Wildland-urban Management: Bigger opinions equals bigger problems
In the wildland-urban interface where wildlife and humans meet there are bound to be problems. Wildlife in urban settings may cause property damage and could pose a risk to the welfare of humans/pets. Or alternatively, the humans in the area may pose a risk to the survival of the wildlife. But one of the biggest challenges can be finding a solution to a problem while managing the opinions and expectations of the humans in the area, not just creating an effective management plan. In lecture it was noted that the most effective way to control CWD in deer is to cull the herd, but just because it’s the most effective strategy doesn’t mean it’s the easiest. This is the kind of management plan that may garner allot of push back from the humans involved, whether because they want a large population of deer to hunt or because they oppose killing deer period. This type of struggle between creating the most effective management plan to solve a wildlife problem and balancing public opinion is one of the toughest challenges in managing urban wildlife. Too much opposition from the public can make your job as a wildlife manager very difficult, if not impossible. So, it seems that a compromise between the best plan and the publicly favored plan is the right path. It’s also important to educate the public on why certain issues are important and why a manager may take certain actions, like culling a deer herd. For example, cats are one of the biggest causes of bird mortality. But to many cat owners the idea of keeping their cats indoors is completely unthinkable (much less the concept of more severe tactics to control feral cat populations). But if a manager tried to force people to keep their cats indoors, the response from cat owners would certainly be less than positive. While its not a perfect solution, this is a case where education of the public is vital to helping them understand their role in the problem and hopefully push them to alter their behavior.
In terms of if we can both be among nature and protect it, I think it’s a very tricky issue. I think it’s easy to says yes, when we’re thinking about the effect of one person who is behaving respectfully and conscientiously. But it’s never just one person and you can’t assume that everyone will behave the way they ideally should. That being said, I’d be a total hypocrite to say I don’t think we should ever be in nature in order to protect it. Because I certainly love to spend plenty of time in nature hiking, paddle boarding, and horseback riding. I don’t have a strong opinion on whether its right or wrong, but I will say I do think its possible to both enjoy nature and protect it (assuming you behave respectfully).
Photo from: https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2021/04/should-nys-cull-feral-cats.html
Hey Gabrielle, great post. I thought you brought up a lot of good arguments and possible solutions in your writing. One point that I thought was particularly thought provoking was that the best compromise is to find a meeting point between the best plan and the public favored plan. I for the most part would tend to disagree with this proposal as the public is often not very well informed and their personal opinions sway their decisions too often. This directly seen with the same example you brought up regarding cats. House cats invasive and are directly responsible for the endangerment of several species however cat owners will Denie and fight against any proposals trying to improve this issue because of their personal ties. Because of this it is my opinion that we should tend to sway towards expert opinions while also pushing for an increase in education outreach programs and areas.
ReplyDeleteHi Patrick! I completely agree that in an ideal world management plans would be based purely on the science and created by experts in the field. But in reality there are many situations where not compromising may mean you get nothing done. And this is where I think compromising is the best strategy. For example, in the early 2000s there was an outbreak of rabies in the Central park raccoon population. The initial plan was to severely cull the population, but when the public heard about this they refused to let animal control park on their property. So, they had to compromise. They agreed to only kill racoons with symptoms and do their best to vaccinate the rest. Even though dramatically culling the population was the smartest choice to control rabies, they had to compromise to get anything done at all. I agree though that this is where education plays a big role. The more educated the public is the more likely they will be amenable to the plan put forth by the experts.
DeleteGabrielle, it was really cool to see your thought processes when working through this nuanced issue about conservation versus urban expansion. I totally agree with your points about needing to be conscientious when enjoying outdoor recreation. I will add, though, that I believe those that like to be outdoors generally are aware of their surroundings, and tend to care for them. Sure, perhaps not 100% of the people enjoying parks are respectful, but I truly believe the majority of people are. Therefore, I think keeping parks isolated from human development is critical—though we can trust the general population to act accordingly when enjoying those spaces. Furthermore, and sort of tying into what I wrote above, I agree that informing the public and educating them on these natural conflicts is imperative to successful land management. Thus, it creates a tricky situation where one has to raise public awareness for yet another issue, one that many may not care about. However, raising public support and education on the issue of land management and conservation is a vital key to future success. Keep up the great work!
ReplyDeleteHi Gabrielle,
ReplyDeleteGreat job on the post! I made the same argument that it would be beneficial to find a moderate compromise! It is not feasible to make such drastic changes to protect the environment. As much as it would be great to implement, the EPA has shown from time to time that it would not step up when needed. A question I have for you is where do you think we should draw the line? How do we define moderacy? What plan of attack do you recommend to start working towards a middle ground?
A question I have from your post is where and how do you think ethics plays in to enjoying and preserving nature? For instance zoos can be highly beneficial for educating and preserving the environment or animals however some would argue that they are unethical to keep wild things enclosed when they should be in nature.
ReplyDelete