I thought that this may be interest to several folks on Tweeters.
If someone on Tweeters is from OBOL and thinks it is worth
forwarding to OBOL, would they do it ,please. Scan over it
quickly and if not interested, DELETE.

The following is a comment that was posted to:
BIRDWG05 at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU

I contacted Dr. Kathleen Blair for permission to forward and
she granted that permission. That permission is the first
excerpt (separated by asterisks below). She also provided
reference to two other sources as attachments to her
permission note. The second excerpt is from Chris Bennett
that further sources the origin of the report and that is
followed by the info that was made available to Arizona
listserv members. It is a lot of reading but quite interesting.

I believe the numbers '9', '10', '11' refer to the original
page numbers???

Good Luck!

Bob Taylor

If not interested DELETE NOW!

**************************************************

No problem for me but here is the original article and another that is
relevant. You can contact the folks directly. I know it is hard for
birders to admit they can have a negative impact of the birds they
love - but they can love them death if they are not careful. The
biggest problem with both birders and photographers is they just
keep trying to get a little bit closer for a better look or a better
photograph and they often keep it up until the bird flushes and puts
an end to the game. I will also forward a response to the posting I got.

(See attached file: disturbance lit rev.doc)(See attached file:
RecImpactsOnbirds.pdf)


Kathleen Blair, PhD.
Ecologist, Bill Williams River NWR
60911 Hwy 95
Parker, AZ 85344
phn 928/667-4144
fax 928/667-4015

The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived, though the
material expressions be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet
inspire the composer; but once the last individual of a race
of living things breathes no more, another heaven and another
earth must pass before such a one can be again.
William Beebe ( 1906)
(Attachments successfully scanned for viruses.)
Attachment 1: disturbance lit rev.doc (application/msword)
Attachment 2: RecImpactsOnbirds.pdf (application/pdf)


Kathleen Blair, PhD.
Ecologist, Bill Williams River NWR
60911 Hwy 95
Parker, AZ 85344
phn 928/667-4144
fax 928/667-4015

The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived, though the
material expressions be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet
inspire the composer; but once the last individual of a race of
living things breathes no more, another heaven and another earth
must pass before such a one can be again.
William Beebe ( 1906)


----- Forwarded by Kathleen Blair/R2/FWS/DOI on 08/17/2006 02:51 PM -----


"Bennett Chris
(DNREC)"
<Chris.Bennett at ST To
ATE.DE.US> BIRDWG05 at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Sent by: NBHC cc
AZ/NM Birds
<BIRDWG05 at LISTSER Subject
V.ARIZONA.EDU> Re: [BIRDWG05] Affects of human
activities on birds

08/17/2006 10:35
AM


Please respond to
"Bennett Chris
(DNREC)"
<Chris.Bennett at ST
ATE.DE.US>






Most of the time that I read posts to this list-serve I find myself
sitting here at my desk daydreaming about standing in one of your
fantastic canyons looking for Arizona specialties. This time though I
was transported right back here to Delaware. The literature review
sited in the previous post was compiled by my wife and her colleagues
in the Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program back in
1999, while we here in parks were dealing with a very contentious
Bicycle Trail issue. At that time I was working at that park - Cape
Henlopen State Park.

Gordons Pond is an approximately 200 acre brackish water impoundment,
separated from the Atlantic by a narrow strip of beach and low dunes,
that provides feeding and roosting habitat for migrating shorebirds,
gulls and terns, wading birds and wintering waterfowl. The Loblolly
Pine and coastal scrub habitat around the ponds edge are used by
migrating songbirds and raptors. A 3/4 mile section of trail and
observation platform were subsequently installed along part of the
dike around the pond. It is a popular biking - hiking destination
for visitors to the nearby community of Rehoboth Beach. It continues
to be an excellent birding destination.

I'm sure the Heritage staff will be interested to find out that their
work isn't just sitting on some shelf gathering dust.

Chris Bennett
Natural Resource Management Specialist
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Division of Parks and Recreation
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 739-9230
fax: (302) 739-3817
www.destateparks.com

"The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant:
'What good is it?'"

Aldo Leopold A Sand County Almanac

*****************************************************


-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC AZ/NM Birds [mailto:BIRDWG05 at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Kathleen_Blair at FWS.GOV
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:59 AM
To: BIRDWG05 at LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: [BIRDWG05] Affects of human activities on birds

An extensive literature review exists on the subject of the impacts of
human activities near birds. Here is the general summary.

General Impacts of Recreation and Ecotourism on Birds Although our
literature review revealed a lack of research on the specific
effects of bicycle activity on bird populations, more general
studies conducted on the effects of recreationists and ecotourists
on birds should be helpful for making decisions about the
placement and management of a pedestrian / bike trail through CHSP.

The findings from these studies, as they pertain to the proposed CHSP
trail project, are summarized below.

Several studies have examined the effects of recreationists on birds
using shallowwater habitats adjacent to trails and roads through
wildlife refuges and coastal habitats in the eastern United States
(Burger 1981; Burger 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al.
1995; Rodgers & Smith 1995, 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998).

The juxtaposition of landscape features in these studies is similar to
what one would find at CHSP, though the project site at CHSP is much
smaller in size than some of the refuge study sites and motorized
vehicles would not be permitted on the proposed trail at CHSP.
Overall, the existing research clearly demonstrates that disturbance
from recreation activities always have at least temporary effects
on the behavior and movement of birds within a habitat or localized
area (Burger 1981, 1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al.
1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers & Smith 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998).

The
9
findings that were reported in these studies are summarized
below in terms of visitor activity and avian response to
disturbance.

Visitor Activity
! Presence: Birds avoided places where people were present and when
visitor activity was high (Burger 1981; Klein et al. 1995; Burger &
Gochfeld 1998).

! Distance: Disturbance increased with decreased distance between
visitors and birds (Burger 1986), though exact measurements were not
reported.

! Approach Angle: Visitors directly approaching birds on foot caused
more disturbance than visitors driving by in vehicles, stopping
vehicles near birds, and stopping vehicles and getting out
without approaching birds (Klein 1993).

Direct approaches may also cause greater disturbance than tangential
approaches to birds (Burger & Gochfeld 1981; Burger et al. 1995; Knight
& Cole 1995a; Rodgers & Smith 1995, 1997).

! Photographers: Photographers were more likely to approach birds and
thus were more likely to disturb them (Klein 1983).

! Type and Speed of Activity: Joggers and landscapers caused birds to
flush more than fishermen, clammers, sunbathers, and some pedestrians,
possibly because the former groups move quickly (joggers) or create
more noise (landscapers). The latter groups tend to move more slowly
or stay in one place for longer periods, and thus birds likely
perceive these activities as less threatening (Burger 1981, 1986;
Burger et al. 1995; Knight and Cole 1995a). Alternatively, birds
may tolerate passing by with unabated speed whereas if the
activity stops or slacks birds may flush (Burger et al. 1995).

! Noise: Noise caused by visitors resulted in increased levels of
disturbance (Burger 1982, 1986; Klein 1993; Bowles 1995; Burger &
Gochfeld 1998), though noise was not correlated with visitor group size
(Burger & Gochfeld 1998).

! Children: Groups with children caused increased disturbance probably
because children created more noise and made rapid, erratic movements
(Burger 1986).

! Dogs: In general, the presence of dogs caused birds to flush (Burger
1986; Pomerantz et al. 1988; Knight & Cole 1995b). Unleashed dogs,
however, pose a direct threat to birds because they can chase and kill
them (Burger 1986), and they may disturb birds more by making more
rapid, erratic movements (van der Zande et al. 1984) than leashed dogs.
Dogs can also create noise disturbance.

! Horses: People on horseback did not seem to threaten birds
even though they frequently moved rapidly (Burger 1986).
Birds flushed only to avoid trampling. Burger (1986) surmised
that the birds perceived only the horse and not the person riding.

10
Avian Responses:

! Migrants vs. residents: Migrants, including waterfowl, herons and
egrets, and shorebirds, tended to be more sensitive to disturbance than
resident birds, but variations existed within and among species and
family groups (Burger 1981; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein
et al. 1995; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Variations within species
may have been due to habituation of resident versus migrant
sub-populations (Klein 1993; Burger 1981; Burger et al. 1995;
Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Migrants are particularly sensitive to
reduced or lost feeding opportunities because it is critical for
them to increase energy reserves to complete migration and
initiate breeding (Burger 1986; Burger et al. 1995).

! Feeding: Feeding time decreased and vigilance increased when people
were present and with increased noise levels (Burger & Gochfeld 1998).
Increased use of paths near foraging and loafing habitats caused birds
to feed farther from path or to leave the area. Once disturbed birds
tended to stay farther from path (Burger 1981, Klein et al. 1995,
Burger & Gochfeld 1998).

! Cover: Birds tended to retreat to vegetation, if available, while
people were present and returned to forage as visitors left area
(Burger & Gochfeld 1998).

! Habituation: Depending on the species (especially migrants vs.
residents), some birds may habituate to some types of recreation
disturbance and either are not disturbed or will immediately
return after the initial disturbance (Hockin et al. 1992;
Burger et al. 1995; Knight & Temple 1995; Madsen 1995; Fox
& Madsen 1997). More sensitive species will be displaced
from their habitat for longer periods of time or will not
return, and thus may be denied access to resources they
need to survive.

! Habitat preferences and quality: Habitat preferences and quality may
confound or override disturbance effects (i.e., birds that appear to
avoid habitat because of disturbance may actually be exhibiting
preference for microhabitats that happen to be farther from
disturbance, or high quality feeding sites may cause birds
to ignore disturbances; Klein 1993). Published Recommendations
for Mitigation of Recreation Effects on Birds Several
recommendations for mitigating the effects of recreation
on birds have been made by various authors. These include:

! Buffer zones: Rodgers & Smith (1997) calculated buffer
distances that minimize disturbance to foraging and
loafing birds based on experimental flushing distances
for 16 species of waders and shorebirds. They
recommended 100m as an adequate buffer against pedestrian
traffic, however, they suggest this distance may be
reduced if physical barriers (e.g., vegetation screening)
are provided, noise levels are reduced, and traffic is
directed tangentially rather than directly toward birds.

11
! Screening: Vegetation that effectively conceals visitors and provides
cover for birds if disturbance occurs will help mitigate impacts of
people using trails adjacent to habitat (Hockin et al. 1992; Rodgers &
Smith 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). Impacts from wildlife viewing and
photography can be reduced by providing observation blinds (Boyle &
Samson 1985; Klein 1993).

! Prohibit or restrict activity: Seasonally restricting or prohibiting
recreation activity may be necessary during spring and fall
migration to alleviate disturbance to migrant birds (Burger
1981,1986; Boyle & Samson 1985; Klein et al. 1995; Hill et al. 1997)

! Restrict noise levels:
Screening may not effectively buffer noise impacts, thus
visitors should be educated on the effects of noise and
noise restrictions should be enforced (Burger 1981, 1986;
Klein 1993; Bowles 1995; Burger & Gochfeld 1998).

! Education: Education is critical for making visitors aware that their
actions can have negative impacts on birds, and will increase the
likelihood that visitors will abide by restrictions on their actions.
For example, Klein (1993) demonstrated that visitors who spoke with
refuge staff or volunteers were less likely to disturb birds.

! Enforcement: Increased surveillance and imposed fines may help reduce
visitor caused disturbance (Knight & Gutzwiller 1995).

! Monitoring: Monitoring is recommended to adjust management techniques
over time, particularly because it is often difficult to generalize
about the impacts of specific types of recreation in different
environments. Local and site -specific knowledge is necessary to
determine effects on birds and to develop effective management
strategies (Hockin et al. 1992; Klein et al. 1995; Hill et al.
1997).

Closing Comments

The existing research clearly demonstrates that disturbance from
recreation activities have at least temporary effects on the behavior
and movement of birds within a habitat or localized area (Burger 1981,
1986; Klein 1993; Burger et al. 1995; Klein et al. 1995; Rodgers
& Smith 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998). However, alteration of
bird behavior may not necessarily be negative if they can
acquire necessary amounts of food (Burger et al. 1995;
Madsen 1997). Disturbance that prevents access to feeding
habitat may have negative effects on regional populations
if alternative habitats, equal to or better than the quality
of the one from which they were displaced, are lacking
nearby (Madsen 1995; Hill et al. 1997; Burger & Gochfeld 1998).

Wildlife refuges, for example, frequently contain impoundments
where human access is prohibited, thus providing alternative
disturbance-free feeding opportunities (Boyle & Samson 1985;
Hockin et al. 1992; Burger & Gochfeld 1998).

It is important to consider the relative significance of a
12
given habitat on local and regional scales prior to introducing
increased levels of disturbance.

The results of studies reviewed indicate wide variation in responses
among species and to different disturbance factors (e.g., speed of
movement). Many of these differences may be related to regional, local,
or site-specific factors. To begin understanding the potential effects
of a pedestrian / bike path on birds using Gordons Pond at CHSP, the
temporal and spatial patterns of bird activity at this site should be
determined prior to establishing a trail. Furthermore, if the Division
proceeds with plans to develop the path through this area, the effects
of recreation and visitor behavior on birds should be monitored to
determine if and how management strategies need to be adjusted.

Kathleen Blair, PhD.
Ecologist, Bill Williams River NWR
60911 Hwy 95
Parker, AZ 85344
phn 928/667-4144
fax 928/667-4015

The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived, though the
material expressions be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet inspire
the composer; but once the last individual of a race of living things
breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before
such a one can be again.

William Beebe ( 1906)



For those that made it this far I hope that you found it interesting.

Bob Taylor
Bonney Lake, WA
taylorrt at comcast.net