May 10, 2018
- OUT of DOORS by BARNEY MOORHOUSE For Reproduction Rights Call Access 1.800.893.5777
NORTH HASTINGS ELK
The 2017 aerial elk survey in North Hastings confirmed what most already knew; such surveys are challenging. The elk have dispersed from their original re-introduction site and often, when found, are clustered in small, widely scattered satellite groups. The MNRF has not collared elk in the area since 2012, elk don’t register, funds are limited (the 2017 budget of $43,000 was insufficient to adequately survey the entire area open to elk hunting)and so determining accurate population numbers, as always, remains a challenging educated guess, at best. As an aside, the total flying time of 39 hours included ferrying distances and transport from Muskoka. “Including hotel and meal costs, the approximate cost of the survey was $50,000.” (Report)
In the meantime the MNRF is working on a citizen science initiative to collect elk observations throughout Ontario to assist with the planning of future elk population surveys. Public submissions of elk observations made through the inaturalist website: www.inaturalist.org/projects/ontario-elk-distribution will help the MNRF plan more efficient and effective future population surveys.
In February I reported that Dr. Jesse Popp, Laurentian University, had developed a smart phone app “that will allow users to go out and record moose sightings and harvest and other additional information, such as Indigenous knowledge, so they can record population trends through time.” Perhaps the MNRF could adapt this to its citizen scientist initiative?
Ontario’s Elk Management Plan will continue to be the MNRF’s guiding light pertaining to elk population sustainability, habitat requirements and managing human-elk conflict.
As readers know 120 elk were re-introduced to Bancroft-North Hastings (BNH) during 2000 and 2001. The herd grew to sustain a limited annual public hunt initiated in 2011. A review of the methods used to estimate the BNH population indicates that the current size and distribution of this population is “uncertain and needs to be reassessed”. (2017 Report) Based upon available funds and potential methods the MNRF has altered how it carries out the survey.
Survey conditions during February and March 2017 “were not optimal”. (2017 Report) The survey period had to be “protracted” and due to the low number of detected elk they had to expand the study.
They observed 92 elk (60 adult, or yearling, females, 17 calves (undetermined sex) resulting in a ratio of 28 calves: 100 cows; similar to the 29:100 ratio found during the 2015 survey.
They saw 15 bulls, of which only 2 were mature for a ratio of 3 mature males: 100 cows. The report stated that perhaps some mature bulls had already shed their antlers but video taken of this group previously indicated that there were “spiker males but no adult bulls in this group,” suggesting the continued decline in adult sex ratio from 2013 (12:100) to 2014 (8:100) and 2015 (8:100). “Because mature bulls do most of the breeding, to maximize population productivity that ratio of mature bulls to cows should be at least 20:100”.
53 of the elk were seen at either The Elkman’s or Minnie’s where they have been fed for some time. This has resulted (report) in an “atypically high local elk density, site fidelity, and continuing development of habituation behavior; all factors which potentially threaten the integrity of the restoration.” The report states that this will almost certainly overestimate the population. To exclude these numbers would “severely underestimate the actual population size.”
By comparison, in 2015, 139 different elk were spotted using radio-telemetry to find elk to count, and 83 were at the two feeder sites. In 2017, using radio telemetry after the survey to search for radio collared elk that may have been missed “we located only 2 additional elk, resulting in a minimum population count of 94 elk.” (Report)
“We estimated the BNH population was comprised of 397 elk”. The report stated that there is a “high uncertainty” in that estimation due to the fact that they detected a single elk where they had not expected to find one.
The study noted that they saw 159 white-tailed deer, 50 moose, 105 turkeys and 23 wild canids (wolf, coyote pr hybrid), 4 bald eagles and 6 heron rookeries. From this the report concluded that “although we observed fewer elk than expected, poor sightability did not appear to be the problem.” The high number of deer and moose sightings supports the idea that elk simply were not in the areas surveyed.
As for the estimate of 397 the report suggests that to be on the high side. Which is substantially less than the 500+ that has been declared over the years.
Possible explanations for this significant difference include:
- The population has declined substantially since 2015;
- The population estimates from 2015 and earlier were incorrect due to statistical assumptions;
- The 2017 estimate is incorrect.
“We cautiously suggest that the true population size is substantially smaller than the estimated 397 elk.”
Please note I am not a research scientist. Wading through this report I have attempted to translate the findings into “plain English” and stand to be corrected if I have misunderstood any of the report.
“Consider the source.” In this case Yours Truly.
AND FINALLY…
When the Tamarack bud out in the spring walleye eggs are hatching following a short incubation.
Photo – by Y.T.