

recognize the importance of a top predator and keystone species like the Grey Wolf in maintaining a

healthy ecosystem. I also value the wolf as a symbol of true Canadian wilderness, and believe that

measures designed to protect wolves are good for preservation of our wilderness in many other

important ways. I support the petition to create buffer zones around our Central Rockies national

parks to ensure a policy of compatible land use and further the efforts of land and wildlife

conservation.

# 355:

Oct 12, 2008, Jeff MacIntyre, Canada

Wolves in the wild are a signature species, indicating a healthy ecosystem and a viable wilderness. It

is our generation's responsibility to preserve enough interconnected territory to support sustainable

wolf populations in and around our National Parks.

Jeff MacIntyre, Okotoks, Alberta

# 363:

Oct 12, 2008, Stanley Rose, Colorado

I've never seen a wild wolf in its true natural habitat. I'd like to think that I will continue to have that

opportunity, and not wait for us to first destroy the predator population, then afterwards regret our

inaction and have to take artificial steps to try to preserve what was once a part of our natural

environment.

# 375:

60

Oct 14, 2008, John Marriott, Canada

As a person who makes a full-time living off of photographing wild animals, I would love to see

Canada increase its protection of wild wolves in the Central Rockies. I have spent years

photographing Banff's wolves and it's a disheartening process seeing them continually die on the

outskirts of the parks to hunters and trappers. Rather than be a stronghold for wolves, the parks are

acting as a sinkhole, and this needs to change.

# 377:

Oct 14, 2008, Jan Sommer, Canada

Please ensure that wolves persist in the wild as a viable sustaining population. Wolves are currently

being "culled" in a project to protect endangered caribou near the Alberta BC border and within

national park territory. While I also want to see caribou populations persist, the real problem was

clear cutting on the BC border, too close to habitat for wolves, forcing them into the caribou

territory. Stop the clear cutting and protect the wolves as well as the caribou

Please support this petition by taking action to protect endangered wolf populations.

# 401:

Oct 20, 2008, Patti Walton, New Jersey

Our natural resources include bio-diversity. We must do everything possible to help save these

beautiful animals! Humankind has destroyed these noble beasts in the past and we continue to

encroach upon their natural habitats. HELP US SAVE THE WOLVES!!!

# 412:

Oct 24, 2008, Amanda Adams, Canada

All animals need to be preserved in their own right to maintain global biodiversity. Wolves in

particular are an integral part of the overall functioning of the ecosystems in which they reside due to

their role as top predator. Human activities have infringed on their habitat, prey supply and even

gone so far as to directly kill this magnificent species out of fear, hatred and sport. It is time for us to

right our wrongs and restore these populations to adequate levels and continue to allow them the

resources to maintain healthy populations.

# 417:

Oct 26, 2008, Monica Dragosz, Canada

Wolves have been so needlessly persecuted by humans, because of the legacy of early European

settlers and their assumptions about wolves. Even without man's more deliberate attempts to harm

them, wolves need help more than ever, as they are in danger every time they approach our

highways, which run through the very valley bottoms in which they roam and feed. Like all wildlife,

wolves deserve of our reverence and respect, and like other large predatory mammals, wolves

require our intervention in order to ensure that they, in their wild innocence, survive and thrive.

61

# 421:

Oct 28, 2008, Anonymous, Canada

Large numbers of wolves are killed yearly by cars and trains that run straight through their territory,

there's been clear-cutting that decreases habitat and mining operations that have not finished

reforesting stripped areas. Not so long ago the group that studies Alberta wolf pack territories

(Rocky Mountain areas) worried that wolves would soon be wiped out completely because of human

encroachment. And, according to Conservation Northwest: "Wolves play a vital role in maintaining

the health of big game by culling sick animals, promoting stable ungulate populations. Biologists tell

us that big game herds like bighorn sheep, elk, and deer are healthier with wolves." Hunting and

trapping need to stop and we need to leave the habitat surrounding the national parks alone. The

hunter mentality belongs back in the pre-20th century when man needed to kill wildlife to sustain

life. It seems that civilization has not yet culled Cro-Magnon behaviours.

Please take a hand in guarding our wildlife.

# 467:

Dec 1, 2008, Ken Fischman, Idaho

it is critical to maintain a flow of genes between different wolf population areas within the Northern

Rockies area of Canada and the United States. Genetic connectivity between these areas would

protect against inbreeding and help maintain healthy wolf populations. Needless to say, wolves do

not recognize political boundaries. Their preservation and health require the cooperation of wolf

advocates both in Canada and the United States. Therefore I strongly support the concept of a 200

Km. protective area around national parks.

# 479:

Dec 18, 2008, Anonymous, Belgium

A few European countries try the rehabilitation of Wolves, with enormous problems. In Canada you

kill them. Bravissimo! Wolves do not kill human being (It's a pity; there would be more personal

space for them!)

# 490:

Dec 24, 2008, Kurt Klingbeil, Canada

I want to see wild wolves in Canada. I call upon you, under your oath of office, and upon your

deepest nature as a loving and intelligent human being to do whatever it takes to ensure wolves are

allowed to survive. Do whatever it takes to make sure that human predation through expediency,

convenience, greed, stupidity, and misuse of power are more than balanced by higher, bigger, longer

ideals of coexistence, moderation, love, and finding our place within nature.

62

References:

1. Banff-Bow Valley Study. 1996. Banff-Bow Valley: At the Crossroads. Summary report of the

Banff-Bow Valley Task Force (Robert Page, Suzanne Bayley, J. Douglas Cook, Jeffrey E. Green,

and J.R. Brent Ritchie). Prep. For the Honourable Sheila Copps, Minister of Canadian Heritage,

Ottawa, ON.

2. http://www.pc.gc.ca National Parks Act Guiding Principles and Operational Policies, 1994.

Accessed 2009

3. http://www.pc.gc.ca National Parks Act, 1988. Accessed 2009.

4. Callaghan, Carolyn Phd Thesis, 2003. The Ecology of Gray Wolf, Canis lupus, Habitat Use,

Survival and Persistence in the Central Rocky Mountains Canada. Presented to the Faculty of

Graduate Studies, University of Guelph.

5. Rutledge, L.Y., Patterson, B., Mills, K.J., Loeveless, K.M., Murray, D.L., and B.N. White, 2010.

Protection from harvesting restores the natural social structure of eastern wolf packs. Biological

Conservation: 143: 332-339.

6. Wallach, Adrian D., Ritchie, E.G., Read, J., O’Neillet, A.J. 2009. More Than Mere Numbers: The

Impact of Lethal Control on the Social Stability of a Top Order Predator. PLoS ONE: Volume 4,

Issue 9, e6861.

7. Paquet, P.C., and C.T. Darimont. 2009. Wildlife Conservation and animal welfare: two sides of the

same coin? Animal Welfare, Issue 19.

8. Paquet, P.C. and L.N. Carbyn. 2003. Gray Wolf: Canis lupus and Allies. Pages 482-500 in North

American Mammals , Feldhammer.

9. Banff National Park Management Plan Review, Oct 26, 2009. Parks Canada. Management Plan

Review Update.

10. Primack, R.B. Essentials of Conservation Biology, 4th

Edition. Pg 47. Sinauer Associates Inc.

Sunderland Massachusetts, USA, 2006.

11. Paul C. Paquet, Jack Wierzchowski, Carolyn Callaghan, Chapter 7 Summary Report on the Effects

of Human Activity on Gray Wolves in the Bow River Valley, Banff National Park

12. A. Leopold, "A Sand County Almanac", Oxford University Press, New York, 1949

13. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, A Blueprint for Wildlife Conservation.

http://y2y.net/files/675-a-blueprint-for-wildlife-conservation-reduced.pdf

14. Camilla H. Fox 1,2,* and Marc Bekoff 2011. Integrating Values and Ethics into Wildlife Policy

and Management—Lessons from North America. Animals 2011, 1, 126-143;

doi:10.3390/ani1010126

15. Mark Bekoff. Animal Emotions and Animal Sentience and Why They Matter: Blending ‘Science

Sense’ with Common Sense, Compassion and Heart. Chapter 3 of Animals, Trade and Ethics,

pages 27 – 40.

16. www.pc.gc.ca/eng/progs/np-pn/eco/index.aspx

17. National Geographic Magazine, 2010 March Issue, Wolf Wars – Once Protected, Now Hunted

pages 34 – 55.

18. Landry, M.V.G> Thomas and T.D. Nudds, 2001. Sizes of Canadian national Parks and the viability

of large mammal populations: policy implications. The George Wright Forum. 18:13-23.

63

19. Hummel, M. & Pettigrew, S.1991. Wild Hunters – Predators In Peril. Key Porter Books Ltd.

20. Parks Canada Guiding Principles and Operational Policies accessed Sept 15, 2012

http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/poli/princip/index.aspx