ATVs and elk

I

Ithaca 37

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
5,427
Location
Home of the free, Land of the brave
This is in Sportsman's Issues.

NEW FOREST SERVICE STUDY: EFFECTS OF OFF-ROAD RECREATION ON MULE DEER AND ELK

Dr. Michael J. Wisdom, Research Wildlife Biologist at the Forest Service's Starkey Experimental Forest and Range research area, recently announced a study he co-authored entitled, Effects of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. According to the authors, no research has evaluated effects of off-road activities on vertebrate species in a comparative and experimental manner.

Among the study's preliminary findings:

> Elk began moving when ATVs were as far away as 2,000 yards but tolerated hikers to within 500, horseback riders within 800 and bicyclists within 1,300 yards. Elk run from ATVs but tend to walk away from hikers unless startled at close range.
> Mule deer move little when approached by all four types of recreational users but seem to leave foraging areas and move into deeper cover.
> Elk are far more disturbed by horseback riders than previously believed, and once they detect them are nearly as spooked by bikes as ATVs.

Objectives of the study were to (1) document cause-effect relations of ATV, horseback, mountain bike, and hiking activities on deer and elk; (2) measure effects with response variables that index changes in animal or population performance, such as movement rates, flight responses, resource selection, spatial distributions, and use of foraging versus security areas; (3) use these response variables to estimate the energetic and nutritional costs associated with each activity and the resultant effects on deer and elk survival; and (4) interpret results for recreation management.

While the study is not currently available online, check http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/starkey in the future for possible availability

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Yeah, more banter from one of the more gov. ran research stations.

I'm glad to see you have excellent data that disproves the above! :D
 
1-Pointer,I dont think anyone is trying to "disprove" the study.
As hunter's we all understand that we have an effect on wildlife.

The question's we all should ask in regards to the study is --
Is the study being done to promote any of the more radical organiztion's?
In talking about "off-road" use do they mean true off-road use or the use of trails and logging road's that are in place for legal use at the time?
When they state it's being done to "(4) interpret results for recreation management."
How far are they wanting to take that?
 
The radical org. involved is the US Forest Service as they are the ones that run Starkey. I'm not sure it was to address off-road travel of any kind, just to evaluate the response of animals to hikers, horses, and ATV. This could occur on or off trail. I'm making a WAG here, but I'd bet that this is done to ascertain the impacts to wildlife so as they can accurately address this concern in creating/modifying travel plans.

I'm guessing that this study will lead to certain (possibly more) areas being open to hiker, fewer to horses, and even fewer yet to ATVs, especially during critical times of the year (ie fawning and winter).
 
> Elk began moving when ATVs were as far away as 2,000 yards but tolerated hikers to within 500, horseback riders within 800 and bicyclists within 1,300 yards. Elk run from ATVs but tend to walk away from hikers unless startled at close range.
> Mule deer move little when approached by all four types of recreational users but seem to leave foraging areas and move into deeper cover.
> Elk are far more disturbed by horseback riders than previously believed, and once they detect them are nearly as spooked by bikes as ATVs.

I could be wrong, Lord knows it would not be the first time, and the study was done in an area other than where I am at. But I think these distances are complete bull, based on what I have seen the past 13 years, and I am not referring to game animals in Teton or Yellowstone Park. I find it hard to believe that elk moved out when they heard an ATV at nearly 1 1/4 miles away or a hike over a 1/4 mile away. I have witness hikes ans bikers ride past feeding elk at a distance of 100 yards away while I was sitting on the back of my horse. I have seen deer look up at me while I was on my ATV not more than 25 yards away, then continue feeding, and this was in September and October, hunting season here. I have walked beside my horse on numerous occasions to get closer to a herd of elk. I have rode through a herd of elk while on the back of my horse, they looked nervous but never bolted. When I stopped the horse, they did get very nervous but tolerated us. These elk were within 25 feet.
 
Elky,

Starkey is a controlled area, with a high fence around it. I think it is huge, so the animals believe they are wild (like in Texas), but there are not many bikers, hikers, or horses in the compound.

Perhaps your Elk were in areas where they had seen bikers or hikers, and had a lowered flight instinct.

Just guessing.... I'll let on of the experts weigh in....
 
So what if anything will this study accomplish? I guess if you hate the Fat Assed ATV riders, then it is a good study. If you dislike the type of people who mountain bike, then it is a good study. If you hate seeing horses in the hills, then it is a good study. Other than that I think it is nothing more than BS and only my opinion. ;) :D
 
Elky,

I think the FS is using the whole compound at Starkey to study EVERYTHING imaginable. I know they even offer Spike tags, and then monitor the movement of the Big Bulls as pressure is applied on the Spikes.

I think the "Pressure" study is just part of their Recreation studies, and seeing how the animals behave.

Are you saying it is BS to do the Study, or that the results are BS, becuase of your observations being different?
 
By no means is any study not worth it. I think the results can be BS if the results are from a controlled surrounding are to be used in an entirely different surrounding. How can the results in a controlled enviroment like that have any real meaningful affect on what goes on in the hills where we all love to spend so much time? Unless it is to outlaw ATVs, horses and bikers? Isn't that like comparing apples and oranges?
 
Elkhunter,

My challenge to you is, tell me a better way to conduct the study.

This is just ONE study, theres hundreds more out there. I can tell you for a fact, that I've seen elk in many areas run from a vehicle from further than 1.25 miles away, and I have seen elk stand 100 yards off a road while I got out to take pictures.

The point is, not every elk is going to act the same. However, you can make pretty good correlations by conducting a study like the one above.

The more important thing to keep in mind, and I've found this is true, ALL the time...the same elk will not tolerate vehicles as much as a horse, or a horse as much as a hiker.

Let me ask you this: If you see an elk across a canyon, standing on a road, and you want to approach that elk to a reasonable rifle range how would you have the best chance to do that?

1. Ride in your truck or atv?
2. Ride your horse?
3. Stalk it on foot?

The answer is intuitively obvious even to a total bonehead.

Every peer-reviewed piece of literature I've ever read (from the RMEF, Boone & Crockett Club, FS, various state Game and Fish studies, BLM studies, etc. etc. etc.) on elk and roads all conclude the same thing...the two dont mix.

So, if you can come up with a study to disprove the existing science and literature, theres a lot of people that would be interested.
 
Heres another one from Missoula County, where I grew up.

Elk Range Vs. Winter Recreation

To the surprise of many recreationists, winter activities such as hiking, skiing, and snowmobiling in critical areas can cause significant impacts to elk. For example, what is now the Blue Mountain Recreation Area once supported a wintering elk population. Since the creation of the Recreation Area in 1980, winter recreation has increased several fold, but winter elk use had declined to near zero by 1990. Mount Sentinel and nearby Pattee Canyon Recreation Area also appear to provide adequate elk winter habitat, but together they support few, if any, elk.



TOP OF PAGE

Elk and Roads

Studies show that while some animals are attracted to roads, others have learned that roads are associated with hunters and cars. Studies in Western Montana show that elk avoid areas within 1/4-1/2 mile of roads, depending on traffic, road quality, and the density of cover near the road. According to an Oregon study, a road density of one mile per square mile of land results in a 25% reduction in habitat use by elk. Two miles of road per square mile can cut elk habitat use by half. As road density increases to six miles per square mile of land, elk habitat use falls to zero.

TOP OF PAGE
 
Heres another citing the RMEF and David Stalling:


BOB KRUMM COLUMN
Fewer roads equal better elk populations

The moratorium on road building within national forests has caused me to do some serious thinking.

Yes, I like to be able to drive to where I want to go fishing or hunting, but is it good for the land, the wildlife, fish, and vegetation?

It seems that I had read something over the last year or two that stated that elk populations were improved with road closures. Several articles in Bugle, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation's quarterly magazine, support my hunch.

The fall, 1994 issue had an article by David Stalling, entitled "Road Closure." Stalling said, "Since eight out of 10 wild, free-ranging elk in the United States spend all or part of the year on national forests, the Forest Service figures prominently in any discussion of vulnerability. In the past 50 years, the Forest Service developed thousands of miles of roads within national forests, mainly for logging, fire control, and recreation.

"As awareness and concern about the environment grew in the 1970s, state and federal wildlife biologists began looking more closely at the effects of logging and associated roads on elk. Study after study pointed to the same conclusion: more roads and less cover made elk too easy to kill," Stalling continued.

"Wildlife biologists are finding in many places they can help maintain both healthy wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities by restricting access, which usually means closing roads and trails to motor vehicles."

Studies have shown that "humans - not coyotes, bears or mountain lions - have become the primary predators of elk. Hunters caused 90 percent of all elk mortality. As road access increases we can expect elk to be increasingly vulnerable to hunting mortality."

"Without changing hunting season structure, and without reducing hunter days of opportunity, we can improve the quality of the herd - as defined by a more balanced age structure - by closing roads that are no longer needed for timber harvest," Stalling said in the article.

In the spring, 1995 issue of Bugle, Stalling wrote about the Hillis Paradigm, a vulnerability model developed by Forest Service wildlife biologist Mike Hillis, working with Montana wildlife biologists. The paradigm suggests that blocks of hiding cover be at least 250 acres in size and one-half mile distant from any open roads. This model also urges that weight be given to other variables such as vegetation density, topography, road access, hunter density, hunter-use patterns, and known elk movements.

Let's bring this information a little closer to home for Wyoming folks. In February 1998, Bighorn National Forest Supervisor Gale Kimbell gave a talk to the Ag Forum.

Kimbell noted there were 1,619 miles of roads in the Bighorn National Forest, 277 which are maintained for passenger cars, and 748 miles for four-wheel drives.

There were also 1,536 miles of trails including 367 miles of snowmobile trails, 56 miles of cross country ski trails, and 726 miles of hiking trails, 143 of them in the wilderness areas, and 243 miles specifically designated as motorized trails.

If you were to look at a map of the Bighorn National Forest with an overlay of the roads, the pattern would look like a giant spider web. If you then would look at the number of secure areas as defined by the Hillis Paradigm, there would be but a handful of areas.

One of the complaints I hear year after year by the elk hunters is that the archers and mountain grouse hunters are driving the elk off the mountain before the rifle season begins. Studies are showing that the elk are moving into their secure areas as early as the Fourth of July weekend due to human disturbances such as four-wheeler traffic, hikers, bird watchers, sightseers, dirt bikers, and berry pickers. By Labor Day weekend, most of the elk have retreated to the secure areas - many of which are off the forest.

While President Clinton's directive to close roadless areas to road building is arguably over-stepping his executive authority, our Congress person and senators have put timber harvest and road building ahead of multiple use.

In their thinking, multiple use means more timber harvest, mining and grazing at the expense of wildlife management, hunting, fishing and a healthy ecosystem. There should be many more roads closed to vehicle traffic if we want to have a better elk herd and a healthier forest.

Yes, build roads when and where we need them, but then close more roads than the new ones that are built. Though the elk herd in the Bighorn National Forest is doing well, it is more from the effects of mild winters and secure areas off the forest than any other factors.

Instead of quibbling about roadless areas, we should be demanding that roads and trails be closed. If we would be willing to walk more and rely less on our motorized vehicles, elk populations would benefit and so would the rest of the forest ecosystem.
 
Heres another article from Washington:

Impact of Roads on Elk and Other Wildlife
George Tsukamoto

The proliferation of roads across the landscape has been a major concern to wildlife biologists for a long time. Besides the obvious, that roads destroy valuable wildlife habitats, scientists have been researching the relationship of roads and their impacts on elk and other wildlife. Research has overwhelmingly demonstrated those increased road densities can impact wildlife in a number of ways.

If given a choice elk will avoid roads. Their aversion to roads is associated with the vehicular traffic and human activity that occurs near them. Roads have an impact on elk security, habitat effectiveness, and vulnerability. Elk security is affected when increased road traffic occurs during seasons of high human use for outdoor recreational pursuits such as camping, hiking, sightseeing, fishing, and for logging, firewood gathering, etc. When this happens, elk may be forced into undesirable habitat or in competition with other elk.

Habitat effectiveness is damaged when roads compromise key habitat components such as water holes, foraging areas, and calving areas. A 1983 study by L. Jack Lyon showed that elk habitat effectiveness could be expected to decrease by at least 25% with a density of one mile of road per square mile of land, and by at least 50% when road density is 2 miles per square mile of land. Too many roads fragmenting the landscape particularly impact big game winter ranges. Frequent accessibility causes unnecessary stress and disturbance to elk at a critical season of the year.

Elk vulnerability is increased significantly by increased number of roads and by road improvements. Roads provide access for hunters during the hunting season and for poachers at other times. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) researchers documented a significantly higher poaching rate in the areas with the highest open road density and closest proximity to human populations. They predicted that significant reductions in poaching would result with lower densities of drivable roads in most elk ranges.

The greatest amount of hunting pressure is concentrated near the road systems and as a result, this is where the majority of the harvest occurs. Wildlife biologists have encouraged road management actions such as seasonal road closures, gated roads, road decommissioning and restoration. The WDFW cooperates with private landowners, public land management agencies in road management. The Green Dot Road Management System is a cooperative road management program that is in place to address the concerns of too many roads. Under this system, all roads in an area are closed unless posted open with a green dot. Refer to page 17 in the 2001 Big Game Hunting Seasons and Rules Pamphlet. Next time you see a gated road on public or private land, seasonal closure, or Cooperative Road Management Area (Green Dot System) respect the law and know the reasons why.
 
To beat a dead horse (because some dont seem to understand what effects roads have on elk):


Wildlife: Elk in Greater Yellowstone
Totalling some 93,000 elk, Greater Yellowstone’s spectacular herds are the largest in the world. Their many migration routes knit together the national parks, forests, and state and private lands of the Ecosystem. Their abundance attracts large numbers of visitors, both wildlife observers and sportsmen. Elk are the most sought-after game in the Ecosystem and elk hunting, along with non-consumptive recreation, contributes millions of dollars annually to local economies.

At least 10 major elk herds have been identified. A number of smaller herds, some of them non-migratory residents of a particular area, are also found. While these herds differ greatly in numbers, type of habitat and migratory patterns, they share common problems. An accelerating threat is the loss or deterioration of winter range. For example, nearly 75% of the winter range in Jackson Hole, Wyoming has been occupied by housing developments, leading to the loss of more than a third of the elk that historically wintered there.

The disruption of migration routes, loss of seasonal habitat, and the reduction in habitat security on summer and fall range from logging, roads, livestock grazing, etc., are serious problems for some elk herds. Extensive timber harvest and road construction on the Targhee National Forest, for example, has disrupted the timing and dynamics of a major elk migration out of Yellowstone Park to the Sand Creek winter range. Large-scale logging disrupts migration routes by eliminating protective timber cover and increasing the density of roads and the frequency of other disturbances beyond the level tolerated by elk. Of these impacts, roads are the greatest concern, displacing elk from preferred habitat, creating long-term stress, and increasing human-caused mortality.

On the other side of the ledger, the management of some elk herds has become controversial because of concerns about elk and overgrazing. Many people believe the Northern Yellowstone elk herd has become so large that intense browsing pressure is damaging the available range. This herd, which winters in the northern portion of Yellowstone Park and adjacent national forest and private lands, now numbers more than 20,000. At issue are changes in the visual landscape, loss of aspen regeneration, and hedging of cottonwoods, willows and other shrubs. There is substantial disagreement in the scientific community and among the public as to the causes and consequence of such change.

Management of the Jackson Hole elk herd has also been heavily debated. The dispute centers on the supplemental feeding of elk on the National Elk Refuge. The negative consequences of animals congregating on artificial feedgrounds include disease transmission, lowered nutritional status, and altered migratory and behavior patterns. To maintain the Jackson herd’s numbers at present levels despite the loss of much of its historical winter range and disruption of its migration routes has required large-scale artificial feeding. Besides the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department maintains a network of elk feedgrounds throughout western Wyoming.


Maintaining Elk Security

A major factor in the quality of elk habitat is the availability of suitable security areas. The value of a security area depends on a number of conditions, including distance from traveled roads, general ease of access, amount and type of cover, topography, and forage quality. As prime elk habitat comes under increasing pressure, the importance of identifying and protecting elk security areas is critical.

Many biologists believe that elk vulnerability increases when less than 30% of a herd’s seasonal range is secure. Additionally, the connectivity of secure habitat is very important during hunting season so elk can move between units without traversing large areas of low security habitat.

Agency definitions of what constitutes a “security area” vary widely, but the following definition (based on Idaho Fish and Game Dept. guidelines for portions of the Targhee National Forest, and on the work of Hillis et al. for forests in southwestern Montana) provides a starting point for rating security areas:

“To effectively provide for elk security, an area must have at least 250 contiguous (nonlinear) acres of densely forested land and must be at least 1/2 mile from open roads, trails or areas open to motorized travel. “Densely forested” equates to effective elk hiding cover which, according to the definition of Lyon and Christensen (1992, ibid) is vegetation capable of concealing 90% of a standing elk at 200 feet or less.”

o Using the above definition, all elk fall/early winter ranges on public lands should be analyzed to identify and map effective elk security areas.

• Ideally, the elk habitat analysis unit should represent the seasonal range of the herd, specifically the local herd’s range during the hunting season (Hillis et al. 1991, Proceedings of the Elk Vulnerability Symposium). In cases where it is known or suspected that the present range of a herd has been significantly altered due to logging or other development, two habitat analysis units should be delineated: historic range and present areas of use.

• When the area of interest does not encompass the entire seasonal range of a herd, smaller analysis areas may be used, but the minimum acceptable size for a habitat analysis area is 5,000 acres.

• The spatial arrangement, topography, elevation, exposure and habitat type of the security areas should also be evaluated to determine if they meet the needs of the herd. In many cases, the best indicator that an area is capable of providing security for elk during times of stress is the actual presence or absence of elk (using radiotelemetry data).

o Agencies should take remedial action in habitat analysis areas (herd unit ranges) where security areas do not comprise at least 30% of the area and/or are not arranged so elk can travel safely between them. Possible mitigating measures include closing roads and/or restoring roadbeds to pre-construction condition, area closures (where offroad travel limits the effectiveness of road closures), assisting regeneration where necessary, closing certain areas to hunting, and deferring timber harvest until the analysis area meets or exceeds elk security requirements. Orders restricting access or recreation use are less effective solutions.

o Agencies should review, and modify as necessary, all proposals for future timber sales, road construction, or other resource development to ensure that herd unit ranges are maintained at no less than the minimum 30% security guideline, with satisfactory connectivity between security areas. The 30% standard does not represent a target. Where existing security areas exceed 30%, managers should not assume there is unneeded or surplus security.

o In addition to the security area standards described above, the following standards should apply on all public lands identified as a) migratory corridors, b) fall (hunting season) or early winter range, or c) other key components of elk range. Standards would include:

• Total cover: forage ratios (including security areas and other forest patches which do not meet the preceding definition of a security area) must not be permitted to fall below 60:40. To qualify as cover, an area must have at least 60% canopy cover of pole sized or larger conifers. In determining if an area meets this criteria, road density must also be considered. Any area which has a road density of greater than 2 miles of open road per square mile should not be considered as effectively providing security cover even if it meets all other criteria.

• A maximum of 25% of the analysis area in natural or artificially created openings.

• An overall road density for the entire analysis area below 0.5 miles of “open” road per square mile (as calculated over the entire habitat analysis area).

• For each analysis unit, &Mac179;30% must qualify as a security area as defined above.

These guidelines should serve as minimum standards for long-range agency planning documents.
They should be applied or adjusted as necessary according to the herd objectives established by state wildlife agencies.

Timber Harvest in Elk and Deer Range

The potential for negative impacts on elk herds through excessive or poorly planned timber harvest has been well researched and fully documented. Similarly for deer, the displacement which occurs from post-harvest human use of logging roads (even when they have been reportedly “closed”) and the loss of reproductive habitat from logging mature Douglas fir can outweigh potential benefits accrued from improved forage production which follows logging. The following silvicultural guidelines, based primarily on the recommendations of the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging Study (Lyon et al. 1985) and the Idaho Fish and Game Department, should be adopted and implemented by all agencies involved with timber management in Greater Yellowstone.

o No timber harvest should be allowed directly along or within 0.5 miles of well-defined, primary migration routes unless topographic barriers effectively isolate elk use areas from the disturbance.

o In areas of potential elk summer range, no treatment which reduces canopy cover to less than 20% shall exceed 40 acres. All other types of silvicultural treatments should not exceed 100 acres.

o Where harvest is slated on essential deer summer range, cutting units should avoid large stands of mature and old-growth Douglas fir which are important to mule deer fawn survival, and should focus instead on large even-aged stands of lodgepole pine. Cutting units should be small (1 – 5 acres), irregularly shaped and loosely distributed across the landscape to protect deer security needs.

o Leave strips of at least 600 feet in width should be retained around all silvicultural treatments (including selection cuts, clearcuts or other even-aged management systems). These leave strips must provide cover capable of hiding 90% of a standing elk at 200 feet and should be retained until the treated area has revegetated to the same criteria.

o Slash depths should be less than 1.5 feet in order to minimize the impact on elk movements, distribution and habitat use. However, proposals that purport to improve elk habitat by reducing slash, or other downed material, must be thoroughly supported by studies in the area of the proposed sale.

o No winter logging, road construction or associated disturbance should be allowed within two miles of important elk winter range unless topographic barriers adequately insulate elk from disturbance. Conversely, logging on important units of elk summer range should be conducted during winter, where feasible.

o Timber harvest should be minimized on essential units of mule deer winter range as identified by intensive, multi-year monitoring of mule deer herds. “Accessory areas” (areas not part of the normal winter range but providing essential resources during periods of extreme resource stress) should also be protected from harvest.

o Timber sales should be planned so the maximum duration of disturbance in an area is two years.
o Elk security can be maintained during logging operations by adhering to the following practices as proposed by the Montana Cooperative Elk Logging Study:

• Heavy equipment use should be accomplished in the shortest possible time.

• Make adjacent drainages more secure by road or area closures.

• At any one time, logging activity should be confined to the smallest area possible within a single drainage and logging should not occur in two adjacent drainages during the same season.

• Reduce access to the sale area and control non-logging traffic; prohibit use of firearms in the sale area.

• Plan timber sales to minimize potential problems arising from redistribution of elk onto adjacent property.

• Use information about elk movement patterns and the distribution of elk harvest to plan timing of timber cuts and placement of roads.

• Require consultation with an elk management biologist from the affected state agency as a routine part of timber sale design to ensure satisfactory mitigation in elk habitat.

o Agencies should adhere to the following guidelines when designing roads for timber sale areas or for other uses in elk habitat:

• Locate permanent and high-volume traffic roads in areas least used by elk and avoid road construction in major elk crossings and high-use areas such as saddles, low divides, riparian areas and ridgetops.

• Design roads to facilitate later effective closure, whether permanent or temporary.

• Maintain dense cover areas along roads. Vegetation removal along road sides should not extend farther than necessary for safety.

• Construct roads to the lowest standard able to meet management objectives; use temporary or service level D roads whenever possible.

• Dispose of road slash; keep slash depths in road right-of-way at less than 1.5 feet. In areas where this is impossible, provide for 16 foot widths of cleared slash at intervals of 200 feet, especially along ridges and trail crossings.

• Provide for effective closures by installing gates at the onset of road construction (to prevent human use patterns from developing) and locking gates during all 24-hour periods of non-use. After logging is completed, replace gates with permanent barriers and revegetate road beds and fill slopes for permanent closure.


o Logging road construction in deer habitat should generally follow the same guidelines as described in the section on elk management.

o Timber harvest, road construction, livestock grazing or other activities which might displace elk should not be permitted in elk calving habitat during the period May 15-June 30.


Ungulate Winter Range Protection and Habitat Acquisition

As the human population of Greater Yellowstone expands, the pressures on lower-elevation ungulate winter range have increased. Much of the critical ungulate winter range is found outside parks, forests and refuges on private agricultural lands in the foothills. Development trends in these areas portend a grim future for ungulate populations. Among the many areas where ungulate winter range is threatened are the northern Yellowstone winter range north of Gardiner, Montana, the southeast flank of the Absarokas, Jackson Hole, along Buffalo Fork of the Snake River east of Moran, Wyoming, and the Sand Creek winter range in Idaho.

Many winter range areas cannot be incorporated into the preserve system (National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas and other special designations). Consequently, wildlife agencies need to identify key parcels of habitat to be protected through cooperative efforts with private landowners, conservation easements or direct purchase from willing sellers.


o To protect key winter wildlife range on private lands, agency wildlife biologists should provide maps of key ungulate winter range, calving areas and other habitats which are currently unprotected and may be threatened by subdivision or other development, to planning boards, task forces, and citizen groups.

o On public lands where existing or potential recreational activity creates significant disturbance or displacement on ungulate winter range, managers should consider the use of area closures to minimize conflicts.

o Winter range improvement projects may be required to correct for the absence of natural processes now suppressed or eliminated by human activities. For example, roto-beating or limited burning of sagebrush-bitterbrush habitat (once every 25-30 years, with burning in small patches over multiple years) can be a valuable habitat improvement tool for deer and elk. Such manipulations should only be permitted when they are consistent with broader biodiversity objectives.
 
My challenge to you is, tell me a better way to conduct the study.
I wish I knew Buzz. I do think that any study done to benefit the overall herds is a good thing. Thanks for some interseting reading above. ;)
 
Elkhunter,

Thats the problem, its easy to rip a study apart and say exactly what you did. Its a lot more difficult to come up with a better way to conduct one.

However, I think that theres been plenty of studies done that all come to the conclusion that roads and access arent good for elk.
 
All good reading.
But anyway you look at it it's going to help close off access to large groups of people.
I wonder how long it's going to take for the non-hunting public (ATV riders,Mt. Bike's,Horse owner's) to tell the hunter's to take a hike.
If these studys are being done to help protect elk/deer from harvest why should the non-hunting public be left out of some great recreation area's ?

Holy crap if anyone is making a fuss over horse's in the back country ,I have to believe they have more of an agenda then just protecting wildlife from over harvest.

How much freedom's are you willing to lose in the way of private property right's,or using your public land's ?
How many of these studys are tied into
"The Wildlands Project"
"The Rewilding Institute"
"The Center for Biological Diveristy"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
Voyageurs Wolf Project
Replies
14
Views
2K
more_cowbell
more_cowbell
INMT
MT Great Outdoors Conservation Easement approved by 3-2 Vote. Guess who voted No
Replies
8
Views
500
BRI
BRI
J
2024 WY Elk Hunt Recap
Replies
15
Views
1K
B&CTom
B&CTom
E
Lessons learned: hunting partners
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
tormenter
T
Braveheart
Finally first Elk hunt, harder than you think!!!
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
10K
Chief23
C
Yeti GOBOX Collection

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,591
Messages
2,026,236
Members
36,240
Latest member
Mscarl (she/they)

Share this page

Back
Top