RESEARCH EXTENSION NOTE
NO 8 – Sept 2013

Title – Effects of heliskiing on mountain goats:
Recommendations for updated guidelines

By
Becky Cadsand, Michael Gillingham, Doug Heard,
Katherine Parker, and Garth Mowat

Becky Cadsand completed a MSc. in the Natural Resources and Environmental
Studies Graduate Program, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince
George, B.C., Canada. Michael Gillingham and Katherine Parker are faculty in the
Ecosystem Science and Management Program and members of the Natural
Resources and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British
Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada. Doug Heard is with BC Fish, Wildlife and
Habitat Division, BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations,
Prince George, B.C., Canada. Garth Mowat is with Natural Resource Science
Section, B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Nelson,
B.C., Canada.
The correct citation for this paper is:
Cadsand, B., Gillingham, M., Heard, D., Parker, K. and Mowat, G. 2013. Effects of
heliskiing on mountain goats: Recommendations for updated guidelines. Natural Resources
and Environmental Studies Institute Research Extension Note No. 8, University of Northern
British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada.
This paper can be downloaded without charge from:
http://www.unbc.ca/nres-institute/research-extension-note-series

Cadsand, Gillingham, Heard, Parker & Mowat  Effects of heliskiing on mountain goats

ii

The Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute (NRES Institute) is a
formal association of UNBC faculty and affiliates that promotes integrative
research to address natural resource systems and human uses of the environment,
including issues pertinent to northern regions.
Founded on and governed by the strengths of its members, the NRES Institute
creates collaborative opportunities for researchers to work on complex problems
and disseminate results. The NRES Institute serves to extend associations among
researchers, resource managers, representatives of governments and industry,
communities, and First Nations. These alliances are necessary to integrate
research into management, and to keep research relevant and applicable to
problems that require innovative solutions.
For more information about NRESI contact:

Natural Resources and Environmental Studies Institute
University of Northern British Columbia
3333 University Way
Prince George, BC Canada
V2N 4Z9
Phone: 250-960-5288
Email: nresi@unbc.ca
URL: www.unbc.ca/nres-institute

iii

Research Extension Note No.8
Sept 2013

CONTENTS

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Methods........................................................................................................................................... 4
Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 4
Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 4
Analyses ...................................................................................................................................... 5
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 7
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 11
References ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 14

1

Research Extension Note No.8
Sept 2013

Abstract
Heliskiing activity has increased in many areas
of mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus)
range, particularly in British Columbia (B.C.).
Current B.C. guidelines recommend that
heliskiing activity remains 1500 m from
mountain goat winter range when the
helicopter is visible to animals, and 500 m
when the helicopter is masked by topography.
Whether these guidelines effectively prevent
disturbance of mountain goats, however, is
unknown. In 2007 – 2010, we examined
locations and movements of 11 female
mountain goats relative to heliskiing activity.
We determined the proximity and frequency of
heliskiing activity that animals were exposed
to given current guidelines, and through
examination of disturbance responses,
determined how guidelines could be revised to
better mitigate impacts of heliskiing activity.
Although adherence to current guidelines
eliminated most heliskiing activity that could

result in disturbance, incidental helicopter
approaches occurred within 1500 m of collared
mountain goats with frequencies of exposure
up to 1 h • month-1 • animal-1. Animals reacted
to helicopters ≤2 km away, and responded
equally to visible and non-visible helicopters.
Seasonal effects on movement behaviour,
however, were not evident, potentially because
of the low frequency of helicopter exposure.
We recommend that the B.C. guidelines be
revised to: 1) establish no-fly areas within
1500 m of goat habitat regardless of visibility;
2) require pre-planning of heliskiing activities
to ensure that no-fly areas are effectively
avoided; and 3) extend no-fly areas to 2 km
where heliskiing frequencies exceed 1 h •
month-1 to minimize the cumulative effect of
incidental encounters.
These guidelines
should apply consistently to all helicopter
activity.

Cadsand, Gillingham, Heard, Parker & Mowat  Effects of heliskiing on mountain goats

2

Introduction
Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) are
alpine-dwelling ungulates that occupy the
mountains of western North America, with
over half of the species’ population occurring
in British Columbia (B.C). Within B.C.,
mountain goats are currently ranked as
“apparently secure”; however, there are
several herds in the south of the province that
have experienced significant decline, and
others that have been recently extirpated
(Mountain Goat Management Team 2010).
The growth rate of mountain goat populations
is typically lower than in other ungulate
species, because of low survival of kids and
yearlings
and
conservative
female
reproduction strategies (including the late
onset of reproduction and reduced frequency
of breeding; Festa-Bianchet and Côté 2008).
Concerns regarding recent population
declines, and a limited ability to recover from
them, have led to mountain goats being
assigned the highest priority under B.C.’s
Conservation Framework and has necessitated
a cautious management approach that aims to
mitigate threats to survival and reproduction,
including human disturbance (Mountain Goat
Management Team 2010).
Human disturbance within mountain goat
range is often associated with helicopter-based
activities. In contrast to other forms of
disturbance, helicopter activity is of specific
concern because of their large area of
influence and the often unpredictable flight
paths and high-decibel noise, which increase
the likelihood of startling wildlife (Larkin
1996). Mountain goats often respond to
helicopters by increasing vigilance, fleeing to
escape terrain, and hiding (Foster and Rahs
1983, Côté 1996, Goldstein et al. 2005).

3

Although it is not known whether these
immediate behavioural responses translate to
demographic
effects,
mountain
goats
repeatedly exposed to helicopter activity may
be displaced from critical habitat or
experience significant energetic costs because
of avoidance behaviours (Festa Bianchet and
Côté 2008). Chronic stress from repeated
disturbance could also affect individuals
physiologically, reducing rates of reproduction
and increasing vulnerability to disease
(Millspaugh et al. 2001).
Heliskiing is unique among helicopter-based
activities because it occurs in times of peak
snow accumulation, and takes place in the
steep alpine areas that are often in close
proximity to wintering areas used by mountain
goats. During winter the consequences of
disturbance are particularly high because of
the increased energetic costs of movement
through deep snow, and the limited forage
available to animals to help compensate for
energetic losses caused by fleeing. Winter
severity, indexed by snow depth, is a
significant factor contributing to both kid
production and natural mortality of mountain
goats (Adams and Bailey 1982, Holroyd 1967,
Swenson 1985).
Additional stress and
energetic costs that result from heliskiing
disturbance during this period could,
therefore, be critical to survival and
reproduction, and ultimately, population size.
To mitigate for the potentially detrimental
effects of heliskiing activity, the B.C.
Government
established
the
Wildlife
Guidelines for Backcountry and Commercial
Tourism (Government of British Columbia
2006).
According to those guidelines,
Research Extension Note No.8
Sept 2013

heliskiing activity is recommended to remain
1500 m from mountain goat winter range
when the helicopter is visible to animals, and
500 m when the helicopter is masked by
topography. Adherence to those minimum
separation distances, in addition to a ban on
landing in winter range and seasonal closures
of critical areas, is thought to minimize
disturbance to mountain goats and ensure
continued occupancy of their current range
(Government of British Columbia 2006).
Ideally, best-management practices are
achieved through the co-operative efforts of
the heliskiing operator and wildlife biologists
to identify areas of mountain goat winter
range within tenure areas and pre-plan flight
routes and ski-runs to ensure that no activities
occur within the winter range no-fly areas.
Compliance is demonstrated by incorporating
the
recommended
wildlife-avoidance
measures into tenure management plans. Both
tenure holders and biologists, however, have
recognized
that
a
more
thorough
understanding of mountain goat responses to
heliskiing activities is needed to ensure that
mitigation strategies are both necessary and
effective.
To better understand the response of mountain
goats to heliskiing and to determine whether
the current guidelines are adequate to
minimize disturbance, we undertook a 3-year
study to examine the movements and resource
use of a sample of GPS-collared female
mountain goats inhabiting a heliskiing tenure
area. By acquiring a detailed simultaneous
record of mountain goat movements and
heliskiing activity, we determined the
proximity and frequency of heliskiing activity
that mountain goats were exposed to and
quantified changes in movement and resource

use that could be attributed to helicopter
activity. Here, we review the main findings of
that work as it applies to recommending
changes to the B.C. Wildlife Guidelines.
Because the tenure operator (Last Frontier
Heliskiing, hereafter LFH) had incorporated
the best practices of the B.C. Wildlife
Guidelines this study provided an opportunity
to evaluate how effective the current
guidelines are in preventing disturbance, and
make recommendations on how they might be
improved in the future.

Methods
Study Area
Our research took place within the LFH tenure
area in the Coast Mountains of Northwest
B.C. (~240 km south of Dease Lake on
Highway 37; Figure 1). The area was an ideal
location to examine helicopter-mountain goat
interactions because: 1) it supported a high
density of mountain goats (~0.45 goats •
km-2); 2) interactions between mountain goats
and helicopters were largely restricted to
heliskiing activities, thereby preventing
confounding sources of disturbance; and 3)
the heliskiing tenure operator was interested in
the study and willing to record all heliskiing
activity over the 3-year study period.
Data Collection
Over the course of the study, 19 adult female
mountain goats were captured and equipped
with GPS collars (GPS2000; Applied
Telemetry Systems, Insanta, MN), which
acquired locations every 1 – 6 h during the
heliskiing season. To capture animals we used
a ground-trapping technique (Figure 2; see
Cadsand et al. 2011) rather than conventional

Cadsand, Gillingham, Heard, Parker & Mowat  Effects of heliskiing on mountain goats

4

Figure 1. The Northern Skeena Mountains study area where interactions between mountain goats
and helicopters were examined in 2007 – 2010. The darker green shaded area is the Last Frontier
Heliskiing tenure area, the lighter polygon within it represents the winter range of collared mountain
goats in the study.

helicopter-based net gunning to avoid
potential sensitization of study animals to
helicopters that could affect subsequent
reactions to heliskiing activity. Animals were
captured at 4 capture sites located along a
gradient of heliskiing use (Figure 3).
Heliskiing activity was measured by placing
GPS receivers (Garmin GPSMAP 76CSx,
Olathe, KS) onboard all helicopters (A-Star
B2 and Bell 407) that operated during the 3heliskiing seasons of the study period (2007 –
2008, 2008 – 2009, and 2009 – 2010). GPS
receivers were pre-programmed to record the
location, elevation, and speed of the helicopter
every 100 m of flight. Following each day of
helicopter activity, LFH guides downloaded
the GPS helicopter data to an onsite computer.

5

Analyses
For each mountain goat location, we used
several Geographic Information System (GIS)
tools to determine whether any heliskiing
activity had occurred within 2 km of the
animal in the previous 6 h (see Cadsand
[2012] for details). Based on prior research
(Foster and Rahs 1983, Côté 1996, Goldstein
et al. 2005), we assumed mountain goats only
responded to helicopters that were within 2
km, and for this reason, did not examine
disturbance responses beyond the 2-km
distance.
For animal locations where
helicopter activity had occurred within the 2km distance threshold, we determined the:
1) duration of helicopter activity; 2) proximity
of the helicopter relative to the animal;
3) visibility of the helicopter to the animal;
Research Extension Note No.8
Sept 2013

Figure 2. Female mountain goat captured in Clover trap during 2009 mountain goat capture session.

Figure 3. Study area showing the gradient of heliskiing activity within study area. Black outlines
represent the winter range of collared animals.

Cadsand, Gillingham, Heard, Parker & Mowat  Effects of heliskiing on mountain goats

6

4) position of the helicopter relative to animals
(i.e., above or below); and 5) presence or
absence of landing activity. We also used GIS
to query the elevation, slope, ruggedness,
aspect, and distance to escape terrain for each
mountain goat location.
Using those data, we determined how often
mountain goats were exposed to helicopter
activity both daily and seasonally. Following
exposure to helicopter activity, we examined
the movement behaviour of collared animals
for the following 72 h to determine whether a
disturbance response occurred. We defined a
disturbance response as when the animal
either made an anomalous movement or was
displaced from the area where the disturbance
occurred. We then examined specific
helicopter exposure events using an
information-theoretic approach to identify
what factors related to helicopter activity (i.e.,
visibility, proximity, position, and duration) or
the environment (i.e., terrain and land-cover)
increased the likelihood of a disturbance
response occurring, and should be accounted
for in prescriptive measures.
At a seasonal scale, we examined for changes
in seasonal movement and resource-use
associated with heliskiing activity. We
examined relationships between seasonalmovement metrics and heliskiing exposure of
collared animals using Spearman’s rank
correlation test. We determined whether
animals avoided areas of heliskiing or
exhibited other changes in seasonal resource
use in areas of increased heliskiing activity
using resource selection function analyses
within an information-theoretic framework
(see Cadsand [2012] for details).

7

Results and Discussion
Over the 3 heliskiing seasons examined, 2%
of heliskiing activity (214 helicopter exposure
events) occurred within 2 km of collared
animals. The remaining 98% of heliskiing
activity occurred in areas >2 km away from
any collared mountain goats, and was not
likely to negatively influence animals. Of the
214 helicopter exposure events, 37 approaches
were within 500 m, 139 approaches were
between 500 m – 1500 m, and 38 approaches
were between 1500 m – 2 km.
Collared animals showed low movement rates
typical of mountain goats during the winter
season, ranging from 5 – 15 m • h-1. Following
helicopter approaches within 2 km, however,
collared animals often exhibited anomalous,
long-distance movements ranging from 97 m
– 3.4 km. The proportion of anomalous
movements exhibited by individuals appeared
to be unrelated to their cumulative heliskiing
exposure, but indicated that some animals
were more likely to respond to disturbance
with movements than others (Figure 4). The
variation in responsiveness to disturbance
could be attributed to differences in wariness
among individuals,
perhaps
due to
reproductive status, or differences in
environments inhabited by animals.
Disturbance was more likely when helicopters
were closer to mountain goats, with
anomalous movement responses occurring
68% of the time when the helicopter approach
was within 500 m, and 42% of the time when
the helicopter approaches was between 500 m
and 2 km. Approximately 62% of the
movement responses occurred within 6 h of

Research Extension Note No.8
Sept 2013

Figure 4. The observed proportion of anomalous movements made by female collared mountain
goats in response to helicopter approaches within 2 km () on the right axis and the cumulative
seasonal helicopter activity that mountain goats were exposed to that year (open bar) on the left
axis. Values on the x-axis represent individual animals, some of which were collared during
multiple heliskiing seasons (2007 – 2010).

the disturbance event, and the remaining 38%
of responses were lagged, occurring 6 h – 48 h
after the disturbance event. Being able to
detect these lagged responses to disturbance
prevented us from underestimating both the
frequency and intensity of the disturbance
responses to heliskiing activity.
Animals responded equally to visible versus
non-visible helicopter activity within 2 km
(likelihood-ratio χ12 = 1.24, P = 0.27). This
finding emphasizes the disruptive effect of the

noise associated with helicopter activity, and
lends support to previous work showing that
mountain goats were disrupted primarily by
auditory cues rather than visual cues (Foster
and Rahs 1983). When we examined both
immediate and lagged responses, animals
were more likely to flee when the helicopter
was at close proximity and the animal was
distant from steep escape terrain. Other factors
that appeared to influence anomalous
movements were the occurrence of landings,
when animals appeared to be less likely to

Cadsand, Gillingham, Heard, Parker & Mowat  Effects of heliskiing on mountain goats

8

Table 1. Factors influencing probability of immediate and lagged anomalous movements of collared
female mountain goats to helicopter approaches in the Northern Skeena Mountains. Results are
based on models identified through an information theoretic approach (see Cadsand 2012 for details).
The sign of the effect needs to interpreted relative to each measurement. For example, the farther an
animal was from escape terrain, the more likely it was would show a response; the larger the distance
of the approach, the less likely an animal would respond.

Immediate Response
Factor

Lagged Response
Effect

Effect

Distance to escape terrain

+

Distance to escape terrain

+

Proximity of approach

–

Proximity of approach

–

Landings within 2 km

–

Landings within 2 km

–

Disturbance history

–

Ruggedness

–

move, and disturbance history, where animals
that had experienced higher levels of
disturbance in the past were less likely to
move immediately, but still exhibited lagged
movements (Table 1; see Cadsand 2012 for
the detailed analyses).
At a seasonal scale, we found that neither
average movement rate or range size were
related to heliskiing exposure (all P > 0.05;
Table 2), however, in 2 of the 3 years, animals
inhabiting areas of higher heliskiing activity
often had higher maximum movement rates
during the heliskiing season (P < 0.01 in 2009
and 2010; Cadsand 2012). In other words,
although animals disturbed by heliskiing were
observed to move longer distances than
animals in less disturbed areas, these
movements did not occur frequently enough to
affect average movement rates over the entire

9

Factor

heliskiing season. This is not surprising given
the low frequency of heliskiing activity that
animals were exposed to over the duration of
the study (i.e., maximum exposure of 1 h •
month-1 • animal-1; Figure 4).
When examining seasonal resource-use
patterns, we found that within their range,
animals did not avoid areas used for heliskiing
(Cadsand 2012). There was some evidence,
however, that animals in areas of higher
heliskiing activity were more likely to exhibit
a security based strategy, (utilizing steep
slopes, rugged terrain, and areas that provided
better visibility), relative to animals inhabiting
areas of low levels of heliskiing activity,
which typically selected for areas based on an
aspect based strategy that maximized solar
insolation and minimized snow accumulation
(Figure 5; Cadsand 2012).

Research Extension Note No.8
Sept 2013

Table 2. Relationship between the amount of heliskiing exposure (in min) that collared female
mountain goats in the Northern Skeena Mountains were exposed to and the average movement rate
and range size over the heliskiing season. n is the number of animal-heliskiing seasons tested, ̅ s is
the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, and P is the associated probability value that these
relationships could have occurred by chance.
Variable

n

̅s

P

̅ movement rate

15

0.03

0.92

Range Size

15

-0.08

0.77

Although the short-term daily or seasonal
responses to disturbance are most often
documented in disturbance studies, it is the
longer-term effects of disturbance to an
individual’s survival and reproductive ability
that are critical to wildlife populations.
Whether short-term disturbance responses,
such as anomalous movements, ultimately
affect an individual’s survival or reproductive
ability will depend on the frequency of
disturbance, the energetic costs of the

disturbance response, and whether the animal
is able to compensate for energetic costs or
habituate to the disturbance stimuli (Gill et al.
2001, Fortin et al. 2004).
In winter,
disturbance responses are more difficult for
animals to compensate for because of the
increased costs of movement through deep
snow, and the lower quality and quantity of
forage available.
The frequency of disturbance depends on the
intensity and distribution of helicopter

Figure 5. The number of animals exhibiting either a security based strategy or aspect based strategy
across the study area. Ratio represents the number of animals showing that strategy relative to the
total number of animals-seasons analyzed for that capture area. Capture areas are stratified by
relative heliskiing activity with the highest activity in the northern capture site and lowest heliskiing
activity in the southern site.

Cadsand, Gillingham, Heard, Parker & Mowat  Effects of heliskiing on mountain goats

10

activity, and the management actions taken to
prevent disturbance responses from occurring.
In our study the low level of heliskiing
disturbance was likely due to practices
adopted by LFH to avoid mountain goat
winter range. In 2006, LFH, regional
biologists, and government agencies worked
together to identify the wintering areas of
mountain goats within the tenure area. The
company then altered flight routes, landing
areas, and ski runs to ensure its activities
remained ≥1500 m from mountain goat winter
range when the helicopter was visible to
animals, and ≥500 m when the helicopter was
masked by topography. The small amount of
heliskiing activity recorded within 2 km of
mountain goats (2%) is evidence of the
success of these management actions in
reducing potentially disruptive heliskiing
activity.
In evaluating the efficacy of the guidelines,
however, it is important to note that the
current recommended avoidance measures did
not prevent all heliskiing activity disruptive to
mountain goats. In some cases, animals
reacted to heliskiing activity that was
permitted given the current guidelines, (i.e.,
visible approaches between 1500 m – 2 km, as
well as non-visible approaches between 500 m
– 2 km). In other cases, animals were outside
of the predicted winter range areas / no-fly
areas and not able to be detected and avoided,
or the helicopter entered the no-fly area,
potentially for reasons related to weather or
safety. In the following section we discuss
several revisions that could be made to the
current guidelines to further minimize
disturbance to mountain goats within
heliskiing tenure areas.

11

Recommendations
If the management objective is to eliminate
disturbance of mountain goats, we recommend
a 2-km, no-fly area surrounding mountain goat
winter range that applies regardless of
helicopter visibility. This extended no-fly
area would help mitigate for the disruptive
effects of noise from heliskiing activity and
ensure that disturbance does not compromise
sensitive animals in a population. The
extended buffer area would also help
compensate for inherent errors in the predicted
winter-range areas of mountain goats,
reducing the number of disturbance events
that occur because animals are outside of
designated no-fly areas. Reduction in the
recommended 2-km separation distances
should be considered only if both visual and
auditory effects could be mitigated by
topography as determined through the use of
viewscape and soundscape modeling when
determining no-fly areas (see Andrus and
Howlett 2006 for an example of soundscape
modeling).
If the management objective is to maintain
normal seasonal movement behaviour and
range occupancy by mountain goats but accept
that disturbance events will occur periodically,
the current 1500-m separation distance is
likely sufficient provided that mountain goats
are exposed only to low frequencies of
helicopter activity (i.e., <1 h • month-1 as
observed in our study). In areas where there
are multiple sources of helicopter activity, all
sources of helicopter activity must be
considered cumulatively in an assessment of
disturbance effects. When the frequency of
heliskiing activity within 1500 m – 2 km of
mountain goat range is greater than 1 h •
month-1, separation distances should be
Research Extension Note No.8
Sept 2013

extended to 2 km or cumulative frequency of
flights reduced to threshold levels of 1 h •
month-1.
Additional factors that were outside the scope
of this study, but that should be addressed in
the management strategy include the types and
number of machines used, timing of
operations, and the nature of the terrain
accessed. Further work could help determine
whether limitations on the number of
helicopters within an area, or type of machine
used within mountain goat range are
necessary. Also, it is important to note that the
wintering strategies of mountain goats vary
across their range, and this may affect how
often animals are exposed to heliskiing
activity, and their reactions to it.
The
mountain goats monitored in our study
wintered at high elevations, and virtually all
(98%) of the heliskiing activity occurred
below them. Mountain goats that winter
within lower elevation forested areas may
respond differently to heliskiing activity in

terms of movement responses or changes in
resource use.
Lastly, to achieve meaningful mountain goat
conservation goals, guidelines to minimize
disturbance should be applied consistently
across all helicopter-based industry. Within
the heliskiing industry, the management plans
of all tenure holders should be reviewed to
ensure that they include adequate mountain
goat avoidance measures (i.e., identification of
mountain goat winter range and corresponding
no-fly zones, and pre-planning of flight routes
and skiing activities around these no-fly
zones). Records of helicopter flight history
acquired using Skytracking services already
present on most helicopters, or an onboard
GPS receiver programmed to record flight
tracks, could be used as a condition of the
tenure permit to allow for review of
compliance. To minimize total disturbance,
the recommendations discussed above should
be applied to all helicopter activities occurring
within mountain goat range throughout the
year.

Cadsand, Gillingham, Heard, Parker & Mowat  Effects of heliskiing on mountain goats

12

References
Adams, L.G. and J.A. Bailey. 1982. Population dynamics of mountain goats in the Sawatch Range,
Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:1003–1009.
Andrus, K., and T. Howlett. 2006. Development of a heliskiing and mountain goat habitat
management model. Available at: http://esri.com/mapmuseum/mapbook_gallery/volume19/
environment4.html.
Cadsand, B. 2012. Responses of mountain goats to heliskiing activity: Movements and resource use.
[MSc Thesis] University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, British Columbia,
Canada. available at: web.unbc.ca/~michael/Pubs/Cadsand_thesis_Sept_2012.pdf).
Cadsand, B., B. Jex, and M. P. Gillingham. 2011. Modified clover trap for capturing mountain
goats in Northwest British Columbia. Proceedings of the Biennial Symposium of the Northern
Wild Sheep and Goat Council 17:71–77.
Côté, S.D. 1996. Mountain goat responses to helicopter disturbance. Wildlife Society Bulletin
24:681–685.
Festa-Bianchet, M., and S.D. Côté. 2008. Mountain goats: ecology, behaviour, and conservation of
an alpine ungulate. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Fortin, D., M.S. Boyce, and E.H. Merrill. 2004. Multi-tasking by mammalian herbivores:
overlapping processes during foraging. Ecology 85:2312–2322.
Foster, B.R., and E.Y. Rahs. 1983. Mountain goat response to hydroelectric exploration in
Northwestern British Columbia. Environmental Management 7:189–197.
Gill, J.A., K. Norris, and W.J. Sutherland. 2001. Why behavioural responses may not reflect the
population consequences of human disturbance. Biological Conservation 97:265–269.
Goldstein, M.I., A.J. Poe, E. Cooper, D. Youkey, B.A. Brown, and T.L. McDonald. 2005.
Mountain goat response to helicopter overflights in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:688–
699.
Government of British Columbia. 2006. Wildlife guidelines for backcountry tourism/ commercial
recreation. Available at: http://env.gov.B.C.ca/wld/twg/index.html.
Holroyd, J.C. 1967. Observations of Rocky Mountain goats on Mount Wardle, Kootenay National
Park, British Columbia. Canadian Field-Naturalist 81:1–22.
Larkin, R.P. 1996. Effects of military noise on wildlife: a literature review. Technical Report 96/21.
Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Illinois, USA.
Millspaugh, J.J., R J. Woods, K.E. Hunt, K J. Raedeke, G.C. Brundige, B.E. Washburn, and S.K.
Wasser. 2001. Fecal glucocorticoid assays and the physiological stress response in elk. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 29:899–907.
Mountain Goat Management Team. 2010. Management plan for the mountain goat (Oreamnos
americanus) in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, 87pp.
Swenson, J.E. 1985. Compensatory reproduction in an introduced mountain goat population in the
Absaroka Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:837–843.

13

Research Extension Note No.8
Sept 2013

Acknowledgements
We thank the management and guides at Last Frontier Heliskiing for their dedication to this
research, and their efforts to help conserve wildlife within their tenure area. We thank the biologists
and support staff at the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations in Smithers for
their invaluable work capturing goats in the Northern Skeena, and their commitment to improving
the management of heliskiing activity and mountain goat conservation in their region. The
thoughtful comments of two anonymous reviewers help to improve this Research Extension Note.

Cadsand, Gillingham, Heard, Parker & Mowat  Effects of heliskiing on mountain goats

14