Pages

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

More Than Just Footsteps

People enjoy outdoor recreation. It helps them relax. There is something about surrounding yourself in an environment other than the city or the suburbs that calms the mind. Most people who spend time in the outdoors also want to protect them. They want to save these beautiful corners of serenity so that their children can enjoy them. Often big corporations get the blame for the decline of these settings, but how much damage does the average person afflict on nature? I recently read a piece in the Sunday Review of the New York Times that might surprise you. The article, written by Christopher Solomon, describes research on the effects of human recreation on natural areas. Solomon chronicles the work of scientists like Dr. Kimberly Heinemeyer and others who work to determine man’s impact on nature. 
Dr. Heinemeyer researches wolverines. For those of you who don’t know, wolverines are an elusive species of mammal that lives in the northwestern part of the United States in areas that are often favored by back country skiers. Dr. Heinemeyer’s research has shown that wolverines move faster and cover more distance on the weekends, especially where skiers and snowmobilers travel. They are not used to this energy expenditure, and it threatens their survival by making them use energy they need to hunt to avoid humans.
Wolverines are not the only animals that evade humans. Solomon goes on to tell us about the work of Professor Rick Knight of Colorado State University. Professor Knight studies songbirds around the Rockies, and has noticed dead zones 100 meters on each side of trails. No bird nests near trails or anywhere where frequent human activity occurs.
These startling conclusions came as a bit of a shock to me. Obviously human interaction with nature can be negative, but it is hard to come to terms with the idea that our mere presence in nature can hurt it. 99% of conserved land in the United States allows some form of recreation, but it now seems that this may be hurting the animals that live in these areas. Perhaps we need to cut back on visiting the outdoors to let them recover. I have not found any studies about the Adirondacks similar to the ones done out west. I am confident given the multitude of these findings that man is having a similar impact in the Adirondacks. Perhaps if we focus on the quality of visits to our favorite natural settings rather than quantity, we can preserve these area’s denizens. If you want to read Christopher Solomon’s article, it is in the link below.



Sources:
Solomon, Christopher. "Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again." New York Times 15 Feb. 2014. New York Times. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.


3 comments:

  1. Although I try not to post on the blog, I can't help myself. Check out this story on Yellowstone:

    Moose use roads as a defence against bears

    http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071010/full/news.2007.155.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fragmentation plays a huge role in shaping current ecosystem structure. What we may see as pristine park land, with just a few roads cutting through and trailheads scattered about, is actually directly altered by humans. Clearings created by roads not only increase wind impact on fringes of the forest, but also allow more sunlight to reach the ground. Different species are drawn to this newly exposed area than before, and as shrubby plants move in, so do a new population of animals. Fragmentation causes the ecosystem to shift around it, and affects predator-prey interactions across the board.

    I think some areas in the Adirondacks are too fragmented to support native species, and that some sparsely-traveled forest roads should be abandoned in order to mend the region back together. Hiking trails could be established in the roads' place, so both humans and nature can benefit from a balanced ecosystem. Do you think the Adirondacks suffer from a fragmentation problem? If so, do you think anything should be done to fix it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am not sure how to fix the Adirondacks fragmentation problem, but I do question the point made "99% of protected land allows for recreation on it but now that seems too lenient." I agree that human technology has caused an increasingly and often negative impact on the land. However, comments like these make me wonder what are consequences of thinking of humans as seperate from nature?

    ReplyDelete