A partial glossary of elk management terms

14 Pages·1992·0.88 MB·English

by  Lyon, L. Jack, 1929-

Archive Document
Historic,
Do assume
not content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

A
United States Glossary
Partial
Department
of Agriculture
Management
Forest Service
of Elk
Intermountain
Research Station
Terms
General Technical
Report INT-288
June 1992
Jack Lyon
L.
Alan G. Christensen
3.
THE AUTHORS analysis procedures have been developed, and some
completely new terminology has been created. There
L. JACK LYON is Wildlife Research Biologist and have been applications that are confusing to managers
Project Leader for the Northern Rockies Forest Wildlife and the public alike. It is essential that the terminology
Habitat research work unit located at the Intermountain of elk habitat management be clarified.
Research Station's Forestry Sciences Laboratory, This paper presents the results of an "Elk Manage-
Missoula, MT. ment Terminology Workshop" held at the University
ALAN G. CHRISTENSEN is Northern Region Wildlife of Montana's Lubrecht Experimental Forest on April 3
Program Leader and National Elk Initiative Coordinator and 4, 1990. Biologists representing State and Fed-
located in the Wildlife Branch, Northern Region, eral governments, universities, and private manage-
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, ment concerns participated in a facilitated workshop
Missoula, MT. to identify the most commonly misused terms in elk
management guidelines and develop consensus
RESEARCH SUMMARY definitions.
Elk habitat management guidelines have been incor- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
porated into forest plans throughout North American
elk range. These guidelines were developed from We are deeply indebted to the many biologists who
research on the influences of timber sales and roads helped to organize and complete this project. This
during the summer months. Use of these guidelines paperwas originally presented at the Western
has too often resulted in inappropriate extrapolation of States and Provinces Elk Workshop in Eureka, CA,
available information to applications on winter range, May 15-17, 1990. It appears in the proceedings of that
hunting seasons, and other conditions outside the workshop, but is being revised and reprinted to obtain
scope of the original research. wider circulation in the Rocky Mountain West.
As a result of extrapolation, some commonly used
terms have taken on several meanings, unusual
Intermountain Research Station
324 25th Street
Ogden, UT84401
A
Partial Glossary of Elk
Management Terms
Jack Lyon
L.
Alan G. Christensen
INTRODUCTION Maybe the best we can hope for is to take a step to-
ward making it possible for professionals to commu-
Over the past decade we have witnessed the devel- nicate with each other.
opment and proliferation ofelk habitat management
guidelines throughout North American elk range. SELECTION OF TERMS
These guidelines were primarily developed from re-
search on the influences oftimber sales and roads on The Elk Management Terminology Workshop
elk behavior and summer/fall habitat use. However, emerged from discussions among eight to 10 con-
the development offorestplans and environmental cerned biologists in Montana and northern Idaho.
evaluations have too often resulted in inappropriate An initial list ofterms to be discussed was generated
extrapolation ofavailable information to applica- by this group. This list was circulated to State and
tions on winter range, hunting seasons, and other Federal biologists and managers actively involved in
conditions outside the scope ofthe original research. elk management and the application ofelk manage-
In the course ofthis extrapolation, some commonly ment guidelines. Participants were asked to indi-
used terms have taken on several meanings, unusual cate the most troublesome terms on the list and write
analysis procedures have appeared, and some com- in additional terms ifneeded. Based on the responses,
pletely new terminology has been created. Some ap- about 30 respondents were invited to a formal work-
plications have been confusing to managers and the shop on the terminology ofelk management.
public alike. The future ofelk management depends We selected 44 commonly used elk management
on clear communication among agency personnel terms for further study. Each term was sent to at
and the public. We believe it is essential that the least one prospective workshop participant. Some
terminology ofelk habitat management be clarified were sent to as many as three participants. Each
and standardized. participant was asked to determine the history and
This paper presents the results ofan "Elk Man- origin ofthe assigned terms, to note when they were
agement Terminology Workshop" held at the Uni- first used in the literature, and to recommend an ac-
versity ofMontana's Lubrecht Experimental Forest ceptable definition. Returns from this second mail-
on April 3 and 4, 1990. Biologists representing ing were particularly edifyingwhen some participants
State and Federal governments, universities, and supplied their own definitions without recourse to the
private management concerns participated in a fa- literature.
cilitated workshop to identify the most commonly At the beginning ofthe workshop, all recom-
misused terms in elk management guidelines and mended definitions were distributed to participants.
develop consensus definitions. We determined that about a third ofthe terms are
Neither the workshop nor this paper could be com- the source ofmost ofthe confusion and misuse. An-
prehensive. Most common terminology in elk man- other third have perfectly acceptable definitions and
agement is easily understood and used correctly. are rarely misused. Troublesome terms were often
The recommended definitions for some terms that interconnected so that misuse ofone resulted in con-
have often been misinterpreted or used in ways that fusion and misuse of several others. Finally, we dis-
suggest two or more meanings are presented here. covered that troublesome terms often had a good
Workshop participants identified some terms that definition for either structure or function, but not
have been so misused as to become virtually meaning- both. Ifone definition is missing, for instance, func-
We
less. recognize that everyone will not agree with tion, the term is likely to be misused or misinter-
our assessments. We expect misuse will continue. preted, or both.
1
Participants were split into three workshop Calving areas: Any areas between winter range
groups. All three groups discussed the highly con- and summer range where cows give birth to calves.
troversial terms. Less difficult terms were handled Discussion: This may be a specific area where a ma-
by only one group. At the conclusion ofthe work- jority ofcalvingfor aherd takes place. It may also
shop, participants recommended development ofa be scattered locations throughout the herdhome
new term:
range. See objectives.
Accessibilityindex: This term will become an es- Carrying capacity: Maximum rate ofanimal
sential component offuture management for stocking without damaging vegetation or related
elk security duringthe hunting season. It is
resources.
needed to summarize the degree ofhuman ac-
cess facilitated by such components as roads, Discussion: This is a well-established biological
trails and their management, terrain and veg- concept, but it is too imprecise for any useful appli-
etation, season length, and legal restrictions. cation in elk management terminology.
No specific definition is proposed at this time, Recommendation: Avoid using this term in relation
but we recommend that research in this area
to elk.
recognize the need for broad applicability.
Cover forage ratios: The percentage ofa habitat
WORD analysis unit in cover condition, and the percent-
LIST
age in forage condition, expressed as a ratio total-
BEDDING AREA HERD HOME RANGE ing 100.
BULL AGE DIVERSITY HIDING COVER Discussion: Cover:forage has had general applica-
CALVING AREAS HUNTER OPPORTUNITY tion and can be useful in discussing the diversity of
CARRYING CAPACITY KEY COMPONENTS summer elk habitat. Application ofthe term is usu-
COVER FORAGE RATIOS MIGRATION CORRIDOR ally related to habitat models and habitat analysis,
CRITICAL HABITAT NURSERY AREAS but cover:forage is not an evaluation ofoverall habi-
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OBJECTIVES tat quality. It should be recognized thatcover:forage
ELK EFFECTIVE COVER OPEN ROAD EQUIVALENTS contains no inherent provision ofsecurity.
ELK EVALUATION/ OPEN VEGETATION
Recommendation: Use ofthe term should be limited
ANALYSIS AREAS OPTIMAL COVER
to applicable situations described in the literature.
ELK HABITAT POTENTIAL POPULATION/HABITAT UNIT
A
ELK MANAGEMENT UNIT POTENTIAL ELK USE Critical habitat: term preempted by the Endan-
ELK USE POTENTIAL ROAD INFLUENCE gered Species Act of 1973 and considered inappro-
ELK VULNERABILITY SECURITY priate in elk management since then.
ESCAPE COVER SECURITY AREA
Recommendation: Do not use this term when key
ESCAPEMENT SECURITY COVER
component is intended.
FORAGE AREA SECURITY HABITAT
FORESTED FORAGE SIGHT DISTANCE Cumulative effects: The additive impacts when a
GAME MANAGEMENT UNIT THERMAL COVER number ofunrelated, or related but discrete, man-
HABITAT ANALYSIS UNIT TRANSITIONAL RANGE agement activities take place in a given area.
HABITAT CAPABILITY TRANSITORY RANGE Discussion: Multiple impacts on wildlife populations
HABITAT EFFECTIVENESS WINTER RANGE
ofsimultaneous but not necessarily coordinated hu-
HABITAT USE POTENTIAL man activities have been recognized as extremely
GLOSSARY difficultto measure and express. Commonly included
are past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
Terms evaluated in the workshop discussions are activities. We will need technologies for considering
presented here in alphabetical order, and interre- multiple effects as the implications ofhunting sea-
son security become more apparent.
lated terms are cross referenced. Those terms rarely
misused are not discussed. Words in all capital let- Elk effective cover: As used in several forest
ters are defined elsewhere in the glossary. plans, this term appears to be equivalent to habi-
Bedding area: A specific site selected by big game tat effectiveness, but it includes implications of
animals to lie down and rest. See objectives. both habitat productivity and security.
Bull age diversity: An attribute ofpopulation Discussion: Because ofthe way it is used, the term
age structure providing a relative measure ofthe appears to provide habitat information that does
distribution ofbull elk among age classes in a not, in fact, exist.
population. See objectives.
2
Recommendation: This term should only be used Recommendation: This term represents a complex
on those forests where it appears in the forest plan. area in which a great deal ofresearch remains to be
Every effort should be made to clarify the usage so done.
as not to include security or productivity. Escape cover: Vegetation dense enough to aid ani-
Elk evaluation/analysis areas: See habitat analy- mals in escaping from potential enemies.
sis UNIT. Discussion: Although this is one ofthe oldest terms
Elk habitat potential: Cannot be defined, al- in game management, workshop participants consid-
though it has been used as a synonym for carry- ered it too imprecise for use in elk management. It
ing capacity, for habitatcapability, and for ELK USE appears as a synonym for security, security area, se-
POTENTIAL. curity cover, and hiding cover, but fails to convey
any satisfactory meaning.
Discussion: This appears to be a term that tries to
find some middle ground between elk use and carry- Recommendation: Do not use this term.
ing capacity. As a result, the term also confuses ac- Escapement: The number, or proportion, ofelk sur-
cepted definitions ofhabitat effectiveness. See elk
viving the hunting season. Frequently the empha-
use potential for further discussion.
sis is on specific age and sex classes ofelk.
Recommendation: Do not use this term. Discussion: In common usage there is confusion
Elk management unit: An administrative unit es- with escape cover and with the act ofescaping.
tablished by the Montana Department ofFish, Fisheries literature is clear and useful, indicating
Wildlife and Parks. See habitat analysis unit. that this term can be used to describe the number
ofanimals surviving.
Discussion: Other States probably use other terms.
Forage area: In habitat evaluation models, the per-
Recommendation: This term should notbe used in
centage ofa habitat analysis unit not considered
reference to habitat analysis.
HIDING COVER or THERMAL COVER.
Elk use potential: A scaled representation ofmaxi-
mum Discussion: The workshop agreed that this term
possible use by elk.
will be used correctly in most instances. However,
Discussion: Elk use potential is the standard some elk habitat models define forage area as open-
against which habitat effectpteness is normally cal- ings, which confuses the status offorage found
culated. It is not, however, an acceptable expression within timber stands. See forested forage.
OfHABITAT CAPABILITY Or CARRYING CAPACITY. Other
Forested forage: Sometimes used in habitat evalu-
terms cross-referenced to elk use potential include
ation models to describe forage area within forest
ELK HABITAT POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL ELK USE, HABITAT USE
stands that are neither hiding cover nor thermal
potential, and habitat capability. All ofthese terms
cover.
strive to identify the ability ofa habitat to support
elk. However, they are almost always used in a con- Discussion: Although intended to be a solution, for-
text that compares current with predicted elk use in ested forage has become an additional problem.
relation to changes in vegetation. The terms based One workshop group noted that because valuable
on "use" appear in the literature related to habitat forage is often found in defined cover areas, the term
models. They are probably valid synonyms. might be interpreted to include all ofcover:forage.
Recommendation: These terms should be used only Recommendation: Ifused at all, this term should be
asjustified by the existing literature. They should carefully and specifically defined by the user.
not be considered random synonyms, and under no
Game management unit: An administrative unit es-
circumstances should they be considered equivalent tablished by the Idaho Fish and Game Depart-
to either carrying capacity or habitat effectiveness.
ment. See HABITAT ANALYSIS UNIT.
Elkvulnerability: A measure ofelk susceptibility
Discussion: Other States probably use other terms.
to beingkilled during the hunting season. This
is the antonym ofsecurity during the hunting Recommendation: This term should notbe used in
season. reference to habitat analysis.
Discussion: This is primarily a functional concept Habitat analysis unit: An area ofland selected as
that is the sum ofmany factors such as security, the unit for evaluating the quality ofelk habitat.
hunter opportunity, hunter behavior, and elk behav- Discussion: This term and elk evaluation/analysis
ior. It has often been defined in ways related to es- areas had identical definitions and seem to be used
capement ofbranch-antiered bulls.
3
interchangeably. The areas are commonly defined Hiding cover:
by geographic or administrative boundaries.
Structural definition: Vegetation capable ofhiding
Recommendation: The workshop achieved no con- 90 percent ofa standing adult elk from the view of
sensus for selecting one term over the other. These a human at a distance equal to or less than 200 feet.
two terms, plus herd home range, population/habitat As a site-specific vegetative component ofsecurity,
UNIT, ELK MANAGEMENT UNIT, AND GAME MANAGEMENT the quality ofhiding cover varies inversely with
unit, all attempt to define a specific area within SIGHT distance.
which an analysis procedure can be performed. The
Functional definition: Hiding cover allows elk to use
first two are defined by animals (by radio locations), areas for bedding, foraging, thermal relief, wallow-
the remainder by people. The latter all seem to be ing, and other functions year-round. Hiding cover
arbitrary in the sense that they are drawn to con- may contribute to security at any time, but it does
tain a general area ofelk habitat rather than a spe- not necessarily provide security during the hunting
cific area defined by animals. Management units
season.
are most often used in management ofhunting sea-
sons. All terms should be used as defined. They are Discussion: Without question, the terms causing the
not interchangeable. greatest problems and the most confusion involved
multiple interpretations and cross-referencing ofhid-
Habitat capability: The capacity ofa given area ingcover and security. The terms in this subject
to meet the needs ofelk, either seasonally or area often had several different meanings. The im-
year-round.
plications, particularly with regard to the hunting
Discussion: Interestingly, this term is widely used season, were extremely varied.
and well-defined in the fisheries literature. The Recommendation: Workshop participants were
workshop participants considered it nearly equiva- unanimous in concluding that hidingcover is a req-
lent to carrying capacity and inapplicable to elk uisite ofelk habitat and a component ofsecurity,
management. See elk use potential for further
hidingcover alone does not provide securityduring
discussion.
the hunting season.
Recommendation: Should not be used unless used Hunteropportunity: An array ofoptions that al-
correctly.
lows hunters to choose situations that are person-
Habitat effectiveness: Percentage ofavailable ally rewarding.
habitat that is usable by elk outside the hunting Discussion: Components ofhunteropportunityare
season. influenced by human activities, hunting regulations,
Discussion: Habitat effectiveness appears to have access, time and space, and land management ac-
originated in the road density models as a means of tivities. The key to this concept is the ability to se-
expressinghabitat loss associated with open forest lect an option that is personally rewarding from
roads. It has since been used to express habitat several options. An important management decision
quality, hunting season security, habitat capability, in providing hunteropportunity involves the scale of
carrying capacity, and several other conditions not application: statewide, regionwide, forestwide.
justified by the available data. Key components: Areas or landscape features par-
Recommendation: We cannotjust throw out all ex- ticularly important for maintaining the overall in-
isting uses ofthe term, but biologists and managers tegrity ofelk habitat.
should recognize that it has been widely abused. It Discussion: An acceptable term, other than the po-
is usually correct when applied to area. It is usually
tential confusion with criticalhabitat.
incorrect when substituted for security, capability,
or productive capacity ofhabitats. Strive to limit Migration corrddor: Situations, usually linked to
applications to situations meeting the definition. topography and vegetation, that provide a com-
pletely or partially suitable habitat that animals
Habitat use potential: See elk use potential.
move through during migrations.
Herd home range: The area a social group ofungu-
Discussion: This term is easy to misapply because
lates traverses during normal activities.
it generally relates to specific locations and can be
Discussion: Although this is a viable concept, we broadly or narrowly applied. The term usually de-
rarely have enough information to use it. It usually scribes a management problem rather than a defin-
includes the total range for a year. See habit analy- able component ofhabitat.
sis unit.
Recommendation: Be cautious in application. See
transitionalrange.
4
Nurseryareas: Areas used by a temporary elk so- Discussion: By definition, this appears to be identi-
cial unit consisting ofcows and young calves. cal toherdhomerange. In use, the unit is usually
smaller, indicating some seasonal use by a group of
Dciifsiccumsesaionni:ngItbiesynoontdcneortramianltehaartlythseutmemremrharsanagespe- elk. We rarely have enough information to use this
concept, but it can be extremely useful when data
for large elk cow/calfgroups in relatively open habi-
are available. See habitatanalysisunit.
tat. See objectives.
Recommendation: Use when data are available.
Objectives: The workshop participants identified
six terms that are generally used correctly by bi- Potentialelkuse: Seeelkuse potential.
ologists and managers although they have ahigh Roadinfluence: The effect a road has on elk distri-
potential for misuse. Sightdistance,bullagediver-
bution, behavior, and vulnerability to hunters.
sity,nurseryareas,calvingareas, beddingarea, and
winterrange are seemingly unrelated, but they Discussion: This is sometimes interpreted as a zone
share a potential for misapplication in situations ofinfluence and is often associated with calculations
involving objectives other than protection ofelk involving habitateffectiveness.
habitat. Recommendation: Use only asjustified by existing
Recommendation: Use these terms correctly in situ- literature and within the context ofexistinghabitat
ations where they really are applicable. models.
Openroad equivalents: A measure ofaccess that Security: The protection inherent in any situation
addresses all types ofroads and trails used by mo- that allows elk to remain in a defined area despite
torized vehicles, equating these to a common stan- an increase in stress or disturbance associated
dard. Frequently used in the computation ofhabi- with the hunting season or other human activities.
tatEFFECTIVENESS. Discussion: Security is a state ofbeing or a condi-
Discussion: Commonly, miles ofsecondary and tion. The workshop group agreed that securityis a
primitive road are converted to equivalent primary functional concept most important when viewed in
road miles. Data are available to support such con- relation to the hunting season. The components of
versions. Various attempts have been made to ex- securitymay include, but are not limited to, vegeta-
trapolate the concept to closed roads, to trails, and tion, topography, areal extent, road density, distance
to roads and trails during the hunting season. from roads, size ofvegetation blocks, hunter density,
There are no data to support such conversions. season timing, and land ownership.
Recommendation: Confine equivalent mileage con- Recommendation: Very little problem can be en-
versions to evaluation ofopen roads and recognize countered in the use ofthis term ifit recognized that
that use by any motorized vehicle creates an open hidingcoveris site specific, while securityis area
road. specific.
Openvegetation: In habitat evaluation models, Securityarea: Any area that will hold elk during
clearcuts, meadows, and other openings. periods ofstress because ofgeography, topogra-
phy, vegetation, or a combination ofthose
Discussion: The term may be useful in verbal dis-
features.
cussions but probably defies written definition.
Discussion: Securityareais the structural constitu-
Recommendation: Clarity in descriptions is prob- ent ofsecurity. The workshop group considered this
ably better served by actually saying "clearcuts" and
term more meaningful than securityhabitat. The
"meadows." Do not use this term.
consensus opinion was that securityhabitat, even
Optimalcover: Aforest stand with four layers, an ifused as a synonym, can only add confusion and
overstory that will intercept snow, and small open- should be avoided.
ings that provide forage.
Securitycover: The vegetative cover component of
Discussion: Other than the clear similarity to old- security.
growth, this was considered a vague term, difficult Discussion: The literature review for this term dem-
to measure and define.
onstrates a tendency to equate securityareaand se-
Recommendation: Do not use this term. curitycover. Although the definition is fairly clear,
A the consensus ofthe workshop was that security
Population/habitatunit: discrete association of
individual elk bonded together by traditional use area is entirely adequate.
ofa habitat. Recommendation: Do not use this term.
Securityhabitat: See discussion for securityarea. Recommendation: Acceptable concept but should
Recommendation: Do not use this term. not be used loosely.
Transitionalrange: Areas where elk concentrate
Sightdistance: The distance at which 90 percent or
more ofan adult elk is hidden from human view. during spring and/or fall. Transitionalranges are
generally adjacent towinterrange and may pro-
A
Discussion: measure ofthe effectiveness ofhiding vide important security during the fall.
cover, but not a measure ofsecurity. See objectives.
Discussion: Transitionalrange may be important for
Thermalcover: security. "Transitional" should not be confused with
Structural definition: For elk a stand ofconiferous "transitory." Nearly all migrationcorridors are bet-
trees 40 feet tall or taller with average crown closure ter described as transitionalrange.
of70 percent or more. In some cases, topography or Recommendation: Use this term rather thanmigra-
vegetation less than specified may meet animal tioncorridorin most cases.
needs for thermal regulation.
Transitoryrange: Rangeland created to increase
Functional definition: Situations, usually related to forage production for livestock.
vegetation structure, used by animals to ameliorate
Discussion: This term is sometimes substituted for
effects ofweather.
transitionalrange. It is not the same thing.
Discussion: Thermalcover, as much as any other
Recommendation: Term should be avoided in any
term discussed at the workshop, seems to have de-
veloped cadres ofadherents and ofdetractors. One discussion ofelk management because it applies di-
rectly to livestock.
reviewer suggested the substitution of"overstory
cover" as a replacement. Discussion also noted that Winter range: The area, usually at lower eleva-
thermal reliefcan be supplied by topography, other tions, used by elk during the winter months. See
animals, and different combinations ofvegetation, OBJECTIVES.
water, and air movement.
6 -irll.S.GOVERNMENTPRINTINGOFFICE:1992-673-041/61000