The Bay Trail -- A Disaster for Wildlife

On Tue, 08 May 2007 19:03:11 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Bruce Jensen" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 8, 9:12 am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"Bruce Jensen" wrote in message

Mike, I think that may be his point. It is not essential that people
be totally excluded for the animal population to thrive. Occasional
closures to protect sensitive species at sensitive times? Yes.
Limitations on types of trail use? Yes. Total closure? No -
Unnecessary and counterproductive.

Bruce Jensen

I would like to point out the Anza Borrego Desert State Park, Coyote
Canyon
Trail, as an example of what Bruce said. Coyote Canyon is the route that
was
used by the early stage coaches and pony express, etc., to come west
from
St. Louis. The Mormon Army used it to battle the Mexicans in the early
times
of California. It is a historic route and is/was listed as being
protected
by the state.

The route was closed seasonally in the early '90s in an attempt to
protect
drinking water supplies for the big horn sheep that live in the area.
After
several years of management this way, the trail was closed permanently in
the late '90s. Now, ten years later, the route is over grown and all but
impassable. Mountain lions hide in the tall brush at the water's edge and
attack the lambs as they get a drink.

I can't tell exactly if you agree of disagree with my post, but in any
case I find this unfortunate - not because the lions are getting sheep
to eat at watering holes, which is almost certainly a very natural
occurrence - but that the bighorns are endangered and we would rather
have lions getting their sustenance elsewhere.



I agree with you. Human interaction isn't in itself a problem.

Human presence as a permanant fixture is an interaction that is problematic
for the animals living there, maybe. I'll give Mike the benefit of the doubt
there and agree with him on the point. Having said that, there are ample
examples of permanant human settlements that are of no discernable impact on
the animals, and there are ample examples of where animals followed humans
into a habitat to reside there because human activity has attracted them.

Finding one species that can survive around humans (e.g. raccoons) is
beside the point, and doesn't say anything about the vast majority of
wildlife who are harmed by our presence, driving them away from the
resources that they need. E.g. migrating birds, if they don't get
enough food at the critical time, can easily perish. Humans can
prevent them from getting adequate stores of food by the deadline.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 May 2007 19:03:11 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Bruce Jensen" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 8, 9:12 am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"Bruce Jensen" wrote in message

Mike, I think that may be his point. It is not essential that people
be totally excluded for the animal population to thrive. Occasional
closures to protect sensitive species at sensitive times? Yes.
Limitations on types of trail use? Yes. Total closure? No -
Unnecessary and counterproductive.

Bruce Jensen

I would like to point out the Anza Borrego Desert State Park, Coyote
Canyon
Trail, as an example of what Bruce said. Coyote Canyon is the route
that
was
used by the early stage coaches and pony express, etc., to come west
from
St. Louis. The Mormon Army used it to battle the Mexicans in the early
times
of California. It is a historic route and is/was listed as being
protected
by the state.

The route was closed seasonally in the early '90s in an attempt to
protect
drinking water supplies for the big horn sheep that live in the area.
After
several years of management this way, the trail was closed permanently
in
the late '90s. Now, ten years later, the route is over grown and all
but
impassable. Mountain lions hide in the tall brush at the water's edge
and
attack the lambs as they get a drink.

I can't tell exactly if you agree of disagree with my post, but in any
case I find this unfortunate - not because the lions are getting sheep
to eat at watering holes, which is almost certainly a very natural
occurrence - but that the bighorns are endangered and we would rather
have lions getting their sustenance elsewhere.



I agree with you. Human interaction isn't in itself a problem.

Human presence as a permanant fixture is an interaction that is
problematic
for the animals living there, maybe. I'll give Mike the benefit of the
doubt
there and agree with him on the point. Having said that, there are ample
examples of permanant human settlements that are of no discernable impact
on
the animals, and there are ample examples of where animals followed humans
into a habitat to reside there because human activity has attracted them.

Finding one species that can survive around humans (e.g. raccoons) is
beside the point, and doesn't say anything about the vast majority of
wildlife who are harmed by our presence, driving them away from the
resources that they need. E.g. migrating birds, if they don't get
enough food at the critical time, can easily perish. Humans can
prevent them from getting adequate stores of food by the deadline.



Migrating birds is a red herring. Hunters have been sitting on the shore of
the lake or pond for centuries picking off the birds, yet they keep coming
back time and time again.

You and I are talking about different kinds of human encounters. I'm saying
that a person passing by will not present a permanant disruption, you are
saying that humans staying do cause a permanant disruption. To the extent
that humans move in and stay or pass so frequently to present a constant
presence, I have room to agree with your position on a conditional basis.
But there is no condition where humans passing by in small numbers and
infrequently cause a disruption to wildlife.

On Wed, 09 May 2007 01:40:46 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 08 May 2007 19:03:11 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:


"Bruce Jensen" wrote in message
roups.com...
On May 8, 9:12 am, "Jeff Strickland" wrote:
"Bruce Jensen" wrote in message

Mike, I think that may be his point. It is not essential that people
be totally excluded for the animal population to thrive. Occasional
closures to protect sensitive species at sensitive times? Yes.
Limitations on types of trail use? Yes. Total closure? No -
Unnecessary and counterproductive.

Bruce Jensen

I would like to point out the Anza Borrego Desert State Park, Coyote
Canyon
Trail, as an example of what Bruce said. Coyote Canyon is the route
that
was
used by the early stage coaches and pony express, etc., to come west
from
St. Louis. The Mormon Army used it to battle the Mexicans in the early
times
of California. It is a historic route and is/was listed as being
protected
by the state.

The route was closed seasonally in the early '90s in an attempt to
protect
drinking water supplies for the big horn sheep that live in the area.
After
several years of management this way, the trail was closed permanently
in
the late '90s. Now, ten years later, the route is over grown and all
but
impassable. Mountain lions hide in the tall brush at the water's edge
and
attack the lambs as they get a drink.

I can't tell exactly if you agree of disagree with my post, but in any
case I find this unfortunate - not because the lions are getting sheep
to eat at watering holes, which is almost certainly a very natural
occurrence - but that the bighorns are endangered and we would rather
have lions getting their sustenance elsewhere.



I agree with you. Human interaction isn't in itself a problem.

Human presence as a permanant fixture is an interaction that is
problematic
for the animals living there, maybe. I'll give Mike the benefit of the
doubt
there and agree with him on the point. Having said that, there are ample
examples of permanant human settlements that are of no discernable impact
on
the animals, and there are ample examples of where animals followed humans
into a habitat to reside there because human activity has attracted them.

Finding one species that can survive around humans (e.g. raccoons) is
beside the point, and doesn't say anything about the vast majority of
wildlife who are harmed by our presence, driving them away from the
resources that they need. E.g. migrating birds, if they don't get
enough food at the critical time, can easily perish. Humans can
prevent them from getting adequate stores of food by the deadline.



Migrating birds is a red herring. Hunters have been sitting on the shore of
the lake or pond for centuries picking off the birds, yet they keep coming
back time and time again.

Not the dead ones!

You and I are talking about different kinds of human encounters. I'm saying
that a person passing by will not present a permanant disruption, you are
saying that humans staying do cause a permanant disruption. To the extent
that humans move in and stay or pass so frequently to present a constant
presence, I have room to agree with your position on a conditional basis.
But there is no condition where humans passing by in small numbers and
infrequently cause a disruption to wildlife.

You need to study more. There are many cases where the loss is
significant. In the desert, food and water are scarce, so it's easier
to understand the impact of a human passing by. You don't need to take
my word for it. It's described in research, e.g. in _Wildlife and
Recreationists_.
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On May 8, 6:16 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 8 May 2007 08:43:42 -0700, Bruce Jensen wrote

The herds of Elk, Mule deer, and in the high country Moose are
thriving. There are bear, beaver, coyote and a HUGE list of other
wild life that is thriving. I see it every day.

If you see it, then the land isn't closed to humans, is it?

Mike, I think that may be his point. It is not essential that people
be totally excluded for the animal population to thrive. Occasional
closures to protect sensitive species at sensitive times? Yes.
Limitations on types of trail use? Yes. Total closure? No -
Unnecessary and counterproductive.

According to humans -- not an unbiased source on this topic.

You obviously avoided the key point and responded with a go-nowhere
statement, so I will leave it here.

BJ

On May 8, 6:22 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

The Papouchis study on mountain biking (seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7) said that forcing the sheep to
move, due to being disturbed by recreationists, costs them energy and
causes significant harm to their survival.

I believe that, in places such as the desert, this is likely to be
true. I think it is far more likely with things like ORVs and
bicycles than with more passive travelers.

BJ

On 9 May 2007 10:56:41 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 8, 6:22 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

The Papouchis study on mountain biking (seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7) said that forcing the sheep to
move, due to being disturbed by recreationists, costs them energy and
causes significant harm to their survival.

I believe that, in places such as the desert, this is likely to be
true. I think it is far more likely with things like ORVs and
bicycles than with more passive travelers.

Unfortunately, Papouchi vitiated his study by asking (only) the
hikers to approach the sheep. But, yes, they forced the sheep to move.
However, the sheep NOTICED the bikers from farther away than they
noticed the hikers, indicating that, yes, they probably would have a
greater impact.

BJ
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On May 9, 5:25 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 9 May 2007 10:56:41 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 8, 6:22 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

The Papouchis study on mountain biking (seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7) said that forcing the sheep to
move, due to being disturbed by recreationists, costs them energy and
causes significant harm to their survival.

I believe that, in places such as the desert, this is likely to be
true. I think it is far more likely with things like ORVs and
bicycles than with more passive travelers.

Unfortunately, Papouchi vitiated his study by asking (only) the
hikers to approach the sheep. But, yes, they forced the sheep to move.
However, the sheep NOTICED the bikers from farther away than they
noticed the hikers, indicating that, yes, they probably would have a
greater impact.

Was this study conducted in the desert, or some other location?

Was it in an area of normally moderate or higher human use?

I will read your link for more detail.

BJ

On 10 May 2007 07:43:27 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 9, 5:25 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 9 May 2007 10:56:41 -0700, Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On May 8, 6:22 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

The Papouchis study on mountain biking (seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7) said that forcing the sheep to
move, due to being disturbed by recreationists, costs them energy and
causes significant harm to their survival.

I believe that, in places such as the desert, this is likely to be
true. I think it is far more likely with things like ORVs and
bicycles than with more passive travelers.

Unfortunately, Papouchi vitiated his study by asking (only) the
hikers to approach the sheep. But, yes, they forced the sheep to move.
However, the sheep NOTICED the bikers from farther away than they
noticed the hikers, indicating that, yes, they probably would have a
greater impact.

Was this study conducted in the desert, or some other location?

Desert: Canyonlands NP.

Was it in an area of normally moderate or higher human use?

That's relative. Low, I guess, off the trail.

I will read your link for more detail.

BJ
--
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On May 10, 8:03 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 10 May 2007 07:43:27 -0700, Bruce Jensen

Was this study conducted in the desert, or some other location?

Desert: Canyonlands NP.

Was it in an area of normally moderate or higher human use?

That's relative. Low, I guess, off the trail.

Fair enough - compared to many places, this would almost certainly
qualify as low use.

The reason I ask is because, in places where humans are common and
sheep are otherwise protected (like NPs), they come to regard humans
as trees with semi-useless legs - in other words, they ignore them.

Except, of course, on Mt. Washburn in Yellowstone, where they are
likely to come up and search your pockets for granola bars :-(

Bruce Jensen