cayoosh goat survey report 2008

Cayoosh Range

Mountain goat survey in the Cayoosh area, management unit 3-16, Thompson region, British Columbia, July 2008

Prepared for:

Doug Jury

British Columbia Ministry of Environment Thompson Region

1259 Dalhousie Drive Kamloops, BC V2C 5Z5

Prepared by:

Kim G. Poole

Aurora Wildlife Research 2305 Annable Road, Nelson BC V1L 6K4

Tele. (250) 825-4063; e-mail: [email protected]

September 2008

Cayoosh mountain goat survey, July 2008

Aurora Wildlife Research

ii

ABSTRACT Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are managed as a big game species in British Columbia,

and as such aerial surveys are conducted periodically to document population trend and productivity, and to establish hunting quotas. As a result of suspected declines in the population and a 10-year gap since the last survey, a survey was conducted to determine the numbers and distribution of goats in subzones 3-16B, C, D, E and F in the Pacific and Lillooet ranges of the Coast Mountains southwest of Lillooet, southeastern British Columbia, in July 2008. Standard survey techniques were followed using a Bell 206B helicopter.

We used 18.4 hrs of helicopter time, including 15.7 hrs on survey, and surveyed a 675-km2 census zone of potential goat habitat under good survey conditions. Overall survey effort averaged 1.4 min/km2. We observed 210 goats (150 adults, 60 kids) in 56 groups. Kids comprised 29% of total goats (40 kids:100 adults [non-kids]). Groups were distributed from 5,400 to 8,100 feet (1,650–2,470 m) elevation. I applied a sightability correction factor of 60% to derive an estimate of 350 goats for the census zone within the 5 subzones (density of 0.52 goats/km2). Other wildlife observed included 2 black bears (Ursus americanus) and 1 grizzly bear (U. arctos), and a pair of wolves on a ridgetop above Duffy Lake at 7,100 feet (2,160 m) elevation.

The last complete survey that covered most of these subzones was conducted in 1998. Comparison with the 1998 data, and considering survey effort and coverage, suggests a 50–60% reduction in goat numbers in all subzones censused with the exception of subzone 3-16C, where the estimate is similar between years. The cause(s) of the population decline in the Cayoosh are unknown. Annual hunter harvest since 2000 within the 5 subzones has averaged 6.25 animals annually, an annual harvest rate of approximately 1.8% of the estimated population size. The proportion of females in the harvest, while high during the 1980s and 1990s (averaging 41% and 36%, respectively), has declined since 2000 (19%). Wolves appear to have been re-established within the region starting in the late 1990s, and wolf predation on goats may have increased over the past 10 years. High kid ratios suggest a productive population not food-supply limited.

The estimate for subzone 3-16F was 25 goats; therefore, I suggest that hunting be eliminated or substantially reduced within this subzone until such point as the population is shown to be larger. The other subzones censused (3-16B, C, D, and E) can sustain continued harvest, although some reduction in harvest may be warranted given that it is unclear whether the decline observed from 1998 to 2008 is continuing, has stabilized, or the population has begun to increase. To monitor population status I recommend that the subzones be re-surveyed at 3–5 year intervals. Ministry of Environment should continue to provide hunter education and goat sex identification training for both resident and non-resident hunters/guides.



iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................ii

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................. 1

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................................................................................................ 3

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

Survey ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Harvest data .............................................................................................................................................. 5

DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................... 6

Population estimate................................................................................................................................... 6

Kid ratios................................................................................................................................................... 8

Management recommendations ................................................................................................................ 8

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................................... 9

LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................................. 9



1

INTRODUCTION Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are an important species in British Columbia, with over

half of the world population occurring in the province. Mountain goats are found in eastern and western sections of the Thompson Region (Region 3) of southern British Columbia (Shackleton 1999), with roughly 6% of the provincial total (Hatter 2005b). All goat hunting within the region is controlled on a Limited Entry Hunting (LEH) permit system, based on estimated population size, with 196 resident goat LEH permits and an average of 16 non-resident permits currently allocated annually. There is a perception of population declines across much of the region (Lemke 2005, D. Jury, Ministry of Environment [MoE], Kamloops, personal communication), but limited surveys have been conducted from the late 1980s to mid 2000s to substantiate this trend (Poole 2007a). Periodic surveys are required to update population estimates to ensure that harvests are sustainable.

This survey focussed on a number of subzones within management unit 3-16 on both sides of Cayoosh Creek southwest of Lillooet in southwestern British Columbia (Fig. 1). Considerable research (Lemke 1999) and surveys on mountain goats were conducted in this area in the 1990s, in part because it was used as a source for transplants within the province, and in part because of a ski development proposed for the Melvin Creek area. The last complete survey of this area occurred in September 1998 (Lemke 1998).

This current survey covers goat management unit subzones 3-16B, C, D, F and the northwestern half of E (Fig. 1). Eight or 10 resident LEH permits are currently allocated within each subzone (totalling 44 permits for the 5 subzones). Resident hunter effort within the subzone (i.e., whether a permitted hunter actually hunts) is unknown. One guide outfitter territory covers all 5 subzones, with a current annual allocation of 5.4 goats/year over a 4-year allocation period.

The impetus for this survey was the 10 years since the last inventory and declining hunter success (D. Jury, MoE, Kamloops, personal communication). Wolves (Canis lupus) were first observed in the areas in the late 1990s, which may have increased predator mortality within the population. The objectives of this survey were to determine the number and distribution of mountain goats within the subzones, and to compare survey results with historic data. Data obtained will be used to support current harvest management strategies.

STUDY AREA The Cayoosh study area is located in the Pacific and Lillooet ranges of the Coast Mountains,

primarily in the dry climatic moisture regime of the (former) Kamloops Forest Region (Lloyd et al. 1990). Potential goat habitat in the study area primarily is made up of 2 biogeoclimatic zones: the Engelmann Spruce-Subalpine Fir (ESSF) zone and the Alpine Tundra (AT) zone above tree line. Tree line is generally located between 1,800–2,000 m (5,900–6,550 ft) (Lloyd et al. 1990); there is little open alpine in this area. July and January mean temperatures for Lillooet, on the northeastern edge of the study area, are 21.4ºC and –3.6ºC, respectively (Environment Canada climate normals, unpublished data). Lillooet receives an average of 330 mm of precipitation including 32 cm of snowfall annually. Climate varies within the study area, with cooler temperatures and deeper snowfalls at higher elevations and on north and east-facing slopes. High on the valley sides, hybrid white-Engelmann spruce (Picea glauca x engelmannii) and subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) dominate, with scattered stands of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) on drier sites (Lloyd et al. 1990, Parish et al. 1996). A census zone of potential goat habitat was surveyed, which generally included steep or cliff habitat above 5,500 feet (1,700 m) elevation in most areas. (Feet are included as the unit of measure because the helicopter’s altimeter was in feet).



2

Figure 1. Location of mountain goats observed during the survey of subzones 3-16B, C, D, E, and F, 20–23 July 2008. The red dots are scaled for goat groups from 1 to 16 animals. All potential goat habitat within each subzone was surveyed, generally cliff and alpine habitat above 5,500 feet elevation (1,700 m). The orange line in subzone 3-16E indicates the portion of the subzone surveyed. Note that the western corner of subzone 3-16G was inadvertently surveyed as part of subzone 3-16B, as a result of confusion between the maps provided in the LEH guide and the digital boundaries.



3

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Study design and methodology generally followed RISC standards (RISC 2002, Poole 2007b),

and consisted of a total count survey, with sightability correction subjectively applied afterwards. We used a Bell 206B Jet Ranger helicopter with pilot, navigator, and 2 observers. The helicopter was equipped with bubble windows in the rear, and sliding windows in the front. All occupants participated in locating mountain goats, and all had extensive experience at aerial surveys. We surveyed all alpine, open subalpine, and forested cliff habitats. We flew roughly 150–200 m (500–650 foot) contour lines at 80–120 km/hr, 75–100 m out from the hillsides. We rarely used >10 minutes between adjacent contour flights to minimize the potential for excessive vertical movement of goats between passes. We mapped approximate flight lines and survey coverage on 1:50,000 scale topographical maps and calculated the census zone from the maps based on the area surveyed. For each goat sighting we also recorded broad habitat type, and elevation from the helicopter’s altimeter (estimated to the nearest 100 feet). Goat locations (corrected to the location of the group relative to the helicopter) and helicopter flight tracks were recorded with a hand-held global positioning system (GPS) unit, which was later downloaded to a computer. We classified goats only into kids and non-kid (yearlings and older; hereafter called adults) based on body size (Smith 1988) to reduce survey time, to minimize harassment (Côté 1996), and because researchers familiar with classification from aircraft agree more detailed age and sex classification is not reliable (Houston et al. 1986, Stevens and Houston 1989, Gonzalez-Voyer et al. 2001, S. Côté, Université de Sherbrooke, personal communication). Incidental wildlife sightings were also recorded.

Harvest data were obtained from MoE compulsory inspection (CI) files to 2005, updated with data obtained from Doug Jury (MoE, Kamloops, unpublished data) for 2006 and 2007. The subzone designations in the CI database are not always complete or accurate; therefore I used the UTM location to determine harvest within the subzone.

RESULTS

Survey We censused 5 subzones within management unit 3-16 from 20–23 July 2008. Survey

conditions and lighting were generally good with clear skies or high overcast. We ran into some lower-elevation cloud on the final day of survey, which resulted in poor coverage of small sections of subzone 3-16F. Surveys were conducted between 5:15 am and 11:45 am. Temperatures within the census zone ranged from 3–10ºC at survey time, cooling as the survey went on. We used 18.4 hrs of helicopter time, including 15.7 hrs on survey, and surveyed a census zone of 675 km2 (Table 1). Overall survey intensity averaged 1.4 min/km2 (range among blocks: 1.1–1.8 min/km2; Table 1).

We observed 210 goats in 56 groups (Fig. 1), for an average observed density of 0.31 goats/km2. Group size ranged from 1 to 16 goats and averaged 3.8 ± 0.55 ( x ± SE). “Typical” group size, an animal-centred measure of the group size within which the average animal finds itself (Jarman 1974, Heard 1992), was 8.1 (± 0.33). Three-quarters (75%) of goat groups consisted of 1–4 animals, but only 14 groups accounted for 70% of the total animals observed. Overall we counted 60 kids (29% of total goats), a 40 kids:100 adults ratio. Based on past experience and other research (summarized in Poole 2007b) and considering the survey effort and habitat, I applied a sightability correction factor of 60% to derive an estimate of 350 goats for the census zone (density of 0.52 goats/km2). Subzones 3-16B and 3-16C had the highest number of goats, and the highest kid:adult ratios, and 3-16C had the highest density.



4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

5500 5800 6100 6400 6700 7000 7300 7600 7900 8200

Elevation (feet)

No.

of m

t goa

t gro

ups

Table 1. Mountain goats observed by subzone, management unit 3-16, Thompson region, July 2008. “Adults” refers to non-kids (yearlings and older).

Date

Subzone1

Total

Adults

Kids

Kid:100 ad ratio

Time on survey (min)

Census area (km2)

Survey effort (min/km2)

Density (goats/km2)

20 Jul 08 3-16B n 26 17 9 179 118 1.5 0.22 21 Jul 08 3-16C 66 44 22 50 155 121 1.3 0.55 21 Jul 08 3-16B s 36 25 11 159 141 1.1 0.26 Subtotal 3-16B 62 42 20 48 338 259 1.3 0.24

22 Jul 08 3-16D 32 27 5 19 179 99 1.8 0.32 22 Jul 08 3-16E 35 26 9 35 128 95 1.3 0.37 23 Jul 08 3-16F 15 11 4 36 142 102 1.4 0.15 Total 210 150 60 40 942 675 1.3 0.24 1 “n” and “s” refer to north and south portions of subzone 3-16B, respectively (see Discussion).

Goat groups were distributed from 5,400 to 8,100 feet (1,650–2,470 m); median = 7,100 feet (2,160 m), with 80% of groups observed between 6,300 feet and 7,600 feet (1,920–2,320 m)(Fig. 2). We observed 33% of goat groups in cliff/broken cliff complexes (n = 54 groups). Other habitats used included ridge tops (31%), scree/talus (15%), timbered habitat (10%), and the rest in alpine meadows, at mineral licks, and on snow (11%).

Other wildlife observed included 2 black bears (Ursus americanus) and 1 grizzly bear (U. arctos) at 5,800–6,200 feet (1,770–1,890 m) elevation, and a pair of wolves on a ridgetop above Duffy Lake at 7,100 feet (2,160 m). The wolves were observed <2 km from 2 groups of goats, including a group of 11 animals. A handful of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) were also observed (not recorded).

Figure 2. Elevation distribution of mountain goats observed during a survey of the Cayoosh area (n = 56 goat groups). Elevations were estimated based on the helicopters’ altimeter.



5

Subzone 3-16B

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

No.

of g

oats

har

vest

ed

Male Female

Subzone 3-16C

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

No.

of g

oats

har

vest

ed

Male Female

Subzone 3-16D

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

No.

of g

oats

har

vest

ed

Male Female

Subzone 3-16E

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

No.

of g

oats

har

vest

ed

Male Female

Subzone 3-16F

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

No.

of g

oats

har

vest

ed

Male Female

Subzones 3-16 B,C,D,E,F

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

No.

of g

oats

har

vest

ed

Male Female

Harvest data Among the subzones surveyed, subzone 3-16B had the greatest harvest, totalling 91 goats (31%

female) from 1982 to 2007 (Fig. 3). Thirty animals, including 5 females (17%), were harvested from 3-16B in the decade since 1998. Sixty-eight goats were taken from subzone 3-16D, including 29 females (43%); in the past decade 17 goats were harvested, including 8 females (47%). Total harvests over the past 26 years for subzones 3-16 D, E, and F were 52, 31, and 18, respectively, with females comprising 27%, 38%, and 17% of the harvest, respectively. In most of these 3 subzones, the harvest since 1998 has been reduced compared to prior to 1998. Overall, females comprised 33% of the harvest since 1982 (n = 256), 20% of the harvest since 2000 (n = 50), and only 8% since 2002 (n = 36). Residents took 59% of the harvest between 2000 and 2005 (n = 39).

Figure 3. Harvest data from 1982 to 2007 for subzones within management unit 3-16. Subzone 3-16D had 1 goat with no sex provided harvested in 1994; subzone 3-16E had 1 in 1994 and 1 on 1998. The bottom right graph summarizes the 5 subzones.



6

DISCUSSION

Population estimate Weather conditions and visibility during the survey were good with the exception of some low

cloud on the last day of survey. Although the weather was slightly above seasonal norms during the first portion of the survey, overnight temperatures were cool, and temperatures at survey altitude declined during the survey. We had no indication that the goats were hiding in cliffs or forests to escape the heat.

Survey effort (1.4 min/km2) was slightly lower than effort used for recent goat surveys in the Kootenay Region (Poole and Klafki 2005, Poole 2006a, 2007b) and in the North Thompson (Poole 2006b)(range 1.8–2.1 min/km2). I applied a sightability correction of 60% to the number of observed animals to obtain an estimate for the population. Although standardized surveys have greater utility in being used as indicators of broad population trend over time, rather than absolute estimates of population size (Gonzalez-Voyer et al. 2001, Poole 2007b), management agencies still require estimates of population size based on infrequent surveys. Studies show wide variation in the sightability of mountain goats, affected by a host of factors. Very low survey effort likely will result in poor sightability, but differences in sightability at moderate to higher effort likely are confounded by other factors (Poole 2007b). In most surveys conducted in the East Kootenay, a sightability correction of 60–65% has been applied (Poole and Klafki 2005, Poole 2006a, 2007b). Based on studies conducted in the East Kootenay and elsewhere (summarized in Poole 2007b), I assumed that we observed an average of 60% of the goats in the subzones surveyed, less than the 65% sightability generally applied to most areas in the Rocky Mountains within the East Kootenay because of higher tree line, greater association by goats with forested habitats, more convoluted and broken terrain, and slightly lower survey effort.

We observed 210 mountain goats and estimated 350 animals within the census zone. Our estimate is only slightly lower than the estimate used by MoE in 2006 to calculate annual allowable harvest (Table 2). In order to compare the 2008 results with numbers observed in September 1998, I considered subzone coverage and survey effort (minutes per km2 of area, in large part a function of the number of passes along a mountain face and the speed of those passes). Comparing total numbers of goats between surveys is of limited value because the census zone was not identical.

Comparison of survey effort by subzone suggests that in general >50% greater effort was used in 2008 compared with 1998 (Table 2). Survey effort calculations may not be directly comparable because of differences in calculating the areas searched (census zones), but the time used to cover a complete subzone (3-16C, D) is likely a valid comparison. For example, although approximately half of subzone 3-16B was covered in 1998 with 1.0 hours of survey, 5.6 hours was used to cover the entire subzone in 2008. Notes from the datasheets suggest some areas in 1998 were “high-graded” (Lemke 1998).

Subzone 3-16B: The estimated number of goats for subzone 3-16B in 2008 was similar to the estimate from 1998 when only the southern half of the subzone was covered (Table 2). Considering only about half of the subzone was surveyed in 1998 (where 53 goats were observed, compared with 22 goats in 2008 in the same area [most of 3-16s]), the number of goats present may have declined approximately 50% by 2008.

Subzone 3-16C: Estimated goat numbers are similar between 1998 and 2008, with only slightly lower time on survey in 1998.

Subzone 3-16D: Estimated goat numbers are about 60% lower than the estimate from 1998. This reduction is likely realistic, considering nearly twice as much survey effort was applied in 2008, yet half as many goats were observed. This area contains what may have been considered the core of the Cayoosh population, in the Downton and Melvin creek drainages.



7

Subzone 3-16F: Although the 2008 survey covered a greater portion of this subzone compared with the 1998 survey, the areas covered by both surveys suggest at least a 50% reduction in numbers.

Table 2. Total number of goats observed, survey effort, and estimated number of animals from goat surveys conducted in 1998 (Lemke 1998) and 2008 (this study), and Ministry of Environment estimates for 1994 and 2006 (D. Jury, MoE, Kamloops, unpublished data), for selected subzones in management unit 3-16, Cayoosh region. Sightability correction (sight) was assumed to be 50% and 60% for 1998 and 2008, respectively. Note that the estimated total goats for subzone 3-16B do not cover the same area in 1998 and 2008 (see text).

1998 2008

MU subzone

Total goats

Effort (hrs)

Survey effort

(min/km2)1

Est. total goats

Total goats

Effort (hrs)

Survey effort

(min/km2)

Est. total goats

1994 MoE total goat

estimate2

2006 MoE total goat

estimate2

3-16B3 53 1.0 0.54 106 62 5.6 1.3 103 160 120

3-16C 55 2.3 0.87 110 66 2.6 1.3 110 120 80

3-16D 63 1.6 0.83 126 32 3.0 1.8 53 100 80

3-16E4 35 2.1 1.3 58 80 60

3-16F5 30 1.3 0.89 60 15 2.4 1.4 25 60 50

Total 0.78 1.3 349 520 390 1 Survey effort based on time surveyed and area searched as reported in Lemke (1998) 2 1994 population estimate used for the annual allowable harvest from the Thompson regional wildlife management plan, with revised estimate provided for 2006 (D. Jury, MoE, Kamloops, personal communication). 3 Just over half of subzone 3-16B was surveyed in 1998, corresponding to most of 3-16B s in 2008. 4 The northwestern half of 3-16E was surveyed in 2008. 5 The western third of subzone 3-16F not was surveyed in 1998. This area contained no goats in 2008.

In summary, the survey data suggest that in most subzones the number of goats has declined over the past decade. In all but subzone 3-16C, the reduction appears to be in the order of 50–60%. The cause(s) of the population decline in the Cayoosh are unknown. Potential causes for a decline in a goat numbers include habitat change (e.g., as a result of fire suppression), weather (especially severe winter and spring conditions), increased disturbance, predation, and overharvest. General increases in predator numbers, or a few individual predators specializing on goats, could reduce numbers and kid survival. Re-establishment of wolves in the area in the late 1990s may have affected numbers, although the high kid ratio suggests limited impact on young animals during their first months of life. The fact that 2 wolves were observed at 7,100 feet (2,160 m) in the midst of goat habitat, and observation of wolf scat containing goat hair, suggests that predation by wolves on goats is likely. During the 1996–1999 collaring study in the Cayoosh, wolves were suspected in 2 of 3 natural mortalities not attributed to human harvest or the captures (Lemke 1999).

It is unclear whether excessive harvest, especially the high proportion of females in the harvest prior to 2000, may have contributed to the observed decline. Although females comprised a relatively high proportion of the harvest during the 1980s and 1990s, fewer females were harvested since 2000 (Fig. 3). Since 2000, the annual harvest within the 5 subzones has averaged 6.25 animals annually, an annual harvest rate of approximately 1.8% of the estimated 350 goats within the area. This rate is slightly lower than the average for the Kootenay region (2.2%; Poole 2006a). Thus, it is not apparent that hunter harvest has contributed to the observed decline in goat numbers within the area.



8

Kid ratios The overall kid:adult ratio (40:100) was the highest documented in the Fraser region (Poole

2007a) and at the upper range of ratios observed in the East Kootenay since 2000 (Poole 2006a). The September 1998 survey of subzone 3-16 observed 34 kids:100 adults (Lemke 1998).

Kid production appears to be negatively associated with winter severity during pregnancy (Smith 1977, Adams and Bailey 1982, Swenson 1985) and April–May snowfall and snow depth (Thompson 1980, Hopkins et al. 1992). August kid ratios at Caw Ridge, Alberta, averaged 21:100 over the past 10 years (range 15–29:100), during a period when the population increased by approximately 50% (S. Côté, personal communication). Since much kid mortality can occur over winter and goats generally do not reproduce until 2–3 years of age, moderate to high kid ratios can provide an expectation of some recruitment, but are limited in their utility to predict population change (Côté and Festa-Bianchet 2003). Alternatively, low kid ratios may still result in increased populations if yearling and older mortality is low; if adult mortality is high, then higher recruitment is required to maintain a population.

Management recommendations Our survey indicates that the overall mountain goat population within the census zone of

subzones 3-16B, C, D, E, and F likely numbers approximately 350 animals, and has been reduced at least 50% since 1998. Potential causes for this reduction are unknown. High kid ratios suggest a productive population not food-supply limited. Wolf predation and continued moderate harvest pressure may reduce the ability of the population to sustain previous numbers or to increase over time.

Based on currently Ministry of Environment recommendations on sustainable mountain goat hunting, populations of <50 animals should not be hunted (Hatter 2005a). A similar recommendation was made for goat populations in Alberta (Hamel et al. 2006). Until there is evidence that more goats inhabit the subzone, I recommend that all resident and non-resident goat hunting in subzone 3-16F be eliminated, or at minimum considerably cut back. It is unlikely that the goat population within subzone 3-16F is discrete from surrounding areas, but the amount of overlap between 3-16F and adjacent areas are unknown.

Harvesting within the other censused subzones can be continued, although the harvest within subzone 3-16D and E could be reduced to reflect lower estimated populations. It is unlikely that populations within any of these subzones are totally discrete from surrounding areas. Lemke (1999) found some movement of collared goats between subzones 3-16C and D. Thus, harvest levels in one subzone may affect populations in adjacent subzones.

The proportion of female mountain goats in the harvest was high during the 1980s and 1990s (averaging 41% and 36%, respectively), but has declined during the 2000s (19%). Increased hunter education and goat identification efforts since 2000 appear to have paid off here and in many areas of the province (e.g., Poole 2006a). Ministry of Environment should continue to provide hunter education on goat sex identification for both resident and non-resident hunters/guides (e.g., using Duncan Gilchrist’s goat identification DVD; www.wildramhunters.net).

Standardized surveys have greater utility in being used as indicators of broad population trend over time, rather than absolute estimates of population size (Gonzalez-Voyer et al. 2001, Poole 2007b). Ten years between surveys is too long a time to provide trend information on populations and enable timely management reactions to changing estimates. For example, it is unclear whether the 2008 estimate represents a recent continued decline, stabilization of numbers, or a recent increase. To monitor population status I recommend that the subzones be re-surveyed at 3–5 year intervals.



9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This survey was funded by British Columbia Ministry of Environment. A. Toombs, C C

Helicopters Ltd., Lillooet, provided expert piloting. D. Jury, G. Kuzyk, and B. Butcher, BC Ministry of Environment, were observers during the survey, and I thank them for their enthusiasm and assistance. C. Ens, BC Ministry of Agriculture and Land, provided background GIS base data, and S. Poole calculated the census zone from topographic maps. Thanks to D. Jury for the opportunity to conduct this survey. D. Jury provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this report.

LITERATURE CITED Adams, L.A., and J.A. Bailey. 1982. Population dynamics of mountain goats in the Sawatch Range,

Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:1003–1009.

Côté, S.D. 1996. Mountain goat responses to helicopter disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:681–685.

Côté, S.D., and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2003. Mountain goat. Pages 1061–1075 in Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. G.A. Feldhamer, B. Thompson, and J. Chapman, editors. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Gonzalez-Voyer, A., K.G. Smith, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 2001. Efficiency of aerial surveys of mountain goats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:140–144.

Hamel, S., S. D. Côté, K.G. Smith, and M Festa-Bianchet. 2006. Population dynamics and harvest potential of mountain goat herds in Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1044–1053.

Hatter, I. 2005a. Guidelines for determining sustainable harvest of mountain goats. Presented at the 1st BC Mountain Goat Workshop, Prince George, BC, March 2005.

Hatter, I. 2005b. Mountain goat status and inventory needs in British Columbia. Presented at the 1st BC Mountain Goat Workshop, Prince George, BC, March 2005.

Hopkins, A., J.P. Fitzgerald, A. Chappell, and G. Byrne. 1992. Population dynamics and behavior of mountain goats using Elliot Ridge, Gore Range, Colorado. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 8:340–356.

Houston, D.B., B.B. Moorhead, and R.W. Olson. 1986. An aerial census of mountain goats in the Olympic Mountain Range, Washington. Northwest Scientist 60:131–136.

Lemke, S.L. 1998. Mountain goat population survey management unit 3-16, September 1998. Unpublished report for BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Kamloops.

Lemke, S.L. 1999. Cayoosh Range mountain goat study results and recommendations. Unpublished report for BC Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Kamloops.

Lemke, S. 2005. Mountain goat population inventory, Thompson region, management units 3-43 and 3-44. Ursus Ecological Consulting, Kamloops. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Kamloops, British Columbia.

Lloyd, D., K. Angove, G. Hope, and C. Thompson. 1990. A guide to site identification and interpretation for the Kamloops Forest Region. British Columbia Ministry of Forests Land Management Handbook no. 23, Victoria, British Columbia.

Parish, R., R. Coupé, and D. Lloyd (Editors). 1996. Plants of southern interior British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Vancouver, British Columbia.



10

Poole, K.G. 2006a. A population review of mountain goats in the Kootenay Region. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Nelson, British Columbia.

Poole, K.G. 2006b. Mountain goat survey in Management Unit 3-44, Thompson region, British Columbia, September 2006. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Kamloops, British Columbia.

Poole, K.G. 2007a. A population review of mountain goats in the Thompson Region. Unpublished report for British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Kamloops, British Columbia.

Poole, K.G. 2007b. Does survey effort influence sightability of mountain goats during aerial surveys? Wildlife Biology 13:113–119.

Poole, K.G., and R. Klafki. 2005. Mountain goat survey in the East Kootenay, British Columbia, August 2005. Unpublished report for British Columbia Conservation Foundation, Surrey, and British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Cranbrook, British Columbia.

RISC (Resources Information Standards Committee). 2002. Aerial-based inventory methods for selected ungulates: bison, mountain goat, mountain sheep, moose, elk, deer and caribou. Standards for components of British Columbia’s biodiversity No. 32. Version 2.0. Resources Information Standards Committee, B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Victoria, British Columbia.

Shackleton, D. 1999. Hoofed mammals of British Columbia. The Mammals of British Columbia, Volume 3, Royal British Columbia Museum. UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Smith, B.L. 1977. Influence of snow condition on winter distribution, habitat use, and group size of mountain goats. Pages 174–189 in W. Samuel and W.G. Macgregor, editors. Proceedings of the First International Mountain Goat Symposium, Kalispell, Montana. British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Columbia.

Smith, B.L. 1988. Criteria for determining age and sex of American mountain goats in the field. Journal of Mammalogy 69:395–402.

Stevens, V., and D.B. Houston. 1989. Reliability of age determination of mountain goats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:72–74.

Swenson, J.E. 1985. Compensatory reproduction in an introduced mountain goat population in the Absaroka Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:837–843.

Thompson, R.W. 1980. Population dynamics, habitat utilization, recreational impacts and trapping of introduced Rocky Mountain goats in the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area, Colorado. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 2:459–462.

cayoosh goat survey report 2008

Documents