The Town of Canmore says it is not only committed to addressing the issue of human use in wildlife corridors, it has actually taken a leadership role when it comes to ensuring wildlife connectivity through the Bow Valley.
Canmore council in 2013 initiated the human use management review process and, according to municipal sustainability coordinator Lori Rissling Wynn, the initiative has led to multiple recommendations being undertaken by the Town of Canmore.
What’s more, Rissling Wynn said, is it has brought other stakeholders to the table to participate in understanding the issue and taking action to see human use in wildlife corridors reduced.
“As you all know, the Bow Valley is a really important place for wildlife, connectivity and habitat and we have a suite of animals that use the Bow Valley,” she said. “We have been a leader in addressing wildlife attractant issues over the years and one thing that has been a huge success has been to move to bear proof garbage bins.”
While garbage was addressed in the ’90s, she said there have been other efforts that have contributed toward those goals, including the prohibition of outdoor composting, removal of shepherdia (buffalo berries) from Town and provincially owned lands, limitations on bird feeders and more recently, consideration of a wildlife attractant bylaw.
“These efforts show us that wildlife attractant management is important and additional improvements can also be made to improve public safety and wildlife mortality,” Rissling Wynn said.
The human use management review process resulted in recommendations and Rissling Wynn updated council on actions taken in 2016 to pursue those goals of reducing human wildlife conflict and improving wildlife corridors.
Administration spent time in 2016 focused on addressing trail use in two specific areas of Canmore – Eagle Terrace and South Canmore – which involved the decommissioning of some unsanctioned trails throughout each area and installation of signage.
“We were trying to reduce the proliferation of unofficial trails in (habitat patches and corridors) and concentrate use on the trails we want people to be on,” Rissling Wynn said.
The review process recommended work on trails, including shutting down trails that are inside wildlife corridors, as well as working with the Canmore Trail Alliance on trail projects. Another important recommendation was a trail map that actually shows where wildlife corridors and habitat patches are located.
One of the biggest outcomes from the human use review process was a two-year camera study being undertaken by Alberta Environment and Parks.
Senior ecologist Melanie Percy with AEP was in front of council in April to review preliminary results of the study, which has 18 months of data already collected and analyzed from 77 remote wildlife cameras.
Percy said one of the first steps ever taken to support connectivity and wildlife movement was the recognition that wildlife corridors were needed in the Bow Valley, followed by the designation of significant surrounding land to the Bow Valley Wildland Park after the Special Places 2000 process.
“That was one of the first steps we took recognizing and protecting that connectivity in the valley,” she said. “In addition to identifying the corridors and protecting additional areas and park lands, we have also put restrictions in place for human activity in corridors.”
That means that by ministerial order, human activity in designated wildlife corridors is prohibited except on designated trails, Percy said.
“Of course, Canmore is growing and it is becoming an important place for residents and tourists,” she said. “We have world class recreation experiences here as well as being a world class destination and we are starting to feel that pressure.”
The human use review process made it clear to the province and the municipality that more research and monitoring was needed, which is why AEP undertook the two-year camera study. Not only does the provincial agency have the cameras and expertise for the study, it also has support of local volunteers that are needed to go our every week and retrieve the memory cards out of the 77 cameras located in and near designated wildlife corridors.
Designed by wildlife biologist John Packowski, the study was created by overlaying a one-kilometre by one-kilometre grid over the whole valley and within each grid box, placing a camera either on a human use trail or a wildlife trail.
Percy said a wildlife trail is typically smaller and rougher in size and not intended for human use, whereas human use trails are wider and intended for people to use on the landscape. Trail kiosks on human trails had information about the camera study and that the cameras would be present along the trail, although she said they were positioned in a way so that personal information (i.e. faces) were not captured.
“We also let people know any images of people would be destroyed once the data was collected,” she said.
Over the first 18 months, Percy said the cameras collected 1.5 million images which were categorized using events as the organizing criteria. She said one image does not equal one event – instead, an event represents a single animal incident (human or wildlife) being caught on camera. One black bear caught in eight images, for example, is one event.
Of the data collected so far, Percy said there were 163,000 events recorded and of those 94 per cent were human use events. Percy said hikers were the most common event connected to human use, followed by bikers and trail runners.
She said human use in the Bow Valley is “pretty much everywhere” and “well distributed throughout the landscape.”
Of the events involving humans, one of the most concerning aspects has been the number of off leash dogs being captured by the cameras. Of the events involving humans, 60 per cent had dogs with them and of those, 63 per cent were off leash.
“The one disconcerting point of this is not so much that people have dogs with them, because 60 per cent of people are recreating with at least one dog, but the concerning point is that of those, 63 per cent were off leash despite there being strict leash laws in effect throughout the study area,” Percy said.
The most common off leash dog incidents, she added, were with people on bikes being caught on the cameras. Percy said off leash dogs have significant impact on wildlife.
“A lot of people think their dog cannot catch a wild animal, but you don’t know what the animal has been through,” she said. “I think people don’t understand the implications (of their actions) and there are, of course, public safety issues for dogs chasing wildlife into traffic, for example.”
Direct consequences from off-leash dogs are not just related to mortality or injury of wildlife, but can result in habitat displacement, which is a concern for stakeholders working to maintain connectivity in the corridors.
“If wildlife know they are going to be harassed and chased by off-leash dogs they will start to abandon that habitat,” she said.
Rissling Wynn told council administration is also hoping to undertake work in 2017 to address off leash dogs. That includes up to three new off-leash dog parks in neighbourhoods throughout Canmore that are being proposed to provide those who walk their dogs off leash where they shouldn’t, places where they can.
“We will be doing additional community consultation when those sites are identified and will give opportunities for feedback,” she said.
There is also a one-kilometre loop trail at the Quarry Lake off-leash dog park that was created as a trial off-leash amenity providing dog walkers a trail that then has access to a pond as well.
As for enforcement, within the wildlife corridors that is the jurisdiction of conservation officers with Alberta Environment and Parks. Within municipal boundaries, wildlife is the responsibility of Fish and Wildlife. Bylaw Services is the Town’s enforcement body, however, those officers are focused on enforcing municipal bylaws, including garbage, animal attractants and off-leash dogs within municipal borders.
While there are recommendations for more enforcement in the corridors, Rissling Wynn said the municipality is in ongoing discussions with the province over having additional resources placed in Canmore for that purpose.
“I think it is great we are having these conversations and even if there is no traction in 2017, hopefully it arises in subsequent years,” she said.
As for research and monitoring, that is where the camera study came from.
Once the two years of data collection is complete, Percy said analysis of the data will be undertaken and that includes looking at displacement effects and temporal analysis of human use and compliance. She said how people use the landscape has changed over time and the analysis would look at how that affects wildlife movement.
For example, cameras caught fat bikers using trails at night, which is a different use that has resulted from changes in bike technologies. But it can have a negative effect on corridors and connectivity.
“Looking at that temporal analysis is important if the change in people using the landscape causes change in wildlife use of the land,” Percy said.
By fall, Percy said she expects recommendations to be developed for Alberta Parks lands, working along with the municipality, and those would help improve compliance and connectivity of corridors.
The work is expected to involve communication and specifically education and signage to encourage residents and visitors to respect wildlife by giving them space on the landscape for habitat and connectivity.
Percy said AEP is absolutely committed to working in the future with partners like the Town of Canmore on long term solutions to the issue. She said she would like to see cameras on the landscape provide continuous data, but there are other priorities in Kananaskis Country that require use of wildlife camera technology as well. She also said enforcement is part of the solution and that involves AEP conservation officers taking part too.
“There are lots of opportunities for more enforcement,” she said. “But sometimes people really don’t know they are in a place they shouldn’t be and I think we could do a better job of signage.
“I think we could do a much better job of signage than we have.”
