The outline of the Wildlife Monitoring Network in Hokkaido
Japanese
The framework of the Network
Each participant of the Network conducted surveys, and our institute supported them with technologies it had developed.
Fixed-site monitoring surveys formed its core with the additional short-term and temporary surveys conducted for various purposes.
Fixed-site monitoring surveys are conducted by the following participants:
Hokkaido National-Forest Management Bureau, University of Tokyo, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Hokkaido University, and our Institute.
Temporary surveys were by the Hokkaido Institute of Environmental Sciences and regional Forest Management Offices.
For details, refer to Participants.。
Methods
We attached camera-trapping devices to trees standing at the side of forest paths.
The devices detected and photographed mid-to-large-sized mammals passing through them.
More than six devices were used for a survey. They were positioned more than 500 m apart from each other.
The survey period was from two to four weeks. The devices were set to operate either for 24 hours or only for dark night-hours.
For details, refer to Methods.
Monitoring sites
The maximum number of fixed monitoring survey sites was 16 in 2016. The first survey started in 2006. They included:
eight by Forest Management Bureau, two by Tokyo University, one by Tokyo University of Agriculture, two by Kyoto; University, one by Hokkaido University, two by our institute.
Short-term and one-time survey sites included:
18 by Hokkaido Hokkaido Institute of Environmental Sciences, three by Forest Management Offices, and five by our institute.
Data utilization
Each participant used the data for its purposes; we managed them together for broader uses and research purposes.
We opened this website for the more general use of the data. We also directly provided information to relevant agencies.
The background and aim of the Network
Problems related to wildlife include the impact of increased populations on agriculture, forestry and ecosystems, invasion and expansion of alien species, and conservation of native species. Examples in Hokkaido include the increase of deer populations and its damage, the area expansion of alien raccoons, and the regional extinction of native sables.

Because there was no effective monitoring system in the past, it was often belated to recognize the problem, and there was not enough data for countermeasures when they were required. To remedy this situation, we have developed wildlife monitoring technologies and techniques and built up this monitoring network.

We hope that in the future, wildlife monitoring systems will be created around the world using this network as a model.
How monitoring works
Monitoring makes sense in comparison. Comparisons across regions could be possible, but what's relevant and meaningful is comparisons across times. We have already gained various implications where monitoring has been conducted for many years (see results pages). Such long-term monitoring makes it possible to recognize the change of the situation without delay and swiftly deal with the problem.