A new study suggests wolves are quick to flee from areas near trails in the mountain national parks to avoid people, while elk seem to be using areas close to lightly-used trails as a safe haven from predators.
For the first time, research reveals the actual thresholds of human activity on trails in Banff, Yoho and Kootenay national parks that leads to wildlife disturbance and ecological change.
“What’s most important is we’ve identified the threshold levels that lead to changes in wildlife distribution on trails,” said Kimo Rogala, lead researcher on the University of Calgary study.
The study, published in the current online issue of the journal Ecology and Society, documents clear changes in habitat selection patterns by wolves and elk in response to increased human activity.
Using GPS trackers on 12 wolves from four packs and 20 elk, and infrared trip sensors on trails, researchers were able to use the historical data to track animal populations between 2005 and 2008.
In particular, the study found that both wolves and elk avoided areas within 50 metres of trail routes travelled by one person per hour or greater.
But wolves and elk reacted differently in areas 50 metres to 400 metres from trails with low levels of human use. Wolves fled immediately, while elk appeared to use the areas as a safe haven from predation.
However, when human use increased to above two people per hour, both species avoided areas 50 to 400 metres from trails, which researchers say results in the indirect loss of important montane habitat.
“Wolves are, for the most part, pretty much immediately moving away as soon as there’s human presence,” said Rogala, a U of C masters graduate who lives in Canmore.
“Elk move closer to a trail for a small period of time – and the assumption is that it’s a safe haven from predators – and then move away.”
Researchers suggest that when such interference happens it can have a negative effect on other animal species and parts of the broader ecosystem, such as beavers, birds and willows.
“Not only did we identify when animals are pushed away from trails, but identified other changes to ecology,” said Rogala.
Rogala said one of the implications of the research is potential habitat loss, given trails and roads in the study area typically occur in high quality habitat along valley bottoms.
“A lot of the best habitat is located near or adjacent to valley bottoms,” he said.
If Parks Canada managers are concerned with human impacts on wolves and elk, researchers suggest they monitor locations near trails and roads and consider hourly changes of human activity levels in areas important to wildlife.
Rogala said the challenge for Parks Canada is finding a balance between long-term ecological integrity and providing visitors with quality visitor experiences and learning opportunities.
“The intention of this research is to be used as a tool, not to close all trails,” he said.
Jesse Whittington, a wildlife biologist in Banff National Park, said the study contributes to a growing body of literature showing how high levels of human activity displace wildlife from preferred habitat.
He said these results are important because they allows Parks Canada to better evaluate the effects of trail design and alignment in ecologically sensitive areas.
For example, any decisions on trail re-alignments would consider where trails occur relative to high quality wolf and grizzly bear habitat and what sort of views they offer trail users.
“They provide Parks Canada with another planning tool to help us make informed decisions,” said Whittington. “This information helps us to understand how our activities affect wildlife and how to minimize affects on wildlife.”
The Association for Mountain Parks Protection and Enjoyment (AMPPE) say they are encouraged by the integration of human use and wildlife data, instead of social science in isolation of biological science.
But, on the other hand, officials say they have questions surrounding the data set, particularly some of the human use numbers for trails as well as traffic counts on the Bow Valley Parkway.
“I’d like to know which trail has 70,000 visitors per month and I’m also wondering about the numbers for the Bow Valley Parkway,” said Monica Andreeff, the group’s executive director.
“In general, I am in favour of this kind of study, but it doesn’t jive with some of the numbers we’ve been given and presented by Parks Canada.”
Andreeff said the average visitor wants to work within wildlife management practices.
“I think it’s great to have these kinds of tools in the toolbox, and we do see good management decisions, like hiking in groups of four in the Larch Valley area,” she said. “I think it’s great to have studies where we can measure and manage for the future so wildlife aren’t being negatively affected by visitors.”
Conservationists say Rogala’s paper is important because real numbers are attached to the point at which human activity can affect wildlife behaviour.
Given the richest montane habitat in the Bow Valley is already compromised by roads, a railway, ski hills and townsites, they say the research highlights more attention needs to be given to trail placement and use.
“I think it definitely speaks to limits – and Parks Canada is already practicing this,” said Jim Pissot, executive director of Wild Canada Conservation Alliance.
“If you look at Lake O’Hara, the McArthur area, we know that limiting and managing how people access the area, in terms of when and how many, can help conserve wildlife.”
After Aug. 15 each year, when seasonal plant foods favoured by grizzly bears begin to lose their appeal, two hiking parties per week may travel through McArthur Valley.
Another recently-published paper out of the University of Calgary, by PhD graduate Tyler Muhly, supports the hypothesis that high human activity displaces predator, but not prey species.
This research, on provincial ranchlands in Alberta, found that activity greater than 18 people a day, (about one person per hour), has the potential to affect predator-prey interactions.
