Elk Research and Management – a Summary of Existing Scientific Literature and Professional Communication

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

Load more