Download WILDLIFE IS FOR NONHUNTERS, TOO

WILDLIFE IS FOR NONHUNTERS, TOO
David W.Lime
Journal of Forestry, Sept 1976 pages 600-606
ABS TRA CT: Because a large number of recreationists value wildlife for nonhunting purposes, forest managers have a mandate to offer a wide
variety of wildlife experiences to a broad segment of the public
The importance of wildlife for nonhunting recreational purposes is growing proportionally faster
than for hunting, trapping, or fishing. About 12 percent (25 million) of today's American populace over 12
years old are hunters, but the proportion of hunters among all outdoor recreationists is expected to decrease
even though the number of hunters will continue to increase (U S Dept. of Interior 1972).
More and more Americans value wild animals for a variety of nonhunting recreational purposes.
Over 80 percent of the one million visitors to state-operated wildlife areas in California during 1972 engaged
in non hunting activities (Wildlife Management Institute 1973). In 1967-1968, a study reported that
waterfowl hunting accounted for only 16 percent of the annual visits to the Adams Point Wildlife
Management Area, New Hampshire (Nevers and Olson n.d.).
On 119 National Wildlife Refuges and 16 Waterfowl Production Areas in the upper Midwest,
hunting accounted for only 7 percent of total use in 1974; 46 percent was for fishing, and the remaining was
for bird watching, hiking, picnicking, and other general recreation (Wildlife Management Institute 1975).
Payne and DeGraaf (1975) estimated that $500 million was spent in the United States in 1974 for the
enjoyment of nongame birds; birdseed, binoculars, and camera equipment accounted for 95 percent of the
total. This outlay surpassed the estimated $180 million spent by waterfowl hunters in 1970 (U.S. Dept. of
Interior 1972). Both estimates excluded food, lodging, and transportation.
Several factors probably have influenced this changing role of wildlife for recreational purposes in
America: (a) a shrinkage in the accessible land base for hunters; (b) an expansion in agricultural acreage and
urbanization resulting in a reduction in wildlife habitat (c) a decline in rural population, where hunting
values had their origins; (d) a decline in the quality of hunting experiences, caused in part by crowding; (e)
an increase in the number of people joining conservation and outdoor recreation organizations; and an
increased effort by antihunting interests to solicit public support.
Over the past decade, studies have shown that encounters with wildlife add tangible satisfactions and
benefits to visitors' outdoor experiences. The more recent studies include those of Bart 1972, Bryan and
Jansson 1973, Cobus 1972, Dagg 1974, Horvath 1974, Payne and DeGraaf 1975, Schweitzer et. al. 1973, and
Wood and Kennedy 1973.
Two independent studies of campers at auto-access campgrounds in the Superior National Forest and
of wilderness' visitors to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (BWCA) also indicated that wildlife is an important source of enjoyment for many people. Even though most auto-campers did not select northeastern
Minnesota for their visits in 1968 because of the wildlife, many felt wildlife was an important supplementary
benefit (Lime and Cushwa 1969). Ninety-six percent of those interviewed had seen wildlife, and most all of
them said that seeing animals had added much to their enjoyment. When asked why, almost 50 percent
indicated pleasure in "just watching them." About 20 percent explained that wildlife "adds to feelings of
wilderness, and "of being close to nature;" 22 percent cited the educational values for their children. Many
desired to learn more about wildlife, especially about birds.
In 197l, 1,352 groups at access points to the BWCA were interviewed, given a trip diary, and asked
to keep a daily log of their experiences. Visitors were asked "What were the high points of your trip today what did you, personally, enjoy most?" Eighty-two percent of these diaries (1,108) were returned. About 34
percent of the groups (371) reported that encounters with wildlife were a high point on at least one day;
many groups mentioned such encounters as the high point on several days.
Many types of wildlife experiences were delineated as high points by the 371 groups (see box next
page). Most encounters were actual sightings. The remaining types covered a variety of experiences where
visitors heard and saw evidence of wildlife . Encounters with large game animals, such as deer, moose,
and bear were particularly memorable. The more common species, like chipmunks, squirrels, and small
birds, were seldom mentioned. Perhaps these animals were taken for granted.
Lime
Page 1
A Mandate for Managers
Managers should view the growing popularity
of wildlife for nonhunting recreational purposes as a
mandate. A wide variety of wildlife experiences and
benefits should be offered to a wide segment of the
public.
In the East and Midwest especially, most
wildlife is concealed in flat or rolling forest habitats,
and many species are rarely seen. Consequently, many
managers may have limited their responsibilities to
assuring that the supply of wildlife meets the demands
of hunters, trappers, and fishermen.
This is not meant as criticism. Traditionally,
managers have had to focus on producing timber and
game rather than resources for nonconsumptive
enjoyment. Developing ways for forest visitors to obtain
enjoyment from seeing or hearing wildlife has not been
part of management thinking, except in national parks
and some other preserves.
WILDLIFE EXPERIENCES IN THE BWCA
Seeing Mammals
Number of groups
White-tailed deer
106
Beaver
67
Moose
54
Black bear
18
Eastern timber wolf
3
Small animals (mink. otter, weasel)
69
Not identified
54
Seeing Birds
Loon
Eagle, osprey
Other birds of prey (owl, vulture)
Waterfowl (duck, goose. etc.)
Heron, crane, gull
Upland game (grouse)
Song birds (grosbeak, wren, chickadee. etc.)
Not identified
85
67
9
66
37
29
22
20
Hearing Animals
Beaver, coyote, timber wolf
8
Kinds of Nonhunting Wildlife Experiences
Encounters with wildlife should be thought of
Hearing Birds
as more than simply seeing animals. Visual encounters
Loon
25
include such activities as photographing, sketching, or
Seeing Evidence of mammals
painting pictures of animals, or studying behavior.
Beaver colony
24
Other visual activities include seeing only evidence of
Moose, timber wolf tracks
4
animals-scats, tracks, or signs of browsing. Listening to
Animal bones, droppings
6
animal sounds and, perhaps, recording them is also
Browsed vegetation
4
growing in popularity. Even if their chances of seeing
wildlife or seeing evidence of their presence are slim,
Seeing Evidence of Birds
just being in an area where animals are known to live is
Nests (loon, gull, eagle, heron)
5
rewarding . Since the early 1960's, naturalists in AlFeathers
6
gonquin Provincial Park have led auto caravans of 800
people or more on night expeditions to hear timber
Total wildlife encounters exceed number of groups (371) that
wolves howl (Rutter and Pimlott 1968). Another aspect
reported "encounters with wildlife" as a high point because
is the vicarious enjoyment derived through books, art
some groups reported several encounters with either the same
prints, films and television, and postage and migratory
species or with other species.
waterfowl stamps.
Nongame birds and animals as well as game species are important to nonhunting experience. These
experiences occur not only in urban-suburban areas, national-state parklands, and other areas closed to
hunting, but in areas open to public hunting as well. Perhaps the manager too often thinks of animals
(especially larger ones like the moose, elk, and white- tailed deer) solely as game when, in fact, they can be
an important aesthetic attraction for forest visitors as well.
Increase Opportunities For Encounters
Managers can increase opportunities for recreationists to encounter wildlife in many ways. Habitats
can be manipulated by using timber harvests, managed openings, and prescribed fires to diversify vegetation
along roads and hiking trails. Such steps will also increase the probability of wildlife encounters for hunters.
Natural ecological processes should be maintained, especially in areas closed to hunting or timber
harvesting. For example, fire and wolves help to assure the continued presence of noose on Isle Royale
National Park (Hansen et al. 1973).
In those parts of the BWCA where most visitors stay on the waterways rather than traveling over
land, the absence of man-caused disturbances may reduce opportunities for people to encounter wildlife.
Where timber harvesting is now prohibited within 400 feet of shorelines or on the full landscape, fire could
be reintroduced as a vegetation management alternative (Heinselman 1973). Without some type of
disturbance. forests in these no-cutting zones will mature. and moose, ruffed grouse, beaver. White-tailed
deer. wolves, and bears may become scarce or visit the shoreline infrequently.
Lime
Page 2
Expanded Information Program
Forest visitors should be introduced to the basic concepts of wildlife ecology. The relationships of
habitat diversity to behavior, population, and predation should be explained in laymen's terms. Tips on
safety, on when (seasons, time of day), and on specific locations where wildlife are likely to be encountered
also could be provided.
Interpretive services should he innovative and dynamic with an emphasis on personal contacts: talks
illustrated with movies or slides, nature walks, or campfire programs. Other approaches include self-guiding
trails and roads, brochures, maps, and nature centers.
Interpretive services need to be varied and flexible. Some visitors are sightseers. others are seriously
interested in studying wildlife. Some people spend one or more days in search of wildlife, others only
minutes. Some leave their cars and walk,; others will not.
The rich and growing body of scientific information on wildlife ecology is not being fully utilized
for interpretive purposes. Guidebooks and brochures should be area-specific and should include research
results in nontechnical terms. Good guidebooks are available for Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks. Both give facts about local wildlife species as well as color maps that identify locations (summer and
winter) where the probability to encounter wildlife is high. Visitors may be willing to pay a nominal price for
such brochures.
Develop Trails, Roads, Safaris
Imaginative hiking trails and vehicle roads - long and short, difficult and easy, remote and accessible
-- should be provided to match differing desires and abilities of users.
Because many people view wildlife from vehicles or near them, old logging roads can be used or
new roads constructed. Viewed as "vehicle nature trails", these could be designed for slow speeds and oneway traffic, with pull-offs or other small parking areas where visitors could walk to observation points. Some
might be designed to accommodate bus tours and auto caravans. Trails might also be developed for bicycles
and for trail bikes and other off-road recreation vehicles. However, the effects of the vehicles on wildlife
must be much better understood before roads and trails are constructed on a large scale.
Visitors could be accompanied by naturalists or could guide themselves. Emphasis might be on
viewing wildlife, but visitors could learn to identify tracks, scats, evidence of browsing, and, in applicable
areas, see evidence of deer, moose, beaver, elk, bear, and wolf.
Signs could be placed on self-guiding trails and on roads to direct and inform visitors. More
imaginative techniques could be tried, such as renting of portable cassette recorders or offering prerecorded
radio messages at locally designated frequencies. The possibilities are exciting and challenging but need
rigorous evaluation.
The private sector too should be encouraged to reap some economic benefits by guiding
people into areas where chances of encountering wildlife are high. Boat, raft, snowmobile, and dog sled
safaris could provide novel experiences. Airplane safaris could be especially attractive.
Other Ways To Increase Opportunities
Techniques could be developed to attract wildlife to selected locations. Thus, licks might be created
to supply needed nutrients. However, such techniques need to be carefully designed so that animals are not
portrayed undesirably or unnaturally-- bears foraging at garbage dumps, for example, or elk feeding at haystacks. Platforms, blinds. and other devices to aid viewing are being constructed in some areas. There may
not be widespread support for such facilities (Cobus 1972), but the handicapped and aged may need special
aids. Platforms or blinds should blend in with natural surroundings. If visitors are adequately informed, such
aids may not be extensively needed.
Paying The Bills
Obviously, money is an important constraint on wildlife management programs. Today. more and
more agencies are short of funds. and increasing numbers of them are requesting appropriations from general
funds. Their success should increase as land managers expand opportunities for the public to experience
wildlife for nonhunting purpose.
It is sometimes argued that the bulk of the revenue for wildlife management programs is derived
from license fees and taxes on hunting and fishing equipment (Fish and Wildlife Restoration Acts. for
example), and that, in consequence. scarce monies must first be allocated for the production of game.
Lime
Page 3
However, managers can hardly expect nonhunters to sup port the use of general funds for game (even
nongame) management unless administrators develop innovative nonhunting programs. Unless they do.
campaigns to initiate legislation to apply general funds to wildlife programs appear doomed from the start.
Research Is Needed, Too
Research is needed to determine the nature of the satisfactions that result from an array of potential
encounters between people and wildlife. How important is it for people to encounter wild animals in a
natural or near-natural environment? To what extent are interests and behavior associated with wildlife
encounters changing and for what reasons? How knowledgeable are people about different species; which
enhance their experience most? How do people learn about unique opportunities to encounter wildlife? To
what extent can information about where to encounter wildlife serve to direct visitors into areas now lightly
used? Would well-interpreted wildlife experiences provide better public understanding of ecological facts
and perhaps temper the antagonism of some anti-hunters? Or, might the opposite result?
The impact of hunting and other disturbances (such as controlled shooting) on opportunities for recreationists to observe wildlife needs to be studied too. The interactions are complex and have received little
formal attention.
Literature Cited
BART, W. M. 1972. A hierarchy among attitudes toward animals. Environ Educ. 3(4):4-6.
BRYAN, R. B., and M. C. JANSSON. 1973. Perceptions of wildlife hazard in national park use. 38th Conf. North Am.
Wildl Nat. Res Trans.. 38:281-294.
Cobus. M. W. 1972. Moose as an aesthetic resource and their summer feeding behavior. 8th North Am. Moose
Workshop Proc.. p 244275.
DAGO. A. 1.1974. Reactions of people to urban wildlife. p l63-165 in Wildlife in an Urbanizing Environment. Symp.
Proc. Springfield. Mass. Nov. 27-29. 1973, 182 p. Univ. Mass.. Amherst
HANSEN, H. L., L. W. KREFTING, and V. KURMIS l973. The forests of lsle Royale in relation to fire history and
wildlife. Univ. Minn Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 294, 43 p.
HEINSELMAN, M. H. 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota. Quat. Res.
3131:329-352.
HORVATH, J. C. 1974. Economic survey of wildlife recreation executive summary. Environmental Res. Group.
Georgia State Univ.. Atlanta. 68 p.
LIME. D. W., and C. T. CUSHWA. 1969. Wildlife esthetics and auto campers in the Superior National Forest. USDA
For. Sets Res. Pap. NC-32. 8 p. North Cent. For. Exp. Stn., St. Paul, Minn
NEVERS, H., and D. OLSON. n.d. Recreational use of the Adams Point Wildlife Management Area. Inst. Nat. and
Environ. Resources . Univ New Hampshire, Durham, and New Hampshire Fish and Game Dep.. Concord. 30 p.
PAYNE. B. R., and R. M. DEGRAAF. 1975. Economic studies and recreational trends associated with human
enjoyment of nongame birds P. 6-10 in Management of Forest and Range Habitats for Nongame Birds. Symp. Proc.
Tucson, Arizona, May 69, 1975.343 p.
RUITER, R. J., and H. Pimlott. 1968. The world of the wolf. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia and New York 112 p.
SCHWEITZER, D. H., D. A. SCOTT, A. W. BLUE, and J P. SECTER 1973. Recreational preferences for birds in
Saskatchewan. 35th Int. North Am. Wildlife & Nat. Resources Trans. 38:205-212.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR. 1972. National survey of fishing and hunting. Res. Pub. 95. 108 p.
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE. 1973. Wildlife areas attract a million in California. Outdoor News Hull.
271201:4.
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE. 1975. Current investments. projected needs and potential new sources of
income for nongame fish and wildlife programs in the United States. Wildlife Management Inst Wash.. D.C. 110 p.
WOOD, 0. B., and B.B. KENNEDY. 1973. Nonconsumptive Use of a Utah elk herd. Utah State Univ. Press. Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism Ser.. Inst. for the Study of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. Utah State Univ.. Logan. 29 p.
Lime
Page 4