The Bay Trail -- A Disaster for Wildlife

The Bay Trail -- A Disaster for Wildlife
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D., wildlife activist
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
September 21, 2003

No wild animal nor plant was invited to any of the public
hearings on plans for the Bay Trail. They are never invited to any
public hearing. Humans frame the discussion, carry it out, and make
the decisions. Even though it is very easy to do, no one takes the
point of view of the wildlife. In this version of "The Emperor's New
Clothes", not even a child notices that the Emperor is buck naked.

The results are predictable: yet another park development for
pleasuring humans. It's a fallacy as old as the Bible: if a piece of
land is not being used by humans, it is going to waste. Roderick Nash,
in Wilderness and the American Mind, described the long evolution
toward the idea of wilderness, where wildlife take priority. But
recently we have regressed, and wilderness is now considered primarily
a human playground.

Most species don't like having us around. There are, of course
a few, like the mosquito, that like us, and a few others that are
willing to tolerate us -- up to a point. But, as every child learns
when he or she tries to get close to an animal, it invariably runs
away. A good summary of research on the impacts of human presence on
wildlife, for example, is Wildlife and Recreationists (Knight and
Gutzwiller, eds.): "Traditionally, observing, feeding, and
photographing wildlife were considered to be 'nonconsumptive'
activities because removal of animals from their natural habitats did
not occur.... nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered
relatively benign in terms of its effects on wildlife; today, however,
there is a growing recognition that wildlife-viewing recreation can
have serious negative impacts on wildlife" (p. 257).

So what does the Bay Trail attempt to do? Take 450 miles of
shoreline wildlife habitat and make it more accessible to people!
Humans are suckers for people who tell them what they want to hear,
and the Bay Trail lobbyists tell us that our presence won't negatively
impact the wildlife. (But just to be sure, "studies" will be done.)
Not only will everyone be allowed closer than ever to a lot more
habitat, but long-distance modes of transportation such as roller
blades and bicycles will be accommodated, letting people impact even
more wildlife.

In order to facilitate all these hordes of people, veritable
human "freeways" 8-10 feet wide will be constructed, requiring the
clearing of up to 16 feet of right-of-way (see
http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea_info/...railplan.html)! In some
cases, habitat has been destroyed to build these trails, and in other
cases, new pavement has been laid.

The worst excesses (especially paving!) are due to the desire
to accommodate vehicles, such as skateboards, roller blades, and
bicycles -- with the excuse that there are "user groups" that need to
be accommodated. Actually, they are all human, and have the same needs
as everyone else -- which do not include travelling on wheeled
vehicles. Only the disabled can truly be said to have such a need, and
they can be accommodated on much simpler and narrower trails.

Anyone who wants to bicycle has hundreds of miles of paved
roads on which they can do so. If motor vehicles are a problem, then
they should be eliminated. But "solving" that problem by destroying
more wildlife habitat is not acceptable. Wildlife have already lost
some 95% of their habitat, and can't afford to lose any more. Instead
of creating islands of habitat in a sea of humanity, we should be
doing just the opposite: providing continuous wildlife travel
corridors linking adequate wildlife preserves (as described in Saving
Nature's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity, by Reed Noss
and Allen Cooperrider, and as embodied in The Wildlands Project).

It's obvious that we need to experience nature in order to
appreciate it. But it's equally obvious that we need to stay out of
it, if it is to survive. It is the latter that is most often ignored.
The goals of the Bay Trail are good (protection and respect for
nature), but they can be had without the trail!

References:

Boyle, Stephen A. and Fred B. Samson, Nonconsumptive Outdoor
Recreation: An Annotated Bibliography of Human-Wildlife Interactions.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service Special Scientific Report -- Wildlife No. 252, 1983.

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and
Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House,
1981.

Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books,
1991.

Grumbine, R. Edward, Ghost Bears. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1992.

Hammitt, William E. and David N. Cole, Wildland Recreation -- Ecology
and Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.

Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.

Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London, c.1997.

Life on the Edge. A Guide to California's Endangered Natural
Resources: Wildlife. Santa Cruz, California: BioSystem Books, 1994.

Myers, Norman, ed., Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Garden City,
NY: Anchor Books, 1984.

Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing Roads",
Earth First!

Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
California, 1994.

Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights
for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc.,
1973.

Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially
"Wildlife and the Ecocity" and "Rethinking the Impacts of Recreation".

Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the
Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.

Weiner, Douglas R., A Little Corner of Freedom. Russian Nature
Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1999.

"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic
Society, 1994.

Wilson, Edward O., The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1992.
===
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:
The Bay Trail

Here's more information about the Bay Trail, including maps. A bit OT
for AMB, since it's almost entirely paved, but it really is quite the
trail and is great for cycling.

http://baytrail.abag.ca.gov/

Good recreation, including mountain biking, exists on the Bay Area Ridge
Trail, as well:

http://www.ridgetrail.org/

Mike can even enjoy the stretch through Huckleberry Preserve which is
off-limits to bikes. If he doesn't mind disturbing the wildlife there,
that is.

Most species don't like having us around. There are, of course a few,
like the mosquito, that like us

What about puppies?

-Beej

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 06:33:43 +0000 (UTC), Beej Jorgensen
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
The Bay Trail

Here's more information about the Bay Trail, including maps. A bit OT
for AMB, since it's almost entirely paved,

Thanks to mountain bikers not opposing the Bay Trail. But riding on
pavement is the ONLY responsible way to mountain bike.

but it really is quite the
trail and is great for cycling.

http://baytrail.abag.ca.gov/

Good recreation, including mountain biking, exists on the Bay Area Ridge
Trail, as well:

http://www.ridgetrail.org/

Mike can even enjoy the stretch through Huckleberry Preserve which is
off-limits to bikes. If he doesn't mind disturbing the wildlife there,
that is.

Most species don't like having us around. There are, of course a few,
like the mosquito, that like us

What about puppies?

They are a domesticated species, not wildlife.

-Beej
===
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

It's obvious that we need to experience nature in order to
appreciate it. But it's equally obvious that we need to stay out of
it, if it is to survive.

No, Mike, it is not obvious, nor is it true. While there are species
that have little tolerance for human contact, i.e. Florida Panther,
most can survive quite nicely with some human contact. Most animals
can, and have, learned to tolerate human contact and thrive. They are
not domesticated and still scurry away if we get to close. They do
that with predators as they always have, but that contact with
predators did not kill them off. Contact wih humans is no less
deadly.

While growing up in Kentucky I never saw deer or wild turkeys on our
farm, even though the food and cover were plentiful. As a young man,
I started seeing them, but they spooked easily and we only caught
fleeting glimpses of them. Now, when you go to that farm, deer and
turkeys are everywhere and do not take flight unless we get very close
to them.

I have started an inventory of the wildlife that has shared my
suburban yard in the last few years:
whitetail deer
rabbit
squirrel
mole
armadillo
red fox
three different varieties of woodpecker
tufted titmice
cardinals
Carolina chickadees
rose-breated grosbeak
pine siskins
nuthatches
assorted warblers
house finches
goldfinches
great crested flycatcher
bluebirds
bluejays
black snakes
oak snakes
garter snakes
anoles

I trust what I see happening in nature, not what you tell me is
happening. Put the books down and get outside, Mike.

Dick Durbin
Tallahassee

...

...

...

On 25 Mar 2007 08:37:37 -0700, "Olebiker" wrote:

It's obvious that we need to experience nature in order to
appreciate it. But it's equally obvious that we need to stay out of
it, if it is to survive.

No, Mike, it is not obvious, nor is it true. While there are species
that have little tolerance for human contact, i.e. Florida Panther,
most can survive quite nicely with some human contact. Most animals
can, and have, learned to tolerate human contact and thrive.

You are LYING. Wildlife is NOT "thriving" about a quarter of the
world's wildlife are in danger of extinction. That is not what I would
call "thriving".

They are
not domesticated and still scurry away if we get to close. They do
that with predators as they always have, but that contact with
predators did not kill them off.

Yes, itr does. What do you think a predator is, anyway?!

Contact wih humans is no less
deadly.

While growing up in Kentucky I never saw deer or wild turkeys on our
farm, even though the food and cover were plentiful. As a young man,
I started seeing them, but they spooked easily and we only caught
fleeting glimpses of them. Now, when you go to that farm, deer and
turkeys are everywhere and do not take flight unless we get very close
to them.

And that proves? NOTHING. That two species have a certain amount of
tolerance for humans. That doesn't mean that they are benefitting from
that contact.

I have started an inventory of the wildlife that has shared my
suburban yard in the last few years:
whitetail deer
rabbit
squirrel
mole
armadillo
red fox
three different varieties of woodpecker
tufted titmice
cardinals
Carolina chickadees
rose-breated grosbeak
pine siskins
nuthatches
assorted warblers
house finches
goldfinches
great crested flycatcher
bluebirds
bluejays
black snakes
oak snakes
garter snakes
anoles

I trust what I see happening in nature,

You haven't proved that any of those species benefit from the presence
of humans.

not what you tell me is
happening. Put the books down and get outside, Mike.

Anecdotal evidence is not science. REAL biologists acknowledge the
negative impact that the presence of humans has (read the books I
referenced).

Dick Durbin
Tallahassee

===
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 Mar 25, 9:41 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
You are LYING. Wildlife is NOT "thriving" about a quarter of the
world's wildlife are in danger of extinction. That is not what I would
call "thriving".

They are not endangered simply due to contact with humans.

They are
not domesticated and still scurry away if we get to close. They do
that with predators as they always have, but that contact with
predators did not kill them off.

Yes, itr does. What do you think a predator is, anyway?!
Contact with humans is no lessdeadly.

We're talking about whole species here, Mike, not individual animals.
Individual animals have always been killed by predators without entire
species being killed off.

While growing up in Kentucky I never saw deer or wild turkeys on our
farm, even though the food and cover were plentiful. As a young man,
I started seeing them, but they spooked easily and we only caught
fleeting glimpses of them. Now, when you go to that farm, deer and
turkeys are everywhere and do not take flight unless we get very close
to them.

And that proves? NOTHING. That two species have a certain amount of
tolerance for humans. That doesn't mean that they are benefitting from
that contact.

Whether our presence is beneficial to them or not is not what we are
discussing here. What we are talking about is whether our presence
necessarily endangers whole species.

I trust what I see happening in nature,

You haven't proved that any of those species benefit from the presence
of humans.

You are trying to reframe the discussion into whether our presence is
beneficial to wildlife.

not what you tell me is

happening. Put the books down and get outside, Mike.
Anecdotal evidence is not science. REAL biologists acknowledge the
negative impact that the presence of humans has (read the books I
referenced).

Over the years I have checked many of the books you reference,
especially your bible, "Wildlife and Recreationists." I have never
found any scientific evidence in any of those books supporting your
claim that wildlife need territory off limits to humans.