“When we try to pick out something by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.” John Muir
Trails, like the ecology of the natural world, are connected. That’s what trails do: they connect places. Wildlife trails connect bedding places with watering or breeding places. Humans first used trails to connect with wildlife places, then to connect back to the dinner place. Trails, by their nature, follow the most efficient way to get someplace, looping into other trails, connecting among themselves, and threading the landscape.
Wildlife trails are quiet travelways, dynamic and changing, often disappearing then reforming. They are benign. Human trails usually become distinct and more permanent with intensity of use and purpose of destination. Our trails have complemented our evolution from two-legged tromping to 18-wheel interstate transportation of goods and services. Trails lead from one civilized point to another, imposing a civilizing effect on wilderness, which by all rights and by definition, is the antithesis of civilization. Human trails are not always benign.
Our vast western public lands require trails to cover great distances, to accomplish more efficient loops, and to serve a hierarchy of uses. Trails often develop from simple foot access trails into vehicle trails. This hierarchy complicates our understanding of the effects of trails on our natural environment. One person quietly walking on a single-track has less effect on wildlife than a person walking with a dog. A horseback rider has another effect, a mountain biker yet a different effect, and a motorcycle or all-terrain-vehicle still another.
Intensified human use of trails often precludes wildlife use of areas proximate to the trail. When animals exhibit “aversion behavior,” they are responding to the civilizing influence of trails: They are staying away from them. Studies show many birds avoid heavily frequented trails. Radio monitors show increased heartbeats in elk as humans pass nearby on a trail. Animals learn that trails often convey humans, and humans, by and large, are dangerous to wildlife.
Many species such as ever-diminishing populations of amphibians and many small mammals, don’t simply avoid trails, they flat-out won’t cross them. If animals will not cross trails to breed, they cannot successfully continue the evolutionary course mandated for them by nature.
Human trails create impacts on wildlife habitat, as well as on wildlife itself. We humans don’t like public trails leading through our front yards or living rooms, and wild animals respond similarly.
Trails fragment large blocks of uninterrupted habitat creating biogeographic islands. The boundaries of these are the trails themselves, and are avoided by apprehensive wildlife. Trails create edges of habitat on either side where adventive non-native or exotic organisms usurp energy and nutrients needed by native organisms. Hiking boots, pets, horses, and bicycle and vehicle tires transport and deposit exotic seeds into the existing ecosystem. As exotics proliferate, they penetrate from trail edges into interior habitat, unfairly competing with native species.
It is important to remember that we humans and our trail recreation needs are part of the ecosystem too. However, uses of existing trails and consideration of new trail construction are evaluated with a built-in anthropocentric bias. Should a trail be designated exclusively for hiking, or should its uses include motorized or other vehicular travel? Should a trail be allowed to dead-end somewhere, or should it be extended to create a loop? Is a trail important for getting someplace, or does it exist solely for recreation? Once we begin to use a place, we adapt it to almost exclusively human use, and under political and customary auspices, we continue to use it.
Trail construction and use should be considered from a biocentric point of view, specifically including humans as part, but only part, of the equation. Instead of continually expanding our influence into wild habitat before we know as many consequences as possible, we should exercise conservative restraint. For too long we have thought in terms of how our actions can hurt or benefit humans, with little thought to what effect we have on other inhabitants of our Earth. That thinking has led us to the extreme pass in which we now find ourselves.
Humans generally resent being granted no more consideration than our animal relatives, and that is an arrogant paradigm that must change. Thought and actions that don’t address and foster that change are part of the environmental problem and beg no solutions. From a biocentric point of view, there is but one constituency.
Trails, like the ecology of the natural world, are connected. That’s what trails do: they connect places. Wildlife trails connect bedding places with watering or breeding places. Humans first used trails to connect with wildlife places, then to connect back to the dinner place. Trails, by their nature, follow the most efficient way to get someplace, looping into other trails, connecting among themselves, and threading the landscape.
Wildlife trails are quiet travelways, dynamic and changing, often disappearing then reforming. They are benign. Human trails usually become distinct and more permanent with intensity of use and purpose of destination. Our trails have complemented our evolution from two-legged tromping to 18-wheel interstate transportation of goods and services. Trails lead from one civilized point to another, imposing a civilizing effect on wilderness, which by all rights and by definition, is the antithesis of civilization. Human trails are not always benign.
Our vast western public lands require trails to cover great distances, to accomplish more efficient loops, and to serve a hierarchy of uses. Trails often develop from simple foot access trails into vehicle trails. This hierarchy complicates our understanding of the effects of trails on our natural environment. One person quietly walking on a single-track has less effect on wildlife than a person walking with a dog. A horseback rider has another effect, a mountain biker yet a different effect, and a motorcycle or all-terrain-vehicle still another.
Intensified human use of trails often precludes wildlife use of areas proximate to the trail. When animals exhibit “aversion behavior,” they are responding to the civilizing influence of trails: They are staying away from them. Studies show many birds avoid heavily frequented trails. Radio monitors show increased heartbeats in elk as humans pass nearby on a trail. Animals learn that trails often convey humans, and humans, by and large, are dangerous to wildlife.
Many species such as ever-diminishing populations of amphibians and many small mammals, don’t simply avoid trails, they flat-out won’t cross them. If animals will not cross trails to breed, they cannot successfully continue the evolutionary course mandated for them by nature.
Human trails create impacts on wildlife habitat, as well as on wildlife itself. We humans don’t like public trails leading through our front yards or living rooms, and wild animals respond similarly.
Trails fragment large blocks of uninterrupted habitat creating biogeographic islands. The boundaries of these are the trails themselves, and are avoided by apprehensive wildlife. Trails create edges of habitat on either side where adventive non-native or exotic organisms usurp energy and nutrients needed by native organisms. Hiking boots, pets, horses, and bicycle and vehicle tires transport and deposit exotic seeds into the existing ecosystem. As exotics proliferate, they penetrate from trail edges into interior habitat, unfairly competing with native species.
It is important to remember that we humans and our trail recreation needs are part of the ecosystem too. However, uses of existing trails and consideration of new trail construction are evaluated with a built-in anthropocentric bias. Should a trail be designated exclusively for hiking, or should its uses include motorized or other vehicular travel? Should a trail be allowed to dead-end somewhere, or should it be extended to create a loop? Is a trail important for getting someplace, or does it exist solely for recreation? Once we begin to use a place, we adapt it to almost exclusively human use, and under political and customary auspices, we continue to use it.
Trail construction and use should be considered from a biocentric point of view, specifically including humans as part, but only part, of the equation. Instead of continually expanding our influence into wild habitat before we know as many consequences as possible, we should exercise conservative restraint. For too long we have thought in terms of how our actions can hurt or benefit humans, with little thought to what effect we have on other inhabitants of our Earth. That thinking has led us to the extreme pass in which we now find ourselves.
Humans generally resent being granted no more consideration than our animal relatives, and that is an arrogant paradigm that must change. Thought and actions that don’t address and foster that change are part of the environmental problem and beg no solutions. From a biocentric point of view, there is but one constituency.
No comments:
Post a Comment