Good read.

[JLS]

Bighorn sheep habitat
WSU study examines forest fire suppression effects
Monday, Feb. 6, 2012


By Kathy Barnard, College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resource Sciences



PULLMAN, Wash. – Bighorn sheep in northern Washington are not thriving the way they should and Washington State University faculty members are working to figure out why.
 
Bighorn sheep were reintroduced into the Sinlahekin Wildlife Area in the northern reaches of the state in the 1950s; today there are about 100, according to Mark Swanson, an ecosystem analyst and associate professor of landscape ecology and silviculture in WSU’s new School of the Environment.
 
"The question is: ‘What really is preventing these animals from achieving more historic populations?’” said Swanson.
 
While poaching and exposure to domestic ovine diseases have played a role, another key factor is how suppression of natural fires on the wildlife area has changed its landscape. Swanson, working on a larger bighorn sheep project with wildlife ecology Professor Lisa Shipley, recently received another round of funding from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to assess changes in bighorn sheep habitat and develop ways to assess the effectiveness of ecological restoration in the Sinlahekin.
 
What is happening
 
Prior to intervention by new settlers, a natural cycle of forest fires as well as Native American burning practices on the wildlife area kept smaller trees and shrubs at bay. That preserved prime sheep habitat – wide-open spaces with lots of room to graze and to see approaching predators, said Swanson. When that historic fire cycle was interrupted, those smaller trees and shrubs filled in the open spaces between larger trees and have encroached on open grazing spaces.
 
"If you look at historic photos of the certain places in the Sinlahekin and then look at current shots of those places, there is a dramatic difference,” Swanson said. "You can see the grazing areas getting smaller and smaller.”
 
The effect of that encroachment is three-fold, he added. In addition to reducing grazing areas, a closed forest canopy "shades out” many of the grasses, shrubs and herbs that are staples of the sheep diet. In addition, closed forests provide much better cover for predators such as mountain lions. "That, obviously, makes the sheep much more vulnerable,” Swanson said.
 
The research
 
Over the past two years, Swanson, Shipley and their research teams have worked with state fish and wildlife biologists to capture and tag a sample of sheep with GPS radio collars to track their movements and use of habitats on the wildlife area and adjacent lands. That information has helped focus research on the prime habitat that remains.
 
"We’ll be assessing the demographic consequences of fire suppression on the trees in the wildlife area, and along with that, how bighorn sheep respond to those changes,” Swanson said.
 
He and graduate student Tiffany Baker have set up 48 different "transects” in the wildlife area and every 50 feet assessed:
 
• Trees and their height, age and diameter
• Shrub density
• Grasses and forbs
• Percentage of forest cover
• Visual obstruction (percent of vegetation obstructing vision)
• Scat pellet counts for both bighorn sheep and other ungulates, such as mule deer
 
They will analyze that data to see if the habitat "is really functioning the way we want it to,” Swanson said. 
  WSU's bighorn sheep research team. From
  the left, Mark Swanson, Tiffany Baker, Lisa
  Shipley.

 
Swanson and Baker will then make recommendations on how to restore lost habitat, including the use of strategic forest thinning and prescribed, low-severity fires.
 
"We need to consider putting low severity fires back into the forest management mix,” said Swanson.
 
Both he and Baker acknowledge that recommendation could meet with concern from adjacent landowners and others.
 
"Another component of our work will be educating the public that prescribed burning and thinning is really good for the landscape,” Baker said.


 new comment

[norsepeak]

Duh!  We've only known this for 50 years or so...Lets have the DFW throw a couple million more dollars at a study to come up with a conclusion that've we gotten from numerous other studies over the last 50 years   Why is this so hard to understand?  Logging, burning and thinning are GOOD things.  Predator control is a GOOD thing, there, I just did your study for you, now where is the millions of dollars the DFW was going to spend, I'll do it for half.

[boneaddict]

   No kidding. 


Almost brilliant......

"We need to consider putting low severity fires back into the forest management mix,” said Swanson.

[luvtohnt]

This does seem to be a subject that comes up often in forest and range management practices. I know there have been some small attempts at trying to recreate these small low intensity fires, but the major problem is fires have been suppressed far to long so low intensity fires are almost impossible to achieve. Safety is a big issue as well because thee has been so much development close to the areas that need to be treated, so there is an added cost to protect the nearby structures. Also there is a lot of opposition from the public about burning forest and range. There is a lot of work to do still to get most people to change their mind about burning, and the more studies out there to "prove" (scientists don't like to use that word) that burning is essential the more informed the general public will be.

Norse, the article said the researchers are from WSU and only worked in cooperation with WDFW. Which anyone who wants to capture and/or collar wildlife has to work with WDFW. I don't see anywhere that the WDFW spent any money on this project! 

Brandon

[buckfvr]

Yep....first comes the study, then the public input meetings, then the old ram it down their throats anyway, because we didnt really care what they had to say from the very beginning.

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

I gots lots of mathces!!!

[JLS]

Yep....first comes the study, then the public input meetings, then the old ram it down their throats anyway, because we didnt really care what they had to say from the very beginning.

:dunno:What are you talking about?

Reference the article,  from what I read out of it the main gist is how to get the Sinlahekin to support more sheep.  In conjunction, educate the public about how burning can facilitate that.  I don't think their primary conclusion is or was that burning is good, I think they probably knew that going in.  Public opposition to burning is a huge hurdle.  The more science you can have to back it, the better.

I don't put in for sheep tags, and likely never will.  This won't affect my hunting one bit.  However, I think this study is a good thing for sheep hunters in WA.  I doubt the Sinlahekin is the only place that is not supporting the total number of animals it could carry.

[norsepeak]

Brandon, I think they mention in the article about funding the study through a state grant, which is our money paying for another study to say the exact same thing as many other studies that we paid for over the years.  This is not new science or even a new concept.  This was a hot topic when I went to WSU almost 20 years ago and yet they are still studying it and not DOING it.  The Naches ranger district does some burning each year, but nearly enough.  They are too hamstrung by enviros whining about the smoke.  They have a choice though, they can have a couple weeks of light smoke each year, or they can wait till we have a major, multi-million acre fire and heavy smoke for months.