Managing elk in a world with complex predator-prey (and social!) dynamics: A case study from the Kootenays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I will present current challenges to managing elk in a multi-predator/multi-prey system in the Kootenay Region of southeast BC. Elk in this region are highly valued by licensed hunters, First Nations and the general public and are one of the most controversial and closely monitored wildlife populations in the province. In 2010, BC Fish and Wildlife developed an elk management plan for the Kootenay Region following extensive stakeholder involvement. At that time there was relatively little regard for predation since elk populations were increasing and thought to be at or near carrying capacity in many areas. Concerns centered around the effects of large elk populations on grassland ecosystems, other wildlife species (such as bighorn sheep) and agricultural operations. Objectives for elk population targets were established by considering social and ecological criteria, and focused on reducing or maintaining populations using hunting as the primary management tool. Elk management from 2010 to 2014 followed guidance from the plan and objectives were largely achieved. Since 2014, managing elk populations has been largely reactive to the effects of predation. Information on predation is gathered from elk population and composition surveys, radio-collared elk, and anecdotal observations (e.g., from First Nations, the general public, biologists, and Conservation Officers). This information is then applied to management, in consideration of social perspectives identified through public surveys and focus group meetings. For example, wildlife staff consider predation effects on population size and trend when setting cow/calf elk seasons and number of Limited Entry Hunt authorizations. In the fall of 2015, wildlife staff began developing a provincial management plan for Rocky Mountain elk. A key part of this plan will be a management tool table, which will identify potential tools (e.g., predator management to increase elk populations), their likely biological effectiveness, as well as relevant policy, social, and economic considerations. I will provide an overview of these tools, focusing on those related to predator-prey dynamics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".