ELK RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT – A SUMMARY OF EXISTING SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE AND PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION

Prepared for use in the Caribou Ranch Open Space Management Plan, Boulder County, CO

December 3, 2003

Introduction.

Boulder County and the City of Boulder jointly began a phased purchase of the large Caribou Ranch Open Space north of Nederland in December 1996. Although the terms of acquisition have been renegotiated several times in the interim, the acquisition was finally completed in 2002 and public hearings on the management of the property have been ongoing. More than a third of the original spread designated for purchase ended up being retained by the seller with a conservation easement, and more than another third will be closed to the public indefinitely to preserve wildlife habitat. Thus, only a narrow corridor is being considered for trail development. The property is deed-restricted to allow only pedestrians and equestrians. Two equestrian groups, the Boulder County Horse Association and the Roundup Riders of the Rockies’ Heritage and Trails Foundation, have offered to adopt the trail system at Caribou Ranch.

On October 7, 2003 the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a public hearing regarding “Amendment(s) to the Caribou Ranch Management Plan.” Topics of concern included the location of a trailhead parking lot for cars, an off-site trailhead parking area for horse trailers with an offroad trail connection to Caribou Ranch for equestrians, and lengthy seasonal closures of the entire property to protect the elk (April 1- July 1 and September 1-30). The Nederland community found the County’s original parking proposal unacceptable, and the BOCC resolved the car parking area to the satisfaction of the parties involved. The equestrian community found the County’s horse access issues questionable and the proposed closures unacceptable, but these issues continue to remain unresolved as of the time of this writing. Specifically, the BOCC tabled the decision on the elk closures for six months, during which time staff was to come back to them with a scientific justification for its recommendation, as none had been prepared, discussed or presented.

Staff has recently announced that it will be sponsoring an “elk seminar” on December 3 to discuss appropriate management of Caribou Ranch, and have invited several elk experts to be on a panel. In an attempt to contribute meaningful science to the discussion, I have conducted extensive independent research into the literature and professional experience of other public land managers in the Rocky Mountains pertaining to elk – specifically their habitat preferences and vulnerability to human presence. I (SW) do not represent that this search is complete; however, it includes exhaustive investigation of hundreds of professional journal articles, bound volumes, dissertations, the County’s own files, and personal conversations. Following is a summary of this effort.

Internet search.

Using the keywords “elk vulnerability trails impact Colorado Wyoming Montana” yields many more than 1000 electronic references. I scanned the titles for each state separately, trying to find studies that had been done on whether elk are vulnerable to nonmotorized trails. I stopped after the first 200 listings for each state. Thus, out of the first 600 listings, NOT ONE study looked at the impact of nonmotorized trails on elk. There are studies on elks’ responses to off-highway vehicles, to hunting, to fire, to logging, to cattle, to fertilizer, to sonic booms, to powerlines, to ski areas, to snowmobiles, to helicopters, to moose, bison and deer, to wolves and coyotes, to weather, to forage, to roads, and to water quality. There are studies on elk diseases, on captive elk, on raising elk, on disposal of elk carcasses, and on elk hide clothing, antlers and velvet. There appear to be no published studies on aggression of elk toward humans.

Summary: Using the Internet, I could find NO STUDIES on elk and trails.

Literature Search

I next turned to the published literature, and spent many hours tracking down professional journals and bound volumes.

Following is a summary of my findings.

Christensen, A.G., Lyon, L.J., and Lonner, T.N., compilers, 1991. Proceedings of Elk Vulnerability – a Symposium, Montana State University, Bozeman, 330 p. MSU estimates (in 1991) that “about $2,000,000 a year is being spent on elk research and that the number of scientific papers and reports now totals between 4,500 and 5,000,” with new papers on elk being published at a rate of about 50 a year. (Assuming a 4% inflation rate and no increase in the rate of numbers of papers published per year, the annual research expenditure for 2003 would be about $3.2 million, and there could, cumulatively, be more than 5,600 elk-research papers out there by now. This volume alone contains 61 of those papers. Each of the articles contains an extensive bibliography. Symposium sponsors included the Wildlife Society, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the University of Montana, the Forest Service, and several western state Departments of Fish & Game). By definition, this symposium’s objectives were to “review the ways elk vulnerability has changed with respect to hunting, habitat management, and social recognition; consider current trends and implications for the future; and to stimulate new research on elk vulnerability and management.” Articles include the effects of hunting regulation on elk populations, how to conduct radiotelemetry studies on elk, how to manage roads and access to reduce elk vulnerability, to the implications of game farms on the long-term viability of wild Rocky Mountain elk herds. At the time this symposium was convened, the authors represented the cutting edge of elk research. The closest information to what we are looking for in terms of habitat preservation came from Hillis, et al’s article “Defining Elk Security: The Hillis Paradigm” (pp 38-43), in which the authors state that “Elk vulnerability may be reduced, and hunter opportunity may be increased, by providing security areas for elk during the hunting season. We define security area requirements for land managers so that timber harvest decisions can reflect elk security needs. To provide a reasonable level of bull survival, each security area must be a nonlinear block of hiding cover >/= 250 acres in size and >/= one-half mile from any open road. Collectively, these blocks must equal at least 30% of the analysis unit. Vegetation density, topography, road access, hunter-use patterns and elk movements are variables that must be considered when applying these guidelines.” Note that this study looked ONLY at hunted-elk considerations in logging areas. The article by P. Moroz, “Managing Access to Affect Elk Vulnerability” (pp. 138-141) discusses inherent problems and limitations of managing motorized access to reduce elk vulnerability, and states that “The same controls used to restrict hunter travel through elk habitats also restrict sightseers, firewood cutters, motorbikers and others who use public lands. If non-hunting opportunities are severely restricted or inconvenienced by restrictions designed to reduce elk vulnerability, public resentment can build.” Neither this nor any other article in the volume even mentioned any concern that non-motorized trails might have an effect on elk, other than trails used by hunters to access the elk and to remove the carcasses.

Nelson, R.W., ed., 1985. Proceedings of the 1984 Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop, Edmonton, Alberta, 218p. Of this compendium, two articles stand out. The first, entitled “The Response of Elk and Mule Deer to Firewood Gathering on the Medicine Bow Range in Southcentral Wyoming,” by A.L. Ward (pp. 28-40), promised to impart some knowledge about the effects of presumably random human activity – firewood gathering -- in elk habitat. Upon reading the article, however, I was astonished at how unscientific it was. For example, the study acknowledged that the firewood gathering was not, in fact, random, but instead concentrated along existing roads. The study started out monitoring six elk and 17 deer, but for one reason or another only two elk and two deer completed the study – yet generalizations and conclusions were drawn about the entire species based on two animals. The author describes all the other variables these animals had to contend with – new road construction, oil drilling, and heavy traffic, archery and hig-powered rifle hunting, and firewood gathering. The article then describes the “treatment” program for this test: “Both cows were approached twice within 400 m by researchers who simulated firewood harvest by sawing down a dead tree [with a chain saw] and cutting it up into firewood lengths. In all four cases, the elk displaced when human presence was detected” at 400-800m (Well, I’d run too, if approached by a noisy chain-saw gang in the forest). The deer were less reactive to humans, resting calmly until the people approached within 100m. Both species seemed more tolerant of vehicles than of out-of-vehicle activities. But to me, the very scant data gleaned do not justify the final recommendation that “human activities be confined to one drainage or about a 13km2 area at one time with an 800m buffer of trees or ridges toseparate people and elk.” The second article, “Elk Concentrations in Areas Closed to Hunting” (W.D Edge, et al, pp. 56-65), was designed to assess elk habitat use relative to timber management activities, but “inadvertently documented the development of an elk concentration in an area closed to hunting.” What did they find? After a summary stating that “elk have shown a marked increase in both distribution and density in response to management programs… This increase has resulted in elk occupying nearly all suitable habitat available,” the authors observed that the large elk herd in the area closed to hunting caused “forage depredation and fence damage to adjacent landowners.” Their recommendations? Allow hunting within the closed area, attempt herding prior to hunting, maintain high levels of cattle grazing, “intensify” human use of the area (!), and monitor the safety zones “so they don’t become reservoirs for elk.”

Canfield, J.E., Lyon, L.J., Hillis, J.M., and Thompson, M.J., 1999. Effects of Recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife. Montana Chapter of the Wildlife Society, pp 6.2-6.25. This organization compiled an extensive summary of published literature, which contains one 25-page chapter on recreation structured as an analysis of the seasonal effects of recreation on wildlife. The literature cited in this document contains 203 individual references to elk studies throughout the Rocky Mountains. The Abstract acknowledges that “Ungulates provide a large percentage of the recreational opportunities for wildlife enthusiasts in the State of Montana, [where] hunting, wildlife viewing, and photography generate economic benefits in excess of $450 million annually.” It goes on to say that “recreational activities have the potential not only to displace ungulates to private land where they may cause damage, but also to have negative direct and indirect effects to the populations themselves…. Responses of ungulates to human recreation [during winter] range from apparent disinterest to flight, but every interaction has a cost in energy consumption….snowmobiles appear less distressing than cross-country skiers… Disturbance of highly productive seeps and wet sites may cause animals to withdraw to less productive areas… Ungulates may be especially vulnerable to disturbance around special habitat features, such as salt licks…. Persistently high levels of recreational use and the proximity to human population centers is predicted to impact reproductive performance of ungulate populations, but little direct research at this level of disturbance has been reported.” (1) [(1)The report does contain summaries of two studies evaluating cross-country skiing as a winter stressor of elk, but a follow-up study to at least one of those reports appears to refute the earlier findings. In any case, winter recreation does not appear to be an issue at Caribou Ranch.] The report concludes, however, that “Based on the available research, wildlife and land managers have little reluctance in recommending that human disturbance of wintering animals be prevented” and “It is apparent …that managers can contribute substantially to the health, productivity, and survival of these populations by reducing human disturbances to summering animals.”

Summary: Upon having read the entire document, and, by now, many other scholarly treatises on elk, my observation is that this one is unique in its insistence on vague or unsubstantiated speculations, including such repeated phrases as “have the potential”, “appear”, “may cause”, “predicted impacts,” “may be”, etc. In the body of the text, NOT A SINGLE ARTICLE quoted in more detail substantiates a cause-and-effect relationship between human stressors (other than hunting) and population decline of ungulates in the Rocky Mountains. There are a few studies that reported somewhat increased heart rate in elk upon the appearance of stressors, but no correlation with any lasting effects. With one possible exception, even studies in which elk were radiocollared and then deliberately harassed (whether it was being strafed with helicopters or chased by snowmobiles), and then monitored, did not report increases in mortality or reduced reproductive success. Indeed, on p. 6.13 the most definitive sentence in the entire text asserts that “among factors which influence population status, those most influential are weather, habitat condition, predation, and hunter harvest (MFWP 1998:2).” Several articles refer to the habituation of elk to human disturbance in urban areas and to specific disturbances such as ski areas. The text alludes to the possibility of aggressiveness on the part of elk toward humans, but does not cite any studies examining this possibility. The text makes NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE to the impact of nonmotorized trails on elk, nor does a single one of the titles of the 203 references cited. Yet the authors blandly make the conservative “conclusions” quoted in the preceding paragraph, and this text is sometimes quoted as the ultimate source of data on elk management with regard to travel management on public lands in Boulder County.

McCorquodale, S.M. et al, 2003. Survival and Harvest Vulnerability of Elk in the Cascade Range of Washington, Jour. Wildlife Management, pp 248-257. Elk avoided open roads, because they associate roads with hunting. Discusses “harvest vulnerability” (= hunting). Road management may be an important tool for managers seeking to influence elk distribution. No study of trail effects.

McCorquodale, S.M., 2003. Sex-Specific movements and Habitat use by Elk in the Cascade Range of Washington. Jour. Wildlife Mgmt. In winter home range, male elk selected gentler slopes than females. Adult males selected summer-autumn home ranges with lower road densities than subadult males and females. Winter female home ranges had lower road densities. Males use environments with predictably less human activity than females. No study of trail effects.

Singer, F.J., ed., 2002. Ecological Evaluation of the Abundance and Effect of Elk Herbivory in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, 1994-1999. USGS Open File Report 02-208, 510 p. A joint research initiative undertaken by the National Park Service and the United States Geological Survey Biological Resources Division, to obtain information necessary to evaluate the population dynamics and ecological effects of elk in the RMNP area. Contains 231 references to work conducted specifically to RMNP and adjacent areas, as well as related research. Although RMNP contains more than 360 miles of trails and over 2000 elk on 265,000 acres, this otherwise-definitive work contains NARY A STUDY on trails and elk.

Johnson, T.K. 1986. Impacts of surface coal mining on calving elk. P. 255-269 in R.D. Conner, et al eds. Proceedings of the issues and technology in the management of impacted western wildlife symposium. Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, Colorado. Found no significant difference in reproduction between elk in three surface coal-mine areas compared to three control areas.

Kuck, L.G.L., et al., 1985. Elk calf response to simulated mine disturbance in southeast Idaho. Jour. Wildlife Management 49:751-757. Researchers approached and displaced radiocollared elk calves in summer and reported no abandonment or mortality of collared calves.

Bauer, Erwin A. and Peggy Bauer, 19??. Elk: Behavior, Ecology, Conservation. Voyageur Press. A coffee-table book full of lovely photographs and personal opinions of the authors.

Phillips, G.E. and Alldredge, A.W., 2000. Reproductive Success of Elk Following Disturbance by Humans during Calving Season. Jour. Wildlife Mgmt 64(2):521-530. Study area in Vail and Beaver Creek, Colorado. Researchers “applied a treatment of simulated recreational hiking to radiocollared elk by approaching a radiocollared animal until she was displaced. The rationale behind our disturbance was that a small number of people targeting a specific sample of animals could create an effect equal to a greater number of recreationists hiking through the area.” Study acknowledges the paucity of existing data to support or refute the need to protect elk from humans during calving season. Estimated that 80-90% of calves would be born from May 26 to June 19 (the treatment period). Documented 407 and 691 treatment events in 1996 and 1997, average numbers of treatments/elk were 5.4 in 1996 and 8.3 in 1997. Average calf production was 0.225 calves/cow lower for treatment elk than for control elk in 1996 and 1997. Adding 10 calving-season disturbances/cow to ambient disturbance levels resulted in a stable herd population, and >10 disturbances caused population decline. Study did not specifically address the effects of trail-based recreational disturbance on elk, but recommended that the effects of trail density and location, activity type, and trail-user volume on elk populations be studied. The report concluded that “Large numbers of recreationists, traveling randomly and covering long distances, would be necessary to produce levels of disturbance similar to our treatment effort. Most of our treatments occurred away from recreational trails, and off-trail recreation on the Beaver Creek study area during calving season appeared to be minimal… even though large areas used by elk during calving season were open to the public.”

Summary and analysis: This is the only study I found that even addressed the subject of hikers and elk in calving season and attempted a quantitative analysis. The hikers in the study were off- trail, traveling randomly, and actively harassing the elk, which is different from the proposed Caribou Ranch management plan. However, if elk are exceeding capacity at Caribou Ranch (a universally-agreed-upon condition), and if staff wants to control the herd without harassing them with dogs or firing blank shotgun shells at them (recommendations made by consultants to BCPOS in 1999, to say nothing of hunting), this study suggests that in order to maintain the current herd of 150 animals at Caribou Ranch, each cow on the property should be harassed by hikers to the point of flight 10 times during the calving period of May 26 through June 19. (Of course, BCHA does not recommend actively harassing or otherwise disturbing any wildlife.)

Knight, R.L. and Gutzwiller, K.J., eds., 1995. Wildlife and Recreationists, Coexistence through Management and Research. Island Press, Washington, DC, and Covelo, California. This volume is a compendium of articles including anticipated trends in outdoor recreation and wildlife responses to recreationists. There are few, if any, references to the impacts of trails on elk.

The chapter on Wildlife Responses to Recreationists, by Rick Knight and David Cole, contains a section entitled “Backpacking/Hiking/Cross-Country Skiing/Horseback Riding” which cites studies that examined pedestrian recreational activities and trumpeter swans, sandpipers, plovers, eider ducklings, and snow geese, and found that “Most of the documented responses were behavioral and short-lived.” Regarding the plovers, the researchers found that “Although disturbance reduced the size of the breeding population, apparently through redistribution, it had no effect on breeding success of the individuals remaining in the population.” One study reported elevated heart rates and flight among mountain sheep approached by humans, with the greatest responses being “when hikers approached from over a ridge or when they were accompanied by dogs” (no indication of whether the activites were taking place on- or off-trail, or if there were any lasting effects on the animals). Peak levels of hiking and skiing “displaced chamois from nutritionally important habitats for prolonged periods,” although again, the citation does not indicate whether this activity was taking place on trails or not, or whether there were any lasting effects from recreation on the health or reproductive capability of the the animals. Orienteering activities in Denmark displaced roe and red deer from their home ranges; however, “the animals eventually returned to these areas after disturbances ceased” (presumably orienteering activities take place off designated trails and are very unpredictable by their very nature). One study found that elk in Yellowstone National Park moved “an average of 1,765 meters” away from cross-country skiers who had approached within 400 meters in “areas free from human disturbance”; however, researchers in Alberta found that although moose appeared to avoid cross-country ski trails, “elk numbers were unaffected.” Finally, although the title of the section included horseback riding, no studies were cited in the text, and the extensive list of references at the end of the chapter contained not one study on the effect of equestrian activity on wildlife.

Another section deals with “Predictability,” and contains the oft-cited quote “Predictability of a given activity shapes wildlife response to it. When animals perceive a disturbance as frequent enough to be ‘expected’ and nonthreatening, they show little overt response.” This is followed by a section on “Frequency and Magnitude” and one on “Timing,” which discusses seasonal closures. Here, the gist seems to be that “Recreational disturbance has traditionally been viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season. Recently, it has become apparent that disturbance outside the animal’s breeding season may have equally severe effects” (namely, disturbance to breeding individuals may affect their productivity, whereas disturbance to energy- stressed individuals might affect their survival). However, the section acknowledges that “little is known about this issue for taxa other than birds” -- and appears (to me) to be mostly speculation about a worst-case scenario.

In the chapter on the effects of noise on wildlife, “The literature is large enough to show the flexibility of mammalian habitat use in the face of disturbances. If noisy sources enter the habitat on a schedule (e.g. snowmobiles on weekends, construction noise), deer, sheep and elk avoid areas when the noisy sources are present and return when they are not.… If the exposure is brief or if mammals have good cover, differences in home-range size are not detectable…. If mammals are exposed repeatedly to the same stimulus without harassment, responses decline rapidly…. The few studies that have tracked bird movements in the presence of no disturbances show similar flexibility.”

Each chapter contains a closing section entitled “Knowledge Gaps.” Here is a quote from one such section: “Currently, managers close big-game calving areas, yet little data exist to show how intrusion affects the raising and feeding of young in most species.”

The chapter entitled “Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management” by Rick Knight and Stanley Temple, outlines two general approaches that are currently used to minimize the effects of recreational disturbance on wildlife: “One is to deny human access to sensitive areas by instituting closures. This approach is generally only used in cases where critically endangered species or sensitive species occur. Because species that fall in this category often have large spatial requirements, closures are difficult to enforce and unpopular with recreationists…. The second approach is to devise management schemes that allow recreationists and wildlife to coexist. This is perhaps the most realistic approach in that it ensures that wildlife is still accessible to people, one of the primary reasons that recreationists visit wildlands. This approach requires detailed knowledge of specific populations. Managers must know how recreational activities affect particular species and at what intensities and times during the species’ annual cycle such activities are harmful.” The text goes on to suggest four categories of restrictions that may facilitate the management of recreationists and wildlife for coexistence: spatial (buffer zones), temporal (times of day), behavioral (altering types of recreational behavior), and visual (screening and cover). The report concludes that “At present, there does not exist an adequate data base from which generalizations can be made and from which management plans can be prepared…. The success of any management approach designed to minimize harmful effects of disturbance will hinge on how well the manager understands: (1) the specific wildlife species and population being managed; (2) the environment the population inhabits; and (3) the recreational activities affecting that population.”

Thomas, J.W. and Toweill, D.E., eds, 1982. Elk of North America: Ecology and Management, Wildlife Management Institute/USDA Forest Service, Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA, 698 p. According to the jacket cover, “The Wildlife Management Institute’s sole objective, since 1911, has been to help advance restoration and wise use of North America’s natural resources, on a sustained-yield, multiple-benefit basis. Development and implementation of such programs rest on scientific information generated through research and management experiences. Findings are consolidated, published and used to strengthen decision making and resource management on a solid, factual foundation.” Without digressing into the biopolitics of “wise use,” this is the definitive book on Rocky Mountain elk.

The section on elk calving was particularly compelling because it discusses the wide variety of habitats chosen by elk to calve. “Some studies infer that cows select hiding cover for calving areas…Others indicate no apparent search for such cover types… In general, calving habitat depends largely on the availability of vegetational types during the monthlong calving season….” Some herds seem to prefer sagebrush intermixed with conifers, others prefer open meadows, and yet others give birth in the timber. “Timber overstory on Rocky Mountain elk calving grounds in the Sawtooth Mountains of Idaho ranged from 20-60 percent crown cover, and averaged 37%….[The same study] “found newborn Rocky Mountain elk calves on slopes with grades averaging about 35 percent… [although] there seems to be a slight preference by elk for calving grounds on gentler slopes than normally are available in the surrounding territory…. Some investigators have found that southerly exposures are selected most frequently during calving… while others have found that cow elk prefer northwesterly exposures.”

The 698-page book contains large sections on road effects on elk, on damage caused by elk and how to mitigate it, on elk migration, on elk nutritional preferences, and on hunting. It contains a total of two pages, including two large photos, on “Recreation on Elk Range.” Elk habituation to humans is discussed here. “For years, people have been able to observe and photograph elk at distances of as little as a few feet, while riding feed wagons on winter grounds in the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, Wyoming….The early fears that elk would become domesticated have not materialized…; the animals appear to be as wild and hard to stalk in the fall as they ever were.” Elk apparently may become conditioned to human activity if exposed for periods of time to a predictable disturbance that does not harm them. Hunted elk, on the other hand, are extremely wary of people and sensitive to danger…. [One study] found that unhunted elk …were easier to approach on foot than were hunted elk in populations elsewhere. In response to human presence or human activity, different groups of elk have demonstrated either a high level of adaptation or else extreme intolerance, depending on habitat, season of the year, previous exposure, and the kinds and persistence of disturbance… [however] the effects of repeated stress have not been reported for elk… Continuing harassment may be undesirable from a management standpoint, but whether it is physically detrimental to the elk is unknown. Because elk have demonstrated such a wide variation of tolerance to humans, and because important land management policies and decisions are involved, a considerable effort has been underway in several states to relate elk behavior to human activities. Much of this research has concentrated on the influences of forest roads, timber harvest, and logging traffic. In addition, a number of reports on backcountry recreation are broadly applicable, even though they are not referenced specifically to elk [!]. Studies in … the Medicine Bow National Forest in southcentral Wyoming provide some information on elk behavior in relation to several types of recreational activity…On the basis of radiotelemetry monitoring over a period of six years, it was demonstrated that elk prefer to be at least 0.8km (0.5 mile) from people engaged in such activities as camping, fishing, and picnicking. The heart rates of two adult cows and a spike bull showed definite increases on 21 of 23 occasions when people walked within 0.32km (0.20 mile) of animals in the timber, and animals moved away on 16 of 21 occasions. Moving automobiles and trail bikes had little effect on elk resting in timber at distances of more than 0.20 km (0.13 mile), but the animals’ heart rates increased 24 out of 41 times at closer distances. Elk also showed significant reaction when vehicles stopped within 0.53km (0.33 mile)….”

Of the 698 pages in this comprehensive volume, there were only two – adjacent—references to trails. The first was to trails made by elk, and the second was to the fact that elk keep open old roads by using them as elk trails. That’s all. Even the studies summarized above do not indicate whether the humans or the elk were on trails, in areas of pristine wilderness or in areas of intensive recreation. Merely observing that elk “prefer” to be away from people camping, fishing, and picnicking should surprise no-one. What is surprising is that trail bikes coming within a tenth of a mile of monitored elk caused increased heart rates in only about half the animals! Again, if non-motorized recreational use of public lands were considered controversial or threatening to the well-being of elk in North America, one might think that an exhaustive compilation of the available research such as this would turn up more relevant material than it did. One can only conclude, therefore, that most professional land managers just don’t see this as a “big deal.”

Summary of the literature. Each of these professional publications contains long list of references relevant to elk, and I have personally reviewed each list for studies pertaining to elk and nonmotorized trails. With the exception of the Phillips (2000) report and one older study referenced in Ward and Toweill, NOT ONE study looked at the impacts of nonmotorized recreation on elk. Again, there are published studies on elks’ responses to off-highway vehicles, to hunting, to fire, to logging, to cattle, to fertilizer, to parasites, to sonic booms, to powerlines, to ski areas, to snowmobiles, to helicopters, to moose, bison and deer, to wolves and coyotes, to weather, to forage, to roads, and to water quality. But none on trails. One can’t help but conclude that most wildlife professionals are not concerned enough about the possible impacts of trail use on elk to justify the time and resources needed to study the matter.

Resource Evaluation Research Reports in BCPOS files:

Following is a summary of outside/consultants’ reports found in 2002 during an extensive search of the County’s own records.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2/9/99. CNHP found three species and one plant community of conservation concern, yielding one potential conservation site (Como Creek). The report claims that "several plant communities documented during the initial visit of CNHP (1996) were found (1998) to be of lower quality that originally estimated... and are no longer being tracked in our databases." Specifically, the report describes the willow carr on Caribou Ranch as being of "only fair quality" (in fact, the BCPOS Resource Evaluation report also acknowledges this condition). Both the CNHP and staff documents mention the proposed de- listing of the greenback cutthroat trout, which is found not on the Caribou Ranch but outside its boundaries on Como Creek. Indeed, the CNHP report does not recommend a no-trails policy at Caribou Ranch (p. 7-8); it merely recommends that there be no access into the Bluebird Mine itself to protect the Townsend's Big-Eared Bat, and suggests grating the mine entrance. The report concludes that "visitation to the buildings adjacent to the mine should have little impact to other bat species, provided the visitation is not destructive or intrusive" (p.30). The CNHP report does not address elk as being a species of concern at Caribou Ranch.

Caribou Ranch Large Mammal Habitat & Use Assessment, Carron Meaney and Ron Beane, 1/7/99. Regarding elk, this study reports that the Tolland Herd, which includes Caribou Ranch, has increased 10-fold in the last 25 years and now consists of 125-150 animals. [Staff's Resource Evaluation report, p. 32, says that "about 175 animals use the ranch as transitional range in spring and fall...The population estimate for the Caribou herd is 125-175 animals"]. The Meaney/Beane report states that the Clear Creek herd has exceeded its goal of 1200 animals. The report goes on to state that "Now that hunting pressure is limited [at Caribou Ranch] herd management may become an issue." Janet George (Colorado Division of Wildlife) recommends "controlled harassment" of the elk at Caribou Ranch, using blank shotgun shells and dogs. The Meaney/Beane report (p.18-19) quotes Knight & Cole, 1995 as follows: "Predictability of a given activity shapes wildlife response to it. When animals perceive a non-threatening disturbance as frequent enough to be 'expected', they show little overt response." The report cites Phillips, 1998: "Trail-based recreation... may have minimal impact on the elk."

The report concludes (p. 19): "A couple of trail alignments have been discussed... One of these is along the old railroad grade... This is an excellent route, resulting in little disturbance to the elk... Elk can readily cross between hiking parties. Positioning of trails can be planned to reduce impact of recreation on elk..." The Meaney/Beane report recommends "establishing one or more elk-viewing sites, with a caveat to remain on trail during the rut," as well as possible closures for elk calving in May and June. Yet the subsequent BCPOS staff Resource Evaluation points out only that "while elk can be adaptable animals, they can also be wary of humans... Observations suggest that elk are wary of people walking through a natural landscape; they will expend energy fleeing from people hiking." In a striking oversight, staff made no mention of the consultants' more pro-recreation findings.

Personal Communication with Other Public Land Managers

In an attempt to understand and compile what public land managers outside Boulder County consider important regarding elk research and management, I have spoken with and summarized herein my conversations with the following people:

Colleen Gadd, Visitor and Resource Protection Supervisor, Jefferson County Open Space, 303-271-5925, 10/28/03. JCOS comprises 51,217 acres consisting of 29 properties with 172 miles of nonmotorized trails. They have major elk habitat at Reynolds Park (1260 acres, 5.9 miles of trails); Pine Valley Ranch (820 acres, 5.2 miles of trails); Alderfer/Three Sisters (770 acres, 12.5 miles of trails); Elk Meadow Park (1,385 acres, 13.1 miles of trails); Mount Falcon Park (1,415 acres, 6 miles of trails); Mount Galbraith Park (871 acres, 4.7 miles of trails); South Valley Park (909 acres, 6.8 miles of trails); Meyer Ranch Park (525 acres, 3.8 miles of trails; Apex Park (661 acres, 8.3 miles of trails; White Ranch Park (4,355 acres, 18 miles of trails); Coal Creek Canyon and Flying J Ranch (no details); and Centennial Cone Park (new, not yet open except for hunting). Elevations for these parks range from low foothills comparable to Heil and Hall Ranches, to subalpine terrains comparable to Caribou Ranch, with similar ecosystem compositions including large meadows and forested hillsides. South Valley Park is winter range and sometimes the elk never come down that far; at Centennial Cone the elk usually come down at the end of October or early November, but they didn’t come down until February last year because of the drought. Their parks are all open to the public until elk are observed, and all JCOS parks except Centennial Cone (which allows hunting) have at least some trails that stay open year round. Their elk at Elk Meadow are “out of control” and are causing damage to private property as well as overgrazing the forage. This is their third year of allowing hunting, to try to keep the 300-head Centennial Cone herd healthy and “wild”. She’s unaware of any elk/trail research. They have no park-wide closures for elk calving, no park-wide closures for the rut, and no reports of elk aggression toward humans at any of their parks.

Tom Toman, Staff Wildlife Biologist, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, 406-523-3443, 11/25/03. Was Regional Manager for the National Elk Refuge, a 25,000-head Jackson (Wyo) elk herd, from 1975-1995. RMEF funded Greg Phillips’ dissertation (1998) on the elk at Vail and Beaver Creek, which was later written up as the Phillips/Alldredge study referenced above. It found a drop in calf/cow ratios upon intense harassment of cows by researchers. They wanted to continue the research to determine thresholds of trail use that would cause a decrease in productivity; RMEF put up $50,000 for the project, but other partners, including the Forest Service, could not come up with the remaining funds needed, so they had to terminate the project. I described the proposed closures for elk at Caribou Ranch, and he said that in his judgment, “there is no justification for closures to protect elk.” I asked whether he knew of any instances of elk aggression in the Rocky Mountains, and he said the only known recorded events took place in Banff (Canada) a few years ago. Said “Scientists always call for more studies and couch their findings in verbiage designed to justify more studies” (!) and also said that “the proposed closures sound like a political issue, not a biological one.”

P.J. White, Ungulate Biologist, Yellowstone National Park, 307-344-2203, 10/21/03. Yellowstone National Park comprises 2.1 million acres, 1,100 miles of backcountry trails, 3 million visitors a year, and 30,000 elk. The only elk/trail studies he’s aware of deal with snowmobiles and cross-country skiing, in which Montana State researchers measured stress responses (glucocorticosteroid levels) of elk for one year and published a paper; however, they attempted to repeat the same study the following year and didn’t find the same stress response (“The moral is, don’t publish results from just one year of study!”). Yellowstone has no trails closed in either spring or fall for elk activity (or for any other reason). They have no problems with aggression from elk toward humans, even at Mammoth Hot Springs where people can get very close to the elk during the rut. (He did say that their elk have been known occasionally to attack cars at Mammoth, but never people!).

Bob Garrott, Professor of Ecology & Conservation Biology, Montana State University, 406- 994-2270, 11/3/03. Studies the Yellowstone elk herd extensively and is frequent senior author on elk research. Elk become habituated to people (snowmobiles, cross-country skiers, hikers). If human activity is unexpected, or if there are persistent negative stimuli, may result in negative consequences for elk. Doesn’t know of any state management areas, National Parks, or other public lands with policy of closing land for calving or rut. Feels there is no justification for either spring or fall closures. There may be a precedent for closing areas in winter, to reduce winter stress. Elk calve “anywhere, everywhere,” it sometimes depends on the snowpack. No known injuries to visitors during the rut, even at Mammoth where there are a lot of people. Referred to the same study PJ White did (see above), where 2nd-year data showed no elevated stress levels to cross-country skiers. It’s his hunch it was a hard winter the first year and not the second year. Referred to an article in Conservation Biology where researchers harassed elk with snowmobiles, and it took more than 500 “sleds” a day to generate negative response in the elk.

Cliff White, Wildlife Biologist, Parks Canada, Banff, 403-762-1422, 11/28/03. Manages an area seven times the size of Rocky Mountain National Park. Bow Valley is 400 sq.km, has 200 miles of roads and more than 400 km of trails. They used to have a serious elk overpopulation in Banff, so they reduced the elk herd 80%, to 200 elk (from 1,000), by trucking them out. They have no trail closures. “Elk are a public safety issue only in urban environments (along intensely- used roads, or in back yards where they may feel cornered). There is zero probability of elk aggression in an open-trail environment and absolutely no problems with horses and elk.” There is no guarantee of seeing elk in meadows. They rut mostly in the trees. Predicts no increase in elk heart rate from people passing by tangentially on a trail – the studies that show increased heart rates among elk were when reseachers approached the elk directly. Migratory elk calve wherever they happen to be – sometimes in the middle of a road, in backyards. Most elk calve in the woods, and use the “hider strategy” of keeping the calves hidden in the woods for the first week of their lives, after which they can keep up with the herd. When I described the proposed closures for elk management at Caribou, he said “You need to find out what this is really about. It sounds as if it isn’t about elk, because you just don’t need closures to protect elk. And there’s no way you need to worry about protecting people or horses from elk.”

A.J. Tripp-Addison, Wildlife Manager, Denver Mountain Parks, 303-697-4545, 11/17/03. They have 65 parks with over 130 miles of trails (I neglected to ask how many acres they encompass). Their major elk-habitat parks include Genesee Park, Bergen Peak, Summit Lake Park, Elephant Butte, Cub Creek Park, Bell Park, Dedisse Park, O’Fallon Park, Pence Park, Corwina Park, Little Park, Bear Creek Canyon, Lookout Mountain Park, and Newton Park.. He is unaware of any elk/trail research, they have no closures for elk at any time of the year (“there are too many elk everywhere as it is”), and they have no reports of aggression by elk.

John Ellenburger, Colorado Division of Wildlife Big Game Biologist, 970-255-6182, 10/30/03. Rule of thumb for best off-highway vehicle management in elk habitat is one linear mile of trail per square mile of habitat; no guidelines for non-motorized trails; in forested habitats, higher trail densities are OK. Elk habituate easily (lose their fear of people). There are too many elk statewide. In addition to hunting, the CDOW is considering immuno- contraception, trapping & relocation. Need to establish measurable goals for herd size before imposing restrictions. Elk response to people on foot is somewhat greater than to vehicles. Referred me to the Phillips article in Jour. Wildlife Mgmt (radio-collared elk, see above), in which cows were chased, forcing them to move, and then monitored for their recruitment rate (the calf/cow ratio). The calf neo-natal period is the most critical (30-45 days); by then they’ve developed a strong maternal bond and are strong enough to move. Recommended “adaptive management” – set parameters, minimum level of restrictions, monitor behavior, change restrictions. For Caribou (with which he is familiar), he suggested an adaptive management closure for the period of June 1-July 15 (and monitor elk behavior patterns); and/or having the park be open 4 days/week instead of 7, “if local land managers are set on some kind of closure”; and felt strongly that there is no reason for fall closure for the rut. Not aware of any elk aggression in Colorado.

Jody Sandel, Wildlife Biologist, Roosevelt National Forest, 303-245-6416, 11/18/03. Worked on the Environmental Assessment for the Caribou and West Magnolia Travel Management Plan (2003). Feels strongly that closures are unnecessary to protect the elk at Caribou, pointing out that the herd is already at or exceeding capacity. The NF lands around Caribou are open year- round.

Therese Johnson, Wildlife Biologist, Rocky Mountain National Park, 970-586-1206, 10/28/03. I asked about the RMNP Elk Study (see above) – no mention of elk and trails? She says “There are no data” on the impacts of elk and nonmotorized recreation on trails. In the Park, “nothing” displaces the elk. They calve on the golf course in Estes Park. She doubts they’d abandon any area because of a trail. RMNP has no spring restrictions; in fall, visitors are required to stay on established roads and trails in Horseshoe Park, Beaver Meadows, and Moraine Park from 5pm-7am. The meadows are closed to off-trail use in the evenings because that’s when the elk congregate. During the day they’re resting in the trees. She doubts that during the day at Caribou people would see many elk in the meadow anyway. RMNP has had no documented injuries from elk, although in Estes Park one woman was knocked over in her own backyard because she got between a cow and her calf. Fishermen are subject to occasional aggression from elk in the spring because of limited visibility in the willows, so she recommends that fishermen make noise if they think there might be elk around.

We discussed the “Park and Partners Request Your Input for Elk and Vegetation Management Planning” process that was initiated during the summer of 2003. By the 1870’s, heavy hunting had eliminated elk from the park.. By around 1900, wolves had also disappeared. Elk were reintroduced in 1913, shortly before RMNP was established. In the absence of both significant predation and hunting, the elk population flourished. By the early 1930’s, elk numbers had increased to the point that NPS managers expressed concern about deteriorating vegetation conditions on the elk winter range. In 1944, rangers began to cull the herds; trapping and transplanting were also used. For the next 25 years, the number of elk in RMNP was maintained between 350 and 800 animals. But in 1969 a “natural regulation policy” was instituted, involving no active management within the park (it was believed that hunting adjacent to the park would control the elk population in and near the park). Since then, the size of the elk population has more than tripled. Heavily browsed willow shrubs now provide poor habitat for species such as songbirds, butterflies, and beaver…. Broad categories of management actions that could be incorporated include fencing, herding, hunting, fertility control, reintroduction of wolves, prescribed burns, forest thinning, and purchasing private lands to help manage elk and vegetation outside the park.

She concluded our conversation with “Public land managers can’t – and shouldn’t – protect the public from all risks” and “It’s my professional opinion that nonmotorized trail use won’t displace the elk, and that it won’t affect elk populations.”

BCPOS’ RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SEASONAL CLOSURES AT CARIBOU RANCH

Board of County Commissioners Agenda packet, October 7, 2003, Amendment to Caribou Ranch Management Plan. “Wildlife is one of the most important resource values of Caribou Ranch…. The existing management plan designates important conservation areas that are permanently closed to public use, stipulates a spring closure (the entire property for all of April, May, and June), and suggests evaluation of a potential fall closure. Staff has examined the rationale for a fall closure and developed the recommendations outlined below…. In the six years following the opening of the property, the department will experiment with September closures to benefit elk and other wildlife and to enhance visitor experiences. This closure would include the whole property, except for a portion on the southern end where visitors would be provided safe viewing opportunities and visitation of the property from the new trailhead to a proposed future overlook/observation area. Staff anticipates tht this closure will allow rutting elk to use Delonde meadow and the balance of the property to the north and west with minimal disturbance. Staff will be monitoring the elk throughout the September trial periods to determine if visitors are significantly altering elk behavior or changing their activity patterns… In 2005 and 2006 the property would be closed to visitors during all of September. In 2007 and 2008 this closure would only be for the last two weeks of the month, and in 2009 and 2010 there would be no closure. Depending on the elk’s reaction to visitation, the closure may be modified. Prior to 2011, staff will make further recommendations specifying long-term conditions of the closure if it is still deemed necessary….”

BCHA’S POSITION ON SEASONAL CLOSURES AT CARIBOU RANCH

Caribou Ranch has been extremely important to the equestrian community of Boulder County since frontier days, inasmuch as it has been both a working cattle operation and a horse breeding and showing facility. The property contains sweeping views of peaks and meadows, old mines and homesteads. The Switzerland Trail, a scenic railroad grade which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, traverses the property and was used to take ore from the mines, bring supplies to the miners, and offer sightseeing outings for tourists. Development of the Switzerland Trail at Caribou is essential to connect existing trails to the south near Nederland with the Sourdough Trail and other trails on Forest Service land to the north (in fact, without public trails across Caribou Ranch, a meaningful regional trail system will be blocked).

The Boulder County Horse Association has been deeply involved in the management plan for this property since its acquisition by Boulder County and the City of Boulder in 1996. We have taken a proactive position in persuading Boulder County, which is managing the property for both agencies, to allow horses on it. We have spent countless hours evaluating environmental habitat issues in an attempt to convince the County that pedestrians and equestrians will not have unacceptable impacts on the wildlife at Caribou Ranch. We have dedicated a lot of effort to working with the Forest Service on their recently-released Environmental Assessment on the Caribou and West Magnolia Travel Management Project, so that the two agencies’ management plans would flow seamlessly from one property to the adjacent one. BCHA is so enthusiastic about Caribou Ranch that our organization has committed to adopt the Switzerland Trail, offering our volunteer time, expertise and resources to helping build and maintain it in perpetuity. We have also convinced the Roundup Riders of the Rockies’ Heritage and Trails Foundation, which likewise has had a longstanding interest in ensuring that this property remain open to equestrians, to consider annual proposals from BCHA to provide significant financial contributions for restoration and maintenance of the Switzerland Trail at Caribou Ranch. We feel that this relationship would offer Boulder County an exciting new public/private partnership that would develop a sense of stewardship among trail users toward our shared public lands.

However, we are very concerned about the latest of several developments which we feel may negatively affect our ability to enjoy this spectacular park. Boulder County has recently proposed seasonal closures of the whole property for the entire months of April, May, June and September, in the name of monitoring and protecting elk and other wildlife. Many people feel these closures are excessive, since the wildlife consultants retained by BCPOS have explicitly stated that trails at Caribou Ranch will not have any significant adverse effects on the local ecosystem. Staff has conducted no studies nor produced any other data to support their proposal. That is why we decided to conduct the extensive literature search outlined herein, and to speak with “outside” professional biologists in the field of public land management. If the data or other land managers’ experience had indicated it would be wise to close Caribou Ranch to protect the elk, we would have respected that input. But they didn’t.

We feel that the overwhelming expertise of the professional wildlife biologists quoted above, and the extensive but fruitless literature search, prove that this isn’t a hot issue for any other public land management agency. It certainly appears that nobody else in wildlife management is as concerned about preservation of an already-too-abundant species as Boulder County seems to be.

We have indicated a willingness to abide by the County’s proposed “Interim on-trail policy” for two years while artifacts are documented and curated, potential hazards have been secured or fenced off, and “the entire trail system is put into place.” However, we object to the proposed seasonal closures. If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, these extreme closures could effectively result in equestrians being able to access the property for only two months a year (July and August), since we are unable to get horse trailers and horses around much during the winter months in the mountains.

Prior to this latest development, BCHA worked successfully to allay generalized fears about potential impacts on other resources at Caribou Ranch, ranging from willow carrs to wood lilies to goshawks (see attached). Now Boulder County appears to have thrown a long shadow of elk protection over the progress we thought we had made.

We believe that Boulder County should have been monitoring the elk at Caribou Ranch during the past six years it has owned the property, instead of waiting until the property opens to start this monitoring. We are also uncomfortable with the recently-proposed schedule of closures, since it seems excessive, arbitrary and unscientific. The burden of proof (of environmental harm) should have been on staff, yet the burden of proof (of no environmental harm) has been placed on us. We feel that we have met it.

In conclusion, we have pledged (and already spent) a lot of time, expertise and resources on Caribou Ranch, and we are having difficulty justifying that commitment for a mere two months of access. There are no documented studies proving that equestrians have a deleterious effect on any of the resources at Caribou Ranch, and the National Forest land surrounding the property will have no such closures (rendering them meaningless). In fact, the preponderance of data shows tkihat complete seasonal closures to protect elk and other environmental resources at Caribou Ranch are unnecessary and unadvisable; and no other public land management agency has any equestrian closures.

Therefore, BCHA believes that Boulder County should eliminate entirely the proposed Caribou Ranch closures for equestrians, and leave the other closures, if they feel they must, for other park visitors.

We look forward to resolving these issues to our mutual satisfaction, and to many years of shared stewardship of Caribou Ranch.

Respectfully submitted,

The BCHA Board of Directors December 1, 2003

Hildy Armour President

Patricia Jarvis Communication VP

Jody Marken Secretary

Mary Midkiff Liaison VP

Sidney Shinedling Treasurer

Wendy Small Internal VP

Suzanne Webel External Vice President Trails & Public Lands Chair

ELKSTUDIES1.SUM.doc