View Full Version : nytimes: impact of recreational backcountry activities on wildlife
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/leaving-only-footsteps-think-again.html
An interesting read; check out the comments, too.
gsingjane
02-15-2015, 14:11
Oh, I was wondering if someone was going to post this - I read it also this morning.
It's very, very sobering. The author doesn't mention it, but it also seems as if one recommendation *might* be to confine natural recreation to a comparatively few high-traffic trails, kind of like the AT.
But, I must say, I never thought I would feel guilty for going on a hike. Gosh.
Jane
Feral Bill
02-15-2015, 14:23
The article is necessarily thin on details, as every situation is different. However, lumping hiking and xc skiing with all other recreational uses (presumably including such things as downhill resorts and associated development) is misleading. I do often hike where trails have been abandoned to protect wildlife from disturbance, but I also wonder how much of the total threat to wildlife is really related to simple walking. I suspect a rather thin slice of the pie graph.
Sarcasm the elf
02-15-2015, 14:26
While it did stop to make me consider our encroachment, a few of the claims in the article read to me like they bordered in Yellow Journalism. If the premise had been something more along the lines of "Certain threatened species in certain areas don't deal well with human encroachment" then I might have been more receptive. Instead the article appears to be looking to create a overreaching guilt trip about outdoor activities that I'm just not buying. It also severely underplays the impact that conservationists who use the land have had by protecting many hundreds of thousands of acres in this country that would otherwise be lost to development. To make claims that there is a "dead zone" within 100 yards of a walking trail, while ignoring the fact that the existence of the hiking trail is likely what prevented the land from being bulldozed into housing developments is bunk.
Slo-go'en
02-15-2015, 14:38
To make claims that there is a "dead zone" within 100 yards of a walking trail, while ignoring the fact that the existence of the hiking trail is likely what prevented the land from being bulldozed into housing developments is bunk.
A lot of animals use hiking trails as it makes for an easy corridor through the woods. Moose love hiking and snowmobile trails. Since most of these critters are out at night you don't see them and is why camping right on a trail isn't a good idea. You could get stepped on!
Kayakers on the west coastal "inland waters" like Tomales Bay are required to not disturb wildlife, including birds. The distance is determined by this: do they change their behavior? Then, you are too close.
I am not "up to date" on the decisions made, or, in the making. I know the meetings were about banning kayaks altogether.
I believe that about wolverines, badgers and fox. I have seen them "disappear" from "protected" from hunting and trapping areas because people were walking the dirt roads and trails.
I remember all the ridicule about the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest. The fact is, the spotted owl is (or was) an "indicator species" much like a canary in a coal mine. If it dies, an entire ecology or rather eco-system collapses. The clear-cut and selective cut is causing regional eco-system collapse, no matter how much "special interests" deny it. It may be the destruction of eco-systems is not isolated to a region.
Forest managers allow diseased trees to stand. The disease spreads. Some policy-maker has a policy to "let nature take it's course". Same thing, with not allowing cutting for fire-wood use and selling firewood. The trees were marked. Only a certain diameter allowed. It amounted to "thinning" young sprouts: baby trees so thick the tree trunks touch each other so much now the forest fires burn so hot smoke-jumpers can no longer do their work. All the while a Washington, DC bureaucrat making "policy" claiming it is "natural" and it is "nature takings it's course".
The fact is: "people are part of nature too" in spite of all the "denial".
The fact is: we need to find the balance
No one seems to be looking at things that way.
The fact is: we have ski areas. Use the ski areas we have. Don't add new areas. Maybe pull out of some of the derelict ski areas. We have bicycle routes, in fact, we have a Canada to Mexico mountain bike trail. Use what we have. In addition, Bicycle Touring Pro website has great routes. There are designated trails, here, no one uses. Don't add new "trails". Like that.
The post immediately above states animals need corridors.
Animals have to move to seasonal food, to and from water. Like that. Farmlands and more need "fox runs" for all animals, and, "riparian habitat" near all waterways, large and small, for the same readon. Also, fish need partial shaded places over the water for water temperature and fir hiding from predators.
Feral Bill
02-15-2015, 18:20
The post immediately above states animals need corridors.
Animals have to move to seasonal food, to and from water. Like that. Farmlands and more need "fox runs" for all animals, and, "riparian habitat" near all waterways, large and small, for the same readon. Also, fish need partial shaded places over the water for water temperature and fir hiding from predators. Interesting thing about corridors: Where I live animals use the urban residential areas as a corridor between forested areas. There is more cover than the surrounding farmlands. Thus the occasional cougar in peoples yards or moose in city park ponds. Not to mention the wild turkeys that are taking over my neighborhood. Wildlife is a very complex business.
Tundracamper
02-15-2015, 19:42
Reading about all those animals sure made me hungry!
Feral Bill
02-15-2015, 19:57
Reading about all those animals sure made me hungry! I think I'll pass on the wolverine.
Some of these trails we build become used by the animals as it makes travel easier. We had a black bear move from the San Bernardino Mtns to the San Jacintos across the desert floor a few years ago where there hadn't been bears for many years. They blamed the PCT for making it possible.
So the idea that recreational use is all negative is false.
Some of these trails we build become used by the animals as it makes travel easier. We had a black bear move from the San Bernardino Mtns to the San Jacintos across the desert floor a few years ago where there hadn't been bears for many years. They blamed the PCT for making it possible.
So the idea that recreational use is all negative is false.
Miner, that's silly. Animals will use trails where they exist. But where trails don't exist, animals make their own trails. Do you think animals couldn't get around before humans started building trails?
Bears must have been moving between the San Berandinos and the San Jacintos for as long as bears have been in the region--otherwise the isolated populations in the mountain ranges would have been too small to survive and would have gone extinct due to inbreeding long ago.
So, sorry, the existence of trails does not improve the ability wildlife to disperse beyond what they could have done in the absence of people.
I think our trails were animal trails.
Then, people install staircases and handrails, bridges, boardwalks and gouge out the turf so we are walking on mineral soil. Then, that "singletrack" erodes.
This is the background for my learning walking cross-country in the mountains with map and compass, and now, supplemented with map and GPS. I carefully choose to walk on a durable surface and leave no trace.
It's fun, and I get a completely different experience of a place than the well-traveled path.
Mountain climbing, I considered myself a mountaineer long before I thought of myself as a hiker.
Now, I would rather think of myself as a hillwalker.
Well, some of those "hills" are mighty big hills.
Another Kevin
02-16-2015, 21:57
The article supposes that every observable human effect is a harmful effect. Anything that we change, we damage.
That supposition inevitably leads here (http://www.vhemt.org/). I'm not willing to go there just yet.
Sarcasm the elf
02-16-2015, 22:06
The article supposes that every observable human effect is a harmful effect. Anything that we change, we damage.
That supposition inevitably leads here (http://www.vhemt.org/). I'm not willing to go there just yet.
Or this...
Starchild
02-17-2015, 08:34
One difference I have noticed is the effect of Meetup.com, specifically hiking groups. Because of the reach this has there are many such groups that regularly bring groups of 30 or more into the wild + also since these are younger, and in general less experienced 'leaders' and new hikers, they do more 'challenging' things that are a lot higher impact, and many have not developed the respect for the land and wildlife (well the animal wildlife that is).
The ease that one can become a 'leader' (technically and for legal reasons an 'organizer') is a far cry from the older method of a hiking club which has some sort of formal or informal recognition process.
But even over the short time I have seen some improvment in the experience and respect of these neo-hike leaders, but it's going to take a long time and in that time I would expect things to deteriorate in the mean time. Also the power these groups wield is not to be underestimated, they have a vast number of members (one nearby over 10,000), a few people in powerful politically connected positions (enough to challenge DEC policy and win), and have the ability to take over the board of any hiking club who opposes them, joining in massive numbers, voting out the current board and voting in the people they want.
The popularity of these groups is primarily due to they are letting others into the 'secret' that many here hold so dear, They are the doorway for many into the wilderness, and that is allowing many more people to access it, and these people are soaking it up like a sponge and crediting the group with thanks and praise for that. Many feel these groups have set them free and opened up a wonderful new world for them.
And in many ways that last part, the access that these groups have given people, is due to a direct failing of the hiking clubs to reach the next generation of hikers, and thus break the mentoring process to that next generation. Hiking clubs did not go to the internet soon enough and the fee structure was not appropriate or appealing given our internet economy. (usually in meetup many events are free, some have a small contribution per event)
Another Kevin
02-17-2015, 09:56
Starchild -
The meetup.com thing is one aspect of a broader trend - transforming hiking from a solitary or small-group activity, looking for an experience of Nature, to a party and an athletic event.
And I don't see the rise of Meetup groups as a failure on the part of the hiking clubs. The clubs - particularly the smaller ones - have never done that much outreach, because they'd rather be out hiking (and maintaining trail!). The 'maintaining trail' part, in particular, costs money sometimes, and so the clubs do charge. If the Meetup kids take over the clubs - well, the next generation was going to take over, anyway. They'll learn that someone has to do the work.
And it's always been a problem that kids trash the place before they learn not to - and learn HOW not to. At least they're getting out there, and some of them will grow up to be passionate advocates for protecting the place.
At least I don't see them committing the favorite sin of my generation - traveling to a park to be with nature, and then bitching that it doesn't have all the amenities of suburbia.
My only real complaint so far is exccessive group sizes - and the fact that some of them are so into the competitive aspect that they snarl at me for not getting out of their way fast enough.
You know, I didn't notice until you mentioned DEC that you're a New Yorker too! I see you're down in Taghkanic. Let's go over to the Taconics (or even better, drag you across the river into the Catskills) sometime!
That NYT article sure isnot based on much fact..
While the article has it's sort comings, it does bring up the point that we do affect the area around which we travel. The bigger the numbers the more we affect it. Many here have much more experience hiking then I do but I can equate this to scuba diving. I have been a diver for over 40 years and have a lot of experience under water. I can dive in an area and tell within minutes if many people have been to, or above the area. The amount of garbage we put out around us is apparent, finding live coral very difficult. I suspect that most here try hard to be good stewards of the environment but the discussion of the issue is important. Our population is growing and numbers have an affect. One person walking through an area who carries out what they carry in has little affect, make that 50 a day for a few weeks and we have made a change. Not all change is bad but I wonder how much accessible wilderness will be available for my children and eventually grand-children. Preserving it and fencing it in does not really meet the intent I would want, on the other hand, many don't know or at times even care what their impact is. I find garbage on the trail and in the water all the time. I have a niece that will go to war over a lion being shot but loves the mega resorts for skiing/snow boarding and is proud of pictures showing where she and her buds went off the designated slopes to "shred" some untouched area. When I was young I was taught by my grand-father to respect nature. I am ashamed to say I did not always follow that advise but have grown to see the absolute wisdom of his teachings. Is that message still being taught outside of groups like this? Sorry for the long note but this is important for us, regardless of the accuracy of the article.
To the naysayers, I just want to point out that the article is 100% fact-based. I'm a scientist, and I can tell you that here are multiple peer-reviewed studies showing that even low-impact outdoor recreation can displace wildlife. Have you ever seen a fox or a coyote or a bear running away from you while you were hiking? Then you were displacing wildlife! It's not far-fetched at all to see how a trail like the AT with many thousands of users can cause some wildlife to stay away (yes, you can still see plenty of wild animals when you're hiking, but the real question is how many more animals would be there if the trail didn't exist?).
I wish, instead of just saying "that article is wrong" people would spend some time checking the facts for themselves. Start here:
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761%282003%2913%5B951:WRTRAA%5D2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761%281998%29008%5B0162:IORTOB%5D2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479711001411
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/215658824_Influence_of_nordic_skiing_on_distributi on_of_moose_and_elk_in_Elk_Island_National_Park_Al berta
This is just a sampling. There are hundreds more studies, most of which show a negative effect of outdoor recreation on wildlife, as the NY Times article indicated.
sympathetic joy
02-17-2015, 12:21
To the naysayers, I just want to point out that the article is 100% fact-based. I'm a scientist, and I can tell you that here are multiple peer-reviewed studies showing that even low-impact outdoor recreation can displace wildlife..
Not to derail the topic because it is very important but peer-review is not some magic thing.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2014/12/01/peer-review-in-trouble/
That out of the way I think its important to remember that we humans are animals too. There isn't any reason why we shouldn't have the same access to an area that any other animal has. The issue is whether or not we are as smart enough to preserve those areas so that all animals can utilize them in the future.
Not to derail the topic because it is very important but peer-review is not some magic thing.
That is just an ignorant comment (ignorant in the sense of lacking knowledge of the subject). The Ioannidis article was talking about individual studies in medicine, not wildlife biology, that are not replicated. The NY Times article was talking about a large body of research which is largely in agreement on its findings. There is just no comparison between the types of situations that Ioannidis is talking about and the review that the Times article mentioned. In fact, the Ioannidis article explicitly states that meta-analyses, like the one referred to in the Times article, are reliable.
Anyway, if you think that the NY Times and me are wrong, then you should be able to dig up a large number of studies backing up your conclusion. I would like to see those sources.
Tundracamper
02-17-2015, 13:48
While I agree there may be some impact, I have a hard time believing it's negative. Just get in a plane or check out Google Earth. The trail size is negligible. You know, people get displaced too. It's ok - part of life.
Nothing we are talking about can be seen from a plane, or, Google Earth.
I learned, conclusively, in college a "study" can "prove" anything: it is necessary to examine the "study" to determine validity: the questions of any "study" can and do very much exclude the actual questions and answers.
I had a course in Physical Geography become a course in questionairre design for "studies" for government.
Ever since, I can't help but feel anyone who demands a "study" is only about obscuring facts, if they can.
This is especially a specialty of "foundations" that have nearly their entire budget of public funds and donations used for "administrative cost".
We have so many of those running as "non-profit" foundations, in Montana, with the same names appearing on the Board of Directors, or equivalent.
People crowd together in cities, towns, and suburbia.
Others are stewards of the land, providing food and clothing and products for the rest of us. What we have, that is different, is city-people dictating to those stewards of the land with a tight grip on farm and ranch loans, crop insurance, and farm machinery costs when that isn't how these people had successfully farmed and ranched. Same goes for business that produce goods. Every productive citizen has at least five bureaucrats dictating their lives. I wouldn't be surprised if the count were higher.
The ugly side of that is the worst of the collaborator-participants get preference, just like courtiers of royalty at the royal court.
It takes more than looking only at "the short term" to see anything clearly, anything at all.
We need animals from nature, especially, as more people realise what has been done to "domestic" livestock. Beefalo was tried. Every objection was put in the way. There is no disease, but the government "hacks" insist Yellowstone National Park buffalo have it. It goes on.
Our food sources are in trouble and have been in trouble a long time: cattle for slaughter are given a "slurry" at feed-lots. Where is their feed-lot corn?
I am annoyed most of all, by the sense of "entitlement" by ignorant fools: I can do anything that I want because I can. This is what having a "royal court" in government does to any society
As a species, we humans have made a habit of disregarding our own effect on our natural environment. "It's OK- part of life"?
There is evidence suggesting we have entered an epoch of mass extinction much of it attributed to a human driven, diminishing natural habitat. It's OK- part of life.
Human relocation of flora and fauna across the planet have allowed invasive species to edge out, kill off or infect native species. It's OK- part of life.
Significant change in the pH of the world oceans, change in global temps and continual release of previously sequestered carbon...
The idea that human encroachment into a wild habitat can have a negative effect shouldn't be so difficult to accept. Is it that if one accepts that a problem exists they then need to consider their own role in both the problem and the solution?
Denial is much easier. It's ok-part of life.
Stepinwolfe
02-17-2015, 17:42
This article is a New York Times opinion piece. There is no requirement for any facts here or even critical thinking. Since the author’s website lists no academic credentials pertinent to this topic, I assume he doesn’t have any. Why should I listen to a “freelance adventure writer” spouting misinformed opinion about my favorite recreational activity?
I have loads of academia in my background.
Nevertheless, I respect any source. The article doesn't need credentials. The New York Times doesn't allow shoddy reportage or slip-shod articles.
I will add this: even the law courts recognize "common knowledge".
I say, you are ignorant on the topic, or, deliberately avoiding getting informed. How about that, Mr. "you need credentials" to know your subject? Snobbery, I say!
Tundracamper
02-17-2015, 19:25
I think snobbery lies with those that think humans are destroying the world - at least generally speaking. We are a speck in the boundary layer. Really, do the folks preaching some of this muck live in mud huts and walk everywhere? If not, they are hypocrites.
Respecting every source is true ignorance. We all know media reporters are always truthful:)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Muck? If the New York Times prints anything at all that cannot be backed up, they get a lawsuit.
Do you think the people who like backpacking are ignorant backwoods degenerates?
How about college, university and exclusive private colleges at that?
I won't use the "buzzwords" to indicate I am an elite, because I know first-hand what a lot of grifters are "elite".
Have you ever seen a fox or a coyote or a bear running away from you while you were hiking? Then you were displacing wildlife! It's not far-fetched at all to see how a trail like the AT with many thousands of users can cause some wildlife to stay away (yes, you can still see plenty of wild animals when you're hiking, but the real question is how many more animals would be there if the trail didn't exist?).
I appreciate your perspective, and that question in particular.
In our state, certain beaches are routinely closed to recreational use in order to protect the Piping Plover. The science is there, and most respect this as a good thing.
There are no doubt individual animals that are stressed by hikers, but I really wonder how many populations are impacted like the Piping Plover -- if even to a lesser degree. It seem like the trail is a narrow thread, but I suppose the corridor really does represent a whole lot of acres. An area the size of Yellowstone, perhaps?
I would like to know more, and appreciate the article because it got me thinking-- not because I thin it frames all the questions exactly right.