The "Low Impact" Impact 🤔

[Big Fin]

I continue to read more and more of these studies that show activities often proclaimed to be "non consumptive" or "low impact" are actually quite impactful. This study was done in Glacier National Park using 2020 as a baseline of almost no human activity due to C-19 and then 2021 when activity levels resumed.

Low-impact human recreation changes wildlife behavior

Even without hunting rifles, humans appear to have a strong negative influence on the movement of wildlife. A study of Glacier National Park hiking trails during and after a COVID-19 closure adds evidence to the theory that humans can create a "landscape of fear" like other apex predators...

phys.org

When I read similar studies from Colorado and I extrapolate the volume of activity, it shows a huge consequence to wildlife. A lot of this happens during the summer periods of lactation, when does/cows can have a 60% increase in energy demands due to lactation. Forcing them to move from the highest quality forage on the landscape due to hiking, biking, or whatever the "low impact" human activity is huge.

Much of this just measure the spatial disturbance and disregards the costs of forage quality disturbance. Spatial disturbance moves animals, very possibly from highest quality forage to lower quality forage. I am not smart enough to know how to conduct at study that takes spatial disturbance to the next step of what that means for cow/calf or doe/fawn nutrition and survival, but one does not need to be too imaginative to expect it could have a huge consequence when "low impact" activities are far more popular during the most critical time.

If anyone is aware of more studies showing the impacts of these "low impact" (eye roll) activities, please share them here.

 

[Nameless Range]

I continue to read more and more of these studies that show activities often proclaimed to be "non consumptive" or "low impact" are actually quite impactful. This study was done in Glacier National Park using 2020 as a baseline of almost no human activity due to C-19 and then 2021 when activity levels resumed.

Low-impact human recreation changes wildlife behavior

Even without hunting rifles, humans appear to have a strong negative influence on the movement of wildlife. A study of Glacier National Park hiking trails during and after a COVID-19 closure adds evidence to the theory that humans can create a "landscape of fear" like other apex predators...

phys.org

When I read similar studies from Colorado and I extrapolate the volume of activity, it shows a huge consequence to wildlife. A lot of this happens during the summer periods of lactation, when does/cows can have a 60% increase in energy demands due to lactation. Forcing them to move from the highest quality forage on the landscape due to hiking, biking, or whatever the "low impact" human activity is huge.

Much of this just measure the spatial disturbance and disregards the costs of forage quality disturbance. Spatial disturbance moves animals, very possibly from highest quality forage to lower quality forage. I am not smart enough to know how to conduct at study that takes spatial disturbance to the next step of what that means for cow/calf or doe/fawn nutrition and survival, but one does not need to be too imaginative to expect it could have a huge consequence when "low impact" activities are far more popular during the most critical time.

If anyone is aware of more studies showing the impacts of these "low impact" (eye roll) activities, please share them here.

Thanks for sharing this. When I’m back at my computer I’ll contribute.

I’ve actually been collecting a bibliography of studies surrounding this topic. In talking to the folks at the Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF, when the subject of recreation’s impact on wildlife came up, and how our increased understanding of it should influence the travel management plan they are theoretically developing, they asked that we forward any of those studies on to them.

This would be a helpful venue to collect those.

 

[SAJ-99]

I continue to read more and more of these studies that show activities often proclaimed to be "non consumptive" or "low impact" are actually quite impactful. This study was done in Glacier National Park using 2020 as a baseline of almost no human activity due to C-19 and then 2021 when activity levels resumed.

Low-impact human recreation changes wildlife behavior

Even without hunting rifles, humans appear to have a strong negative influence on the movement of wildlife. A study of Glacier National Park hiking trails during and after a COVID-19 closure adds evidence to the theory that humans can create a "landscape of fear" like other apex predators...

phys.org

When I read similar studies from Colorado and I extrapolate the volume of activity, it shows a huge consequence to wildlife. A lot of this happens during the summer periods of lactation, when does/cows can have a 60% increase in energy demands due to lactation. Forcing them to move from the highest quality forage on the landscape due to hiking, biking, or whatever the "low impact" human activity is huge.

Much of this just measure the spatial disturbance and disregards the costs of forage quality disturbance. Spatial disturbance moves animals, very possibly from highest quality forage to lower quality forage. I am not smart enough to know how to conduct at study that takes spatial disturbance to the next step of what that means for cow/calf or doe/fawn nutrition and survival, but one does not need to be too imaginative to expect it could have a huge consequence when "low impact" activities are far more popular during the most critical time.

If anyone is aware of more studies showing the impacts of these "low impact" (eye roll) activities, please share them here.

Not sure I need more. I am convinced they have an significant impact. The USFWS is convinced because it closes many refuges to hikers and skiers in the winter. Simple problem, too many people on too little ground. At the very least they can start paying their fair share so we can make some improvements.

 

[Big Fin]

Not sure I need more. I am convinced they have an significant impact. The USFWS is convinced because it closes many refuges to hikers and skiers in the winter. Simple problem, too many people on too little ground. At the very least they can start paying their fair share so we can make some improvements.

I don't think I need more either, yet I'd like to have even more. As someone with platforms that can reach people, I want to explore this topic and challenge the denial of "low impact" and "non-consumptive." In the context of wildlife disturbance and the timing of when those activities peak, the two prior terms I have quoted are oxymorons.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don't think I need more either, yet I'd like to have even more. As someone with platforms that can reach people, I want to explore this topic and challenge the denial of "low impact" and "non-consumptive." In the context of wildlife disturbance and the timing of when those activities peak, the two prior terms I have quoted are oxymorons.

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)13%5B951:WRTRAA%5D2.0.CO;2

 

[SAJ-99]

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)13%5B951:WRTRAA%5D2.0.CO;2

A simple google of "biking impact on wildlife" or " hiking" or "non-consumptive" will give you numerous studies that all come to the same conclusion. About the only way to justify it is looking at natural parks and the fees paid. At this point, the only reason to deny the impact is because you don't want to pay a fee. There are literally so many studies on the subject, citing them is practically pointless. I found one in French that I won't post but there are a lot of them from various parts of the world. The biggest problem is academic studies try to block access, so you have to jump through hoops to get to them (minus the reading of course).

 

[bayoublaster7527]

I don't think I need more either, yet I'd like to have even more. As someone with platforms that can reach people, I want to explore this topic and challenge the denial of "low impact" and "non-consumptive." In the context of wildlife disturbance and the timing of when those activities peak, the two prior terms I have quoted are oxymorons.

Spot on. This definitely deserves more discussion.

Wait a second, you aren’t insinuating that Colorado’s infallible CPW commission would use a disingenuous term? Unbelievable.

Representative: Non-consumptive wildlife.

 

[Jwill]

Wildlife Studies — Keep Routt Wild

www.keeprouttwild.com

This group has a lot of good info.

 

[Hunting Wife]

https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00019.x

https://pubag.nal.usda.gov/download/28480/pdf

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&=&context=wildbio_pubs&=&sei-redir=1&referer=https%253A%252F%252Fscholar.google.com%252Fscholar%253Fhl%253Den%2526as_sdt%253D0%25252C35%2526as_vis%253D1%2526q%253DHuman%252Bactivity%252Bdifferentially%252Bredistributes%252Blarge%252Bmammals%252Bin%252Bthe%252BCanadian%252BRockies%252Bnational%252Bparks.%2526btnG%253D#search=%22Human%20activity%20differentially%20redistributes%20large%20mammals%20Canadian%20Rockies%20national%20parks.%22

There are many studies demonstrating reduced nest success and chick survival for numerous bird species associated with recreational uses, but it’s far easier to monitor nests than it is to monitor calves and fawns. It doesn’t stretch credulity that nonconsumptive recreational activity may negatively impact cows/does and reduce fecundity.

 

[LuketheDog]

I continue to read more and more of these studies that show activities often proclaimed to be "non consumptive" or "low impact" are actually quite impactful. This study was done in Glacier National Park using 2020 as a baseline of almost no human activity due to C-19 and then 2021 when activity levels resumed.

Low-impact human recreation changes wildlife behavior

Even without hunting rifles, humans appear to have a strong negative influence on the movement of wildlife. A study of Glacier National Park hiking trails during and after a COVID-19 closure adds evidence to the theory that humans can create a "landscape of fear" like other apex predators...

phys.org

When I read similar studies from Colorado and I extrapolate the volume of activity, it shows a huge consequence to wildlife. A lot of this happens during the summer periods of lactation, when does/cows can have a 60% increase in energy demands due to lactation. Forcing them to move from the highest quality forage on the landscape due to hiking, biking, or whatever the "low impact" human activity is huge.

Much of this just measure the spatial disturbance and disregards the costs of forage quality disturbance. Spatial disturbance moves animals, very possibly from highest quality forage to lower quality forage. I am not smart enough to know how to conduct at study that takes spatial disturbance to the next step of what that means for cow/calf or doe/fawn nutrition and survival, but one does not need to be too imaginative to expect it could have a huge consequence when "low impact" activities are far more popular during the most critical time.

If anyone is aware of more studies showing the impacts of these "low impact" (eye roll) activities, please share them here.

I'll have to dig up links, but the vanishing Vail Valley elk herd is one example, along with mountain biking impact around Steamboat.

 

[Bullshot]

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.

 

[hank4elk]

Jeez, I have a bunch of papers on the subject ,somewhere.

LOL. I got 4 grants for the county parks dept. but did not meet the minimum qualifications for a full time position. But the student did......
2 were for lessening impacts on endangered wildlife areas in parks.

 

[Hem]

"Let's go for a hike...we can play music while we hike to scare off the bears"

 

[jpcoll01]

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.

Yeah, this sounds correct to me. I'm not sure this is the hill we, as hunters, want to die on.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

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 understand your point but you are embellishing quite a bit. Hunting in the west is heavily regulated and hunters make up a small percentage of the folks out on the landscape in comparison to recreational traffic, at least from what I see in Colorado. “Relentlessly”? Elk season is short compared to all the other recreational activities. Most states don’t allow rifle hunting during the rut. Did we really shoot every single gobbling turkey? If hunter take is having too great an impact on wildlife, then limit licenses. That’s what we pay the state agencies to do. Not much regulating happening for the other recreational users. From my perspective hunting activities are highly regulated (unlike most “non-consumptive activities”) and significantly less folks on the landscape in terms of total man-hours. If your point is we should also police our own, then I do agree.

 

[TheGreek]

I'll have to dig up links, but the vanishing Vail Valley elk herd is one example, along with mountain biking impact around Steamboat.

And they are trying to build more trails outside the ‘boat as well.

Routt County trails project could set bad precedent, wildlife advocates warn

A plan long in the works to respond to demands for more mountain-biking trails in the Steamboat Springs area is being criticized as not taking enough steps to protect one of Colorado’s largest elk herds....

www.steamboatpilot.com

 

[Nameless Range]

• Effect of Nonconsumptive Recreation on Wildlife – 1985
  https://www.jstor.org/stable/3781422
  
  Older paper out of Colorado. Paywall. But I find it interesting that nearly 40 years ago folks were thinking about this.
  
  
• Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated Visitor Perceptions
  https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)13[951:WRTRAA]2.0.CO;2
  
  Responses of bison, mule deer, and pronghorn to hikers and bikers on Antelope Island.
  
  “All three species exhibited a 70% probability of flushing from on-trail recreationists within 100 m from trails. Mule deer showed a 96% probability of flushing within 100 m of recreationists located off trails; their probability of flushing did not drop to 70% until perpendicular distance reached 390 m. We calculated the area around existing trails on Antelope Island that may be impacted by recreationists on those trails. Based on a 200-m “area of influence,” 8.0 km (7%) of the island was potentially unsuitable for wildlife due to disturbance from recreation.”
  
  
• Recreation Effects on Wildlife: A Review of Potential Quantitative Thresholds – 2021
  https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=public_land-recreation-all
  
  This one is a study of studies, to identify how studies should be designed in the future in ways that will best inform recreation planners.
  
  
  
• Recreation and Trail Impacts on Wildlife Species of Interest in Mount Spokane State Park – 2009
  https://www.parks.wa.gov/DocumentCe...tion-and-Trail-Impacts-on-Wildlife-Report-PDF
  
  
• Relative effects of recreational activities on a temperate terrestrial wildlife assemblage -2020
  https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.271
  
  "Across 13 species, only two negative associations between recreational activities and wildlife detections were observed at weekly scales: mountain biking on moose and grizzly bears. However, finer-scale analysis showed that all species avoided humans on trails, with avoidance strongest for mountain biking and motorized vehicles."

There's tons out there. For me, I think land managers and recreation planners have a tough balance to strike, and what studies like these and others hopefully give them, are quantifiable metrics to use to actually change what is happening on the ground or at least plan for it. I think @Bullshot is right that pulling at this thread may force a mirror upon us, but I also think flinching away is not an option. I think of this in the context of trails, because trails are where the vast majority of human activity in undeveloped lands occur. 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. Particularly in a west that looks a hell of a lot different today than it did a decade ago, and will a decade from now. Places where "low impact" human activity buzzed at an acceptable frequency yesterday, today exists at one that sends local wildlife on a decline, or if it doesn't yet, in many places it will.

After all these studies, the fact that no human activity is "low impact" on wildlife when it reaches a volume that crosses a threshold should be as salient a truth as the effect of motorized use on wildlife. What I am waiting on, is for land managers to take it as seriously.

I've bellyached about it before, but the lion's share of the B-D NF has no travel management - millions of acres of SW Montana. Talk to game wardens who work in the area. Talk to the NF LEOs. Because no travel management exists, they cannot cite folks for driving down "closed" roads. The amount of pioneered trails - motorized and nonmotorized - is a cancer-growing. Talk to local SAR groups about Pipestone if you doubt it. Or go visit yourself. It is appalling. Whatever travel management plans they propose and decide on in the coming years (which is happening), we will be stuck with for more than a decade. In Montana anyway, today's use of a trail is not indicative of future use at all. I want their travel management, and any future forest plans, to take into consideration "nonconsumptive" effects on wildlife as well.

Recreation planners need to behave like they are planning traffic for a city of 10,000 that tomorrow will be 100,000, and they need to think about wildlife - and hikers and bikers are not immune. A lot of the stuff in Colorado seems a potential canary in the coalmine.

 

[BuzzH]

I understand your point but you are embellishing quite a bit. Hunting in the west is heavily regulated and hunters make up a small percentage of the folks out on the landscape in comparison to recreational traffic, at least from what I see in Colorado. “Relentlessly”? Elk season is short compared to all the other recreational activities. Most states don’t allow rifle hunting during the rut. Did we really shoot every single gobbling turkey? If hunter take is having too great an impact on wildlife, then limit licenses. That’s what we pay the state agencies to do. Not much regulating happening for the other recreational users. From my perspective hunting activities are highly regulated (unlike most “non-consumptive activities”) and significantly less folks on the landscape in terms of total man-hours. If your point is we should also police our own, then I do agree.

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

 

[LuketheDog]

And they are trying to build more trails outside the ‘boat as well.

Routt County trails project could set bad precedent, wildlife advocates warn

A plan long in the works to respond to demands for more mountain-biking trails in the Steamboat Springs area is being criticized as not taking enough steps to protect one of Colorado’s largest elk herds....

www.steamboatpilot.com

Yeah, that's one of the issues I was thinking of...

 

[TOGIE]

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"