Elk Information
Research – An essential component of
an effective elk restoration and management program
Preamble
In 1996 Ontario embarked on an elk
restoration program. Since that time much has been accomplished
including:
- Completion and approval of the Plan to
Restore Elk in Ontario
- release of 443 elk in four different
parts of the province
- ongoing monitoring programs that have
allowed us to determine how elk are adapting to their new environments
and to predict the future of the local initiatives
- development of effective partnerships
that have provided essential operational and funding assistance at
both the local as well as the provincial levels
- development of many public
informational and educational initiatives
- development of a provincial data base
- development of technologies and
successful resolution of several nuisance elk situations
Since its inception, Ontario’s elk
restoration program has been based on the best available science. In
fact, the current restoration initiative grew from research conducted by
Cambrian College and Laurentian University on two small remnant elk
herds in the French River and Burwash areas south of Sudbury. New
information has been vital to the program and we have continued to
modify our approaches based on this information.
Elk Program Support of Research
Initiatives
Since the inception of the elk
restoration program, the program has sponsored or supported 12 different
MSc, PhD and postdoctoral programs based at 4 different universities
(i.e. Lakehead, Laurentian, Trent and Guelph). The Ontario elk
restoration program through the Provincial Elk Restoration Advisory
Committee (PERAC) and more recently the Elk Restoration Unit at Cambrian
College (ERU) and the Provincial Elk Technical Team (PETT) have
financially supported 7 of the identified studies and have morally
supported the five other University of Guelph and Laurentian University
studies. The University of Guelph is a partner in an international
study with the goal to develop a dispersion model for elk. Fortunately,
there has been special funding provided by US sources for the University
of Guelph studies related to meeting this goal (see Appendix I). Other
jurisdictions involved in this study are Wyoming, Alberta and
Wisconsin.
Most of the direct elk expenditures
related to research have been to support graduate students in the
gathering of monitoring data. There is a double bonus here – the elk
program not only gets excellent, reliable data but also important usable
research results.
Research Priorities
In 1999, the Elk Restoration Network
together with Ontario’s elk technical experts assessed Ontario’s
research needs and priorities and prepared the report entitled, “A
research proposal to study the ecology and interspecific relationships
of elk following restoration in Ontario.” The paper identifies the
following research objectives:
- To determine the environmental and
interspecific impact of restoring elk to Ontario
- To initiate research projects that
will provide data to assist in managing elk herds in Ontario to attain
maximum growth potential and survival
- To initiate a series of research
projects that will provide data for the development of a management
plan for elk in Ontario.
The paper established six research
priorities as follows:
- Population dynamics/ elk behaviour/
hard vs.soft release project
- Interspecific Relationships including
deer, moose, coyote, wolf and bear.
- Habitat/ resource selection/ habitat
model development
- Diseases, parasites and contaminants
- Impact of Long Distance Transport of
Elk
- Genetics/ DNA profiles of elk
Progress In Addressing Identified
Research Priorities
We have made a great deal of progress in
the identified priority research areas:
|
Priority # |
Name of Study |
Status |
|
1 |
Population dynamics/ elk behaviour/
hard vs.soft release project |
Studies ongoing in all four
restoration areas
(Yott, Ryckman, Stevenson, Dewar
MSc studies) plus Hayden post doc study |
|
2 |
Interspecific Relationships
a. Deer/Moose/Elk Study |
Jenkins masters study, BNH area
looked at habitat use relationships between elk and white-tailed
deer. |
|
|
b. Wolf/Bear/Coyote/Elk Study |
Fryxell et al. (Glenn Desy, MSc.)
started a wolf/elk study in the NFR areas in the summer of 2003.
|
|
3 |
Habitat/ resource selection/
habitat model project |
Studies in LOW (McIntosh, Dewar
MSc studies), NFR (Stevenson, MSc study) and BNH (Yott MSc study))
areas |
|
4 |
Diseases, parasites and
contaminants study |
Some work done on P.Tenuis and
Liver Fluke in the LOW area (McIntosh, MSc study); whenever feasible
full carcasses have been submitted to the University of Guelph or
University of Manitoba (LOW) for full necropsy |
|
5 |
Impact of Long Distance Transport
of Elk |
During the 2000 shipment, the elk
in one trailer were monitored/videotaped throughout the trip.
|
|
6 |
Genetics/ DNA profiles of elk |
McIntosh Ph.D. study
|
Some Research
findings – Implications for Elk Restoration and Management
There are several
research project results that have or will have a direct bearing on elk
restoration and management in Ontario. Some of these are:
a) Release
methodology
Research has shown that there is a relationship between holding
time and subsequent dispersal and mortality. Animals that are held for a
longer period of time tend to stay closer to the release site with less
subsequent mortality. More recent information from the University of
Guelph shows that survivorship between soft and hard released animals is
approximately equal after 2 years of release. However, lower mortality
amongst soft released animals during this period probably translates to
greater calf production.
Management
Implications: Animals should be held prior to release. This
probably should include any Ontario animals that are captured and
relocated due to nuisance problems or for other purposes.
b) Sex and age of introduced animals
Research has shown that introduced calves have greater fidelity
to the release site and are less likely to wander than adult animals.
Mean maximum distance moved following release in the Lake of the Woods
area was farthest for adult males (68 + 15 km), followed by adult
females (37 + 6 km), female calves (8 + 1 km) and male calves (6 km +
0.7 km).
Management
Implications: When trying to establish new elk populations, at
least a component of the translocated animals should be calves. Other
research showed however, that calves are most susceptible to emaciation
especially during harsh winters. They definitely should be held for
most of the winter following their translocation and if at all possible
should be accompanied by their cows.
c) Habitat competition with white-tailed deer
Preliminary results indicate that white-tailed deer selected for
less snow cover than elk along trails and at feeding stations, with
significant differences in 2001 when snow accumulation was greatest.
Similarly, selection of understory vegetation at elk and deer trails and
feeding stations differed significantly in 2001. In general, deer
selected for a greater percent cover of eastern white cedar (Thuja
occidentalis) and balsam fir (Abies balsamea) at trails and feeding
stations, and a greater percent cover of mountain maple (Acer spicatum)
at feeding stations. Alternatively, elk selected for a greater percent
cover of trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) and willow (Salix spp.)
at feeding stations. In 2002, patterns of selection for understory
vegetation were not significantly different with the exception of white
cedar cover, which was greater at deer sites.
Management
Implications: There was some degree of public concern prior at the
time of planning the current elk restoration effort, that elk would
negatively impact on deer through competition for food especially during
severe winters. The present study would indicate that at least in the
Bancroft area there is minimal overlap between the two species.
d) Brainworm
Research has shown the prevalence of P. tenuis larvae
approximately 85% in all areas tested.
Management
Implication: Brainworm has been a major mortality factor in many
U.S. jurisdictions and some mortality in Ontario can be expected. It is
very important that managers minimize the contact between deer and elk
and also manage deer population levels. Winter feeding of deer can be a
major concern in that it concentrates deer and also can attract elk.
e) Long term
censusing of elk
Research aimed at developing a long-term method of elk
population estimation is underway in the Bancroft area. Researchers plan
to test a number of techniques including infrared imaging with state of
the art NASA equipment, mark-resight, habitat indicies, hunter survey
questionnaires, and transect surveys.
Management
Implications: Currently many of the released elk still have
functioning VHS collars which allows managers with good information on
distribution, natality and mortality. In the next two or three years
most of the existing collars will fail and managers will need other
reliable methods to determine population status and trends for
management purposes such as implementing hunts, determining actions in
nuisance situations etc.
f) Dealing with nuisance elk
A great deal has been learned about how to deal effectively with
nuisance elk situations and what technologies work best in various
situations.
Management Implications: Research has shown that problem
situations are best resolved if deterrent actions are initiated
quickly. Preliminary findings also indicate that nuisance animals if
moved to another area are apt to stay in the new area and are not likely
to show further nuisance behaviour.
These are but a few of
the research findings that have direct management implications.
The future
Research needs to
continue to be an integral part of the elk restoration and management
program. Funding is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain as the
program has moved away from the initial animal translocation phase. It
is hoped that new sources of funding can be obtained and that past
funding partners will also support the next phases of the program
including a strong research component.
June 22, 2004
APPENDIX I - List of Ontario elk related research projects
|
Student and University
|
Direct Elk Program Financial Support
|
Study Topic |
Study Area |
Years |
|
Terese McIntosh, Lakehead University, MSc.
|
Yes |
Disease, parasites, dynamics and resource
utilization |
Lake of the Woods |
2000 to 2002 |
|
Dan Haydon, University of Guelph, PhD. |
No |
Dispersion modeling |
Bancroft North Hastings |
2001 to present |
|
Adelle Yott, Trent University, MSc. |
Yes |
Population dynamics |
Bancroft North Hastings |
2000 to present |
|
Debbie Jenkins, Trent University, MSc. |
Yes |
Potential for deer/elk competition |
Bancroft North Hastings |
2000 to present |
|
Jason Stevenson, Laurentian University, MSc. |
Yes |
Population dynamics, post- release dispersal |
Nipissing French River |
2000 to present |
|
Mark Ryckman, Trent University, MSc. |
Yes |
Nuisance elk |
Lake Huron North Shore |
2003 to present |
|
Terese McIntosh, Trent University, PhD.
|
Yes |
Long term monitoring methodology, genetics,
population modeling |
Bancroft North Hastings |
2003 to present |
|
Nancy Dewar, Lakehead University, MSc. |
Yes |
Development of an elk habitat suitability index
for the Cameron Lake area of Northwestern Ontario. |
Lake of the Woods |
2003 to present |
|
Megan Hazell, University of Guelph
MSc |
No |
Elk foraging trajectories |
Bancroft North Hastings |
2003 to present |
|
Glenn Desy, University of Guelph, MSc. |
No |
Wolf predation on elk |
Bancroft North Hastings and Nipissing French
River |
2003 to present |
|
Rebecca Carter, Laurentian University, MSc.
|
No |
Wolf predation |
Nipissing French River |
2003 to present |
|
Ben Belziel, University of Guelph, MSc.
|
No |
Wolf-elk interaction comparing the established
herds with the introduced animals |
Nipissing French River |
2004 to present |
* Note: there were three other elk-related
Masters studies completed at Laurentian University prior to the start of
the current elk restoration program in 1996.
Sudbury Elk
Restoration