When I suggested that this isn't much different from people in the Northeast intentionally running over squirrels with their cars (which also is probably an unpleasant way to die), I got incredulous looks. So either college students like camels more than squirrels (unlikely, see pictures) or I need to support my claim with some evidence.
It turns out the question of "do people run things over for fun" has been studied. The news articles and papers that I found relate to turtles, a population which does not regenerate quickly and takes a little while to cross the road. The majority of people don't even notice them on the road but there is a statistically significant number of people (~3%) who would purposefully swerve to hit a turtle or a snake on the double yellow line. If people use turtles for target practice as often as the paper and article suggest, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that people also hit squirrels much more often than can be explained by chance.
So how does this relate to the Adirondacks? I would argue that wherever there are perceived nuisance animals small enough to be run over, people won't hesitate to kill them. I doubt many people in the Adirondacks would swerve to avoid a beaver, much less stop and help it get across the road. Not only does this show the negative impacts of roads on wildlife, but it also shows that people's perception of the value of an animal has to be changed before we can even begin to consider how to maintain populations naturally. What hunters won't do with their guns, people will do with their cars, regardless of how humane their actions are.
Article: Article about Clemson study
Paper: Paper from Ontario
Wow Ben, that statistic is incredibly high! I can believe it though considering the amount of roadkill I pass on the roads everyday. I find this even more cruel than hunting. Hunting, at least, requires knowledge, planning, and sometimes even appreciation for an animal and its habitat. Cars, however, kill animals without any preemptive thoughts.
ReplyDelete