The Bay Trail -- A Disaster for Wildlife

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