New "hands-off" policy for public lands?

[ShunCheung]

Not that the topics being discussed aren't interesting or controversal, but as I had already pointed out earlier, we are getting farther and farther away from nature photography. There are plenty of forums for political and environmental debates; it is always heated, emotional and endless. Let's stay with issues directly related with nature photography here.

 

Today, we are going to photograph elephant seals at Ano Nuevo (which actually means new year in Spanish), California. That is a good start to 2003. Happy new year to everybody.

[bobatkins]

Kent - The great thing about the US is that you are entitled to hold and voice your opinions, even when they are clearly wrong. At least it used to be that way, today I'm not quite so sure.

 

I heard today that wildlife watchers (photographers and birders) now are both more numerous AND contribute more dollars to the economy than all hunters and anglers combined. Watcher numbers increase every year while hunter and angler numbers decline. Many states are revising their fish and wildlife policies to more reflect this. I hope this will extend to the federal govenment soon and they will realize that the economics of favoring those who wish to conserve wilderness over those who wish to exploit or otherwise damge it make it the wiser course of action, considerations of ethics and morlaity aside.

 

The relevance of this to nature photographes lies in the fact that it does seem that some states are starting to take notice of us as valuable contributors to the economy and may start taking our view and opinions into account when structuring their fish and wildlife policies. This is good news.

[miles stoddard]

...I heard today that wildlife watchers (photographers and birders) now are both more numerous AND contribute more dollars to the economy than all hunters and anglers combined.

 

Where would one have to be to "hear" this? Better yet, were I to hear it, it would take more than this to believe it. It doesn't even sound remotely plausible.

[robert_kennedy]

Kent - First off, I was not "wildly" speculating. Considering recent political events in my region, and the word of the ranger, I was merely seeing if anyone else had a similar experience. You will note that I even mention that the ranger might have been just shruging off work. This issue though is a very serious issue that concerns everyone, especially those of us who like to shoot on public lands. It should be investigated and discussed.

 

Secondly, your attitude toward "environmentalists" as "the enemy" is how we get into messes like this in the first place!

 

As I previously mentioned, there are extremists on BOTH sides. Those who want NO use of public lands, and those who think they have a right to do ANYTHING on public lands. When we label "environmentalists" as "the enemy" we paint with a broad brush.

 

The reality is that extremists on both sides are the problem. Period. When someone spikes a tree to stop logging, it is exactly the same as someone tearing up fences and digging up sensitive areas just because they don't like current land policy. No difference.

 

What it comes down to is that we all need to be vigilant and look at how we can ensure healthy parks and forests that we can all enjoy. It is that simple. When we polarize and just start blaming 'the enemy' nothing gets done.

 

Here in AZ we had the Rodeo-Chediski fire. RC was BIG. It burned something like 500,000 acres. It was caused by mismanagement. Fire is a natural part of a healthy forest. Some trees NEED fire to effectively reproduce. The problem was that EVERY fire was quashed for decades. This resulted in a very overgrown forest. A literal tinderbox. Nature was thwarted. And then a fire of biblical proportions (and it was....I could see it from my house 200 MILES AWAY) breaks out.

 

In the aftermath, instead of everyone trying to PREVENT the next big fire, many parties have taken to the Blame Game. It has even gotten to the point where some people are planting burned land with no thought to density or diversity. Which is how the mess started. Others want NO thining of the forest to 'protect it'. Sorry it needs to be thinned.

 

The result though is that as summer approaches, little has been done to actually FIX the fire problem but a lot of bitching has occured.

 

But, if people start thinking "Hey, we should work TOGETHER and support sensible policies", we may actually GET somewhere. I think the photographic community could be a good source for this. Nature photographers are out there. They are seeing what is going on. We need to talk to each other. Compare notes. Build community and see how we can ensure that there is something to shoot in 10 years time instead of just wasteland.

 

Jeff -

 

I was up in the area just east of Tucson in the Rincons. I was on the FS road that runs through the pass there.

[bobatkins]

The news item on nature watchers outnumbering hunters and anglers was featured on this morning's news hour on National Public Radio. It wasn't a brief mention, it was a 5 minute(?) feature with interviews and numbers. I guess if you search the NPR website you might find it. NPR isn't generally known for making things up.

[lee_shively]

NPR? C'mon, Bob.

 

I'm not really taking sides here but it seems to me there is a distinct attitude problem floating around. There are too many people willing to believe only the information which confirms their viewpoints. The newfangled environmentalist believes only what the Sierra Club, the Democratic Party and liberal media (such as NPR) says. The neo-conservatives only believe what Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party and Fox News says.

 

As was pointed out previously, we should be out making photos, watching birds and wildlife, hunting, skiing, hiking, fishing and enjoying ourselves in the environment. Anyone who is involved in these activities has an equal stake in the future health of the planet. It's a better pursuit than sitting around with tunnel vision whining about how bad things are.

[mike sisk]

Here's what it sez on npr.org:

 

<blockquote>

<b>States See Fewer Requests for Hunting Licenses</b><br />

The number of people who hunt wildlife is falling, as more people choose to take pictures of animals. However, it's hunting and fishing licenses that pay for wildlife management. NPR's Robert Smith explains states will have to change how they manage public lands.

</blockquote>

 

And FWIW, it seems to me the state and management of the nature we choose to photograph has a great deal to do with nature photography.

[miles stoddard]

...I heard today that wildlife watchers (photographers and birders) now are both more numerous AND contribute more dollars to the economy than all hunters and anglers combined...

 

...States See Fewer Requests for Hunting Licenses: The number of people who hunt wildlife is falling, as more people choose to take pictures of animals. However, it's hunting and fishing licenses that pay for wildlife management. NPR's Robert Smith explains states will have to change how they manage public lands...

 

 

Well, you don't have to be Aristotle to figure out you cannot conclude the former statement from the latter! It is not a matter of wildlife management or politics, but simple rhetoric/logic.

[bobatkins]

Nobody said you could. Just do some research. That's what the internet is for. If you don't like predigested facts being spoon fed to you, just seach them out for yourself! Or just chose whatever you want to believe, that's the more popular way.

 

Damn those pinko lefty organizations like NPR, The New York Times and the Democratic party. You just can't trust a thing they say. Where's the Posse Comitatus when you need them.

[bobatkins]

For those who don't like to search, here's a rather dated (1996) reference to the economic impact of birdwatching.

<p>

<a href="http://www.audubon.org/campaign/refuge/econbird.html">

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/refuge/econbird.html</a>

<p>

Sorry it's from that biased, left-wing, subversive Audubon Society, since they are hardly a reliable source on birding. Here's a brief, but no douby toatlly biased, extract:

<p>

<em>In 1996, wildlife watching generated $3.82 billion in federal income tax, $1.04 billion in state sales tax, and $323.5 million in state income tax. <br>

In 1996, economic activity resulting from wildlife watching generated more than 1 million jobs nationwide. <br>

If wildlife watching was a company, its revenues make it 23rd on the Fortune 500 list-just behind Citicorp ($32.6 billion), PepsiCo, Inc. ($31.6 billion) and Kmart Corporation ($31.4 billion).

</em><p>

References are cited in the original article, should you dispute the numbers.

[miles stoddard]

...Nobody said you could. Just do some research...

...If you don't like predigested facts...

 

Late night Bob? �Nobody said you could�? �Facts�? Really? Do you even read what you type in? Correct me if I am wrong: You claimed �...I heard today that wildlife watchers (photographers and birders) now are both more numerous AND contribute more dollars to the economy than all hunters and anglers combined... � I am not putting words in your mouth; this is what you posted, and even now you apparently claim it is a predigested �fact�. You offered this as a fact, as a summary of what you �heard�. Well, someone else posted what was actually said. One great big problem: what you concluded (one of your predigested facts) can not be logically concluded from what was said by NPR! This is the problem; it is always the problem; if you water down the word fact, it loses are useful meaning.

 

For the record, yes, I dispute the numbers. The numbers classify anyone who sets foot on a refuge of any kind as a birdwatcher. Every family on vacation, even though maybe the guy and one kid are interested, the entire family is defined and counted as �birdwatchers�, irrespective of what their hobbies or interests are every other day of every other year. Even the summary acknowledges a discrepancy worth noting: 31.4 million people visited the refuges, yet only 25.5 million actually engaged in �watching� (what were the other 6 million doing?). If you stare at a rabbit in your yard, you are a wildlife watcher. The barrier for classification isn�t all that high, when compared to hunting and fishing - which requires licensing, etc. etc. There is no doubt that there are people and money involved, but a local 10K road-race in a city brings more money to a city than one of the highpoints on the Audubon data you cited (Rio Grande Birding Festival?), and nearly 10 times as much money is made in Northern Wisconsin off the sale of pornography-related materials than is made by the Horicon WI bird thing! With all the lose definitions, the Fortune 500 analogy is little more than a humorous statement (for example, what ranking does �drinking� beer get? Add up the revenue of every single brewery, and how high would it be? Then add on the sponsorships and endorsements and related jobs and charities and etc. and magically, you have Fortune 100 material); a little $$$ perspective might be in order.

[christian deichert]

Robert -- I know the area you're talking about; Redington Road, right? I've seen the damage there, very infuriating. I was just up there last month, on a whim after shooting a sunset on Catalina Highway, and it was depressing to see the damage. The Rincons are just too close to Tucson, unfortunately. The Galiuros, fortunately, have been spared a lot of this damage, as have the Silverbells; they're just far enough from downtown that the lazy stick closer to home -- unfortunately, this means they rip up the Rincons.

 

Jeff -- Howdy from a fellow Sierra Vistan. I know what you mean about all the trash in the Huachucas. We've been catching a lot of uninvited guests on post lately. I've seen a bunch on the "trail" from Mule Pass to Mount Ballard in the Mules.

[mike sisk]

Just to clarify...

 

What I posted from npr.org was the text lead-in for a link to the Real Audio recording of the actual report as aired this morning. I don't have Real Audio installed on my Mac so I didn't listen to it. It very likely went into more detail than the intro text and may support what Bob said earlier. Or not. It's easy enough to go listen in if one is so inclined. I'd post a link but it'll change once it's archived off the "current" page at npr.org.

 

The importance of wild land conservation balanced against public use of lands in the public trust present unique problems that are not easily solved. It would be nice if these discussions (and they should be discussed) didn't degenerate into Usenet-style flame-fests, but that might be asking too much...

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p>Robert - I know the area as well, but not as well as my 'backyard.' I think it gets hit much harder than anything around here, just due to proximity with Tucson. I'll still be asking questions of the local folks I know, but I suspect I already know what I will learn....

 

<p>Christian - no surprise about the guests on post. I've never hiked the Mules yet, but I'd guess its not significantly different from the Huachucas. I just walked Ramsey/Hamburg up past the Overlook area on Monday and found four separate 'caches' of garbage bearing Mexican labels - but also three Cone's White-tail, which helps keep ones attitude right. No actual encounters with illegals on that day, though. Drop me a note if you ever want to commiserate on this in person.

[Two23]

Well, I finally got a response from local BLM people here. There has been NO big changes in national forest/grassland policy in the past two years. Rather than putting a post on a stamp collecting message board or whatever, I went to the source to get info. This is actually very easy to do and I'm surprised it wasn't the first thing R.K. did. That being said, RK and I may be closer in opinion than it appears. I think vehicles should be allowed, obviously, but restricted to roads. I also think that the forests have been mismanaged for years, especially in the forest fire aspect. I'm all for letting them burn and using resources only to divert them from established towns. As a conservative, I don't want to be paying the bill to protect the foolish who build cabins/houses in the woods. In fact, I see such developement as the number one danger to our access to these areas. I've long complained that ALL groups that use the outdoors--hikers, hunters, birdwatchers, snowmobilers, and so on, should band together instead of fighting each other. We have a common enemy! The main thing I question regarding RK is why post this on a PHOTO board anyway? Why not do what I did--ask the U.S. Forest Service office people what's officially going on? From what I heard today, if someone is crashing through fences they DO want to know about it.

 

I've listened to NPR for many years. From time to time I've really questioned some of the things they've come up with. When I check them out with more balanced sources (as well as first hand when possible,) I've figured out that probably NPR is the LEAST reliable and most biased organization on radio. They do a great job reporting on arts and entertainment etc., but should leave serious reporting to the professionals. In my state, hunting income alone is the fourth largest "industry". Add fishing and it's number two or three. I suspect that's true in most Western states around me. I am out in the field virturally every day and almost NEVER see a "wildlife watcher" other than in Custer State Park. I see hunting/fishing groups about every half an hour as I drive (during the seasons of course.) There is so much money collected from hunters/fishermen not only in the form of licsence fees, but also donations to Duck's Unlimited etc., taxes on equipment, motels and meals, and so on. The NPR account apparently did NOT take all these into account. And, don't ever forget that many people are BOTH. I am an avid hunter, and I'm one of the handfull of serious outdoor photographers in my state.

 

And for the person commenting from Europe, please do NOT judge our president by reports from your HIGHLY biased European media. They are totally worthless for accurate information, other than weather perhaps. I'm very happy I live where I do and wouldn't even CONSIDER moving to Europe because our land/air/water is MUCH cleaner, and we have more personal freedoms. And, most important, we have money to spend after paying way fewer taxes. (Americans--check out how much camera gear costs in Sweeden etc. sometime--due to taxes!) To hunt in Europe you must be a wealthy man. While Europe has some nice places to visit and a few may even be "nature" oriented, for outdoor photography and other activities it's the U.S. that has more room and places to go. No way I want anyone from Europe having any influence on how we run things here. Nothing personal.

 

Probably the person I agree most with is Shun Cheung. He's exactly right that our PHOTO board should not be used to start political rumors/innuendo. There are plenty of other boards for that stuff. I will challenge misinformation when it appears, but dislike having photo boards clogged with "environmental" spam.

 

Kent in SD

[greg s]

"and almost NEVER see a "wildlife watcher" other than in Custer State Park"

 

That's a sad state of affairs. During the last 4 years we've taken 5 trips down to tropical America. The locals and visitors are in the habit of observing, appreciating and protecting wildlife for the sake of its own well being. I've had the privilege of being shown rare birds by individuals who live on subsistance wages, but know a wondrous creature for what it is and take great pleasure in sharing the info and experience.

 

While in Belize I couldn't help but muse over how a country of such modest means finds it so obviously natural to set aside large tracts of land for free roaming jaguars while in the U.S. it was such a hard fought battle to bring the wolf back to Yellowstone, its rightful home. I guess it's a matter of culture and values.

[robert_kennedy]

Kent -

 

To answer your question -

 

First off, I have had very poor experiences with calling the Coronado NF office. Sad but true. During the fire closures of last year, I contacted them regarding when the forest would be reopened. All I wanted to know was if they were looking at a long term closure, or if we got say XXX inches of rain things would be reopened. I was reading two different things in the media here. If the case was that it was a long term closure, that would mean it could be 6-9 months before it reopened. If it was simply a matter of getting a certain amount of rain, then all I had to do was wait until the monsoon came and then start making phone calls after a few decent rains.

 

Simple?

 

Not really. During one call I got someone who had no idea the NF was closed. Another said it wasn't closed because of fire but because of "abuse". Another said it would be closed until winter. I NEVER got anything resembling an informed answer. I was never able to discover who DID know the answers. It was very frustrating and I felt that nobody CARED to know the answers!

 

So I am not exactly champing at the bit to call them.

 

Plus, I am well aware of how some organizations will SAY one thing and do another. I seriously doubt that if I did call, they would say "Yep. We are on orders to just let people rip stuff up." My goal in posting was to see what others had seen out there and run into. Has anyone else seen this? Is it an anomoly?

 

As to what this has to do with Nature photography....well....EVERYTHING!

 

I mean a large amount people here shoot in NF lands as well as NP lands. If there has been a change in policy or effective policy, this could REALLY effect us.

[ShunCheung]

Robert, I'll say it for the 3rd time. At best, this topic is only remotely related to nature photography. However, it provides a place for people to express their <B>already existing</B> positions and opinions on political and environmental issues. Those are hardened positions are not going to change. That is why these debates will go on forever and get absolutely nowhere.

<P>

Whenever a thread has more than 20, 25 responses, either it is a very hot topic but in most cases it is drifting into some debate that gets nowhere. Right now this thread has 41 responses and counting. To those who are interested in these endless debates, IMO it is best to take it elsewhere. We sure aren't going to solve it here.

[robert_kennedy]

Only remotely related?

 

So we should not post any experiences with closures of public land here? If public land is closed off, or opened up (like in the case of Ironwood), we should just ignore the whole issue and talk about something else?

 

I thought this is was about shooting nature. And if locations may not be discussed, then what is the point? Let's face it 99% of nature photography comes down in some respect to location,location,location.

[ShunCheung]

Robert, by not means I am saying that we should just ignore environmental issues, all I am saying is that a Nature Photography Forum is not the right place to debate environmental and political issues and they will not be resolved here. Clearly I am not the only person who feels that way, and I have no doubt that there are others who may agree with you. That is fine and we can agree to disagree on that.

 

IMO, you are better off writing to your Congress(wo)man, Senator, the Department of Interior or as Bob Atkins said earlier, you can provide more support to environmental organizations. There is no point to continue these endless debates in this forum.

[ocelote71]

Don't worry Robert. Shun doesn't get it and he never will. The nature

photography forum is for discussion of nature photography or

photography gear but never has room for nature. The subject itself has

never been, is not, and will never be of any importance for him to

spare the ax. Shun, I see that you are throwing out the baby with the

bathwater again. Free your mind a little would you?

[bobatkins]

Just a note that this thread will be edited.

 

I will, of course, be removing all those right wing conservative comments that I disagree with, while leaving all the tree hugging left wing comments in tact. Just thought I'd say that up front so you don't have to....I'd hate to spoil anyone's sterotype of me as a biased moderator.

[ShunCheung]

If it were up to me, I would have deleted this thread a few days ago. I always prefer a narrow definition of Nature Photography for this forum, and again, whenever a thread grows to more than 20, 25 responses, most likely the discussion is simply getting out of hand. But since Bob Atkins seems to be interested in this discussion, I'll leave all the editing to him. Don't blame me if your opinion is removed here. :-)

 

Instead, I prefer to spend my time photographing nature. On New Years Day we spent the entire day along the California coast and found some nice beaches and cliffs south of San Francicso. Didn't shoot digital this time, so when I get my slides back, I'll add to the California driving tour thread. Now, that is the kind of topics I like to discuss.

[jeff medkeff anchorage, a]

<p>Robert,

 

<p>I talked to a friend of mine, whom I won't identify, about this.... There was much swearing and expressions of regret along the lines of him really wanting the Forest Service to have more credibility with the public and then something like this happens, etc.

 

<p>His explanation about the possible reasons for the specific response included making the report to an incompetent ranger, which was not considered beyond the pale; or making the report to a member of a visiting Forest Service team, which was also considered quite plausible. I'm told such teams have been operating in some units of Coronado National Forest on and off for months. Somewhere up above, a poster writes:

 

<p><i>Well, I finally got a response from local BLM people here. There has been NO big changes in national forest/grassland policy in the past two years. Rather than putting a post on a stamp collecting message board or whatever, I went to the source to get info. ....</i>

 

<p>This information is <b>not</b> correct. There <b>has</b> been a relatively recent change in the status of some task-specific teams in the Forest Service, with regard to local enforcement actions, to wit - that until a few months ago, certain kinds of teams were permitted to assist the local ranger district in enforcement actions outside the scope of the reason for their presence. Now some of them are not - or it might be more accurate to say they are restrained from doing so in some cases. This is sometimes referred to as a "hands-off" policy by FS people and he picked up on that right away, though he did indicate that this was the kind of bureaucratic/administrative change that wouldn't necessarily be widely understood or even correctly represented to the public by someone in the field.

 

<p>One might note in reference to the quoted matter above that the BLM is not in a position to comment about Forest Service policies, in general. Go to the source - the actual source, not some made-up source that sounds impressive but isn't even the right agency.

 

<p>Robert, my friend made several suggestions for dealing with this problem. First, if the response is anything less than expected, to try to find the status and district affiliation of the ranger you are making the report to. Maybe you are reporting to a survey person or someone else administratively prevented from helping. (He did say that if this was the case, they should have at least offered to pass along your report to the district, if he/she could do so in a timely way.) Secondly, if it is a local district ranger, and the response is not acceptable, to take notes and otherwise document the incident you are reporting, and press the issue at the ranger district office. If <i>that</i> does not produce satisfactory results, press the issue with the Forest office. And yes, he indicated that it is really easy to get a run-around in the districts near Tucson, and hopes you will press the issue with them in the future anyway. He also indicated that for information-gathering, you should contact the district PIO - the person who signs all the press releases - as otherwise you might get secretaries, etc, who honestly do not know the things you might be interested in.

 

<p>I hope you find this information to be useful. For my part, thanks for posting about this.