Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Mike Vandeman, May 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. April 26, 2000

    Like most of us, I grew up believing that "passive" recreation, and the mere presence of
    humans, are harmless to wildlife. And, of course, I never worried about making campfires or
    drinking water in the backcountry. But times change! Now we
    ________________
    know that dead branches have an important function in the ecosystem. And we know about giardia.
    Similarly, recent research on the effects of recreation has forced us to re-examine some
    longstanding habits and ways of thinking.

    It has been customary for people to assume that when we are not directly harming wildlife,
    we are not harming them. Besides
    ________
    being a convenient rationalization, this assumption is understandable: we assume that others, even
    members of other species, are like us. We don't feel very threatened by the presence of other
    species; we are, after all, the top predator. We also live surrounded by plenty; most of us can't
    imagine what it is like to go hungry for even one day. Wildlife, however, does
    ____
    usually feel very threatened by our presence, and many organisms exist on a very tight (food/energy)
    budget. Also, they often have much greater visual and auditory acuity than we do, and hence can be
    disturbed by sensations that we wouldn't even notice. Amphibians, for example, are extremely
    sensitive to vibrations.

    "Traditionally, observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were considered to be
    'nonconsumptive' activities because removal of animals from their natural habitats did not
    occur.... nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered relatively benign in terms of
    its effects on wildlife; today, however, there is a growing recognition that
    wildlife-viewing recreation can have serious negative impacts on wildlife" (Knight &
    Gutzwiller, p.257).

    Technology has made it much easier for people to reach wildlife habitat, including areas
    where access used to be difficult, such as cliff faces, caves, under water, and inhospitable
    climates. Roads, trails, ORVs, mountain bikes, high- tech camping gear, freeze-dried foods,
    and even waterproof maps are some of the tools that allow people to travel far into
    wilderness in great comfort. That and increasing population have squeezed and frightened
    wildlife out of its preferred habitat, both temporarily and permanently, depriving it of
    needed foods, shelter, and choice of mates. Roads are particularly pernicious, because they
    not only give humans easy access to wilderness, but they fragment habitat, because many
    cover-adapted species are afraid to cross them.

    Speed is a big factor. Being encased in a motor vehicle greatly reduces the sensations that
    you experience. Thus in order to obtain the equivalent physical experience that a hiker
    acquires in a short walk through the woods (complete with sounds, sights, smells, tastes,
    and touch), you have to drive a great distance! Similarly, a mountain biker travels too fast
    to fully appreciate his/her surroundings, and thus soon gets bored with the trail and needs
    to experience another (and another and another). This is one reason why mountain bikers are
    never satisfied, no matter how many trails they have access to, and why they are exerting
    such tremendous pressure on land managers around the world to give them ever greater access.
    (I asked one of them if there were any limit to this process. He told me that no one would
    ever want to bike Mt. Everest. However, only a few days later I saw an advertisement for a
    mountain bike trip to Mt. Everest!)

    Here are some of the damaging effects that the mere presence of a human can have on
    wildlife: When an animal is guarding a nest, it can be scared away ("flushed") for some
    time, at least while a human is present. Besides using up energy that may not be plentiful,
    eggs and young are left exposed to dangerous temperatures (hot or cold) and predators. The
    movement of the parent, or sometimes the odor of the human, can direct predators to the
    nest, causing the death of some of the young. Sometimes the parent in its rush steps on an
    egg or knocks it or its young out of the nest, leading to certain death for the offspring.
    Some parents may even abandon the nest or kill and eat the young, if they are frightened or
    startled enough. Young can get left behind when a parent flushes suddenly, get lost, and die
    of starvation or be eaten by a predator.

    The stress of disturbance can increase energy needs, elevate heart rate (possibly leading to
    death), force the animal to temporarily or permanently abandon a feeding area, force it to
    become nocturnal, force it to spend a great amount of time watching for humans, interfere
    with reproduction, and in general decrease its productivity. Migratory birds, for example,
    have a limited amount of time to stock up on food before their trip. They often spend long
    periods flying over ocean, and can die if they don't have adequate nutritional reserves.

    Because the Earth is losing some 100 species a day, worldwide, it is very important that we
    quickly become better informed, and stop mindlessly continuing "business as usual" in our
    approaches to wildlife and recreation.

    Here are some relevant excerpts from Knight and Gutzwiller: "the notion that recreation has
    no environmental impacts is no longer tenable. Recreationists often degrade the land, water,
    and wildlife resources that support their activities by simplifying plant communities,
    increasing animal mortality, displacing and disturbing wildlife, and distributing refuse"
    (p.3); Boyle and Sampson ... reviewed 166 articles that contained original data on the
    effects of nonconsumptive outdoor recreation on wildlife. In 81% of them, the effects were
    considered negative" (p.51); "Nature viewing, by its very definition, has great potential to
    negatively affect wildlife. ... Predators learn to follow human scent trails to nest sites"
    (p.55); "activities [involving] nonmotorized travel ... [have] caused the creation of more
    ... trails in wildlands.... These activities are extensive in nature and have the ability to
    disrupt wildlife in many ways, particularly by displacing animals from an area" (p.56);
    "Recreational disturbance has traditionally been viewed as most detrimental to wildlife
    during the breeding season. Recently, it has become apparent that disturbance outside of the
    animal's breeding season may have equally severe effects" (p.73); "Birds can lose eggs and
    young when predators attack nests after parents are startled into flight" (p.133); "Human
    occupation and activity are clearly and directly correlated with declines in breeding
    populations of birds" (p.135).

    "People have an impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it, no matter what the
    activity" (p.157); "Perhaps the major way that people have influenced wildlife populations
    is through encroachment into wildlife areas" (p.160); "a single visit to nest sites by
    people can cause nest abandonment"
    (p.161); "Some goslings got lost in the dense vegetation when parents headed for the pool, or
    parents swam off leaving goslings behind that could not follow" (p.162); "Pregnant animals
    suffered higher stress from wildlife viewers, causing some to abort"
    (p.162); "Outdoor recreation has been recognized as an important factor that can reduce biosphere
    sustainability.... Indeed, recreational activities, including many that may seem innocuous,
    can alter vertebrate behaviour, reproduction, distributions, and habitats" (p.169); "Human
    disturbance caused eagles to flush sooner than the other species, and eagles rarely returned
    to a carcass following disturbance" (p.170); "Juveniles that get displaced from familiar
    surroundings (e.g., home ranges) by recreationists may also be more susceptible to predation"
    (p.163).

    "Displaced animals are forced out of familiar habitat and must then survive and reproduce in
    areas where they are not familiar with the locations of food, shelter, and other vital
    resources.... Hammitt and Cole ... ranked displacement as being more detrimental to wildlife
    than harassment or recreation- induced habitat changes.... Densities ... of 13 breeding bird
    species were negatively associated with the intensity of recreation activity by park
    visitors, primarily pedestrians and cyclists" (pp.173-4); "off-road vehicles can collapse
    burrows of desert mammals and reptiles" (p.176); "Compaction increases the mechanical
    resistance of the soil to root penetration and can reduce the emergence of seedlings"
    (p.184); "Soil compaction reduces the size of pore spaces, altering the soil fauna"
    (p.164); "several studies have shown the importance of contiguous, undisturbed habitat for many
    native species" (p.190); "Recreational activities clearly have substantial and generally
    adverse influences on terrestrial vegetation and soil, and on aquatic systems" (p.193);
    "researchers have documented an increase in heart rate in different species when approached
    by visitors, which can subsequently initiate other physiological effects of stress, including
    death" (p.206); "Indirect effects may also occur from development of trail networks and
    picnic areas, which not only remove habitat, but increase habitat edge ... [, opening] these
    areas for colonization by exotic ... species" (p.210); "Geese could not compensate for a loss
    in feeding time" (p.251); "The ESA defines harassment as 'an intentional or negligent act or
    omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent
    as to significantly disrupt normal behaviour patterns which include, but are not limited to,
    feeding or sheltering'" (p.304).

    "It is expected that outdoor recreational activity will continue to increase, while the
    amount of wild land where wildlife may seek refuge from disturbance will decrease" (p.327);
    "Recreationists are, ironically, destroying the very thing they love: the blooming buzzing
    confusion of nature.... The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with
    interests that are cutting the last of the old-growth forests, washing fertile topsoils into
    the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" (p.340); "Tom
    Birch ... argues that wilderness managers, charged with incarcerating wilderness, are more
    concerned with the advancement of their careers through achieving quantifiable goals (number
    of park visitors, total revenues) and developing park and forest amenities (roads, 'scenic'
    turnouts, restrooms, paved trails, maps, campgrounds) than with perpetuating the land
    community of which they are a part" (p.344).

    How can we continue enjoying the nature we love, and still protect it so that it will still
    be there for future generations? Ideally, we should be working to reduce all human access to
    ___
    wildlife habitat. But at the very least, we should eliminate mechanical access (with the exception
    of small compromises for __________ _____ wheelchairs). Rather than restrict who can visit an area,
    or when they can go there, I think that the most humane way to reduce our impacts is to restrict the
    technologies that are allowed there.
    ____________
    For example, if vehicles are banned in wildlife habitat (including animals used as vehicles), we can
    all still enjoy it, but because we have to go on foot, not as many people will go there, they won't
    go as far, and they won't go as fast. Of course, we also won't have the impacts of the vehicles
    themselves ("V" grooves caused by mountain bikes, holes and narrow grooves caused by burros' hooves,
    etc.). But I doubt that the enjoyment
    _________
    of nature will be less. In fact, I think it will be maximized!
    _________

    Another example: before rafting, much of our riparian habitat, especially in the desert,
    was relatively inaccessible to humans. That was very beneficial for the wildlife who depend
    on that habitat. Rafting and canoeing, while they seem harmless, open up huge areas of
    wildlife habitat to human access. I think that restricting river access to only certain
    locations can provide just as much enjoyment, while safeguarding wildlife's access to their
    habitat. Similarly, banning the use of climbing equipment would not reduce the thrill of
    climbing, but would
    _____
    ensure that it be done with minimal impacts.

    I don't think that the simple, direct enjoyment of nature with our bodies and senses has
    become obsolete. This morning I walked out to my back yard to look at my "garden", and the
    warmth of the sun and the beauty of the plants and animals was overwhelming! I don't think
    that any technology could possibly
    ____________
    make my enjoyment of that moment any greater. Nor has any "wilderness" I have visited provided any
    greater "peak experience". More is not necessarily better..

    References:

    Vandeman, Michael J. http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

    Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
    ____________
    Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
    ______________

    Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London,
    __________________
    p.165.

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
    Tags:


  2. Danny

    Danny Guest

    You claim to have a PHD? wtf does it stand for? Post Hypnotic Disorder? Have the voices gone away..?

    It has always seemed to me that education be tied to reason and logic.. NOT reactionary zealots with
    some ambiguous cause that came to them from tiny voices in their head...

    Let me guess.. You are a member of PETA too.. aren't you? Why don't you go picket McDonalds? There
    are more cows being eaten every day there than all the bicyclists that have ever existed...

    Danny

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. April 26, 2000
    >
    > Like most of us, I grew up believing that "passive" recreation, and the mere presence of humans,
    > are harmless to wildlife. And, of course, I never worried about making campfires or drinking water
    > in the backcountry. But times change! Now we
    > ________________
    > know that dead branches have an important function in the ecosystem. And we know about giardia.
    > Similarly, recent research on the effects of recreation has forced us to re-examine some
    > longstanding habits and ways of thinking.
    >
    > It has been customary for people to assume that when we are not directly harming wildlife, we are
    > not harming them. Besides
    > ________
    > being a convenient rationalization, this assumption is understandable: we assume that others, even
    > members of other species, are like us. We don't feel very threatened by the presence of other
    > species; we are, after all, the top predator. We also live surrounded by plenty; most of us can't
    > imagine what it is like to go hungry for even one day. Wildlife, however, does
    > ____
    > usually feel very threatened by our presence, and many organisms exist on a very tight
    > (food/energy) budget. Also, they often have much greater visual and auditory acuity than we do,
    > and hence can be disturbed by sensations that we wouldn't even notice. Amphibians, for example,
    > are extremely sensitive to vibrations.
    >
    > "Traditionally, observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were considered to be
    > 'nonconsumptive' activities because removal of animals from their natural habitats did not
    > occur.... nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered relatively benign in terms of its
    > effects on wildlife; today, however, there is a growing recognition that wildlife-viewing
    > recreation can have serious negative impacts on wildlife" (Knight & Gutzwiller, p.257).
    >
    > Technology has made it much easier for people to reach wildlife habitat, including areas where
    > access used to be difficult, such as cliff faces, caves, under water, and inhospitable climates.
    > Roads, trails, ORVs, mountain bikes, high- tech camping gear, freeze-dried foods, and even
    > waterproof maps are some of the tools that allow people to travel far into wilderness in great
    > comfort. That and increasing population have squeezed and frightened wildlife out of its
    > preferred habitat, both temporarily and permanently, depriving it of needed foods, shelter, and
    > choice of mates. Roads are particularly pernicious, because they not only give humans easy
    > access to wilderness, but they fragment habitat, because many cover-adapted species are afraid
    > to cross them.
    >
    > Speed is a big factor. Being encased in a motor vehicle greatly reduces the sensations that you
    > experience. Thus in order to obtain the equivalent physical experience that a hiker acquires in a
    > short walk through the woods (complete with sounds, sights, smells, tastes, and touch), you have
    > to drive a great distance! Similarly, a mountain biker travels too fast to fully appreciate
    > his/her surroundings, and thus soon gets bored with the trail and needs to experience another (and
    > another and another). This is one reason why mountain bikers are never satisfied, no matter how
    > many trails they have access to, and why they are exerting such tremendous pressure on land
    > managers around the world to give them ever greater access. (I asked one of them if there were any
    > limit to this process. He told me that no one would ever want to bike Mt. Everest. However, only a
    > few days later I saw an advertisement for a mountain bike trip to Mt. Everest!)
    >
    > Here are some of the damaging effects that the mere presence of a human can have on wildlife: When
    > an animal is guarding a nest, it can be scared away ("flushed") for some time, at least while a
    > human is present. Besides using up energy that may not be plentiful, eggs and young are left
    > exposed to dangerous temperatures (hot or cold) and predators. The movement of the parent, or
    > sometimes the odor of the human, can direct predators to the nest, causing the death of some of
    > the young. Sometimes the parent in its rush steps on an egg or knocks it or its young out of the
    > nest, leading to certain death for the offspring. Some parents may even abandon the nest or kill
    > and eat the young, if they are frightened or startled enough. Young can get left behind when a
    > parent flushes suddenly, get lost, and die of starvation or be eaten by a predator.
    >
    > The stress of disturbance can increase energy needs, elevate heart rate (possibly leading to
    > death), force the animal to temporarily or permanently abandon a feeding area, force it to become
    > nocturnal, force it to spend a great amount of time watching for humans, interfere with
    > reproduction, and in general decrease its productivity. Migratory birds, for example, have a
    > limited amount of time to stock up on food before their trip. They often spend long periods flying
    > over ocean, and can die if they don't have adequate nutritional reserves.
    >
    > Because the Earth is losing some 100 species a day, worldwide, it is very important that we
    > quickly become better informed, and stop mindlessly continuing "business as usual" in our
    > approaches to wildlife and recreation.
    >
    > Here are some relevant excerpts from Knight and Gutzwiller: "the notion that recreation has no
    > environmental impacts is no longer tenable. Recreationists often degrade the land, water, and
    > wildlife resources that support their activities by simplifying plant communities, increasing
    > animal mortality, displacing and disturbing wildlife, and distributing refuse" (p.3); Boyle and
    > Sampson ... reviewed 166 articles that contained original data on the effects of nonconsumptive
    > outdoor recreation on wildlife. In 81% of them, the effects were considered negative" (p.51);
    > "Nature viewing, by its very definition, has great potential to negatively affect wildlife. ...
    > Predators learn to follow human scent trails to nest sites" (p.55); "activities [involving]
    > nonmotorized travel ... [have] caused the creation of more ... trails in wildlands.... These
    > activities are extensive in nature and have the ability to disrupt wildlife in many ways,
    > particularly by displacing animals from an area" (p.56); "Recreational disturbance has
    > traditionally been viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season. Recently, it
    > has become apparent that disturbance outside of the animal's breeding season may have equally
    > severe effects" (p.73); "Birds can lose eggs and young when predators attack nests after parents
    > are startled into flight" (p.133); "Human occupation and activity are clearly and directly
    > correlated with declines in breeding populations of birds" (p.135).
    >
    > "People have an impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it, no matter what the
    > activity" (p.157); "Perhaps the major way that people have influenced wildlife populations is
    > through encroachment into wildlife areas" (p.160); "a single visit to nest sites by people can
    > cause nest abandonment"
    > (p.161); "Some goslings got lost in the dense vegetation when parents headed for the pool, or
    > parents swam off leaving goslings behind that could not follow" (p.162); "Pregnant animals
    > suffered higher stress from wildlife viewers, causing some to abort"
    > (p.163); "Outdoor recreation has been recognized as an important factor that can reduce biosphere
    > sustainability.... Indeed, recreational activities, including many that may seem innocuous,
    > can alter vertebrate behaviour, reproduction, distributions, and habitats" (p.169); "Human
    > disturbance caused eagles to flush sooner than the other species, and eagles rarely
    > returned to a carcass following disturbance" (p.170); "Juveniles that get displaced from
    > familiar surroundings (e.g., home ranges) by recreationists may also be more susceptible to
    > predation"
    > (p.172).
    >
    > "Displaced animals are forced out of familiar habitat and must then survive and reproduce in areas
    > where they are not familiar with the locations of food, shelter, and other vital resources....
    > Hammitt and Cole ... ranked displacement as being more detrimental to wildlife than harassment or
    > recreation- induced habitat changes.... Densities ... of 13 breeding bird species were negatively
    > associated with the intensity of recreation activity by park visitors, primarily pedestrians and
    > cyclists" (pp.173-4); "off-road vehicles can collapse burrows of desert mammals and reptiles"
    > (p.176); "Compaction increases the mechanical resistance of the soil to root penetration and can
    > reduce the emergence of seedlings" (p.184); "Soil compaction reduces the size of pore spaces,
    > altering the soil fauna"
    > (p.189); "several studies have shown the importance of contiguous, undisturbed habitat for many
    > native species" (p.190); "Recreational activities clearly have substantial and generally
    > adverse influences on terrestrial vegetation and soil, and on aquatic systems" (p.193);
    > "researchers have documented an increase in heart rate in different species when approached
    > by visitors, which can subsequently initiate other physiological effects of stress,
    > including death" (p.206); "Indirect effects may also occur from development of trail
    > networks and picnic areas, which not only remove habitat, but increase habitat edge ... [,
    > opening] these areas for colonization by exotic ... species" (p.210); "Geese could not
    > compensate for a loss in feeding time" (p.251); "The ESA defines harassment as 'an
    > intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife
    > by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behaviour patterns
    > which include, but are not limited to, feeding or sheltering'" (p.304).
    >
    > "It is expected that outdoor recreational activity will continue to increase, while the amount of
    > wild land where wildlife may seek refuge from disturbance will decrease" (p.327); "Recreationists
    > are, ironically, destroying the very thing they love: the blooming buzzing confusion of nature....
    > The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with interests that are cutting the
    > last of the old-growth forests, washing fertile topsoils into the sea, and pouring billions of
    > tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" (p.340); "Tom Birch ... argues that wilderness
    > managers, charged with incarcerating wilderness, are more concerned with the advancement of their
    > careers through achieving quantifiable goals (number of park visitors, total revenues) and
    > developing park and forest amenities (roads, 'scenic' turnouts, restrooms, paved trails, maps,
    > campgrounds) than with perpetuating the land community of which they are a part" (p.344).
    >
    > How can we continue enjoying the nature we love, and still protect it so that it will still be
    > there for future generations? Ideally, we should be working to reduce all human access to
    > ___
    > wildlife habitat. But at the very least, we should eliminate mechanical access (with the exception
    > of small compromises for __________ _____ wheelchairs). Rather than restrict who can visit an
    > area, or when they can go there, I think that the most humane way to reduce our impacts is to
    > restrict the technologies that are allowed there.
    > ____________
    > For example, if vehicles are banned in wildlife habitat (including animals used as vehicles), we
    > can all still enjoy it, but because we have to go on foot, not as many people will go there, they
    > won't go as far, and they won't go as fast. Of course, we also won't have the impacts of the
    > vehicles themselves ("V" grooves caused by mountain bikes, holes and narrow grooves caused by
    > burros' hooves, etc.). But I doubt that the enjoyment
    > _________
    > of nature will be less. In fact, I think it will be maximized!
    > _________
    >
    > Another example: before rafting, much of our riparian habitat, especially in the desert, was
    > relatively inaccessible to humans. That was very beneficial for the wildlife who depend on that
    > habitat. Rafting and canoeing, while they seem harmless, open up huge areas of wildlife habitat to
    > human access. I think that restricting river access to only certain locations can provide just as
    > much enjoyment, while safeguarding wildlife's access to their habitat. Similarly, banning the use
    > of climbing equipment would not reduce the thrill of climbing, but would
    > _____
    > ensure that it be done with minimal impacts.
    >
    > I don't think that the simple, direct enjoyment of nature with our bodies and senses has become
    > obsolete. This morning I walked out to my back yard to look at my "garden", and the warmth of the
    > sun and the beauty of the plants and animals was overwhelming! I don't think that any technology
    > could possibly
    > ____________
    > make my enjoyment of that moment any greater. Nor has any "wilderness" I have visited provided any
    > greater "peak experience". More is not necessarily better..
    >
    > References:
    >
    > Vandeman, Michael J. http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
    >
    > Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
    > ____________
    > Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
    > ______________
    >
    > Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London,
    > __________________
    > c.1997.
    >
    > ===
    > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    > help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  3. Nelson Binch

    Nelson Binch Guest

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife preserve that is very tasty to humans ("pure habitat jelly"). Want
    to help? (I spent the previous 8 minutes thinking about what would taste good with wildlife
    preserves.)

    ---
    __o _`\(,_ Cycling is life, (_)/ (_) all the rest, just details. Nelson Binch =^o.o^=
    http://intergalax.com

    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 -
    Release Date: 5/19/2003
     
  4. J. Slater

    J. Slater Guest

    Oh boy... Well Mike. I honor each persons right to have their opinions and beliefs. I think you are
    actually starting to sway some people to your side, but, there is something missing. You see, Mike,
    the very fact that you are alive right now, means that, some poor cockroack, salamander, gecko, ant,
    etc. is suffering from your life and the actions around your home...OH WAIT! I'm CERTAIN that you
    wouldn't DREAM of living in an ECO-DESTROYING habitat? Would you? All that wood, plaster, gypsum,
    nails, paint, insecticide, etc...

    Mike, are you simply a foolish, dumbass hypocrite? I mean, do you drive a car too? Answer honestly.

    I ask you to prove that you aren't a foolish, dumbass hypocrite nutbag, and in order to prove this
    you will need to COMMIT SUICIDE in an ECO-FRIENDLY manner, and when your corpse is feeding the
    maggots (have to think of them too, on their tight energy/food budget), I PROMISE that I will read
    your entire website, I'll even print it out and pass it around (on recycled paper, and eco-friendly
    inks, of course).

    UNTIL THEN, SHUT THE FOCK UP!

    Remember Mike, some people are actually more important than animals. Some aren't. It's obvious which
    category you are in. Hasta La Vista.

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. April 26, 2000
    >
    > Like most of us, I grew up believing that "passive" recreation, and the mere presence of humans,
    > are harmless to wildlife. And, of course, I never worried about making campfires or drinking water
    > in the backcountry. But times change! Now we

    <snipping all the bullsheet
     
  5. Sounds like you're advocating a sort of wilderness-by-management (which looks like
    wilderness-under-a-19th-century-taxidermist's-bell-jar to me) to embody a kind of
    human-as-contamination aesthetic. As such, most arguments for or against are "convenient
    rationalizations" for standards that are ultimately arbitrary. For example, an argument that animals
    feel threatened by humans doesn't account for the fact that animals feel threatened by lots of other
    animals, too. We aren't too special that way. We also assume that we are the only animals that can
    catastrophically change habitat. Beavers are notorious for it. Even gentle (and outdated) pictures
    such as "natural succession" guarantee the extirpation of endangered amphibious creatures once
    swamps turn into meadows. Heavy deer populations can shift forests from oaks and nut trees towards
    maples, birches and other seed trees according to studies from Pennsylvania. Arguing that
    human-induced changes, that nevertheless predominately respect natural processes of change in the
    "backwoods," are a kind of contamination represents a sort of misanthropism that is only supportable
    from an anthropocentric position. But then, an ethic that "wilderness having value in itself" has
    been called an "aesthetic," which has to do primarily with human attitudes, and arguments from that
    position must be anthropocentric.

    One of the things about the backcountry is that it tends to draw from us a wonderful experience of
    freedom and discovery. We often discover within ourselves a delight of self-exploration as we
    interact with an ethic derived from the respect of the wild, even if it is extraction-based (such as
    hunting) or relatively passive (hiking). I have at times wondered if the ethics we gravitate to
    project our own perception of self onto the wilderness: either of being rich and nurturing (as a
    hunter might find) but never wasteful, or of being fragile (as strict preservationists seem to
    express): a helpless victim easy to destroy, needing all sorts of special protection.

    There is a growing body of literature on the problem of defining exactly what "wilderness" means.
    Seems to me that this question needs resolution before you can get to a point of protecting it.

    Dan

    Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. April 26, 2000
    >
    ...
     
  6. On Fri, 30 May 2003 13:25:21 -0400, "Daniel E. Platt" <[email protected]> wrote:

    .Sounds like you're advocating a sort of wilderness-by-management (which .looks like
    wilderness-under-a-19th-century-taxidermist's-bell-jar to me) .to embody a kind of
    human-as-contamination aesthetic.

    I guess you can't read. What does my signature say?

    As such, most .arguments for or against are "convenient rationalizations" for standards .that are
    ultimately arbitrary. For example, an argument that animals .feel threatened by humans doesn't
    account for the fact that animals feel .threatened by lots of other animals, too.

    So what? That's irrelevant, unless we are planning on micromanaging them.

    We aren't too special that .way. We also assume that we are the only animals that can
    .catastrophically change habitat.

    BS. You made that up. I never said any such thing. Nor is it relevant.

    Beavers are notorious for it. Even .gentle (and outdated) pictures such as "natural succession"
    guarantee .the extirpation of endangered amphibious creatures once swamps turn into .meadows.
    Heavy deer populations can shift forests from oaks and nut .trees towards maples, birches and
    other seed trees according to studies .from Pennsylvania. Arguing that human-induced changes,
    that .nevertheless predominately respect natural processes of change in the ."backwoods," are a
    kind of contamination represents a sort of .misanthropism that is only supportable from an
    anthropocentric position.

    I never said any such thing, as anyone who can READ can tell you.

    . But then, an ethic that "wilderness having value in itself" has been .called an "aesthetic,"
    which has to do primarily with human attitudes, .and arguments from that position must be
    anthropocentric. . .One of the things about the backcountry is that it tends to draw from us .a
    wonderful experience of freedom and discovery. We often discover .within ourselves a delight of
    self-exploration as we interact with an .ethic derived from the respect of the wild, even if it
    is .extraction-based (such as hunting) or relatively passive (hiking). I .have at times wondered
    if the ethics we gravitate to project our own .perception of self onto the wilderness: either of
    being rich and .nurturing (as a hunter might find) but never wasteful, or of being .fragile (as
    strict preservationists seem to express): a helpless victim .easy to destroy, needing all sorts
    of special protection. . .There is a growing body of literature on the problem of defining
    exactly .what "wilderness" means. Seems to me that this question needs .resolution before you can
    get to a point of protecting it.

    Simple: what was here before humans arrived. Are you really that stupid?

    .Dan . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation .> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
    .> April 26, 2000 .> ....

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  7. John Burton

    John Burton Guest

    Hello Mike,

    The signoff on your messages is:

    "I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande "

    I visited the site and I do not see any info. on closed areas. A couple of these that come to mind
    here in Utah are Parunuweap Canyon (in and near Zion National Park) and parts of The Maze in
    Canyonlands (specifically, the Jasper Canyon area). The latter area suffered from overuse partly as
    a result of Abbey's "Desert Solitaire", I think.

    There are a lot of links on your site and I might have missed something, but I would think you
    would list any successes you or others with similar goals have achieved, or even just wilderness
    areas that are totally closed to humans for whatever reason. Do you have such a list or do you
    know of one?

    John
     
  8. Mike Vandeman wrote:
    > On Fri, 30 May 2003 13:25:21 -0400, "Daniel E. Platt" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > .Sounds like you're advocating a sort of wilderness-by-management (which .looks like
    > wilderness-under-a-19th-century-taxidermist's-bell-jar to me) .to embody a kind of
    > human-as-contamination aesthetic.
    >
    > I guess you can't read. What does my signature say?

    Your signature says you are "Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation." The material in your post looks
    like old stuff (yawn) without appropriate citations.

    >
    > As such, most .arguments for or against are "convenient rationalizations" for standards .that are
    > ultimately arbitrary. For example, an argument that animals .feel threatened by humans doesn't
    > account for the fact that animals feel .threatened by lots of other animals, too.
    >
    > So what? That's irrelevant, unless we are planning on micromanaging them.

    You have deleted the item I responded to. Sounds like you're interested in micromanaging something
    (keep all of the human contamination out as much as possible).

    >
    > We aren't too special that .way. We also assume that we are the only animals that can
    > .catastrophically change habitat.
    >
    > BS. You made that up.

    Er... no. I didn't make it up. You have a PhD: do your research.

    > I never said any such thing. Nor is it relevant.

    How can you, I, or anybody tell... you deleted everything. BTW: what was your PhD in -- obfuscation
    and abuse?

    It is relevent if you are trying to micromanage against change as opposed to only some kinds of
    change (ie -- human change).

    >
    > Beavers are notorious for it. Even .gentle (and outdated) pictures such as "natural succession"
    > guarantee .the extirpation of endangered amphibious creatures once swamps turn into .meadows.
    > Heavy deer populations can shift forests from oaks and nut .trees towards maples, birches and
    > other seed trees according to studies .from Pennsylvania. Arguing that human-induced changes,
    > that .nevertheless predominately respect natural processes of change in the ."backwoods," are a
    > kind of contamination represents a sort of .misanthropism that is only supportable from an
    > anthropocentric position.
    >
    > I never said any such thing, as anyone who can READ can tell you.

    Do your own research, place yourself in the spectrum spanning "Sand Count Almanac" (Aldo Leopold) or
    "Dominion" (Scully).

    >
    > . But then, an ethic that "wilderness having value in itself" has been .called an "aesthetic,"
    > which has to do primarily with human attitudes, .and arguments from that position must be
    > anthropocentric. . .One of the things about the backcountry is that it tends to draw from us .a
    > wonderful experience of freedom and discovery. We often discover .within ourselves a delight of
    > self-exploration as we interact with an .ethic derived from the respect of the wild, even if it
    > is .extraction-based (such as hunting) or relatively passive (hiking). I .have at times
    > wondered if the ethics we gravitate to project our own .perception of self onto the wilderness:
    > either of being rich and .nurturing (as a hunter might find) but never wasteful, or of being
    > .fragile (as strict preservationists seem to express): a helpless victim .easy to destroy,
    > needing all sorts of special protection. . .There is a growing body of literature on the
    > problem of defining exactly .what "wilderness" means. Seems to me that this question needs
    > .resolution before you can get to a point of protecting it.
    >
    > Simple: what was here before humans arrived. Are you really that stupid?

    How about William Cronin's book: "CHANGES IN THE LAND: INDIANS, COLONISTS, AND THE ECOLOGY OF NEW
    ENGLAND," Hill and Wang, NY (1983).

    While you're at it, Cronin has also been involved with issues of trying to tackle the question of
    exactly what "wilderness" is.

    It looks like most people believe that humans were on the NA continent since before the ice left.
    How far back do you want to go? Do you want to bring back the Mammoth? Or do you just get a kick out
    of throwing around insults?

    >
    > .Dan . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation .> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
    > .> April 26, 2000 .> ....
    >
    > ===
    > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    > help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  9. Peter H

    Peter H Guest

    Daniel E. Platt wrote:

    >
    > Do your own research, place yourself in the spectrum spanning "Sand Count[y] Almanac" (Aldo
    > Leopold) or "Dominion" (Scully).

    To which I would add "Arctic Dreams" by Barry Lopez.

    >
    > How about William Cronin's book: "CHANGES IN THE LAND: INDIANS, COLONISTS, AND THE ECOLOGY OF NEW
    > ENGLAND," Hill and Wang, NY (1983).
    >
    A most excellent work. Quite abstruse, though, for those who insist on being spoon-fed politically
    correct generalities which don't address the underlying attributes.

    Somewhere between Leopold & Cronin could be "Ceremonial Time" by John Hanson Mitchell (ISBN
    0-446-32774-3). While this covers intimately, as in the subtitle, "Fifteen Thousand Years on One
    Square Mile," some will find it incomprehensible since it deals with reality. It deals with reality
    and man's place within reality.

    Pete H

    --
    When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there
    is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson
     
  10. Snyperx

    Snyperx Guest

    TROLL!!!! Sorry everyone I had to say it. :)

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. April 26, 2000
    >
    > Like most of us, I grew up believing that "passive" recreation, and the mere presence of humans,
    > are harmless to wildlife. And, of course, I never worried about making campfires or drinking water
    > in the backcountry. But times change! Now we
    > ________________
    > know that dead branches have an important function in the ecosystem. And we know about giardia.
    > Similarly, recent research on the effects of recreation has forced us to re-examine some
    > longstanding habits and ways of thinking.
    >
    > It has been customary for people to assume that when we are not directly harming wildlife, we are
    > not harming them. Besides
    > ________
    > being a convenient rationalization, this assumption is understandable: we assume that others, even
    > members of other species, are like us. We don't feel very threatened by the presence of other
    > species; we are, after all, the top predator. We also live surrounded by plenty; most of us can't
    > imagine what it is like to go hungry for even one day. Wildlife, however, does
    > ____
    > usually feel very threatened by our presence, and many organisms exist on a very tight
    > (food/energy) budget. Also, they often have much greater visual and auditory acuity than we do,
    > and hence can be disturbed by sensations that we wouldn't even notice. Amphibians, for example,
    > are extremely sensitive to vibrations.
    >
    > "Traditionally, observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were considered to be
    > 'nonconsumptive' activities because removal of animals from their natural habitats did not
    > occur.... nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered relatively benign in terms of its
    > effects on wildlife; today, however, there is a growing recognition that wildlife-viewing
    > recreation can have serious negative impacts on wildlife" (Knight & Gutzwiller, p.257).
    >
    > Technology has made it much easier for people to reach wildlife habitat, including areas where
    > access used to be difficult, such as cliff faces, caves, under water, and inhospitable climates.
    > Roads, trails, ORVs, mountain bikes, high- tech camping gear, freeze-dried foods, and even
    > waterproof maps are some of the tools that allow people to travel far into wilderness in great
    > comfort. That and increasing population have squeezed and frightened wildlife out of its
    > preferred habitat, both temporarily and permanently, depriving it of needed foods, shelter, and
    > choice of mates. Roads are particularly pernicious, because they not only give humans easy
    > access to wilderness, but they fragment habitat, because many cover-adapted species are afraid
    > to cross them.
    >
    > Speed is a big factor. Being encased in a motor vehicle greatly reduces the sensations that you
    > experience. Thus in order to obtain the equivalent physical experience that a hiker acquires in a
    > short walk through the woods (complete with sounds, sights, smells, tastes, and touch), you have
    > to drive a great distance! Similarly, a mountain biker travels too fast to fully appreciate
    > his/her surroundings, and thus soon gets bored with the trail and needs to experience another (and
    > another and another). This is one reason why mountain bikers are never satisfied, no matter how
    > many trails they have access to, and why they are exerting such tremendous pressure on land
    > managers around the world to give them ever greater access. (I asked one of them if there were any
    > limit to this process. He told me that no one would ever want to bike Mt. Everest. However, only a
    > few days later I saw an advertisement for a mountain bike trip to Mt. Everest!)
    >
    > Here are some of the damaging effects that the mere presence of a human can have on wildlife: When
    > an animal is guarding a nest, it can be scared away ("flushed") for some time, at least while a
    > human is present. Besides using up energy that may not be plentiful, eggs and young are left
    > exposed to dangerous temperatures (hot or cold) and predators. The movement of the parent, or
    > sometimes the odor of the human, can direct predators to the nest, causing the death of some of
    > the young. Sometimes the parent in its rush steps on an egg or knocks it or its young out of the
    > nest, leading to certain death for the offspring. Some parents may even abandon the nest or kill
    > and eat the young, if they are frightened or startled enough. Young can get left behind when a
    > parent flushes suddenly, get lost, and die of starvation or be eaten by a predator.
    >
    > The stress of disturbance can increase energy needs, elevate heart rate (possibly leading to
    > death), force the animal to temporarily or permanently abandon a feeding area, force it to become
    > nocturnal, force it to spend a great amount of time watching for humans, interfere with
    > reproduction, and in general decrease its productivity. Migratory birds, for example, have a
    > limited amount of time to stock up on food before their trip. They often spend long periods flying
    > over ocean, and can die if they don't have adequate nutritional reserves.
    >
    > Because the Earth is losing some 100 species a day, worldwide, it is very important that we
    > quickly become better informed, and stop mindlessly continuing "business as usual" in our
    > approaches to wildlife and recreation.
    >
    > Here are some relevant excerpts from Knight and Gutzwiller: "the notion that recreation has no
    > environmental impacts is no longer tenable. Recreationists often degrade the land, water, and
    > wildlife resources that support their activities by simplifying plant communities, increasing
    > animal mortality, displacing and disturbing wildlife, and distributing refuse" (p.3); Boyle and
    > Sampson ... reviewed 166 articles that contained original data on the effects of nonconsumptive
    > outdoor recreation on wildlife. In 81% of them, the effects were considered negative" (p.51);
    > "Nature viewing, by its very definition, has great potential to negatively affect wildlife. ...
    > Predators learn to follow human scent trails to nest sites" (p.55); "activities [involving]
    > nonmotorized travel ... [have] caused the creation of more ... trails in wildlands.... These
    > activities are extensive in nature and have the ability to disrupt wildlife in many ways,
    > particularly by displacing animals from an area" (p.56); "Recreational disturbance has
    > traditionally been viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season. Recently, it
    > has become apparent that disturbance outside of the animal's breeding season may have equally
    > severe effects" (p.73); "Birds can lose eggs and young when predators attack nests after parents
    > are startled into flight" (p.133); "Human occupation and activity are clearly and directly
    > correlated with declines in breeding populations of birds" (p.135).
    >
    > "People have an impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it, no matter what the
    > activity" (p.157); "Perhaps the major way that people have influenced wildlife populations is
    > through encroachment into wildlife areas" (p.160); "a single visit to nest sites by people can
    > cause nest abandonment"
    > (p.161); "Some goslings got lost in the dense vegetation when parents headed for the pool, or
    > parents swam off leaving goslings behind that could not follow" (p.162); "Pregnant animals
    > suffered higher stress from wildlife viewers, causing some to abort"
    > (p.163); "Outdoor recreation has been recognized as an important factor that can reduce biosphere
    > sustainability.... Indeed, recreational activities, including many that may seem innocuous,
    > can alter vertebrate behaviour, reproduction, distributions, and habitats" (p.169); "Human
    > disturbance caused eagles to flush sooner than the other species, and eagles rarely
    > returned to a carcass following disturbance" (p.170); "Juveniles that get displaced from
    > familiar surroundings (e.g., home ranges) by recreationists may also be more susceptible to
    > predation"
    > (p.172).
    >
    > "Displaced animals are forced out of familiar habitat and must then survive and reproduce in areas
    > where they are not familiar with the locations of food, shelter, and other vital resources....
    > Hammitt and Cole ... ranked displacement as being more detrimental to wildlife than harassment or
    > recreation- induced habitat changes.... Densities ... of 13 breeding bird species were negatively
    > associated with the intensity of recreation activity by park visitors, primarily pedestrians and
    > cyclists" (pp.173-4); "off-road vehicles can collapse burrows of desert mammals and reptiles"
    > (p.176); "Compaction increases the mechanical resistance of the soil to root penetration and can
    > reduce the emergence of seedlings" (p.184); "Soil compaction reduces the size of pore spaces,
    > altering the soil fauna"
    > (p.189); "several studies have shown the importance of contiguous, undisturbed habitat for many
    > native species" (p.190); "Recreational activities clearly have substantial and generally
    > adverse influences on terrestrial vegetation and soil, and on aquatic systems" (p.193);
    > "researchers have documented an increase in heart rate in different species when approached
    > by visitors, which can subsequently initiate other physiological effects of stress,
    > including death" (p.206); "Indirect effects may also occur from development of trail
    > networks and picnic areas, which not only remove habitat, but increase habitat edge ... [,
    > opening] these areas for colonization by exotic ... species" (p.210); "Geese could not
    > compensate for a loss in feeding time" (p.251); "The ESA defines harassment as 'an
    > intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife
    > by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behaviour patterns
    > which include, but are not limited to, feeding or sheltering'" (p.304).
    >
    > "It is expected that outdoor recreational activity will continue to increase, while the amount of
    > wild land where wildlife may seek refuge from disturbance will decrease" (p.327); "Recreationists
    > are, ironically, destroying the very thing they love: the blooming buzzing confusion of nature....
    > The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with interests that are cutting the
    > last of the old-growth forests, washing fertile topsoils into the sea, and pouring billions of
    > tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" (p.340); "Tom Birch ... argues that wilderness
    > managers, charged with incarcerating wilderness, are more concerned with the advancement of their
    > careers through achieving quantifiable goals (number of park visitors, total revenues) and
    > developing park and forest amenities (roads, 'scenic' turnouts, restrooms, paved trails, maps,
    > campgrounds) than with perpetuating the land community of which they are a part" (p.344).
    >
    > How can we continue enjoying the nature we love, and still protect it so that it will still be
    > there for future generations? Ideally, we should be working to reduce all human access to
    > ___
    > wildlife habitat. But at the very least, we should eliminate mechanical access (with the exception
    > of small compromises for __________ _____ wheelchairs). Rather than restrict who can visit an
    > area, or when they can go there, I think that the most humane way to reduce our impacts is to
    > restrict the technologies that are allowed there.
    > ____________
    > For example, if vehicles are banned in wildlife habitat (including animals used as vehicles), we
    > can all still enjoy it, but because we have to go on foot, not as many people will go there, they
    > won't go as far, and they won't go as fast. Of course, we also won't have the impacts of the
    > vehicles themselves ("V" grooves caused by mountain bikes, holes and narrow grooves caused by
    > burros' hooves, etc.). But I doubt that the enjoyment
    > _________
    > of nature will be less. In fact, I think it will be maximized!
    > _________
    >
    > Another example: before rafting, much of our riparian habitat, especially in the desert, was
    > relatively inaccessible to humans. That was very beneficial for the wildlife who depend on that
    > habitat. Rafting and canoeing, while they seem harmless, open up huge areas of wildlife habitat to
    > human access. I think that restricting river access to only certain locations can provide just as
    > much enjoyment, while safeguarding wildlife's access to their habitat. Similarly, banning the use
    > of climbing equipment would not reduce the thrill of climbing, but would
    > _____
    > ensure that it be done with minimal impacts.
    >
    > I don't think that the simple, direct enjoyment of nature with our bodies and senses has become
    > obsolete. This morning I walked out to my back yard to look at my "garden", and the warmth of the
    > sun and the beauty of the plants and animals was overwhelming! I don't think that any technology
    > could possibly
    > ____________
    > make my enjoyment of that moment any greater. Nor has any "wilderness" I have visited provided any
    > greater "peak experience". More is not necessarily better..
    >
    > References:
    >
    > Vandeman, Michael J. http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
    >
    > Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
    > ____________
    > Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
    > ______________
    >
    > Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London,
    > __________________
    > c.1997.
    >
    > ===
    > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    > help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  11. Snyperx says:

    >TROLL!!!! Sorry everyone I had to say it. :)

    Dang, Man! What took you so long?

    Steve
     
  12. Sorni

    Sorni Guest

    "Stephen Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Snyperx says:
    >
    > >TROLL!!!! Sorry everyone I had to say it. :)
    >
    > Dang, Man! What took you so long?

    But, but...where did that 15KB of Vandespew go, Steve? Could Snyperx borrow your magic
    "snipper-x"?!?

    Bill "subtle hinter" S.
     
  13. John Burton

    John Burton Guest

    Hello Dan,

    You seem to know a bit about Vandeman's position. He has not yet responded to my inquiry about any
    successes he and his associates have had in closing areas to human entry. (See my earlier post in
    this thread.) Does Vandeman even have any sort of systematic or progressive approach to implementing
    his views? Does he picket, lobby, or sue anyone? Are there specific areas he would like to see
    closed? I could not find any reference to such places on his site, nor for that matter, any
    references to any successes whatever. As I mentioned already, there are a lot of links on his site.
    Maybe I missed something.

    Regards,

    John
     
  14. I found out by doing a web search on him. I did the search because I did not expect an answer from
    him (I was not disappointed).

    He has said quite a lot (more than enough) about himself there. I have the impression that he
    pickets, lobbies, and is invited by other picketer/lobbiests to speak at their picketing
    conventions, and such.

    I have never met him, and I don't *think* I ever noticed him before I tried to engage him on the
    issue of "rethinking" (looks like it should be connected to an area of current scholarship I've
    gotten interested in myself, but which Vanderman is totally uninterested in -- likely he would
    oppose it if he had learned more about it).

    Dan

    John Burton wrote:
    > Hello Dan,
    >
    > You seem to know a bit about Vandeman's position. He has not yet responded to my inquiry about any
    > successes he and his associates have had in closing areas to human entry. (See my earlier post in
    > this thread.) Does Vandeman even have any sort of systematic or progressive approach to
    > implementing his views? Does he picket, lobby, or sue anyone? Are there specific areas he would
    > like to see closed? I could not find any reference to such places on his site, nor for that
    > matter, any references to any successes whatever. As I mentioned already, there are a lot of links
    > on his site. Maybe I missed something.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > John
     
  15. On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:53:25 -0600, "John Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:

    .Hello Mike, . .The signoff on your messages is: . ."I am working on creating wildlife habitat that
    is off-limits to .humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 .years fighting
    auto dependence and road construction.) . .http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande " . .I visited the site
    and I do not see any info. on closed areas. A couple of .these that come to mind here in Utah are
    Parunuweap Canyon (in and near Zion .National Park) and parts of The Maze in Canyonlands
    (specifically, the .Jasper Canyon area). The latter area suffered from overuse partly as a .result
    of Abbey's "Desert Solitaire", I think.

    Email me official confirmation of that information. You are just reporing hearsay.

    .There are a lot of links on your site and I might have missed something, but .I would think you
    would list any successes you or others with similar goals .have achieved, or even just wilderness
    areas that are totally closed to .humans for whatever reason. Do you have such a list or do you know
    of one? . .John .

    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
  16. John Burton

    John Burton Guest

    "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]...
    > On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 16:53:25 -0600, "John Burton" <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    >
    > .Hello Mike, . .The signoff on your messages is: . ."I am working on creating wildlife habitat
    > that is off-limits to .humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 .years
    > fighting auto dependence and road construction.) . .http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande " . .I visited
    > the site and I do not see any info. on closed areas. A couple
    of
    > .these that come to mind here in Utah are Parunuweap Canyon (in and near
    Zion
    > .National Park) and parts of The Maze in Canyonlands (specifically, the .Jasper Canyon area). The
    > latter area suffered from overuse partly as a .result of Abbey's "Desert Solitaire", I think.
    >
    > Email me official confirmation of that information. You are just reporing hearsay.
    >

    JOHN Hearsay? These closures have been well known for years. Regarding Jasper Canyon and some
    related areas (which have been closed for over 8 years):

    http://planning.nps.gov/wilderness/document/canyonlands.pdf

    Zion's Parunuweap Canyon (closed for 11 years):

    http://www.nps.gov/zion/pr/zion_gmp.pdf

    http://www.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nagpra/DOCS/rms021.html

    These sites are listed as accessible only to pre-registered and approved scientific groups, so you
    could say that they are not "totally" closed. (It's not prefectly clear whether park personnel enter
    these areas, but I would imagine they go in periodically.) The list gets longer if you include
    seasonal closures. Portions of Antelope Island State Park (an island in the Great Salt Lake) for
    instance, are closed for 2 months during bighorn sheep calving season, a time when hiking would be
    quite popular in those areas. See:

    http://www.climb-utah.com/WM/frary.htm

    If you Google for <"research natural area" closure> you will see about 1,000 hits. At least a few of
    these no doubt link to info. on more similar "closed to everyone" areas.

    > .There are a lot of links on your site and I might have missed something,
    but
    > .I would think you would list any successes you or others with similar
    goals
    > .have achieved, or even just wilderness areas that are totally closed to .humans for whatever
    > reason. Do you have such a list or do you know of
    one?
    > . .John .
    >
    > ===
    > I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
    > help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)
    >
    > http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Rethinking Impacts Recreation
  1. PeterF
    Replies:
    59
    Views:
    8,915
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...