Update May 2, 2008: 1) Letter from a citizen for the wildlife watching refuge; 2) Response from Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife; and 3) My reaction/response
1) Letter from a citizen for the wildlife watching refuge
May 2, 2008
To Whom It May Concern:
At the request of my colleague, Dr. Jonathan Way, I am writing to urge the town of Barnstable be declared a wildlife watching area dedicated to non-consumptive wildlife uses. Massachusetts currently does not have one area dedicated solely to wildlife watching despite the fact that wildlife watchers outnumber hunters 30 to 1 and outspend them $469 to $58 million (2001 figures) in Massachusetts alone. Even the state's largest national park, Cape Cod National Seashore, allows hunting despite the fact that most national parks nationwide prohibit hunting. There ought to be a place where researchers can study wildlife (deer, coyote, fox) without having their study subjects get shot and where wildlife watchers can enjoy wildlife without fearing their safety or having to witness the maiming of animals. In addition, there should also be a place in Massachusetts (similar to the many national parks out west) where animals are not under constant management (i.e., killing) pressure from humans. It’s critical to look at the economic cost-benefits of this issue as an animal can be killed only once, while it can (potentially) be watched unlimited times bringing in increased and compounded income over the years for the park!
I would be much more likely to spend my money in the town of Barnstable if it was declared a wildlife watching area with a hands-off approach to wildlife management similar to the many national parks out west.
Thank you for your consideration; I look forward to your response.
Person’s Name here (to remain anonymous)
Wildlife Consultant
Address and Email were here
2) Response from Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
The state has no authority to decide a town's "consumptive status". Fishing and shellfishing as well as other hunting are allowed by law through scientifically based rules and regulations--insuring there will be wildlife for all wildlife enthusiasts, from birders to hunters, shellfishermen and anglers to enjoy for future generations. We are all consumers of wildlife in one way or another--through our choices of where and how we live, not just if we choose to hunt with a, fish hook, gun, bow and arrow or a camera.
Regarding safety, there are approximately 70,000 licensed hunters in Massachusetts. In the last 10 years there have been less than 3 hunting accidents per year—and all involved hunters. No non-hunter in Massachusetts has been injured in these incidents.
Our agency has been promoting watchable wildlife for a quite a number of years; the Massachusetts Wildlife Viewing Guide was published in 1996 showing 67 sites where wildlife can be viewed. We have information on wildlife watching on our website and have been developing more material to post. Agency relationships with tourism groups in Massachusetts has resulted in better promotion of outdoor opportunities, including watchable wildlife.
Your email appears to imply that a group that spends more money should have all the say. Here in Massachusetts, the legislature has declined to fund our agency's Natural Heritage and Endangered Species program since 2002. The only groups of people who are paying for wildlife work by the state wildlife agency are fishing and hunting license buyers, people who buy hunting and fishing equipment, donors to the Endangered Species fund and developers who have to go through environmental review in projects which involve rare and wetland species. These same people are also contributing to the local economy as well. Massachusetts taxpayers and visitors who are not engaged in hunting or fishing are not investing in the wildlife research, conservation, education, monitoring activities that our state agency is mandated to perform. It would be more productive for all if there was a more equitable investment in Massachusetts wildlife and the habitat that both wildlife and people utilize.
Our agency's wildlife lands are open for multiple outdoor uses, without any fee charged to anyone. Our agency manages the properties through various habitat practices that are Green Certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. Massachusetts was the first state in the nation whose environmental agencies received the certification status. As a wildlife consultant, you must be aware that national parks and forests are also actively managed--talk to some foresters and biologists at those locations about what they do to protect their lands and you will find out some very interesting information about their management activities. Hunting does occur on many of these lands—mostly to deal with imbalances that have made for wildlife population problems that decades of a hands-off approach has created.
Regulated hunting is not causing the demise of wildlife. The reality is that wildlife's greatest threat is loss of habitat--from development, habitat fragmentation, stream flow and temperature issues, pollution, etc. This is true for all wildlife across the country, including California. Some wildlife are benefiting from development, skunks, raccoons, foxes, deer and coyotes--but many other types of wildlife are not adaptable in the same way as these very common animals. People who love the outdoors share common ground and should be working together--divisiveness can drain energy that could be much more effectively pursued in working towards a common goal. The real challenge is how to conserve the integrity of the state's natural biodiversity when there are 6 million people sharing 5 million acres of land and water with the wildlife of Massachusetts.
3) My reaction/response
I found the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDFW) letter intriguing. Because it addressed so many points that the writer never made, it seems like it was a pre-written form letter with minor modifications made to directly address the letter at hand. For instance, the writer did not mention anything to do with the danger (or lack thereof) of hunting. It was almost a letter defending hunting when the writer never questioned the ethics or anything to do with hunting; the person only requested that one area be set aside for wildlife viewing. My overall view is that I don't think MDFW gets it. I don't think any state fish and game agency sees the difference of not allowing hunting in a specific area so animals can be viewed without always running away. Yet this is the number 1 mission of the National Park Service.
These are my specific comments:
1) From what I’ve read over the years, it seems that nobody from any state division of fisheries and wildlife department has ever been to a national park, especially out west. If they had been to one they would have experienced a much different feel where wildlife doesn’t run from the sight of people. What makes national parks so special is that wildlife is not bothered by people and they usually react to a human neutrally. That doesn’t make them dangerous or pets, but just human-acclimated animals. It is ridiculous, in my strong opinion, to think that these animals would be the same if people were allowed to kill them. And that is exactly what I am requesting by this wildlife watching idea. I am not trying to get rid of hunting, except for one town so people (maybe even some hunters) can experience wildlife like they might out in Yellowstone National Park.
2) Fish and game agencies are so dominated by the hunter’s viewpoint that I think that they believe that wildlife would be in chaos if we left them alone. I have a moral problem with wildlife management based on the utilitarian viewpoint (note: I received my B.S. in Wildlife Biology so I know this viewpoint all too well). Humans, including Native Americans, have only been in the eastern United States for around 10,000 years, yet most wildlife species are ancient (much older) compared to that. Wildlife would not go into chaos or anything special if people weren’t around. Similarly, many people have a strong feeling that wildlife needs to be managed. While many people don’t mind other people hunting for food, many of us feel that insulted when we are led to think that all common animals need to be “managed” by people for the better good of that species. One exception might be deer where there are no predators, but the eastern coyote now lives throughout the eastern United States, and they (along with humans) are now a potential predator of deer (although likely less than wolves). However, state trapping organizations lead us to believe that animals need to be trapped or they will run rampant. However, many states (like Massachusetts) have greatly restricted trapping and wildlife is doing just fine (see comment # 6).
3) Similarly, state game agencies repeatedly mention the fact that only hunters contribute to wildlife management but everyone concerned about wildlife knows that. That is why many non-hunters have issue with that undemocratic statistic and want more of a say in wildlife management. In Massachusetts roughly 10 times more money is made by wildlife watching, yet this money goes to the general economy. And there is nothing that wildlife watchers can currently do about that but that doesn’t mean we don’t want to contribute to wildlife preservation; it means that hunter’s have a strangle-hold on wildlife management policies. And these folks think we are hypocrites for asking for things like wildlife watching areas; it is almost like they don’t look at the overall numbers when MDFW says things like “The only groups of people who are paying for wildlife work by the state wildlife agency are fishing and hunting license buyers”. Duh, of course they are, because other users have no way to support MDFW unless they contribute to the Natural Heritage (Endangered Species) Fund.
4) I don’t understand why MDFW's comment about habitat degradation being the biggest threat to wildlife is in their reply. The writer never mentioned that it wasn’t an important issue and a major threat to wildlife populations. But from the devil’s advocate point of view, many species (many of whom MDFW lists) do well in suburbia and actually probably live longer, healthy lives than they do in more wooded areas. While I am not advocating development versus wild land preservation, it is not surprising that many suburban areas have abundant wildlife populations because they are not being killed. So, the last paragraph doesn’t make much sense to me since wildlife thrives in urban/suburban areas. In fact, I actually look forward to tracking collared coyotes in Hyannis and Centerville compared to West Barnstable during the late-fall since coyotes in West Barnstable (which is much more wooded) are much more likely to get shot.
5) I don’t agree with MDFW's scientifically documented hunting seasons statement. For one, MDFW has never researched deer throughout the town of Barnstable. I don’t think they quite understand how relatively rare deer are around here yet MDFW gives doe/fawn tags to just about any interested hunter on the Cape. Also, we have published 15 peer-reviewed articles on coyotes yet they have never used any of our data in their "scientifically-based" hunting seasons. In fact, hunting seasons are based on maximal exploitation by a minimum of people with no regard to the ethics involved with the animals in question (mainly, allowing a hunter to a kill a highly intelligent, social species like the eastern coyote in unlimited numbers for 5 months a year). The current model of maximal exploitation by a minimum of people defines the Tragedy of the Commons which I discuss at the beginning of the environmental studies course that I teach. This concept is generally associated with over-fishing but hunting in the town of Barnstable, where wildlife watchers love to see animals like deer which are usually shot each fall, is another example.
6) Finally, I truly believe that one of the most important things (aside from habitat preservation) is for cultural appreciate of wildlife (which in wildlife management terms is called cultural carrying capacity) because many animals can live at high densities in suburban areas (this is called biological carrying capacity). However, if more humans are more tolerant of their wild neighbors then wildlife management can be much more hands-off allowing wildlife to make decisions and not live at the whim of humans.
So, I conclude with the statement, that creating a hunting free-wildlife watching area like the town of Barnstable would have ample benefits for a multitude of species and people. You just can’t have the up-close wildlife observations when hunting allowed in an area. If you don’t believe me, then go to Yellowstone National Park (or another similar park) someday and see the wonders of a wildlife preserve that is almost half the size of my entire home state of Massachusetts. The ironic thing about my wildlife watching area proposal is that hunting in the surrounding area around the town of Barnstable would likely be very productive in the years following the creation of the preserve, because the abundance of the wildlife in my home town would likely faciliate dispersal to surrounding towns. And I would certainly have nothing wrong with that! That is where all users truly benefit, as opposed to the current scenario of having no protected areas for wildlife.
