Wildlife and recreation_Brock_McCormick
•
1 like•714 views
The ever-increasing demand for outdoor recreation opportunity has challenged traditional approaches to wildlife management, creating a need to develop new ways to accommodate recreation development while still protecting wildlife and other valuable resources. Join Brock McCormick, Wildlife Biologist for the U.S. Forest Service for a discussion of outdoor recreation, its impacts on wildlife species and how we might balance the interests and benefits of recreational users with other resource needs and land uses.
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Wildlife and recreation_Brock_McCormick
Similar to Wildlife and recreation_Brock_McCormick (20)
More from DesLandTrust
More from DesLandTrust (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Wildlife and recreation_Brock_McCormick
- 1. Wildlife and Recreation BalancingTwo Important PublicValues
- 2. Overview
- 3. PublicValues
- 4. Wildlife Impacts Direct and Indirect Impacts toWildlife from Recreation
- 6. Most Vulnerable Species Low Density Low Reproduction Rates Highly mobile Habitat Generalists Small and Less Mobile
- 8. Habitat Avoidance Photo courtesy of the Bend Bulletin Photo courtesy of the Bend Bulletin
- 14. Garbage andWaste
- 15. Focus onCentral Oregon How Are We Doing with Balance?
- 16. Current Situation in Central Oregon 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 Deschutes County Population Growth 1980 to 2016 Deschutes County Population Growth 1980 to 2016
- 17. Challenges
- 18. Magnitude of Use
- 19. Landscape Considerations Barriers, Connectivity and Fragmentation
- 27. As an Individual
- 29. As a Community
- 32. Questions ?
Editor's Notes
- Introduce yourself (if not introduced).
- Most people strongly value public lands for the recreation opportunities they provide and the wildlife they support. Like most people, I do too. I’ve been fortunate to have spent my entire life living in close proximity to large and wild expanses of public land – from my fondest childhood memories of backpacking and fishing with my dad and grandfather, my high school years spent as a competitive mogul skier, the fields I’ve perused in my education and profession and the adventures I now have with my own children camping, hiking and exploring – I literally could not tell my personal story without these landscapes as the backdrop. The personal value I place on both outdoor recreation and wild places (or wildlife in particular) – is immense. In order to maintain high quality recreation and wildlife habitat we need to continually seek to balance both these values as well as balancing a wide range of benefits that come from public lands. After I first discuss how recreation affects wildlife, I will highlight how individuals, our community and public land management agencies can support both recreation and wildlife.
- The Deschutes National Forest and all the public lands in Central Oregon brings a lot of people to the area to recreate and be outdoors. People value outdoor recreation for adventure, exploration, fitness and health, and for the economic benefits it provides to our community. People value wildlife for a variety of reasons. For some it is a spiritual connection, or an experience of seeing wildness, or simply for recreation – such as birdwatching, fishing and hunting.
- Many people assume that recreation has limited impacts – a walk or bike ride through the woods seems like the most benign activity you could imagine, when in fact, wildlife respond in interesting and sometimes substantial ways to having humans in their habitat.
- Human access to wildlife habitat is often facilitated by roads and trail. And, these same roads and trails can often have what biologist’s call a “direct effect” – meaning it occurs at the same place/time as the recreation action – in this case a wildlife/vehicle collision. Direct effects like collisions have high consequences – at least for the individual animal. Wildlife-Vehicle collisions are influenced by speed and traffic volume – so you generally get greater impacts with increasing speeds and increasing use.
- Some species are more vulnerable to these direct impacts than others. Large carnivores, like this wolf, that occur in low densities and have low reproductive rates have higher consequences from vehicle collision. Deer and elk, which are highly mobile and are habitat generalists, also are more often effected because they tend to travel across roads more readily. In the spring and fall, mortality due to migration patterns can really increase for these species. Invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles or small mammals like this pika are vulnerable because they are small and less mobile. They also tend to be under-represented in mortality counts because scavengers may remove traces of them quickly.
- Human disturbance can influence wildlife behavior. For example, wildlife may be more vigilant near human disturbance, resulting in decreased forage intake and reduced reproductive success. Wildlife displacement is a direct effect, which unlike a vehicle collision, people don’t usually see because generally wildlife flee ahead of us seeing them. Like disturbance, many of the effects of recreation on wildlife are not directly observable. Disturbance from roads and trails can displace wildlife, creating an “effect zone”, which can range in size depending on the wildlife species/habitat type. For some species it may extend hundreds of meters from the road or trail. Size of groups, roaming dogs and many other factors also influences the size of the “effect zone.” The impact of these activities on a species depends on how many times an animal is disturbed and what time of year they are disturbed. Depending upon the type of wildlife and the number of times they are displaced within this “effect zone” the impact may result in reduced breeding success, an overall reduction in the diversity of species or ‘dead zones’ – areas devoid of wildlife within otherwise suitable habitat. Human disturbance during energy intensive seasons, like lactation, pregnancy or winter, can force wildlife to choose between spending their energy avoiding risk and or spending it on foraging or caring for young. We use seasonal closures in certain areas to protect wildlife from human disturbance during these high-energy need periods. A good local example is bats - Bats go into their winter hibernaculum with a set amount of energy. Being disturbed at their hibernaculum can use up to 1/3 to ½ of their energy reserves at one time. It only takes a couple of times before their tank is empty and trying to find food (insects) during the winter isn’t really an option. Another item of note in terms of disturbance is that studies show that humans believe it is acceptable to get closer to wildlife than wildlife will allow. One study found 59 meters was felt to be an acceptable distance by recreationists while 150 meters is the average flight distance of bison, mule deer and pronghorn. That’s almost triple the distance! If wildlife become accustomed to human use patterns, this can lessen the impacts – this is an important point. Predictability matters. Most animals respond better to disturbance that is predictable. A good example: Along the I-70 corridor through the mountains of Colorado, bighorn sheep cluster directly along the roadside, within 4 feet of semi trucks going 70 mph – which is a predictable disturbance. However, once a car stops to watch or take photos, the threat level changes and sheep scatter.
- Another aspect of wildlife displacement is habitat avoidance. In areas with high human use, wildlife will tend to avoid habitat all together. Example – Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area (shown in photos) – an area important to our local elk herds. Generally elk go to the meadow and river and then use the nearby forest patches as refuge or core habitat. Refuge habitat can be thought of as patches of habitat that are unroaded/untrailed – where wildlife can find escape from human disturbance. Ryan Ranch was a large meadow often used by elk. However, with increased human use along the river trail, elk began to avoid Ryan Ranch during the daytime and shifted their use to nighttime. This past summer we place trail counters out at several locations along the Deschutes River trail to get an estimate of use. We found a minimum 15 people/hour or 240 people/day were using this trail. People start showing up around daylight and leave around dusk. So the elk have modified their behavior to adjust to the human disturbance. However, if evening and nighttime activities in the area increase for recreational purposes, then the elk may completely avoid this area that is important for their habitat needs.
- Now that I have discussed the major direct effects to wildlife from human and recreational use. I am going to discuss the more indirect and cumulative effects of recreation on wildlife. These effects generally impact wildlife habitat and occur in a different space or time than the direct disturbance or may over a longer span of time than is perceived by any individual recreating. These are more impacts that are not always directly observable. One indirect effect is habitat degradation, this includes soil compaction and the loss of vegetative and structural components of wildlife habitat. Soil compaction and loss of vegetation causes a loss of cover for small mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and some invertebrates. It also cause the loss of important habitat components like logs or snags. Trail widening, as shown in the picture of the South Sisters trail, will in time be a barrier to some less mobile species or subject them to increased predation potential. Soil compaction can keep animals form being able to burrow into the soil. It also can cause root damage to trees - trees that may become weakened or eventually die.
- As vegetation is reduced, bare ground and compacted soils allow invasive plant species to get a foothold and outcompete native plants. Recreation, even with the best intention, can cause the spread of invasive species. Simple things like tires, shoes, and animals can inadvertently be vectors for spread. When invasive species take over native forage species for wildlife are reduced and pollinators are attracted away from native plants. I want to point out some of the most problematic invasive plants in Central Oregon: St. Johns Wort, Orange Hawkweed, Spotted Knapweed
- The same concerns apply to aquatic recreation as well with threats from zebra and quagga muscles, Eurasian milfoil or bull frogs – which turn into eager predators consuming any food that will fit in it’s mouth – often decimating local species. Aquatic invasive species outcompete our natives for resources or alter habitats to unsuitable conditions.
- Another good example of humans contaminating wildlife habitat is white-nose syndrome and the effect it has had on bats. A non-native fungus that can spread easily from cave to cave on people’s clothes and shoes with the potential to destroy hibernating bat colonies. This fortunately hasn’t found it’s way into Central Oregon and we’re working hard to keep it away – encouraging cavers to only use clean clothes and equipment.
- Roads, trails and recreation use increase sedimentation potential. It’s human nature to want to be near water – so ironically many of our roads, trails and campsites occur in fragile riparian habitats. Sedimentation affects water temperature and chemistry, and may modify aquatic habitat substrate – go from complex cobbles to simplified sandy bottoms. Note: Photo of Wickiup Reservoir – OSF Critical Habitat
- I want to start by saying that both these photos were taken within designated wilderness, not in a campground. As this photo of the bear demonstrates, garbage and food waste can lead to habituation to humans as wildlife perceive this as a food source. This can become both a threat to wildlife and to recreationists. Garbage also can lead to health problems for animals when they eat it or get entangled in it. As a professional public servant and taxpayer – I despise garbage knowing that removal takes a significant amount of funding and personnel time to keep on top of. These are resources that could be used in more productive ways. Removing garbage also potentially exposes employees, volunteers and recreationists to hazardous waste or other dangerous materials. In 2015, 704 pounds of garbage and were packed out of the Three Sisters Wilderness and around 500 piles of human waste were buried by wilderness rangers. These are areas, according to the Wilderness Act of 1964, “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
- So…how are we doing in Central Oregon with balancing the needs of wildlife and recreation use on our public lands, like the Deschutes National Forest. Well we have some challenges that I am going to describe and then we will move onto some solutions for improvement.
- Effects to wildlife from recreation has a lot to do with the magnitude of human use. Thirty years ago, people hiked, rode horses, found a few old logging roads to ride their Honda 90s on – these same old logging roads eventually became some of our first mountain bike trails. As you can see from this simple graph the population growth of Deschutes County has significantly increased since that time. I think we would all agree that much of this growth is caused by people’s desire to get outdoors and enjoy recreational activities on the public land. And we are not at the end of that growth, Oregon is expected to see a 19% growth in population within the next 8 years and Central Oregon will see more than its fair share of that growth. Tourism has expanded as well, with Bend now being a showcase destination for outdoor recreation. Tourism is good for our economy and for the entrepreneurs who come and develop tourism and recreation based businesses. There are many good things attached to this growth, but a major challenge for the Deschutes National Forest and other land management agencies is how will we balance the desire for more recreation with all the other important benefits of public land, like wildlife habitat.
- Along with the challenge of increasing pressure of population growth on our public lands, other aspects of recreation have created some challenges for balancing the benefits of wildlife and recreation. Things like… Changing Technologies – such as drones, side by sides, fatbikes, eBikes and modern snowmobiles able to access deep into the backcountry or jeeps that make extreme rock climbs. New technologies have brought new pressures to public lands – uses that were not foreseen by management plans currently being implemented and uses without a clear precedent for how to manage them. In addition, as new uses come forward, people want trails and recreational areas devoted to these new activities and uses. And sometimes people have a low tolerance for shared trails Impacts are widespread – demand has resulted in landscape saturation of roads/trails providing easy human access to large expanses of wildlife habitat* Impacts are often indirect/cumulative, making them difficult to see from the perspective of a single user or a single recreation experience . *We currently have enough official trails on the Deschutes National Forest that you could recreate every weekend – May to Sept – and to cover all the trails biking/hiking you would need to do 38 miles per weekend and not see the same inch of trail twice.
- I mentioned previously that the magnitude of use really can make the difference to how impacted wildlife are by recreation activities – that is what makes this time and place challenging for wildlife management. We are experiencing a rapid growth in recreational use on the Deschutes National Forest. Over the past 5 years we have seen 15 to 20% annual growth – year after year – in recreational use on the national forest. That benign walk in the woods takes on a very different meaning in the context of you being one of over 500 people using that same trail on the same day – use numbers we see in places like Benham Falls. That is why magnitude of use is so important to determining how to balance wildlife habitat and recreational use. .
- Now that you all have a basic understanding of how animals respond to human disturbance and can put that in the context of increasing use levels – I’d like to zoom out and look at the Deschutes National Forest as a larger landscape.
- A few basic concepts to understand here… habitat connectivity, barriers to animal movement and habitat fragmentation.
- Barriers Barriers define the extent of available habitat – this may mean different things to different species – a general example is shown in RED. Barriers can be natural or human created – Note examples on photo (river, lava flow, development, roads powerlines, gravel pit, trails…) Barriers that impede movement result in higher mortality and lower reproductive success for wildlife. Barriers to movement result in habitats that are devoid of populations or contain smaller populations than can otherwise be supported. This increases the probability of species loss. Isolation caused by barriers to movement can reduce gene flow leading to genetic difficulties and the negative effects of inbreeding.
- Connectivity Is a measure of how well habitat is connected across a landscape – as you can see the expanse of orange shown here. Landscape connectivity is the degree to which the landscape facilitates animal movement and other ecological flows. High landscape connectivity is a landscape that has few barriers and where animals can move freely – moving through different habitats in order to meet daily and seasonal life needs High landscape connectivity allows for movements to re-populate areas and share genetics.
- Fragmentation Fragmentation is a measure of how barriers influence connectivity – as shown, large parcels are broken into smaller and more isolated pieces by intrusions such as roads, trails and powerlines. This results in decreased interior forest habitat (aka core or refuge habitat) and increased edge effect. Patch size and distribution can determine the probability that a patch may be occupied. For example, some songbirds were found less often in smaller forest patches than in larger forest patches and experienced increased predation when nesting near edges. Impacts are not always equal – areas with high diversity (i.e. riparian habitat) may experience greater impacts. Additionally, road and trail distribution occurs in predictable patterns that favors high elevation species (such as pine marten or SN red fox) but may disproportionately effect low elevation species (winter range for deer/elk or sage grouse habitat).
- For an interesting example, this is Phil’s Trailhead, just west of town. This is important habitat for deer and elk as it provided movement opportunities around the urban development of Bend and occurs in a ‘transition zone’ connecting summer and winter habitats. Note that the habitat looks fairly contiguous – with limited variation in vegetative cover and few substantial barriers…
- Now, this is not an abstract piece of art – but another perspective of the same area. This is a heatmap of crowd sourcing data from Strava – an app used by bikers and trail runners. Each route mapped is shown as a single grey line here – so the thick dark lines indicate heavy use – mostly focused on system trails. But between those lines we see space that should be providing refuge habitat for wildlife that is nearly filled in with scribbles. This makes an important point – and a tie between recreation on habitat connectivity – that not all barriers are physical. Human disturbance likely influences connectivity and animal movement across a landscape. So what does this mean and what can we do about it?
- I started my talk with the idea that wildlife habitat and recreational use our two important values held for public lands. I have discussed the interactions of wildlife and recreation and how these interactions impact wildlife, what the impact is in Central Oregon due to rapid growth in recreation, and some of the landscape level issues. But I will say that, for me, the answer to the question of balance isn’t simply getting rid of one of the values or favoring one at the expense of the other – they are both important. I believe the answer is to actively engage in balancing these two values into the future as individuals, as a community and as a public land management agency. Here are some suggestions….
- Stay on designated trails and Share Them when walking, hiking, running, biking, or riding your horse or OHV. Remember – Predictability matters. Respect and protect riparian areas. Pack out trash and waste. Recreate with clean gear – be it bikes, boots, waders, boats or caving gear. Obey seasonal restrictions Give wildlife space – observe from a distance, use binoculars. Keep dogs under control or on leash. Volunteer to pick up trash or get involved in restoration efforts. These may seem like old, common sense messages – but we often forget them or tolerate those that do by accepting poor recreation ethics as a new normal. I would like to see Bend have a higher standard for how we recreate and how we use our public lands and what impacts we’re willing to accept. By making simple changes in our personal recreation habits, we can start to build a more conscience community…
- There are several tools to help us do that, including national and local programs that have great materials on how to be a more responsible recreationist. These are successful campaigns we can build on. In addition, we always promote the concept of KNOW BEFORE YOU GO. Find out if areas you want to go to have seasonal closures or restrictions that are done for the benefit of wildlife. You can find these on our Deschutes National Forest website.
- I hope this community can build a culture of recreation that balances the needs of wildlife while enriching our recreational experiences – as these interests are intertwined and each is able to enhance the other. As a community we need to work together collaboratively to find long-term sustainable solutions that balance the many benefits of our public lands. Central Oregon is known for its ability to find collaborative answers to complex questions. This is a picture of the Deschutes Collaborative Forest Project group that successfully has been working for the past nine years to help restore our forests to healthier conditions while balancing the needs of industry, recreationists, and environmental interests.
- As a public land management the most important thing we can do is engage in these types of discussions with a wide range of people and we can support our partners who want to work together to find meaningful solutions to balance the desires of the public. On the ground we can do a couple of things: We can educate/remind people about how to be good stewards of the public lands. We can support volunteers in helping us maintain and restore areas both for wildlife and recreation. We can design “smart trails” by incorporating wildlife needs in trail design and recreational developments. We can make substantial improvements by consolidating disturbance, maintaining connectivity, and targeting restoration efforts to achieve the most ecological and recreational benefit. We can educate ourselves: We can work with researchers to translate data into useful information. We can learn from other areas who are experiencing the same issues. We can learn from our communities about how to share what is happening and the challenges we are facing and get their feedback. We can help other people learn about different users interests and help different groups find ways to “share the trail.”
- I’ve mentioned my personal connection to this issue and how these two prized values of recreation and wildlife have shaped my life story. By finding balance between them my hope for this community – and selfishly for myself and my family as part of this community – is that we can find balance to ensure the long term sustainability of both.
- Open for questions. Introduce Jean Nelson-Dean (Public Affairs Officer) and Lisa Machnik (Recreation, Heritage, Lands and Partnerships Officer).