ARKANSAS SPORTSMAN

Wildlife interaction needs limits

Next to feral cats, birdwatchers might be the greatest threat to wild nesting birds.

Curiously, that idea surfaced in the spring issue of Bay Soundings, published by the Florida Audubon Society. The article, written by Ann Paul and Mark Rachal, was titled “Love Hurts! Some Nature Photographers Get Too Close.” It documented nest destruction of rare and threatened water birds in Tampa Bay relating to intrusions by bird photographers.

According to the article, “As parent birds flee from approaching observers, eggs and chicks are left exposed to the sun, vulnerable to predators like crows, and prone to falling from their nests to their deaths.”

Such disturbances are prevalent and threaten delicate populations of birds in places that are set aside for their protection. For 75 years, Audubon wardens have policed bird sanctuaries in Tampa Bay against poaching and wanton disturbance, but overzealous bird watchers are determined to get closer to their subjects than good conscience allows.

“At first, we protected them from the plume trade and harvest for food that almost drove these birds to extinction,” wrote Paul and Rachal. “But today, these nesting birds face … catastrophic disturbance by nature photographers. And worse, a few unscrupulous tour leaders in Tampa Bay are giving nature photography a bad name, and threatening the future of our area’s vibrant waterbird colonies.”

The writers described so-called “photo safaris” in which photographers lead clients to vulnerable nesting colonies. Some “guides” charge $450 per client. Many photographers often return without guides.

“Many tour leaders approach the islands too closely,” Paul and Rachal wrote. “Then they allow clients to wade in even closer with their equipment, past signs and in spite of being told by Audubon wardens that their actions endanger birds.These unscrupulous leaders are harming the wildlife that they depend upon for their living, including some of Florida’s rarest species - reddish egrets, roseate spoonbills and American oystercatchers.”

American oystercatchers walk away from their nests when approached. Their eggs quickly overheat in the sand and cook embryos in minutes. Avian predators swoop in and snatch eggs or nestlings before the parents can return to the nests. The writers also claimed that photographer intrusions disrupt courtship activities among roseate spoonbills.

Later, when birds fledge, photographers return yet again, preventing adult birds from obtaining food for their young. As a result, claim the writers, the number of these colorful birds is also diminishing.

This article covered uncharted territory because the effects of “nonconsumptive” activities on wildlife are unknown. Wildlife viewing and wildlife photography are considered low-impact and environmentally friendly. If the Audubon article is accurate, they could actually cause generational losses that might ultimately reduce entire populations.

Hunting, in contrast, merely reduces surpluses of adult game animals, and only during regulated seasons when populations are highest.

Prolonged interaction with humans seldom benefits wildlife. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission should consider the possible impact on wildlife management areas in its emerging campaign to increase access to wildlife watchers and photographers on WMAs.

The commission limits hunting access on many WMAs by requiring hunters to possess a permit, distributed through an annual lottery. Watchable wildlife trails - however pure the intentions - fragment wildlife habitat, and they concentrate visitors. The commission’s watchable wildlife policy contains no mechanism for limiting access to non-hunters. Most hunters, in comparison, stay away from one another. They dress in camouflage and interact quietly with the habitat.

In this light, the Tampa Bay scenario suggests the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission’s outreach to nonconsumptive users might actually conflict with the commission’s mission.

Game and Fish defends its outreach to nonhunters by pointing out that every citizen is a partner in the commission’s mission because everyone pays the one-eighth of one-percent conservation sales tax. That is true, but hunters pay more by purchasing hunting licenses. They also buy duck stamps to use national wildlife refuges, and additional permits to hunt on many WMAs. Don’t forget that the commission bought most of its land with federal money derived from excise taxes on hunting equipment and ammunition.

Without further study, the efficacy of increasing non-hunting access to wildlife during vulnerable life stages might be questionable at best and destructive at worst.

Sports, Pages 20 on 05/30/2013

Upcoming Events