The "Low Impact" Impact 🤔

[LuketheDog]

I'm currently watching this elk herd lose 1/2 of it's it's winter grazing area to another suburban wasteland of 12,000 overpriced developer specials, they're already pinched between massive amounts of recreating people, can't wait to see how the increased low-impact impact finishes them off...


Here's the link to their 'sustainability' page, they have TWO wildlife corridors, yay!

Sustainability

We believe that authentic, heartfelt dwellings go beyond rooflines to the people inside. Learn more about our homes, surroundings, & our sustainable living.

sterlingranchcolorado.com

 

[TheTone]

New trails are being proposed and developed every day. The rally cry of "more trails!" is something recreation managers hear from the public near-daily, and sometimes they appease them. I'm not saying new trails are never appropriate, but I think conservative planning is must. ct of motorized use on wildlife. What I am waiting on, is for land managers to take it as seriously.

My experiences are that rec managers very much stick to the task of developing more rec and don’t think about other impacts.

A couple of personal experiences:
1. A place I liked to shed hunt had an illegal motorcycle trail through it. As it wasn’t a marked or maintained trail it didn’t see tons of use but did see some. Rather than work to close it, the trail was legitimized and maintained. I went from pulling out multiple sheds a year to a couple straight years of none before I abandoned the area

2. My local mountain is covered in mtn bike trails. They are fun to ride and hike I admit but they’re also crowded and loved to death. It’s essentially rare to see a deer or moose near the trails and yet it’s awesome habitat and 20 years ago was one of the best moose areas in the state. The bike group is constantly pushing for more trail builds and just last week got permission to build on another public chunk. They are talking of further expansion into an area I love to elk hunt and I worry what more people using it will do and where those elk will go

We are terribly guilty of loving places to death and I don’t think a lot of people consider that until it’s too late

 

[BuzzH]

i don't think we can sit here and say that because some states management is in the toilet and some other states have some hunting issues to maybe think harder about doesn't mean we don't talk about and bring further into light what is arguably in many areas a much bigger issue.

when it comes to trail expansion and development of public lands recreation and how detrimental it can be to wildlife we have a user group that tends to presented with the evidence of such and will generally respond with "who gives a damn?"

I don't think hunters across the board would generally respond that way.

i'm sure plenty would and montana is a bad example, but most states still tend to respond when things get bad as far as hunting goes and if hunting is part of the problem.

again, when it comes to mt bikes and cross country skiing and fat bikes and trail runners, and maybe i'm unfairly broad brushing here, but we have a user groups that generally look at the wildlife and say "who gives a damn, i wanna ride bikes" or "i'm not shooting an elk, so i refuse to believe that i could be harming elk, let me ride my bike"

Multiple use is a double edged sword...

We campaign to bring hunters and fisherman into the fold to protect and advocate for public lands. You know, the whole, "if they don't use public lands, they won't advocate for them."

How is that different than people that rock climb, mountain bike, hike, watch wildlife?

Also if we are going to limit them for wildlife disturbance, how do we argue blasting away at them all fall and winter Isn't also a disturbance?

Where do we draw lines?

I don't have answers but multiple use IS a public land mandate.

 

[RealMuddyboots]

IMO there is no such thing as "low impact" human activity when one considers scent dispersion versus noise. All animals react to human scent and when under constant scent downwind from trails that have constant use, animals will vacate the area to avoid the scent impact. Add in noise, be it just noisy walking, talking, music, vehicles (all types of bikes, quads, SxS, horses) only adds to the stress. Stop nonsense about horses, animals tie humans to them fast. "Oh, I ride up onto animals all the time!". If you are up wind, yes. This applies to everything. How many times have you walked up to animal that then spooked? How many animals were not seen that spooked?

Just think of your own experiences of over hunting an area knowing your downwind scent may be risking animal movement.

I am really starting to think land needs a recovery time from the stress of human activity. But how? Winter access? Cross country skiers, snow shoeing, snowmobiles are all activities that should have some access. I think?

Everyone likes or wants to see the beautiful landscape plus the resident animals "in their habitat", but what is the tipping point when the that desire triggers (pun intended) significant animal negative response that may interfere with their own survival?

How do you limit who or what and when can have access to "public land"? Does this thought process also apply to "private land"?

 

[TOGIE]

Multiple use is a double edged sword...

We campaign to bring hunters and fisherman into the fold to protect and advocate for public lands. You know, the whole, "if they don't use public lands, they won't advocate for them."

How is that different than people that rock climb, mountain bike, hike, watch wildlife?

Also if we are going to limit them for wildlife disturbance, how do we argue blasting away at them all fall and winter Isn't also a disturbance?

Where do we draw lines?

I don't have answers but multiple use IS a public land mandate.

i know, i don't really know where the lines are either.

but i grew up being a non hunter and a "non consumptive" user. It's weird thinking back on some wilderness areas I spent enormous amounts of time in in my teens and early twenties, I can't believe how many of these areas are chock full of elk, deer, and bears that i used to spend enormous amounts of time in and i never saw any of them. never knew. i was too busy leading backpacking trips, peak baggin, mt biking, and trail running to ever even realize there was wildlife these places. we had family friends that were hunters and shot elk and i always wondered "where are these guys shooting elk?" i wasn't sure i'd seen an elk outside of the YMCA in estes park for much of my life.

i suspect a lot of "non consumptive" users are like i was, if i knew that certain activities were becoming linked to population declines in, particularly, these "big" species of animals, I would've been both surprised and concerned. but i mean, if i didn't even realize how much wildlife existed in so many different places how would i even begin to realize that those wildlife face many problems, many big problems.

i also understand, and not because they're bad people, that some non consumptive users just actually don't care much about wildlife, it adds nothing to the value of their activities. just the way it is. but i suspect a lot would care if they knew. so i say we shine the spotlight as brightly as possible, even if we risk it hitting a mirror along the way.

a lot of other "non consumptive" users are like you'd expect, "well maybe if they let us mt bike in wilderness areas we wouldn't have to build so many trails" you actually just can't have conversations with those folks i've learned.

mostly i think if pulling this thread similarly turns the spotlight to a lot of the shit going down in hunting right now then so be it. probably for the better.

but wildlife commissions and regional public land officials definitely won't do anything about any of it if the public doesn't start asking about it and talking about it.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

Multiple use is a double edged sword...

We campaign to bring hunters and fisherman into the fold to protect and advocate for public lands. You know, the whole, "if they don't use public lands, they won't advocate for them."

How is that different than people that rock climb, mountain bike, hike, watch wildlife?

Also if we are going to limit them for wildlife disturbance, how do we argue blasting away at them all fall and winter Isn't also a disturbance?

Where do we draw lines?

I don't have answers but multiple use IS a public land mandate.

I first saw this thread when I got up and had a reaction, but decided to spend the morning with my dog and kid before responding. Glad I did, as I think a few responses, including Buzz and Togie's above are in line with my thoughts.

With such a nuanced issue, we also have to recognize that we are part of the problem. Act like we aren't and you are naive as can be. Granted, I think hunters and anglers recognize and respect winter ranger closures, etc better than the average person out recreating. BUT we definitely lend to these disturbances - even when you take out hunting season. How many threads on here have beautiful summer landscapes dotted with elk and mule deer and moose... while we are out scouting where we intend to hunt the coming fall? And while not everyone who recreates stays on trail... hunters are by far the worst at dispersing on the landscape in an effort to find their intended target.

I've often wondered - and maybe this is because I was on the non-hunter side of the fence for so long - why we don't work with hiking, biking, skiing groups to help educate everyone on why closures are important, why highly concentrated winter ranges need to be left alone, why mass gatherings shouldn't happen near calving sites, etc. We are never going to get to the point where the animals feel left alone and free to wander unless we, ourselves, disappear. But maybe, just maybe, rather than acting like everyone but us is a consumptive user would put us in a problem solving frame of mind, rather than a finger pointing one.

I rock climb, mountain bike, ski, snowshoe and all that stuff. But this time of year - with a major wintering ground right out my back door - I stick to more "urban" trail systems in an effort to leave those animals alone. Maybe the average mountain biker or backcountry skier doesn't realize why that USFS land down the road is closed 12/15 - 6/15 each year. And while state and federal agencies could do a better job of articulating that, maybe it would be better heard from a fellow fat biker or skier as to why you shouldn't go back there - rather than just pointing to signage and saying 'because'.

I hate seeing these areas wildlife count on continue to shrink, especially safe havens. But if we don't do a better job of articulating it and acknowledging our presence and part in the problem, I think we are truly doomed. And if we think they are going to cut off mountain biking and hiking access before those of us walking the woods with guns... you aren't reading the room.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

6 month elk seasons in Montana aren't creating disturbance?

Montana isnt the only state with elk hunting. Elk season disturbance in Montana pales in comparison to recreational traffic in Colorado from a man-hours perspective. If elk hunters are creating too much disturbance in Montana they can just limit the licenses. Not much limiting of disturbance for recreational users across the west. Was this threat specifically targeted at Montana? I missed that part.

 

[Nameless Range]

Where do we draw lines?

I hope studies like these show us when we are close to the lines. I don't think hunters are any different than rock climbers, bikers, hikers, birdwatchers, or motorized users in terms of their desires and activities needing consideration under the recreation opportunity spectrum. There does seem to be an understanding of that last group's effect, and management/travel proposals often follow accordingly. Maybe it is just a lot harder to take into consideration the others?

@TheTone your stories aren't unique. Illegally built trails are often adopted into official trail systems, which is wrong to me. A local NF Trails Project proposal recently wanted to do just that. Folks got pissed, and they "postponed" the project. In person, I heard a public agency rec manager say that he loves working with mountain bike groups because they often raise enough funds to pay for their own impact assessment on projects they desire.

Even if all these studies don't make us really change existing use on the landscape due to the very real consideration of what is socially acceptable - at a minimum, I think they should make us question whether we need to invite more effects unnecessarily. Do we need to increase the infrastructure that supplies the disturbance? I don't believe it spreads it out.

 

[BuzzH]

Montana isnt the only state with elk hunting. Elk season disturbance in Montana pales in comparison to recreational traffic in Colorado from a man-hours perspective. If elk hunters are creating too much disturbance in Montana they can just limit the licenses. Not much limiting of disturbance for recreational users across the west. Was this threat specifically targeted at Montana? I missed that part.

I think you miss the point that it's going to be a tough sell, as a hunter, to tell a mountain biker that is limited to a few months of the year to ride, they are disturbing elk. Then turn around and hunt them for 3-6 months a year in EVERY state that has elk.

You don't see the hypocrisy?

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Multiple use is a double edged sword...

We campaign to bring hunters and fisherman into the fold to protect and advocate for public lands. You know, the whole, "if they don't use public lands, they won't advocate for them."

How is that different than people that rock climb, mountain bike, hike, watch wildlife?

Also if we are going to limit them for wildlife disturbance, how do we argue blasting away at them all fall and winter Isn't also a disturbance?

Where do we draw lines?

I don't have answers but multiple use IS a public land mandate.

Are we really blasting away at wildlife all fall and winter? Maybe in Montana but according to the regulations and the calendar that would be illegal in most states. The difference is pretty simple to me. Hunting in the west is heavily regulated and getting more regulated by the day. Other recreational use is not and very few decision makers are accounting for it or considering that impact on wildlife. They are focused on all the hunters “relentlessly blasting away at wildlife all year long”. I don’t think anyone is challenging the multiple use mandate, just that not all uses are being looked at the same.

 

[Big Fin]

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 that it does require more self-examination. I'm open to that. Especially when it comes to the long-term future of these herds.

Yet, history has shown the split between the historically misnamed groups of "consumptive" and "non-consumptive" places the former under a much tighter microscope while giving mostly a free pass to the latter.

And I agree, there is no beginning or end. It is all intertwined. Yet, as we push wild things to the further fringes of their traditional habitats, we have to look at them as a connected system and analyze all activities, not just those activities regulated with license requirements, season dates, and harvest constraints.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I think you miss the point that it's going to be a tough sell, as a hunter, to tell a mountain biker that is limited to a few months of the year to ride, they are disturbing elk. Then turn around and hunt them for 3-6 months a year in EVERY state that has elk.

You don't see the hypocrisy?

I really don’t because as a CO resident hunter the longest season is I can hunt is say 30 days of archery. As a mountain biker I can literally ride everyday of the year, weather permitting. Extrapolate that out across all the mtn bikers vs elk license holders and the scale is completely different. Once again, hunters are already regulated, if elk disturbance is too high they can just cut tags (whole other discussion) but no one is permitting or limiting mtn bikers.

The hypocrisy I see is recreational users claiming they are “non-consumptive” users as some sort of slight to hunters and anglers when in totality they may actually have a greater negative impact in some areas on wildlife.

 

[SAJ-99]

I think you miss the point that it's going to be a tough sell, as a hunter, to tell a mountain biker that is limited to a few months of the year to ride, they are disturbing elk. Then turn around and hunt them for 3-6 months a year in EVERY state that has elk.

You don't see the hypocrisy?

I get your point, but do they limit mountain biking permits? Do mountain bikers pay use-taxes? The non-consumptive users tend to also be non-paying users. They have a myopic view of their activity and the impact they may have. Proving there is an impact and the degree of the impact is very hard. What I want if for them to start by reaching their alligator-arms into those pockets and assist in funding for habitat improvement and wildfire mitigation.

 

[BuzzH]

I really don’t because as a CO resident hunter the longest season is I can hunt is say 30 days of archery. As a mountain biker I can literally ride everyday of the year, weather permitting. Extrapolate that out across all the mtn bikers vs elk license holders and the scale is completely different. Once again, hunters are already regulated, if elk disturbance is too high they can just cut tags (whole other discussion) but no one is permitting or limiting mtn bikers.

The hypocrisy I see is recreational users claiming they are “non-consumptive” users as some sort of slight to hunters and anglers when in totality they may actually have a greater negative impact in some areas on wildlife.

Right, are you the only hunter in Colorado?

Archery, muzzleloader, and 4 rifle seasons unless I'm missing some?

I also believe the scale is different, hunters are literally going out of their way to disturb wildlife...and kill it.

More so now than ever...nowhere is too far, technology is better, more outfitters than ever, trail cams, longer range shooting, and on and on and on. We don't limit shit when it comes to hunting...at least not in my lifetime. Try to limit trail cams, lighted nocks, BAITING, binoculars to 10 power, spotting scopes to 20 power, etc..worlds going to end.

No different than the increased pressure from mountain bikers, and hunters are in every bit as much denial about the amount we pressure animals as they are.

 

[BuzzH]

I get your point, but do they limit mountain biking permits? Do mountain bikers pay use-taxes? The non-consumptive users tend to also be non-paying users. They have a myopic view of their activity and the impact they may have. Proving there is an impact and the degree of the impact is very hard. What I want if for them to start by reaching their alligator-arms into those pockets and assist in funding for habitat improvement and wildfire mitigation.

In the case of Montana I reckon if they pay their $20 mountain bike fee, the same as the residents pay for their elk tag, they should be good to disturb all the wildlife they want...

 

[rogerthat]

Right, are you the only hunter in Colorado?

Archery, muzzleloader, and 4 rifle seasons unless I'm missing some?

I also believe the scale is different, hunters are literally going out of their way to disturb wildlife...and kill it.

More so now than ever...nowhere is too far, technology is better, more outfitters than ever, trail cams, longer range shooting, and on and on and on. We don't limit shit when it comes to hunting...at least not in my lifetime. Try to limit trail cams, lighted nocks, BAITING, binoculars to 10 power, spotting scopes to 20 power, etc..worlds going to end.

No different than the increased pressure from mountain bikers, and hunters are in every bit as much denial about the amount we pressure animals as they are.

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.

 

[TOGIE]

Right, are you the only hunter in Colorado?

Archery, muzzleloader, and 4 rifle seasons unless I'm missing some?

I also believe the scale is different, hunters are literally going out of their way to disturb wildlife...and kill it.

More so now than ever...nowhere is too far, technology is better, more outfitters than ever, trail cams, longer range shooting, and on and on and on. We don't limit shit when it comes to hunting...at least not in my lifetime. Try to limit

No different than the increased pressure from mountain bikers, and hunters are in every bit as much denial about the amount we pressure animals now.

if they can't find a reason, among the half dozen or so, to do away with otc, this is the reason.

but the eagle valley elk herd was studied and it seems the while the researchers carefully examined all of the impacts including hunting and, at times, over hunting. they still concluded that habitat fragmentation due to development including trails was the dominant driver in its precipitous decline.

as is the caveat with most scientific conclusions "more research is needed." but for some herds the most destructive thing occurring absolutely has little to do with hunting pressure or how many elk were arrowed or blasted with core lokts.

but seriously, the otc situation in colorado is concerning and not at all because of how many elk are being shot. the number of late deer tags is concerning.

but i can guarantee you there are more hikers, bikers, bird watchers, rock climbers, peak baggers and backpackers in the woods in colorado during september than archery hunters. but as you say, only one of those groups is going out of its way to disturb the elk.

 

[Deleted member 52098]

if they can't find a reason, among the half dozen or so, to do away with otc, this is the reason.

but the eagle valley elk herd was studied and it seems the while the researchers carefully examined all of the impacts including hunting and, at times, over hunting. they still concluded that habitat fragmentation due to development including trails was the dominant driver in its precipitous decline.

as is the caveat with most scientific conclusions "more research is needed." but for some herds the most destructive thing occurring absolutely has little to do with hunting pressure or how many elk were arrowed or blasted with core lokts.

but seriously, the otc situation in colorado is concerning and not at all because of how many elk are being shot. the number of late deer tags is concerning.

but i can guarantee you there are more hikers, bikers, bird watchers, rock climbers, peak baggers and backpackers in the woods in colorado during september than archery hunters. but as you say, only one of those groups is going out of its way to disturb the elk.

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't 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.

 

[xcskier_hunter]

I agree with some that it's a little bit hypocritical as hunters to criticize the effects that other user groups have on wildlife, although pointing out they do have an effect is definitely worth doing. Additionally, advocating for intelligent trail design and seasonal closures in critical fawning grounds makes sense.

However, I think it's pretty clear that us as hunters have an outsized effect on wildlife use of a landscape. The recent Utah elk study on the effect of hunting pressure showed that all it took was opening day hunting pressure to push a lot of elk onto private land sanctuaries. It's also common knowledge the the opening day of many hunting seasons result in a significantly disproportionate component of the overall harvest. I'm not sure any of the traditional "non-consumptive" activities have this effect, especially if you look at the marginal effect of an individual partaking in the activity versus the group.

This is why, IMO, limiting the use motorized, mechanized, and non-human powered travel in hunting may be our best path forward if we want to maintain hunting opportunity (season length, tag availability, hunt quality) into the future.

 

[mtmiller]

Impacts?