In the wake of the uproar over hunting brown bears in Katmai National Preserve, does anyone care that Cape Cod National Seashore officials have cleared the way for pheasant or turkey hunts to resume on the seashore? Or is it only hunts involving charismatic mega-fauna that draw ire?
Now that the Cape Cod officials have decided to allow the state of Massachusetts to stock pheasants on the seashore for as many as 17 years, to allow pheasant hunts for an indefinite period, and to allow spring turkey hunts, will the National Parks Conservation Association help distribute a video of such a hunt as it did in the case of the Katmai bear hunts?
Of course, comparing brown bear hunts with pheasant and turkey hunts is akin to pairing apples and oranges. Pheasants multiply much more quickly than bears, particularly when you have a state agency helping the birds, and so the hunts aren't expected to harm the overall health of the East Coast's pheasant populations.
Of course, wildlife officials with both Katmai and the state of Alaska point out that the Katmai Preserve's brown bear population is quite healthy and that the hunts there won't place the population in danger. But then, the focal point of the protests over the Katmai bear hunt is not hunting in and of itself nor the health of the bear population, but rather the lack of "fair chase" involved.
And yet, some might argue that bird hunts aren't that much more challenging. So will we hear outrage over Cape Cod's decision in the near future?
Doubtful.
But we will soon hear outrage over Montana's decision to issue licenses for a hunt of bison that leave Yellowstone National Park this coming winter. Some will argue that these hunts lack fair chase (they do), and some might say they will jeopardize the health of Yellowstone's bison herds (they won't).
Like it or not, the National Park Service has an image problem when it comes to wildlife stewardship and its mission to "...to promote and regulate the use of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
Some will say that hunting -- fair chase considered or not -- is indeed an appropriate tool to use in managing wildlife populations for today and tomorrow. Others will say wildlife that roam inside parks should be protected from hunters and managed naturally, ie, with a sound balance of prey and predators.
In the case of Cape Cod National Seashore and its bird hunts, the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance welcomed the decision, saying hunting has been a Cape Cod tradition for roughly a century.
“Since the anti-hunters filed suit five years ago to stop the hunt, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and sportsmen have encouraged the Park Service to do what it must to maintain Cape Cod’s hunting heritage, which has existed there since the early 1900s,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSA president & CEO. “The Foundation applauds the decision to maintain and augment hunting opportunities. It demonstrates that the sport is not a detriment to the Seashore.”
"Not a detriment."
Should that be the measure when hunting across the national park system is considered? After all, there are enough animals in Yellowstone's elk and bison herds to allow limited hunts, so should such hunts be allowed within the park? After all, historically, hunting did occur inside Yellowstone.
And certainly the officials at Rocky Mountain National Park, Theodore Roosevelt National Park and even Wind Cave National Park will attest to burgeoning elk herds that could withstand a measure of hunting pressure.
In fact, you could quickly come up with a list of national parks that have healthy populations of various wildlife species that could support hunting. Some hunts would involve fair chase, some would not.
So, if you were the director of the National Park Service, how would you address this sensitive topic? Should hunting be allowed across the park system, should it be permitted on a park-by-park basis, or should it be outlawed?
Comments
Frank, you seem to say it like it is regarding to the issue which has much merit in my book. Mr. Longstreet's comments bothers me to the point, when you start dragging in the NRA with the hunting issue in the National Parks (and under this present administration) things tend to get real messy. The NRA has a track record of mispresentation, misquoting and giving out bad misinformation about many gun laws and hunting issues. However, Mr. Longstreet since you made the comment about Katmai National Reserve, in your opinion, and in your assessment is it "being managed appropriately"? If not and why not!? I ask this, since you opened the door in dialogue, in reference to the NPS managing wildlife resources properly...or appropriately. I truly fear, when it comes to push-and-shove regards to hunting in the National Parks, and the interpretation of the Organic Act involving the NRA (and the courts), I feel in my gut, that are wildlife resources will continue to dewindle under the barrel of a shotgun, and weaken amendments will be established to allow hunters to have there unethical insane hunts like in Katmai...in which some call a slaughter...including myself.
I didn't realize until I read Thomas Mangelsen's (world fame wildlife photographer) excerpts from his beautiful book, THE NATURAL WORLD, that there are approximately "2,000 Alaskan bears are killed a year in the name of sport". In the name of sport! I don't think Katmai bear slaughter indicated this...did you Mr. Longstreet? So, again Mr. Longstreet, is the Katmai National Reserve managed properly?
"They are places where mountain lions stalk and eviscerate deer, raptors snatch up cottontail rabbits in their talons and rip out their entrails with sharp beaks"...............Excuse me? These aren't part of the natural processes? These things don't happen in the forests where hunting is allowed? The difference is that in a National Park we might actually WITNESS them. As I said, "A place of education". One can only wonder how many young wildlife biologists, naturalists, foresters, film makers and poets have been born while watching animals in National Parks.
The Yellowstone Association (and so many others) offer hundreds of educational classes and programs every year that would be impossible in a hunted environment. If hunting were allowed you could virtually kiss goodbye to wildlife photography (ask Mr. Mangelsen, for example, where he gets most of his photos), as well as National Geographic, Nature and other educational programs (mostly filmed in parks).
As for the deer in Zion (I'll have to take your word for this happening. I have been to Zion many times and have never witnessed it, nor have I read about it....didn't know deer eat peanut butter sandwiches!).....like most "wildlife" problems, this is a PEOPLE problem. These deer have been trained by people to act this way. If this is indeed happening, the Park Service needs to do some averse training. People DO need to treat wild animals as WILD, and respect them as such. There is a big difference between habituated animals and animals that are used to people, which is most Park animals. The bears in Yellowstone thirty or forty years ago were habituated (fed from cars etc.) and there were dozens of bear related human injuries each year. Today the bears in Yellowstone are merely used to people, and there is an average of only one. Interestingly, there are far more than that in the surrounding National Forests where hunting is allowed.
As for these encounters being "magical" only for humans, I absolutely agree. They are especially so for the very young and the very old, but most of us (even some of my hunter friends...so they tell me) can get a little bit of magic.........if you can't, I truly feel sorry for you.
I spent half a dozen or so weekends at Zion last summer and was quite surprise (and dismayed) be the behavior of the local mulies. But with a couple million people annually sardined into that relatively small tract of land, I guess I had no right to be surprised. But Frank is absolutely correct in his observation of drastic modification in the natural reaction and behavioral patterns of the deer, among other creatures. "Wild" creatures approaching humans for hand-outs? OUTRAGEOUS!! Isn't that one of the qualifications for deeming something domesticated, or at the very least, tame? We've provided a vehicle whereby the natural instinctive lifestyles of these critters has been forever altered, which in and of itself removed the biological classification of "wild" from the beast. "Wild-type" is a term used to delineate the natural or original state, as found in nature, from any modified subset, whether that modification is induced in a laboratory or through natural methods of mutation, and appiles equally across both genotypical and phenotyical modification (genetically and/or psychologically /physically) modified traits. Normal evolutionary behavior would not include a "getting to know you" attitude between man and truly wild animals. These changes can only be attributed to direct intervention on the part of our species. All because we think they're "cute".
Wildlife biologists have learned more about the lives of wolves by observing them in the wild in Yellowstone in the last 12 years than in all of history prior to that. Much of what we know of bear behavior was gleaned from the Craighead research of the fifties and sixties in Yellowstone. Predator, prey knowledge has been greatly advanced by observations in Isle Royale. I would hardly call them "naive observers".
Looking up "deer attacks" is a favorite hobby of mine, and exactly what I tell uneducated folks who talk to me about how "dangerous" wolves are, to do. Here are a few results:
"A deer goes buck wild on a hunter"
"Deer Attacks Hunter. NOW you can call it a sport."
"Sheriff's deputies said the man was trying to feed the deer when he was attacked"
"SoCal man dies of injuries suffered in deer attack."
"A huge whitetail deer attacks a hunter."
"Deer Attacks Hunter ... The deer should have killed the stupid hunter"
"deer attacks a hunter and it's all caught on video"
"This deer goes nutty and attacks a hunter. ... "
"bow hunter is attacked by huge whitetail deer"
Sounds like a lot of these attacks are occurring in areas where hunting is allowed!
What stands out is the stark LACK of reported attacks in parks.
""Wild" creatures approaching humans for hand-outs? OUTRAGEOUS!!" What is outrageous is that PEOPLE GIVE handouts to wildlife, thus TRAINING THEM TO ACT THIS WAY (PEOPLE PROBLEM). Wildlife experts warn about feeding wildlife. Every person who enters a National Park is given a list of safety rules regarding wildlife: minimum safe distances for viewing, photographing etc. Do not feed. Keep a clean camp....etc. Unfortunately many, if not most, visitors choose to ignore at least some of these rules. I am in Yellowstone 3 to 5 days a week year around. I can't tell you how many times I see ice chests and food left on picnic tables, people throwing food to coyotes and other animals and folks sticking point and shoot cameras right into the face of bison and grizzly bears! I even saw one idiot try to pet a bear cub once! (The momma bear, contrary to what you would think, ran into the woods.) Yet given this atmosphere, injuries are amazingly rare; and when they do happen (even just a bluff charge...no harm, no foul) it is the animal who ultimately pays the price. If you ask most rangers, they will tell you that if everybody simply followed the rules injuries from wildlife in the Park would be virtually non existent. One even told me that when they have to put down a bear, they would much rather put down the stupid tourist who caused the problem! JUST BECAUSE ANIMALS TOLERATE YOU DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE NO LONGER WILD. This, the rangers will tell you, is their hardest job...convincing people of that. Wolves can walk right through a herd of elk without causing a stir. Yet if the wolves are hunting, the elk will run long before they get there. Their instinct tells them the difference. They same is true when people approach.
Populations should be controlled with NATURAL predation. If that is not possible hunting can be increased on surrounding forest lands....most wildlife move seasonally. I repeat: Parks are a place for families...not weapons, of any type.
It is clear that we will never agree on this issue, so I suggest that we simply agree to disagree. Fortunately the law and the vast majority of the American people do agree with me. Americans, I don't believe, will ever stand for a general hunting season in our National Parks.
Remember - hunting is only permitted in parks where the park's legislation allows it. Hunting is not permitted in the vast majority of parks and is prohibited by law. Only Congress can change the legislation of parks where hunting is not permitted. See the famous court case NRA v. Potter.
Bad, very bad National Park System.
Just because a deer or two kicks ass on a human or a bear harvests a few and a wolf howls the angst of survival in a National Park on the full moon scaring the crap out of some folks is by no means a reason to kill them. Sounds more like "a place of education" to me.
IMHO
Unfortunately, I don't believe it to be true that the majority of Americans really give a damn one way or the other regarding hunting inside or outside the parks. I wish it were so, and that the public took a truly active stand on issues pertaining to the National Parks. If you took a poll, you would get answers, some vehement, supporting both views, but those expressing opinions who would back them up by even a simple letter-writing campaign would be few. Most Americans like to talk loudly and do nothing, as is witnessed by the high level of contempt for our existing political structure and those who man it, and the unwillingness of the general public to do even the most basic, simple task of getting away from the TV long enough to cast a ballot, which if done properly could affect IMMEDIATE change in our system. And as pointed out above, many of the lunkheads who actually DO visit the parks are too lazy to even perform the most fundamental task, like cleaning up after themselves.
It shouldn't take a cardiac surgeon to figure out that people made the first overture by presenting foodstuffs in an available, knowingly or not fostering the behavioral modification in nature. Of course this is a people issue. We again have created a situation due to our tremendous lack of foresight that is next to impossible to reverse, at least in the short term. But to say that these animals are still "wild" is nonsense. Wild animals have instincts to avoid confrontation that results in predation. Even worse than their habituated nature, they're now much MORE dangerous to humans now due to losing the instinctive fear of man. But, open hunting?
And I would still like to know why everyone is so upset that hunting on national lands is being discussed while hunting on state lands is a yearly ritual. The concentration of humans per square mile in generally higher in state facilities, the parks overall are smaller (which is why certain areas are cordoned off during the hunt), the pack sizes are more prone to decimation due to overhunting, and the general proximity of humans (facilities, settlements, roadways, etc) is far greater. Shouldn't BOTH locations be considered the basis of the issue?
I don't think Frank's point about the alteration of the ecosystem can be ignored. The lands that the parks encompass are simply not the same ecosystem that was so masterfully managed by the Natives centuries ago, or even the same that Powell, et.al. "discovered" in the late 19th century. It is an artificial preserve, with selected predation and prey as deemed fit by human "stewards". Granted, the portion of the equation dealing with human predators can no longer exist due to the dramatic increase in the human animal and his "freedom" to do as others of his species will, and this ridiculous notion of sport hunting. Sport hunting virtually exterminated the buffalo, among other North American species, in the past two centuries. That manner of hunting cannot be allowed on public lands due to the extreme detrimental impact on what we deem as acceptable "prey", which is basically anything that finds it way into the cross-hairs, edible or otherwise. That's why the earliest inhabitants of this land were successful in "maintaining" the herds and their populations; the entire philosophy was centered around taking only enough to sustain the village, not taking enough to satisfy the world market. That notion was solely the responsibility of the Europeans.