WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

FW 353

A DISTANT PERSPECTIVE ON THE FUTURE

OF AMERICANS OUTDOORS

L. David Mech

There's nothing like a clean arctic breeze, a high midnight sun, and a barren, mountainous vista stretching toward the end of the Earth to give one perspective. My presence not long ago in such a spot, just a few hundred miles from the north pole, amidst musk-ox, Peary caribou and arctic hare, was truly the highlight of a career of outdoor work.

And an appropriate place it was for pondering the plight of the planet and reflecting about the future of the outdoors. My surroundings seemed ageless. Except for an occasional high-flying jet scribing a lonely polar route, the scene probably was the same 100 or 1,000 years before. Not true, the world to the south. It had changed rapidly, not always for the better.

I thought about my urban home in the U.S. Not only was it thousands of miles away, but thousands of years as well. Those years had brought a human population with a culture and philosophy and, most important of all, a technology, that could transform any natural piece of the Earth to a grotesque tangle of artificiality. But to a comfortable artificiality--more to the liking of the modern human. So the species became fruitful and multiplied. And multiplied. And multiplied again. And between a rampantly increasing populace and a technology with a life of its own, a whole new world had been created. Instead of terra firma, there was concrete and asphalt. Where tall trees once grew, brick and metal buildings sprouted. Streams became dirty ditches; ponds and lakes, cesspools. And the air fouled the lungs of the old and sick. Even the rain bore the destructive byproducts of this new force.

But I realized that that is the real world of most of the country's current population. Their natural habitat is mortar, steel and glass. Their wildlife consists of dogs, cats and pigeons. Their milk originates in plastic jugs, and their meat in tightly wrapped Styrofoam packages with parsley sprigs. Although most people realize that a natural world exists somewhere, their knowledge of it is necessarily artificially, superficial and emotional. Their view of it is two-dimensional with no smell or feel, but with plenty of hearts, flowers and violins. This world fits on a 19" screen and can be turned on and off at will. These people are mere spectators to nature. Their numbers are growing rapidly.

Certainly some people occasionally, or even regularly, slip their bonds to artificiality and actually experience the natural world. However, as a proportion of the total population, they represent a small fraction. Even when they do "rough it," most do so from their auto, recreational vehicle, or camper. Others commune with nature from power boats, snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles. These conveyances are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and more and more people are using them.

This leaves a portion of the population who hike, ski, canoe, sail, climb, snowshoe, kayak, hang-glide, camp or photograph. These "non-consumptive" users experience the outdoors much more intimately. Their numbers are relatively few, but they too are increasing.

The outdoor users who actually participate in the natural world, however, are decreasing in proportion. They are the consumptive users of the outdoors: primarily fisherman, hunters, and trappers, but also mushroom hunters, berry-pickers, etc. These people obtain their enjoyment of nature by interacting with its animals or plants at a level decidedly more intense than that of most other outdoor lovers. However, many of their traditional practices are now coming under attack by people in other categories who fail to understand their viewpoint on the natural world.

Thus, as I reflected on all the varied use of the outdoors by an increasingly urbanized populace, several disturbing trends became apparent when I speculated about the future. First and foremost is the tremendous pressure generated by our burgeoning population. Such pressures promotes the continued destruction of what is left of nature, its soil, air, water, vegetation, and wildlife, and furthers the development of an ever more artificial world. This pressure also directly threatens the quality and quantity of outdoor experience available. In many parts of the wilderness these days, one must stand in line to portage a canoe. Reservations for campsites are increasingly a reality.

Secondly, I saw a more distorted view of the natural world being fostered by the increasingly urbanized living and the dissemination of "information" about nature primarily via television. Although TV's promotion of an interest in nature is valuable, the superficiality of the information worries me greatly. People's knowledge about nature has become two-dimensional. Once while conducting an experiment in a zoo, I had placed a pair of wolves in an empty leopard cage. Because the sign on the cage still read "leopard," many passing people informed their children authoritatively that the wolves were leopards.

Such misinformation may seem harmless. However, it can lead to absurdities like the question I have twice been asked as a wolf biologist: "Why can't the government catch all the old, sick, and weak deer and moose, euthanize them, and let the wolves feed on them? Then the wolves wouldn't have to kill the animals." The people who asked the question couldn't bear the thought of carnivores killing "innocent" prey, although this process is a constant, vital part of nature.

This leads me to the third disturbing trend I saw relevant to human use outdoors, -- the increasing dissension about such use. The same attitude that views predation as evil, I believe, drives the current movement against hunting, trapping, and fishing. Whereas, science regards human beings as having evolved as predators, much of the public now considers humans as "outside" of nature rather that as part of it. This view fosters strong protectionism: "Save the whale," "Stop killing baby seals," Furs look best on their original owners," etc.

While I've never thought it particularly nice to kill a baby seal, I also know that the situations these slogans address are not quite so simple as implied. It certainly is true that some species need strong protection. However, the protectionist attitude has been applied to deer, geese, muskrats, and various other species that often do considerable damage, or at the very least occur in high numbers. A person's desire not to kill a creature of any sort, of course, must be respected. The problem comes when the person tried to impose his/her ethical view on everyone else.

Dissension about use of the outdoors is broader than just the anti-harvesting controversy, however. Skiers complain about snowmobilers; canoeist about motor-boaters; and hikers about all terrain vehicles. Fly-fisherman look down on those who use live bait. In some states, fox hunters have even forced through legislation preventing fox trapping.

The last trend that concerns me is the application of technology to outdoor gear and equipment. This trend is really a mixed blessing , I believe. Certainly, it is wonderful that better boots and clothing now allow more people to enjoy the outdoors during all seasons and in all kinds of weather. However, it does mean additional pressures on outdoor resources. Furthermore, this same technology has now blessed us with pickup trucks bearing tires so large their only real use can be to destroy things. Such vehicles do allow grown men to enjoy getting stuck in mud holes, I admit. But what does that do to the environment? Various types of all-terrain vehicles actually bother me more, not only because of the environmental destruction they themselves can wreak, but also because of the additional accessibility, and therefore pressure, they allow to areas previously untouched.

What all this adds up to is a future in which an increased population with a decreased knowledge of the natural world will have the wherewithal to use the outdoors to a degree now unimagined. And the potential to destroy it to the same extent.

What to do? There are several things, I believe, that will help.

Population control is certainly one of the most efficient and effective means of alleviating problems at least partly caused by population pressure. It seems inevitable that any sane and rational society will eventually try to regulate it numbers. We have a ways to go in that respect. But the stakes are high, not only in terms of the quantity and quality of outdoor recreation in the future, but also in social, ecological, economic and aesthetic terms. I have faith that our society will eventually grasp the truth. However, we had better at least start publicly talking about it soon.

A second worthy approach is to preserve, as soon as possible, as much wild and natural land and habitat as we can. We can never manufacture more. We already have a good start in our national parks and wilderness systems, wildlife refuges, research natural areas, wild and scenic rivers, and nature centers, and the high use of these areas attest to their value. Because of the limited nature of the Earth's remaining natural areas, however, they will forever increase in value. Thus, I cannot stress too strongly the extreme need to continue to preserve such areas, and to acquire and preserve more of them, large or small. To a child growing up in a city or suburb, a vacant lot can be a valuable wilderness; too bad there aren't more.

Although acquisition and preservation of extensive natural areas should continue to be a function of the federal government because of its large land holdings, local governments should also pay an increased role. Some municipalities already require that a certain percentage of each newly developed parcel be set aside as "open space." That trend should be repeated everywhere, with county and state governments following suit. In this respect, the work of the Nature Conservancy bears mention. That organization seeks out unique natural areas, buys them to preserve them, and then turns them over to appropriate government agencies to administer and protect forever. Except for Planned Parenthood, I regard the Nature Conservancy as the most effective, most efficient conservation organization there is.

Here it is necessary to distinguish between the preservation of natural areas and the preservation of wildlife. Natural areas are not renewable. As indicated above, destroy them and they are gone. Wildlife, however, is renewable. So long as the taking of wildlife is regulated, as it now is almost everywhere, one need not worry about harvesting it. (Endangered species are exceptions, but most of them were reduced by factors other than harvesting.)

It is important for the public to understand this distinction between renewable and non-renewable outdoor resources. I see the need to preserve natural areas as so important that every preservation dollar spent trying to "save" renewable wildlife instead of its habitat seems counterproductive. Certainly it is easier to persuade people to donate money, time or effort to prevent the killing of some cuddly animal. However, what good does it do to outlaw the trapping of muskrats, for instance, when someone is draining the marsh in which they live? Save the marsh, however, and the population of muskrats, minks, raccoons, turtles, frogs, fish and numerous birds will take care of themselves.

The only real exception involves endangered species. They too need habitat, of course and for some of them, that is the major problem. For other, however, deliberate efforts to study them, protect them, breed them in captivity, or re-establish them in the wild are necessary. A prime example is the restoration of the wolf to Yellowstone National Park. Because wolves preyed on livestock, they were deliberately wiped out of the extensive western wilderness, including national parks where there were no livestock. This left Yellowstone an incomplete ecosystem. Restoring the wolf to that park is biologically feasible and necessary, and it would greatly increase the enjoyment of Yellowstone by its millions of visitors.

Another major need I see for helping solve the problem of increasing use of the outdoors in the future is that of maintaining as much of a pluralistic approach as possible. Preservation of natural areas need not mean prohibiting human use; it only means prohibiting destructive use. True, some outdoor uses may be mutually exclusive when practiced in the same location at the same time. Canoes and powerboats are incompatible. So are fox hunting and fox trapping. However these problems should be remedied by zoning, rather than by complete outlawing of one or the other. For example, once pristine wilderness are protected from such destructive use as brought on by all-terrain vehicles (ATV's), other areas, already destroyed, can be set aside for ATV's. Perhaps we even need national mudholes specially designated for people who like 4-wheel driving.

With the proper seasonal zoning, much greater use could also be made of any given area. For example, public open space situated near cities but isolated enough from residence could serve for hiking, picnicking, and even camping during summer, and then for hunting and trapping in fall and winter. Fishing could be allowed year round. Not only would this approach provide more people with more outdoor opportunities, but it would help take pressure off other areas. Of course, this presupposes that there will be enough public open spaces and natural areas acquired and set aside to begin with.

How can this all be brought about: forming a national population conscience, preserving as many natural areas as possible, encouraging distinctions between renewable and non-renewable outdoor resources, restoring endangered species, and promoting enlightened and ecologically sound pluralism in use of the outdoors?

By outdoor education, I hope. But here is where we have really fallen down. High School and college courses in biology, ecology, conservation and wildlife management are especially helpful, and the increasing contributions of museums and nature centers are also valuable. However, far more needs to be done.

The outdoor education challenge must be met head on. Ecology and conservation courses need to be instituted in every grade school and high school, and in extension, adult special, and night classes. More nature centers are necessary and more nature classes should be offered by museums, zoological societies, and conservation organizations. A strong concerted effort is needed.

However, the real leadership in outdoor education should come from the state departments of natural resources and the federal government. Most states publish a conservation magazine and offer outdoor movies, and that is good so far as it goes. The federal agencies charged with managing land, forests, parks, and wildlife also include nominal information and education (I & E) divisions. However, most often such divisions operate much the same as they did 30 years ago. And when budget-cutting time comes, these are often the first divisions to feel the axe.

The popularity of television and home video machines has brought significant opportunities for I & E divisions that have yet to be exploited. Home video equipment should be issued to every project leader, and the leader trained, so that opportunity footage can be obtained of their work. I & E divisions themselves should have adequate professional video equipment, and access to editing facilities, so they can produce their own videos.

Most of all, conservationists in leadership positions, both public and private, must concentrate their energies on educating the media about the above problems and their solutions. We have been saturated with superficiality; the public may even find relief in exposure to subjects in greater depth.

But the time for all this is now. Every day that goes by sees more pavement laid, more marshes drained, and more basements dug. From my vantage point in the high arctic, where wolves still chase the musk-ox in a world unknown to most, the future to the south seems much too imminent.