Leaving only footsteps - think again: 100 meter 'death zone' on either side of trails

[Peakbagr]

Reading this made me wonder about a few of my own beliefs. Like many, I've felt motorized traffic has a worse impact on creatures than hikers. And the impact hikers make is more transitory.
Should we should consider closing trails to allow the wild creatures time to live more naturally?
Should we weigh our desire to hike any time, anywhere vs what we might be doing to the wildlife around us?
Among the surprises was that motorized traffic is less upsetting to animals as they can hear vehicles coming and pass quickly vs foot traffic that allows hikers or skiers to inadvertently sneak up on animals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/o...ly-footsteps-think-again.html?ref=todayspaper

 

[RichS]

This is sobering research. We've all surprised (or been surprised) by chipmunks, snakes, moose, grouse or bears. Bushwackers (if they're quiet) maybe more so. Wildlife is certainly impacted more than we are. But the silver lining is our net effect:

And people who recreate outdoors are among nature’s most ardent constituents. Without them, “our landscapes would erode even faster than they are now,”

 

[TCD]

Interesting and not too surprising. I think we all would expect that wildlife stays a little further away from areas where people travel, no matter how they travel. There have been discussions on various forums about the possible value of creating a "real" wilderness area where people are not allowed to go at all. I think that would add value in some areas. And I think this discussion is valuable in that it provides a bit of a counterpoint to the "my travel is OK, but yours is not" thinking among various user groups.

But on the flip side, the overall material here is VERY, VERY light on validatable scientific information. Lots of invalid generalizations, single data points, speculation, questionable bias, inflammatory description, etc. I would guess that some of the conclusions are, in fact, true. But readers need to notice that this is (honestly) presented as an opinion piece.

 

[hikerbrian]

Outstanding analysis, TCD. Something I remember hearing from one of the naturalists in Denali NP many years ago: there is a higher density of sows and cubs along the access road corridor than in other parts of the park. They thought this was because the boars (male bears) tended to stay away from areas where there was traffic and people, thus the areas bordering the access road presented a corridor of safety for sows raising cubs. The boars actually present the greatest danger to cubs.

Point being: it's not that motorized traffic has a lesser impact on wildlife, it's that the nature of the impact may be counter-intuitive.

 

[Daniel Eagan]

Interesting and not too surprising. I think we all would expect that wildlife stays a little further away from areas where people travel, no matter how they travel. There have been discussions on various forums about the possible value of creating a "real" wilderness area where people are not allowed to go at all. I think that would add value in some areas. And I think this discussion is valuable in that it provides a bit of a counterpoint to the "my travel is OK, but yours is not" thinking among various user groups.

But on the flip side, the overall material here is VERY, VERY light on validatable scientific information. Lots of invalid generalizations, single data points, speculation, questionable bias, inflammatory description, etc. I would guess that some of the conclusions are, in fact, true. But readers need to notice that this is (honestly) presented as an opinion piece.

I agree wholeheartedly. The examples Christopher Solomon provides don't apply to most of our experiences in the Northeast, and feel more anecdotal than scientific. Implying that a cross-country skier has anything to do with boats killing manatees in Florida is just trying to roil the water. And no matter what "harm" a skier does to the wilderness, it pales compared to actually destroying said wilderness with a strip mine or pipeline.

As hikers, skiers, whatever, we have a responsibility to both the land and the life on it. And in fact some routes and trails are closed seasonally in the ADKs and the Hudson Highlands for nesting birds and snakes, etc. But I can't believe we need to stop mountain climbing because it scares wolverines.

 

[Peakbagr]

I recognized the shortcomings when posting this, but hoped it would generate a discussion. There are a couple of biases I recognize in myself. The first being 'if we really are having this impact, how am I contributing to it' ? And, ' Do I want to lend any encouragement to curtailing my ability to hike wherever and whenever I'd like? It's interesting that the first replies weigh on dismissing its basis, hearsay from a ranger, and we can't stop mountain climbing because it might endanger a distressed species.

I respect these opinions, but I'd like to wait to see if further analysis supports or contradicts the concern raised by the article and hope some others reply. Written with an acknowledgment that I might be not be just all wet, but soaked.

 

[marnof]

As has been pointed out, the article does have serious flaws, but the premise and commentary lead to some interesting questions.

- Are humans natural creatures? Why is our presence in the wild often characterized as making it unnatural? Have our technological advantages made us into creatures whose very presence disturbs a perfectly balanced natural order?

- As RichS points out, are our benefits to nature weighed, as well? Is a benefit even possible--or is any change to the current state of nature a negative?

- What is more detrimental to nature: a network of nature trails, a dirt road, a power line, a pipeline, or hundreds of wind turbines lined up?

 

[Peakbagr]

Read 'The World Without Us' for a real eye opener.

 

[nietzschescat]

The animals use the hiking trails too. I've followed fox and coyote tracks up many mountains in the Catskills. I like to look for bird nests and you can find a lot of nests along the trails. I've seen little flocks of birds come very close to check us out in the winter. Obviously our ridiculous consumption of resources impacts every other living thing on this planet, but it's hard to see walking in the woods in a negative way especially since our love for these places is what is going to save them.

 

[Raven]

Read 'The World Without Us' for a real eye opener.

A good suggestion and good read.

 

[Driver8]

But on the flip side, the overall material here is VERY, VERY light on validatable scientific information. Lots of invalid generalizations, single data points, speculation, questionable bias, inflammatory description, etc. I would guess that some of the conclusions are, in fact, true. But readers need to notice that this is (honestly) presented as an opinion piece.

I respectfully disagree. The author cites to numerous published, and therefore presumably peer-reviewed, studies and several concrete, and presumably somewhat verified, specific instances. It is an opinion piece, yes, but imo one which effectively marshals solid data in support of its position.

I tend to come down on the side of favoring our ability to get out and enjoy the outdoors, but I also believe we can and should do a better job measuring and mitigating our impacts when out there. We are nature's creatures, too, but due to our technical capabilities, our numbers are well outside the natural norm. We cannot help but have a big impact, and being out in the woods and dales is good for us and inspires us to protect the wild, so it's good for nature, too, if we proceed with care. Proceeding with greater care, inspired by the science cited by Chris Solomon and similar work, will be all to the good, I believe.

 

[Bob]

But on the flip side, the overall material here is VERY, VERY light on validatable scientific information. Lots of invalid generalizations, single data points, speculation, questionable bias, inflammatory description, etc.

well it is the NYT !

 

[Grey J]

Gray Jays don't seem to have a problem with human presence. Just sayin.

 

[erugs]

Driver 8 - love the line "we're nature's creatures, too" and the admonition that we have the capabilities to do the right thing.

 

[hikerbrian]

I recognized the shortcomings when posting this, but hoped it would generate a discussion. There are a couple of biases I recognize in myself. The first being 'if we really are having this impact, how am I contributing to it' ? And, ' Do I want to lend any encouragement to curtailing my ability to hike wherever and whenever I'd like? It's interesting that the first replies weigh on dismissing its basis, hearsay from a ranger, and we can't stop mountain climbing because it might endanger a distressed species.

I respect these opinions, but I'd like to wait to see if further analysis supports or contradicts the concern raised by the article and hope some others reply. Written with an acknowledgment that I might be not be just all wet, but soaked.

Peakbagr, I completely understand and appreciate your reasons for posting this article. Here are a couple of additional thought to do with as you wish:

First, there is not a single linked or referenced "scientific" study from this article that any of us would be able to examine. Not one. We're left taking the author's word for it. This is highly undesirable. It is ALWAYS best, when reading a write up of a given study, to go to the primary data and examine it yourself to see if you buy the conclusions. If that is not possible, several orders of magnitude less desirable is to read the study author's summary and conclusions. Way, way below that (in terms of reliable utility) is to trust a journalist's writeup of the author's conclusions of the study. This article sits in that latter bucket: a journalists writeup of others' research.

There's an analogy with hiking accidents: if you want to know what happened, it's best to be there and understand the situation first hand; next best is to listen to someone's account (who was there); worst is to listen to a journalists account based on someone else's info. Most of what ends up in that last bucket can be summarized as, "Who the hell knows what actually happened?" I just don't put a lot of weight on 3rd person accounts that I can't verify on any level. They're just not worth my time, generally speaking. Might they create some interesting idle conversation? Might they cause you to see things a different way? Possibly. But more often than not, those conversations end with, "Who knows."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To suggest that hiking has a more detrimental environmental impact than 4-wheeling qualifies as an extraordinary claim. Does the article provide extraordinary evidence? No. Again, not a single study is referenced, no actual data is presented. Instead, we get a lot of "Preliminary findings," "That may mean," "Not yet published," and anecdotes, single data points with little bearing on the topic at hand, and some inflammatory language. So we certainly can have the conversation about whether said extraordinary claim is actually true, but given the dearth of data, that conversation will end with, "Who knows."

Furthermore, I think it's disingenuous to put the environmental impact of strip mines, clear cuts, and a "Thoreauvian walk in the woods" in the same paragraph. C'mon. I certainly want to know what impact I have as a hiker. But I wouldn't want "preliminary," "not yet published" studies of unknown value to distract from real and quantifiable environmental burdens: strip mines, clear cuts, oil spills, deforestation, urban sprawl, etc.

Is there value is publishing this article just to "get the conversation started?" Well, maybe. Hard to say. I suspect we all recognize that our outdoor pursuits have an impact. But there's danger in teaching people that nature should only be observed at arm's length, with an invisible barrier between it and us, while hovering just off the ground. A message of preservation along with a recognition that we're part of it is the best message, in my opinion.

 

[cushetunk]

I tend to come down on the side of favoring our ability to get out and enjoy the outdoors, but I also believe we can and should do a better job measuring and mitigating our impacts when out there. We are nature's creatures, too, but due to our technical capabilities, our numbers are well outside the natural norm. We cannot help but have a big impact, and being out in the woods and dales is good for us and inspires us to protect the wild, so it's good for nature, too, if we proceed with care. Proceeding with greater care, inspired by the science cited by Chris Solomon and similar work, will be all to the good, I believe.

This is well said.

I want to be a good steward of the land, and hope others hikers want to as well. In the northeast especially, the mountains are much more than a scenic backdrop to our own personal adventures. They're among the only remaining large, ecologically functioning landscapes left in this part of the world. They're home to numerous rare species, many of which most hikers will never see and probably couldn't identify even if they did see them. We may not understand or recognize the full ripple effects of our activities, but it seems shallow and callous (and frankly, scientifically unsound) to dismiss the very real possibility that these impacts do occur. Finally, when we do know about potential disturbances, like to nesting peregrine falcons, or to rare alpine plants, I would hope that all of us hikers would take pride in doing everything we could to protect these species.

 

[Driver8]

First, there is not a single linked or referenced "scientific" study from this article that any of us would be able to examine. Not one. We're left taking the author's word for it.

It's a New York Times opinion piece - very seldom will you find footnotes and formal citations in such pieces. The author does give a good amount of info naming and referring to the studies. Bet it wouldn't be hard to Google and find them. With respect, this is not a fair complaint. Also, it'd be easy to e-mail the author at Outside magazine, for which he is tagged in the subject opinion piece as a correspondent.

As for strip mines and clear cuts vs. hiking and skiing - I don't think he was equating heavy activities with low-impact ones, just making clear that "low" means "some" impact. Important point, to be sure.

 

[marnof]

It's a New York Times opinion piece - very seldom will you find footnotes and formal citations in such pieces. The author does give a good amount of info naming and referring to the studies. Bet it wouldn't be hard to Google and find them. With respect, this is not a fair complaint. Also, it'd be easy to e-mail the author at Outside magazine, for which he is tagged in the subject opinion piece as a correspondent. As for strip mines and clear cuts vs. hiking and skiing - I don't think he was equating heavy activities with low-impact ones, just making clear that "low" means "some" impact. Important point, to be sure.

Well, I would say that there's a grain of truth in that opinion, but Hikerbrian is much closer to the truth. Stating an opinion in the NYT on a film, or album, or ice cream flavor is one thing. Making a scientific claim in an "opinion piece" and not providing links or citations suggests a problem with the author or the studies mentioned.

Although presented as opinion, its content is scientific in nature, and could be taken as fact by impressionable readers because of its scientific content. It's like the difference between, say, Jon Stewart or Bill O'Reilly vs Brian Williams. Many viewers treat the former as hard, factual news. Now, if the latter misrepresents the facts, or misremembers, they get an extended vacation.

So I would suggest that the medium for the article is suspect. Having an opinion about science is fine, but basically meaningless hand waving, other than its use as a conversation starter. The science is either valid or not, and it requires validation, which requires citation.

 

[cushetunk]

So I would suggest that the medium for the article is suspect. Having an opinion about science is fine, but basically meaningless hand waving, other than its use as a conversation starter. The science is either valid or not, and it requires validation, which requires citation.

No. This article is not an opinion about science; it's an opinion informed by science.

Science tells us how the animals behave. Opinions formed by understanding the science, and reflecting on its implications, can help us decide how to behave.

Since the article offers some modest opinions on how we should behave ("we need to..."), I would say the medium is in fact quite proper.

 

[marnof]

No. This article is not an opinion about science, it's an opinion informed by science. Science tells us how the animals behave. Opinions formed by understanding the science, and reflecting on its implications, can help us decide how to behave.

I wasn't speaking of science in the abstract there. I was referring to the particular science the author was informed by, but didn't cite.