Hunting, Access, and Search and Rescue

Unit Five: Conflict Issues - Hunting, Access, and Search and Rescue RTM 251 - Introduction to Recreation and the Natural Environment Unit Five: Conflict Issues - Hunting, Access, and Search and Rescue Issues The goal of unit five is to provide a window into some classic issues of conflict relating to outdoor recreation. Earlier lectures have already pointed to the inevitable nature of conflict when it comes to public land. The 'use' of land itself creates a conflict of conservation and preservation versus recreational use by citizens. Debates about how best to conserve or preserve land also leads to conflicts within management agencies (e.g. recreation personnel versus timber personnel in USFS). Conflicts will also arise between management agencies and various parts of the community. The issues under consideration all relate to recreation activities. One of the three issues here was referenced in the unit on the National Park Service: the question of insufficient access to resource areas. The second issue, hunting, has become an emotional issue wrapped in all the absurdities that govern 'political correctness'. Hopefully your reading on the topic will engage you in the debate in an open minded fashion allowing you to understand the issue from multiple perspectives. Search and rescue is always in the news (sometimes as multiple day stories) as people continue to 'get lost' and/or 'get in trouble' on America's mountains. The debate is not about the process of search and rescue but who pays for it and what should be required of adventure types who engage in outdoor recreation. The Question of Access: The debate about access is always present in a review of NPS management practices. Some environmentalist feel the protection of resources is overrun by motorized access groups (e.g. snowmobile users). Some users are concerned that the park service's commitment to preservation and protection of the resource results in hindering access and reasonable use by you and me. The National Parks Conservation Association (www.npca.org) site will provide some insight on balancing preservation with recreation (make sure you read the whole press release on the parks management policy framework) though their bias in the debate should be clear to you. The general media (from news stations to movie scripts) has a bias toward preservation at the expense of access. Students taking this course will frequently suggest banning bolting for rock climbers, or removing mountain bikes or ATV's from wild places though those students have never participated in any of these outdoor recreation activities and nor seen first hand the potential harm and the potential benefits of participation. Surely the 'recreational users or abusers' are the bad guys and restriction and protection is the path to follow. But is that view represented by the facts. Several examples are listed below. There is a classic social tension that the irresponsible actions of a few curtail the general freedom of the many. For example, mountain road closures in CA snow are much more conservative compared to other parts of the country - meaning early and prolonged closure of the roads by highway patrol. The rationale is that the ignorant and irresponsible actions of CA drivers (who do not know how to drive in snow road conditions) restricts access and freedom of everyone; even though a responsible, well-trained snow driver could negotiate the winter road with no great risk to themselves or others. Maybe people should get special license stamps for 'snow travel' like truck drivers need to get special licenses.The important question is how does a government agency exercise 'control' in a way that makes sense to users (to the users as well as impact on the environment). There are many other factors which lead bureaucratic organizations to restrict access. Examples include: • • • • A real need to restrict in order to truly protect (individuals or individuals harming other individuals). Restriction is easier to enforce. It's easier to say no than deal with some level of problem from limited use. Frequently government regulation (new laws or regulations written by legislators) are written by people who know little of the real world of wilderness. A general societal fear of 'litigation' pushes reasonable people to make premature judgment and restrict rather than permit. Let's explore a couple of specific examples of access: mountain climbing and mountain bikers. The American Alpine Club is a clear voice for access to mountains by climbers. Read the summary papers on climber access for the Mt. Hood Wilderness area and then review the more complete arguments about how restriction of human use of wilderness was not the intent of the Wilderness Act. Social impacts was discussed earlier as a part of the Leave No Trace literature but this concept has now found its way into management plans that want to limit access because of a view of solitude in wilderness . What would you suggest is the answer to this type of access issue? Who should decide? Climbers or legislators or federal land managers? The debate about 'solitude ratios' that have begun to impact mountain access is part of the larger access issue represented by quota systems. Read this article by George French as a good summary of the history of quotas and the limitations of that approach. Outdoor educators have argued for years that the education programs for backcountry users will do far more to protect the natural resource than strict quota systems. Mountain bikers are an interesting group. Later in the semester you will review student reports on outdoor recreation activities and can learn more about the mountain bike sport. The profile of the mountain biker has shifted from the crazy-manadventurer riding recklessly down canyon slopes to a diverse mainstream user involving families and men and women of many ages. Unfortunately there are some rude and obnoxious riders but the majority of riders are using mountain bikes to create an enjoyable outdoor experience. CORBA is a non-profit organization that attempts to educate bikers and non-bikers about the sport and often serves as an advocate for access to mountain biking trails. The National Park Service has been very slow at allowing access to mountain bikers on hiking trails. Why is that? Some would suggest that the issue is 'environmental impact' though some studies suggest the impact is minor from mountain bike tires. Why would the NPS allow a 1200 lb horse with steel wheels (horse shoes) to access a trail and create a greater impact than a mountain bike on that same trail? Tradition is a lot of it - after all the horse and trail ride is part of the history in our country particularly in the western states. The reactionary could of course ban both horse and mountain biker. Louv as you already know from your reading has noted the link between environmental ethics and participation in outdoor recreation. So why would people want to restrict outdoor experiences rather than encourage more people to become involved with the outdoors. Again, the pathway out of the conflict may well ride with education of the recreationist. Training and education for both horse riders and bike riders would significantly reduce the environmental impact and increase the enjoyment of the outdoors. The Question of Idiots, Adventurers, and Public Responsibility: Americans love rescue stories and relationship drama. This past winter has created several stories and hours of media attention on individuals lost in the wilderness. Media commentators inevitably raise the question in these events about the high cost of the rescue and what is the governments responsibility to adventurer's. Suggestions were made at the time of the Mt. Hood disaster that the mountain should be 'closed'. Don't let people climb it in the winter because it is obviously dangerous and the government should not allow people to create this problem. There are a couple of issues here. The first is clearly philosophical - what rights do people have to adventure. Here is an example unrelated to outdoor recreation. Isn't it terrible that drunk drivers kill other people on the highway. One view point that used to be pretty central in American culture is that people are responsible for their own actions - so let them be. If we could find a way for drunk drivers to only kill themselves that could be fine and good - let them drink and drive because it would be them who would drink and die. Another view point is that people need to be protected from themselves by government - the nanny state. We should keep drunk drivers off the road because they will hurt themselves. Adults need a big brother to protect them from themselves. Unfortunately, based on how cars work the drunk driver issue is primarily that the other driver on the road needs protection from the drunk driver. Most outdoor recreationists (except the ones who drive power vehicles) don't have much capacity for hurting others but only themselves. So do we need protection from ourselves? Let them go I say - let the fools find their death and the wise discover their character (& perhaps their death). Allow them all to go forth to self-selected dangerous places because who would want to judge between the fool and the wise man? A second major issue is this. Assume the right to adventure. What happens when things go wrong? Who should pay? One of the issues is that climbers or other outdoor enthusiasts can be classified along a continuum of unprepared and untrained fools and well prepared and trained adventurers. The prepared and trained rarely make the news and frequently the novices are the one's who get into trouble. On Mt. Hood several winters ago, several groups drew media attention who were reasonably prepared and reasonably trained. So does the public have a duty to rescue adventurer's when they are in trouble. This research report by the American Alpine Club offers some data that runs counter to the media message dispensed by TV commentators during the recent Mt. Hood tragedies. Some of the key questions raised in that article include the fact that cost is often misrepresented. Most rescues are for lost novices rather than experienced adventurers. Education would seem to be a better pathway than restricting either the novice or the expert to enter wilderness areas. Volunteers make up the largest percentage of human resources committed to the rescue and that cost to the government for these volunteers is nada. Even public sector involvement is often fixed overhead that would have been 'paid' as personnel continued another part of their job description (e.g. sheriff giving out more traffic tickets rather than coordinating volunteer searchers) or military personnel and equipment that would have been doing mock drills rather than real rescue. The debate for who pays is certainly valid. Rescue personnel are afraid that a 'pay for your own rescue' will have people avoid calling in for help until the situation has become worse and provides less options for rescue personnel. Some states have implemented "pay for your own rescue" regulations. Others have suggested an insurance program that shares the risk across adventurers just like car insurance assumes a certain number of accidents and everyone pays for the few who do have an accident. American culture is quick to allow government to regulate personnel safety believing it is for the common good (e.g. seat belt laws or motorcycle helmet laws). Mountain climbers might for example be required to wear avalanche or locator beacons - though there are some interesting problems that would arise without proper training. And of course the $400 cost puts one more access burden on the economically disadvantaged. The instructor's bias is clearly toward education and less toward restrictive regulation. Most people don't want to die or be injured. Unfortunately as people have become more and more separated from outdoor life experiences they no longer know what they don't know. As a result they fear things that should not be feared and are fearless of hazard that could cost them their life. Students at CSUN should take advantage of the outdoor recreation skill classes (RTM 151 A-H) as a simple way to take advantage of education for the outdoors that not only protects people from themselves but teaches them how to protect the environment as well. The Question of Game Hunting: The debate about hunting is focused here on American hunters who hunt various game animals rather than other global hunting practices that involve issue of population reduction or species preservation (e.g. sea lions or dolphins). The one thing you can count on in a debate around this issue is that most folks today no little beyond the media image of hunters because so few people have direct experience. According to the NSSF in 2004 (national shooting sports foundation) there were 20.6 million active hunters, 43 million people who hunt currently or have hunted in the past, and hunters, 14.7 million actually got a license and hunted in the past year. So with 250 million people in the U.S. that means about 1:17 people might hunt. Other studies indicate perhaps 6% of the U.S. population hunts. In the U.S., hunting is regulated and one can be assured that no hunting programs allow for depletion of the species involved. In fact the white tailed deer may be out of control because of too much protection by state natural resource agencies. An pro hunting article about the science behind white tailed deer populations shows clear evidence that hunters need to kill more deer to avoid environmental degradation of the forests as well as protecting the deer herd itself. The notion that man is the only species involved in environmental damage is a narrow view of ecosystems (too many deer or wild horses can create environmental havoc). In the long term the natural cycle of overpopulation (that was looked at in a previous lecture related to humans) will 'balance' the system but not before significant damage to parts of the food chain (e.g. plants that deer eat) and the suffering of the deer species itself through disease and starvation. Many hunters see themselves as 'conservationist' promoting the protection and replenishment of game species. Since 1934 the sale of Federal Duck Stamps, a required purchase for migratory waterfowl hunters over 16 years old, has raised over $700 million to help purchase more than 5.2 million acres (20,000 km²) of habitat for the National Wildlife Refuge System lands that support waterfowl and many other wildlife species, and are often open to hunting. Here are some classic facts or arguments for hunting. • • • • Hunting is a symbolic (if not real) statement of man as predator in the food chain Regulated hunting is based on protection of habitats and avoids depletion of resources Causes less automobile accidents: more deer are killed by automobiles than hunters each year (there are about 1.5 million car accidents with deer each year that result in $1 billion in vehicle damage, about 150 human fatalities, and over 10,000 personal injuries.) Deer kill more people (via car accident) than people killing themselves in hunting accidents (e.g. 100 hunting deaths vs 150 people die from deer hitting cars) The 30 million deer in this country represent more deer than Christopher Columbus could have inventoried • • • • • • • • • • • Hunting keeps animals like mountain lions appropriately afraid of humans and thus are less likely to attack Hunters eat their game rather than just hunting for sport or leaving dead animals in the woods Death by gunshot is quick and avoids suffering (especially compared to death by starvation or disease). Safety is managed by required hunter safety education programs Hunters have much lower accident ratios than other sports or vehicle driving Fees on hunting licenses go toward game preservation Hunting is a rural cultural tradition that should be respected by modern urbanites Hunters develop respect for the game they hunt rather than disrespect Many hunters hunt for the experience of being outdoors rather than for 'the kill' Hunters do their own killing rather than hiring someone else to do it for them (i.e. it's hypocritical to condemn hunters and yet eat meat and separate oneself from the fact that someone killed that animal) The moral argument against killing animals is logically flawed if you accept the assumption that plants have a life force similar to animals Here are some classic facts or arguments against hunting • • • • • • • • Hunters do not need to be a predator because alternate food sources are numerous and plentiful Some anti-hunters are vegetarians for moral reasons rather than health reasons and believe that killing any animal is unacceptable Guns cause pain and suffering to animals - it is a cruel form of dying - ask someone who has been shot about the pain involved Some anti-hunters argue that eating meat is less healthy and therefore killing animals has no utilitarian purpose Hunters shoot each other leading to unnecessary accidental deaths Hunting teaches people violent behavior rather than caring behavior Animals are cute If hunters want 'meat' then raise the animals domestically or invent ways to harvest them (kill them) which have less suffering for the animals