Pennsylvania Elk Watching and Nature Tourism Project

Jewell Meadows Wildlife Area, Oregon

Bryan Swearingen, Manager (503) 755-2264

Ownership: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Size: 1200 acres with approximately 2000 acres under contract with private and public landowners for a refuge buffer.

Location: Oregon coast range, inland from Astoria

Elk population: 200 Roosevelt Elk

Principal viewing seasons: Year-round

Year established: 1969

Area objectives: "provide food for wintering Roosevelt elk, habitat for elk and other native wildlife, and a place for the public to view and study wildlife in natural surroundings."

Overview

Jewell Meadows Wildlife Area offers many relevant ideas for Winslow Hill. Visitor use is high–90,000 visitor use-days a year–and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife successfully manages viewing to assure an experience that satisfies the viewer and that does not disturb the elk. The herd of Roosevelt elk is most visible from November through April. However, summer visitors often combine a visit to the coast with elk viewing; this is the exact type of multiple-interest travel that DCNR, the Pennsylvania Game Commission, and North Central are seeking to promote in Pennsylvania. Winter visitors come specifically to see elk or participate in a supplemental feeding program. Although the Pennsylvania winter is harsher than at Jewell Meadows, this seems to suggest that viewers will visit elk-watching areas even during the off-season. Hunters are also part of the elk-watching mix. Many will visit the viewing area to look at the herd as part of a hunting trip to nearby properties. This suggests a further compatibility between hunting and elk viewing, and indicates that hunters can effectively become revenue sources for hunting and for elk watching.

Public Involvement

Jewell Meadows has only two permanent staff, and relies on volunteer hosts and strategically planned viewing areas that encourage an ethical experience. The Pennsylvania Game Commission currently handles most of the work related to elk management and interpretation, and Jewell Meadows suggests that a wider range of public involvement could serve to lower operational costs and to increase public support for elk tourism.

In Benezette and Renovo, where there has been resistance by some residents to expanded elk tourism, local involvement in the actual viewer management activities can greatly build support for the Game Commission’s work and for DCNR.

Separation of Viewers and Elk

All four elk viewing areas at Jewell Meadows feature physical barriers intended to separate viewers from the elk, but not to prevent elk from moving freely. Three areas have low wooden fences. One viewing area, along the principal highway, has a planted hedgerow of roses.

At the fenced areas, small signs (10" x 10") every five or six fence posts read:

The fences are open-ended and signs are placed where people are most inclined to walk around or climb over the fences. As long as visitors stay in the designated viewing areas, elk will move to within 30 feet. This provides an extremely intimate and prolonged viewing experience. The elk are habituated to human presence, but as soon as a viewer crosses a barrier, the animals move off immediately. The hedgerow faces the main highway, where viewing is limited to an extended shoulder. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife buys its own gravel and maintains the pullout lane. At this site, a large sign reads, "Jewel Meadows Wildlife Refuge," with smaller signs that say, "Closed to Entry" placed every 300 feet.

One of the key issues with regard to signage is that the signs should not simply be proscriptive. Injunctions such as "Do Not…" and "No…" create hostility and resentment, and invite vandalism. Effective signage should firmly state the prohibition (ex. "Closed to Entry") and most important, explain why (ex. "People in the fields will disturb or move the elk out of view"). Viewers often feel that their actions are in a sense "rights" because they pay taxes and user fees that subsidize wildlife viewing activities. Consequently, limitations on their actions are often received poorly, or with outright indignation, however justified the prohibitions may be. Virtually all visitors consequently appreciate explanations that give common-sense reasons for prohibitions and injunctions.

This has particular application to Winslow Hill, where signage is minimal and viewer interaction with elk is particularly problematic.

Facilities

As visitors approach Jewell Meadows, a sign displays a radio station number they can tune in for sounds of elk bugling and the latest news about the refuge, news that includes elk behavior as well as management activities. Viewers often listen to the message while parked and viewing. This increases visitor awareness of the management aspect of the herd, and is educational. Parking design gives viewers a good vantage point so that they can view the herd from inside the vehicle even in rainy conditions, which are frequent. Some type of accommodation for cold-weather viewing will be necessary if Winslow Hill plans to expand its elk season into the colder months; an enhanced parking area could well serve this purpose.

The largest viewing area, at the headquarters, offers parking for eighty vehicles and an RV lane. A central interpretive kiosk, brochures, and flush toilets that are separate from the headquarter facilities provide critical amenities to visitors. Bathrooms at a central viewing area are essential, and the effectiveness of these facilities as a viewer management tool also has particular application to Winslow Hill and Benezette. Since current toilets at Winslow Hill are seasonal, some type of permanent facility is necessary to extend the viewing season. The viewing area also has one game-proof fence to keep the animals out of the headquarters’ yard.

Walk-in viewing access is possible at one area, but the consensus is that walking constitutes a poor way to view elk. The elk move off ahead of hikers and do not remain stationary for prolonged looks as they do at fenced-off viewing locations. However, for viewers who are content with fleeting glimpses of elk, removed from the sights and sounds of other human activity, some type of foot-access should be considered for Winslow Hill as an alternative to the traditional venues, particularly if the trail were interpretive and conducive to other wildlife watching activities such as birding.

Winter Viewing

During the winter, a supplemental feeding program draws viewers to Jewell Meadows specifically to watch 75-200 elk congregated in meadows. From December to February, the staff offers free, daily, one-hour tours to feed the elk–one group per day, one feeding per day, limit 16 people. Participants are required to speak quietly and to stay in the trailer. The program has become so popular that groups reserve tour spots long in advance. This type of activity is the single best opportunity for staff to interpret elk behavior in an intimate setting and to pass on natural history and conservation information. School groups receive a special priority for the tours.

Similar guided tours might be considered for Winslow Hill, and potential seasons such as winter should be considered as ways to expand into shoulder season visitation. The fact that Pennsylvania’s winter landscape is a dynamic and spectacular one adds to the potential appeal of this type of activity.

Supplemental Feeding

At Jewell Meadows, alfalfa hay supplements natural forage and serves to keep elk out in the open for viewing, prevent trespassing on nearby private property, and to keep the animals used to some artificial feed so they can be trapped and transferred to maintain the herd at a desired level. Although this is an elk management issue rather than a viewing issue, and as such is under the purview of the Game Commission, it does seem to have an impact on some of the trespass and viewing issues at Winslow Hill. We believe it would be productive to at least discuss this with the commission and get their opinion as to the usefulness of feeding for the Pennsylvania herd.

Hunting

Elk are not hunted at the Jewell Meadows site, although hunting is allowed outside the boundaries. The elk know the borderline well, and note the difference between a person in camouflage or in street clothes. Camouflage clothing causes the elk to vanish. Once hunting begins with the Pennsylvania herd, it is reasonable to expect high concentrations of elk at the viewing area, since the animals are intelligent and well able to discriminate between safe and unsafe venues. The need to develop guidelines for dealing with elk/human interactions will be heightened by elk behavior during hunting season. During hunting season, the staff and outside enforcement spend considerable time and resources monitoring the boundaries for trespass. Prior to regular boundary patrols, poachers shot a significant number of bulls. Monitoring and clear signage have, however, almost completely eradicated the problem.

Again, hunting falls outside the scope of the nature tourism initiative and is the purview of the Game Commission. However, publicity attendant with the fall hunt will probably attract some degree of poaching, and this in turn could affect viewing opportunities. The Jewell Meadows experience may provide some useful guidelines to commission staff as they coordinate the twin activities of elk-watching and hunting. It is also instructive to note that nothing in the Jewell Meadows experience indicates that hunting and elk-watching are incompatible when properly managed. To the contrary, hunters have become part of the regular elk viewing tourist mix.

Roosevelt and Rocky Mountain Elk share similar behavioral traits; management tools at Jewell Meadows should have some application in Pennsylvania. The greatest difference between the two herds lies in the Roosevelt Elk’s tendency to stay in one area year-round, with the exception of younger bulls that strike out on their own in the fall.

Wildlife Crop Damage

This material is provided as a reference for the economic cost of a large elk herd–over 50,000 animals–in terms of crop damage mitigation. Oregon has about 4,000 wildlife damage reports per year, and about 55% are from big game. A 1990 survey showed that Oregon spent more than any other western state on crop damage control measures–$1,000,000. The next highest state was Utah, at $600,000. Oregon expenditures were not, however, for compensation. The state has never embraced a compensation scheme for the following reasons:

1. It does not alleviate the problem–landowners are likely to make claims the following year as well
2. Attorneys must frequently be called in to arbitrate the amount of compensation, raising the cost to the agency and souring relations between landowners and agency personnel
3. Other wildlife programs must be cut to fund compensation programs
4. Landowners often refuse to deal with crop damage by granting hunters land access to hunt, and thereby reduce the population of problem animals. Since higher population densities are, to a degree, being funded by compensation dollars which in turn are funded via hunting license fees, agencies are criticized by both of their main constituencies
5. Hunters become dissatisfied with wildlife agencies because the agencies try to limit compensation by decreasing the population of game animals, even though agency activities are largely funded by hunting revenue.

Key Points

1. Positive elk viewing experiences depend on elk approaching people in designated areas rather than encouraging people to initiate close contact with the animals.
2. Dedicated radio broadcasts for the Winslow Hill area would enhance interpretation, education, and crowd management, particularly if the broadcasts provided updates on congestion, available parking, and other viewing sites.
3. Supplemental feeding programs, if adopted, should give visitors a chance to participate and learn about elk behavior and biology.
4. Signage can enhance visitor compliance with viewing regulations by careful placement, being of moderate size, and explaining the reasons for the proscribed activity.
5. Volunteer involvement throughout the viewing seasons enhances public awareness, enhances visitor compliance with viewing rules, and builds strong local support for elk viewing.
6. Trails are ineffective for obtaining prolonged looks at elk, but have some usefulness as an alternative to the mass tourism experience of traditional venues during peak season.