Caribou response to human activity: research and management

Abstract

This paper describes the need by researchers and managers of caribou (Rangifer tarandus) to carefully assess the impact of their study methods on animals and results. An error made during a study of barren-ground caribou is described. Assumptions made during preparation of study methods need to be tested during collection of data. Study plans should include communication with, and respect for, residents who depend on the caribou resource. During field observations of caribou behavior, feeding habits, rutting activity or sex and age composition, closer is not better. During capture, handling and marking activities, shorter processing time is better. During aerial surveys, photography, sex and age determinations, higher is better. When interpreting data collected from marked caribou, and generally applying to the unmarked population, caution is advised. The merits and drawbacks of helicopter use to capture and mark caribou for research and management need to be discussed

Use of faecal pellet size to differentiate age classes in female Svalbard reindeer Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus

“…Another common tool for age determination is by visual estimation during helicopter surveys. However, the accuracy of this method requires that the animals be in open areas, and therefore, it may not be applicable to all species (Miller 2003, Reimers 2006). Many studies have attempted to use pellet size or dimensions such as diameter, weight or volume of the pellets to predict age directly from the measurements of the pellets or by deriving an equation from a statistical relationship for the estimation of the live weight (Putman 1984, MacCracken & Van Ballenberghe 1987, Reilly 2002, Chapman 2004, Southgate 2005).…”