MySpace


Bill



Last Updated: 12/14/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
City: Homer
State: Alaska
Country: US
Signup Date: 11/6/2005
Saturday, November 12, 2005 

Category: Blogging

Beginning next year, the National Park Service in Denali National Park is planning to embark on a roadside study to determine the impacts of bus traffic on the park's wildlife. Bus traffic has increased tremendously over the years, primarily in the Wilderness and Denali Natural History Tours but additionally in the Kantishna Lodge buses. Many locals including bus drivers, professional photographers, and local residents believe that this increase in bus traffic has diminished quality wildlife viewing in the park to a significant degree.

 

To determine whether this is true or not, NPS is planning to tranquilize grizzly bears and Dall sheep and attach GPS radio collars to them.  Furthermore, Tour and VTS buses will also have GPS tracking units within them. NPS is intending to and I quote “ Increases in traffic will be staggered over-multiple years and on alternative days to allow for an experimental and an adaptive management approach utilizing the powerful BACI method to evaluate any increases and adjust traffic levels to prevent damage to resource or visitor experience.” End quote.

 

 It is not unusual during peak season for Tour to send over twenty buses in the morning. At present during peak season, if you include VTS, Tour, DNHT, and Kantishna and all systems running at peak numbers, we may have upwards of a hundred buses entering into Denali. Furthermore, I have several questions in regards to this study:

  1. How many bears and sheep are to be radio collared next year?

  2. In what areas along the park road are they to be collared?

  3. What is the expected mortality of both bears and sheep due to tranquilizing them?

  4. If the collaring process is to take place next spring after the bears have lost upwards of
    30% of their body weight, wouldn't the added stress of tranquilizing them make mortality more likely? If so, what will NPS due to alleviate this possibility?

  5. Will NPS be tranquilizing mostly the sub-adults, or female bears or both?

  6. Will female bears with cubs be tranquilized?

  7. Without knowing what the Denali grizzly bear population dynamics are along the road: the impacts of an accidental death to a breeding female are unknown (but obviously not good) to the population but for roadside viewing, they can be tremendous. Does NPS have any intention of attempting to determine the population dynamics of this roadside population before they begin their roadside study through non-collaring methods?

  8. What procedures will be in place to reverse negative side effects of tranquilizers?

  9. Will a vet be on board to monitor the condition of the bears and sheep while they are being tranquilized?

  10. What will NPS do with orphaned cubs (spring & 1 1/2 yr olds) if a female bear is accidentally killed due to tranquilizing?

  11. Is NPS prepared for the public uproar if a Denali bear family that is commonly viewed is negatively impacted by the above?

  12. Will NPS attempt to use color-coded radio collars (if they exist) to lessen the negative and visual pollution that collars have on the general viewing public?

  13. Why isn't NPS using data collected in the past by not only NPS personnel (Karen & Shan's roadside study) but also data accumulated by bus drivers over the years to establish a base line from which to move from?

  14. What studies and/or reasons does NPS have to justify the exclusion of the previous roadside data and NPS studies?

  15. Will the large number of day hikers and backpackers from the Toklat River to the Eielson area also be included within the study to determine their impacts on the movements of bears and sheep? If not, why not? As this is critical habitat, especially for bears.

  16. Buses, bears and sheep will have GPS tracking units, yet how will NPS make the determination that a bus caused a change in a bear or sheep's behavior versus a natural cause without actually viewing the interaction?

  17. Also, NPS is planning to vary the numbers of buses onto the road on certain days to determine the impacts of additional buses. Some days there will be a heavier concentration of buses than others. This past summer, Tour would almost routinely send out over 20 buses in the morning, along with VTS, and the Kantishna buses, this inundates the park with road traffic. Kennan Ward (professional photographer) reported to me that on one morning as he was exiting the park, he counted 55 buses. How many more buses does NPS plan to send out over and above what is already traveling into the park? Also, does NPS intend to study the impacts of this plan on the park experience for visitors?

I believe adding more buses will only degrade the visitor experience as this creates more traffic, dust, and wildlife jams. Additionally, it especially impacts those visitors who recreate on or near the park road. If NPS goes through with this plan, they should also survey visitors as to their experience.

Lastly, the Tourism industry has funded this study, and many bus drivers have reported to me that they believe that the results of this study have been pre-determined in favor of the Tourism industry which would result in ever more increases in bus traffic.  

 

If you have any comments please feel free to respond to this posting. Additionally, I will be inviting NPS biologists and various environmental representatives from different groups to partake in this blog.

 

All the best.

 

Bill

http://www.WatkinsNaturePhotography.com

 

    John

     

    Wow, lots of questions.  I brought up the thought to the Park Service biologists about how many day hikers we were seeing out and about and they seemed a little surprised about the kinds of numbers we have been seeing:  especially around Stoney.  I hadn't seen the kind of numbers that I was seeing, nor had I seen the number of human bear interactions as I did this last season.  Is the tourist industry really willing to pay for this study and if so I believe that they will have to put in a hell of a lot more money to pay for the number of eyes that the Park Service is going to have to have out there.  Is there a way for the Park Service to think outside the box and find help with this study personel wise? Seems like a potential land mark study if done well. 

    We all have a lot of passion about taking care of the place.  Do we really think that by not having a study at all and just lowering numbers by intuition is appropriate?  How does the Park Service do a study which will be thorough and one that we can trust when the tourist industry is paying for it?  Are they giving the Park Service a blank check?  What strings are attached to this money?   Who is calling the shots with how this money is being spent?  Where is the personel coming from for this study?  Can't just be Park Service, we all know that the few that they have can not be in enough places to watch.  To rely just on a few observations and GPS I think is nuts.  If the Park Service and the Tourist Industry are truly interested in wildlife viewing; I to am very skeptical from the little info we have about the study.  Dosen't seem to point to a lot of real planning, but instead feels like a quick "lets through some money at the Park Service and tell them they have to do this and quickly or else", kind of set up. 

     I am not as concerned about death and destruction as my dear friend Bill in regards to tranquilizing.  However, I am concerned that much emphasis is on the vehicles and not on the pedestrians.  Don't get me wrong, I to believe that we are running to many busses, but the increase in pedestrians concerns me almost as much.  How do we get out and enjoy without destroying what it is we came to enjoy?  How does the Park Service monitor and adjust to this heavier use without the resources to get out there and protect in this most interesting of political environment?  Why aren't more of us involved?  Does it really matter?     Of course I think it matters a great deal.  My hope is that there will be good clear communication from the park service about this study and can answer our concerns.  It seemed to me during the one meeting that I was present for that the park service was still figuring things out.  That they were under some sort of deadline, like the money would be pulled if it didn't happen in the Tour Industries time frame.  I do appreciate the tour industry putting in the money, we all know the our politicians certainly wouldn't.  But, who really is calling the shots?  JM


     
    Posted by John on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 4:48 PM
    [Reply to this
    Bill

     

    Hey John,

    I agree with your sentiments and you pose good points. I think NPS needs to be very clear and open in their procedures and they need to look at a variety of impacts (in critical habitat) with the personnel to witness and evaluate them (GPS alone isn't going to determine cause and effect).

    Additionally, they need to commuicate the numbers of animals within the study, their locations, and the procedures in place to minimize accidental deaths. And also, what to do with orphaned young animals (and the public outcry) if the worst happens. Allowing nature to run its course after an NPS caused death probabaly won't go over very well with the public.

    My concern with accedental deaths specifically goes back to the accidental deaths of three wolves in 2001 and now we are discussing the most popular animal in Denali with the lowest reproductive rate - grizzly bears. The demise of one grizzly bear family can have serious repercussions for visitor viewing throughout the summer especially from the Toklat River to Eielson areas.  

    Additionally, NPS needs to understand that visual pollution doesn't just apply to backpacker tents and clothing. It also applies to radio collars. This is why collars need to be of similar color to the animals to minimize the visual impact to park visitors, especially along the park road.

    And finally, due to the Tourism pressure and the political climate in Alaska, they need to come up with a clear solution that many suspect this study to be a rubber stamp to increase Tour buses at the expense of the VTS bus system and professional photographers. This will be their greatest challenge that this study is objective, especially after the Alaska Travel Industry Letter from last December to NPS. 

    Personally, I believe that NPS biologists Pat Owen, Tom Meiers, and Carol McIntire would like to run an objective study, but I don't know about those above them and the inhouse politics of NPS.

    I have sent out group e-mails that have included Pat and Tom as invitations to this blog. So, hopefully they will join in and answer some of these questions and concerns.

    All the best.

    Bill

     


     
    Posted by Bill on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:33 PM
    [Reply to this
    John

     
    Seems like you got Mr. Meiers attention and although I have not read all of what he said, I do like what I have seen so far.  I do believe that you are on to something with the higher ups.  However I am not totally convinced that there is a move to raising the numbers from within the Park Service.  We certainly must continue to question the Park Service and their motives.  However, we must also realize the immence pressure they are under.  Look at how (and I do say this name with extreme contempt) "Murkowski" is now forcing the Stampede road down the Park Services throat.  This is where we shall see whether the Park Service has any back bone.  The state and the US Gov. is really tearing up the Park Service and this is where we need to find ways to have an impact. 
     
    Posted by John on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 6:32 AM
    [Reply to this
    Kim

     

    Thanks for the Blog Bill,

    Did you read the article in the paper this summer about "Collaring the Biologists"? If not, I can dig it out for you. One of my biggest wonders is why has it taken them 70 years of the road being there for NPS to realize the busses may have a negative impact on the wildlife and it is time to do a study? And it's not just the bus itself, but the dust the buses create and the new buses creating even more dust. What is it the the Environmental Management System team keeps telling us "Our biggest environmental impact is dust". If it is that much of an impact to us in the yard, what impact is the increased dust by increased traffic and increased dust making busses doing to the wildlife? Is this a factor that is being considered in the study? It is a factor created by the traffic.

    Also noise, not just busses per say, but the new busses again, which are louder even to my ears and all the noise that goes with the increase of work vehicles for all the construction. Nobody needs to tell us that increased traffic is adversely impacting the visitors experience in multiple ways, I don't know why it seems so hard to get the people who are responsible for protecting the park to see it.

    The campaing to "Keep the Wildlife Wild" is much bigger than just keeping food away from the animals, it is also about getting the mission back on track...

    "...to promote and regulate the use of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."  http://www.nps.gov/legacy/legacy.html

    The impairment has already occured. Not only how do we stop more from occuring, but can we reverse what has already occured? Why do they not listen to those who have been on that road on a daily basis for 10, 20 and even 30 years? I have seen a difference in just the 5 years that I have been there. What about those journals we have kept?

    Kim

     


     
    Posted by Kim on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:41 AM
    [Reply to this