Balancing public access and wildlife conservation: what do we know?

Transcription

1 Balancing public access and wildlife conservation: what do we know? Text Larson, Courtney (2018) Balancing public access and wildlife conservation: what do we know? Boulder County Nature Association Ecosymposium Turning the Lens on Ourselves: The Science of Visitors on Open Spaces. Boulder CO. March 17, Courtney L. Larson Colorado State University Sarah E. Reed Wildlife Conservation Society Adina M. Merenlender University of California, Berkeley Kevin R. Crooks Colorado State University....

2 95%

3 Missions advocate dual use To conserve the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same (1916) National Geographic

4 Missions advocate dual use To conserve natural, cultural and agricultural resources and provide public uses Flickr user jonthebishop

5 Funding supports dual use

6 Funding supports dual use PROTECT land for people and wildlife CONNECT people to the outdoors by increasing bike and pedestrian access INSPIRE kids and their families by addressing the growing disconnect between youth and nature

7 We want our parks to do it all Jefferson County 2011

8 But can they do it all?

9 But can they do it all?

10 Outline 1. What do we know? 2. What do we still need to know? 3. What can we do? Flickr user Duncan Rawlinson

11 1. What do we know?

12 Studies of recreation and wildlife Larson et al. (2016)

13 Studies of recreation and wildlife Number of studies Larson et al. (2016)

14 Effects of recreation on wildlife Larson et al. (2016)

15 Effects of recreation on wildlife Larson et al. (2016)

16 Habitat: loss and fragmentation Example: Wolves prefer to move through areas with lower road and trail densities (Whittington et al. 2005)

17 Individual: behavior and health Example: Flushing by skiers and snowboarders elevated stress levels in black grouse (Arlettaz et al. 2007)

18 Population: distribution and abundance Example: Woodlark density declined with increasing recreation disturbance (Mallord et al. 2008)

19 Community: composition and diversity Example: Native species declined and nonnative species increased with recreation (Reed & Merenlender 2008)

20 Effects of recreation on wildlife swimming wildlife viewing (boat) motorized (boat) boat (non-motorized) unknown (aquatic) hiking wildlife viewing (land) biking dog-walking equestrian camping running motorized (land) beach use rockclimbing fishing (shore) unknown (terrestrial) alpine ski cross-country ski motorized (snow) snowshoeing wildlife feeding other Aquatic Terrestrial Snow Other 0% 10% 20% 30% Articles 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Significant effects Larson et al. (2016)

21 Effects of recreation on wildlife swimming wildlife viewing (boat) motorized (boat) boat (non-motorized) unknown (aquatic) hiking wildlife viewing (land) biking dog-walking equestrian camping running motorized (land) beach use rockclimbing fishing (shore) unknown (terrestrial) alpine ski cross-country ski motorized (snow) snowshoeing wildlife feeding other Aquatic Terrestrial Snow Other 0% 10% 20% 30% Articles 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Significant effects Larson et al. (2016)

22 Effects of recreation on wildlife swimming wildlife viewing (boat) motorized (boat) boat (non-motorized) unknown (aquatic) hiking wildlife viewing (land) biking dog-walking equestrian camping running motorized (land) beach use rockclimbing fishing (shore) unknown (terrestrial) alpine ski cross-country ski motorized (snow) snowshoeing wildlife feeding other 0% 10% 20% 30% Articles 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Significant effects Larson et al. (2016)

23 Effects of recreation on wildlife swimming wildlife viewing (boat) motorized (boat) boat (non-motorized) unknown (aquatic) hiking wildlife viewing (land) biking dog-walking equestrian camping running motorized (land) beach use rockclimbing fishing (shore) unknown (terrestrial) alpine ski cross-country ski motorized (snow) snowshoeing wildlife feeding other 0% 10% 20% 30% Articles 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Significant effects Larson et al. (2016)

24 Effect on species richness Effect size Birds Mammals Larson et al. (in preparation)

25 Effect on wildlife abundance Effect size Birds Mammals Larson et al. (in preparation)

26 2. What do we still need to know? Sara Bombaci

27 What we know Most studies focus on birds (39%) or mammals (37%) What we need to know Which species are most sensitive to disturbance by recreation?

28 What we know Most studies focus on birds (39%) or mammals (37%) What we need to know Which species are most sensitive to disturbance by recreation? A majority (52%) of studies focus on individual-level effects of recreation What are the consequences of recreation for populations and communities?

29 What we know Most studies focus on birds (39%) or mammals (37%) What we need to know Which species are most sensitive to disturbance by recreation? A majority (52%) of studies focus on individual-level effects of recreation The greatest proportion of studies (25%) focus on hiking What are the consequences of recreation for populations and communities? How do different recreation activities impact species differently?

30 What we know Most studies focus on birds (39%) or mammals (37%) What we need to know Which species are most sensitive to disturbance by recreation? A majority (52%) of studies focus on individual-level effects of recreation The greatest proportion of studies (25%) focus on hiking What are the consequences of recreation for populations and communities? How do different recreation activities impact species differently? Most studies (80%) measure recreation as a categorical variable What are the thresholds of recreation disturbance number of visitors, spatial distribution, or timing?

31 What we know Most studies focus on birds (39%) or mammals (37%) What we need to know Which species are most sensitive to disturbance by recreation? A majority (52%) of studies focus on individual-level effects of recreation The greatest proportion of studies (25%) focus on hiking What are the consequences of recreation for populations and communities? How do different recreation activities impact species differently? Most studies (80%) measure recreation as a categorical variable Few studies (35%) are experimental or test management alternatives What are the thresholds of recreation disturbance number of visitors, spatial distribution, or timing? What are options for managing the effects of recreation, and are they effective?

32 3. What can we do? Sara Bombaci

33 Managers: Leave large areas with no trails

34 Managers: Monitor and prevent unauthorized trail creation & shortcutting Users: Stay on trail!

35 Managers: use seasonal closures during sensitive periods Users: respect these closures

36 Users: keep noise down do not approach wildlife behave predictably

37 Both: communicate and work together

38

39 We want our parks to do it all Jefferson County 2011

40 Planning at the landscape level

41 Planning at the landscape level Whitehead et al 2014

42 1. What do we know? 2. What do we still need to know? 3. What can we do? Flickr user Duncan Rawlinson

43 Thank you Reed and Crooks labs FWCB graduate students Jeff Carroll Advisors & committee members Dr. Kevin Crooks Dr. Sarah Reed Dr. Adina Merenlender Dr. Rick Knight Dr. Larissa Bailey Funding & institutional support Warner College of Natural Resources (CSU) Graduate Degree Program in Ecology (CSU) Wildlife Conservation Society California Department of Fish & Wildlife Contact info: