nytimes: impact of recreational backcountry activities on wildlife

[burger]

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]

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.

[Connie]

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

[OCDave]

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]

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?

[Connie]

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]

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

[Connie]

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".

[rickb]

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.