“I was raised on a ranch near Steamboat Springs and received my doctorate studying the response of wildlife to anthropogenic activity. Since then, I have spent my career studying and developing proactive solutions to wildlife-human conflicts in western communities. As such, I have been keeping up with the debate surrounding the Mad Rabbit trail expansion project and have two specific concerns:

1. There is more than enough information in the scientific literature to establish that the trail expansion as proposed is likely to impact wildlife negatively.

2. Though the National Environmental Policy Act is a useful planning tool at large scale when deployed properly, it is generally ineffective at assessing impacts of smaller-scale projects, particularly when using the minimal Environmental Assessment process as proposed.”

“Elk frequently do not adapt well to trail based recreation. Elk increase their daily activity levels and movements in the presence of mountain biking and hiking which reduces the time spent feeding of resting (Naylor et al 2009, Wisdom et al 2004). This increase energy demand occurs simultaneously with decreased forage intake and displacement to areas with poorer quality forage. The net result is a decrease in body condition, which affects the chance of individual health, survival and reproduction. ”

“The density of trails proposed in both alternatives would fragment habitat and travel patterns for numerous wildlife species. Additionally, with the present location of the trails, elk would be disturbed and pushed to surrounding lands, including private lands. This would impact not only the elk herds, but private landowners, hunters, and wildlife viewing enthusiasts. Please develop an alternative or alternatives which address the impacts to critical wildlife species and reduce impacts.”

“...To differing extents, human activities taking place where animals are present have an impact on those animals. The amount of impact differs based on the activity and a series of factors
...It was suggested that harassment was most damaging when animals were in poor condition (Geist 1970) and when disturbance was frequent and unpredictable. Wildlife responses to disturbance are shaped by six factors: type of activity; predictability of the activity; frequency and magnitude of the activity; timing (e.g., breeding seasons); relative location (e.g., above versus below on a slope); and the type of animal including: size, specialized versus generalized niche, group size, sex and age (Knight and Cole 1995). For several ungulate species, the greatest negative responses to recreational activities (either motorized or non•motorized) were measured for unpredictable or erratic occurrences (Canfield et. al. 1999). ”

“...There are currently more than enough areas to expand outdoor recreation opportunities without introducing potentially irreversible impacts to wildlife.”

“...We would urge the Forest Service to slow down this process. We believe that most local citizens are just becoming aware of this proposed project and the comment period should be extended. A project of this magnitude deserves it.”

“...is nearly as destructive as building sub-divisions on thousands of acres”

“...humans raising our babies next to a high speed train track”

“More voices to be added soon!”