This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Do We Kn.o\v EIIOtt.gll to Manage Subalpine
Wildlife Ilabitats? -- It All Depends
Jack Ward Thomas 1
Ab·stract.--Subalpine ecosystems In the west have ' been largely
Immune from management action save grazing and recreation manage~
ment. This situation has changed as access to such areas has Improved
and perceived demands for products of water, wood, wildlife, forage, and
recreation have increased. Very little ecological research has been con~
ducted in this ecosystem compared to lower elevation systems. Management of these areas, however, seems unlikely to be deterred by this relative
paucity of detailed Imowledge of ecosystem function. The political decision is to proceed with manipulation of these ecosystems and it is essential
to brin{1 the best Imowledge available to bear on the issue and to proceed
post haste with intensified research in the areas where knowledge is most
critical and most lacking.
The question--do we know enough to manage subalpine
wildlife habitats~~shouid be expanded to include the adequacy
of our knowledge to manage subalpine ecosystems for any
purpose. ~Thether that management is labeled forest, watershed, wildlife habitat, or something else matters little. It se·e·ms
that the time for management of subalpine ecosystems has
come. These ecosystems have been largely excused from all
but grazing and recreation management in the past because of
their high elevation; relative.!y low annual biomass production;
better, more abundant similar resources at lower elevation on
more gentle terrain; lower demands for the resources available
from such land, and--most of all--the lack of access for people
and machinery to such areas.
Inexorably, these circumstances have change.d and the
opportunity and an increasing likelihood for management
(i.e., manipulation) now exists. If past is indeed prologue,
opportunity equates, sooner or later, to management to some
degree for some purpose. Remember the cry of the seekers in
the children's game of hide and seek when the count down was
finished? "Here we come! Ready or not!" Just when we know
enough to manage lies like beauty, in the eye and mind of the
beholder.
As knowledge is never perfect nor complete nor adequately synthesized, there is risk in any land management
action of damaging the ecosystem involved-··perhaps irretrievably. There seems to be an array of interest groups when
it comes to how much such risk is acceptable when breaking
1Chief Research Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station, La Grande, Oregon.
123
new ground in forest management. Those groups with the most
to gain seem the most willing to take risks, and those with the
most to lose are the least willing to risk much. Scientists, of
course, are the most conservative. of all, for two reasons. First,
they probably perceive more complexity and unknowns in
forest management than others. And second, they are more
aware of just how unlikely it is that ecosystem response to
management actions can be accurately predicted over the long
run due to the cumulative effects of one manageme.nt action
after another after another over a prolonged period. The
question of cumulative effects of management looms like a
specter i.n the fog-~not clearly discernable, but none-the-less
formidable, and enough to instill a profound sense of cauti.on.
A quick perusal of the lite.rature suggests that we know
much less about ecosystem function--certainly about wildlife
habitat--in the subalpine areas of the West than we do about
lower elevation ecosystems. This is probably due to the same
reasons, mentioned earlier, that we are just now moving to
management of such areas. There is one other reason--support
for research in the subalpine ecosystems has been sparse.
Research activities in ecosystem function and forest biology
have been concentrated on lower elevation ecosystems where
land management manipulations have been more fully implemented, problems have clearly emerged, and there is demand
for better understanding of the situation.
It is difficult to obtain research support to develop knowledge ahead of the need for such knowledge. However, management action in the absence of adequate knowledge always
either produces problems that need solutions, or creates the
need for more specifics, such as coeffidents to be used in
models--or both! These problems or needs then generate the
required political support for research. That seems generally
the case with sUbalpine ecosystems. There has been inadequate research to minimiz.e risks and maximiz.e predictive
capabilities from results of management acti.on. Yet, the time
for increasing management of subalpine systems seems at
hand.
There are exceptions, fortunately, and the research that
has been conducted on the Frase.r Experimental Forest is one.
The perceived need for increased water supplies for the
developing megalopolis along the foothills of the eastern
Rocky 1\lountain front provided the impetus for research to
determine how to manipulate suba.lpine forests to enha.nce
water flows, or control timing of those flows. The wildlife
researchers who were able to piggy-back wildlife research
studies onto these experimental timber manipulations (see
Crouch, this symposium) should be commended for their
foresight in seeing the ultimate need for such information, and
for their ability and willingness .to exploit the situation.
But, the question still remClins--do we know enough to
manage subalpine wildlife habitats'!--without definitive answer. The answer must be that it all depends on the circumstances. For the wildlife biologist or any other resource
management professional, this is akin to the much-maligned
concept of situational ethics.
Let me illustrate from my own experience. The fir forests
of the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington were hard
hit by an outbreak of Douglas-fir tussock moth during 19711974. It was deemed necessary to salvage timber on large areas
of essentially virgin forests. Four Forest Service forest supervisors asked to meet with me and a grou p of biologists from the
Forest Service and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
They described the impending salvage program, and asked
advice on how the program might be modified to yield the best
possible result in terms of wildlife habitat. As spokesman for
the biologists, I decried the paucity of information available on
wildlife habitat relationshi.ps in the vegetative types concerned, and concluded that the salvage action was premature.
The senior forest supervisor, rather politely, informed me that
they were not asking us for permission to conduct salvage
logging. That decision had been made. They were asking for
help with detemining how the operations would take place. If
we had nothing to contribute, they would proceed considering
advice from other natural resource specialists who did have
something to say.
The biologists called "time out" and went into a huddle.
Given the choice between participating in the design of the
salvage operation and standing aside, we quickly decide.d,
considering the alternatives, that enough was known to manage the affected wildlife habitats. Did we know enough to
manage the wildlife habitats concerned? The answer, obviously, depended on the circumstances. ¥le concluded it would
be far better to combiIle our efforts and put forward the best
synthesis of existing knowledge and experie.nce concerning
wildlife habitats we could, rather than stand aside decrying the
miserable state of knowledge. In the final analysis, after the
salvage operations were complete, the participants were
convinced that wildlife habitat considerations were much
better served than they would have otherwise been.
These initial guidelines for considering wildlife habitats
during the salvage of tussock-moth-damaged timber eventually evolved into Wildlife Habitats in 1\lanaged Forests--the
Blue ]\lo11ntains of Oregon and Washington (Thomas 1979).
This volume presented the available information on the relationship of resident terrestrial vertebrate species to plant
communities and successional stages (or structural conditions), described special habitat features, and presented
habitat modeling information for species to be feature·d in
management. The public.ati.on has subseque.ntly been credited
as a stimulus for the Forest Service's ongoing Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Relationships Program.
Since that time, similar efforts have been completed dealing with western Oregon and ~'ashington (Brown 1985), the
western Sierra Nevada mountains (Verner and Boss 1980),
New England (DeGraaf and Rudis 1986), the Great Basin in
Oregon (Maser and Thomas 1983), and Colorado (Hoover
and ~'il1s 1984) among others less formally publishe.d. A
number of these efforts address, albeit peripherally, the
habitat relationships of wildlife spe.cies resident in SUbalpine
forests. Obviously, then, wildlife biologists do have some
insights into how the impacts of various management actions
in subalpine areas might be predicted and evaluated.
Perhaps the question should be--"Do we know e.nough to
manage subalpine wildlife habitats with a high degree of
confidence?" ~'i.t:h, perhaps, the exception of a few species,
the answer must be a rather emphatic "no." The information
bases on wildlife habitat relationships mentioned e.arlier are a
compilation of information and opinions from a variety of
sources which may not be (1) specific to the subalpine ecosystems in question, or (2) particularly germane to the cate.gorization of the data in the synthesis. Further, all the data and
opinions used in the synthesis have been through the "filters"
of the. compilers of the synthesis, and colored by their training
and experience. In many cases, gaps in existing published
information (which are rdatively large in the case of subalpine
forests compared to lower elevation forests) were fille.d by a
concensus of opinion of the participants in the synthesis
proc.ess.
These synthesis efforts should be considered a beginning
of the process to produce a state of knowledge necessary to
allow management of subalpine habitats with a high degree of
predictability in terms of ecological response. The parl:icipants in these pioneering synthesis efforts are, usually, the first
to insist that these efforts be considered as working hypotheses--places to start, a guide to future research, and a good faith
effort to participate in the unfolding drama of forest management:. The alternative is to be either observers or largely
unheeded critics.
These first efforts at synthesis of forest wi.l.dlife habitat
relationships are· probably weakest when it cmIles to dealing
with subalpine ecosystems. ~'hy? There is much less research
done on wildlife habitat relationships in these forests than in
124
lower elevation forests. This relative paucity of information on
wildlife habitats in subalpine areas--particularly as it relates to
management manipulations of forests--should raise a flag of
caution to managers. This flag of caution should be magnified
in effect whe.n it is considered that subalpine ecosyste.ms in
ge.neral (not just in terms of wildlife habitat), are relatively
poorly understood.
It is obvious, however, that subalpine ecosystems are
relatively fragile--the last transition from forests to the nonforested alpine zones. Such forests exist on re.Iatively thin and
poorly deve.loped soils of low fertHity, and endure severe·
climates and short growing seasons. Subalpine forests are
much less forgiving of a manager's mistakes than the lower
elevation forests that have provided most of our experience
with forest a.nd wildlife. management.
So, we come again to the question--"Do we know enough
to manage subalpine wildlife. habitats?" The answer is "yes"
and "no." \Ve know enough to participate if management of
such habitats is taking place. B~t, managers need to heed the
whisper in their ears that warns tpa.t knowle.dge is not adequate
to pre.dict with confidenc.e, ove·r the long term, the effects of
forest manipulation on most resident wHdlife.
If there see·ms a hi.gh likelihood that subalpine forests of the
mountain V\Test will. be manipulated within the foreseeable
future for whatever purposes, it behooves us to concentrate
more research effort on the entire subalpine forest ecosystem,
not only in the area of wildlife habitat. It is likely that historians
concerned about such things will identify the Frase.r Experi··
mental Forest as a cradle of such efforts. And, I hope they will
say that what occurred up until 1987 was merely the beginning.
125
Literature Cited
Brown, E. R., tech ed.1985. 1\ianagement of wildlife and fish
habitats in forests of western Oregon and \\7ashington.
Part I. Chapter Narratives. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Region. 332 p.
DeGraaf, R. 1\1.; Rudis, D. D. 1986. New England wildlife:
habitat, natural history, and distribution. Gen. Tech. Rep.
NE-l0S. Brooma.ll, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
491p.
Hoover, R. L.; Wills; D. L., eds.1984. Managing forested lands
for wildlife. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of 'Vildlife.
459 p.
Maser, C.; Thomas, J. \\T. 1983. Wildlife habitats in managed
rangelands--the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon-Introduction. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-160. Portland, OR:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwe.st Forest and Ra.nge Experiment Station. 15 p.
Thomas,.T. V.l. ed.1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests-the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agric.
Handb. 553. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 512 p.
Verner, J.; Boss, A. S., tech. coords. 1980. California wildlife
and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada. Gen. Te.ch.
Rep. PSW-37. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 439 p.