Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge and Utah State University Bear Viewing Management from Kodiak to Kaktovik Bear Viewing on Wildlife Refuges in Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 1997 ID: 589122
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Jacqueline Keating" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Jacqueline Keating Kodiak National Wildlife Refugeand Utah State University
Bear Viewing Management from Kodiak to KaktovikSlide2
Bear Viewing on Wildlife Refuges in Alaska National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 1997: Six priority public uses dependent on wildlife
Different settings and management issues
but similar missions and methods:
Decisions based on sound social and biological science
Active stakeholder and community involvement Establishing measurable conservation benefits of bear viewing Slide3
Components of Successful Bear Viewing
Biological Aspects Sociological Aspects
Minimizing wildlife displacement from critical feeding areas
Separating anthropogenic food sources from viewing activity
Minimizing human-induced changes to bear population dynamicsLimiting human infrastructures and detrimental impacts on habitat
Measuring indicators of high-quality opportunities and outcomes
Identifying markers of high-quality opportunities for a variety of users
Inventory and monitor social changes
related to expectations and outcomes
Managing the “careless casualness” resulting from repeated harmless encounters at close range
(Smith,
Herrero
, and
DeBruyn
2005)Slide4
Kodiak Refuge
OuzinkeSlide5
Bear Viewing in Kodiak
Several operators offer multi-day trips; the Frazer site is the primary destination for short-term viewing
(71% of bear viewing visitors in 2016)
Current Public Use Management Plan (1993) does not sufficiently address bear viewing as a public use
Goal: to look at public use options scientifically and transparently Slide6
Scientific Research on KNWRComprehensive Conservation Plan (2007)“Using rigorous social science methods, assess the nature of available visitor experiences, significant influences on those experiences, and public acceptability of potential changes to those experiences prior to developing the viewing program at O’Malley (or any other new sites) or modifying the program at the Frazer fish pass site.”Bears could tolerate human presence when human behavior was predictable and restricted to designated areas (Wilker and Barnes 1998)Bears prefer to forage on ripe berries despite peak salmon runs (impacted by unusually early productivity of berry crops)
(Deacy and Leacock 2015)1.
2.Slide7
Stakeholder: anyone who affects or is affected by wildlife management policy Snowball Sampling for choosing participants Qualitative Study Design Tourism Agencies
Professional Photographers Private Lodge Owners
ADF&G Biologists
FWS Biologists and ManagersAir Taxi Operators
Kodiak Brown Bear Trust
Koniag Native Corporation
Semi-structured interview format Slide8
22 Participants (15 interviews)12.4 Hours of Recorded Interviews187
Pages of Transcripts Qualitative Study OutcomesSlide9
A Framework for Kodiak Bear Viewing BV Trip Characteristics
Time spent viewingAmount of walking involvedNumber of bearsProximity of bearsComposition of bearsNumber of other people
Educational Information
BV Guide Characteristics
Absence of guide (unguided)Guide interpretation efforts
Visitor Characteristics
Gender
AgeEducationCitizenship
Rural vs. Urban
Management of BV Approaches
Areas accessible to guide
Site-specific visitor protocol
Presence of Refuge staff
Intervening Variables
Poor weather
Absence of Bears
Flight Discomfort
Visitor Motivation
Seeing bears in the wild
Seeing Kodiak bears specifically
Wilderness experience
Professional photography
Learning about bears
Reality television on Alaska
Attitudes
Tolerance of bears
Bear conservation
Behavioral Intentions
Participation in conservation
Bear interaction protocol
Storing food/trash properly
Knowledge
Information about bears
Kodiak ecosystem
Kodiak native cultural
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Modified from interactional model created by:
Powell, R. B.,
Kellert
, S. R., & Ham, S. H. 2009. Interactional theory and the sustainable
nature-based tourism experience.
Society and
Natural Resources
,
22
(8), 761-776.
Satisfaction
Meeting expectationsSlide10
Survey Methods
43% response rate online
260 complete surveys (15
mins)75% of viewers contactedSlide11
H2: The Frazer fish pass structure will be associated with lower trip satisfaction, especially for visitors who have previous bear viewing experiences at other comparable locations Only 15.5% (n = 34) of respondents felt that the fish pass had a negative effect on their experience Neutral/positive reactions to the fish pass were positively associated with satisfaction (p = <.001, Cramer’s V = .235) Visitors were more likely to negatively evaluate the fish pass if they had been to Katmai (p = <.001, Cramer’s V = .264) *Visitors judge the quality of their trip based on past experiences and the context of where prior recreation activity took place
(Manfredo & Larson, 1993; Nielsen, 1977).
H1:
Closer proximity to bears and number of bears will be the factors most associated with satisfaction
Proximity
was not associated with trip satisfaction
Number of Bears: the proportion of visitors whose trip exceeded expectations steadily increased with the number of bears seen (p = <.001, Cramer’s V = .235)
Bear Composition: visitors were most likely to report exceeded expectations if they saw a boar, although the strongest association between bear types and satisfaction was seeing sows (p = <.001, Cramer’s V = .444)
Proximity
Number
Composition
Fish Pass
Key FindingsSlide12
Arctic Refuge Slide13
Kaktovik Slide14Slide15
Management Issues: Refuge only manages waters Slide16
Management Issues: Complex stakeholders Slide17
Bear Viewing in Kaktovik
Boat-based viewing is permitted by the RefugePrimarily a six-week period in September and October revolving around subsistence whale harvests
There are two lodges in Kaktovik, but private charters also offer day trips from Fairbanks2,500 viewing instances in 2015 and 2016 (including guides and multiple trips in one day)
Multiple level of FWS involvement in Kaktovik(Refuge and Marine Mammal Management)*Local safety is priority!Lots of effort invested in involving local community in decisions and tourismSlide18
Volunteering in Kaktovik
Bunkhouse living, bear surveys, informal interpretation, school programs, Arctic Youth Ambassadors, Polar Bear PatrolSlide19
Kaktovik: Planning for the FuturePre-planning stage, formal NEPA process is in the future Partnership with Clemson University to conduct visitor use surveySuspended issuance of new permits for 2017 and 2018 in order to evaluate management setting Kaktovik is Unique on a world wide scale for viewing polar bears – The Arctic Refuge has an opportunity to get it right the first time as an emergent use activity – It is a positive opportunity! Slide20
ConclusionsAlaska refuges are incorporating a scientific and mindful planning approach to visitor useAlaska refuges have the opportunity to set the example for successfully managed bear viewing Creating measureable standards and using ongoing monitoring is importantVOLUNTEERS ARE IMORTANT! Slide21
Kodiak Social Science Research (check for survey results this summer)https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Kodiak/what_we_do/science/social_science.htmlArctic Refuge Polar Bear Resources https://www.fws.gov/refuge/arctic/polarbearv.htmlU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Human Dimensions Branchhttps://my.usgs.gov/hd/team/usfws ResourcesSlide22
Questions?