The "Low Impact" Impact 🤔

[TOGIE]

You are absolutely right. But again, I still defer to the idea that we - as hunters, along with wildlife agencies, wildlife lovers, photographers, etc - have done shit to educate the general public and average recreation user. My 8yo daughter could tell you exactly why the USFS area behind our house is closed, but it's not because she read the 8x11 sign the USFS put up. That sign basically made it sound like it was for habitat improvement. Does habitat improvement sound as accurate as "crucial elk and mule deer wintering and calving ground"? Or something to that effect.

I agree with your earlier post that some recreation users aren't ever going to give a F about wildlife. Just like some hunters don't give an F about rules, season dates, etc. But we also can blame recreational users that have no idea on the impact of their usage and specifically crucial area / time of year usage.

We need to do better at talking with our non hunting friends and be wary of framing the discussion in a way that makes it sound like we are only concerned with hunt quality.

i agree.

to paraphrase @Oak in his Non Motorized Trail Grant Program thread that is very relevant to this discussion and that I think needs more attention: we've been getting our lunch eaten by the "non consumptive" community. probably more like taken to the cleaners.

and that's been happening because hunters haven't been showing up to comment on this stuff. i wouldn't necessarily say it's because of apathy, it's because most of us have no idea that these proposals exist and that our wildlife commission has one of the fingers on the money lever to help make them happen.

 

[BuzzH]

Aren’t those two separate issues? Non-consumptive user impacts and poor wildlife management (hunting)? You are cherry picking areas/states with poor management practices imo. To me this is about non-consumptive users paying their fair share and realizing their impacts. Hunters already have a system to pay for their impacts.

But does the average hunter realize their impacts? I'm pretty convinced a majority are pretty oblivious.

 

[SAJ-99]

here is one that deals with the impact on the total ecology.

https://www.lib.washington.edu/msd/norestriction/b67566091.pdf

 

[YukonGold]

I didn't read all the replies so sorry if this has been linked already, but Montana Natural Heritage Program compiled a pretty extensive bibliography about this topic recently-ish. I thought I remembered there was going to be an effort to update it but not sure if that happened or not. As it is, the most recent year I found in the "ungulates" section was 2010.

MTNHP Wildlife Bibliographies

The Montana Natural Heritage Program provides information on Montana's species and habitats, emphasizing those of conservation concern.

mtnhp.org

 

[Nameless Range]

In thinking about this more. Most Forest Plans have a maximum road density, and those density thresholds are different when occurring in wintering ground vs summer range, etc. Could studies be understood enough that forest plans have maximum trail densities? I can't find anything that says this is a thing. Further, we have roadless areas. Is there any logic that follows that makes trailless areas any less valid?

Of course one main difference is hiking and biking can occur off-trail and in some instances where no trails exist, trails are created - either organically or through planned pioneering.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[FI460]

But does the average hunter realize their impacts? I'm pretty convinced a majority are pretty oblivious.

They do not. Most folks are still subscribing to opportunity for the sake of opportunity.

But for those of us that are realistic about the impact of hunting don't you think this type of advocacy is becoming more important with each of these publications? I sort of feel like it would be disingenuous to advocate against one type of resource impact without giving another equal criticism. I feel the developmet of my belief in what's actually best/ impactful for the resource has been pretty well influenced by your posts on this forum.

 

[COEngineer]

In thinking about this more. Most Forest Plans have a maximum road density, and those density thresholds are different when occurring in wintering ground vs summer range, etc. Could studies be understood enough that forest plans have maximum trail densities? I can't find anything that says this is a thing. Further, we have roadless areas. Is there any logic that follows that makes trailless areas any less valid?

Of course one main difference is hiking and biking can occur off-trail and in some instances where no trails exist, trails are created - either organically or through planned pioneering.

Just thinking out loud.

If they don't have trail density restrictions, they should, and CO BHA has been advocating for it: https://www.backcountryhunters.org/report_-_gmug_report

 

[squirrel]

If you claim to want more deer and elk, and somehow fail to see the validity of "stop shooting them so much". I'm not sure you're going to get far against the non-consumptive users logic. I have never met one that did not see themselves as morally pure on this subject.

Once above tree line I got my friend "snowflake" about 100 yards from a summering herd of cows and calves with a couple rags hanging with them. Slowly peering over the last cover I motioned her to come take a look, upon seeing the feeding herd she screeched "Look Philbert THEY HAVE BABIES!!"

Cue 400 hooves crashing down the mountain like a freight train, with a bewildered "Snowflake" looking at me and saying over and over "they shouldn't have run away, I LOVE them"

In their world this is true, and they see no other world, and never will.

 

[elkduds]

I may have shared this previously. From CO TRCP.

40% of Most Important Colorado Elk Habitat Is Affected by Trail Use | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

New analysis shows the extent to which recreational trails overlap with important elk habitat in Colorado.

www.trcp.org

Outdoor Recreation and Elk: A Colorado Case Study

Where do elk habitat and recreational trails overlap in Colorado, and why does it matter?

storymaps.arcgis.com

Colorado’s world-class elk herd in bull’s-eye of outdoor recreation boom, report warns

A new report by a sportsmen’s group says 40% of the elk’s most important habitat overlaps with recreation trails in Colorado, a trend that could affect the herd’s long-term health…

www.denverpost.com

 

[Big Fin]

These are all good points.

It's easy to view all disturbance, at whatever time of the year, as equal. It is not. The timing of disturbances and the corresponding consequence to elk is variable, not static.

A 500# cow elk needs 6,000 Kcal per day for normal maintenance. During the last half of gestation, that increases by 800 KCal per day. During lactation, June-August, that increases by 4,000 Kcal per day.

So, in June, July, and August, during the lactation period, disturbance of elk to lower quality forage can have huge impacts on recovery of the cow, her nutritional plane and corresponding health of the calf by the time it is weaned in late August. That is a much different cost to herd health than a similar disturbance event by the same "non-consumptive" user (hate that term, but will use it for familiarity) in September or December.

Lower calf weights have highly first-year mortality. Cows with less than 10% body fat in the rut have a much lower rate of pregnancy. The study of elk herd health show positive correlations to this summer period of weight gain and nutritional recovery.

Studies of preferred forage show how super selective cow elk can be in the summer time (while lactating). Being moved from the highest quality forage in a specific area, to a lower quality forage in a less disturbed location, has a significant consequence to both the cow and the calf. The highest quality forage one week might be different a week or two later. Disruption at that time can have amplified consequences due to the nutritional demands of that lactation period.

None of that denies that consequences of disturbances at other times of the year, such as hunting. But, the group seeming to be the most immune to their impacts, those who identify as non-consumptive, are using the landscape in the greatest frequency and duration during the most critical time of the year for cow/calf nutrition. What happens in June-August, the period of lactation and the period of highest "non-consumptive" use, has great impact on elk herd health. My point is that we cannot ignore that fact and think only changing hunting and winter range activities will move the needle to the benefit of elk.

That does not ignore or discount the other comments related to hunting disturbance, long seasons, etc.

 

[Irrelevant]

Could studies be understood enough that forest plans have maximum trail densities? I can't find anything that says this is a thing.

We've actually gone the opposite direction here locally, more like cluster developments, were we pack in as many trails as you can, in a small space, often not even 100 yards apart. If the buffer is 400 yds for impact (or whatever it is for the location and species you're looking at) then once you've reached that, adding more trails doesn't increase in the impact (though I might argue it still does). While you're effectively creating a wildlife dead zone, you're also meeting the multi use mandate.

I'm not sure where i fall on this. It has been used in conjunction with approving illegal trails, which I'm adamantly against, but maybe it does prevent more illegal trail construction.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Pull this thread too hard at our own peril. What is the impact of relentlessly targeting herd bulls and bucks? Rifle hunts during the rut? Shooting every gobbling turkey? The effect of inadvertently and repeatedly flushing sage grouse while deer or antelope hunting. Shooting lead cows? Shed hunting? Off-season scouting? Waterfowl hunters on the best open waters during migration? Tracking wildlife in the snow? Waterhole hunting in arid country or during drought? Behavioral impact due to using decoys or using calls, Scents, Bait, Etc, etc. Don’t forget fisherman wading streams and walking riparian areas during the summer. And so on.

Concerned as you all are, but we have look in that same mirror and also realize there may not be a beginning or an end to this absolute warren of intertwined rabbit holes.

I agree with your statement, we all need to be worried about what impacts we put on the landscape. The main issue is hunters/fisherman have footed the bill for wildlife related policies/projects for decades. The amount of "non-consumptive" users that now exist on the landscape that dont contribute to wildlife conservation efforts, far outweighs the use of the traditional "consumptive" users.

 

[Nameless Range]

We've actually gone the opposite direction here locally, more like cluster developments, were we pack in as many trails as you can, in a small space, often not even 100 yards apart. If the buffer is 400 yds for impact (or whatever it is for the location and species you're looking at) then once you've reached that, adding more trails doesn't increase in the impact (though I might argue it still does). While you're effectively creating a wildlife dead zone, you're also meeting the multi use mandate.

I'm not sure where i fall on this. It has been used in conjunction with approving illegal trails, which I'm adamantly against, but maybe it does prevent more illegal trail construction.

In my experience, illegal trail construction is hard to control, and the only thing that would control it in some places would be LEOs on the landscape, which is an apparent pipedream. I think there are 3 for the 3.5 million acres of the B-D right now.

I heard the B-D folks float the idea of treating Pipestone under the new travel plan as a "sacrifice area", which is what it currently is. Basically to hell with trail density and control. They said that was decided against, for which I am grateful, but that place, with the highest density of motorized trails on the B-D, also has the worst development of illegally pioneered trails as well.

Theoretically but not exactly, every yellow trail is an illegally created one not in the system. Fact is, there are way more - these are just the ones folks have shared on trailforks from which I skinned the data.

 

[BuzzH]

These are all good points.

It's easy to view all disturbance, at whatever time of the year, as equal. It is not. The timing of disturbances and the corresponding consequence to elk is variable, not static.

A 500# cow elk needs 6,000 Kcal per day for normal maintenance. During the last half of gestation, that increases by 800 KCal per day. During lactation, June-August, that increases by 4,000 Kcal per day.

So, in June, July, and August, during the lactation period, disturbance of elk to lower quality forage can have huge impacts on recovery of the cow, her nutritional plane and corresponding health of the calf by the time it is weaned in late August. That is a much different cost to herd health than a similar disturbance event by the same "non-consumptive" user (hate that term, but will use it for familiarity) in September or December.

Lower calf weights have highly first-year mortality. Cows with less than 10% body fat in the rut have a much lower rate of pregnancy. The study of elk herd health show positive correlations to this summer period of weight gain and nutritional recovery.

Studies of preferred forage show how super selective cow elk can be in the summer time (while lactating). Being moved from the highest quality forage in a specific area, to a lower quality forage in a less disturbed location, has a significant consequence to both the cow and the calf. The highest quality forage one week might be different a week or two later. Disruption at that time can have amplified consequences due to the nutritional demands of that lactation period.

None of that denies that consequences of disturbances at other times of the year, such as hunting. But, the group seeming to be the most immune to their impacts, those who identify as non-consumptive, are using the landscape in the greatest frequency and duration during the most critical time of the year for cow/calf nutrition. What happens in June-August, the period of lactation and the period of highest "non-consumptive" use, has great impact on elk herd health. My point is that we cannot ignore that fact and think only changing hunting and winter range activities will move the needle to the benefit of elk.

That does not ignore or discount the other comments related to hunting disturbance, long seasons, etc.

To throw a real monkey wrench...what if a state GF/FWP department says they have too many elk now?

I think any non consumptive user, even if they recognize they MAY be impacting an over objective herd via disturbance, is going to use that data against those looking to curtail or limit their recreation.

Which is to say, when I hear of auxiliary hunts to kill off 125 elk near Lander, as in all of them, I don't know that I'd be too worried about my mountain biking causing a disturbance to them in the best time for me to mountain bike.

That's going to be a tough thing to reconcile when you ask people to not disturb cow elk in June-August, then kill those same elk off because they're over objective a few months later.

Bottom line is there are just too many people and wildlife are getting in the way...going to be tough sledding for them over the next few decades.

 

[Oak]

I think any non consumptive user, even if they recognize they MAY be impacting an over objective herd via disturbance, is going to use that data against those looking to curtail or limit their recreation.

Which is to say, when I hear of auxiliary hunts to kill off 125 elk near Lander, as in all of them, I don't know that I'd be too worried about my mountain biking causing a disturbance to them in the best time for me to mountain bike.

That's going to be a tough thing to reconcile when you ask people to not disturb cow elk in June-August, then kill those same elk off because they're over objective a few months later.

Not exactly the same, but this is an excerpt from a letter Bonnie Brown of Colorado Wool Growers Association sent to numerous federal, state, and local government personnel last year.

Bighorn sheep are a huntable species in Colorado. That means the overall population is robust enough that Colorado Parks & Wildlife (CPW) annually issues hunting tags. The Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Society actively works to “protect” bighorns so hunters can kill them.

 

[88man]

Wow dude $100 bucks for a NR Mt Bike weekend permit!

 

[BuzzH]

Not exactly the same, but this is an excerpt from a letter Bonnie Brown of Colorado Wool Growers Association sent to numerous federal, state, and local government personnel last year.

Pretty close to the same argument that non consumptive users are going to use regarding elk disturbance would be my guess.

With one big difference and that's elk are wayyyy over objective in many places.

Wish sheep were over objective as well...

 

[Knight.54]

Tough sledding.


Sums it up Big Fin.

 

[Bullshot]

Tacking on to my earlier comments, and after reading so many other good comments, this HT crowd is (not surprisingly) pretty aware that we all have a hand in hunting related impacts. Some of those impacts are really intense on herds and individuals, including some that are almost beyond the pale (we have all probably said or thought at one time or another, "man, it must suck to be a deer, elk, duck, etc. living here"). Other of our impacts are low intensity, temporary and dispersed in place and time. So long as the environment remain overall healthy (according to at least somebody's measure) and populations are not biologically imperiled, we shouldn't feel much shame about being a presence, or a force in nature while endeavoring according to the law. But for species / herds / ecological communities that are trending against biological success, or even outright plummeting as a result of this cocktail of "consumptive" and "non-consumptive" uses, traffic, development, disease, energy exploration, over-exploitation, bad management, etc, etc, etc (as we have seen discussed before), than identifying those most critical areas, activities, or timing is and will remain a worthy endeavor. For the majority who just simply might not know, how to crack that educational nut and THEN to change behaviors will be difficult. People are just terrible at being asked to give up literally anything. But also don't forget, some people, including a lot of hunters, will just never care so long as they "get what's theirs". Que needing more rules and then enforcement.... itself a tall and often distasteful order.

 

[TOGIE]

this thread is making think of how beneficial it would be for CPW to structure season dates that are more tailored to specific units and DAUs versus just statewide seasons, kinda like wyoming does.

we gotta separate this OTC elk and high quota deer hunting going on at the same time too.