Post by: mfswallace on August 25, 2019, 09:42:22 PM
Americans’ love of hiking has driven elk to the brink, scientists say
Trail use near Vail, Colorado, has more than doubled since 2009. It’s had a devastating impact on a herd of elk
Supported by
SEJ
About this content
Christine Peterson
Sun 25 Aug 2019 06.00 EDT
Biologists used to count over 1,000 head of elk from the air near Vail, Colorado. The majestic brown animals, a symbol of the American west, dotted hundreds of square miles of slopes and valleys.
But when researchers flew the same area in February for an annual elk count, they saw only 53.
“Very few elk, not even many tracks,” their notes read. “Lots of backcountry skiing tracks.”
The surprising culprit isn’t expanding fossil-fuel development, herd mismanagement by state agencies or predators, wildlife managers say. It’s increasing numbers of outdoor recreationists – everything from hikers, mountain bikers and backcountry skiers to Jeep, all-terrain vehicle and motorcycle riders. Researchers are now starting to understand why.
Crisis in our national parks: how tourists are loving nature to death
US national parks and wilderness areas have boomed in popularity in the last decade, with places like Yosemite national park hitting as many as 5 million visits a year. The influx is due to a mixture of visitation campaigns, particularly during traditional “off seasons”, and an explosion of social media exposure that has made hidden gems into national and even international viral sensations.
The impact on wildlife is only recently apparent, and the Vail elk herd may be one of the more egregious examples.
Outdoor recreation has long been popular in Colorado, but trail use near Vail has more than doubled since 2009. Some trails host as many as 170,000 people in a year.
Recreation continues nearly 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, said Bill Andree, who retired as Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Vail district wildlife manager in 2018. Night trail use in some areas has also gone up 30% in the past decade. People are traveling even deeper into woods and higher up peaks in part because of improved technology, and in part to escape crowds.
The elk in unit 45, as it’s called, live between 7,000 and 11,000 feet on the pine, spruce and aspen-covered hillsides and peaks of the Colorado Rockies, about 100 miles from Denver. Their numbers have been dropping precipitously since the early 2010s.
Elk stand in an open field in 2014 between the Eagle River and Interstate 70 just east of the town of Eagle, Colorado near Vail, Colorado.
Elk stand in an open field in 2014 between the Eagle River and Interstate 70 just east of the town of Eagle, Colorado, near Vail, Colorado. Photograph: Richard Spitzer/The Guardian
Blaming hiking, biking and skiing is controversial in a state where outdoor recreation is expected to pump $62.5bn into the state’s economy in 2019, an 81% increase from 2014.
But for Bill Alldredge, a now-retired wildlife professor at Colorado State University, there is no other explanation. He started studying unit 45 in the 1980s in response to expanding ski resorts and trails systems.
To measure the impact on calves, he deliberately sent eight people hiking into calving areas until radio-collared elk showed signs of disturbance, such as standing up or walking away. The consequences were startling. About 30% of the elk calves died when their mothers were disturbed an average of seven times during calving. Models showed that if each cow elk was bothered 10 times during calving, all their calves would die.
When disturbances stopped, the number of calves bounced back.
Why, exactly, elk calves die after human activity as mellow as hiking is not entirely clear. Some likely perish because the mothers, startled by passing humans and their canine companions, run too far away for the calves to catch up, weakening the young and making them more susceptible to starvation or predation from lions or bears. Other times it may be that stress from passing recreationists results in the mother making less milk.
“If you’ve ever had a pregnant wife, and in the third trimester you chase her around the house in two feet of snow, you’ll get an idea of what she thinks about it,” Andree said.
The problems came to a head in 2017, when a group called the Vail Valley Mountain Trails Alliance proposed building a new trail through more of unit 45’s elk calving area.
Andree wrote a letter explaining the dire impact of constant recreation on elk. Even if certain trails were closed during calving season, he said, elk would still be disturbed because some people simply disregarded instructions for them to keep out.
“Generally when you ask people to stay out of the area no matter what the reason is, 80-90% obey you,” Andree said. “But if you get 10% who don’t obey you, you haven’t done any good.”
The recreation community acknowledges its impact on wildlife as well as other development, said Ernest Saeger, the executive director of the mountain trails alliance. Many people don’t understand the significance of the closures. Others, he acknowledged, just don’t care.
So the group formed a trail ambassador program to post more informative signs at closures and even place volunteers at trailheads to explain why trails are closed. The scheme reduced closure violations in 2018, according to Forest Service numbers.
If trail building and closure violations in critical habitat continue, Devin Duval, Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s district wildlife manager in the area, anticipates the worst.
“It will be a biological desert,” he said.
Post by: buglebrush on August 25, 2019, 09:56:24 PM
Post by: KFhunter on August 25, 2019, 10:13:01 PM
:DOH:
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on August 26, 2019, 09:16:25 AM
Post by: Buckjunkie on August 26, 2019, 03:56:53 PM
At least the groups are acknowledging their impact and trying to mitigate the impact.
Post by: Mudman on August 26, 2019, 04:12:25 PM
Post by: SpurInSpokane on August 26, 2019, 05:34:16 PM
Wat a bunch liberal garbage. I don't buy it. Idiots imop. Better close it up to the rich who pay for $$ permits to view. Orcas and boats at least has some merit however small.I'm unclear on a number of things:
1. What exactly is liberal at all about the article?
2. Are the hikers all "liberal garbage"?
3. Do you not buy the reasearch the CSU professor did? Or his conclusions? If not, what criticisms do you have?
4. What is the point of labeling this as liberal or otherwise? Can't we all just learn a little bit of something about how elk are impacted by certain activities?
Post by: buglebrush on August 26, 2019, 06:55:00 PM
So, they make these claims about the occasional dog accompanying a hiker, but deny the impact wolves have. The agenda for environmental groups and the Bios is to eliminate recreation and access. They only care about power, and animals are just leverage. That's why predators are their Holy Grail. See the appallingly insane protection of predators in 113 while the Selkirk Caribou were being wiped out.
Post by: Mudman on August 26, 2019, 07:03:55 PM
Post by: Mudman on August 26, 2019, 07:10:25 PM
Post by: timberfaller on August 26, 2019, 08:41:16 PM
:tup: buglebrush :tup:
Canada is trying to protect what they have left BUT this idiot state with all their "educated"(past their intelligence) biologist and eco-freaks don't care one Iota about the demise of a species! Actions speak louder then words!
Post by: mburrows on August 26, 2019, 09:17:24 PM
I'll add that, its my opinion that this displacement moves game to places they wouldn't have been in previously, concentrating them and then this also concentrates predators. Throw in the fact that hunters are handcuffed hunting predators and its not a good thing for ungulates.
Post by: boneaddict on August 27, 2019, 06:38:23 AM
Post by: buglebrush on August 27, 2019, 06:51:15 AM
Must be why the best recruitment in the Methow are the deer in town, or could it be because those are the only ones safe from sharp teeth. Science is cool, agendas are *censored*
Exactly. Elk in our areas are now crowded as close as possible to civilization. Huge areas way back in are empty, and it's directly because of predators. Used to walk a ridge line and hear bugles in every little basin. Now you'll find an elk about once every ten basins. Yet, my family has lived at the base of a mountain with no road or trail access backed against national Forest for 30 years and it wasn't until wolves that the elk started hanging around the barn year round. They prefer our ATVs, dogs, yells, gunshots, etc to what's going on back up in the wild country.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on August 27, 2019, 07:04:51 AM
Like I said, I'm not sold on this one but let's be realistic in our comparisons :twocents:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 27, 2019, 07:08:52 AM
Post by: Bob33 on August 27, 2019, 07:21:33 AM
It is interesting how people want science based management of wildlife until the science disagrees with their preconceived perceptions of what the conclusions should be.
Post by: farmin4u_98948 on August 27, 2019, 07:25:30 AM
Post by: Mudman on August 27, 2019, 08:15:44 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on August 27, 2019, 08:27:21 AM
Post by: 2MANY on August 27, 2019, 09:05:02 AM
There was a time when this was common sense, but sense is no longer common when the city folk head to the country.
Post by: The Marquis on August 27, 2019, 11:58:03 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 27, 2019, 12:00:55 PM
It is interesting how people want science based management of wildlife until the science disagrees with their preconceived perceptions of what the conclusions should be.Everybody is their own master wildlife biologist :twocents:
Post by: ghosthunter on August 27, 2019, 12:22:23 PM
But elk seem to adapt. Look at the Skagit Valley Nooksack herd. They live almost their entire life a stones throw form every form of human contact. Houses, barking dogs, loose dogs, traffic, anything you can think of.
Heck if it were legal you could kill them with a bow from your car. :yike:
Post by: 2MANY on August 27, 2019, 12:37:50 PM
This reminds me of the impact Christian Rock concerts seem to be having on the elk population in the Rimrock Unit. :)
Christian rock should be outlawed.
Post by: idaho guy on August 27, 2019, 01:30:08 PM
Must be why the best recruitment in the Methow are the deer in town, or could it be because those are the only ones safe from sharp teeth. Science is cool, agendas are *censored*
Exactly. Elk in our areas are now crowded as close as possible to civilization. Huge areas way back in are empty, and it's directly because of predators. Used to walk a ridge line and hear bugles in every little basin. Now you'll find an elk about once every ten basins. Yet, my family has lived at the base of a mountain with no road or trail access backed against national Forest for 30 years and it wasn't until wolves that the elk started hanging around the barn year round. They prefer our ATVs, dogs, yells, gunshots, etc to what's going on back up in the wild country.
:yeah: exactly what has happened around my place. The elk all moved TOO town and around people dogs cars etc. Remote perfect habitat I used to always hunt very few elk around now hmmmm? what am I missing
Post by: Mudman on August 27, 2019, 01:46:16 PM
Ok if its predators though then why is it an issue unique to Vail and similar areas and not all of Colorado? Elk populations are flourishing and exploding all over CO but these specific isolated areas and instances are the opposite? No wolves, and no more cats and bears as anywhere else in CO so the its predator not man argument doesnt hold water. At least no more than the argument that its hikers. Let's call a spade a spade at least.Here is a thought to consider, maybe the elk just left?? To one of those areas you refer to that has a "Booming" population? Maybe some Quack college professor who did 1 study years ago isn't as smart as some think? Maybe the greenies just want more wildlife running round their ski lodge to bring in more hikers?
Post by: Platensek-po on August 27, 2019, 02:16:20 PM
Post by: Mudman on August 27, 2019, 02:46:12 PM
Post by: Cougartail on August 27, 2019, 05:05:09 PM
If any of the keyboard biologists bothered to get of there seats and hike in 10 miles they might learn something..
Humans have become so far removed from survival off the land yet want to apply their biases to animals.
Post by: JJB11B on August 27, 2019, 05:23:05 PM
Post by: Mudman on August 27, 2019, 05:27:36 PM
What makes this professor a quack?? Since we are going to discredit someone’s work I would like to see proof that his study is flawed in the scientific method or purposefully skewed. Otherwise you are making assumptions about someone based on the fact that you don’t like their objective findings because it doesn’t fit the narrative that predators are the cause of all wildlife woes. Humans are the number 1 reason for all wildlife declines in the last 2 hundred years.Just wondering if I proved to ya "Quack" statement. No discredit his study. Of course trouncing through calving grounds has bad effects. Doing it is quacky. Claiming its proof people are killing off thousands of elk hiking trials etc is quackful. :twocents: 35 years later! Yup I sense a Duck quacking.
Post by: OutHouse on August 27, 2019, 06:24:22 PM
Humans are the number 1 reason for all wildlife declines in the last 2 hundred years.
:yeah: And like another said, animals out in the wilderness that aren't habituated will be disturbed by human presence. They don't just look at you like town deer/elk, they get antsy and leave the area. Sure town animals will be fine birthing and keeping their young around humans but the same probably can't be said about true wild animals. Anyone who has ever separated a calf and cow screaming down a mountain bike trail knows how they will run opposite directions. And for how long? probably depends on how scared they were. That happened to me a few times coming down little bald mountain when I was younger. At the time I didn't think that I could have caused a permanent separation or at least enough stress to compromise the future of the animal.
I'm sure everyone agrees that predators are part of the problem but we are competing with them for the same resource. How did populations manage themselves before human presence? They didn't. Their numbers balanced naturally. In my opinion, poaching is worse than the predator issue. Just go to a bar up 410, east or west side, and strike up a conversation about whether we should be allowed to hunt out of season and watch the unabashed poaching stories come out of the wood work.
Regarding that study, it shouldn't even take a study for those basic findings to be accepted. Human pressure on wild animals affects them. Negatively. Sure there are lots of other factors as well, but there really isn't any intelligent debate as to whether increased human presence in wild parts adversely affects wildlife. :twocents:
Post by: 2MANY on August 28, 2019, 10:23:15 AM
The end.
Post by: Platensek-po on August 28, 2019, 10:58:58 AM
What makes this professor a quack?? Since we are going to discredit someone’s work I would like to see proof that his study is flawed in the scientific method or purposefully skewed. Otherwise you are making assumptions about someone based on the fact that you don’t like their objective findings because it doesn’t fit the narrative that predators are the cause of all wildlife woes. Humans are the number 1 reason for all wildlife declines in the last 2 hundred years.Just wondering if I proved to ya "Quack" statement. No discredit his study. Of course trouncing through calving grounds has bad effects. Doing it is quacky. Claiming its proof people are killing off thousands of elk hiking trials etc is quackful. :twocents: 35 years later! Yup I sense a Duck quacking.
No what you proved to me is that you have no understanding of how scientific studies are performed and that your reading comprehension is lacking. It states that he started studying the area in 1980 not that the study was only performed at that time. It also clearly names the wildlife manager they received the letter from. There is no actual link to the published scientific study wich is the biggest red flag. If you had stated that it might have discredited the article but nothing seems quacky about studying a herd for 30+ years
Post by: Platensek-po on August 28, 2019, 11:06:31 AM
Link to the letter sent in 2017 references in the article. With the actual information found in the studies and with references to past studies done over the last 20yrs. Total quack science
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2019, 11:21:19 AM
" Some likely perish because the mothers, startled by passing humans and their canine companions, run too far away for the calves to catch up, weakening the young and making them more susceptible to starvation or predation from lions or bears. "
So, they make these claims about the occasional dog accompanying a hiker, but deny the impact wolves have. The agenda for environmental groups and the Bios is to eliminate recreation and access. They only care about power, and animals are just leverage. That's why predators are their Holy Grail. See the appallingly insane protection of predators in 113 while the Selkirk Caribou were being wiped out.
This is a study done in CO, where there are few wolves.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2019, 11:30:34 AM
While I'm not entirely sold on this, we arent talking about selkirk or the methow. Anyone who has been to Vail and surrounding areas can attest to the absurd amount of trails and hikers/bikers. Literally thousands! The elk in the surrounding mountains aren't semi habituated cattle like the Yellowstone critters. When I go into the hills, which I do a lit, and I encounter animals and they realize I'm there they turn inside out to get away. So is it liberal absurdity to assume if a bunch of hippies are going off trail up in the mountains that they are disturbing elk? 10% going of trail is thousands of people a year in the area being discussed. Wolves aren't running around Vail eating elk either. If this is liberal garbage then the libs are targeting the libs for once which is a nice change of pace :chuckle:
Like I said, I'm not sold on this one but let's be realistic in our comparisons :twocents:
:yeah: The geography and human effect in this area is completely different from almost anywhere in WA. It's quite possible that some predators have increased in those areas during that time period, as well. But the human element in the Divide study area is undeniable. Although I tend to agree with the fact that universities are overwhelmingly liberal, I wouldn't be so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water on this study.
Post by: jstone on August 28, 2019, 11:33:48 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2019, 11:40:18 AM
Post by: Platensek-po on August 28, 2019, 11:44:53 AM
Lots of these researchers get government money for there research. SOME probably say whatever the people with the money want them to say. If they want to keep getting funding.
Not how university grants work. I understand that few of you have experience with university scientific studies and how they are awarded. This idea that you have to produce certain results or lose funding is not how it works. A good way to
Lose funding and credibility is to make up data.
Post by: SuperX on August 28, 2019, 01:06:38 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 28, 2019, 01:40:35 PM
I wonder how much of this is shed hunters off the trails and walking the calving grounds (with or without dogs) in spring? It seems obvious that elk can avoid trails where humans hike, and the state can close trails through calving grounds to protect them during that vulnerable time, so it has to be off-trail hiking. The only user groups I know that do enough off trail travel to affect elk numbers are hunters and shed hunters.
This is a heavily-hiked area at all times of the year. Everyone wants to hike around the Divide. Spring brings incredible wild flowers and mushrooms, breathtaking views. Vail is only a couple of hours from Denver. It's way more than hunters and shed hunters.
Post by: Bob33 on August 28, 2019, 02:09:38 PM
Post by: Mudman on August 28, 2019, 02:16:12 PM
Post by: Mudman on August 28, 2019, 02:17:56 PM
Post by: SuperX on August 28, 2019, 02:30:49 PM
I wonder how much of this is shed hunters off the trails and walking the calving grounds (with or without dogs) in spring? It seems obvious that elk can avoid trails where humans hike, and the state can close trails through calving grounds to protect them during that vulnerable time, so it has to be off-trail hiking. The only user groups I know that do enough off trail travel to affect elk numbers are hunters and shed hunters.
This is a heavily-hiked area at all times of the year. Everyone wants to hike around the Divide. Spring brings incredible wild flowers and mushrooms, breathtaking views. Vail is only a couple of hours from Denver. It's way more than hunters and shed hunters.
In this case, for sure. We're talking about an area where the resort also contributes to a concentration effect of human activity year round. I meant it more broadly about shed hunting. That said, I never new back-country skiing was such a big thing, I would have thought snowmobiles would be the culprit.
The real surprise was how sensitive they were to being interfered with. It would be so easy to bump a cow with a new calf twice (in and out) per trip per party. 10 interruptions would be very easy to see. Wolves add to it, but we already knew that. This study really highlights the fragility of the system, and the need to protect the calving areas.
Post by: Platensek-po on August 28, 2019, 02:37:40 PM
Sorry. Its still a bunch of liberal conservation SEJ environmental garbage. Anti ATV as well it seems. They want nobody on the precious land... Kinda reminds me of our Mazama problems. Elk can move to another location right?? Or is spring time only have 1 area they can exist in? What about the huge decline in mule deer? Wheres that study? Maybe they cant find em to harrass the fawns, lol. Development of valleys and predators, the real problem. Don't the elk want to migrate to lower valleys for winter feeding grounds? Ya know the ones that have their office and Prius at? Using this crap to further the agenda of conservation is disgusting. I see RCKYMNTELK is supporting this right? :chuckle:
Read the actual letter sent in 2017 that shows the impact on mule deer populations as well. Why do the elk have to leave? Plenty of areas in the US without elk for people to recreate in at that time of year. Seems like it would be easier to limit the use by humans for a short period than to get the elk to move. Am I right in reading you are anti-conservation?? As a hunter that seems like a really dumb position to be in.
Post by: idaho guy on August 28, 2019, 05:01:22 PM
What makes this professor a quack?? Since we are going to discredit someone’s work I would like to see proof that his study is flawed in the scientific method or purposefully skewed. Otherwise you are making assumptions about someone based on the fact that you don’t like their objective findings because it doesn’t fit the narrative that predators are the cause of all wildlife woes. Humans are the number 1 reason for all wildlife declines in the last 2 hundred years.
Humans are the number 1 reason? interesting in 1900 they estimated 500,000 whitetails in the US now they estimate 19 million. Most of this due to the north American wildlife model which has been mostly funded by HUMANS called hunters. I do agree humans I call Greenie liberals have devastated wildlife in some areas with their pro predator and anti logging agenda
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 28, 2019, 06:23:39 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 29, 2019, 06:51:52 AM
The elk that have been introduced in places like Pennsylvania and Kentucky have been doing well despite all the humans in the area.
They will never reach the kind of numbers and herd sizes of CO elk, certainly due to the fact that human population is so dense in the eastern states. This is a study on human impact in the CO Rockies. I'm surprised that with so many who cherish our elk resource that this study is being refuted out of hand with no evidence presented to the contrary. Science is one of the reasons we have healthy ungulate herds nationwide. Where we don't, it becomes obvious that science hasn't been aptly applied, such as in the GYA, Lolo, and NE WA, where predator impact was not adequately studied before introducing additional predators. In this case, we see that an agenda was pursued without an interest in true science. So, I can understand the mistrust. But throwing the baby out and not believing any scientific study without scientific refute is foolhardy, IMHO.
Post by: Mudman on August 29, 2019, 07:22:41 AM
Post by: frazierw on August 29, 2019, 09:26:36 AM
Post by: Stein on August 29, 2019, 09:35:47 AM
Washington has more hunters per elk than any other western state, and its more than double. Washington has 1.7 hunters per elk, while the next closest western state has .7, that is very telling in itself.
That and our seasons are among the shortest, if not the shortest. There is no doubt our elk are pressured more on average.
Post by: Platensek-po on August 29, 2019, 11:03:04 AM
Its not the science/study. Its the manipulation and presentation, action from its application. Giant ski lodges, lifts. A recreation area. Rapid development in the valleys. Etc. And their solution is lets kick all the redneck hunters, atvs and wandering hikers out of the mnts so we can help elk which are being killed. Yet predators and loss of winter feed grounds are likely much more responsible for decline. Study doesn't consider elk might have just left the area to better areas? I say they ask congress to set it aside as a "Wilderness" area. Solved. Oh but that would shut down their precious ski lodges and trees to hug as well. $$ lost. :bash:
Literally the letter is asking to stop building all that stuff and asking to maintain expand and enforce wilderness areas in that location.
Yes humans are the number one reason for wildlife problems. We have tons of buffalo now right? Elk vanished from most of their historic range due to wolves right? Even the wolf problem now is caused directly by humans. The fact we have sooo many white tails is actually a problem not an example of great conservation. I’m not blaming hunters I am blaming us as a species. We have systematically destroyed our environment and caused tons of damage to wildlife populations. 340million people in the country and climbing but that is not going to have an effect on wildlife? That’s just ignoring basic biology and ecology. Like elementary school level stuff.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 29, 2019, 11:13:40 AM
Washington has more hunters per elk than any other western state, and its more than double. Washington has 1.7 hunters per elk, while the next closest western state has .7, that is very telling in itself.
Telling, how so? Any comparison between WA and CO elk populations and the effects of human-elk interaction are likely invalid. The sheer numbers of elk in CO, the largest population in the country, and the difference in human alpine populations/recreation there makes an accurate comparison impossible.
I don't see this study as having any impact on elk management in WA, at all. If you recreate in CO, maybe you have a dog in this fight. Otherwise, you're just getting upset about something that's not going to affect you. :dunno: Good discussion. I've had my say. Have a nice day.
Post by: Bob33 on August 29, 2019, 11:35:15 AM
On the limited basis of elk impact I believe that’s true for the most part. A bigger issue is how hunters and non-hunters interact. The percentage of our population that hunts is declining and is close to half of what it was 30 years ago. The number of mountain bikers will soon exceed the number of hunters in the United States. If hunters and non-hunters cannot find a way to effectively work together on common objectives, both groups will suffer although hunters will suffer more.Washington has more hunters per elk than any other western state, and its more than double. Washington has 1.7 hunters per elk, while the next closest western state has .7, that is very telling in itself.
Telling, how so? Any comparison between WA and CO elk populations and the effects of human-elk interaction are likely invalid. The sheer numbers of elk in CO, the largest population in the country, and the difference in human alpine populations/recreation there makes an accurate comparison impossible.
I don't see this study as having any impact on elk management in WA, at all. If you recreate in CO, maybe you have a dog in this fight. Otherwise, you're just getting upset about something that's not going to affect you. :dunno: Good discussion. I've had my say. Have a nice day.
Post by: Mudman on August 29, 2019, 01:06:41 PM
Now this I can agree with ya on 99%! But, this will continue. Only one answer to this problem, our extinction. Ol Mother Earth will claim its bounty soon enough and rid itself of the human rats, mostly. She has done it many times over the years. If we dont do it to our selves first. Colorado has plenty of elk, they dont need to whine because 1 herd has moved to greener safer pastures...Its not the science/study. Its the manipulation and presentation, action from its application. Giant ski lodges, lifts. A recreation area. Rapid development in the valleys. Etc. And their solution is lets kick all the redneck hunters, atvs and wandering hikers out of the mnts so we can help elk which are being killed. Yet predators and loss of winter feed grounds are likely much more responsible for decline. Study doesn't consider elk might have just left the area to better areas? I say they ask congress to set it aside as a "Wilderness" area. Solved. Oh but that would shut down their precious ski lodges and trees to hug as well. $$ lost. :bash:
Literally the letter is asking to stop building all that stuff and asking to maintain expand and enforce wilderness areas in that location.
Yes hum :tup:are the number one reason for wildlife problems. We have tons of buffalo now right? Elk vanished from most of their historic range due to wolves right? Even the wolf problem now is caused directly by humans. The fact we have sooo many white tails is actually a problem not an example of great conservation. I’m not blaming hunters I am blaming us as a species. We have systematically destroyed our environment and caused tons of damage to wildlife populations. 340million people in the country and climbing but that is not going to have an effect on wildlife? That’s just ignoring basic biology and ecology. Like elementary school level stuff.
Post by: idaho guy on August 29, 2019, 04:02:31 PM
Its not the science/study. Its the manipulation and presentation, action from its application. Giant ski lodges, lifts. A recreation area. Rapid development in the valleys. Etc. And their solution is lets kick all the redneck hunters, atvs and wandering hikers out of the mnts so we can help elk which are being killed. Yet predators and loss of winter feed grounds are likely much more responsible for decline. Study doesn't consider elk might have just left the area to better areas? I say they ask congress to set it aside as a "Wilderness" area. Solved. Oh but that would shut down their precious ski lodges and trees to hug as well. $$ lost. :bash:
Literally the letter is asking to stop building all that stuff and asking to maintain expand and enforce wilderness areas in that location.
Yes humans are the number one reason for wildlife problems. We have tons of buffalo now right? Elk vanished from most of their historic range due to wolves right? Even the wolf problem now is caused directly by humans. The fact we have sooo many white tails is actually a problem not an example of great conservation. I’m not blaming hunters I am blaming us as a species. We have systematically destroyed our environment and caused tons of damage to wildlife populations. 340million people in the country and climbing but that is not going to have an effect on wildlife? That’s just ignoring basic biology and ecology. Like elementary school level stuff.
In 1900 they estimated 500 to 1000 elk in Colorado probably 41000 in the united states total. Now Colorado alone has 280000 elk. they have hunting seasons in Pa and Kentucky where elk were once extinct and now Missouri is going to have an elk season. Humans called hunters have helped restore all wildlife not just whitetails. The north American wildlife model has worked wonderfully for 100 years but junk science and biased bios are doing there best to destroy it. Promoting predators and virtually eliminating logging have been the most detrimental thus far. I don't like articles or studies like this because they take the general publics attention off the important things we can worry about when it comes to wildlife. We have way bigger fish to fry then this and its a distraction from the important things we should do. is there too many people now? I don't know but I agree human population growth definitely isn't helping, what do you propose we do about it? I guess if we are that worried about too many people we can all put a gun to our own heads otherwise we should focus on what has worked for 100 years. If you start kicking people out of winter range you get rid of the predator hunters too. Every year I lion hunt winter range because that Is where the game is and that is where the predators are. Every lion we take out probably saves 52 deer a year. Do we disturb wildlife up there with dogs and machines? We try not too but I am sure we can be irritating sometimes :chuckle: I am not killing 52 deer or elk a year by being out there. Most of this stuff is designed to keep people out of the woods in my opinion but at least they are focusing on hikers and mountain bikers for once :tup:
Post by: Mudman on August 29, 2019, 04:47:52 PM
Post by: cb1989 on September 02, 2019, 12:40:16 PM
Liberal garbage.
I don't understand why everything needs to be labeled as completely one thing or another. "If they are blaming anything but predators, they must be denying the impact of predators." Black and white is easy to understand, but its not the right answer. In that article they are simply saying increased human traffic stresses animals. Which is common sense. The point of the article is that non-consumptive users have an impact as well. If anything, someone acknowledging that hikers, mtn bikers, and selfie stick-ers are having an impact too should be viewed as a good thing? Those people historically think their hands are clean just because they aren't bloody.
It's not saying predator management isn't an issue, it is simply speaking to one specific issue among many. Nothing is completely one thing or another. It can be wolves, increased human pressure, poaching, loss of habitat, etc all at the same time. In fact, it is. And that's why the issue is so challenging. Seems like these days we are all so worked up about our opinions that anything that even smells like opposition is written off as false/biased/secret agenda. And that completely shuts down the debate and compromise that actually gets things accomplished. Not everyone who holds a view different than yours has some secret agenda. Maybe what is so threatening about it is that you're worried they might be right? Thinking about everything in black and white is a foolish way to live.
Post by: idaho guy on September 02, 2019, 01:43:10 PM
Liberal garbage.
I don't understand why everything needs to be labeled as completely one thing or another. "If they are blaming anything but predators, they must be denying the impact of predators." Black and white is easy to understand, but its not the right answer. In that article they are simply saying increased human traffic stresses animals. Which is common sense. The point of the article is that non-consumptive users have an impact as well. If anything, someone acknowledging that hikers, mtn bikers, and selfie stick-ers are having an impact too should be viewed as a good thing? Those people historically think their hands are clean just because they aren't bloody.
It's not saying predator management isn't an issue, it is simply speaking to one specific issue among many. Nothing is completely one thing or another. It can be wolves, increased human pressure, poaching, loss of habitat, etc all at the same time. In fact, it is. And that's why the issue is so challenging. Seems like these days we are all so worked up about our opinions that anything that even smells like opposition is written off as false/biased/secret agenda. And that completely shuts down the debate and compromise that actually gets things accomplished. Not everyone who holds a view different than yours has some secret agenda. Maybe what is so threatening about it is that you're worried they might be right? Thinking about everything in black and white is a foolish way to live.
That’s very well said and I agree with a lot of what you just said with a few exceptions
I have no problem that the study is blaming hikers and bikers for a change :tup: and no doubt there is truth that human traffic disturbs wildlife. Nature is not some super fragile environment where a guy doing anything at all will create total chaos either . I have watched moose, elk and deer fight in person and they are tough! I also witness mostly the after effect of what wolves and lions do every year. I have watched herds of elk barely walk through 4 feet of snow. Nature is not gentle and wildlife is incredibly tough to survive at all regardless of what we do. I am in the woods 2-3 days per week lion hunting all winter and those animals are tough!My main problem was with posts proclaiming man is the great problem of all wildlife and wild places. My point is humans called hunters have restored and increased all kinds of game. The North American wildlife model has worked amazingly well for a century. Looking at non hunters for once in this study is refreshing but it ties into another common theme I don’t like and that is the theory humans doing anything in the woods is negative. Humans have always been part of the big cycle and we belong out there too. Unfortunately some people have lived in the city so long they view the woods as some place people don’t belong at all. My point is humans are part of nature we belong out there and we can improve things. The North American wildlife model has 100 years of proven results. Again most of these studies have a common theme that humans just shouldn’t be in the woods and that’s not true. I don’t know if this study had an agenda or not but I think we have Way bigger issues. My main issue was posters saying humans are wildlife’s 1 problem. We can be a problem but we have also been more often the solution.
Post by: Mudman on September 02, 2019, 07:48:55 PM
Liberalism works better than old school common sense. Just look at California for an example to our future. Not me. Its still garbage in all forms, agendas and action. Article states some basic common sense every outdoorsman show already know and then uses it as tool to promote conservation which is a fancy term for control of lands and its use to promote their liberal agenda. Which results in most getting the shaft. Just look at Thurston county and the pocket gopher for a small scale example of liberal junk science and theft of peoples land use rights. Conservation, junk science and abuse of endangered animal legislation our the tools of use. Spotted owls bring back memories as well. Sorry but I will stick to "Liberal Garbage" and not waste my energy trying to debate with idiots hell bent on their agendas. In my experience we always manage to lose those "debates" in Wa. I would rather fight and stand up while not giving them the acknowledgement of consideration of opinion. I no longer trust or respect those points of view. Been lied and manipulated one to many times.Liberal garbage.
I don't understand why everything needs to be labeled as completely one thing or another. "If they are blaming anything but predators, they must be denying the impact of predators." Black and white is easy to understand, but its not the right answer. In that article they are simply saying increased human traffic stresses animals. Which is common sense. The point of the article is that non-consumptive users have an impact as well. If anything, someone acknowledging that hikers, mtn bikers, and selfie stick-ers are having an impact too should be viewed as a good thing? Those people historically think their hands are clean just because they aren't bloody.
It's not saying predator management isn't an issue, it is simply speaking to one specific issue among many. Nothing is completely one thing or another. It can be wolves, increased human pressure, poaching, loss of habitat, etc all at the same time. In fact, it is. And that's why the issue is so challenging. Seems like these days we are all so worked up about our opinions that anything that even smells like opposition is written off as false/biased/secret agenda. And that completely shuts down the debate and compromise that actually gets things accomplished. Not everyone who holds a view different than yours has some secret agenda. Maybe what is so threatening about it is that you're worried they might be right? Thinking about everything in black and white is a foolish way to live.
Post by: Bango skank on September 02, 2019, 08:06:15 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on September 03, 2019, 09:24:31 AM
The real culprits.
Since wolves are not an established predator in CO, they're not one of the factors in the study area.
Post by: Mudman on September 03, 2019, 10:24:36 AM
Post by: idaho guy on September 03, 2019, 10:41:40 AM
True but they will be likely soon. Why doesn't any one consider the elk have simply moved? What proof of their death exists? Why do they not consider bear cat polulations are high? My Auto shop teacher's first lesson to us was "Statistics are the tools of liars!". They often don't tell the entire story.
:yeah: I saw a bear and a lion in the videos?l I think Colorado has plenty of those but I agree the elk might have just moved! I have seen that all the time in the woods a herd moves from one drainage to the next one over the next year. wolves will probably end up in Colorado also