THE POSITIVE WILDLIFE VIEWING EXPERIENCE
The wildlife watcher slows down and quietly discovers a wild animal without
altering the animal’s behavior. As a result of this rewarding experience, the
watcher gains a greater appreciation of the natural world.
How do wildlife viewing professionals help people cross the line from passive
observers to participants in a way that honors the wild in wildlife? Where, too, is
the line between a positive and a negative viewing experience? What makes a viewing experience life changing? Have managers gone too far in making sure viewers
distance themselves from wildlife with the repeated messages of “Observe from a
distance” or “Use binoculars to get close to wildlife?”
Facilitating a positive viewing experience takes matching the audience to the right
experience, managing people on sites or on tours, designing facilities that include
natural barriers, blinds, remote cameras, boardwalks or discovery trails, and educating viewers. Case studies include wolf watching in Yellowstone National Park; bat
watching at Selman Bat Cave in Oklahoma; sandhill crane viewing blinds on
Nebraska’s Platte River; day-in-the-field programs of the Owl Research Institute in
Montana; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Sea
Smart public awareness campaign.
What’s the ultimate goal for wildlife viewing providers?
This handbook challenges professionals not to
separate people from wildlife, but to connect
watchers with wildlife in a positive way.
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bob Hernbrode, state watchable wildlife coordinator, Colorado Division of Wildlife, made it
possible to write and complete this handbook.
Thanks for his vision, guidance, thoughtful
reviews, changes and patience.
Many thanks to the official review committee:
Nancy Tankersley Fair, Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Bob Garrison, California Department of Fish and Game
Paul Baicich, American Birding Association
Dr. Richard Payne, Houston State University
My appreciation to the individuals who provided information for
the case studies:
Chuck Bartlebaugh, Lynn Murdock, Larry Aumiller, Doug
Smith, Jeremy Garrett, Karen Hardesty, Paul Tebbel, Craig
Davis, Gary Kramer, Jim Dennis, Renee Herring, Denver
Holt, Paul Green, Jim Clark, Brady Phillips
To those who helped with examples and ideas:
Ted Eubanks, Beth Paragamian, Rick Swanson, Andy
Hoffman, Joanna Burger, Chuck Neal, Jeff Maugans, Trevor
Spradlin, Kate Supplee, Gayle Joslin, Mark Pretti, Dan Davis,
Hannah Bernard, Bob Dittrick, Stuart MacDonald, Lynne
Hull, Jodie Canfield, Janine Benyus, Jean Harrison, Jane
Ruchman, Chuck Sexton, Seth Beres, Michael St. Michel,
Wayne Melquist, Sue Reel, Chris Mead, Scott Reid, Craig
Sheldon, Gary Stolz, Pete Dunne, Wendy Hudson
And to: Judy Sheppard for first draft edits and Gina Bernacchi for
copyediting.
Photo credits: Chuck Bartlebaugh, Deborah Richie Oberbillig,
Loretta Williams, Sue Reel, Nancy Tankersley Fair, Michael St
Michel, Paul Tebbel, Steve Emmons, Yellowstone National
Park, Outdoor Oklahoma, Colorado Division of Wildlife,
Owl Research Institute, California Department of Fish and
Game
Logos: Leave No Trace, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Illustrations: Paul Gray
Layout and design: Ghostwriters Communications
2
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
4
Stream Profile Chambers
37
PREFACE
5
Viewing Blinds
39
INTRODUCTION
6
Case Study: Photographer Blinds—Sacramento National
Wildlife Refuge Complex, California
40
Case Study: Building Landowner Relations—
Mobile Viewing Trailer, Colorado
41
Case Study: Platte River Sandhill Crane Viewing Blinds—
Nebraska
42
Defining a Positive Wildlife Viewing Experience
WHO ARE THE WILDLIFE WATCHERS?
Experience-Based Wildlife Viewing
SPECIAL CHALLENGES: ETHICS, IMPACTS, AND FEEDING
7
8
8
10
Shades of Gray: The Most Right Thing
10
Loving Wildlife to Death?—Viewing Impact
12
Overview
44
The Wildlife Feeding Predicament
16
Case Study: Wildlife Watch: A Wildlife Viewing Skills
Workshop—Colorado Division of Wildlife
45
EDUCATING VIEWERS
44
Case Study: Education Campaign—
Center for Wildlife Information
19
Hands-on Education
45
Case Study: Putting a Lid on Handouts—
Glacier National Park
20
Case Study: A Day in the Field—Owl Research
Institute, Montana
46
21
Ethical Dilemmas in Wildlife Viewing
46
21
Code of Ethics-Why Have One?
47
23
Case Study: American Birding Association—
Code of Birding Ethics
49
50
PLAN FOR THE POSITIVE VIEWING EXPERIENCE
A. How Many Wildlife Viewers?—Managing People
Encouraging Ecotourism
Case Study: Close-up Coexistence With Bears—
McNeil River State Game Sanctuary
24
Case Study: Bat Viewing Trips—Selman Bat Cave
25
Case Study: North American Nature Photography
Association (NANPA)-Principles of Ethical Field Practices
Case Study: Wolf Watching—Yellowstone National Park
26
Catchy Public Awareness Campaigns
51
28
Leave No Trace example
51
Overview
28
Case Study: Sea Smart-National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Adminstration (NOAA)
52
Site Selection
29
Writing the Positive Wildlife Viewing Message
53
Facility Design: Where to Begin
29
Restoring and Enhancing Your Site
29
Case Study: The Concise Marketed Viewing Message—
California Department of Fish and Game
54
Case Study: Comprehensive Planning for
Responsible Viewing—Chatfield State Park
Examples of Wildlife Viewing Messages (by species)
55
31
Trails
32
Natural Barriers
33
Boardwalks, Observation Decks, and Towers
33
Binocular Loans and Mounted Spotting Scopes
36
Remote Cameras
37
B. Designing Facilities
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
CONCLUSION
57
REFERENCES
58
APPENDICES
59
CONTACTS
64
INDEX
66
3
FOREWORD
S
everal years ago, one of
Colorado’s most articulate
wildlife researchers said, “Wildlife
management is a luxury to an
affluent society. We are not necessary.”
After thinking about this for
some time, I have come to the
conclusion that wildlife management and wildlife managers are
indeed a “luxury to an affluent
society”—if we see our goals,
objectives and outputs as hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing
opportunities. If, however, we
recognize and employ recreational hunting, fishing and wildlife
viewing as powerful tools to conserve wildlife for people today
and for future generations, then
our profession and our efforts are
no longer a luxury. Wildlife agencies must use their unique
responsibility to produce sustainable recreation as the trailhead to
promote awareness, understanding and caring for wildlife and
wild places.
We know a lot of people watch
wildlife. Although studies don’t
always agree on numbers or percentages of populations, they all
indicate a large active participant
rate from very diverse segments
of the public. Studies also indicate that a lot of people who
don’t watch wildlife express an
interest in doing so. Effective
wildlife viewing efforts offer a
wide range of viewing experiences for diverse audiences. All
successful viewing has three
indispensable parts, and all must
be explicitly considered in the
development of wildlife viewing:
4
• They are Fun. People watch
wildlife because it is fun, an
enjoyable form of outdoor recreation that is done as a primary
activity or as an enhancer of
other outdoor activities, such as
auto touring, hiking and camping.
• They offer a Learning
Experience. People expect to
learn something from their
interaction with wildlife and are
receptive to learning when they
are enjoying the experience of
seeing wildlife.
• They incorporate and demand
Ethical Behavior. It is clear that
wildlife viewing is not synonymous with nonconsumptive
viewing, and wildlife viewing
can be very detrimental to
wildlife if not carefully managed.
ing to meet the needs of an
increasingly sophisticated constituency. Things are changing. In
small ways throughout the continent, I am seeing the first emergence of wildlife viewing management as a professional discipline.
The problem is that agencies have
virtually no experience in addressing this new stakeholder, and
there is very little literature
describing how to manage wildlife
and people to produce sustainable
viewing benefits. We hope this
small, non-technical book will
help.
—BOB HERNBRODE
Wildlife resource managers have
long recognized the importance of
hunting and fishing to give upclose, personal contact with
wildlife and wild places that start
people down the trail to appreciation, understanding and conservation. Wildlife viewing offers the
same opportunities to a much
more diverse constituency. But,
agencies have been slow to recognize the potential of wildlife view-
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
PREFACE
For most of us, knowledge of
our world comes largely
through sight, yet we look
about with such unseeing
eyes that we are partially
blind. One way to open your
eyes to unnoticed beauty is
to ask yourself, “What if I
had never seen this before?
What if I know I would never
see it again?”
—RACHEL CARSON, THE SENSE OF WONDER
A coyote feasts on an elk carcass
not 50 yards off the road in
Yellowstone National Park. The
animal appears oblivious to the
passing vehicles. A pair of ravens
waits its turn. We drive by, then
turn around and park for a
moment to watch. As soon as our
car comes to a stop, the coyote
trots off. The ravens flush. Our
presence has just caused wildlife
to change its behavior. How
many of us have had some experience where our zeal for viewing
intrudes upon a wild animal’s
space? As I put together this
handbook, I realized that it helps
to approach the whole subject of
planning for positive wildlife
viewing with empathy. I wager
that we all have a basic desire to
see wildlife up close and personal.
That desire can sometimes lead to
stressing wildlife, despite our best
ethical intentions.
Observe from a distance that’s
safe for you and for wildlife. Use
binoculars. Allow wildlife to
behave naturally. We recite this
message to visitors perhaps with-
out considering the implication
that we may be asking people to
keep nature at arm’s length at all
times. We even go further in
some situations by setting viewing distances enforced by the
power of law.
How can we advocate viewing
from a distance when our most
memorable wildlife viewing experiences might have happened up
close? A hummingbird hovers
within inches of a red sweater,
attracted by the vivid color. A
hiker almost steps on a fawn
curled in tall grass, then bends
close and looks for a few
moments before leaving.
How can we tell people never to
change an animal’s behavior
when we left the house that
morning and interrupted a robin
pulling a worm from the lawn?
Simply sharing
in a
landscape leads
to disturbance.
Walk along a beach and sandpipers scatter. Canoe down a river
and ducks lift off a sandbar. Cross
a woody draw and deer burst
from the brush.
The assignment for wildlife viewing professionals is to facilitate
positive, memorable experiences
that keep disturbances to a minimum. A positive experience refers
both to the watcher and the animal being watched. The presence
of the watcher should be a neutral influence upon the animal.
Awareness of human presence is
acceptable, but changing natural
behavior is not.
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
A memorable experience most
often comes from close-up viewing. “Close” does not have to be
physically close to a wild animal.
Touching an hours old wolf track
can be close, too. Discovering an
owl feather in a park natural area
and leaving it for the next person
can be intimate and memorable.
As managers, we have to look at
the sustainability of viewing
wildlife, especially as the interest
in wildlife watching continues to
grow exponentially. While the
interest grows, our society as a
whole increasingly lives in artificial and urban environments.
This phenomenon places an
added importance on facilitating
wildlife viewing experiences that
put people in touch with “real”
wildlife in real nature.
The easiest solution for wildlife
viewing professionals trying
to protect
animals
from harassment
is to put as much distance between people and
wildlife as possible. Excessive
problems by a minority of users
often lead to a heavy-handed
approach toward all viewers. The
easy solution risks losing a potential constituency of conservationists, because they are never given
the chance to discover the thrill
of being close to wildlife in the
wild. We must look at the question of proximity to wildlife from
two angles: How close can a
wildlife viewer get to an animal
before there is a disturbance, and
how close does a viewer need to
be for a positive, satisfying viewing experience?
At McNeil River State Game
Sanctuary in Alaska, a limited
number of wildlife viewers can
watch brown bears fishing for
salmon at not much more than a
bear’s length away, with no artificial barrier. The bears are habituated to the presence of these people in a carefully managed viewing area, but continue to fish and
play, and accept the viewers’ presence as they would that of a
squirrel in a tree or a moose walking by. Humans are viewed by
bears as a neutral part of the
landscape, not as a source of food
or a threat. If Larry Aumiller,
sanctuary manager for McNeil
since 1976, could dare to place
people close to a dangerous predator and succeed, there’s no reason others can’t challenge any
limits we place on ourselves
as viewing managers.
This handbook is
meant to
help wildlife
professionals find
creative ways to move
people close to wildlife in a way
that is sustainable. In some cases,
it means admitting that in one
area our impact may be greater
on animals than without some
kind of viewing program. Those
choices must be made deliberately, after much thought and planning, to meet a larger goal of
connecting people to nature. Our
greatest task is to help people
cross the line from passive
observers to active participants in
conservation.
5
INTRODUCTION
T
he tools and strategies found
in this handbook represent a first
step in assembling current information, case studies and sources
to foster an exchange of positive
wildlife viewing solutions among
wildlife and land managers, naturalists and tour leaders. The
examples are representative, but
not comprehensive. All information fits under four categories:
audience, special challenges,
planning and education. The
handbook furthers the efforts of
Watchable Wildlife, Inc. in working to ensure that wildlife viewing is carried out both responsibly and successfully.
Watchable Wildlife, Inc., the
national nonprofit organization
formed in 1999, is dedicated to
helping communities-rural and
urban alike-benefit both economically and socially from wildlife
viewing. That success is linked to
the ability of wildlife viewing
providers to satisfy the expectation of watchers without jeopardizing wildlife. To succeed takes
both strategic planning and education that can help shape expectations.
NatureWatch: A Resource for
Enhancing Wildlife Viewing Areas,
edited by Wendy Hudson of the
Defenders of Wildlife (1992),
helped launch the selection and
responsible development of
wildlife viewing areas. That book
unfortunately is out of print. This
is the first publication since
NatureWatch that is aimed at the
providers of wildlife viewing,
rather than “how-to” messages
for the general public.
6
Much of the early work examining what makes wildlife viewing a
positive or ethical experience
comes from the National Partners
for Watchable Wildlife, an informal consortium of natural
resource agencies and conservation groups that now serves as an
advisory board to Watchable
Wildlife, Inc. The national partners have long wrestled with how
to promote and manage wildlife
viewing programs as a conservation strategy, while protecting
wildlife and habitats from the
ever increasing numbers of mostly well-intended viewers.
The annual
Watchable
Wildlife
Conference
(sponsored first
by the National
Partners and,
starting in 2001,
by Watchable
Wildlife, Inc.)
has served as an
international
forum for debating the question
of responsible,
ethical wildlife
viewing. Sessions have included
“Ethics from Behind the Lenses:
Sensitivity to Wildlife Needs
Comes First” (Montana, 1992, the
first annual conference) and
“Walking the Tightrope: Visitor
Needs Vs. Wildlife Needs”
(California, 1996 conference).
The 1999 Watchable Wildlife
Conference in Florida offered two
in-depth sessions with experts to
examine the questions of how
close is too close for wildlife
viewing: “Birdlife and
Ecotourism: A Mini-Symposium
to Establish Acceptable Ethics for
Waterbird Viewing” and “Marine
Mammals and Ecotourism: A
Mini-Symposium to Discuss
Appropriate Guidelines for
Viewing Marine Mammals in the
Wild.”
Several publications pass on
responsible, satisfying wildlife
viewing tips to the public. The
National Partners in Watchable
Wildlife produced a brochure,
"The Ultimate Guide to Wildlife
Viewing" (see Appendix A). State
and province wildlife viewing
guide books feature sections on
observation tips or ethics. A
poster, "NatureWatch Tips" resulted from a partnership of the
Forest Service, Center for Wildlife
Information and National Forest
Foundation
(contact
Kimberly
Anderson in
references). The
wildlife viewing
guidebooks promoted by the
partners as a
way to create a
network of
viewing sites
across North
America each
contain a special section on
safe and
responsible wildlife viewing.
Watching Wildlife by Mark Duda
(1995) passes on safe and responsible viewing messages to the
public, as does the companion
video, Watching Wildlife: A Guide
to One of America’s Most Popular
Activities, produced by D.J. Case
& Associates (1995). Another
book, Loving Nature…the right
way: A Family Guide to Viewing
and Photographing Scenic Areas and
Wildlife, by William W. Hartley
(1996), provides specific tips for
responsibly photographing and
viewing wildflowers, insects,
amphibians and reptiles, birds,
mammals and underwater life. In
addition, a nonprofit organization, the Center for Wildlife
Information, based in Missoula,
Mont., teaches proper etiquette
around bears and other wildlife
through brochures and videos.
Are wildlife viewing professionals
succeeding in these efforts to foster a constituency of respectful,
caring wildlife watchers? What’s
the best avenue for our message?
Are we sure we’re delivering the
right message? How can our planning, programs and facilities provide the best possible viewing
experience that’s both ethical and
enjoyable? This handbook strives
to answer these questions mostly
through sharing on-the-ground
case studies and examples.
The working title of the handbook originally contained the
word “ethics.” The choice was
made to drop the term in favor of
“positive wildlife viewing.”
Professionals in the field of
watchable wildlife are used to seeing the phrase “wildlife viewing
ethics” and, similarly, “viewing
etiquette.” However, when
extending efforts to the public,
the meaning of the word “ethics”
can become charged. Ethics also
sounds weighty and uninviting to
visitors. “Positive wildlife viewing” focuses on the memorable
experience. An experience could
be ethical without satisfaction to
the viewer. Professionals need to
do both. While playing down the
use of the word, ethics are central
to the philosophy that drives
efforts for positive viewing experiences.
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
Defining a Positive Wildlife Viewing Experience
“For observing nature, the
best pace is a snail’s pace.”
For the manager, agency or trip leader charged with encouraging or managing wildlife viewing, several factors combine to
define a positive viewing experience:
—EDWIN WAY TEALE
No matter what values or background individual wildlife viewers bring to the field, it is helpful
to attempt to define an overall
positive viewing experience that
rings true for most people. How
individual viewers achieve this
experience could vary immensely. For instance, a person who
grew up around bald eagles scavenging on the docks of Alaska
would probably not be moved in
the same way by this species as
an urban viewer seeing a bald
eagle in the wild for the first
time.
Positive Wildlife Viewing Success for Managers:
A Definition
Wildlife watchers depart with a memorable, enjoyable and
educational experience. The wildlife continues to feed, rest,
nest and otherwise go about daily living without stress or
interference with its ability to survive. All wildlife viewing
facilities minimize and concentrate impacts. The viewers
come and go without altering the habitat. The local community and landowners see viewers as respectful and desirable visitors. Ultimately, managers hope to facilitate an
experience that leads wildlife watchers to want to learn
more, and to take informed action on behalf of wildlife and
habitats.
CHUCK BARTLEBAUGH, CENTER FOR WILDLIFE INFORMATION
As the wildlife watching clientele
grows and habitats do not,
providers of the watchable
wildlife experience need a greater
tool chest than ever before. Each
tool must work to ensure a positive viewing experience that keeps
the wild in wildlife, while meeting the needs of people from
all walks of life and levels of
outdoor experience.
With that caveat, here’s a suggested definition of a positive,
wildlife viewing experience for
both watcher and wildlife:
The Positive Wildlife
Viewing Experience:
A Definition
The wildlife watcher slows
down and quietly discovers a
wild animal without altering
the animal’s behavior. As a
result of this rewarding experience, the watcher gains a
greater appreciation of the
natural world.
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
7
WHO ARE THE
WILDLIFE WATCHERS?
Experience-
Based Wildlife
Viewing
“Nature never repeats itself,
and the possibilities of one
human soul will never be
found in another. No one
has ever found two blades of
ribbon grass alike, and no
one will ever find two
human beings alike.”
—ELIZABETH CADY STANTON
Wildlife watchers are far from a
generic group. To successfully
provide a positive wildlife viewing experience takes an understanding of the common and differing beliefs, attitudes, values
and perceptions of wildlife watchers. While the goal is to give all
wildlife watchers a viewing experience that will lead to greater
awareness of the needs of wildlife
and habitats, it’s helpful to recognize that wildlife watchers can
range from highly motivated
birdwatchers to a family on a picnic.
The birdwatcher might not care
whether the parking lot was
paved or what the distance to the
nearest restroom is, but would be
interested in a well-positioned
viewing blind. A family on a picnic might stop to use the rest-
8
room and then be tempted to
walk a short nature trail or listen
to a volunteer naturalist. The
challenge is to provide differing
experiences for the highly
involved viewer than for the
casual watcher and, in doing so,
manage sites for sustainable levels of use.
Experience-based recreation simply proposes that recreationists
are motivated by two expectations: 1) that their efforts will be
rewarded, and 2) that the experience will be satisfying. Settings
and activities are instrumental to
achieving the desired experience.
Michael Manfredo and Richard
Larson applied the experiencebased recreation model to
wildlife viewing in a 1993 report
for the Colorado Division of
Wildlife. Manfredo and Larson
identified four distinct, experience groups for wildlife viewing
ranging from the most involved
wildlife viewers (Types 1 and 2)
to the least involved (Types 3
and 4). The groups do not represent individuals, but the experiences that people are seeking. A
wildlife viewer might fall into
any one of the experience groups
depending on the circumstance.
Type 1: High involvement
experience: This group participates in several outdoor activities, including wildlife viewing.
Type 1 people enjoy solitude and
participating solo or as a family.
They place a very high importance on new and different experiences, viewing scenery and
tranquility. They want information about wildlife and would be
the group mostly likely to
become involved in volunteer
wildlife research or other indepth projects.
Type 2: Creative experience:
This group links viewing wildlife
with photography, painting and
other creative pursuits. Type 2
people share many of the qualities of the Type 1 group, except
they tend to like the social experience and to pursue fewer outdoor activities than those in the
Type 1 group.
Type 3: Generalist experience:
The generalists combine wildlife
viewing with other activities like
fishing, boating and scenic drives.
They seek tranquility, relaxing in
the outdoors, experiencing new
and different things and engaging
in activities as a family. They are
less likely to obtain viewing
guides, take guided tours or check
out audio tapes.
Type 4: Occasionalist experience: The least involved group
shares the same interests as Type
3, but does not rank those outcomes as important as those in
the generalist group do. They are
the least likely to combine
wildlife viewing with hiking. This
group is mostly constrained by
lack of knowledge about wildlife
viewing, particularly where and
when to go.
Common Values of Wildlife
Watcher Experience Groups
Certain outcomes are important
to all four groups. For example,
all wildlife watchers value seeing
wildlife in wild settings, according to studies overseen by Bob
Hernbrode, state watchable
wildlife coordinator for the
Colorado Division of Wildlife.
Similarly, Ted Eubanks, president
of Fermata, Inc., a Texas company
specializing in national wildlife
viewing research and develop-
ment, says his firm’s 1999 data
reveals an underlying motivation
for all wildlife viewers: They want
to be outdoors and they want
new experiences. The “new”
experience goes hand in hand
with seeing wildlife in wild settings. Nature is always changing
and always new.
According to Eubanks, the common experiences tell wildlife
viewing managers that visitor
centers should be gateways to the
outdoors, rather than a destination. Wildlife watchers will go to
visitor centers as a starting point
to a greater adventure outdoors.
The challenge for managers and
tour leaders is to facilitate an outdoors experience that will help
watchers see nature perhaps from
a perspective they hadn’t considered before.
Meeting Management Goals
Beyond the commonalties, recognizing the differences among the
four experience groups can help
managers plan sustainable facilities and programs. To facilitate
the positive wildlife viewing
experience for the highly
involved and creative experience
groups, managers should have on
hand more in-depth information
on wildlife, habitats and best
places for photos. Development
would focus on self-discovery and
include only those facilities that
meet those goals-like selected
trails and viewing blinds. For the
highly involved experience, there
would have to be excellent
opportunities for solitude as well.
Fostering positive wildlife viewing for the generalist and occasional experience groups would
take a more direct approach.
These groups may need to be led
by the hand before they are ready
for self-discovery. Managers
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
would concentrate developments
and think in terms of visitor centers, guided tours and easy-toaccess roadside exhibits.
Take a hypothetical example of a
state park close to a population
center with a strong recreation
emphasis. Managers might create
a universally accessible nature
trail with wildlife interpretive
messages to meet the needs of
the generalist and occasionalist
experience. In another part of the
park, they might restrict development to a wildlife brochure with
instructions on where to see
moose or elk, or perhaps one
viewing blind with benches overlooking a pond and set off a beaten path. The needs of the highly
involved and creative groups are
met, and the park has not fallen
into the trap of intensive recreation development in all parts of
the park.
In contrast, at a state wildlife area
whose main purpose is preservation of a critical ecosystem or
endangered species, the options
are much narrower. Rather than
forego public access, the managers could offer guided naturalist
tours for small groups. In another
sensitive site, a mobile blind
might be set up to view prairie
grouse dancing on a lek. These
experiences meet both the highly
involved and creative groups’
needs, as well as a preservation
purpose.
The experience-based model also
can help planners with strategies
for managing large numbers of
wildlife viewers that descend
upon areas to see a particular
phenomenon. For example, Doug
Smith, wolf project leader for
Yellowstone National Park, anecdotally observed the difference
between visitors who came specifically to see the wolves versus
those driving through the park
without a specific purpose. The wolf watchers
tend to be a more
sophisticated group in
terms of wildlife knowledge and an overall
respect for the well
being of wolves. The
casual park visitors are
less knowledgeable and
more likely to treat
wildlife as an amusement, endangering
themselves by approaching bison
or elk with point-and-shoot cameras as if the animals were
“tame.” It’s helpful for managers
overseeing wolf watching to be
clear on the outcomes these
groups expect and to make plans
for meeting differing viewer
expectations and wolf protection
goals. In this case, the highly
involved viewers often serve as de
facto naturalists and educators for
the occasionalists who stop by to
see what the fuss is all about.
Experience Planning for a
Region
The experience-based model can
facilitate planning for a geographic region as well. Manfredo
and Larson (1993) list the following questions that managers
should ask before developing
wildlife viewing opportunities:
• How available are locations
where people could engage in
each of these types of experiences?
• What actions currently are
being taken to provide for each
experience type?
• How does the availability of
experience opportunities compare to the amount of public
preference for each experience?
For an excellent example of
applying experience-based
wildlife viewing to a geographic
area, take a look at the Colorado
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
Division of Wildlife report,
“Planning for Experienced Based
Wildlife Viewing Recreation: A
North Park Watchable Wildlife
Pilot Project,” by Marcella Wells
(1996).
Incorporating Universal
Design, Accessibility
When applying experience-based
recreation, include accessible or
barrier-free viewing experiences.
We should be cognizant that at
sometime in our lives, all of us
will need some accessible places
outdoors. The term “accessibility”
encompasses more than physical
access. For example, accessible
interpretation includes as many
of the senses as possible, from
visual to hearing, touching and
smelling.
The book, Everyone’s Nature:
Designing Interpretation to Include
All, by Carol Hunter (1994), offers
specific information on universal
design, a term that takes the legal
requirements of accessibility
(defined in the Americans With
Disabilities Act) and goes a step
further to meet the needs of a
wide range of people, including
children, seniors and visually-,
hearing- or mobility-impaired
people.
Conclusion
Think experiences. Avoid automatic assumptions that all sites need,
for example, interpretive signs,
self-guided nature trails, flush toilets and parking areas big enough
for several recreational vehicles.
Perhaps no development at all
might best meet the desired experience. In other cases, a visitor
center and an underwater fish
viewing facility would be entirely
appropriate. In yet another, as in
the state park example, a continuum of experiences may be the
best answer. Ultimately, use this
kind of planning as a guide for
connecting people and nature
without sacrificing the purposes
and integrity of the natural landscape.
Contacts
Ted Eubanks: Fermata, Inc., 3011
N. Lamar, Suite 306, Austin, TX,
78705, (512)450-0313,
[email protected], Web site:
www.fermatainc.com
Michael J. Manfredo: Human
Dimensions in Natural Resources
Unit, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO, 80521,
(970)491-0474
Bob Hernbrode: state watchable
wildlife coordinator, Colorado
Division of Wildlife, 6060 N.
Broadway, Denver, CO, (303)2917271, [email protected]
Douglas W. Smith: wolf biologist,
Yellowstone Center for Resources,
P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone
National Park, WY, 82190, (307)
344-2242, [email protected]
9
SPECIAL CHALLENGES
Ethics, Impacts
and Feeding
“We can be ethical only in
relation to something we
see, feel, understand, love or
otherwise have faith in.”
—ALDO LEOPOLD
At the 1999 Watchable Wildlife
Conference in Fort Myers, Fla., a
group of participants in a minisymposium on ethics of marine
mammal watching illustrated the
challenge of defining ethics and
impacts. The group boarded two
boats to observe wild dolphins in
a populated bay, frequented often
by boats and recreationists.
Dolphin researchers and leaders
of marine mammal programs
accompanied them. As the boats
neared a small group of dolphins,
the boat operators cut their
engines. A hydrophone in the
water captured the whistles,
squeaks and purrs of dolphins
engaging in courtship behavior
very close to the boats. When the
dolphins moved off, the boats
continued to circle the bay, stopping to drift whenever they came
near the dolphins.
Later, several participants argued
about whether the tour had been
ethical or not. One biologist said,
“We definitely approached the
dolphins. They were aware of our
presence. We were unethical.”
Another one disagreed, saying “I
felt comfortable. The guides knew
the biology and behavior of these
dolphins well enough to understand that the dolphins’ behavior
was not affected by the boats’
presence.”
A third biologist said, “All
wildlife is to some degree habituated to human beings. What
about the dolphins that chose to
ride the stern wakes of the fishing
boat that passed us? Boats are
part of their world here. We can’t
assume our being close is an
impact.”
If experts in the field of watchable wildlife can’t agree on what’s
ethical behavior, there’s no doubt
the debate will be repeated in
every wildlife watching arena.
The following sections look at
three tough challenges in the
field: What constitutes ethical
wildlife viewing? How do we
avoid loving wildlife to death,
and can we set viewing distances
for species? How do we solve the
wildlife feeding problem?
As watchable wildlife programs
evolve, more tools will be available to meet the special challenges of the field. The purpose
of separating out ethics, impacts
and feeding is to encourage more
research and debate to help move
the program forward.
Shades of Gray:
The Most Right
Thing
A leader of a field trip to view
spawning salmon waded into the
river and grappled a silver salmon
the length of his arm.
Triumphantly, he pulled the
writhing fish out of the water by
its tail and called the group to
come close and take photos. His
course of action was inappropriate by any standards. He stressed
an already stressed fish, interrupted its natural behavior, and sent a
poor message to the onlookers.
Where precisely did the trip
leader cross the ethical line?
Should he have, instead, asked
everyone to remain on the trail
above the bank and watch from
there? Or would it have been
acceptable to watch from the
river’s edge? What about standing
in the water to feel the river’s
flow and better imagine the
salmon’s journey? When striving
for a memorable wildlife viewing
experience, what could a tour
leader do that would help people
go beyond passive watching,
while respecting and protecting
the fish?
Beth Paragamian, an Idaho
watchable wildlife specialist in a
partnership position (Forest
Service, Bureau of Land
DEBORAH RICHIE OBERBILLIG
10
Management and Idaho Fish and
Game), has accumulated thousands of hours of experience leading wildlife viewing tours. She
says that answers to these questions are easy for her:
I believe less is more. The less that
you interrupt the natural flow of
things, the more creative or imaginative our viewing can be. The
leader on the trail should have
stayed on the trail with the group,
weaving facts of fish with stories
of their journey far from the
ocean. Then everyone in the group
could have left the area, creating
in their mind their own visions of
the fish and stream, how it might
have felt, the water flowing, the
fish dying and the nutrients
returning to bring life. As soon as
we cross the line to actually pull
the fish out or touch it, that effectively ends the experience for
everyone. Instead, keep a respectful distance, start a story, and let
the viewer’s own imagination fill
in the experience.
Rick Swanson, aquatic scientist
for the Forest Service out of
Missoula, Mont., points out some
practical reasons to stay out of
the stream where salmon are
spawning. First, walking in the
stream could easily trample incubating eggs in the gravel. Some
salmon nests (called redds) can be
20 to 30 feet long and 15 feet
wide. Second, spawning fish
spend tremendous energy swimming upstream to spawn, defending territory once they’ve arrived
and digging a redd. The last bit of
energy remaining goes into
spawning. To use those reserves
to escape the grasp of a human
might doom the fish to failure.
How close could the group come
without bothering the fish? Stay
on the trail, Swanson says.
Viewers on the riverbank can
spook the salmon off the redds.
However, a tour leader could take
the group to another point on
the river away from the spawning
salmon for a hands-on experience. They could feel the swiftness of the current, reach down
to the gravels and imagine pushing rocks with fins to build a
redd. Finally, a close-up examination of salmon carcasses can tell a
story of a cycle of life and death
and rejuvenation.
Andy Hoffman, fisheries biologist
for the Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, also points out that
regulations prohibit interfering
with salmon migration or spawning. Regardless of rules, pulling
any fish from the water by the
tail and holding the fish out of
water for all to see is mishandling. A dip net is the proper
tool, and then a fish should be
cradled carefully with one hand
under the belly and the other on
the tail, ideally without taking
the fish out of water.
To carry out
a code of
ethics for
individual
species takes
both the
knowledge
and experience that
Paragamian,
Swanson and
Hoffman
demonstrated
and a willingness to then do the “most right
thing.” The National Partners in
Watchable Wildlife adopted a
code of ethics for wildlife watchers that offers a common foundation for all strategies aimed at
providing the positive wildlife
viewing experience (see
Appendix B):
We, as wildlife watchers, will put
the needs and safety of wildlife
first, conserve wildlife and habitats, and respect the rights of others. We will seek wildlife watching
experiences that reward us with
the gift of seeing animals behaving naturally in their own environments.
Bruce Matthews of Cornell
University and Cheryl Riley of
the National Wildlife Federation,
in their 1995 report, Teaching and
Evaluating Outdoor Ethics
Education Programs, define
ethics as:
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
CHUCK BARTLEBAUGHT, CENTER FOR WILDLIFE INFORMATION
A system of guidelines for governing our behavior, guiding and
enabling us to know and choose
the most right thing to do. Ethics
is an internal navigational chart
and compass, a means of finding
and knowing the best course.
Conclusion
Sometimes the “most right thing
to do” can become about as slippery as a fish in the hand. When
balancing needs of viewers with
wildlife protection, solutions
vary. Are those solutions ethical?
Do those ethical solutions go too
far or fail to come up with a creative alternative that will still
allow people to come close to
wildlife in some way, whether it’s
dipping a hand in a current or
peering through a blind? The
lines often blur as we seek the
“most right” answer. The handbook section on “ethical dilemmas” shows how these shades of
gray can become excellent topics
for debate and learning as preparation for wildlife viewers and
leaders before a field trip.
Contacts
Beth Paragamian: watchable
wildlife specialist, Idaho
Panhandle National Forest, 3815
Schreiber Way, Coeur d’Alene, ID,
83814, (208)765-7409,
eparagam/[email protected]
Rick Swanson: aquatic scientist,
US Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station, 800
East Beckwith, MT, 59807,
(406)542-4151,
rswanson/rmrs_missoula@
fs.fed.us
Andy Hoffman: fisheries biologist, Alaska Department of Fish
and Game, 333 Raspberry Road,
Anchorage, AK, 99518, (907)2672238, andrew_hoffman@
fishgame.state.ak.us
11
Loving Wildlife
to Death?—
Viewing Impacts
Is it realistic to set goals of
wildlife viewing without any disturbance? You could argue that
it’s impossible to enter into the
outdoors to view wildlife without
leaving some kind of mark. Like
any other living creature, our
coming and going does have an
effect. The goal of wildlife viewing should not be to make viewers an invisible presence on the
land. Instead, it’s important to
value humans as part of nature.
What is required is strenuous
education and planning to help
watchers slip in and out of the
natural world with grace. The
more separated people become
from nature, the less they know
how to walk quietly, to use all
their senses, to learn to read communication signs of wildlife, and
to humbly respect the other
species sharing and depending on
nature.
More Viewers, Greater
Impacts
A few statistics reveal the growth
in wildlife watching and the
implied challenge for profession-
als as the crowds increase and
more people seek to reconnect
with nature:
• Wildlife viewing is the number
one outdoor activity in the
United States and has become a
megabillion-dollar industry
(U.S. Department of the
Interior). Wildlife viewers in
Colorado alone infuse $1.8 billion annually into the state’s
economy, according to
Colorado Division of Wildlife
studies (1998, Economic
Benefits).
• Other outdoor activities often
shared by wildlife viewers are
also on the rise. Hiking participation has risen 93 percent and
camping 73 percent in the past
12 years. Nature-based tourism
is escalating at a higher rate
than any other segment of
tourism worldwide.
• Bird watching growth exceeds
hiking, bicycling, skiing and
golf. Participation rose from 21
million in 1982-83 to 54 million in 1994-95, a 155 percent
increase (Cordell, 1998).
• Wildlife watchers spent $29 billion in state and local
economies during 1996, a 39
percent increase over 1991
spending (U.S.Department of
the Interior).
• Each year thousands
of birdwatchers trek
to Nebraska’s Platte
River to view
migrating sandhill
cranes. Crane
watching, plus all
other birdwatching
along the Platte
River, contributes
significantly to the
state’s economy. The expenses
that visitors paid generated
between $25-$53 million of
economic activity in 1996
(Eubanks, Ditton, & Stoll,
1998).
• New England whale watching
generates $22.5 million directly
and $100 million overall to the
New England economy each
year. (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
1994).
The economic worth of wildlife
viewing offers a tremendous conservation hook. When communities, travel bureaus and businesses
see a dollar value, it’s easier to
convince them to participate in
strategies for a positive wildlife
viewing experience that will sustain and even increase wildlife
viewing as an economic resource.
Traditionally, hunting and fishing
dominated the outdoor recreation
field. Today, managers must bal-
CHUCK BARTLEBAUGH, CENTER FOR WILDLIFE INFORMATION
ance the economic and conservation benefits of hunting, fishing
and viewing with impacts from
all three activities.
Four Ways People Can Harm
Wildlife
Exploitation, disturbance, habitat
modification and pollution are
the four primary ways humans
can impact wildlife, according to
researchers Richard L. Knight and
David N. Cole (1995).
Exploitation refers to “immediate
death from hunting, trapping, or
collection.” Disturbance can be
intentional, like chasing an animal or flushing a bird for a closer
view, or unintentional, like hiking through an animal’s territory.
Recreationists—including wildlife
viewers—can have an impact by
modifying waters, lands and
microclimates, as well as by littering.
Knight and Cole point out that
research on impacts of hunting
have shown changes in the abundance, distribution and demographics of some populations.
They add that wildlife viewing
studies also are revealing other
impacts, such as displacing populations, reducing productivity and
increasing mortality.
Evidence of Viewing Impacts
CHUCK BARTLEBAUGH, CENTER FOR WILDLIFE INFORMATION
12
Dr. Joanna Burger, a professor of
biology at Rutgers University, has
researched specifically the effects
of wildlife viewing on a number
of species, from birds to antelope
(1999). Speaking at the 1999
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
Watchable Wildlife Conference in
Fort Myers, Fla., she stressed the
importance of understanding the
ecology and behavior of wildlife
in order to come up with methods of wildlife observation that
reduce impacts. Disturbing an
animal can lead to behavioral
changes that prevent animals
from feeding or breeding successfully. Relationships with other
species and whole communities
can change from inadvertent or
deliberate disturbances by
viewers.
Mark Duda, author of the book
Watching Wildlife: Tips, Gear and
Great Places for Enjoying America’s
Wild Creatures (1995), lists a series
of examples that debunk the
myth of wildlife viewing as a
form of recreation without
impact on wildlife and habitats.
Awareness of problems like these
can help managers plan to concentrate or minimize disturbances:
• Predators often follow human
trails to bird nests, according to
data from Cornell University’s
Lab of Ornithology.
• Human visits to tern colonies
on Lake Huron resulted in losses of eggs to gull predators.
• Population declines in Indiana
bats and other hibernating bat
species are linked directly to
human disturbances.
• Hikers in the Santa Rosa
Mountains of California inadvertently forced desert bighorn
sheep to abandon a favored
water hole.
• Boats passing too close to rocky
islands in the Gulf of Maine
have stressed harbor seals to the
extent that some adults abandoned their pups.
Measuring Wildlife Stress
Sometimes stress on wildlife is
difficult to notice visually. For
example, a bighorn sheep
stopped in its tracks may look
calm, but its heart could be beating very fast in response to
people coming too close or
the passing of a vehicle or
train. For this reason, in
1998 the Colorado
Division of Wildlife began
monitoring the heart
rates of bighorn sheep
along the Arkansas
River near Canon
City. Scientists are
concerned that
declines in bighorn
sheep populations are related to
human-caused disturbances that
inhibit a bighorn’s immune system and can in turn lead to fatal
pneumonia. The results of the
multi-year study will be applied
to the decision-making process
when locating wildlife viewing
areas and trails in the area.
Why Set Viewing Distances
Can Be Misleading
At first glance, one solution to
disturbance appears to be setting
viewing distances for species of
wildlife and then enforcing them,
especially in areas with recurring
problems from people approaching too close to wildlife.
However, a deeper examination
turns up multiple problems with
this tactic. Wildlife viewing distances depend on the context.
Habituated animals in national
parks may have a much greater
tolerance for people in close
proximity than hunted wildlife or
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
animals living in remote wilderness. The butterfly that lands on
your red shirt, the curious antelope that approaches an unmoving observer, or dolphins that
ride the boat’s wake have made
their own choices on viewing
distances.
Other factors that affect viewing
distances include the numbers of
viewers, the time of day and
noise level. What the animal is
doing at the time also plays a role
in how close may be too close. A
key factor lies in predictability.
Often, when a use is predictablefollowing a trail or boardwalk or
at a viewing deck-wildlife will
accept human presence. However,
some individuals within a population will be shyer than others.
A set viewing distance could
bring a viewer too close in one
situation and unnecessarily distant in another.
Eagle Viewing: Allowing for
Tolerant and Intolerant
Individuals
Bald eagle viewing on the
Missouri River near Helena,
Mont. suggests one model for taking into account individual differences in a wildlife population.
Migrating eagles stopped here by
the hundreds each fall to feast on
kokanee salmon spawning
throughout much of the 1990s.
Soon after the accidentally intro-
duced salmon began attracting
eagles in the early 1990s, a working group of natural resource specialists decided to open a viewing
area at the upper end of the 20mile river corridor and, at the
same time, closed a significant
downstream section to watchers.
Based on a program for a similar
eagle congregation once found in
Glacier National Park, biologists anticipated that
the eagles would separate into two
groups-tolerant and
intolerant. The tolerant birds would move
in close to the
viewing area
below Canyon
Ferry Dam, and
the intolerant
birds would be assured solitude
and good fishing downstream.
The closure also protected the
night roost trees from disturbance.
For the first few years, wildlife
viewers walked to the water’s
edge at the campground viewing
area until researchers noted that
eagles were not able to retrieve
salmon carcasses on that side of
the river. Managers then moved
the viewing area to an upper
parking level and added perch
poles to attract eagles in closer.
The scene improved dramatically.
Eagles fished both sides of the
river. Even a flock of waterfowl
moved into the backwaters below
the campground. The upper viewing area also gave people a better
vista of the river corridor. The
Bureau of Land Management
office bought binoculars and
spotting scopes to share with visitors through a volunteer host
program. Wildlife watchers were
satisfied and willing to stay in the
13
be defended as a last resort tactic
to protect people and wildlife
from injury do exist. A legally
defined viewing distance helps
enforcers make their case. Denali
National Park established the following distances as regulations:
one-fourth mile from grizzly
bears and 150 feet from wolves,
caribou, moose and Dall sheep.
Separate distances are specified
for nests and dens: 100 yards
from raptor nests and from fox,
wolverine, lynx or coyote dens;
25 yards from nesting birds; and
one mile from wolf dens.
designated area. According to
Chuck Neal, BLM park manager,
people were quick to tell anyone
who violated the closure to
return. Patience, education and
peer pressure worked well. People
were often treated to views of 60
or more eagles at a time, and
more than 200 eagles fished the
corridor.
In the late 1990s, the kokanee
salmon population took a dive
after a wet year forced dam operators to spill large volumes of
water over the Canyon Ferry
Dam. A small group of eagles
continues to visit the site for limited fishing in the fall.
Fortunately, managers did not
invest in an expensive facility,
but focused on volunteer natural-
14
ist talks. The unpredictability of
wildlife gatherings like this one
also puts the viewing distance
debate in perspective. The best
run program would not have prevented the salmon run from suffering. However, careful planning
and monitoring assured the
eagles an easy fish feast and the
spectators a visual feast while the
gathering lasted.
Justification for Viewing
Distances
In defense of setting wildlife
viewing distances, certain situations where enforcement could
Right whales are so endangered
that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) made it illegal for boats
to approach closer than 500
yards. The regulation stemmed
from a serious problem with
ships striking right whales, the
cause of death for almost half of
all right whale mortalities. In this
case, it’s not viewing that’s the
problem, but any boat’s proximity. However, near Hawaii, NOAA
did set a viewing distance of 100
yards for humpback whales in
response to whale watching disturbances. Even with the set distances, enforcement is tough
given the size of the ocean
territory.
Dr. Joanna Burger (1999) points
out that viewing distances can
serve as useful guides for managers lacking good site-specific
information for their site.
Viewing distances derived from
other situations can then be a
starting point to examine what is
appropriate.
Education Solutions
ing. As programs become more
sophisticated, those anecdotes
include remedies that take into
account both a keen understanding of the wild population in
question and the motivation of
the viewer.
Mt. Jumbo Elk Viewing
A highly viewed and popular
wintering elk herd in Missoula,
Mont. initially suffered from a
close proximity to town. Wildlife
viewers hiked up Mt. Jumbo for a
closer look and inadvertently
pushed the herd off favored winter range. Even people not looking for elk forced the skittish
herd to move. Initially, the high
visibility of the Mt. Jumbo elk
aided community efforts in a successful campaign to purchase the
mountain as open space. Saved
from development, the herd
faced the danger of enthusiastic
recreationists. Today, a strong
education effort accompanied by
a partial closure in winter is
restoring the mountain as a safe
haven for elk. Now, the entire
community benefits from watching the herd, even from the windows of downtown businesses.
Thanks to a city partnership with
the nonprofit Montana Natural
History Center, a volunteer group
called “Elk Watchers” keeps track
of elk numbers and passes on etiquette information to hikers on
the mountain’s one open trail.
Without an effective educational
campaign, most hikers and
wildlife viewers would not have
understood that their presence on
the mountain caused stress
that indirectly could be fatal
to the elk.
Anyone familiar with wildlife
viewing programs most likely
could share an anecdote about
disturbances from wildlife view-
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
Honoring the Impulse
When possible, solutions to getting too close should honor people’s desire to do so, and either
come up with a technique that
allows close viewing or redirects
that desire to help them find new
ways of being close (like appreciating signs and sounds of animals). One example of honoring
that impulse lies in the popularity of swimming with dolphins in
approved public display facilities
using trained animals. NOAA
offers that alternative in a
brochure aimed at boaters and
dolphin watchers called “Protect
Dolphins: Admire Them From a
Distance”:
For the dolphins’ sake and for
your safety, please don’t feed,
swim with or harass wild dolphins. We encourage you to
observe them in the wild from
at least 50 yards. If you would
like to get up close and personal
with dolphins, the Marine
Mammals Protection Act provides for the public display of
captive marine mammals.
Contact the Office of Protected
Resources for a list of facilities
that hold dolphins. Let the wild
ones stay wild.
Need for More Research
work for planning and further
research in an excellent 1999
report, Effects of Recreation on
Rocky Mountain Wildlife: A Review
for Montana (Joslin & Youmans).
A sampling from the report illustrates how easy it is to inadvertently disrupt wildlife’s ability to
survive alongside our recreational
activities and developments:
• Artificial lighting at recreational
facilities can disturb breeding and
foraging success of amphibians.
Nighttime choruses of Pacific
treefrogs can be silenced for
five minutes or more by briefly
shining a flashlight across a
breeding pond. A study of grey
treefrogs showed a much lower
success rate for capturing and
consuming prey under artificial
lights, compared to ambient
light.
• People walking along riverbanks
and lakeshores can destroy
important river otter latrine
sites and territorial scent markings of beavers, mink and
muskrats. Heavy use can cause
bank dens to cave in and fragile
emergent plants to be trampled,
which in turn cuts down on
security cover.
• Several studies suggest that
packed snow trails from snowmo-
To meet the demands for wildlife
viewing while protecting wild
animals, lands and waters will
require a host of proactive and
creative approaches to lessen the
chances of conflict between viewers and wildlife. As more and
more viewers enter the field, continuing and applying research on
impacts, animal behavior and
stress will be critical for planning
for a sustainable positive wildlife
viewing experience.
biling and cross-country skiing
serve as travel routes for potential competitors and predators
of lynx, a species adapted to
hunting snowshoe hares in
deep snow.
Conclusion
The more wildlife viewing managers understand the habitat and
behavioral needs of wildlife and
the ecological relationships at
their site, the better they can
plan for positive experiences that
are tailored to specific audiences.
For instance, the Mt. Jumbo elk
herd is a well-studied group of
animals. Through radio collars
and aerial surveys, biologists track
seasonal migration paths. They
know both winter range and solitude needs. That knowledge
formed the basis for a partial winter closure that took into account
the desires of the mountain’s
users. This education campaign is
aimed at hikers, skiers and dog
walkers who were only peripherally aware of the needs of the elk
herd. The City of Missoula and
the Montana Natural History
Center also promote the best vantage points from downtown
Missoula and offer naturalist programs. Monitoring will be important to evaluate how well the system balances the needs of wildlife
and people’s desires.
Contacts
Dr. Joanna Burger (shorebird
viewing impacts): Rutgers
University, Department of
Biology, 604 Allison Road,
Piscataway, NJ, 08854, (732)4454318, [email protected]
Dan Baker (bighorn sheep monitoring): biologist, Colorado
Division of Wildlife, 6060
Broadway, Denver, CO, 80216,
(970)484-2836, ext. 4382
Chuck Neal (Montana eagle viewing): park manager, Bureau of
Land Management, Canyon Ferry
Office, 7661 Canyon Ferry Road,
Helena, MT, 59602,
(406)475-3319
Trevor Spradlin (marine mammal
viewing): National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD,
20910, (301)713-2289,
[email protected]
Kate Supplee (Mt. Jumbo elk
viewing): open space program
manager, Missoula Parks and
Recreation Department, 100
Hickory, Missoula, MT, 59801,
(406)523-4669,
[email protected]
Gayle Joslin (effects of recreation
report): wildlife biologist,
Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, Helena Area
Resource Office, 930 Custer Ave.
W., Helena, MT, 59620,
(406)449-8864
The Montana Chapter of the
Wildlife Society set the frame-
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
15
The Wildlife
Feeding
Predicament
Beyond the Backyard
Caring for wild creatures often
begins with feeding birds in backyards. Over 52 million Americans
per year feed birds (U.S.
Department of the Interior).
Wildlife viewing managers face
the educational dilemma of conveying two messages that could
be viewed as contradictory: First,
it’s fine to put up feeders to
attract birds in your backyard
and, second, it’s never OK to give
handouts to birds and animals in
national parks and other outdoor
areas.
The question arises, would it ever
be acceptable to continue to
engage with nature through feeding wildlife beyond the backyard?
16
Does it depend on the species
and what or how they are being
fed? For example, bird feeders are
often popular attractions at
nature centers and even preserves.
At The Nature Conservancy’s
Ramsey Canyon preserve in
Arizona, managers place hummingbird feeders near the parking
area to give the 30,000 visitors
who make the trek to the preserve each year up-close viewing,
while keeping much of the fragile
preserve off limits. The feeders
have become a management tool.
The National Partners in
Watchable Wildlife differentiated
between backyard bird feeding
and backyard birds as a way to
broaden the scope of acceptable
places for bird feeding, such as at
Ramsey Canyon. The Wildlife
Watcher’s Code of Ethics states
(see Appendix B):
• Allow animals to forage for
their natural foods.
• Put the safety and health of
wildlife first by resisting that
impulse to offer a handout.
• Reserve feeding of wildlife to
backyard birds.
Cute Chipmunks Bite
What about feeding chipmunks
along national park roadsides,
another popular and frowned
upon activity? No matter how
memorable the experience of the
fuzzy creature nuzzling a child’s
hand for a peanut, the dangers to
both the child and the chipmunk
are clear: The chipmunk is wild
and could bite. Attracting chipmunks to roads also makes them
candidates for roadkill. In addition, research has shown that
human food high in saturated
fats, like potato chips and roasted
peanuts, interferes with the ability of these animals to hibernate.
The chemical composition of saturated fats differs from the unsaturated fats found in plants that
the animals would eat naturally
(Baker & Peterson, 1992).
When hand feeding extends to
bears, bighorn sheep, mountain
goats and other large mammals, a
host of problems arise that make
this practice easy to condemn as
inappropriate. First, there are
immediate dangers to people
from feeding animals with claws,
horns or hoofs; second, animals
begging on roadsides are struck
by cars; and third, human food
can interfere with animals’ digestive systems.
When Dolphins Beg
The severity of problems caused
by feeding dolphins off the
Florida coast led the Marine
Mammal Protection Act in 1991
to add feeding to its regulation
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
the bears that must be destroyed
when their taste for human food
leads to threatening behavior
toward people.
Feeding the Jackson Elk Herd
LORETTA WILLIAMS, CENTER FOR WILDLIFE INFORMATION
prohibiting the “taking” of
marine mammals. According to
the Act’s definition, “take” means
to harass, hunt, capture, kill or
feed, or to attempt any of these
activities. A NOAA brochure
(“Protect Dolphins: Admire Them
From a Distance”) lets people
know that when people reach
over their boat to hand a fish to a
dolphin, they are not feeding
Flipper (of TV fame). When wild
dolphins learn to beg, they can
get sick from eating junk food.
They can also be maimed by propellers, entangled by fishing
hooks and lines, or even shot by
boaters. In addition, researchers
discovered that feeding dolphins
disrupts their tight-knit social
groups. Young dolphins become
victims when mothers don’t
teach them to hunt and compete
for handouts. Wild dolphins can
become aggressive and bite when
they don’t get a handout. People
jumping into the water to swim
with the dolphins they are feeding have been severely bitten.
Mt. Evans Bighorn Sheep
Feeding Message
When people understand that
their actions can lead to the
death of wildlife, most are more
than willing to listen. However,
in many cases feeding human
food to wildlife does not have
such immediate results. Mt.
Evans, a popular destination near
Denver, Colo., has become a
training ground for overcoming a
serious problem with people feeding bighorn sheep. Mountain
goats are habituated to people as
well and also approach viewers,
but are not looking for a handout, according to Karen Hardesty,
regional watchable wildlife coordinator for the Colorado Division
of Wildlife. The sheep approach
cars, eat foods that are harmful to
them and alter their natural
behavior. Concerted efforts to
educate viewers have been successful in passing on the message
that feeding wildlife can be dangerous to humans and harmful to
wildlife, Hardesty says. Those
efforts include roving naturalists,
interpretive waysides, signs on
the road and flyers given to visi-
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
tors at the entrance station. One
Mt. Evans message reads, “Please
respect the bighorn sheep and
mountain goats by NOT feeding
them. Remember: It’s illegal to
feed the sheep and goats.
Handouts draw them onto roads
where they might be hit by cars
or cause an accident” (Gray &
Larson, 1993).
High Cost of Habituation to
Human Foods
Problems can be severe when
wildlife becomes habituated to
eating human foods. At Yosemite
National Park, black bears have
become so savvy to the whereabouts of picnics that they regularly tear into cars. In 1998, bears
broke into 1,300 cars and caused
$630,000 in damage. In 1999,
park officials applied $500,000 in
federal funds to tackle the problem-they built more food storage
lockers at campsites, added 12
park rangers to educate visitors,
and handed out more citations
for improper food storage (Yi,
1999). The costs are high, but
ultimately the highest cost is to
In contrast to problems caused by
visitors feeding human food to
wildlife, under certain circumstances managers condone supplying wildlife with a carefully
selected diet. Feeding thousands
of elk each winter on the
National Elk Refuge near Jackson,
Wyo. has a long-standing history
that dates back to 1912 when
Congress established the refuge to
restore elk herds. Today, the feeding program attracts thousands of
wildlife viewers, but questions
arise about unnaturally concentrating wildlife and the possibilities of spreading disease. For
purists, elk gathering to feed on
supplied food appear less wild.
The viewing experience is diminished. That value judgment needs
further exploration when looking
at the full range of wildlife viewers and their expectations.
Lessons from Feeding Wild
Turkeys
More than 25 years ago, the
Colorado Division of Wildlife
encouraged people to feed wild
turkeys in the winter to help
inventory populations.
Unfortunately, the turkeys contracted fowl diseases from domestic birds. The population crashed
and is only now starting to come
back. Some birds are starting to
visit feeders in the foothills outside Denver. No matter how
splendid the viewing experience
for those feeding the flocks, the
price tag appears to be a high one
for wild turkey survival.
17
Moose and Artificial Salt
Licks—One Story
Every summer, a loyal following
of families camped at Elk Summit
on the Montana/Idaho divide and
savored views of moose visiting
an artificial salt lick nearby. The
Clearwater National Forest started
the salting around the end of
World War II. Entire generations
of moose learned to treat this salt
lick as one of many destinations
for special dietary needs, just as
they would seek out a natural salt
lick. Then, in the early 1990s, the
policy changed swiftly. The nearby ranger district cut off salting as
an unnatural management activity and a potential liability, since
bull moose in the rut tend to be
aggressive and dangerous. The
moose returned and wandered
around the campground, seeking
some source of salt. The moose
fans first brought their own salt
blocks to feed the animals. The
district’s recreation staff worked
to gain support from the campers
through education. However,
whenever a feeding practice has
such a long history and mimics a
natural food source, the best
course of action is never crystal
clear.
Conclusion
Returning to bird feeding, most
managers draw a line between the
chickadee landing on a feeder
within view and a chickadee
perching on a viewer’s hand eating a sunflower seed.
The feeder chickadee flits off to a
tree and stays wary
of humans. It seems
wild. The hand-fed
chickadee suddenly
has become a beggar,
and its wildness
appears diminished.
18
Is that simply a philosophical
value judgment? If the food
selected to hand feed the bird
met its natural needs, and the
bird simply supplemented wild
feeding with an occasional foray
to a human hand, is that necessarily wrong? Could there be a
conservation benefit through a
physical connection to a wild
species? However, the human is
no longer viewed as a neutral
presence, but as a source of food.
In the case of a chickadee (versus
a bear), does that neutrality matter as much? When examining
the greater picture of building a
conservation constituency, the
lines between right and
wrong sometimes blur.
Once again, the question of the “most
right thing” arises.
There’s no question that many
forms of wildlife feeding are
harmful to animals and dangerous to people. Beyond finding
effective means to stop those
practices, researchers need to continue to examine specific or indirect impacts on wildlife. Research
must also address whether some
kinds of feeding are appropriate
as tools for enhancing or managing viewing or for building conservation support. Educators continually must convey the duality
of the wildlife feeding messages.
Like parents teaching children
that some wild berries are edible
and others are not, there’s no reason we can’t expect visitors to
appreciate subtle differences and
act accordingly.
Contacts
Trevor Spradlin (dolphin feeding):
National Marine Fisheries Service,
1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD, 20910, (301)7132289, [email protected]
Mark Pretti (hummingbird feeder
strategy): naturalist for The
Nature Conser-vancy, Ramsey
Canyon Preserve, 27 Ramsey
Canyon Road, Hereford, AZ,
85615, (520)378-2640
Dan Davis (moose salting story):
wildlife biologist, Clearwater
National Forest, 12730 Highway
12, Orofino, ID, 83544, (208)4768353, ddavis/R1_clearwater@
fs.fed.us
Karen Hardesty (Mt. Evans experience): regional watchable wildlife
coordinator, Colorado Division of
Wildlife, 6060 Broadway, Denver,
CO, 80216, (303)291-7291,
[email protected]
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
CASE STUDY
Education Campaign–Center for Wildlife Information–Montana
“Don’t let your actions cause a bear or other
wildlife to be destroyed.”
—CENTER FOR WILDLIFE INFORMATION
The Center for Wildlife Information, a nonprofit organization based
in Missoula, Mont., has become a leading voice in the campaign
to put a stop to people approaching wildlife and giving handouts
to wild animals.
Director Chuck Bartlebaugh believes that the media plays a large
role in perpetuating problems that stem from people approaching,
touching and feeding wildlife. He has collected examples of misinformation put out by television, advertisements, newspapers and
magazines since 1980. Here are a few examples from the Center
for Wildlife Information’s files:
• A nature photographer boasts in a newspaper article about getting great bear photographs by feeding them jelly doughnuts,
getting close with short lenses and sometimes being chased by
mother bears when he approaches the cubs.
• A zoologist appears on a TV program that reaches 18 million
people and feeds a bear a bowl of cereal, cinnamon rolls and
candy bars as he talks about Yellowstone National Park.
• A TV program features scuba divers feeding Cheez Whiz and
Alpo to fish.
The Center often teams up with various federal and state land
management agencies—and even General Norman Schwarzkopf as
a spokesperson—to produce full-color brochures, displays and
videos on proper behavior around bears and other wildlife.
Bumper stickers and posters proclaim “Don’t let your actions
cause a bear or other wildlife to be destroyed” and “Wildlife +
Distance = Safety for both wildlife and people.” In the organization’s partnership brochure, “Wildlife Stewardship Guide: How to
CHUCK BARTLEBAUGH, CENTER FOR WILDLIFE INFORMATION
Safely View and Photograph Our Wildlife and Wildlands,” the feeding message reads:
Don’t Feed Wild Animals
• Feeding animals can put you and the animals in danger. Wild
animals, especially bears, should never be allowed to obtain
human food or garbage. Wild animals that receive these “food
rewards” just once may become aggressive toward humans. To
protect people and their property, wildlife managers may destroy
these animals. Keep human food and garbage away from all
wildlife.
• Animals fed along roads tend to stay near the road, increasing
the chances of vehicle-animal accidents.
• Animals used to human food may eat aluminum foil, plastic and
other wrappings. This can severely damage animals’ digestive systems and may even cause death.
• Human food may cause tooth decay, ulcers, malformation of
horns, arthritis or other diseases in wild animals.
• Animals may try to eat any item with an odor. Do not leave
boxes, wrappers, plastics or cans of any type where animals can
get them.
CONTACT
Chuck Bartlebaugh: Center for Wildlife Information, P.O. Box 8289,
Missoula, MT, 59807, (406)523-7750
CHUCK BARTLEBAUGH, CENTER FOR WILDLIFE INFORMATION
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
19
Putting a Lid on Handouts–Glacier National Park–Montana
CASE STUDY
K
eeping the “wild” in Wildlife takes repeated messages, according to Lynne Murdock, a district naturalist at Glacier National
Park in Montana. In order to prevent wildlife deaths and injuries
to people, the Park has significantly stepped up its campaign to
stop people from feeding wildlife. While she can’t quantitatively
say that the education and enforcement campaign has lessened
this serious problem, she believes the Park’s efforts are paying off.
The Park strives to make sure it is not preachy or condescending
to visitors. Explaining why is critical.
“We’ve figured out seven to 10 ways to give the same message,”
Murdock says. “That message must be both relevant and succinct.”
The 2 million visitors who come to Glacier each year include
many who stay as long as a week, an advantage for educating
viewers. In this park, too, the regulations
are clear—it’s not only unethical to feed
or approach wildlife, it’s illegal and
enforced. The Park is vast, and the 120
permanent employees and 400 seasonals
are spread thin. Murdock says the ratio of
visitors to employees means they must put
out a strong message in strategic locations.
According to Murdock, personal messages work well with children. A
mother of three, Murdock knows from personal experience that it’s
important to physically address children at their own level by looking them in the eye and explaining, “This peanut might look good
to you, but for a chipmunk it’s not food that is good for them.
They have to eat their own special foods, so they can make it
through the long winter.” For adults, Murdock further explains that
feeding chipmunks has many other ramifications. A chipmunk could
bite the next child if there was no food in his or her outstretched
hand. Wild animals are unpredictable and when they lose fear of
humans, the possibility for harming people increases.
Here’s a sample of Glacier National Park’s messages related to
feeding wildlife. The following flyer is handed out at the entrance
station to every car:
Flyers handed out at the entrance gates,
articles in newspapers, signs on the ground
and in visitor centers, as well as naturalists talking to visitors directly, all take
slightly different angles to get across the
“no feeding” message. The Park targets its
visitors carefully. For those just driving
through the Park on the Going to the Sun
Highway, the message refers to chipmunks
on the roadside and mountain goats on
Logan Pass. For backcountry hikers, the
Park focuses on grizzly bears.
Murdock says they have to be “heavy
handed” about grizzly bears, using “A Fed
Bear is a Dead Bear” message. The Park
enforces its rules, but rangers often will
first hand out a courtesy ticket.
Signs are their least effective medium,
Murdock says. The Park’s wildlife feeding
sign is somewhat problematic in that it
shows a silhouette of a person with a
hand outstretched as if encouraging people
to feed animals. Only when visitors read
the text of the sign do they understand that feeding wildlife is
harmful to animals’ digestive systems. A simple slash mark through
the sign illustration could solve the problem.
20
CONTACT
Lynne Murdock: district naturalist, Glacier National Park, 676 Glacier
Park #16, St. Mary, MT, 59417, (406)732-7757
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
PLAN
FOR THE POSITIVE How Many Wildlife
Viewers?–Managing People
EXPERIENCE
“Once alerted to this fascinating game, you can never
again pass the muddy
margin of a stream without
instinctively looking to see
what has passed by there.”
—OLAUS MURIE
Every place in the natural world
has the potential to serve as an
outdoor classroom for positive
wildlife viewing, both by example
and by the message delivered.
Planning begins with deciding
whether a place is suited for this
purpose. The nearest local community-the stakeholders-should
be involved from the beginning.
One of the immediate questions
to ask is, “Why are animals using
this place?” The second question
is, “Can managers design a viewing program that will allow
wildlife to continue to use this
area effectively?” Coming up
with a plan takes research and
innovative teamwork.
Once a site is selected, the questions continue. Can the wildlife
handle large numbers of people if
planned accordingly? From the
visitor experience perspective, is
the selected area ideal for the
generalist group, or can a contin-
uum of experiences be provided,
from occasionalist to highly
involved? Planning continues
through facility development to
the educational messages and
ongoing management, monitoring and evaluation of the site.
Sometimes the luxury of choosing a wildlife viewing area before
the watchers arrive doesn’t exist.
When word spreads and causes a
traffic jam of eager viewers, managers often have to scramble to
come up with stopgap measures
to maintain a positive experience.
The planning section is divided
into two areas: managing wildlife
viewers and designing facilities.
The first examines management
strategies using the specific examples of nature festivals, an elk
viewing experience for thousands
at Rocky Mountain National Park,
and guided tours of northern elephant seals at Año Nuevo State
Reserve along California’s coast.
Ecotourism companies often
manage people through their
emphasis on natural history,
small group size and conservation. Finally, three case studies
illustrate innovative solutions
and challenges for three charismatic wildlife species: bears,
wolves and bats.
“A thing is right when it
tends to preserve the
integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It
is wrong when it tends
otherwise.”
—ALDO LEOPOLD
Popular wildlife viewing areas can
easily suffer from the “loved-todeath” syndrome. Inevitably,
more people lead to regulations
and complex strategies to protect
wildlife and their habitats. It
takes a special effort to come up
with solutions that continue to
connect, rather than separate,
viewers from wildlife.
Managers typically face three
broad mandates they strive to
balance:
1. to conserve and protect wildlife
and habitats;
2. to provide opportunities for people to enjoy and learn about
wildlife; and
3. to protect people from potential
hazards caused by wildlife
(Manfredo, Vaske, & Decker,
1995).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(1993) gives the following guidelines for managing viewer numbers to protect habitats:
1. Design watchable wildlife programs to lessen impacts. Example:
The J.N. Ding Darling National
Wildlife Refuge in Florida and the
Santa Ana National Wildlife
Refuge in Texas both have added
trams to limit car use, while offering natural history interpretation
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
and viewing for participants.
Ding Darling also closes the
refuge one day a week to give
wildlife a break from heavy
visitation.
2. Let conservation objectives and
the features of the specific site drive
watchable wildlife program development.
3. Consider controlling the number
of people using an area to maintain
the quality of the experience. This
guideline came with the cautionary note of making sure the public knows what to expect. Note
that closing roads in sensitive
habitats or during certain seasons
and limiting incompatible uses is
included under this guideline.
DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge
in Iowa, for example, closes half
its roads in winter to give the 120
or so roosting bald eagles the
space they need.
Nature Festivals
From the Rockport Hummerbird
Festival in Texas to the
Wenatchee River Salmon Festival
in Leavenworth, Wash., nature
celebrations are fast becoming a
socioeconomic force in communities across North America. The
Directory of Birding and Nature
Festivals for the year 2000 lists
more than 200 events. (See the
list of Contacts at the end of this
section for information about
how to obtain the Directory.) The
economic benefits from festivals
that usually last only two to three
days are dramatic. The Rockport
Hummerbird Festival contributes
more than $2 million to the local
21
a dozen volunteers and two
to three seasonal employees
roam the likely places to
view elk. One of the permanent staff is assigned to run
the volunteer program during the season. The Park
issues press releases and
offers flyers that list wildlife
watching tips and potential
sites for seeing elk.
economy and a sandhill crane
festival in Socorro, N.M. adds a
$9 million economic benefit,
according to information presented in the 1999 video, Birding
Festivals: An Economic Force (Case
& Associates).
To pull off a festival that can
attract significant numbers of
people and protect wildlife from
too many enthusiastic viewers
takes developing close partnerships between biologists who
lend critical expertise and local
businesses skilled in marketing.
The best festivals become a source
of community pride, economic
benefit and a social force for conservation.
Rocky Mountain National
Park Elk Bugling
Determining the quality of viewing as a solitary drama or social
gathering often depends on the
expectations of the group the site
attracts. For instance, in
Colorado’s Rocky Mountain
National Park, hundreds of
wildlife viewers assemble on fall
evenings around one or more
meadows to watch and listen to
22
bugling bull elk. As the event
grows more popular, visitation to
the Park in September and
October increased from 544,500
people in 1987 to more than
700,000 in 1998. The watchers
rub elbows, set up lawn chairs
and sit back as if taking in the
Fourth of July fireworks. The Park
Service management caters to satisfying this type of viewer group
(falling into the generalist and
occasionalist experience
categories).
Although this annual surge of
people does pose challenges for
the Park, it is successfully providing elk viewing to visitors
through an active volunteer
“Bugle Corps” that was formed in
1990. The volunteers prevent traffic jams, educate visitors and help
to ensure viewers keep a safe distance from the elk. These rutting
elk have become habituated to
people’s presence, but may
become aggressive if approached
or harassed. On a typical evening,
Jeff Maugans, supervisory
park naturalist at Rocky
Mountain, believes the
intensive management
is well worth the
effort. Fall elk viewing
is building a constituency supportive of
wildlife and of Rocky Mountain
National Park itself.
Año Nuevo State Reserve
Northern Elephant Seal
Viewing
Año Nuevo State Reserve, located
along California’s coast 55 miles
south of San Francisco, gives
small groups of people access to
viewing the largest mainland
breeding colony in the world for
the northern elephant seal. From
Dec. 15 through March 31, guides
lead up to 20 people on a threemile trek across loose sands to see
the colony from a safe distance.
Small groups help to curb disturbance. The guides are state park
volunteer naturalists who first
complete an extensive training
program. The volunteers go
beyond supervision to interpretation, helping people better appreciate and understand the conservation needs of the seals. The
tour’s popularity has led to an
advance reservation system.
From April through November,
the state reserve allows a limited
number of hikers per day to walk
a trail in the Wildlife Protection
Area. The trail features viewpoints
for seeing molting elephant seals.
The California Department of
Parks and Recreation at Año
Nuevo also shields the reserve
from overuse by setting carrying
capacities through trail and parking design and limiting access
points. These strategies allow
hundreds of thousands of visitors
each year to view the elephant
seals, as well as sea lions and
other marine mammals that pull
ashore on the 4,000-acre reserve.
Contacts
American Birding Association
(festivals): to view the Directory
of Birding and Nature Festivals
(produced in partnership with
the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation and Birdwatch
America), visit their Web site:
www.americanbirding.org, or to
order a copy, write the
Association at P.O. Box 6599,
Colorado Springs, CO, 80934
D.J. Case & Associates (festivals):
for a copy of the 15-minute
video, Birding Festivals: An
Economic Force for Conservation,
write D.J. Case at 607 Lincolnway
W., Mishawaka, IN, 46544,
(219)258-0100, [email protected]
Gary Strachan (northern elephant
seal viewing): supervising ranger,
Año Nuevo State Reserve, New
Years Creek Road, Pescadero, CA,
94060, (650)879-2025; for recorded reserve information, call
(650)879-0227
Jeff Maugans (elk bugling): supervisory park naturalist, Rocky
Mountain National Park, Estes
Park, CO, 80517, (970)586-1227,
[email protected]
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
Encouraging
Ecotourism
“The essence is to travel
gracefully rather than to
arrive.”
—ENOS MILLS
In the best of worlds, every
wildlife viewing area should have
on-site naturalists to interpret
natural history and offer responsible viewing tips. Their work is
invaluable. However, many forms
of wildlife viewing entail traveling off the beaten path to places
that may not have any on-site
interpretation. Guided tours have
become increasingly popular,
especially among birders.
The best tours follow the credo of
ecotourism, which is defined as:
“responsible travel to natural
areas which conserves the environment and sustains the well-being
of local people” (Ecotourism
Society, 1993).
Those tours do the managers of
wildlife viewing areas an enormous service and meet this handbook’s definition of the positive
experience, repeated here:
The wildlife watcher slows down
and quietly discovers a wild animal without altering the animal’s
behavior. As a result of this
rewarding experience, the watcher
gains a greater appreciation of the
natural world.
Advertisements for ecotours typically include claims like these
(taken from ads in the March/
April 1999 Audubon magazine):
• “experts in small group nature
expeditions”;
• “naturalist guided small
groups”;
• “marine wildlife tours with
expert Alaskan biologist.”
The underlying message is “Take
our tour and you will be led by a
credible naturalist who understands and respects the wildlife
you’ve come to see.” As travelers
become more sophisticated and
savvy to ecotourism, more will
seek out ethical companies. They
will know the difference between
a company that hires knowledgeable guides, supports local
economies, practices conservation
and does not make promises of
seeing certain species at all costs
versus a company that exploits
wildlife for commercial gain.
Organizations like the Alaska
Wilderness Recreation and
Tourism Association (AWRTA)
can point travelers in Alaska to
its member companies. All members agree to follow a set of ecotourism guidelines (see
Appendix D).
Two nonprofit groups–Watchable
Wildlife, Inc. and The Ecotourism
Society–actively support the
growth of ecotourism. Watchable
Wildlife views ecotourism as integral to the long-term success of
wildlife viewing programs. The
nonprofit group believes that
prosperity in the community and
in wildlife go hand in hand. The
organization seeks funding to
encourage the growth of ecotourism and partnerships with
ecotour companies, as well as
with local businesses and private
landowners. Watchable Wildlife
Conferences offer an excellent
forum for developing strategies to
link public and private sectors in
developing sustainable tourism.
The Ecotourism Society collaborates with a global network of
professionals to promote ecotourism, as well as to assist in
research, training, education,
conferences and the listing of
“green” companies. Its publication, Ecotourism Guidelines for
Nature Tour Operators (1993),
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
includes the following responsible wildlife viewing guidelines:
• Conduct briefings before each
stop, including behaviors to
avoid, restricted practices and
zones, special alerts for fragile
and endangered species, specific
distances to maintain with local
wildlife, and local regulations.
• Discourage unrealistic expectations of observing rare wildlife
and plants by interpreting all
aspects of the ecosystem.
• Monitor negative environmental
impacts, including trail erosion,
improper waste dumping, littering, water pollution, species
harassment, illegal collecting of
plants or animals, or the feeding
of wildlife or wild animals that
have become abnormally tame
or aggressive. Notify authorities
or landowners both verbally
and, if need be, in writing.
Managers of wildlife viewing
areas can help ecotourism succeed in many ways, such as:
• offering incentives and privileges to ecotour companies;
• providing or sharing guide
training;
• distributing ecotourism guidelines;
• seeking out partnerships with
nonprofits that actively help
ecotourism (like the Hawai’i
Wildlife Fund that trains naturalists for whale watching trips);
and
• working closely with communities, landholders and local businesses to encourage involvement with watchable wildlife as
a viable form of sustainable
tourism, economic benefit and
conservation.
Contacts
Bob Hernbrode: president,
Watchable Wildlife, Inc., 5097
Pine Ridge Drive, Golden, CO,
80403, (916)452-5684, Web site:
www.watchablewildlife.org
Megan Epler-Wood: president,
The Ecotourism Society, P.O. Box
755, North Bennington, VT,
05257, (802) 447-2121,
[email protected],
Web site: www.ecotourism.org
Sarah Leonard: executive director,
Alaska Wilderness Recreation and
Tourism Association, 2207
Spenard Road, Suite 201,
Anchorage, AK, 99503, (907) 2583171, fax: (907) 258-3851,
[email protected], Web site:
www.awrta.org
Hannah Bernard: director,
Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, P.O. Box
637, Paia, Maui, HI, 96779,
(808)667-0437, [email protected],
Web site: www.wildhawaii.org
DEBORAH RICHIE OBERBILLIG
23
Close-Up Coexistence With Bears
McNeil River State Game Sanctuary–Alaska
CASE STUDY
“In the landscape before us, mothers nursed cubs so close
we could hear the cubs purr, and bears showed us their
various fishing skills, some sitting in the water waiting for
fish to swim by, some standing and watching the water,
some splashing until they grabbed a fish or multiple fish
at once.”
—EXCERPT FROM A NEWS STORY BY GINNY MERRIAM ABOUT HER 1999 TRIP
TO MCNEIL RIVER IN THE MISSOULIAN, AUG. 5, 1999
Since 1973, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has managed
a wildlife viewing program that allows 10 visitors at a time to
watch the largest gathering of brown bears in the world at
breathtakingly close distances. Between 130 and 150 brown bearsthe coastal version of grizzlies-fish for spawning salmon each summer in a remote sanctuary accessible only by float plane and a
two-mile hike. The sanctuary is 25 miles long and four to five
miles wide. Visitors can see as many as 100 bears a day. The
McNeil River State Game Sanctuary success story offers a premier
example of innovative management for positive wildlife viewing that
protects both bears and people.
The bears are habituated to people, but in this case that term is
positive. They simply see visitors as a neutral entity and do not
associate them with food or any threat. These bears are never
hunted, darted or tagged. In more than 25 years of close proximity viewing with special restrictions in place, no bears have been
killed or humans injured. The number of bears visiting the falls is
much higher now than before a regulated viewing program was in
place.
Larry Aumiller, sanctuary manager since 1976, points to the
success rate as proof that bears and people can coexist peacefully
under the right circumstances. Visitors to McNeil are both predictable and inoffensive. The result? Habituated bears by this
definition continue to fish, play and interact with one another
without fleeing or acting aggressively toward the viewers.
The rules are specific, and the stakes are high. Here’s how it
works: Every group is accompanied by at least one, but usually
two, state bear biologists. The biologists carry shotguns that they have never had to use. Before the
group of 10 takes the two-mile hike across inlets
and mudflats, they are thoroughly briefed on how
to behave around the bears. The guests stay close
together, talk softly, never threaten or crowd a
bear, and always keep human food away from the
bears. The biologists make noise as they walk
through the treeless, brushy terrain to avoid surprising bears along the way. People watch from
designated “viewing pads” on the opposite bank
from the prime fishing spots. The bears have
become used to the presence of viewers and photographers on those
designated pads, and it’s possible to view bears fishing within arm’s
reach.
The viewing season runs from June through August. The annual permit
drawing attracts as many as 2,000 people vying for one of the 257
slots. The permits cost $150 for in-state residents and $350 for people
who live out of state. The deadline for submission of applications is
March 1. The lucky winners can spend up to four days at the sanctuary.
Group size cannot exceed 10.
The viewers leave with an unforgettable memory of wild bears in a wild
setting. Photographs, films and books about the famed bears have captivated the imagination of vicarious visitors as well. The bears, meanwhile,
continue their daily routines oblivious to their role in spreading the
message that bears and people can live in harmony.
Can the lessons learned at McNeil River be applied to other bear viewing areas? McNeil River has several strong advantages in its favor.
According to Aumiller, legislation puts the maintenance of the number of
bears as the top priority at the sanctuary. Commercial and sport fisheries are managed to be compatible with the primary goals of bear
viewing. The sanctuary’s ample size plus an adjacent national park with
compatible protection for bears gives managers the ability to apply their
guidelines for human behavior to an area that encompasses most of the
bears’ home range. Because bears don’t get human food or garbage and
they are not harassed, these animals tend to view people as neutral. The
incentive for the bears to come to McNeil River falls (great fishing) outweighs the impact of the limited human presence.
Aumiller believes that committing to bear viewing as the primary human
use of the sanctuary is compatible with maintaining the number of
bears. Controlling the number of human visitors and their activities
allows the bears to roam and feed virtually undisturbed. He suggests
that this model could be applied for viewing many wildlife species, not
just bears.
CONTACT
Larry Aumiller, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 333 Raspberry
Road, Anchorage, AK, 99518-1599, (907)345-5591, [email protected], Web
site: www.state.ak.us
CHUCK BARTLEBAUGH, CENTER FOR WILDLIFE INFORMATION
24
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
Bat Viewing Trips–Selman Bat Cave Wildlife Management Area–Oklahoma
CASE STUDY
W
hen the Oklahoma Department of
Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) purchased the
Selman Bat Cave Wildlife Management Area—
located near the Alabaster Caverns State Park
northwest of Oklahoma City—in 1996, biologists posed an important question: How could
they protect this maternity colony of one million Mexican free-tailed bats and provide a
life-changing, wildlife viewing experience for
people who would build conservation support
for bats?
To answer this question, the ODWC—in conjunction with bat biologists, The Nature Conservancy and local
landowners, and using research derived from other states’ experiences, such as the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department—created
a plan for the Selman Bat Cave.
Today, the summer bat viewing trips are so popular that people
start calling the ODWC in January to register for the stunning
spectacle of a plume of bats emerging in twilight to feast upon
insects. Bat viewing literature from the Oklahoma Wildlife Diversity
Program brings a positive message to the viewing experience that
deflects the myth of bats as noxious pests. For example, the literature points out that the bats at Selman Cave eat an estimated 10
tons of insects nightly, a free service to area landowners.
The cave itself is designed for protection, because hilly topography
makes the entrance difficult to reach. Studies from Carlsbad
Caverns in New Mexico and other caves have shown that fewer
bats return over the years when people visit cave entrances. Loud
voices and camera flashes are partly to blame. From the start, the
ODWC decided to keep the cave location as hidden as possible
and the site closed, except for specific bat viewing weekends.
There are no signs on the highway pointing to the cave, which is
surrounded by private property with a secured easement for an
access road. Even when the bats have migrated during winter
months, the cave remains off limits. In case people do trespass,
signs at the Selman Bat Cave entrance inform people that one,
they are trespassing and, two, they may get histoplasmosis or
rabies if they enter the cave (a message that gives anyone second
thoughts about trespassing).
Three viewing areas concentrate the watchers: the Meadow (300
yards from the cave entrance), the Parking Lot (450 yards away)
and the North Viewing Area (500 yards away), which was recently
added. The cave entrance faces east, and the bats are backlit by
the setting sun.
OUTDOOR OKLAHOMA
any of them. The trips quickly fill. After registering, the ODWC mails
out packets about the bat viewing trip, viewing etiquette and local
tourist information.
When visitors arrive at nearby Alabaster Caverns State Park, they listen
to a detailed orientation on rules and what to expect for the evening.
For example, viewers are asked to use their “six-inch voices” in the
bat viewing area, a reminder to keep voices so low that the listener
has to be six inches away to hear what is said. The registration area
also offers interpretive bat displays. Two local school buses take the
viewers to the site. On the drive, trip leaders continue to talk about
bats, emphasizing the special experience awaiting viewers and the
importance of keeping the cave location hidden.
Once off the bus, the viewers split into three groups (moths, bats and
owls). At least one ODWC employee and one or more of the Selman
Bat Cave Volunteers leads each group. All volunteers are trained in giving tours specific to bat viewing. Settled into their respective areas as
the sun sets, the watchers wait. And wait. Tour leaders patiently answer
the common question, “When will they come out?” with an unequivocal
“Sometime soon.” After the great spectacle of emergence, people return
to the state park, fill out an evaluation form and receive a free gift.
How is success measured? From 1997-99, the ODWC received a 98-99
percent approval rating from visitor evaluations. The viewers benefit,
and the local community benefits from tourist dollars. And the bats
continue to return.
CONTACT
Jeremy Garrett: natural resources information specialist, Oklahoma
Wildlife Diversity Program, 1801 N. Lincoln, Oklahoma City, OK, 73105,
(405)521-4616,
[email protected]
Participants pre-register and prepay for one of 15 viewing dates,
limited to 75 people per night. Watchers pay $8 per person ($5
for 3-12 year olds). Everyone must sign a form acknowledging
that they have read the rules and are accountable for breaking
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
25
Wolf Watching–Yellowstone National Park–Wyoming
CASE STUDY
T
he word is out. For wolf watching at its
best, come to Yellowstone National Park to see
the most viewed wolf pack in the world. More
than 30,000 people have witnessed the druid
pack running wild in the Lamar Valley since
their reintroduction in the spring of 1995.
Views sometimes go beyond glimpses of a
lone wolf slipping over a ridge. People report
seeing a pack take down an elk or chase
coyotes off a kill. As of 1999, wolves have
selected five dens within two miles of the
road that runs through the Lamar Valley.
Doug Smith, wolf project leader for the
National Park Service, has seen people moved
to tears by the sight of their first wolf in the
wild. He believes that the benefit to wolf conservation has been tremendous. He has also
expressed concern as wolf watching throngs
swell. Sometimes crowds of a hundred people
gather in a pullout waiting to see if a wolf emerges from a den
site, which is hidden from view but close to the road.
The wolves are habituated to the flow of traffic on the road that
crosses right through the pack’s best hunting grounds, a windswept
valley carved by the Lamar River that harbors herds of wintering
elk and bison. Wolves respond less to the snowplow that regularly
passes through without stopping than to a car that slows to a
stop. The wolves appear most secure when the Lamar River separates them from any watchers.
The National Park Service closes the area around dens from early
April through June 30 to prevent people from walking in and violating the wolves’ space. However, word spread about the proximity
of a certain den to the road, and people soon began stopping
their cars in the vicinity, effectively preventing the wolves from
directly crossing the road to get to hunting grounds or to return
to the den safely. The Park Service then began enforcing a nostopping zone during the spring denning season.
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK
Are the closures and no-stopping zones enough? Smith points out that
90 percent of wolf watchers show excellent etiquette. These wolf watchers fall under the experience groups of highly involved and creative
watchers. Smith divides the remaining 10 percent into “knowing violators” and “unthinking fanatics.” That’s often where violations come in. In
1998, a half dozen people
knowingly violated the den closure area, including a woman who peeked
into the den and watched the pups. Wolves have been known to abandon dens when approached. In two cases, people approached wolves on
a kill. The wolves never returned.
While most filmmakers and photographers take a respectful approach,
Smith has run into a few problems, even after spending considerable
time discussing the importance of giving wolves plenty of space. “The
first question many filmmakers ask me is, ‘How do I get close to
wolves?’” Smith says. “I tell them the best way to get footage of the
wolves is to stay on the road and wait.” When photographers or filmmakers bend the rules for the close-up shot, Smith says the Park Service
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL
26
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
CASE STUDY
not only gives them tickets, but it will often take the film, a
strong lesson to any violator. It’s important to note that just
because wildlife viewers fall under an experience group that’s
sophisticated in its wildlife knowledge does not mean they are
automatically respectful.
The most severe impact from wolf watching stemmed initially from
an unfortunate choice of a den site by a female wolf in 1997.
When she dug her den in early April, few visitors passed through
the park, and she felt secure. By May the crowds grew, and she
became nervous. Her den was just one-third of a mile from the
road and in plain view. She first tried to move her seven pups to
another den site, but was unable to get far enough from the
road. Finally, she attempted to cross the road in the middle of
the day with all her pups. She wanted to reach her daughter’s
den site two miles away across the Lamar River. The mother
crossed first. The pups hesitated as cars pulled up and people
gestured, thrilled at the sight. They had no idea that they had
separated the wolf from her pups, a potentially fatal situation. All
seven of the pups died, most as they tried to cross the Lamar
River at flood stage. Their deaths were an indirect result of viewing impacts.
Even the no-stopping zones can be problematic. In some cases,
people have driven slowly back and forth through the no-stopping
zones to watch a wolf that is actually attempting to cross the
road, but waiting for traffic to clear. In cases like this, wolf
watchers have inadvertently forced wolves to detour miles from
their preferred route to return to a den.
Yellowstone park rangers enforce closures and no-stopping zones
with tickets. For most people, education is the more effective tool.
Smith teaches park seasonal interpreters proper etiquette, so they
can spread the message in their talks, walks and informal con-
tacts. He urges them not to reveal exact wolf locations, both to give
the wolves more space and to encourage people to discover them on
their own. Yellowstone is not a zoo, he emphasizes. He makes sure the
interpreters know the following key points to convey to visitors:
• Don’t inhibit wolf crossings.
• Observe quietly. Avoid slamming car doors and loud talk. Use cars as
a blind.
• Keep your distance from wolf kills.
• Be respectful.
Self-policing has proved the most effective tool. The wolf project
researchers affectionately refer to the “regulars” as a cadre of people
who have come to know and watch the wolves in every season. They
understand wolf needs and have no problem telling the novice watchers and the knowing violators when they’ve crossed the ethics line.
Peer pressure works. These highly involved and respectful viewers are
also helping the casual tourist develop a keener interest and appreciation for viewing animals in the wild.
The combination of self-policing, wolf interpreters, patrolling rangers,
den closures and no-stopping zones all help protect the wolves, but
obviously all these things cannot offer the pack complete protection
from hundreds of people lining the roads to witness an unforgettable
sight. The benefits appear worth it.
CONTACT
Douglas W. Smith: wolf biologist, Yellowstone Center for Resources, P.O.
Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, WY, 82190, (307) 344-2242,
[email protected]
CHECKLIST FOR MANAGING NUMBERS OF WILDLIFE VIEWERS
WHICH OPTIONS MIGHT WORK AT YOUR SITE?
1) Alternate transportation to reduce or eliminate cars.
2) Limit numbers of people.
3) Seasonal or other timed closure.
4) Sensitive habitat closure.
5) Designated public viewing area(s) for large groups.
6) Designated public viewing area(s) for small groups.
7) Guided tours for small groups.
8) Partnerships with ecotour businesses.
9) Permit system.
10) On-site naturalist.
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
27
Designing Facilities
Overview
Does it run on sunlight?
Does it use only the energy it needs?
Does it fit form to function?
Does it recycle everything?
Does it reward cooperation?
Does it bank on diversity?
Does it utilize local expertise?
Does it curb excess from within?
Does it tap the power of limits?
Is it beautiful?
—JANINE BENYUS, BIOMIMICRY:
INNOVATION INSPIRED BY NATURE
H
ere’s the scene: You have the
assignment of developing a
bighorn sheep wildlife viewing
area and resolving a major safety
problem at the same time. The
sheep spend the winter close to a
two-lane highway with heavy
truck traffic. The herds of up to
100 animals attract wildlife viewers like a lemonade stand in a
desert. Wildlife watchers pull
partly off on the shoulder, fling
open car doors or even back up
for a better view. A few climb
fences into a private pasture and
race toward the sheep for a closer
snapshot. The truckers are frustrated. The viewers are frustrated.
The private landowner wants to
get rid of the sheep. An accident
is waiting to happen.
28
After consulting with biologists,
landowners, engineers, the highway department and the local
community, you come up with a
solution. A creative partnership
allows building a viewing area off
the highway that will concentrate
watchers, solve traffic problems
and offer the sheep the chance to
become habituated to the presence of viewers in a designated
spot. Local high school students
volunteer to build a fence and
benches. The Chamber of
Commerce becomes involved in
marketing a new source of
tourism for the slow winter
months. The private landowner
donates land for the viewing area
and now takes pride in the wild
sheep. After the pullout and
interpretive kiosk are in place, the
herd adjusts quickly and pays little attention to the cluster of
viewers that come and go.
This scenario is based on an actual viewing dilemma with a positive outcome. A state highway
patrolman spearheaded the project, leading to the 1990 creation
of the Kookoosint Bighorn Sheep
Viewing Area off Highway 200 in
western Montana. The interpretive signs produced by the Lolo
National Forest have added to the
educational value of this popular
viewing area.
Starting with the choice of a
wildlife viewing site, this section
explores how facility design can
bring people close to wildlife
responsibly. In one case, the best
facility might be none at all, and
in another, a highly-developed
complex of trails, decks and
blinds might be appropriate.
Facility design depends on site
sensitivity, access to people and
which experience group it makes
sense to attract. Every facility
should be a gateway to a wilder
experience outdoors, and every
facility should help resolve management dilemmas and give
something back to the landscape.
Ultimately, every facility should
look to nature as the model of
sustainability, as Janine Benyus
clearly illustrates in her 1997
book, Biomimicry: Innovation
Inspired by Nature. In her final
chapter, she advocates that biologists and engineers work together
regularly to apply nature’s designs
to a viewing facility. Watchable
wildlife sites have all the ingredients to become shining examples
of this kind of biomimicry. The
National Audubon Society’s
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary in
Naples, Fla. is one place that is
taking the lead with a “Living
Machine” that mimics the ecology of the swamp to treat wastewater. The system reduces discharge to the leachfield by 90
percent. This low-cost and attractive system has applicability in
cold climates as well. In addition,
the preserve’s two-mile boardwalk
is built with Pau Lope wood that
requires no chemical treatment
and is harvested in a way that
protects rainforests.
Contacts
Sue Reel (Kookoosint bighorn
sheep site): wildlife interpretive
biologist, Lolo National Forest,
Bldg. 24, Fort Missoula, Missoula,
MT, 59804, (406)329-3831,
sreel/[email protected]
Janine Benyus: author, 2813
Caribou Lane, Stevensville, MT,
59870, (406)777-2933,
[email protected]
Andrew Mackie: assistant sanctuary manager, National Audubon
Society, Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary, 375 Sanctuary Road
W., Naples, FL, 34120, (941)3489151, [email protected]
Living Technologies, Inc. (Living
Machine): 431 Pine St.,
Burlington, VT, 05401,
(802)865-4460,
[email protected] Web
site: www.livingtechnologies.com
DEBORAH RICHIE OBERBILLIG
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
Site Selection
Most states and several Canadian
provinces now feature a wildlife
viewing guidebook highlighting100 sites or so, from fish
spawning pools to bald eagle
gatherings, and from city parks to
a pulloff on a country road.
The books originated with the
formation of a local watchable
wildlife committee charged with
following guidelines for selecting
sites that are laid out in Wendy
Hudson’s Nature Watch: A
Resource for Enhancing Wildlife
Viewing Areas (1992). One of
those criteria is site sensitivity:
The site should possess the ability
to withstand public use. Fragile
ecosystems of habitats with sensitive species should not be included unless it can be unequivocally
demonstrated that public use can
be sufficiently restricted so as not
to harm the site’s natural values.
That kind of screening helps to
eliminate sites where viewing
impacts would be too great on
wildlife. As mentioned earlier,
any wildlife viewing area can
become a de facto watchable
wildlife destination simply
through public discovery. Even in care-
fully selected sites, unforeseen
problems can surface that might
require 180-degree shifts in thinking and planning.
Facility Design:
Where to Begin?
Whether selected by an agency or
by the public, managers face the
task of planning, managing and
monitoring sites with the visitor
experience and wildlife in mind.
NatureWatch includes a site classification system, from natural
(minimal structures and signing)
to intensively managed (buildings
and paved parking to accommodate heavy visitor use).
A common mistake in designing
wildlife viewing facilities is to
leave the interpretation to the
end, with some vague notions of
points to interpret along trails or
on decks. The interpretive themes
or messages are essential to
design from the beginning and
should be part of one plan.
The best way to design facilities
and develop interpretive themes
for a viewing area is to team up
with biologists, recreation planners, interpreters, engineers and
users. Don’t leave out the public.
For instance,
plan for the creative experience
group of wildlife
photographers if your site is sure
to draw them. Invite representatives of that group to be involved
in designing viewing and photography blinds. Enlist people in
wheelchairs to supervise the
proper heights for windows in
the blinds.
Wildlife viewing facilities can
range from nothing more than a
modest binocular sign to a nature
center with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking a waterfowl
pond with piped in natural
sounds, like the Rio Grande
Nature Center in Albuquerque,
N.M. No matter how simple or
elaborate, all wildlife viewing
facilities should contribute to
responsible behavior by concentrating people where you want
them, screening sensitive areas,
meeting different visitor expectations and facilitating a quiet,
slow-paced, educational adventure in nature.
The Colorado State Parks’ handbook, Planning Trails with
Wildlife in Mind: A Handbook for
Trail Planners (1998), lists four
goals for trails that could apply
equally to planning wildlife viewing area facilities:
• Restore degraded stream corridors and other habitats in the
process of trail building;
• Guide recreationists away from
sensitive wildlife habitat and
into more adaptable settings;
• Educate people about wildlife
issues and appropriate behavior
in the outdoors;
• Build broad constituencies for
wildlife conservation by putting
people in contact with nature.
FALCON PRESS
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
Restoring and
Enhancing Your Site
Instead of “developing” a wildlife
viewing site for the public, think
of possibilities for restoring and
even enhancing habitats to draw
in wildlife and lessen the impact
of a facility. How can our actions
become a gift to wildlife? How
can our facilities harmonize with
the landscape and set an example
of sustainable development?
Restoration
Crow Creek, a Helena National
Forest wildlife viewing area in the
Elkhorn Mountains of Montana,
encompasses a riparian restoration project for songbird viewing
in the summer, and in the winter
serves as a destination for viewing elk herds on the surrounding
hills. A livestock fence enclosure
on the creek allows willows and
other native shrubs to flourish
and attract birds that rely on
healthy riparian areas. The elk
wintering range, too, illustrates
restoration through prescribed
burns that are returning fire as a
natural part of the ecosystem.
The Crow Creek viewing area
consists of a parking area and
three interpretive signs that connects viewing and restoration.
Enhancement
Several examples discussed in
upcoming sections include
enhancement. Alaska’s Potter
Marsh boardwalk extension will
mitigate impacts and offer added
viewing through creation of new
wetlands. A new trail leading to
the nature trail will incorporate
native plant gardens to attract
birds and butterflies. At the
Georgetown Bighorn Sheep
Viewing Area in Colorado, volunteers periodically fertilize the wintering slopes to attract herds reliably within view of the developed site. The Sacramento
29
National Wildlife Refuge planted
a snag for a bird perch near its
wetland photography blind.
The typical habitat enhancements we have come to expect
are nest boxes and platforms.
How often are these placed for
best viewing? How often do these
structures fit into the landscape?
Drawing on the talents of artists
can turn a square osprey nest
platform into a sculpture that
resembles a dead tree. Lynne Hull
is an environmental artist who
specializes in creating sculptures
that serve as wildlife habitat
enhancements or as mitigation
for the impacts of people. Her
work can be seen in nine states in
the United States and five other
countries. She has created raptor
nest platforms, islands for waterfowl and turtles, bridges for monkeys to cross a road and shelters
30
for otter and marten. Hull is a
strong advocate for connecting
wildlife professionals and artists
in the field for a fresh look at
how we restore and enhance
habitats, as well as interpretive
facilities. For example, rather
than employing a traditional
interpretive sign that tells wildlife
viewers, “Look to the right side of
the island in front of you to see
the heron rookery,” why not simply place an aesthetic structure
with a viewing peephole that
directs the viewer’s focus to the
rookery?
A Note of Caution
The more we understand about
the natural ecology of an area,
the more likely our restoration
and enhancement efforts will
mimic natural systems.
Conversely, the less we understand, the more apt we are to
damage more than help natural
areas through well-intentioned
restoration and enhancement. In
some cases, enhancements are
hard to justify. For example, at
one viewing area managers decided to eliminate a portion of a
small, natural wetland to create
pulloffs for cars. They mitigated
that loss by blasting a new pothole. The complex, natural wetland and the artificial pothole are
not equal. Was this the right
action? Today, cars pull off routinely and are often treated to
stunning views of moose, sandhill
cranes and nesting ducks.
However, was the trade-off worth
it? Did they explore all the
options?
In other cases, managers may
have erred too far on the side of
protectionism of wildlife and
habitats when completing site
enhancements. One wildlife
refuge built an elaborate observation deck to view waterfowl, but
they set the deck so far back from
the lake that the viewing is disappointing. No ad-vantage is gained
beyond a little height. Working
creatively as a team, they could
have moved the deck much closer
through facility design and
screening, allowing for the birds
to become used to wildlife viewers at one site.
Contacts
Jodie Canfield (Crow Creek viewing area): Elkhorn Interagency
Coordinator, Townsend Ranger
District, Helena National Forest,
415 S. Front, Townsend, MT,
59644, (406) 266-3425,
jcanfield/[email protected]
Lynne Hull (environmental art):
P.O. Box 1239, Fort Collins, CO,
80522, (970)416-1881,
[email protected]
Finally, nest boxes and platforms
can sometimes send a wrong message that artificial habitats can
fully replace natural ones. Where
such structures are used, interpretive messages should emphasize
the greater value of preserving
dead trees and other natural nesting habitats.
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
CASE STUDY
Comprehensive Planning for Responsible Viewing
Chatfield State Park–Colorado
W
hen the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Division of
Parks and Outdoor Recreation teamed up in 1992 to plan a great
blue heron and cormorant viewing area southwest of Denver, they
knew it would take serious strategizing to keep disturbance to a
minimum. They anticipated 1.5 million visitors annually, all seeking
a breathtaking viewing experience. In 1992, the stand of cottonwood trees sheltered 97 heron nests and 135 double-crested cormorant nests.
Their plan offers an excellent model for visitor management, facility design and monitoring of human impacts for a high-use area.
Richard Larson, the main planner for the project, clearly details
the Chatfield State Park Wildlife Viewing Area strategy in his article, “Balancing Wildlife Viewing with Wildlife Impacts: A Case Study”
(1995).
Here’s a brief summary of strategies used at Chatfield State Park
to keep human disturbance of herons and cormorants to a minimum:
Site and Facility Design
• The selected viewing site lies on a bluff above the water, offering a natural barrier that prevents people from approaching the
nesting trees. Buoys and signs placed in the water at 240
meters out from the heronry restrict boat traffic.
• A recreation access schedule was set up that defines where visitors
can go and what activities are appropriate in each month of the
year, depending on waterbird activity.
Etiquette Education
• Trained volunteers in uniform worked at peak visitation times to
interpret the heronry and demonstrate responsible viewing etiquette.
• Ten full-color panels placed throughout the viewing area interpret
colonial waterbirds and the ecosystem. A specific etiquette sign is
featured prominently in the viewing shelter.
Monitoring
A four-year study monitoring human disturbance and effects on the
colony began pre-construction. (Results proved inconclusive, since herons
abandoned the rookery for reasons other than human wildlife
watching.)
The Rest of the Story
In spite of the best laid plans, the herons recently abandoned the
rookery when severe storms blew down nesting trees and platforms.
People still come to Chatfield State Park for its natural beauty, wildlife
viewing and recreation, but the herons and cormorants moved upriver
300 yards and out of sight from the viewing facility. Even though
• The viewing deck is 150 meters from the closest nesting
tree, which is in accord with research on safe distances
for heron viewing (a challenging call to make, since the
comfort level of colonial shorebirds varies depending on
habituation to humans).
• Trails leading from a covered shelter to a main viewing
deck and two viewing pods take an indirect route toward
the colony, which is based on research indicating that tangential approaches to colonial birds minimize disruption.
• Timbers set vertically at varying heights along the trail to
the viewing deck disrupt the human profile.
• Building the trail itself below ground level prevents herons
from seeing the viewers.
• An embankment helps block the viewers on deck from the
waterbird colony.
Zoning Human Activities
• Visitor access to the wildlife viewing area is limited through the
location of the parking area; “avoidance prompts” (signs, barriers) are placed at strategic locations for hikers, equestrians,
bikers, boaters or anglers; and a bicycle trail within 75 meters
of the closest nesting tree was removed.
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
experts projected a growing heronry, they could not forecast every
fickle turn in the weather. Investing in expensive facilities for wildlife
viewing can make sense, especially in urban and high-use areas, but
there’s always a risk when dealing with wild animals that come and
go as they choose.
CONTACT
Karen Hardesty: regional watchable wildlife coordinator, Colorado
Division of Wildlife, 6060 Broadway, Denver, CO, 80216, (303)291-7291,
[email protected]
31
Trails
“Teach us to walk the soft Earth as
relatives to all that live.”
—LAKOTA PRAYER
Trails can be vital tools in the
quest to encourage people to
leave their vehicles and to experience nature fully. Trails may be
wide, narrow, straight, twisting,
looped or point-to-point. Benches
placed at overlooks or tranquil
alcoves invite people to slow
down and allow nature to come
to them. Through trail configuration, managers can provide all
four kinds of experiences for the
occasionalist to the highly
involved groups.
For wildlife, well-planned trails
offer animals predictable patterns
and places for human use, giving
many species the chance to adapt
their schedules accordingly. For
example, wildlife researcher
Pamela Donegan observed bobcats in close proximity to people
on trails in the Golden Gate
National Recreation Area near
San Francisco. “As long as people
don’t look at or approach them,
the bobcats seem to act as if the
humans aren’t there,” Donegan
says in the April/May 1999 issue
of National Wildlife magazine
(Turbak, 1999, pp. 26-31). In one
case she saw a bobcat sitting
within 15 feet of a trail as people
passed by, unaware of the cat’s
presence.
However, trails can also open up
new avenues for aggressive bird
species to expand their habitats
and displace sensitive species, as
pointed out in Planning Trails
With Wildlife in Mind: A Handbook
for Trail Planners (Colorado State
Parks, 1998). Plan wildlife viewing trails that meet the standards
outlined in that handbook.
32
According to the handbook, some
factors to consider when planning trails include:
• Take advantage of natural vegetative screening to protect sensitive areas (while ensuring
some views as well).
• Plan for seasonal wildlife use
(potentially opening some trails
only at the times of year when
birds are not breeding, etc., a
common practice on national
wildlife refuges).
• Predict, survey and monitor levels and types of recreational
use.
• Create rewarding trails (views,
diversity, loops that keep people interested and less apt to
create their own trails).
• Think edge. Rather
than bisecting an
undisturbed area,
align a trail on an
established human
edge, such as an old
roadbed or timber cut.
• Be flexible and willing to develop or modify trail restrictions
to protect wildlife and people
as changes dictate.
Planning Trails With Wildlife in
Mind makes the excellent point
that if managers don’t plan trails
in a popular viewing area, people
will make their own. The handbook describes the scenario of
people creating their own trails to
see a heronry. The agency
involved was forced to fix the
problem by hardening one of the
trails, rehabilitating the others
and building an observation deck
at a distance that protects the
great blue herons.
When managers have the chance
to be proactive, it’s better to
acknowledge people’s desire to
see wildlife and to provide for it
responsibly than to come in later
for damage control or to close off
an area entirely.
Hudson’s NatureWatch (1992)
also adds useful trail criteria for
viewing areas. A section on
“Designing for Adventure and
Mystery” is particularly relevant
in the quest for a positive experience. If the trail is rewarding (as
mentioned in the list of trail factors above), viewers will follow
the course laid out for them.
Some of the tips for adventure
and mystery design are:
• Route trails past unusually large
vegetation and under larger,
canopied trees.
• Place trails along cliffsides (provided necessary safety precautions are taken and the trails do
not disturb delicate, cliffside
species).
• Keep wildlife corridors
intact as much as possible (for instance,
limit stream crossings).
• Consult a state wildlife
agency and/or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
Service whenever
threatened and endangered species are present.
• Monitor for changes
that can affect wildlife
and human use patterns (i.e. a poor huckleberry crop forcing
bears into new areas
and into conflict).
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
• Use bend and curves in the trail
design so visitors always want
to know “what’s around the
next corner.”
Once trails are on the ground,
managers must be ready to err on
the side of wildlife protection. For
example, Glacier National Park
regularly closes trails to protect
bears, rather than risk a bearhuman encounter.
Natural Barriers
Take advantage of natural barriers
like rivers and cliffs. The Sun
River Bighorn Sheep Viewing area
on Montana’s Rocky Mountain
Front (in the Lewis and Clark
National Forest) allows breathtaking views of bighorn rams vying
for females just across the Sun
River from the designated pullout. The river forms a perfect
natural barrier that prevents
viewers and photographers from
approaching and provides
security to the sheep.
On California’s north coast, the
Vista Trail at the northern end of
Sonoma Coast State Beaches leads
viewers on a mile-long, paved,
accessible hiking loop along a
marine terrace to an overlook, a
dizzying 600-feet above the
ocean. Visitors can spot Steller sea
lions and harbor seals on the
rocks far below, or scan for the
spouts of California gray whales
when in season. The coastal
bluffs serve not only as a natural
barrier, but also as a natural viewing tower above the sea. At the
southern end of Sonoma Coast,
Bodega Head attracts so many
whale watchers to this jutting
peninsula that whale watch volunteers are stationed there on
peak weekends from December
to April.
Similarly, Cape Meares National
Wildlife Refuge and State Park on
the Oregon coast takes advantage
of steep bluffs as overlooks and
promotes the watching of nesting
birds that are sheltered on offshore rocks and inaccessible cliffs.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
published a case study on this
watchable wildlife site
development.
Contacts
Wildlife biologist (Sun River
bighorn sheep): Rocky Mountain
Ranger District, Lewis and Clark
National Forest, 1102 Main Ave.,
NW, Box 340, Choteau, MT,
59422, (406)466-5341
Park Ranger (marine mammals):
Sonoma Coast State Beach,
California Department of Parks
and Recreation, 3095 Highway 1,
Bodega Bay, CA, 95430, (707)8753483
Jean Harrison (Cape Meares case
study): outreach specialist,
Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 911 NE 11th
Ave., Portland, OR, 97232,
(503)231-6208, jean_harrison@
fws.gov
Boardwalks,
Observation Decks
and Towers
Boardwalks, decks and towers
share one common feature: They
concentrate people where you
want them, ideally with the least
impact and maximum viewing
opportunities. Decisions to add
any or all of these features should
match visitor desires and use levels for the site, as well as the site’s
goals for viewing and resource
protection. Of course, budget is
another factor; these tend to be
Providing Positive Wildlife Viewing Experiences
expensive additions. Choice of
materials can send
an environmental
message to viewers,
such as selecting
recycled plastic
“wood” in place of
treated timbers,
choosing local
materials or salvaging materials
and reusing them.
Integrating designs
and materials with
the landscape softens the effect of
structures in a
natural area.
Boardwalks
Boardwalks allow visitors the
chance to immerse themselves in
marshes, swamps and bogs, from
the lowlands to alpine tundra.
Such walkways can also protect
fragile wetlands and allow
wildlife to adjust to predictable
use. Before striking out into a
wetland with timbers in hand,
builders of boardwalks have some
homework to do:
• What’s the best site for
viewers and for wildlife?
• What’s the best material for
hardiness and for the
environment?
• How will wildlife react?
• What about changing water
levels?
• Handrails?
• Benches?
• Side loops and viewing decks?
Foreseeing how wildlife will
adapt to predictable patterns of
people traversing boardwalks
might be estimated based on
experiences elsewhere. The highest number of boardwalks in the
NANCY TANKERSLEY FAIR
United States is in the Southeast.
The two-mile-long boardwalk at
the Audubon’s Corkscrew Swamp
Sanctuary (mentioned in the
Overview of the Designing
Facilities section) offers one good
example. Little blue herons commonly perch on the rails within
arm’s reach of people, while other
herons and egrets tend to be
shyer.
General principles for designing
boardwalks are (Hudson, 1992):
For viewers: Provide accessibility
through use of ramps and
handrails, where appropriate.
Space planks evenly and with
minimal gaps between each one.
Depending on the length, use
benches in “pulloff” sections.
Check with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) for
regulations.
For site protection: Protect fragile
areas. Minimize soil and vegetative impacts. Employ basic principles of safety and slope.
33