Skiers Effect Greater Fright/Flight Response than Snowmobiles

PowderMiner · Apr 17, 2009

I am a fish biologist working in government, and suffer from pretentious and obtuse responses to my outdoor, including snowmobile, photos and recreation inquiries. My acute awareness of this has also led to increased detection of this practice in public employees approach to their work. I am saddened to say that much of our environmental and wildlife, policies and management are based on unsound science and more on personal biased beliefs and ideals. I realize this is human nature and the same can be said about many outdoors and sportsmen. The difference is that the public employees are paid from collective public money to find and use the best available science; not their personal bias developed from their individual lifestyle, associations, religious, cultural and/or political affiliations.

Wow! I erased a lot of what I’d really like to tell and say; lets just say this goes very deep!

Anyway,… I think that we have a few people on here that work or encounter similar situations. I am donating some of my stimulus $$$ in the form of research time to our cause (albeit not as much as the opposition) and encourage other Forest Service, wildlife Bios, ect… to do what they can too. One method to gain acceptance, understanding, and tolerance to our sport is to inform (not necessarily convince) the opposition to favorable information. The next time someone says, “Those things are noisy and harass animals” or something like that:

Here is an interesting tidbit I found yesterday and other SW’ers have mentioned too:

POTENTIAL IMPACTS, WINTER – EARLY SPRING

Ungulates

(second Paragraph):

*Parker et al. (1984) suggested that greater flight distances occur in response to skiers or individuals on foot compared to snowmobiles and that unanticipated disturbance may have a more detrimental effect. Freddy et al. (1986) and Freddy (1986) also reported that responses by mule deer to persons afoot, when compared to snowmobiles, were longer in duration, more often involved running, and required greater energy expenditures.

References:
Sime, C. A. 1999. Domestic Dogs in Wildlife Habitats. Pages 8.1-8.17 in G. Joslin and H. Youmans, coordinators. Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain wildlife: A Review for Montana. Committee on Effects of Recreation on Wildlife, Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 307pp.

Parker, K. L., C. T. Robbins, and T. A. Hanley. 1984 Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer and elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):474-488

Freddy, D. J. 1986. Responses of adult mule deer to human harassment during winter. R. D. Comer, T. G. Baumann, P. Davis, J. W. Monarch, J. Todd, S. VanGytenbeek, D. Wills, J. Woodling, editors. Proceedings II. Issues and technology in the management of impacted western wildlife: proceedings of a national symposium; Feburary 4-6, 1985. Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Boulder, Colorado: Thorne Ecological Institute.

Freddy, D. J. W.M. Bronaugh, and M. C. Fowler. 1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14(1):63-68.

The result will probably a rude comment in return; but the information seed will be planted! The often-pretentious opposed will return to their click or commune where an eventual anti snowmobile conversation will occur and the desire to one-up another with the new knowledge will garner one of those statements beginning with, “Well you-know…”.

It kind of works like ant poison

bigfoot · Apr 18, 2009

good info!!

CleElum Sledhead · Apr 18, 2009

Thank you for your post sir.

I use some of those very same statements and similar statements in many of my comment letters to public land managers when they are attempting to close an area to snowmobile use, yet these same areas would remain open for non-motorized use, if their claim was to protect winter wildlife and their habitat.

As a biologist, maybe YOU would be willing to provide some statements of your own, that SAWS would be authorized to qoute in some of our future Alerts, Positions Statements, or Comment Letters? If so, we would be greatly appreciative. Please contact me if you are willing.

Below is a portion of my comment letter I submitted for the Yellowstone National Park - 2008 Winter Use Plans Environmental Assessment Comment

Snowmobiles do not put unreasonable stress on wildlife. Numerous studies have shown that wildlife are more stressed and “fear flight” far more often by the sudden unannounced presence of approaching humans on foot (cross-country ski/snow-shoe recreationists) than they do by the well observed appearance of snowmobilers. Snowmobilers can be heard by ungulates at a greater distance than non-motorized users can be heard, which in turn gives wildlife ample opportunities to calmly move off trails into nearby denser vegetation, thus avoiding last minute “fear flight” as when startled by the sudden unannounced presence of non-motorized users which are perceived by ungulates as predators.

One such recent study found that “ski trails seem to displace mule deer to greater distances than occurs along snowmobile routes” (Recreation Effects on Wildlife [2002] - Bill Gaines, Forest Service Wildlife Biologist, Wenatchee National Forest). Another study states “snowmobiles appear less distressing than cross-country skiers, and for several ungulate species, the greatest negative responses were measured for unpredictable or erratic occurrences”. This study also states “Greater flight distances occur in response to skiers or individuals on foot than to snowmobiles, suggesting that the most detrimental disturbances to the wintering animal is that which is unanticipated.” (Effects of recreation on Rocky Mountain Wildlife [1999] – Ungulates). “Harassment and displacement of wildlife, even if inadvertent, probably occurs more often than we know. Boating, camping, hiking, fishing, and other popular activities, including simply driving along the park’s roads, cause wildlife to modify their behavior and use of habitats. Only by careful monitoring of animal populations can we infer when human activities are causing too much stress to individual animals or to the health of their local populations. Outside the park, continued population growth and land development cause competition between humans and animals for living space.” (NPS http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/upload/preserving.pdf)

The above is a portion of my post #86 on this thread:
http://www.snowest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102016&page=3

Swami · Apr 18, 2009

Thanks Miner. I looked into this a couple of years ago and there are a few things to consider. The findings in the studies you cite are very limited - not enough info to answer the central question of overall comparative wildlife disturbance. IMO, there is risk in inferring too much...

For instance, I haven't found anything that compares wildlife response to a sled at 15 mph vs a sled at 40 mph - a potentially troubling (missing) detail. Moreover, as I recall, the studies apply to hooved beasts, not to any other wildlife. It is also troubling that the studies were conducted on-road, on potentially vehicle-habituated ungulates, so cannot be extrapolated to snowmobile off-road riding. See that thin ice?

Another troubling shortcoming is that the studies only measured ungulate response to visual cues; there was no investigation of the response to, or disturbance from, sound. Worst of all, these studies actually indicate that sleds DO disturb wildlife - the only thing in question is how much. Step back for a moment and you realize that's nothing to crow about.

Now, if you find something that shows 6 hours on a sled affects wildlife less than 6 hours on skis, that would be compelling. But the can o' worms reality is, for any given area, a skier traveling at one or two miles per hour for six hours won't encounter nearly as much wildlife as a sledder in six hours. If the skier disturbs each animal 30% more than does a sledder - but the sledder approaches ten times as many animals per hour - it is not at all clear which recreation type is more injurious (if injurious at all).

There is also a difference in types of terrain frequented by sledders vs the terrain where people most often travel on skis. So another factor that needs to be considered in the equation is whether sleds or skiers most often penetrate truly sensitive wildlife habitats. That could certainly be the skiers, but I've found no published evidence to build a case.

The most relevant question is really what form of winter recreation has the largest effect on any given species at a population level (i.e. is sufficiently disruptive that the effects go beyond a single animal to actually impair the survivability of a herd or other given wild population)? I haven't so far found any info to answer that question. Have you?

As a fish biologist, you surely have encountered the claim that sled exhaust delivered to standing waters (such as atop frozen lakes) can pollute those waters sufficiently to reduce fish reproduction. That one would be good to scuttle, but I haven't explored it. Do you have some info on that?

whiserd · Apr 18, 2009

snowmobiles make life for wildlife easier. when there is 2-3feet of new snow animals gotta try and walk through that. at night the trails are clear of snowmobiles and hooved animals have access to them. besides, we have seen dear as close as 50feet from our snowmobiles, heck we stopped and took pictures and they did not seem disturbed in the least

OuraySledder · May 3, 2009

Swami said:
As a fish biologist, you surely have encountered the claim that sled exhaust delivered to standing waters (such as atop frozen lakes) can pollute those waters sufficiently to reduce fish reproduction. That one would be good to scuttle, but I haven't explored it. Do you have some info on that?

Check with the Silverton snowmobile club in Silverton Colorado. There is a sled rental/tour business immediately adjacent to Molas lake on top of Molas Pass. Thy enviromentalists have been testing that small, stagnant lake for pollution for years now in an attempt to keep the snowmobiles off, and of course to limit our legal riding area. They have never found anything in the water or in the fish. This little lake is heavily ridden in winter due to it being a nice flat area for the many beginners who frequent the area.

ericbigbore · May 3, 2009

Interesting conversation.

SnowSnob · May 4, 2009

I hike quite a bit to stay in shape I have scared WAY more animals on foot then I have on a sled. It is obvious that when they can't hear you coming and you appear out of no where you scare the crap out of them, obviously you don't sneak up on them with a sled.
Maybe I should bring a video camera with me when I hike and snowmobile so I have evidence of what I've encountered.

Raff_9001M · May 4, 2009

Swami said:
Thanks Miner. I looked into this a couple of years ago and there are a few things to consider. The findings in the studies you cite are very limited - not enough info to answer the central question of overall comparative wildlife disturbance. IMO, there is risk in inferring too much...

For instance, I haven't found anything that compares wildlife response to a sled at 15 mph vs a sled at 40 mph - a potentially troubling (missing) detail. Moreover, as I recall, the studies apply to hooved beasts, not to any other wildlife. It is also troubling that the studies were conducted on-road, on potentially vehicle-habituated ungulates, so cannot be extrapolated to snowmobile off-road riding. See that thin ice?

Excellent post. I have seen a study that argued about the displacement of animals is more detrimental as a result of non-motorized recreation because of the amount of time the non-motorized user spends in the animal's habitat. I believe this study focused on birds' response to a canoe vs. jet ski. The bird was more likely to abandon a nest the longer the person was in the nesting area.

As to the rest of your post, no easy answers. Public land management will continue to "green" as long as the focus of its hiring is on specialists who are hired to discuss the cumulative effect of management activities and recreation on their area of concern. Like any professional some use common sense and some have their heads in the clouds.

Scott Nelson · May 5, 2009

Very interesting. I'm not that surprised, since skiers probably sound a lot more like natural predators (wolves) than snowmobiles. However snowmobiles do cover a lot more ground per day than skiers, so the total number of wildlife encounters would be higher.

Racer220 · May 5, 2009

I think a lot has to be looked at based on even a certain elevation that each sport is taking place at. It can debated about who creates more commotion based on how much area vs. how much time is spent doing the sport, but I think you have to factor in more than that. Demographically most snowmobilers use very little trail time to get to places in the backcountry that are more preferred for riding. They are usually trying to get as deep and as high up into the back country as possible to 'get away from the crowds'. As far as I've seen the natural movement of wild animals tends to take them lower in elevation to areas that are more suitable for winter habitat. I think there would definitely be more substantial evidence claiming non-motorized recreation as the biggetr culprit due to un-biased factual evidence. Pros: Non-motorized recreation does utilize a much smaller area. Cons : Non-motorized recreation utilizes more lower elevation areas much closer to areas being sought by wild animals for winter habitat. It also occupies the areas much longer than motorized recreation, which from what I have read tends to have a greater effect on animals that reside in the general viscinity of that being used. There is also the argument of 'fear flight' caused by the 'unintentional'/'unanticipated' disturbances to the animals. Hope this makes sense and didn't repeat what has already been said.

07

94fordguy · May 5, 2009

I see lots and lots of good points in herem the only sad part is that we still 'appear' to be the 'dirty, disruptive' sport, as much as I hate to say it, enviornmental sudies in our favor will do little good to those who choose not to hear them.

still good to hear this information tho, lotsa things to consider here:beer;:beer;

S2S_sledder · May 8, 2009

Great post Powderminer, and one I can completely relate too! I spent 8 years doing an Honors degree in Environmental studies and then a Msc in evironmental science studying impacts of climate change on arctic ecosytems and I endured a ton of ignorant attacks from all types of greens because I am open about my past times and love of all things motorized.

In the course of my masters degree I read a TON of research papers on climate change and was appalled at the poor quality of the research design and execution of these projects. What blows my mind is that the results of these poorly conducted projects are then disseminated through the media (who cares only about making waves and selling advertising and not about the reliability or quality of the data the results are based on).... then this crap becomes accepted as actual fact by the general public.

Unfortunately 'environmentalism' is now being propigated in our education system and through the media in a religious fashion, where things are not to be questioned even if they don't make sense. The only way to combat this type of 'group think' and sheep mentality is to promote freedom of thought and critical thinking skills so that people can independently evaluate the quality and reliability of the information they are bombarded with.

OK end of my rant

:beer;

Swami · May 8, 2009

I take issue with the notion that comparative studies (which incidentally happen to confirm snowmobile disturbance of wildlife) are somehow "good for the sport." It should go without saying that a favorable study would show no disturbance, or, ideally, less impact to wild populations than other forms of snow travel. Again, none of the cited information or anything else I've found is 'favorable' by that criterion.

Wish the Silverton club had done a 5 yr study of the contained waters and then PUBLISHED the null result, which would make a valuable reference. (Can't they still do that?) And just to be clear, the troublesome pollution claim is not that sled exhaust contaminates fish per se, but is harmful because it reduces the number of fish. It would seem that to disprove such a claim requires long-term measurement of the population of the most sensitive resident fish. Not easy or quick, but a fat payoff. A cheap (or should I say yummy?) substitute might be a poll of fishermen...

While some animals abandon high country when snow gets deep, other wildlife (including some so-called furbearers, birds, fish, amphibians, invertebrates) actually overwinters in particular "extreme" locales. While I suspect that is less true at latitudes that approach the poles, there are some cases where reclusive wildlife may actually be (a potentially diminishing) part of the big picture, whether you see the animals or not.

As far as creatures are concerned in any given habitat, is 30 min of himarking preferable to 30 min of skiers creeping through? One problem with that question is that it relies on assumptions about patterns of human activity (a form of profiling). Sleds sometimes hang in one locale and sometimes spread way out. Not all sled(der)s move fast under all conditions, LOL. There is wide variation in other users too.

I think the problem you'll see here is that the dots are very far from being connected, yet none of the pictures that can be drawn is really all that pretty.

Van Epps · May 9, 2009

I have snowmobiled in Mountain settings for 5 years and have yet to encounter a deer, elk or moose. I realize that in other parts of the country my experience would be different. Example: I am sure Moose share the landscape with snowmobilers in Alaska and other parts of the country, as well as deer being present at the same time as sledders in the mid west. My point is these issues are not one size fits all.

In addition, is it really so hard to prove whether man on foot/skiis -vs- man on machine is the greater flight provocation? Why pay scientists to study the issue when a video camera can easily provide concrete proof?

Those of us that use the back country in both fashions know the truth as we see it regularly. When hiking, a deer, elk, or other wild animal is rarely seen that is not running away.

When driving a jeep, truck, motorcycle or quad the animals I have witnessed are more curious than anything. They usually stick around long enough to see what is causing the noise, then turn away and lope off a short distance, then stop and take another look. Once you get out/off your motorized vehicle and the animal identifies you as human, they bolt. There must be existing science to back this up as it has long been illegal to shoot from a vehicle when hunting. I believe this is due to biologists recognizing that man a unfair advantage when shooting from a vehicle due to game animals not fearing/reacting to motorized vehicles like they do with humans on foot.

Sadly, our decision makers are not after the truth in this matter. They simply are going to base decisions on the loudest voice or most politically correct public opinion at the time.

Van Epps · May 9, 2009

Swami said:
While some animals abandon high country when snow gets deep, other wildlife (including some so-called furbearers, birds, fish, amphibians, invertebrates) actually overwinters in particular "extreme" locales. While I suspect that is less true at latitudes that approach the poles, there are some cases where reclusive wildlife may actually be (a potentially diminishing) part of the big picture, whether you see the animals or not.

.

Really? Are you suggesting that we should be concerned with disturbing high mountain hibernating bears, birds, fish and amphibians with snowmobiles?

The bears are under the snow, deep inside their shelters and fast asleep. The birds? Should we be worried about forcing a bird to fly? Any fish are frozen solid, waiting to un thaw/awake in the spring. Amphibians?? Which amphibians might these be? Invertebrates?? This line of reasoning seems ludicrous to me.

winter4ever · May 9, 2009

94fordguy said:
I see lots and lots of good points in herem the only sad part is that we still 'appear' to be the 'dirty, disruptive' sport, as much as I hate to say it, enviornmental sudies in our favor will do little good to those who choose not to hear them.

still good to hear this information tho, lotsa things to consider here:beer;:beer;

Thats exactly what I was thinking. Its sad, snowmobilers could have all of the scientific evidence in the world in their favor and it still really doesnt matter to the people who dont what to hear it. Its always going to be a snowmobiler verses skiers/environmentalists kind of situation, and there are just way more of them. People from all over the country donate to environmental causes to help their conscience not knowing what their money is really doing.

Wade · May 10, 2009

winter4ever said:
Thats exactly what I was thinking. Its sad, snowmobilers could have all of the scientific evidence in the world in their favor and it still really doesnt matter to the people who dont what to hear it. Its always going to be a snowmobiler verses skiers/environmentalists kind of situation, and there are just way more of them. People from all over the country donate to environmental causes to help their conscience not knowing what their money is really doing.

The good news, is that most of these "environmental" organizations are siphoning off the money to line their own pockets, or we'd be sunk already. Funny thing is, they actually need us, to maintain their cash flow.

donbrown · May 12, 2009

I understand the reasoning concluding snowmobiling is less disturbing than than hikers and skiers.

I don't agree with this strategy when concerned with forest usage. I see the sled/ski debate as " go after the other sport before you go after mine".

Okay then ... ban both sports from the forest ... is a typical enviro nut chant.

Many enviro nuts want absolutely no human activity in the forest.

So you need to see if no human intervention is "good" for the forest.

I say you should call snownobile trails .... winterized fire breaks and large animal clearings for grazing during the summer.

I never tell someone it is a snowmobile trail. I call them fire breaks or grazing paths.

Why call them fire breaks or grazing paths ... cause they are used for this purpose and beneficial to everyone concerned about using the forest.
There has to be a common cause for everyone so to minimize your own impact on the environment.

So when challenged to ride those winterized fire breaks or hibernating grazing paths; I remind them the paths are maintained by OHV money from registering mechanized vehicles designed specifically for use in those paths. When the mechanized vehicles leave so does the tourist money, and the fire breaks and grazing paths.

So ... look at the wilderness burning near Santa Barbara. Wilderness area encroaching human habitats and what they say out here about people and the "earth". The people who built here should know their house might burn down so close to the wilderness.

What I think the public should understand is the cost of human life , destruction of a lifestyle , pollution of the air and groundwater, death to the marine life in the waterways from the burn, and the billions of dollars spent to control a wilderness fire. Then have the enviro nuts justify noone using all our natural resources that just burned up, costing billions to control and causing more pollution than all people / vehicles using a multiuse area.

Swami · May 13, 2009

two steps back

Are you suggesting that we should be concerned with disturbing high mountain hibernating bears, birds, fish and amphibians with snowmobiles?

I simply pointed out that there IS a variety of wildlife up there, a fact which which you confirm Van Epps, (except for amphibians, LOL). The concern for disturbance is raised not by me, but by those, too clever by half, who seek to compare 'disturbance levels' for different styles of snow travel. That's exactly my point about the hazards of overreaching with this 'disturbance' factoid.

Once you make the claim that some activity 'disturbs' wildlife more than sleds, you've unavoidably implied that there is wildlife up in snow country which is vulnerable to disturbance.

The studies listed in Miner's post already show pretty well that, on or near snow roads, some mammals, including some grazers and some predators, will move away faster and farther from pedestrians than from sleds. But if the species is not in decline, that feature of animal behavior (which some have chosen to call 'disturbance') is truly an irrelevant inconsequential factoid. There is no reason to invite concern about species that are not in decline. Right?
:beer;

:beer;

Skiers Effect Greater Fright/Flight Response than Snowmobiles

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads