Skip to main content

Many in the Bay Area enjoy escaping to the region’s numerous open spaces to spend time outdoors and enjoy nature. Increasingly, we are doing so with our pet dogs, giving them the chance to experience new places, smells, and of course, to get exercise. Bringing your dog on a hike requires some planning, as not all parks allow dogs, or dogs may be required to be on-leash. But why do these rules exist?

Protected areas and other open spaces are home to wildlife, serving as refuge for species like mountain lions, bobcats, deer, and various mesocarnivores (coyotes, raccoons, weasels, etc), while providing outdoor recreation opportunities for people. Unfortunately, human disturbance (e.g. urban areas, roads) in the areas surrounding parks encroaches upon wildlife habitat. Therefore, a better understanding of how the presence of us and our pets affects wildlife is imperative, in order for coexistence to be possible and for all of us to enjoy the Bay Area’s parks. 

Previous research has found that some wildlife species avoid people but how does this response change when people are recreating with their dogs? And more importantly, for places like the Bay Area where wildlife are largely pushed to urban edge habitat, how do these responses change? Dogs may be seen as competing species or as predators by wildlife. Findings from earlier studies suggest that wild cats like pumas and bobcats are more likely to avoid areas with dogs, especially places where dogs are off-leash.

To fill this knowledge gap, we sought to explore how the behavior of pumas, bobcats, mule deer, and coyotes are affected by dog-related access rules (dogs allowed vs prohibited) in the SF Bay Area’s protected areas. To do so, we used 5 years of camera trap data from across the region, as well as 6 years of data from our public sightings map. Since cameras are triggered by motion, and each camera trap image has a date and time stamp, we can use this to build detection histories of each species of interest across the Bay Area as well as within specific areas and time periods.

We found that pumas and bobcats were more sensitive to the presence of dogs, as they were less likely to be in places where dog presence was higher. In some cases wildlife may not show clear changes in areas they use, suggesting no negative effect of the threat being measured but they might alter when they are active. Thus, we also looked at whether animal activity patterns over the course of the 24hr day varied in dog friendly protected areas relative to those where dogs are prohibited. Other researchers found that wildlife can become more nocturnal in areas with more human disturbance, altering their behavior as a strategy to avoid people. Our own findings were consistent with this, as mule deer and pumas were found to be more active later in the day in areas where dogs were allowed relative to where they were prohibited. 

Though we expected mule deer to avoid areas with dogs, assuming they would perceive dogs as another predator, we instead found deer were more likely to use the same areas as dogs, which may be a strategy to avoid predators like pumas or bobcats, suggesting a trade-off between avoiding people with dogs versus wild carnivores. 

So what does this all mean? People love to recreate in nature, especially with our dogs and this trend is likely to continue. For wildlife like pumas to persist in the long term here in the Bay Area, coexistence is key. This requires improved public awareness about why rules pertaining to dog access in parks and other open spaces exist, so that we can minimize any negative effects of our presence on wildlife while also reducing human-wildlife conflicts. For example, dogs were detected by camera traps in all areas, regardless of whether they officially allowed dogs, and in all areas, dogs were required to be leashed but were often seen off-leash. Keeping pets leashed in parks keeps pets safe and also prevents pets from chasing or preying on wildlife. As visitation to parks and other open spaces continues to grow, enforcement of existing policies, and focused education efforts are critical for reducing negative impacts on pumas and other wildlife. 

Read the full paper HERE.

References

Gaynor, K.M., Hojnowski, C.E., Carter, N.H. and Brashares, J.S. 2018. The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science, 360(6394), pp.1232-1235.

Reilly, M.L., Tobler, M.W., Sonderegger, D.L. and Beier, P., 2017. Spatial and temporal response of wildlife to recreational activities in the San Francisco Bay ecoregion. Biological conservation, 207, pp.117-126.

Parsons, A.W., Bland, C., Forrester, T., Baker-Whatton, M.C., Schuttler, S.G., McShea, W.J., Costello, R. and Kays, R., 2016. The ecological impact of humans and dogs on wildlife in protected areas in eastern North America. Biological Conservation, 203, pp.75-88.

Sytsma, M.L., Lewis, T., Gardner, B. and Prugh, L.R., 2022. Low levels of outdoor recreation alter wildlife behaviour. People and Nature, 4(6), pp.1547-1559.

Do You Have 2-4 Hours A Month To Preserve Your Local Ecosystem?

Our volunteers are the driving force behind making true change in ecosystem health and wild cat conservation. Some like to volunteer in the field, others help us maintain our online presence, and some work with events. With just a few hours a month, you can make a difference, too.

See Volunteer Opportunities

Make A Difference Right Now

As a 501(c)3 nonprofit, our work is only possible because of generous donors like you.

More than 90% of your donation will go directly to our groundbreaking research, outreach, and education programs.

This is where true change starts. If you’d like to be a part of it, make a donation to Felidae Conservation Fund today:

Or,