PacificNorthwestResearchStation

Elk, DEEr, anD CattlE: thE StarkEy ProjECt

I n S U M M a r y

United StatesDepartment of Agriculture

Pacific NorthwestResearch Station

ForestService http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw

Issue 13March 2006

Definitive results from the Starkey Project’s first decade (1989–99) have given managers defensi-ble options for managing roads, timber production,

and range allotments in relation to elk, deer, and cattle. Study results have prompted changes in policies, management standards and guidelines, hunting regula-tions, and timber sale planning throughout western North America.

In the 1970s and 1980s, wildlife managers, hunters, and forest managers had intense debates about how elk, mule deer, and cattle should be managed on public lands. In response, scientists from the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), in collaboration with over 40

partners, initiated the Starkey Project in the Blue Moun-tains of northeastern Oregon. Starkey is a controlled, landscape-scale study at the Starkey Experimental Forest and Range and the primary field location for research on mule deer, elk, and cattle in managed ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest.

Four major themes were identified for the Starkey Project’s first decade of research: (1) roads and traffic, (2) timber production and thermal cover, (3) competition with cattle, and (4) breeding efficiency of male elk. The result of the research was a set of compelling findings about elk, deer, and cattle responses to a variety of forest and rangeland activities at scales compatible with man-agement. The Starkey findings are described inside.

Fra

nk V

anni

�

key Findings• Elkavoidroadsopentomotorizedtraffic,andtheir

avoidanceincreasesastherateoftrafficincreases.Muledeeravoidelkandthuscanbedisplacedintoareasleastusedbyelk,suchasareasnearroadswiththemosttraffic.

• Elkavoidcattle,andmuledeeravoidelk.Elkcanselecthabitatswithoutcattlewhencattlearerotatedthroughlivestockpastures,butmuledeermaynothaveasmanychoicesforavoidingelk.Thedietsofcattleandelkdiffersubstantiallyduringearlysummer,butbecomeincreasinglysimilarduringlatesummer,withmorepotentialforexploitativecompetition.

• Intensivetimberharvestcanbenefitcattleandelkfromtheincreasedforageavailableaftertimberhar-vest.However,ifroadsareleftopen,elkaremorevulnerabletoharvestbyhunters.Accessmanagementandmaintenanceofsecuritycovercanmitigatethiseffect.Elkdonotbenefitfromhomogeneousstandsofthermalcover;amixofopen-andclosed-canopyhabitatsisoptimalforelk.

• Oldermaleelkaremoreefficientbreeders,resultinginearlier,moresynchronouscalfbirthsthenextspring,whichmaybenefitcalfsurvival.

What is the science base for how elk, mule deer, and cattle are managed on public lands?ElkandmuledeerarehighlyvaluedforhuntingandviewinginwesternNorthAmerica.Inthe1970sand1980s,wildlifemanagers,hunters,andforestmanagerswereinvolvedinin-tensedebatesaboutbestmanagementpracticesforelkandmuledeeronpubliclands.Timberharvest,anexpandingnetworkofforestroads,andrecreationaltrafficontheseroadswerethoughttoaffectelkanddeer,butpeoplearguedaboutexactlywhatthoseeffectswere,withlittledefinitiveexperi-mentaldatatobackupopinions.Hunters,ranchers,andwild-lifemanagershadlongdisagreedaboutwhetherornotcattle,deer,andelkcompetedforavailableforageonwesternrange-lands.Finally,elkherdproductivity,asaffectedbyelkpopula-tionmanagementpractices,wasrecognizedasamajorissue.Statewildlifeagenciesregulatedhunting,butagencystaffdidnothavedefinitivesciencebehindtheirregulationsaffectingthenumberofmaturebullelkmaintainedforherdproductiv-ityandelkpopulationgoals.

Inresponsetothesedebates,theStarkeyProjectwasinitiatedinnortheasternOregonattheStarkeyExperimentalForestandRange.Scientistsdesignedandcarriedoutrigorousstudiesatalandscapescaletoevaluatedeerandelkresponsestodominantlandusesonpubliclands.LocatedintheBlueMountainsofnortheasternOregon(seemap),theStarkeyExperimentalFor-estandRangewasdesignatedasaresearchareain1940,andmanystudieshadalreadybeendonethere.Starkeyhasopen

Forests and grasslands at the Starkey Project are typical of much elk and mule deer habitat in western North America.

Fra

nk V

anni

�

Purpose of PNW Science Update

The purpose of the PNW Science Update is to contribute scientific knowledge for pressing decisions about natural resource and environmental issues.

PNW Science Update is published several times a year by:

Pacific Northwest Research Station USDA Forest Service P.O. Box 3890 Portland, Oregon 97208 (503) 808-2592

Our mission is to generate and communicate scientific knowledge that helps people understand and make informed choices about people, natural resources, and the environment.

Valerie Rapp, writer and editor vrapp@fs.fed.us

Send change of address information to pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

standsofponderosapinealongwithmixed-coniferstandsofvaryingdensities,intermingledwithnaturalgrasslandopenings.

TheoriginalchampionoftheStarkeyProjectwasJackWardThomas,wholedtheprojectfrom1982–93.HewentontobeForestServiceChieffrom1993to1996andBooneandCrock-ettProfessorattheUniversityofMontanafrom1996through2005.LarryBryant,PNWResearchStation,andDonavinLeckenby,ODFW,workedcloselyanddiligentlywithThomastoturnthevisionofacontrolled,landscape-scalestudyonwildanddomesticungulates(hoofedmammals)intoareality.

“TheresearchdoneatStarkeywas,andstillis,designedtoanswermanagementquestions,”explainsMartyVavra,teamleaderandsupervisoryrangelandscientistlocatedatPNWResearchStation’sLaGrandeForestryandRangeSciencesLaboratory.“TheStarkeyresearchisrelevantWest-wideforthemanagementofelk,muledeer,cattle,forests,andrangelands.”

Acontrolledstudymeantbuildinganenclosurethatwouldholdwildelk,animalsthatcaneasilyjumphighfencesandbreakthroughordinaryfences,andalandscape-scalestudymeantenclosingalargearea.TheStarkeyProjectincludes25,000acres(almost40squaremiles)enclosedbyagame-prooffence.“Thebigfence”wasbuiltin1987andconsistsof8-foot-highwovenwire.Moregame-prooffencingfurtherdividestheprojectareaintofourstudyareas:themainstudy

Starkey Game Fence

2105

2120

Headquarters

W A L L O W A - W H I T M A N

N A T I O N A L F O R E S T

Starkey

?

Cow Camp Q

SBally

Mountain

Starkey Game Fence

I-84

1395

244

Ukiah

Pendleton

LaGrande

Me a d o w C r e e k

La Grande—

28 miles

k

EXIT 252

PORTLAND

o

Wallowa-WhitmanNationalForest

Starkey Experimental Forest and Range

0 1 2

Miles244

2105

2120

The Starkey Project is a one-of-a-kind research facility, located in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon. Starkey is the primary field location for scientific study of the effects of deer, elk, and cattle in managed ecosystems.

area(19,180acres),CampbellFlatpasture(1,537acres),thenortheaststudyarea(3,590acres)subdividedintotwopastures,andthewinterfeedingandhandlingarea(655acres).Withthecompletionoftheradio-telemetrysystemin1989,theprojectbecamefullyoperational.

Thebigfenceenclosesabout500elkand250muledeeryearround,and550cow-calflivestockpairsduringsummer.Theenclosureislargerthanthesummerhomerangeofmostdeerandelk,withanimalslivingunderconditionssimilartowild,free-rangingherds.Largepredators,includingcougar,blackbear,andcoyote,areabletogoeitheroverorunderthebigfenceandarepartoftheecosystem,justastheywouldbeout-sideStarkey.ElkanddeeratStarkeyarewild,huntedanimalsthatarehandledbrieflyinwinterfeedingareasbutarenotacclimatedtohumans.

“Allstudiesarespring,summer,andfallrangeinvestigations,”explainsMikeWisdom,researchwildlifebiologistwiththeStarkeyProject,alsoattheLaGrandeLaboratory.Duringwinter,mostelkmovetothewinterfeedingandhandlingarea.Mostdeerspendwinterintheforestandarefedhaywhentheymoveintothewinterhandlingarea.Thewinterfeedingevensouteffectsofwinterweatheronanimalbodycondition,thusreducinganyconfoundingeffectsthatvariationinwinterseveritymaycauseonelkordeernutritionalcondition.

Movementsofover150elk,deer,andcattlearemonitoredannuallywithradiocollars.Thetelemetrysystemusedforthe

Kei

th R

outm

an

�

project’sfirst10years,aLORAN-Csystem,isbeingphasedout,asreplacementpartsareimpossibletoobtain.Thenewsystem,installedin2005andexpectedtobefullyoperationalin2006,isbasedonaglobalpositioningsystem(GPS).TheGPSprovidesanimallocationsasfrequentlyaseveryfewsec-ondswith1-to2-yardaccuracy,anditrunscontinuouslyfor24hoursaday,9monthseachyear,withlittlemaintenance.Itallowsreal-timemonitoringoftheanimalsaswellashumanactivitiesinrelationtotheanimals.Thetelemetrysystemshavegivenscientiststhelargest,mostaccuratesetofanimallocationsevercollectedonungulatesintheworld.

Huntingalsoisakeytoolusedintheresearch.Controlled,publichuntsofdeerandelkareadministeredbyODFW.Hunt-ingputsthedeerandelkunderthesametypesofpressuresthatexistoutsideStarkeyandhelpscontrolpopulationlevelsinlinewithgoalstosustainhabitatsandanimalnumbers.

FourmajorthemeswereidentifiedfortheStarkeyProject’sfirstdecadeofresearch:(1)roadsandtraffic,(2)timberpro-ductionandthermalcover,(3)competitionwithcattle,and(4)breedingefficiencyofmaleelk.DefinitiveresultsfromtheStarkeyProject’sfirstdecade(1989–99)havegivenmanagersdefensibleoptionsformanagingroads,timbermanagement,andrangeallotments,inrelationtoungulates.Thesefindingsarecommonlyusedbystate,private,andfederalresourcemanagersacrosswesternNorthAmerica.

How does traffic on forest roads affect elk, deer, and cattle?Thousandsofmilesofforestroadswerebuiltonpubliclandsfromthe1960sthroughthe1980sfortimberharvest,buttheeffectsonelkwereuncertainandhighlydebated.Peoplehadlongnoticedthatelkavoidedroadsusedbycarsandtrucksinmanagedforestswhereelkarehunted,butawidelyusedelk-roaddensitymodelhadnotbeenthoroughlytested.

Totesttheroaddensitymodel,scientistsstartedtheroadman-agementstudyinStarkey’smainstudyareain1989.Over70trafficcounterswereinstalledthroughoutthearea,andtraffic

wasmonitoredfromMaythroughDecembereveryyear.Thestudyareahadabout2.5milesofopenroadpersquaremile,withopenroadsspanningmanyenvironmentalconditions.Otherroadsinthestudyareawereclosed.

When elk were unable to avoid roads and trails, subsequent studies showed that ani-

mals increased their movement rates, which can increase energy expenditures.

Afterseveralyears,theresultwasasetofcompellingfindingsaboutdeerandelkresponsestoroadsandtraffic.Scientistsfoundthatcattleshowednoparticularreactiontoopenroads,neitheravoidingthemnorchoosingtostaynearthem.

Elk,however,werestronglyinfluencedbyopenroads.“Femaleelkconsistentlyselectedareasawayfromopenroadsinbothspringandsummer,”Wisdomsays.Elkresponsewasaffectedbytrafficrates,amountofforestcovernearroads,andthetypeofroad(whichrelatedtotrafficrates).Oncetheelkwerefartherawayfromroads,theyweremoreinfluencedbyotherfactorssuchasconditionsaffectingforage.

Thecontrolledstudyareaallowedscientiststokeepelkinareaswithhigherroaddensities.Whenelkwereunabletoavoidroadsandtrails,subsequentstudiesshowedthatanimals

The new global positioning system technology (elk on right) offers greater accuracy and more options for sampling designs than the original LORAN-C system (elk on left) now being phased out.

Automatic traffic counters throughout the main study area tallied how many vehicles passed and when. Traffic data could be correlated with telemetry data, showing how animals responded to the traffic.

Les

lie

Nay

lor

Fra

nk V

anni

�

increasedtheirmovementrates,whichcanincreaseenergyexpenditures.Highermovementratescouldthusreducetheanimals’fatreservesandunderminegeneralanimalconditionandwintersurvival.

Muledeerbehaviorseemedtobeaffectedmorebyelkthanbyroads.“Muledeertendedtoavoidelk,”Vavraexplains,“andsothedeeroftenusedareasnearroads.”Thatis,muledeeraremorelikelytouseareasleastusedbyelk,whichmeansdeerendupinareasnearroadswiththemosttraffic.

Theseresultssupportmanagementofroadaccessaspartofelkmanagement.Studyresultswereincorporatedintoamodelthatcouldbeusedbymanagers;themodelusesdistancebands328feetwideasabasisforcalculatingdisturbancetoelkfromroads.Theresearchhadshownthatdistancebandsweremoreaccurateforestimatingdisturbancetoelkthanroaddensityalone.

StatewildlifeandfederallandmanagersthroughoutwesternNorthAmericausethesemodelstomanageroadaccessonpubliclands,andthefindingswereusedindevelopingthenationalForestServiceroadmanagementpolicy.TheStarkeystudiesofroadsandelkcontributedtotheemergingdisciplineofroadecology,whichisthestudyoftheeffectsofroadsonwildlife,plants,andwatersheds.

How does intensive forest manage-ment affect elk, deer, and cattle?Inthelasthalfofthe20thcentury,timberharvestinfederalforestsincreased,affectingmuchelkhabitatintheWesternUnitedStates,butmanagershadlimitedknowledgeaboutthespecificeffects.Partofthecontroversyfocusedoneffectsoftimberharvestactivitiesandresultantchangesinforageandcoverconditions,versuseffectsfromincreaseddisturbanceofpeopleandtrafficfollowingestablishmentofnewroadsneededforlogging.

Starkeywastheidealplacetocarryoutcontrolledstudiesthatisolatedthesefactors.Cattleandelkresponsestointen-sivetimbermanagementwerestudiedinStarkey’s3,590-acre

Cattle used roads for travel routes, and they preferred grasses to other forage plants.

Although elk avoided active logging operations, they were attracted to harvest units a year or two later when new grasses and forage sprouted.

northeaststudyarea.Telemetrydatawerecollectedin1989–91beforetimberharvest,toestablishabaseline,andcollectioncontinuedduringlogging(1992)andthroughoutthepostlog-gingsitepreparation,treeplanting,andtreestockingsurveysfrom1993through1996.GrandfirandDouglas-firwerehar-vestedfrom1,207acresofthe3,590-acrestudyarea,orabout50percentofthearea,butinapatchworkpatternofharvestunitsrangingfrom3to55acreseach.Unitsweredispersedsonolargeareasofescapecoverremained,anddensecoverwasdeliberatelynotmaintained.About24milesofnewroadswerebuilt,inadditionto10milesofexistingroads.Theareawasclosedtopublicaccessexceptduringhuntingseasons,andhunterswereallowedentryforhuntingpurposesonly(nocampsallowed).

Timberharvestandroadtraffichadlittlemeasurableeffectoncattle.Elk,however,avoidedtheshort-termdisturbanceoftheloggingactivityitself,butelkdidnotavoidtheharvestunitsorthelog-haulingroadsduringandaftertimberharvest.Ingeneral,theelkpopulationbecamemoredispersedduringandafterthetimberharvest,suggestingthattheelkweremovingfartheroverlargerareastomeettheirneeds.

Afterthetimberharvestandsitepreparationactivitieswerefinished,cattleusedthetimberharvestunitsasnewgrazingareas,anddomesticcowsandcalvesinthestudyareahadhigherweightgainsthancowsandcalvesinthemainstudyarea.Annualweightgainsforelkaftertimberharvestweresimilartoannualweightgainsforelkbeforeharvest.Averageannualweightgainvariedconsiderablyfromoneyeartothenextforcattleandelkinbothstudyareas,butthesevariationscorrelatedmostcloselywithsummerrainordrought,andtheweather’seffectsonforagegrowthandquality.

Althoughelkandcattleproductivitywasnotnegativelyaf-fectedbytimberharvest,thevulnerabilityofelktohuntingincreasedsubstantially.Theopenlandscapeafterloggingmadeelkmorevisible,andthenewroadsgavehuntersbetteraccess.Huntersuccessimprovedsignificantlyduringandaftertimberharvest,eventhoughelkperformance(weightgain,generalbodycondition)hadnotchanged.

Cou

rtes

y St

arke

y P

roje

ct

D. J

ohns

on

�

animalperformancecomparedtohomogeneousstandsofther-malcover.Otherstudiessuggestthatelkuseofdensecoverisrelatedmoretoprotectionandsecurityneeds,especiallydur-inghuntingseasons.Thefindingshelpedresolvecontentiouslitigationoverthermalcoverstandardsonnationalforests.Managementdirectionforthermalcoverhasbeenchangedinmanyplaces.

Thewidelyusedanimalequivalencyformulaswerebasedonthesecondhypothesisaboutforagecompetition.Scientistsrealizedthattheformulascouldbecorrectonlyifthediffer-entspecieswereinthesameplaceatthesametime,eatingthesameplants,anassumptionthathadneverbeenrigorouslytested.

Timber harvest may have the strongest and most enduring effects

on elk vulnerability to hunting.

Elk, mule deer, and domestic cattle have different foraging ecologies.

The three species select and use habitats differently, and they strongly

partition their use of habitats.

“Timberharvestmayhavethestrongestandmostenduringeffectsonelkvulnerabilitytohunting,”Wisdomcomments.Toreduceelkvulnerability,managershaveseveraloptions,includingtimbersaledesignsthatincludesecurityareasforelkinthelandscapedesignandrestrictedhunteraccessuntilhid-ingcovergrowsback.Hidingcoverisrelatedtobutdifferentfromtheconceptofthermalcover,anotherissuethatStarkeyscientistsstudied.

Otherstudieshaveshownthattheflushofincreasedforageaftertimberharvestmaylast10yearsorlonger,butforagewilllikelydeclineasyoungtreesshadethegroundagain.Thus,considerationoffindingsfromthesestudies,combinedwithresultsfromthetimbermanagementstudy,suggeststhatanoptimaltimberharvestscheduleforelkisonethatmain-tainsavarietyofforagingconditionsinawatershedovertime.Importantly,theloggingschedulewouldbecombinedwitheffectivemanagementofelksecurityandhumanaccesstomeetgoalsforelkhuntingandanimalnumbers.

Do elk, deer, and cattle use habitat differently?Inthe1980sforestmanagershadtwoworkinghypothesesrelatedtoelkanddeermanagement.Thefirstwasthethermalcoverhypothesis,whichsaidthatelkanddeerneededdenseforestcovertostaywarmincold,windywinterweatherandtostaycoolinsummerheat.Thesecondwastheanimalequiva-lencyhypothesis,whichassumedthatmuledeer,elk,cattle,andsheepcompeteddirectlyforforage;underthishypothesis,animalforageamountsandequivalencyformulasbasedonspeciesandbodyweightwerebeingusedingrazingmanage-mentplans.Neitherhypothesishadbeenrigorouslytested,andtheshortageofharddatashowedhowlittlewasknownaboutelkanddeerinrelationtomanagementofcoverandlivestockgrazing.

Peopleknewthatelksoughtdenseforestcover,andthether-malcoverhypothesisattemptedtoanswerwhytheelkuseddenseforests.ThedefinitivestudyonelkandthermalcoverwasdoneatKamela,Oregon,about30milesnortheastofStarkey,andwasconductedbyJohnCook,NationalCouncilforAirandStreamImprovement,incollaborationwiththeStarkeyProject.Thenutritionalconditionofelkwasmonitoredunderfourtreatments:densethermalcover,moderatelydensethermalcover,nocover,andacombinationofnocoverandthermalcover.Thisstudywasconductedinverycontrolledconditionsrelyingonbottle-raisedelkmaintainedinpens,sotheeffectsofcovercouldbeisolatedfromotherfactors.

Resultsshowednopositivebenefitsfromthermalcover—infact,highlevelsofcoverhadanegativeeffect.Instead,amixofopen-andclosed-canopyhabitatsresultedinsuperior

Thelong-termanimalunitequivalencystudy,ledbyBruceJohnsonandotherODFWstaff,wasconductedinStarkey’smainstudyarea.Overanumberofyears,scientistsevaluateddistributions,forageselectionpatterns,andinteractionsofelk,deer,andcattleundervariouscattlerotations.Again,newfind-ingsemergedwithsignificantimplicationsformanagement.

Elk,muledeer,anddomesticcattlehavedifferentforagingecologies.Thethreespeciesselectandusehabitatsdifferently,andtheystronglypartitiontheiruseofhabitats,particularlybyelevation,slopesteepness,andaspect.Cattlearehabitatgener-alists,andelkavoidareaswherecattleareconcentrated.

“Elkjustdon’twanttohangoutwithcows,”Vavraremarks,“andmuledeerareintimidatedbyelk.”Elkuselowelevationsifnocattlearethere,butmovetohigherelevationswhencattlearemovedontolow-elevationrange,showingthatcattlecandisplaceelk.

Thethreespeciesalsohavedifferentforagepreferences,eachspecieswithadistinctivedietarynichethatvariesbyseason.“Dietsofcattle,muledeer,andelkareverydifferentduringearlysummer,”Wisdomcomments.“Cattledietshavemoregrasses,deerdietshavemoreshrubsandforbs,andelkdietsareinbetweenthoseofcattleanddeer.”Thedietsofthethreeungulatesbecameincreasinglysimilarduringlatesum-mer,whenforagebiomassandqualitydeclinedwithsummerdrought,suggestingincreasedpotentialforcompetitioninlatesummer.

Scientistsusedtheresultstodevelopanewforageallocationmodelforuseinallotmentplanning.Rangelandmanagerscanusethemodeltoevaluatetradeoffsandbenefitsofdifferentgrazingmanagementscenariosonsummerrangessharedbycattle,muledeer,andelk.

�

Does the loss of older bull elk affect elk reproduction?Huntersliketotakehomebullelkwithlarge,branchedantlers,whicharetheoldermales.BeforetheStarkeyProject,moststatehuntingregulationsallowedunrestrictedkillofbulls,andwithhunterpreferencesforbranched-antlerbulls,mostmaleelkwereharvestedbeforetheybecamefullymature.Ingen-eral,mostbullspresentduringthefallbreedingperiodwerelessthan2yearsoldandoftenwereyearlingmaleswithspikeantlers.Wildlifemanagerswereconcernedthathealthy,olderbulls,whichtendtodominateelkherds,werebeingremovedprematurelyfromtheherds,withnegativeeffectsonherdstructureandelkreproduction.Restrictionsonthenumberofmaturebullstakeninhuntingseasoncouldbeunpopularwithhunters,andstateagenciesneededrigorousdatabeforechang-ingtheirregulations,iftheyweretohavehuntersupportandcooperation.

Theresearchonbreedingbulls,ledbyODFW,wasconductedinStarkey’smainstudyarea.From1989to1993,breedingmaleelkwereallowedtoincreaseinage,beginningas1.5-year-old(yearling)bullsin1989.Duringeachofthese5years,thissinglecohortofmaleelkfunctionedastheonlybreedingbullsinthestudypopulation.Theexperimentwasrepeatedagainfrom1995to1999.

Asthebullsgrewolder,conceptiondatesinthefemaleelkbecameprogressivelyearlierandsynchronous(inthesametimeperiod)duringthefallrut.Breedingbyyearling(1.5-year-old)bullsresultedinthelatestdatesofconceptionand

Elk avoided cattle, and mule deer avoided elk, leaving the deer with fewer choices for grazing areas.

Older bull elk succeeded in breeding female elk earlier in the fall rut, leading to earlier elk calf births and better calf survival in the spring.

Older, branched bulls are prized by hunters, but play an important role in elk herd productivity. Starkey research influenced state game regulations on bull elk harvest in Western States.

G. Z

ahm

John

Kie

Fra

nk V

anni

�

mostvariationinconceptiondates;breedingbymature(5.5-year-old)bullsresultedintheearliestdatesofconception.Asconceptiondatesbecameearlier,theelkcalveswerebornearliereachspring,givingindividualcalvesmoretimetogainweightbeforetheirfirstwinter.Calveswereborninamorecompressedtimeperiod,whichmayreducetheirsusceptibilitytopredationduringearlylife.

Afterthebreedingbullstudyshowedthatolderbullelkaremoreefficientbreeders,withsurvivalbenefitsforelkcalves,manyWesternStatesandprovincesthroughoutwesternNorthAmericamodifiedtheirhuntingregulationstoprotectoldermaleelkfromhunters.Theprotectionofolderbullsisnowoneofseveralmanagementstrategiesforimprovingthesurvivalofelkcalves.

PartnershipsMostmajorecologicalresearchprojectsarecollaborationsamongseveralpartners,buttheStarkeyProjecthasmorepartnersthanmost.Starkey’sexpensiveinfrastructure—thebigfence,radio-telemetrysystem,winterhandlingfacili-ties—andtherequirementsformaintenance,datamanage-ment,andanimalhandling—relyonmultiplesourcesoffunding.

Themanypartnershipsalsocontributetostrongowner-shipintheresults.Agenciesthatareinvolvedhaveabetterunderstandingofthevalidityoftheresearchandaremorelikelytousethefindings.

TheStarkeyProjectisconductedjointlybytheUSDAForestServicePacificNorthwest(PNW)ResearchStationandtheOregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife(ODFW).Thestateagencyhasbeenafullpartnersincethebegin-ning,contributingfundsandstafftime.FourODFWstaffworkfulltimeonStarkey,ledbyBruceJohnson,long-timeStarkeyProjectleaderforODFW.Onthefirstfourstudies,theForestServicetooktheleadontheroadsandtimberstudies,andODFWtooktheleadontheforageandbreed-ingbullstudies.

StarkeyandallitsactivitiesareadministeredcooperativelybyPNWResearchStationandLaGrandeRangerDistrict,partoftheWallowa-WhitmanNationalForest.“TheWallowa-WhitmanNationalForestprovidedfundsfortheoriginalfenceandmuchoftheroadmanagementandtrafficmonitoringforthefirst10years,”Vavrasays.“TheForestServiceatalllevels—national,PacificNorthwestRegion,Wallowa-WhitmanNationalForest,andLaGrandeRangerDistrict,andPNWResearchStation—hassupportedStarkey.”

Wisdomadds,“We’vehadstrongsupportfromhuntersandtheRockyMountainElkFoundation.OtherpartnerswhohavebeenessentialincludeBoiseCascadeCorporation,NationalCouncilforAirandStreamImprovement(NCASI),andtheEasternOregonAgriculturalResearchCenterofOregonStateUniversity.”BoiseCascadeCorporationdidthetimberharvestthatwasneededasanexperimentaltreatmentfortheintensivetimbermanagementstudy,andthecompanyhasbeenanongoingresearchpartner.

FundingisprovidedbytheUSDAForestService,ODFW,theRockyMountainElkFoundation,andavarietyofothersources.ResearchpartnershipsoccurwithBoiseCascadeCorporation,NCASI,OregonStateUniversity,theUniver-sityofAlaskaFairbanks,UniversityofIdaho,UniversityofMontana,PurdueUniversity,andotherorganizations.Intotal,over40partners,includingfederalandstateagencies,universities,tribalnations,andprivateorganizations,haveparticipatedintheproject.

Gettingtheresultsouttomanagers,hunters,andotherin-terestedpeoplehasalwaysbeenavitalpartoftheStarkeyProject.TheStarkeystaffhostmanyfieldtoursandeduca-tionalworkshopsforhundredsofpeople,includingagencystaff,professionalsocieties,tribalforesters,Congressionalstaff,internationalvisitors,andcollegestudents.Amajorsymposiumin2004emphasizedhowthefindingsrelatetolandandresourcepoliciesandmanagement.

Many partners contribute to the success of the Starkey Project. A crew works on the game-proof fence that separates study areas.

Fra

nk V

anni

�

The Starkey Project in the 21st CenturyStarkey’soriginalresearch,completedinthe1990s,hasbeenthecatalystfornewstudiesunderwayintheproject’sfirstdecadeinthe21stcentury.“Thenewstudiesforthenext10yearsareanevolutionoftheoriginalstudyquestions,”Wisdomexplains.

Additional StudiesAsStarkeyProjectinvestigatorscompletedtheirinitialstudiesduringthe1990s,theyusedtheproject’sresearchtechnologiestostudyseveralemergingresourceissuesinpubliclandmanagement.Newresearchcompletedorunderwayincludesthefollowingstudies.

• Effectsoffueltreatmentsonthedistributionsofandforageconditionsformuledeer,elk,andcattle.

• Deerandelkresponsestooff-roadrecreation,includ-ingtravelbyall-terrainvehicles,horseback,mountainbike,andfoot.

• Developmentandtestingofnewroadmodelsforelkmanagement.

• Evaluationofelksightabilitymodelstoimprovemethodsofpopulationestimation.

• Synthesisandmodelingoffactorsthataffectelkvulnerabilitytoharvestbyhunters.

• Energycostsfordeerandelkexposedtodifferinglevelsofhuntingpressureandhuntingseasondesigns.

• Hourly,daily,andseasonalchangesinmovementsandhabitatusebymuledeerandelk,measuredatfineres-olutionwithoneofthelargestungulatedatasetseveramassed.

• Effectsofsamplingdesignonresourceselectionandhomerangeestimatorsforwildliferesearch.

• Explorationanduseofdiffusiontheorytomodelanimalmovements.

• Considerationofnutritionaldemandsandanimalconditiontoenhanceelkproductivity.

• Effectsofungulateherbivory(grazingandbrowsing)onvegetationdevelopmentandecosystemprocesses.

• Validationofelkresourceselectionpatternstostrengtheninferencespaceformanagement.

Theseandotherfollow-onstudieshaveyieldedadditionalbenefitstomanagers,andresultsarenowavailableinavarietyofscientificpublications.

reductionthanonstandardcommercialharvest.”SostudiesareunderwayatStarkeyonhowfueltreatmentssuchasthinningandprescribedfireaffectelk,deer,andcattle.

UngulategrazingandbrowsingisprobablyanecologicalforceinwesternNorthAmericabut,Vavrapointsout,“Wedon’tknowtheeffectsofdifferentlevelsofgrazingbycattleandelkonplantsuccession,soilnutrients,biodiversity,andungulatenutrition,asmeasuredoverlongperiods,suchas10yearsormore.”

New studies at Starkey are examining how popular forms of recreation affect elk.

Studies are underway at Starkey on how fuel treatments such as thinning and

prescribed fire affect elk, deer, and cattle.

Wisdomcontinues,“Inthe1990s,wedocumentedtheeffectsofroadsandtrafficonelk.Thefollow-onquestionsareabouttheeffectsofoff-roadrecreationonelkandmuledeer.”Theoff-roadrecreationstudy,whichbeganin2002andwasfundedbytheOregonDepartmentofParksandRecreation,comparestheeffectsoffourtypicaloff-roadrecreationactivities—all-terrainvehicles,hiking,mountainbikeriding,andhorsebackriding—onelkanddeer.Animalresponsesarebeingmeas-uredintermsofhowfarelkanddeermoveandhowmuchenergytheyexpendbefore,during,andaftertheoff-roadrecreationactivity.Eventually,theresultsshouldbeusefulinmanagingrecreationonnationalforestlands.

Asfarastimbermanagement,Vavraexplains,“Weexpectthatinthenext10years,managerswillbefocusingmoreonfuel

D. J

ohns

on

10

Forexample,it’swellknownthatelkanddeerareattractedtotheflushofgreenvegetationinrecentlydisturbedareas,suchasafterfireorlogging,andthustheirherbivoryislikelytoin-fluencethecompositionofthedevelopingplantcommunities.Littleisunderstood,however,abouthowungulateherbivorymayeventuallyaffectthestructure,composition,andproduc-tivityofentireforestandrangelandecosystems.Herbivorymightinfluencesuccessionaltrajectoriesafterwildfiresorfueltreatmentsorbeafactorinthespreadofinvasiveplants,butscientistshavelimitedknowledgeaboutwhathappens.NewstudiesatStarkeyareaimedatgainingabetterunderstandingofhowalltheseecologicalforcesinteracttoaffectbiologicaldiversityinforestecosystems.

Newquestionsarecomingupaboutelkandmuledeerproduc-tivity.BiggamesurveysinmanyWesternStatesareshowingdecliningproductivityinelkandmuledeerpopulations,adisturbingtrendthatissofarunexplained.TheStarkeyscien-tistsandpartnersandlandmanagershaveacommoninterestinunderstandinghowwellelkanddeerwillfareintheforestsandrangelandsofthe21stcentury,andnewstudiesarebeingdiscussedtoaddresstheseissues.

“TheenclosuresatStarkeyallowustomanipulateelk,deer,andcattlenumbersfornewresearchtoevaluatethesespecies’

productivityinrelationtochangesintheirdensityandunderdifferentcattlegrazingsystems,”saysWisdom.“Wearediscussingwaystodesignnewstudiestoevaluatethesefactorsinrelationtoungulateproductivity.”Again,theStarkeyenclosures,someofthelargesteverconstructedforresearch,continuetoprovideamechanismforconductinglandscape-scaleexperimentspreviouslynotthoughtpossible.CombinedwithanewGPStelemetrysystemandamyriadofessentialsupporttechnologies,thefutureoftheStarkeyfacilityforungulateresearchappearsbright.

“WeexpectthatresultsfromongoingstudiesatStarkeywillcontinuetobeusedtomodifypolicies,managementstandardsandguidelines,huntingregulations,andtimbersaleplanningthroughoutwesternNorthAmerica,”saysVavra.“Wewillcontinuetorespondtomanagementneedsfornewknowledgeabouttheroleofelk,muledeer,andcattleinmanagedforests,andtodesignresearchaccordingly.”Combinedwithanon-goingtechnologytransferprogramtoshareresultsefficientlywithmanagers,andinformseasilyunderstoodformanage-mentapplications,theStarkeyProjectappearslikelytocon-tinueitsroleasanimportantproviderofscientificknowledgeaboutungulatemanagementwellintothefuture.

Mik

e W

isdo

m

Starkey scientists share research results with others. Over 200,000 people have toured Starkey or heard a presentation. Even more have read reports and articles about research results.

11

Credits:Communications and applications director — Cynthia L. MinerWriter and editor — Valerie RappArt director — Frank VanniLayout — Pilar Reichlein

ContactsMartyVavra,mvavra@fs.fed.us,ManagingDisturbanceRegimesProgram,PNWResearchStation.

BruceK.Johnson,johnsobd@eou.edu,StarkeyProjectLeader,OregonDepartmentofFishandWildlife.

MichaelWisdom,mwisdom@fs.fed.us,ManagingDisturbanceRegimesProgram,PNWResearchStation.

For Further ReadingCoe,P.K.;Johnson,B.K.;Kern,S.L.;Findholt,S.L.;Kie,J.G.;Wisdom,M.J.2001.Responsesofelkandmuledeertocattleinsummer.JournalofRangeManagement.54:205,A51–A76.

Cook,J.G.;Irwin,L.L.;Bryant,L.D.;Riggs,R.A.;Thomas,J.W.1998.Relationsofforestcoverandconditionofelk:Atestofthethermalcoverhypothesisinsummerandwinter.Wild-lifeMonograph.141:1–61.

Johnson,B.K.;Kern,J.W.;Wisdom,M.J.;Findholt,S.L.;Kie,J.G.2000.Resourceselectionandspatialseparationofmuledeerandelkinspring.JournalofWildlifeManagement.64:685–697.

Noyes,J.H.;Johnson,B.K.;Dick,B.L.;Kie,J.G.2002.Effectsofmaleageandfemalenutritionalconditiononelkreproduc-tion.JournalofWildlifeManagement.66:1301–1307.

Rowland,M.M.;Bryant,L.D.;Johnson,B.K;Noyes,J.H.;Wisdom,M.J.;Thomas,J.W.1997.TheStarkeyproject:his-tory,facilities,anddatacollectionmethodsforungulatere-search.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-396.Portland,OR:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.62p.

Rowland,M.M.;Wisdom,M.J.;Johnson,B.K.;Kie,J.G.2000.Elkdistributionandmodelinginrelationtoroads.JournalofWildlifeManagement.64(3):672–684.

Skovlin,J.M.1991.Fiftyyearsofresearchprogress:ahistori-caldocumentontheStarkeyExperimentalForestandRange.Gen.Tech.Rep.PNW-GTR-266.Portland,OR:U.S.Depart-mentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation.58p.

Wisdom,M.J.,tech.ed.2005.TheStarkeyProject:asynthesisoflong-termstudiesofelkandmuledeer.Lawrence,KS:AllianceCommunicationsGroup.252p.

Resources on the WebTheStarkeyProject.DetailedinformationabouttheStarkeyProject,includingcurrentstudies,photogallery,data,andpublications.http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/starkey/.(1December2005)

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,PacificNorth-westResearchStation.InformationaboutalltheStation’sre-searchandaccesstoallStationpublications.http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw.(1December2005)

Got Science?Getthelatestscienceandmanagementstrategiesonnaturalresourceissuesatupcomingconferences,cosponsoredbytheUSDAForestServicePacificNorthwestResearchStation.

PNW Science UpdateU.S. Department

of AgriculturePacific Northwest Research Station

��� SW First Avenue P.O. Box ���0

Portland, OR ���0�-���0Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $�00

PRSRT STDUS POSTAGE

PAIDPORTlAND OR

PERMIT NO. G-�0

Managing for Biological Diversity in northwest Forests: Strategies and opportunities

June5–7,2006 RedLionHotelontheRiver,Portland,Oregon

Formoreinformation:http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/about/programs/fsd/biodiversity.shtml

ThisconferencewillreviewimportantconceptsanddemonstratetoolsformanagingPacificNorthwestforestsforbiologicaldiversity.Focusisonconservingbiodiversitywhilebalancingmanagementgoals.

advances in threat assessment and their application to Forest and rangeland Management

July18–20,2006MillenniumHarvestHouse,Boulder,Colorado

Formoreinformation:http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/encyclopedia/threats

This3-dayconferencewillexplorethelatestinforma-tionontheassessmentandmanagementofenviron-mentalthreats,includinginvasivespecies,insects,diseases,uncharacteristicfire,severeweather,climatechange,andwildlandloss.

More information coming in june Science Update on this conference:

Forest land conversion and forest conservation strategies

Fall2006Bend,OregonExactdaysandsitetobedetermined

ThisconferencewillexploreratesofdevelopmentinPacificNorthwestforestsanddefinitionsofforestlandconversion,highlightsuccessfulforestconservationstrategies,andprovideon-the-groundconservationtools.