<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>27</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Antoniuk, T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">McNeil, L.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nishi, J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Manuel, K.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Caribou protection and recovery program - technical guidance</style></title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aboriginal</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">control</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">First Nations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">in-situ</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mammals</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Métis</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pipeline</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">planning</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">research needs</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">roads</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">wildlife deterrents</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">07/2012</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://salmoconsulting.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/caribou-protection-and-recovery-program-2012.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Oil Sands Leadership Initiative Land Stewardship Working Group </style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Calgary, AB</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">52 pages </style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Oil Sands Leadership Initiative Land Stewardship Working Group (OSLI LSWG) is investigating the technical feasibility of creating a fenced woodland caribou predator exclosure or safe zone in northeast Alberta. Most woodland caribou populations in this region are declining, government policy supports continued development of bitumen reserves, and recent caribou management initiatives have concluded that immediate and aggressive management intervention is required.
A large fenced predator-free exclosure for woodland caribou is a management option that has been frequently discussed, but which has not formally been evaluated or attempted for conservation of woodland caribou. There is uncertainty about the technical, ecological, and political feasibility of this novel and aggressive approach to house and protect caribou in northeast Alberta until sufficient functional habitat can be restored. The OSLI LSWG decided to contribute to the debate around this caribou management option by providing a focused, independent evaluation of the technical merits of this approach, referred to as the Caribou Protection and Recovery Program (CPAR).
In 2011, the OSLI LSWG commissioned four independent feasibility evaluations to identify the risks and opportunities of constructing, maintaining, and monitoring a fenced predator exclosure and assess the overall practicality and likelihood of implementing a successful fencing program. A workshop with 43 technical experts was then held in May 2012 to discuss appropriate guidelines or criteria that would be required to successfully implement a predator exclosure from a biological and ecological standpoint, or the science-based reasons why this approach should not be considered further. This report integrates conclusions and recommendations of the four feasibility evaluations and technical expert workshop.
</style></abstract><custom4><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">OSEMB</style></custom4></record></records></xml>