ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES in rocky mountain coniferous ...

f n contrast to displaced bears, some individual bears are easi Jy conditioned to
man's presence, and logging activities may not deter bear use for very long near
preferred foraging sites. Conditioning to man is also enhanced by logging camps
where carelessness with food supplies, refuse disposal, pets, and pet food can
attract bears and easily create a "nuisance bear" situation. The unfortunate result
of repeated bear/ man encounters is that the bear loses its shyness and becomes
dangerous (Jcnkel and Servheen 1977). The inevitable consequence is kill ing of the
bear to protect human life or property. Thus, prevention of bearlman encounters is
important.
Studies of several grizzly populations show a strong seasonal use of certain
habitat components: an early spring attraction to avalanche chutes for the vegeta-
tion green-up, and to ungulate wintering areas to feed on dead or dying animals; a
mid- to late-spring attraction to elk calving grounds for carrion or easy prey; a
late spring and early summer use of meadows for succulent herbs; movement to streams
at spawning times; a summer and early fall preference for patches of ripe berries; a
fa1 1 attraction to hunter camps. Recognition of these seasonally specific feeding
sites provides a means of protecting bears and reducing Dear/man encounters by
deferring 1 ogging during periods of bear use.
SLASH TRELTMENT
Following completion of a timber sale, variable amounts of limbs, branches, and
other waste materials remain on the ground. The influence of this slash on big game
use of logged areas has been reported from several areas. Generally, untreated
slash impedes el k movement (Pengel ly 1972; Eeall 1974), especially when windrowed
along roads. Slash within logging units has also been reported as a barrier to elk
use of clearcut openings (Reynolds 1969; Cay 1973; Lyon 1976) and of selectively
logged areas (Beall 1976).
The recommended solution, of course, is some kind of slash treatment lack and
others 1976; Lyon 1976). This treatment can take a number of forms: broadcast
burning or piling and burning, on-site crushing, piling, chipping, or removal from
the site. Regardless of the method, the treatment will have both an immediate
physical effect and an additional long-term influence on vegetal development. Clack
and others (1976) have suggested that windrowed or piled slash might provide some
cover and help break up long sighting distances in openings; and Reynolds (1966a)
found that undisturbed light slash made openings more attractive for deer. Few
other authors suggest a specific method of slash treatment, and if reducing barriers
to elk movement is the only consideration, most methods are probably acceptable.
A different viewpoint is suggested by the number of publications on postfire
forage development on elk ranges (Leege 1968, 1969; Leege and l!ickey 1971; Lyon 1971a;
Basile and Jensen 1971; Asherin 1976; Irwin !976; ldittinger and others 1977).
By implication, slash should be reduced by fire because burning produces the most
satisfactory response in forage plants.
Foraging opportunities for grizzlies are also enhanced by slash burning because
fire often produces a greater abundance and variety of food items than other treat-
ments. Broadcast burning is preferable to pi 1 ing and burning, particularly where
rhizomatous berry producers (mainly the vaccinium) are conspicuous contributors to
the sera1 comnunity. If piling is necessary, a brush blade is recommended to mini-
mize disturbance of rhizomes, Slash is probably only a minor deterrent to bear
travel and may be of some value as cover.