Smithsonian say humans alter animal distribution on the AT

[SassyWindsor]

Smithsonian Institute scientists say humans alter animal distribution on the Appalachian Trail

http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_sec=11&int_new=58713

[Pedaling Fool]

That was a pretty silly article, one example: "...In addition, trail use had a negative impact on bears, who avoided the areas with higher levels of human activity..."

Doesn't seem to deter the bears in Georgia or SNP.

It's irrelevant how human activities effect wildlife near a trail. What is NOT irrelevant is the amount of disruption we do to the environment, period. And a trail is hardly a disruption to the environment. Agriculture/farming is probably the biggest negative effect we have on the environment.

[burger]

That was a pretty silly article, one example

Not true. There's a good-sized body of research showing that bears and other large animals avoid places with a lot of human activity. Sure, a few bears become habituated to people in Shenandoah and other spots, but the overall effect of a lot of people tramping around is to scare bears away.

Nearly every bear that I've seen outside a national park was running full speed away from me. Ditto for bobcats.

[Don H]

So now were going to have cameras monitoring us on the trail? You won't be able to get away with blue blazing anymore
Will speed hikers get tickets?

"

would like to see the agencies managing the Appalachian Trail employ cameras spanning from Georgia to Maine. This holds the potential for better monitoring and managing of the entire trail."

[Pedaling Fool]

Not true. There's a good-sized body of research showing that bears and other large animals avoid places with a lot of human activity. Sure, a few bears become habituated to people in Shenandoah and other spots, but the overall effect of a lot of people tramping around is to scare bears away.

Nearly every bear that I've seen outside a national park was running full speed away from me. Ditto for bobcats.

True, but so what? A deer runs from a bear, does that mean that a bear negatively effect its environment?

A trail that is built by humans is NOT a negative impact on the environment. When we alter the environment for human habitation that is a disruption to the environment; humans walking on a trail is NOT.

And since we've had such a severe impact on the environment, greatly effecting the biodiversity, mostly with respect to top echelon hunters, such as the mountain lion, wolves... than hunters can only be an advantage to the environment.

We already know how we negatively effect the environment, through urbanization and all the infrastructure to support the human population. No study needed to determine a trail's impact on the environment.

[burger]

True, but so what? A deer runs from a bear, does that mean that a bear negatively effect its environment?

Animals like bears love trails. They use them all the time, whether they're made by deer or bears or AT trail maintainers. But when they see a big human walking along a trail, that's a potential predator and a threat. When thousands of humans pass along a section of trail every year, animals learn to avoid the area. That's what's happened on the AT and a lot of other very busy trails.

So, sorry, you're wrong. People using a trail is a disruption. No one is saying that we should stop hiking! But there is an impact of all those people. And studying it can help to design trails and parks so that they don't have negative impacts on animals.

[Rasty]

Does the article address the positive impact of humans from the trail. If the trail was not made much of the area would be developed with grazing, timber, farming or housing.

[Old Hiker]

“This type of initiative could help to involve more people in conservation and allow them to observe firsthand the impact humans have on the Appalachian Trail itself,” McShea said. He also noted that he would like to see the agencies managing the Appalachian Trail employ cameras spanning from Georgia to Maine. This holds the potential for better monitoring and managing of the entire trail.

What? No Big Brother protests over the cameras? Some EPA/Big Guv'mint nanny is going to come along and say that we are negatively impacting the poor li'l critters, so no more hiking.

[Pedaling Fool]

Animals like bears love trails. They use them all the time, whether they're made by deer or bears or AT trail maintainers. But when they see a big human walking along a trail, that's a potential predator and a threat. When thousands of humans pass along a section of trail every year, animals learn to avoid the area. That's what's happened on the AT and a lot of other very busy trails.

So, sorry, you're wrong. People using a trail is a disruption. No one is saying that we should stop hiking! But there is an impact of all those people. And studying it can help to design trails and parks so that they don't have negative impacts on animals.

Pedation is a part of life. This is something that we humans kind of forgot since we've found a way to remove ourselves from the food chain, at least the part of the chain no one wants to be a part of...

When animals see a predator, yes the scurry away and hide, but that's about it. So in that sense, yes we are a disruption, but no more than any other predator (or threat to that animal). If a trail is that much of a disruption than why do we alway see prints and scat on the trail? BTW, most times animals that see us as a threat don't run, they just sit there and watch us pass.

No one is saying that we should stop hiking! But there is an impact of all those people. And studying it can help to design trails and parks so that they don't have negative impacts on animals.

Explain? How are you going to redesign a trail? The only way to reduce "human impact" is to reduce humans. So, yes, they are saying, to some extent, "stop hiking".

[Rasty]

“This type of initiative could help to involve more people in conservation and allow them to observe firsthand the impact humans have on the Appalachian Trail itself,” McShea said. He also noted that he would like to see the agencies managing the Appalachian Trail employ cameras spanning from Georgia to Maine. This holds the potential for better monitoring and managing of the entire trail.

What? No Big Brother protests over the cameras? Some EPA/Big Guv'mint nanny is going to come along and say that we are negatively impacting the poor li'l critters, so no more hiking.

Need to study about the negative impact of the camera flashes on the animals eyes. How long does it take Bambi to get back to it's normal night vision after being flashed.

[burger]

When animals see a predator, yes the scurry away and hide, but that's about it. So in that sense, yes we are a disruption, but no more than any other predator (or threat to that animal).

I don't really have time for this anymore, but you are 100% wrong. Read up on non-lethal effects of predators.

[Pedaling Fool]

I don't really have time for this anymore, but you are 100% wrong. Read up on non-lethal effects of predators.

But we're, for the most part, NOT predators. We're just walking thru.... Yes, many animals are far less capable of tolerating stress, but just hikers walking thru an area is hardly going to lead to the phenomenon known as, "Non-lethal effects of predators" Geez

You can say we are predators of some animals, probably the most common is the deer. If you've noticed, deer are not exactly endangered.

[HermesUL]

The evidence indicates that trails are fragmenting bear and other animal habitats. Other evidence points to erosion caused by trails.

These are, ipso facto, environmental impacts. To say that the only human-built feature that affects the environment is for habitation is irresponsibly naive.

[Old Hiker]

Need to study about the negative impact of the camera flashes on the animals eyes. How long does it take Bambi to get back to it's normal night vision after being flashed.

Don't know, but I bet the predators aren't complainin' !

[Pedaling Fool]

The evidence indicates that trails are fragmenting bear and other animal habitats. Other evidence points to erosion caused by trails.

These are, ipso facto, environmental impacts. To say that the only human-built feature that affects the environment is for habitation is irresponsibly naive.

A trail does not cause habitation fragmentation -- where does this crap come from. Furthermore, if you read all my posts I didn't say that only negative effects we have on the environment is things built only for habitation.

Actually, a case can be made that urban sprawl has very little effect on habitation fragmentation when compared to all the other things we do to alter the environment, but probably the most detrimental effect comes from farming, both agricultural and livestock and so-called organic farming is no different in this respect, i.e. it's just as destructive to biodiversity.

Habitation fragementation is probably the worst effect we have on the environment, specifically destruction of biodiversity; that is the serious part of environmentalism. A trail through the woods is NOT a serious environmental issue.

[SassyWindsor]

.....and mountain bikes riding on hiking trails do absolutely no damage to said trail, in fact it firms up and stabilizes the trail making it more enjoyable for hikers. This is what Mountain Bike Clubs would have you believe.

[HermesUL]

The evidence indicates that bears are staying as far away from trails as they can manage. If you draw a great big line through the middle of a forest that bears want to stay away from, you have fragmented their habitat. Sure, the occasional bear will pass over, but it become much less common and their future becomes difficult.

We need, as hikers, to understand the environmental impacts of what we do and be willing to accept them. I'm not saying they're as huge as, say, mountaintop removal, but they're very real and present. Those who say otherwise are lying to themselves.

[Pedaling Fool]

The evidence indicates that bears are staying as far away from trails as they can manage. If you draw a great big line through the middle of a forest that bears want to stay away from, you have fragmented their habitat. Sure, the occasional bear will pass over, but it become much less common and their future becomes difficult.

What evidence? Show the evidence that any animal is some how deterred from crossing a trail.

We need, as hikers, to understand the environmental impacts of what we do and be willing to accept them.

That's all we have to do with our environmental impacts, "accept them". I can do that. What does that mean? Assuming a trail is some how a detriment to the environment.

[snifur]

+1 jg! I enjoy hunting and i like to eat animals and have found that trails are often used by the animals to travel from area to area the same as we hikers and hunters do. this sounds like a fraud to me where someone is just trying to get funding or justify the money they already spent on research. all BS IMO.
instead of fretting about if the bear will cross the road, why not worry about the real issues of earth, like the coming apocalypse of zombies, the meteor that will kill all the animals, the overnight ice age that is impending, harvesting of humans by UFOs and the Doomsday device the Germans hid in WWII.

[Longfan]

If bear et al avoid the trail because people are walking the trail then explain to me how a friend and hunt and shot deer from the same stand and shot more then one from said stand each year. While there is trail cam evidence that Big Bucks run an areawhere stands are located from say Feb to Aug/Sept then avoid the area where the stands are located; I am not sure that a trail will cause major disruption of the wildlife over a long period.