I'm often criticized for my stance on stricter road managment in the Colockum. Let me be clear currently I only wish they would physically close the roads that are already closed. But instead of a pathetic red sign then use gates and or berms etc. Yes Im sure that some would find a way around. Which I think the penalties for trespassing should be much MUCH stricter. Anyways for those that have told me Im an idiot and road access has nothing to do with elk herds here is one of the studies I found that supports my claim that less roads equals more elk and more bulls. So here ya go.
http://www.wildlandscpr.org/biblio-notes/off-road-vehicle-impacts-wildlifeElk are one of the most well studied animals in the U.S., probably because of their popularity as a game animal and their sensitivity to disturbance. Other game species have been linked to road density, including moose (Alces alces, Crete et al. 1981, Timmermann and Gallath 1982) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus, Sage et al. 1983), but the amount of data is limited.
Lyon (1983) was the first study to report the impact of road density on elk populations. He states, “habitat effectiveness can be expected to decline by at least 25 percent with a density of 1 mile of road per square mile and by at least 50 percent with two miles of road per square mile…..As road densities increased to five to six miles per square mile, elk use declined to less than 25 percent of potential” (Figure 1). A comprehensive review of the impacts of roads on elk was recently published by Rowland et al. (2005) and provides dozens of citations.
In addition to extensive documentation of the impacts of roads on elk, studies have shown that closing roads has benefited elk. Irwin and Peek (1979) found that road closures allowed elk to stay in preferred habitat longer while elk in roaded areas were displaced. More recently, Leptich and Zager (1991) found that closing roads extended the age structure and doubled the bulls per cow sex ratio. Gratson et al. (2000) measured elk hunter success in relation to road density. They found that hunter success almost doubled when open road density was reduced from 2.54 km/km2 to 0.56 km/km2. Rowland et al. (2005) reported that road closures may improve the animals’ performance, increase the amount of effective habitat, increase hunting opportunities, decrease damage to crops, improve diet quality, increase hunter satisfaction, and decrease vulnerability of elk during the hunting season.
Elk have been the most extensively studied animal in relation to motorized access. While recent studies have made a direct connection between ORVs and impacts to elk (Vieira 2000, Wisdom et al. 2004, Wisdom 2007, Grigg 2007), most studies have looked more broadly at the impacts of motorized travel and roads on elk. It can be assumed that these impacts would be similar on ORV routes. Many studies have found that increased motorized access results in decreased elk habitat and security (Lyon 1983; Figure 3), and increased elk mortality from hunter harvest both legal and illegal (Hershey and Leege 1982, Hayes et al. 2002, McCorquodale et al. 2003, see Rowland et al. 2005 for review).
ORVs can also allow access for illegal harvest of wildlife in areas that are difficult for game wardens to patrol. Weaver (1993) reported that increased ORV access increases the trapping vulnerability of American marten, fisher, and wolverine. For wolves, one study found that 21 of 25 human caused mortalities in the U.S. northern Rockies occurred within 650 ft. of a motorized route (Boyd and Pletscher 1999). Wolves often travel on roads and off-road vehicle routes where they risk increased poaching pressure. Several studies have found that wolf persistence is reduced when road density exceeds approximately 1 mi./mi.2 (Table 1). Lynx are also thought to be sensitive to road density, but to a lesser extent than wolves (Singleton et al. 2001, 2002). Grizzly bears are at risk from poaching and have been found to be negatively affected by roads and to avoid open roads (Elgmork 1978, Zager et al. 1983, Archibald et al. 1987, Mattson et al. 1987, McLellan and Shackleton 1988, Kasworm and Manley 1990, Mace et al. 1996).
Again, elk are one of the most studied species in regards to disturbance by mechanized use. Vieira (2000) found that elk moved twice as far from ORV disturbance than they did from pedestrian disturbance, and Wisdom et al. (2004) found that elk moved when ORVs passed within 2,000 yards but tolerated hikers within 500 ft. Recently, Wisdom (2007) reported preliminary results suggesting that ORVs are causing a shift in the spatial distribution of elk that could increase energy expenditures and decrease foraging opportunities for the herd. Elk have been found to readily avoid and be displaced from roaded areas (Irwin and Peek 1979, Hershey and Leege 1982, Millspaugh 1995, Weber 1996). Additional concomitant effects can thus occur, such as major declines in survival of elk calves due to repeated displacement of elk during the calving season (Phillips 1998). Alternatively, closing or decommissioning roads has been found to decrease elk disturbance (Cole et al. 1997, Millspaugh et al. 2000, Rowland et al. 2005).
