Moose ‘cull’ research leads to questions and concerns
Failure to include all applicable information in (Parks Canada’s) documentation gives an inaccurate picture of the need to control the CBHNP moose population
At times it seems that the more I learn, the less I feel I know. This is the case with the ongoing moose cull in the Cape Breton Highlands National Park (CBHNP).
Some referrals are made to the Gros Morne National Park (GMNP) moose cull, and so I decided to use Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) research to compare since both are national parks and would likely have followed the same directives.
That comparison opened the door to many questions and concerns. Some examples follow:
1) Assessments
To support the GMNP moose cull, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was done months prior to their Hyperabundant Moose Management Plan (HMMP). The EA was produced with the help of ‘experts:’ an EA scientist and an EA analyst from Environment Canada, Atlantic Region.
To support the CBHNP moose cull, a Basic Impact Analysis (BIA) was approved less than one week before the HMMP was approved in November, 2015. The BIA was produced with the help of ‘experts,’ two of whom were authors of the HMMP. This appears to be a conflict of interest since they had a vested interest in the cull going ahead.
2) Hyperabundant numbers:
In GMNP, the moose population was shown as hyperabundant with 4.5 moose per square mile in some areas, and 5.4 in other areas. It was felt that a moose density of one to two moose per sq. km. “should be sufficient to allow considerable ecosystem recovery.”
In CBHNP, the moose population is considered hyperabundant at one to two moose per sq. km. They feel that numbers have to be lowered to 0.5 (half a moose) per sq. km. to allow forest recovery. One would think that a square km. is still a square km., no matter the location. Why is one to two moose per sq. km. considered hyperabundant in one national park and yet sufficient to allow ecosystem recovery in another?
3) Predators
In GMNP, the moose population had to be controlled because no hunting was allowed in the park. They list black bears as the only predator. It was also noted that “When subjected to extreme winter conditions a moose population ... is likely to experience high mortality.”
In CBHNP, the moose population had to be controlled because no hunting was allowed in the park. Neither black bears nor coyotes were mentioned as natural predators, even though both occur in the park. According to information about moose on a Nova Scotia Wildlife webpage, https://novascotia.ca/natr/ wildlife/sustainable/mmoosefaq.asp#mm21, “Black bear prey mainly on calves, but could attack old or injured moose as well . ... It has been suggested that coyotes may also play a role in moose calf predation.”
The CBHNP also give no consideration for extreme winter conditions on the moose population, even though the area is “subject to high snowfall in the winter.” One author of the HMMP even stated in an October 2015 newspaper article that “moose are designed to survive harsh winters.”
In discussion of the need for population control, CBHNP also mentions the low number of provincial moose licenses for areas adjacent to the park boundaries. However, they fail to mention that moose can be hunted year round in the Cape Breton highlands, outside of park boundaries.
4) Costs
In GMNP, it was determined that the cost of removal of moose could be extremely high at an estimated $1,000 to $1,500 per moose, if Parks Canada staff and contractors were used. They therefore decided to use individual volunteer harvesters.
In CBHNP, it was initially indicated that the cost of removal of moose would be about $1,000 per moose. But after two moose culls that cost has ballooned to approximately $9,000 per moose. One reason given for the lethal reduction option was that it was cost effective, but thus far two moose culls have cost at least $775,807.94.
Parks Canada Agency appears to be allowing an obvious misuse of taxpayer dollars.
5) Communication
In the development of the HMMP for GMNP, public consultation began even before the EA process. It included several province-wide, multistakeholder sessions, and more than 30 community and interest group meetings.
Attendees included wildlife specialists, and people from non-government organizations, Newfoundland and Labrador government departments, universities and park visitors. They felt that public feedback was instrumental in development of their management approach.
In the development of the HMMP for CBHNP, meetings were held in four small communities: Baddeck, Cape North, Pleasant Bay, Wagmatcook. No province-wide public meetings were held and consideration appeared not to be given to the opinions of the general public. The fact that public members may be upset with the cull was considered as a ‘negligible significance’
in some documentation.
In conclusion, failure to include all applicable information in their documentation gives an inaccurate picture of the need to control the CBHNP moose population, and especially the need to reduce the population to only 0.5 per sq km. The number 1,800, which makes the moose population hyperabundant at one to two moose per sq. km., has been used since the cull was first mentioned in 2014 and continues to be used to this day.
In my research, I was happy to see that people were making their feelings known to their MP, Parks Canada in Ottawa,
and to the Minister’s Office. If more people continue to contact them directly, they will be made aware of how the public feels about the ongoing moose cull in the CBHNP.
It is almost frightening to think that the CBHNP were ready to hold their first moose cull in November/December 2014 without an approved Basic Impact Analysis or an Approved Hyperabundant Moose Management Plan. Those requirements of their own Parks Canada Agency Directives weren’t even approved until almost one full year later!
“Why is one to two moose per square kilometer considered hyperabundant in one national park and yet sufficient to allow ecosystem recovery in another?”