Here is the latest article produced concerning the Elk reintroduction
The Restoration of Elk (Cervus elaphus) in
Ontario, Canada: 1998–2005
Rick Rosatte,1,2 Joe Hamr,3 Jim Young,4 Ivan Filion,3 and Howard Smith5
Abstract
In 1997, a plan to restore Elk (Cervus elaphus) to Ontario
was approved by the provincial government. The objective
of the Ontario elk restoration program, a multipartnered
collaboration, was to restore a species that had
been extirpated from the province during the 1800s. During
1998–2001, 460 elk were acquired from Elk Island
National Park, Alberta, for release in four areas of Ontario.
As greater than 90% of the elk were radio collared, monitoring
provided detailed information on the dynamics of
the four populations. Comprehensive research projects
using graduate students were implemented to determine
the environmental impact of releasing elk in Ontario.
Those studies are in progress or have been completed and
include the effect of wolf predation on restored elk, whitetailed
deer and elk resource overlap, the development of
genetic profiles for elk, and solutions for elk/human conflicts.
Mortality of the released elk averaged 41% (190/
460) during 1998–2004 with annual mortality generally
declining over time in each release area. The primary
causes of elk mortality included wolf predation (25% of
mortalities), illegal shooting (13%), stress-related emaciation
(13%) (partially due to the stress of relocation), bacterial
infections (7%), and collisions with vehicles (6%).
Productivity has been high in one of the release areas with
24–65% of the cows being observed with calves during
late winter surveys. However, productivity has been low
in two of the northern release areas due to a variety of factors
including wolf predation. In some areas, dispersion of
elk appeared to be related to the length of time animals
were kept in pens prior to release. The precalving population
estimate for Ontario in March 2004 was 375–440 elk.
A comprehensive program review was conducted in 2003/
2004 that included recommendations relating to the future
management of elk in Ontario.
Key words: Cervus elaphus, elk, Ontario, restoration.
Introduction
History of Elk Restoration in North America
Elk (Cervus elaphus), also known as wapiti, were historically
distributed across much of the United States and
parts of Canada (Murie 1951; Bryant & Maser 1982;
O’Gara & Dundas 2002; Peek 2003). Although accurate
methods of determining elk population size were not
available at the time, Seton (1927) estimated that there
were about 10,000,000 elk in North America prior to the
immigration of Europeans (Bryant & Maser 1982). By the
early 1900s, elk populations across North America were
severely depressed (estimated at about 100,000) due to
unregulated meat hunting, severe winters in some areas,
and eradication due to competition with livestock and
crop damage. In simple terms, elk were exterminated
because of competition for settled land (Bryant & Maser
1982). In fact, two subspecies, Meriam (C. elaphus merriami)
and Eastern (C. elaphus canadensis) of elk were
extinct, one, Tule (C. elaphus nannodes), had been eradicated
from most of its range, and three, Rocky Mountain
(C. elaphus nelsoni), Roosevelt (C. elaphus roosevelti),
and Manitoban (C. elaphus manitobensis), were near
extinction by the early twentieth century (Bryant & Maser
1982). Fortunately, National Parks were created in the
United States and Canada during this period to protect
elk and other natural resources, and by the 1970s, there
were an estimated 500,000 elk in North America (Bryant &
Maser 1982).
Numerous reintroductions or supplementations were
initiated across North America in the early part of the
twentieth century in an attempt to rebuild elk populations
that were decimated during the 1800s (Bryant & Maser
1982; O’Gara & Dundas 2002). Some of those efforts were
successful, whereas others failed for a variety of reasons
(Severinghaus & Darrow 1976; Bryant & Maser 1982). The
majority of elk for those restoration attempts were acquired
from Yellowstone National Park and Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
Recent (1995–2001) reintroduction attempts have
occurred in Kentucky, Ontario, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Wisconsin (O’Gara & Dundas 2002; Rosatte et al.
2002; Larkin et al. 2003, 2004). Due in part to restoration,
elk now occupy more land across North America than
at any time since the early twentieth century with an
1 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Research and Development
Section, Trent University, Science Complex, PO Box 4840, Peterborough,
Ontario, Canada K9J 8N8.
2 Address correspondence to R. Rosatte, email
rick.rosatte@mnr.gov.on.ca
3 Northern Environmental Heritage Institute, Cambrian College, 1600 Barrydowne
Road, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3A 3V8.
4 24 Karen Drive, Lindsay, Ontario, Canada K9V 5V5.
5 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Section, 300 Water Street,
Peterborough, Ontario, Canada K9J 8M5.
2007 Society for Ecological Restoration International
34 Restoration Ecology Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 34–43 MARCH 2007
estimated population of 782,000 to 1 million, depending
on the reference (Peek 1999, 2003; O’Gara & Dundas
2002).
History of Elk in Ontario
Once native to Ontario, elk were extirpated by the late
1800s as a result of several factors including unregulated
hunting, market hunting, and the eradication of elk on
lands targeted for human settlement and agriculture.
There have been several attempts to restore elk to the
province, including one in the early 1930s where 24 Rocky
Mountain elk from Alberta were released in Ontario.
Additional translocations during the 1930s brought the
total number of elk released in the province to about 200.
By the mid-1940s, the Ontario elk population was estimated
at about 300. Unfortunately, most of these animals
and their offspring were subsequently killed by provincial
officials due to unfounded concerns that the elk were
infecting cattle with the giant liver fluke (Fascioloides
magna). It is estimated that about 1,000 elk were killed
during the late 1940s and early 1950s. However, two small
herds of elk somehow managed to survive in the Burwash/
French River area of Central Ontario and have been protected
since 1980. In 1996, provincial elk numbers were
estimated at about 50–60 animals. During the mid to late
1990s, a plan was drafted to supplement that population
and restore elk to other areas of Ontario.
Ontario’s Elk Restoration Plan
The plan for the restoration of elk in Ontario (Bellhouse &
Broadfoot 1998) identified six broad geographic areas
in Ontario that contained suitable elk habitat (Fig. 1) and
recommended that up to 200 animals be introduced to
each release area to ensure the establishment of viable
self-sustaining populations. Ontario’s elk restoration initiative
involved many partner groups, volunteers, and
sponsors including Cambrian College, Elk Island National
Park (EINP) (Parks Canada), French River Resorts Association,
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters,
Ontario Fur Managers Federation, the Rocky Mountain
Elk Foundation, Safari Club International (Ontario Chapter),
Sault College, Trent University, Laurentian University,
Lakehead University, and the Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources (OMNR). Local Implementation Committees
(LICs) to support fund raising and monitoring
have been established in the four areas where elk have
been introduced.
Methods
Source of Elk for Ontario’s Elk Restoration Effort
EINP near Edmonton, Alberta, was the source of elk
for Ontario’s current (1998–2004) restoration effort. EINP
operates one of the most rigorous disease management
programs in North America in cooperation with the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The park’s
boundary is completely fenced preventing the animals
from dispersing naturally and this, along with a lack of
predators, results in a surplus of elk that can be removed
annually. Individual elk were assessed, ###ed and aged,
treated for parasites and diseases, ear tagged, and fitted
with radio collars using the process outlined in Rosatte
et al. (2002).
Transportation, Animal Holding, Release, and Monitoring of Elk
Elk were shipped to Ontario in commercial transport trailers,
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Canada (RMEFC)
gooseneck trailers, or commercial stock trailers and were
provided hay and water during all shipments. Shipment
time from EINP to Sudbury (except during 1998) was 40–46
hours, to Blind River 48 hours, to Kenora 24 hours, and to
Bancroft 48–58 hours, with weather and road conditions
determining the exact timing.
Upon arrival in Ontario, the elk were placed in holding
pens to recuperate from the trip and to habituate to their
new surroundings. The length of the holding period varied
from an unplanned immediate release (hard release) to
4–10 days (semisoft release) to 6–16 weeks (soft release).
Once released, elk were monitored using radiotelemetry.
Attempts were made to submit elk mortalities to the Canadian
Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, Guelph, Ontario,
for postmortem to determine the cause of death. To date
(2006), elk have been released within four of the six areas
identified in the plan to restore elk in Ontario: (1) Nipissing/
French River (NFR); (2) Haliburton Highlands (later
changed to Bancroft/North Hastings [BNH]); (3) Lake of
the Woods (LOW); and (4) Lake Huron North Shore
(LHNS) (Fig. 1). Further shipments have not occurred due
to the threat of Figure 1. Potential elk release areas in Ontario. chronic wasting disease (CWD).
The Restoration of Elk in Ontario
MARCH 2007 Restoration Ecology 35
Elk Research Programs
In 1999, the Elk Restoration Network together with
Ontario’s elk technical experts assessed Ontario’s research
needs and priorities and deigned a research program
with the following objectives:
d To determine the environmental and interspecific impact
of restoring elk to Ontario.
d To initiate research projects that will assist in managing
elk herds in Ontario to attain maximum growth potential
and survival.
d To initiate a series of research projects that will provide
data for the development of a management plan for elk
in Ontario.
The most feasible approach to implement research programs
was by employing graduate students. Since 2000, a
total of 11 graduate research programs focusing on the
restored elk have been initiated at several universities in
Ontario including Laurentian, Trent, Lakehead, and Guelph.
Investigations included the population dynamics of introduced
herds, the potential for competition between elk
and white-tailed deer, elk habitat signatures, long-term
population censusing methods, development of a postrelease
elk dispersion model, the impact of predation on
released elk, genetic profiling, and nuisance behavior mitigation
(Fig. 2). In late 2003, a 5-year review of Ontario’s
elk restoration and research program was completed. This
document identified future challenges and opportunities.
Results
Numbers, ###, and Age Classes of Animals Shipped
Between January 1998 and February 2001, 460 elk were
transported from Alberta to Ontario. The ### and age
distribution for these elk is shown in Table 1. An approximate
ratio of 2.5 cows to 1 bull was requested to maximize
productivity and herd growth. However, this was not
always possible due to the ### and age distribution of elk
that were captured at EINP during any given year.
Mortality
Total accumulated mortality among the 460 elk that were
transported to Ontario was 41% (190/460) between 1998
and 2004 (Table 2). However, 17 of those mortalities
occurred in the holding pens prior to release. Most of
these mortalities were thought to be stress related (i.e.,
pneumonia, injury related infections, etc.). Wolf predation
was high for the first two (1998/1999) shipments to the
NFR elk release area (ERA) (Table 2). Fourteen of 69
animals released in the NFR area in mid-January, 1999,
were lost by the end of April as a consequence of post–
release stress. Mortality due to meningeal worm infection
may become a factor in the future in the BNH area as several
elk (59% of a sample) have been suspect for Parelaphostrongylous
tenuis. About 82% of white-tailed deer
fecal samples were positive for P. tenuis larvae (McIntosh
et al. 2006) (Fig. 3).
Cumulative calf mortality averaged 38% (50/130) for all
years and all areas (Table 3). Mortality for bulls in all
areas averaged 33% (28/84) and cow mortality was 46%
with yearly as well as area-specific differences (Table 3).
The 28% total mortality figure for LOW during 2000
(Table 2) is somewhat biased as four of the mortalities
were noncollared animals and so may not reflect the true
degree of mortality. Once elk had been on the landscape
for a few years in Ontario, annual mortality tended to
decrease (Fig. 4).
Productivity
The percentage of cows with calves during late winter surveys
has varied greatly since the inception of the elk restoration
program with a high of 65% in the BNH area
during 2004 to a low of 0% in the NFR area in the winter
of 2001.
NFR Area. In the winters (February–March) of 1999 and
2000, only 10–20% of recently introduced adult cows in
the NFR area were accompanied by calves. That included
sightings of 6 calves during 1999 and 12 during 2000. A
December 2000/January 2001 calf survey showed that over
30% of the adult cows in the NFR elk population (both
resident and restored elk) had calves (22 in total)
(Table 4). Wolf-killed elk calves, born in NFR, were
observed in the winters of 1999, 2000, and 2001. Elk
remains were found in the stomachs of four out of six
wolves snared by trappers in the core of the NFR elk
range during December 2000. During an April 2002 survey,
only 1 calf was observed per 35 cows. Two calves
were found dead on a railway line and wolves killed at
Figure 2. R. Rosatte and J. O’Donnell replacing the radio collar on
an immobilized cow elk near Bancroft, Ontario. (Photo by Ryan
Cavanaugh.)
The Restoration of Elk in Ontario
36 Restoration Ecology MARCH 2007
least one during the late winter of 2002. This combined
with the 2002 survey data indicates a high mortality rate
for calves in the NFR ERA. During the winter of 2003,
there was little accumulated snowfall in the NFR area
with strong ice conditions and no snow crust. The late winter
survey showed 30% of the observed cows were accompanied
by calves (Table 4). During the winter of 2004,
there was once again little accumulated snowfall in the
NFR area, and the early winter survey showed a promising
37% of observed cows with calves. However, this dropped
to 23% in the late winter survey. There was some level of
predation during the winter of 2004 with three elk calves
confirmed as wolf kills.
BNH Area. About 14 calves were confirmed in the BNH
ERA during the summer/fall of 2000. A total of 25 cow
elk were observed during a helicopter survey on 20–23
February 2001 in the Bancroft ERA. Ten of those cows
(40%) had calves (Table 4). During an aerial survey in the
Bancroft ERA on 6–9 March 2002, 14 calves were
observed as well as 37 mature cow elk. The winter of
2002/2003 was severe with high snow depths—although
there had been many public reports of calves during the
previous summer and fall, the aerial survey in March 2003
detected 24% of the observed cows with calves (9/37)
(Table 4). The 2003/2004 winter survey resulted in record
numbers of calves sighted in the BNH area. A total of 29
calves were observed in the company of 58 cows (50%)
during the January survey; the March survey showed even
better results as 31 (65%) of the 48 observed cows had
calves (Table 4).
LOW Area. Three calves with 10 cows (30%) were
observed in the LOW area during 2001. Only 4 calves and
23 cows (17%) were observed during an aerial survey in
March 2002 and 4 calves with 22 cows (18%) during the
March 2003 survey. This trend of low calf numbers continued
during 2004 when surveys were conducted in January
and February, and only three calves were observed in the
company of 20 cows (15%) (Table 4).
Table 1. Number of elk shipped to Ontario from EINP, Alberta during 1998–2001.
Date Shipped
Release
Area
Radio-
Collared Elk
Elk
Shipped
Elk
Released
Adult/Yearling
Bulls
Adult/Yearling
Cows
Male
Calves
Female
Calves
March 1998 NFR 47 47 40 14 33 0 0
January 1999 NFR 66 69 69 7 42 6 13
March 2000 NFR 35 40 40 0 20 7 13
February 2001 NFR 25 26 23 1 10 7 8
January 2000 BNH 70 70 70 14 36 10 10
January 2001 BNH 50 50 50 13 20 6 11
January 2000 LOW 30 60 60 13 33 8 6
February 2001 LOW 43 48 44 13 21 9 5
December 2000 LHNS 50 50 47 9 30 8 3
Total elk
1998–2001
ALL
AREAS
416 460 443 84 245 61 69*
*### was unknown for one calf.
Table 2. Causes of mortality of elk released in four areas of Ontario from 1998 to 31 March 2004.
Area
(ERA)
Year Elk
Collared
Totala
Mortality%
Emaciation
%
Wolf
Predation%
Injury
%
Shotb
%
Drowning
%
Road
Kill%
Bacteria
Infection%
Otherc
%
NFR 1998 57 (27/47) 0 19 (9) 11 (5) 2 (1) 4 (2) 0 13 (6) 9 (4)
NFR 1999 67 (46/69) 23 (15) 29 (19) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 0 2 (1) 8 (5)
NFR 2000 38 (15/40) 3 (1) 20 (8) 3 (1) 0 8 (3) 5 (2) 0 0
NFR 2001 50 (13/26) 0 19 (5) 0 0 0 8 (2) 0 23 (6)
BNH 2000 37 (26/70) 10 (7) 0 4 (3) 8 (4) 0 6 (4) 0 11 (8)
BNH 2001 34 (17/50) 0 2 (1) 0 10 (5) 0 4 (2) 0 18 (9)
LOWd 2000 30 (18/60) 0 5 (3) 0 13 (8) 2 (1) 0 0 10 (6)
LOW 2001 33 (16/48) 0 6 (3) 0 4 (2) 4 (2) 2 (1) 8 (4) 8 (4)
LHNS 2001 24 (12/50) 2 (1) 0 4 (2) 6 (3) 0 2 (1) 4 (2) 6 (3)
All 98/01 41 (190/460) 5 (24) 10 (48) 3 (12) 5 (25) 2 (11) 3 (12) 3 (13) 10 (45)
a Total mortality is accumulated mortality from release year to 31 March 2004. Seventeen of the mortalities (10 in NFR, 4 in LOW and 3 in LHNS) occurred in the
holding pens prior to release.
b Shot refers to elk that were intentionally poached, accidentally shot, or shot in the United States (via permit).
c Other sources of mortality include bear predation (2), accident (fell over cliff) (1), unknown (20), train (4), tumor (1), hypothermia (1), capture myopathy (1),
euthanized (3).
d 2000 LOW mortality was based on five radio-collared mortalities and four uncollared mortalities (30 of 60 elk had radio collars).
The Restoration of Elk in Ontario
MARCH 2007 Restoration Ecology 37
LHNS Area. In the LHNS area, during the late winter calf
surveys, eight calves were observed during 2002 and six in
2003. The 2003 survey was carried out after the capture
and transfer of a cow elk and three calves to the NFR
area. Thus, calf survival has been consistent for the past
two winters at 32 and 33% of cows with calves. The 2004
winter survey results are very consistent with 33% of cows
accompanied by calves (7/21) (Table 4).
Population Estimates and Trends
Elk population estimates were determined by counting
the number of marked (radio collared) and unmarked elk
observed during aerial surveys and through input of that
data into a population model (e.g. modified Petersen
model). As of 31 March 2004, researchers estimated the
provincial elk precalving population at between 375 and
440 animals: NFR, 110–130; BNH, 170–200; LOW, 35–45;
LHNS, 60–65. The NFR population showed decreases following
the releases of elk between 1998 and 2001. However,
during 2003/2004, the population has shown growth of
about 10%. The BNH population has shown steady growth
and there are now many thriving subherds located throughout
the release area. The LOW population has continued
to show slow decline. The high mortality due to poaching
coupled with the low calf survival/recruitment are thought
to be the principal factors. The LHNS population has
shown steady growth since the initial release in 2001.
Elk Dispersion Following Release
Elk dispersion following release from the holding pens
appeared to be related to the length of time they were
held prior to release (Table 5). However, one cannot discount
the effect of factors such as habitat, predators,
roads, and human disturbance on elk dispersion. Elk that
were held for 6 weeks or longer, as during the 2000 NFR
release, tended to remain in the vicinity of the holding
pens. In fact, most of those elk are still (2005) within 5 km
of the release site. Elk that experienced a hard release as
in the 2000 BNH unintentional release tended to disperse
over a much wider area. In fact, the BNH 2000 released
elk spread over a 27,000 km2 area. Only about 50% of the
remaining 53 elk were within 20 km of the release site during
2001. Some animals (about 10) moved 100–140 km
from the release site. Some elk (four) from the 2000 LOW
release have ventured into Minnesota (about 70–90 km
from the release site) and at least six elk dispersed to the
Fort Frances/Rainy River area (about 40–60 km from the
release site); however, most of the elk are ranging within
20 km of the release site. Elk movements (two) of up to
160 km (to Algoma Mills and to Parry Sound) have been
noted for the 1998 (1.5 years after release) and 1999 NFR
introduced animals (held for 26 and 4 days, respectively).
The longest movement of a 2000 NFR animal (held for
6 weeks) was 50 km. During 2002/2003, animal movements
Figure 3. Restored elk and white-tailed deer now share range in
Ontario with risk of transmission of meningeal worm from deer to
elk. (Photo R. Rosatte.)
Table 3. Cumulative mortality per ### and age class and release year of elk at the four elk restoration areas in Ontario during 1998 to 31 March
2004a.
Areab (ERA) Releasec Year Adult Males%
Adult Females%
Male Calves%
Femaled Calves%
NFR 1998 29 (4/14) 70 (23/33) NA NA
NFR 1999 0 (0/7) 69 (29/42) 100 (6/6) 85 (11/13)
NFR 2000 NA 50 (10/20) 14 (1/7) 31 (4/13)
NFR 2001 100 (1/1) 50 (5/10) 28 (2/7) 63 (5/8)
BNH 2000 36 (5/14) 33 (12/36) 40 (4/10) 50 (5/10)
BNH 2001 38 (5/13) 35 (7/20) 50 (3/6) 18 (2/11)
LOW 2000 31 (6/13) 27 (9/33) 0 (0/8) 33 (2/6)
LOW 2001 15 (5/13) 38 (8/21) 33 (3/9) 20 (1/5)
LHNS 2001 22 (2/9) 30 (9/30) 0 (0/8) 33 (1/3)
All 1998–2001 33 (28/84) 46 (112/245) 31 (19/61) 45 (31/69)
NA ¼ not applicable.
aActual mortality may have been higher during the 1999 and 2000 NFR program as three of the 1999 calves and five of the 2000 cows did not have radio collars.
Similarly, during the 2000 LOW program 18 cows, 4 calves, and 8 bulls did not have radio collars.
bAny known mortalities among uncollared animals are included in this table.
c Mortality for each ‘‘release year’’ is total mortality accumulated from the year of release to 31 March 2004.
d The ### of one calf was not recorded.
The Restoration of Elk in Ontario
38 Restoration Ecology MARCH 2007
continued to become more predictable and subherds
became established in many areas. In the LOW area,
there continued to be a scattering of individuals or small
groups of two or three animals across the Rainy River and
Fort Frances areas; the majority of animals continue to
live within 10 km of the Cameron Lake release site. Nineteen
animals were relocated from the Kynoch and Parkinson
areas to a site north of Elliot Lake in the LHNS
release area; subherds also exist in Parkinson and surrounding
townships and at Neebish. Other individual or
groups of two or three animals are scattered across the
area with two cows having taken up residence in Michigan.
There have been an increasing number of reports of
sightings of individual and groups of elk in the Parry
Sound area during the past 2 years. The relocation experience
to date has been very successful with most animals
staying near their relocation site and none reported to
have caused any further problems.
Human/Elk Conflicts
In all of the release areas, elk have caused problems ranging
from fence and crop damage to conflicting with red
deer/elk farming operations. Solutions used to date range
from trapping and relocating the elk to educating landowners
on the benefits of elk. In 2003, nuisance elk guidelines
were drafted to provide direction in dealing with
nuisance situations.
Justification for Hunter Education
Since 2000, 25 of the 443 elk that were released in Ontario
have been confirmed shot (as of 31 March 2004) (Table 2).
A number of these animals were pregnant or had calves
that may not have survived alone making the probable
damage greater than the numbers indicate. There have
also been at least six uncollared animals confirmed shot,
four of these in the LOW area in 2003. There have also
been several other unconfirmed reports of elk shootings,
including nine in the LOW area. Data detailing the incidents
were available for 22 of the elk that were shot. Of
those, 13 (59%) were mistakenly identified by hunters as
deer or moose. Seven (32%) elk were poached and two
were shot in Minnesota as nuisance elk. In view of this,
efforts have been made to increase hunter awareness of
elk in Ontario, especially with respect to identification of
elk.
Risk Assessment for CWD
Due to the threat of CWD, OMNR, in 2002, commissioned
a risk assessment of continued elk reintroductions
from the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Center,
Saskatoon. The report concluded that the risk of CWD
being introduced to Ontario by elk from EINP was low
Figure 4. Postrelease annual mortality of elk reintroduced to four different
areas of Ontario, Canada, during 1998–2001a.
aMortality is from the date of release until 31 December 2003. Total
elk released in all areas is equal to 443, of which 416 were radio collared.
Mortality includes only radio-collared elk. Total elk released in
each area is as follows: LHNS, 47; LOW, 104; BNH, 120; NFR, 172.
Only 50% (30/60) of the 2000 LOW elk were radio collared. Mortality
increase in year 2of 2000/2001 NFR elk release was due to wolf
predation. Mortality does not include animals, which died in the
release pen or that were euthanized due to injuries or bacterial
infections prior to release.
Table 4. Number of elk calves observed during surveys in four elk
restoration areas of Ontario during 1998–2004.
Area (ERA) Year
Number of
Calves
Observed
%
of Cows
Observed
with Calves
NFR 1997 (November) 4 40 (4/10)a
NFR 1998 (November) 4 36 (4/11)b
NFR 1999 (January) 5 55 (5/9)
NFR 2000 (February) 4 21 (4/15)
NFR 2000 (March) 6 26 (6/23)
NFR 2000 (December) 15 33 (15/46)
NFR 2001 (January) 6 38 (6/16)
NFR 2001 (April) 0 0 (0/14)
NFR 2002 (January) 5 21 (5/24)
NFR 2002 (April) 1 3 (1/33)
NFR 2002 (December) 10 24 (10/41)
NFR 2003 (March) 10 29 (10/34)
NFR 2004 (January) 19 37 (19/52)
NFR 2004 (March) 5 23 (5/22)
BNH 2001 (February) 10 40 (10/25)
BNH 2002 (March) 14 38 (14/37)c
BNH 2003 (March) 9 24 (9/37)
BNH 2004 (January) 29 50 (29/58)
BNH 2004 (March) 31 65 (31/48)
LOW 2001 (February) 3 30 (3/10)
LOW 2002 (March) 4 17 (4/23)
LOW 2003 (March) 4 18 (4/22)
LOW 2004 (Jan/Feb) 3 15 (3/20)
LHNS 2002 (March) 8 32 (8/25)
LHNS 2003 (March) 4 22 (4/18)d
LHNS 2004 (March) 7 33 (7/21)
a Native animals, prerestoration/includes yearlings and adults.
b Survey included both resident and restored elk.
c Five yearling cows were not included in the calculation.
d Three calves removed from LHNS area to NFR in 2003. Assuming that at
least two of these calves belonged to the observed cows, the percentage of cows
that had surviving calves would be 33%.
The Restoration of Elk in Ontario
MARCH 2007 Restoration Ecology 39
but recommended a conservative approach until more was
known about the disease and the then recent cases in
farmed cervids in Alberta. To ensure that Ontario elk are
not infected with CWD, postmortems are done on all elk
mortalities whenever feasible. Between 1998 and 2003, 73
heads from Ontario elk were tested for CWD under a pilot
sampling program. Also, during the November 2002 deer
hunt, OMNR sampled 151 hunter-killed deer from the
Owen Sound area for testing at the Animal Health Lab.
All tested samples were negative for CWD. In 2003, 454
white-tailed deer in the Lanark area also all tested negative.
To date (January 2006), no cases of CWD in Ontario
elk have been reported. As well, all elk mortalities at
EINP receive a postmortem—again, no cases of CWD
have been reported to date.
Discussion
The relocation of large mammals has been used globally
as a technique to restore populations that have become
threatened or endangered (Penzhorn 1971; Schmitt &
Aho 1988; Griffith et al. 1993). In Ontario, Canada, elk
were restored to four areas of the province during 1998–
2005. However, elk populations appear to be increasing
more dramatically in southern areas compared to the
north. This is related to the degree of wolf predation,
extent of illegal shooting of elk, as well as the impact of
climatic conditions. EINP, Alberta (the source of the elk),
biologists estimate that about 60–70% of the cow elk in
the Park are with calves during each winter. This suggests
that calf mortality in some areas of Ontario may be high
due to a variety of mortality factors (i.e., wolf predation,
high snow depths, poor ice conditions, etc.), although this
may in part be due to the poor visibility of elk during
aerial surveys. In the spring of 2003, researchers in the
NFR area confirmed an incident involving bear predation
on a newborn calf. Bears could thus be an important factor
affecting elk recruitment and require further study.
Wolf predation has continued to be an important factor in
some winters in the NFR and also the LOW ERAs of
Ontario. Poaching and illegal shooting have also been
a concern especially in the LOW area. Poor calf recruitment
in the LOW area may also have been due to a low
bull:cow ratio. Relative to other restoration areas, there
are few wolves in the BNH area, which may account for
high calf survival compared to the LOW and NFR ERA’s.
However, it remains to be seen the degree of impact that
meningeal worm infection will have on elk populations in
southern Ontario (Samuel et al. 1992; Lankester 2001;
Bellhouse & Rosatte 2005; McIntosh et al. 2006).
There are many things that must be considered to
ensure that a restoration project is successful including the
time of year for release, the stress of relocation, the duration
the animals are held prior to release, and the potential
for disease transmission (Collinson & Anderson 1984;
Meltzer 1993; Woodford 1993; Short & Smith 1994). In
this study, elk were held for considerable periods of time
Table 5. Length of holding period and dispersion of cow elk following release in four areas of Ontario during 1998–2001.
Elk Release
Area Release Date
Days Held
in Pen
X (SD)
Distance
Moved (km)*
Shortest
Distance
Moved (km)
Greatest
Distance
Moved (km)
%
of
Cow Elk
Moving >50 km
%
of
Cow Elk
Moving <5 km
Total
Cow Elk
in Sample
Mortality from
Date of Release
to September of
Release Year (%)
NFR 27 March 1998 27 16.7 (20.5) 1.0 84 4 (1/23) 44 (10/23) 23 8.6
NFR 15 January 1999 4 27.8 (24) 2.5 120 10 (3/31) 10 (3/31) 31 45.6
NFR 31 March 2000 43 5.1 (9.2) 0.5 50 (0/32) 91 (29/32) 32 11.1
NFR 14 April 2001 59 3.5 (2.8) 0.5 16.0 (0/23) 91 (21/23) 23 8.7
BNH 9 January 2000 0 31.7 (33.3) 4.0 140 16 (6/37) 5 (2/37) 37 20
BNH 14 April 2001 90 21.9 (19.1) 0.5 55 22 (4/18) 39 (7/18) 18 5.0
LOW 29 January 2000 10 37.7 (53.9) 1.0 200 36 (5/14) 36 (5/14) 14 7.1
LOW 9 March 2001 17 26.8 (28.3) 2.0 81 43 (6/14) 43 (6/14) 14 25
LHNS 8 April 2001 112 21.6 (27.5) 3.0 122 12 (3/26) 4 (1/26) 26 7.7
*Calculations include movements from the date of release to 30 September of the release year.
The Restoration of Elk in Ontario
40 Restoration Ecology MARCH 2007
prior to release in Ontario (i.e., soft release as opposed to
a hard release). Those elk tended to remain closer to the
release area and mortality has been lower than during years
when elk were hard released or only held for a short period
of time. However, it must be emphasized that these results
are preliminary, and experiments on the length of holding
time would need to be replicated before concrete conclusions
can be made. Habitat type at the release site might
also be a factor with favorable habitat enticing elk to
remain in the vicinity of the release site. The time of year
animals are released is also very important. For instance,
a hard release in January, when there may be an abundance
of snow and shortage of food may induce animals to move
further and lose body reserves faster. In view of the results
of this study, soft releases perhaps should be considered for
the release of other large ungulate species in other jurisdictions
(Hamr 2001; Bowyer et al. 2003).
In the past, illegal shooting has been a problem during
large mammal restoration projects for species such as
moose (Duvall & Schoonveld 1988). Similarly, in Ontario,
illegal shooting of elk has been a problem in most of the
ERAs. On several occasions, the infraction was due to
misidentification of white-tailed deer for elk. Clearly,
hunters in Ontario need to be educated to identify their
target before shooting as there is no elk hunting season in
the province. A number of initiatives have been undertaken
to reduce this problem.
The issue of human/species interactions needs to be taken
seriously with respect to elk management. Although the
number of complaints received as a whole has been low, elk
populations currently are well below the carrying capacity
of the land. As elk populations flourish, especially in southern
Ontario, human/elk interactions no doubt will escalate.
Therefore, a well-designed nuisance elk management plan
to deal with these interactions will be imperative.
A comprehensive disease management plan is a prerequisite
for any mammalian restoration plan regardless of
the species in question (Griffith et al. 1993; Meltzer 1993;
Woodford 1993). All efforts must be made to prevent the
spread of infectious diseases and parasites during species
relocations (Nielsen & Brown 1988). In view of this, CWD
has been reported in many U.S. states as well as in two
provinces in Canada, including Alberta, the source for elk
in this restoration program. As a result, further shipments
of elk to Ontario will not occur until more is known about
the probability of bringing CWD-infected elk from source
herds in western North America. In addition, extensive
sampling of deer and elk is occurring in Ontario to provide
an early detection system for CWD and other diseases
such as bovine tuberculosis.
Conclusions
The success of large mammal restoration programs has
varied globally and has been dependent upon many factors
(Collinson & Anderson 1984; Kojola et al. 1985;
Borner 1988; Stuwe & Scribner 1989). The Ontario elk
restoration program has met with great success primarily
due to the collaborative, multipartnered approach to wildlife
management. The first phase of the program involved
acquisition and transport of elk to Ontario, followed by
a comprehensive research program to determine the environmental
impact of restoring elk to the province. A complete
program review was undertaken in 2002 and 2003,
and a number of recommendations were forwarded to the
managing agency, the OMNR, for consideration. Phase
two of the program, which will be the challenge for the
future, will be to develop accurate methods to estimate
elk density, so that elk can be managed in a sustainable
manner for both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses,
and to manage elk in such a way as to minimize conflicts
between elk and humans (Fig. 5).
Implications for Practice
d Wild elk were restored to four areas of Ontario,
Canada, proving that it is possible to restore extirpated
populations of large ungulates. The methodologies
used in this project could be applicable to
other projects attempting to restore large ungulate
populations.
d Attempts should be made to reduce stress during
projects involving the movement of large ungulates
such as elk. This should increase survival of the targeted
species.
d Wolf predation and illegal shooting are limiting elk
populations in two of the northern Ontario release
areas. Only time will tell whether elk will flourish in
Northern Ontario but winter severity most likely will
be a contributing factor. Recent mild winters have
contributed to the increased survival of elk in Ontario.
The above factors should be considered when restoration
of large ungulate populations are being
considered in other areas.
Figure 5. Photo of restored elk herd near Bancroft, Ontario. (Photo
by R. Rosatte.).
The Restoration of Elk in Ontario
MARCH 2007 Restoration Ecology 41
d Meningeal worm infection may play some role in
limiting elk populations where deer and elk ranges
overlap, especially in southern Ontario. Attempts
should be made to reduce the risk of transmitting this
parasite to other susceptible large ungulate populations,
e.g., the current range of meningeal worm is
eastern North America and large ungulates such as
moose (Alces alces) are susceptible. The risk of
importation of CWD needs to be considered when
restoring elk populations especially if the source
herds are located in endemic areas. A risk assessment
should be conducted prior to the initiation of any
wildlife restoration project.
d A comprehensive disease management plan should
be a requirement for elk restoration projects as well
as any restoration project that involves the movement
of large ungulates. This should minimize the
impact of infectious diseases and parasites in the
release area.
Acknowledgments
Graduate students (Adelle Yott, Debbie Jenkins, Terese
McIntosh, Jason Stevenson, Francis Castiov, Mark Ryckman,
Nancy Dewar) and college staff (Harold Cooper and
students at Sault College, Ben Cox, Cambrian College),
LIC members (John O’Donnell, Barry Wanamaker, Dennis
Prodan, Murray English, Mike Solomon), and MNR
staff (Mike Dawe, Norm Hissa, Bruce Ranta, Jim Trottier,
Mike Hall, John Vandenbroeck) provided data for this
report. Special thanks to the staff at EINP, especially Rob
Kaye, Norm Cool, and Brad Romaniuk, for all of their
cooperation in assisting Ontario with the acquisition of
elk. The cooperation of the CFIA staff (Bruce Chisholm
and associates) was also greatly appreciated and critical to
the program. The Northern Ontario Heritage Foundation,
RMEFC, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters,
the Safari Club International (Ontario Chapter), the
Northern Ontario Heritage Fund, Living Legacy Trust,
and the Millennium fund have been major financial supporters
of the elk restoration initiative. Special thanks is
given to all of the LIC members, graduate program students,
other tracking staff, drivers, and volunteers who
made the Ontario elk restoration program possible and to
the members of the Elk Research Network who provided
input to the research proposals. Special thanks to staff at
the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre,
Guelph, in particular Dr. Ian Barker, Dr. Doug Campbell,
and Dr. R. Velard for analysis of elk mortalities.
LITERATURE CITED
Bellhouse, T., and J. Broadfoot. 1998. Plan for the restoration of elk in
Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Internal Report,
Ontario, Canada.
Bellhouse, T., and R. Rosatte. 2005. Assessment of the potential for negative
interaction between re-introduced elk (Cervus elaphus) and resident
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in their wintering
areas in Ontario, Canada. Mammalia 69:35–56.
Borner, M. 1988. Translocation of seven mammalian species to Rubondo
Island National Park in Tanzania. Pages 117–122 in L. Nielsen, and
R. Brown, editors. Translocation of wild animals. Wisconsin
Humane Society and the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute
publishers, Milwaukee.
Bowyer, R. T., V. Van Ballenberghe, and J. G. Kie. 2003. Moose. Pages
931–964 in G. Feldhamer, B. Thompson, and J. Chapman, editors.
Wild mammals of North America: biology, management and conservation.
The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bryant, L., and C. Maser. 1982. Classification and distribution. Pages 1–60
in J. W. Thomas, and D. Toweill, editors. Elk of North America,
ecology and management. Stakepole Books publishers, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
Collinson, R. F., and J. L. Anderson. 1984. Problems, principles and policy
of the reintroduction of large mammals in conservation areas.
Acta Zoologica Fennica 172:169–170.
Duvall, A. C., and G. S. Schoonveld. 1988. Colorado moose: reintroduction
and management. Alces 24:188–194.
Griffith, B., J. Scott, J. Carpenter, and C. Reed. 1993. Animal translocation
and potential disease transmission. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife
Medicine 24:231–236.
Hamr, J. 2001. Trauma and mortality associated with transcontinental
wild elk relocations. Pages 60–67 in L. A. Renecker, and T. A.
Renecker, editors. Game conservation and sustainability: biodiversity,
management, ecotourism, traditional medicine & health.
Renecker & Renecker Assoc. Inc., Stradford, Ontario, Canada.
Kojola, I., M. Nieminen, and M. Helminen. 1985. Successful reintroduction
of wild forest reindeer in Finland. Transactions of the International
Congress of Game Biologists 17:125–132.
Lankester, M. 2001. Extrapulmonary lungworms of cervids. Pages 228–
278 in W. M. Samuel, M. J. Pybus, and A. A. Kocan, editors. Parasitic
diseases of wild mammals. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Larkin, J., J. Cox, M. Dzialak, M. Wichrowski, and D. Maehr. 2004.
Influences on release-site fidelity of translocated elk. Restoration
Ecology 12:97–105.
Larkin, J., D. Maehr, J. Cox, D. Bolin, and M. Wichrowski. 2003. Demographic
characteristics of a reintroduced elk population in
Kentucky. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:467–476.
McIntosh, T., R. Rosatte, D. Campbell, K. Welch, D. Fornier, and
M. Spinato. 2006. Evidence of Parelaphostrongylus tenuis infections
in free-ranging elk (Cervus elaphus) in southern Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Veterinary Journal (submitted).
Meltzer, D. 1993. Historical survey of disease problems in wildlife populations—
southern Africa mammals. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife
Medicine 24:237–244.
Murie, O. 1951. The elk of North America. Stackpole Company,
Harrisburg, PA.
Nielsen, L., and R. Brown. 1988. Translocation of wild animals. Wisconsin
Humane Society and the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute
publishers.
O’Gara, B., and R. Dundas. 2002. Distribution: past and present. Pages
67–119 in D. Toweill, and J. W. Thomas, editors. North American
elk, ecology and management. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC.
Peek, J. 1999. Elk Cervus elaphus. Pages 327–328 in D. E. Wilson, and S.
Ruff, editors. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
Peek, J. 2003. Wapiti (Cervus elaphus). Pages 877–905 in G. Feldhamer,
B. Thompson, and J. Chapman, editors. Wild mammals of North
America, biology, management and conservation. The Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
The Restoration of Elk in Ontario
42 Restoration Ecology MARCH 2007
Penzhorn, B. L. 1971. A summary of the re-introduction of ungulates into
South African National Parks. Koedoe 14:145–159.
Rosatte, R., J. Hamr, B. Ranta, J. Young, and N. Cool. 2002. Elk restoration
in Ontario, Canada: infectious disease management strategy,
1998–2001. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
969:358–363.
Samuel, W., M. Pybus, D. Welch, and C. Wilke. 1992. Elk as a potential
for meningeal worm: implications for translocation. Journal of
Wildlife Management 56:629–639.
Schmitt, S. M., and R. W. Aho. 1988. Reintroduction of moose from
Ontario into Michigan. Pages 258–274 in L. Nielsen, and R. Brown,
editors. Translocation of wild animals. Wisconsin Humane Society
and the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute Publishers,
Milwaukee.
Seton, E. T. 1927. Lives of game animals, vol. 3. Doubleday Publishers,
Garden City, New York.
Severinghaus, C., and R. Darrow. 1976. Failure of elk to survive in the
Adirondacks. New York Fish and Game Journal 23:98–99.
Short, J., and A. Smith. 1994. Mammal decline and recovery in Australia.
Journal of Mammalogy 75:288–297.
Stuwe, M., and K. T. Scribner. 1989. Low genetic variability in reintroduced
alpine ibex (Capra ibex) population. Journal ofMammalogy 70:370–373.
Woodford, M. 1993. International disease implications for wildlife translocation.
Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 24:265–270.
The Restoration of Elk in Ontario
MARCH 2007 Restoration Ecology 43
