BCJ_WINTER17 Digital Edition

OPINION
IS WILDLIFE VIEWING THE NEW HUNTING?
BY EDWARD PUTNAM
A BULL ELK STEPS TENTATIVELY OUT OF THE TREES, his
tan coat glistening in the early morning sun. Steam rises from his
nostrils as he tests the air for danger. Across the meadow a man
crouches in the tall grass waiting for a shot. A few tense moments
pass. Then the animal turns, lays his antlers along his back and
bugles into the crisp September air.
“Click.” It’s not the sound of a misfire, but of a shutter snapping
closed. “Click, click, click.”
Armed with only a tripod and a camera, he’s a new generation
of outdoorsman. There’s a mountain bike on the back of his car
and a kayak mounted to the roof rack. He’s one of millions of
Americans who access public lands for hiking, camping, biking,
jogging, and viewing wildlife and scenery. One thing he doesn’t
do, however, is hunt. And in that he represents a growing trend
toward “non-consumptive” outdoor recreation.
In 1960, the US Fish and Wildlife Service counted almost 14
million hunting license holders in the US, making the sport one
of the most popular outdoor activities in America. But that popularity
has not kept pace with changing demographics. There’s
nearly 140 million more Americans today, but almost the same
number of hunters.
Interest in wildlife has not stagnated in the same way. According
to a U.S. Census report, 22 million people identified as wildlife
viewers in 2011, compared to 13.7 million hunters. From
2000 through 2007, four out of the five most popular outdoor
activities had to do with photographing or observing nature (the
other activity was motorized off-roading). Hunting didn’t even
make the list.
Attendance at national parks and national wildlife refuges has
been especially robust. Great Smoky Mountain and Yellowstone
national parks together receive over 13 million visitors annually.
Jess McGlothlin photo
At Oregon’s Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, the number of
bird watchers outnumber waterfowl hunters 93 to 1.
This trend leads to questions about the future of hunting. In
order to accommodate the growing interest in wildlife viewing,
will land managers and fish and wildlife agencies be pressured to
move toward a less consumptive approach to wildlife conservation?
It questions the role sportsmen play in conservation and the
public’s appetite for an activity that conflicts with its more urban
sensibilities about nature.
Jim Kellogg, president of the California Fish and Game Commission,
resigned last year over frustration with a commission that
has become less and less supportive of hunting. “They are not
listening to DFW scientists and biologists recommendations,” he
said in a January 2016 interview with the Outdoor Wire. “All of
it has been politics – not science.”
The pressure to marginalize hunting has only increased following
high profile incidents like Cecil the lion, Corey Knowleton’s
$350,000 black rhino hunt and Sarah Bowmar’s video of her husband
spearing a bear in Canada. The public uproar has bolstered
critics’ arguments that wildlife viewing is a much less invasive
path to conservation than hunting.
However, a report published by the United Nations and the
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species sounded
the alarm on wildlife viewing back in 2006. It warned against the
growing problem of tourists disturbing wildlife and the damage
they do to habitat.
Tourism operations tend to be located in biologically sensitive
areas where wildlife are concentrated. Too many tourists can cause
stress in animals. In the presence of people, wildlife may spend
less time feeding or resting. Breeding success may be reduced, as
well as resistance to diseases. Wildlife may move to more remote
or less productive habitats that bring them in direct competition
with other species or make them more vulnerable to predation.
Tourism operations also require roads, facilities and other infrastructure
that can place a burden on habitat. Fragmentation
that impedes migration can cause populations to become isolated,
thereby reducing their genetic diversity over time.
Crowding, pollution, garbage and sewage are ongoing challenges
of regulating tourism. Yellowstone National Park, for example,
requires approximately 780 staff to manage its 4 million annual
visitors. Those crowds provide a crucial economic boost to surrounding
communities, which helps support the park’s existence.
However, according to the park’s own business plan, it doesn’t
generate sufficient revenue to cover its operating budget, let alone
its wildlife management obligations. Instead it relies on federal
appropriations for the bulk of its conservation funding.
That gap between boots-on-the-ground conservation and the
wallets of tourists presents a budgetary challenge to wildlife agencies.
Most wild public lands are not managed for tourism and
don’t have the broad appeal that Yellowstone and Grand Teton
national parks have, yet they are equally in need of money for
fish and wildlife. Even if tourism could generate enough revenue,
relying on Congress or state legislatures to appropriate it wisely
seems wildly optimistic.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund, for example, is supposed
to receive $900 million annually from oil and gas leases.
How many times has that happened in its 50-year history? Only
once. Large portions of that money are usually siphoned off for
other purposes that have nothing to do with conservation. And
Congress isn’t likely to have a change of heart any time soon. In
2015 it nearly killed the program altogether. That kind of uncertainty
doesn’t lend itself to a sound, long term conservation
strategy.
The budget challenge underscores the essential difference between
hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation. The money
sportsmen spend on licenses and tags goes to fund the bulk of
state fish and wildlife agencies’ budgets. Excise taxes on hunting
equipment, firearms and ammunition contribute millions annually
as well. In these ways, hunters contribute to conservation directly
and distribute conservation funding over a wide geographic
area rather than on a few high profile locales.
The agencies use the money to develop wildlife management
plans with specific objectives, goals and strategies. They develop
programs, perform field surveys and improve habitat. They study
wildlife behavior, migration patterns, human impacts, diseases,
invasive species, etc. that make it possible for wildlife to flourish
in the face of an expanding human population. They enforce
game laws, respond to human/wildlife conflicts, engage in public
education and help provide opportunities for the public to participate
in the outdoors. In short, the “sport” of hunting isn’t just a
contributor to conservation, it’s an integral part of it in a way that
other forms of outdoor recreation are not.
Hunting allows us to fill the niche our hunter/gatherer ancestors
once occupied. When well regulated, the presence of hunters
on the landscape has a positive impact that goes beyond just
managing animal populations. It helps keep wild animals from
becoming habituated to people, which reduces the potential for
conflict. It affects their habits and behavior, which has a trophic
influence throughout ecosystems that helps bolster diversity. It
keeps animals wary and vigilant, improving the chances of survival
for those that are, and removing those that aren’t from the
gene pool.
In his book Going Wild: Hunting, Animal Rights and the Contested
Meaning of Nature, Jan Dizzard details the sometimes contentious
issue of hunting versus wildlife viewing. The showdown
was in the Quabbin Watershed in central Massachusetts. A 50-
year ban on hunting there had produced a large and approachable
deer population estimated at between 20 and 50 animals per
square mile. For many it was a kind of Eden, a pristine wilderness
where humans and wildlife could coexist in peace. The deer, however
were quickly eating their way through the hardwood forest,
jeopardizing the health of the watershed. Alternatives to hunting
were considered but deemed impractical.
So in 1991 over a storm of protest, an annual controlled deer
hunt was established as the best and most cost effective approach
to management. The success was stunning. Within a few short
years the deer population came down to a sustainable level and
the forest recovered. Today the Quabbin supports a healthy deer
population of approximately 15-20 per square mile. They’re wild,
meaning they behave like wild animals, and because the hunt is
regulated, only a small percentage of hunters are successful, ensuring
the continued health of the species and its habitat.
It’s a myth that by not hunting a person does no harm to wildlife.
By far, the greatest threat to wildlife today is habitat loss,
and by embracing the values of an industrialized society we are
all culpable. Expanding urban boundaries, fragmenting habitat,
diverting water for agriculture, sacrificing wildness for more out-
Nick Trehearne photo
32 | BACKCOUNTRY JOURNAL WINTER 2017 WINTER 2017 BACKCOUNTRY JOURNAL | 33