Managing the surrounding ecosystem

Forest and Bird, Issue 281, 1 August 1996, Page 41

Managing the surrounding ecosystem

ELLOWSTONE National Park protects only the core of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem which covers some 73,000 square kilometres — more than five times the size of Fiordland National Park and one of the largest relatively intact temperate ecosystems left on earth. Twenty-eight public agencies exercise jurisdiction over this wider area and, to varying degrees, determine the future of the plants and animals that are components of this ecosystem. Threats to the ecosystem include a large proposed gold mine on federal land within a few kilometres of the park boundary. In 1989 the Greater Yellowstone Coalition — a collection of over ninety groups and thousands of individuals — launched the Greater Yellowstone Tomorrow project. This five-year project aimed to create a blueprint for the sustainable management of the area by encouraging its coordinated management, and by improving the understanding of both the ecological and economic trends in the region. Increasingly, federal agencies have coordinated their management of adjoining protected lands. Managers of both the national forests and the national parks now meet on the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee to resolve important issues and to improve communication and coordination. The Greater Yellowstone Coalition

hopes to eventually ensure that the associated private rural lands are also managed to conserve wildlife. In the long term it hopes to link and sustain the natural wealth of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem by "living off the interest the landscape provides, rather than drawing from its capital assets". Meanwhile other conservationists are thinking on an even larger scale. While the Yellowstone region is a huge relatively intact ecosystem, it is isolated from other remnant natural areas in North America by modified lands. As in most parts of the world, including New Zealand, protected natural areas exist only as disjointed fragments in a matrix of people-dominated lands, depleted of their indigenous character. Many parks and reserves are severely compromised by the loss of surrounding lowland habitat, the lack of connections to other protected areas, and inadequate buffering from adjoining land uses. The visionary Wildlands Project is a response to this problem. The project aims to allow the recovery of whole ecosystems and landscapes in every region of North America by protecting or establishing a connected system of reserves. Its focus is on maintaining existing protected areas and establishing effective links between these areas. Its long-term vision is a situation where human habitation exists within a matrix of protected natural areas, rather than protected areas being isolated within a sea of modified land.

Perhaps a more important issue in this country is the control of the many introduced plants and animals that have upset the original ecological processes in our protected areas. Just as the exotic lake trout threaten native cut-throat trout in Yellowstone Lake (see box above), introduced fish have contributed to the impoverishment of New Zealand’s indigenous freshwater fauna, and possums threaten many native bird populations in our forests. And while New Zealand already has an enviable record of successful pest eradication programmes, the Yellowstone experience suggests that we need to increase our efforts. Sustainable long-term biological control agents for major pests need to be developed; comprehensive pest control programmes, such as DoC’s "mainland island" restoration programmes, should be extended to cover

representative samples of all major ecosystems; and the killing of native animals, such as kereru, should remain prohibited. ARK MANAGERS in the United States and New Zealand face similar problems and challenges. The ecological pressures here in New Zealand are at least as critical as those facing protected areas in the USA. The major difference between parks in the two countries is visitor pressure. There are almost 250 million people living in the United States and their national parks receive over 300 million visitors a year. Compare that with our population of 3.5 million, and annual international visitor arrivals of less than two million. Congestion is not unknown in New Zealand parks, but it is certainly not commonplace. Neither is it difficult to experi-

ence wilderness and solitude in our parks, even within a few minutes of a road. However, this is not because of any conscious policy decisions on our part; it is simply a consequence of our relatively small population and geographic isolation. As you enter Yellowstone National Park in summer the impressive natural scenery cannot completely distract you from the other visitors. After queuing to pay your entrance fee you need to plan ahead to avoid road construction works and to secure a tent site in one of the campgrounds. To reach the famous natural features like Old Faithful, Mammoth Hot Springs, or Yellowstone Falls, there really is no choice but to join the thousands of other vehicles that negotiate the park’s narrow roads, and then to join the throngs of people on the paved trails -as if on a city street — for a closer view.

Buffalo or elk sighted on the roadside create tremendous traffic jams and fishers jostle for space along the Yellowstone River. This is not to say that the park is not well managed, and that you cannot still gain a wilderness experience if you leave your vehicle and head for the backcountry. Rather, it is a reflection on the huge numbers of people visiting the park during the summer months and the almost total reliance on the private motor car and the existing facilities. While in New Zealand there is no urgent need to limit park use in most places, there certainly is a need to plan ahead to prevent excessive use and, if it occurs, to deal with it appropriately. The worst of the problems experienced at Yellowstone can probably be avoided by keeping motor cars and other machines out of parks; by limiting facilities development; and by encouraging contemplative recreation over conventional service recreation.

An acceptance that some uses of parks are more appropriate than others — that parks cannot be all things to all people — would be a good start. And, of course, the continued protection and restoration of the ecological integrity of parks remains of prime importance. The last thing we can afford to do is to be complacent. The people pressure facing parks in the USA will eventually confront us here. No one will thank us if we squander this opportunity to learn from the experience of those who have already suffered.

MIKE HARDING is a conservation consultant living at Arthur’s Pass, and a former field officer for Forest and Bird.