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.
