Veganwolf.com
A Deeper Ecology of Trails
High Country Citizens' Alliance (Crested
Butte, Colorado)
http://www.hccaonline.org/page.cfm?pageid=2070
A Deeper
Ecology of Trails
By Dennis Hall
"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,
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 a
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
which are avoided by
apprehensive wildlife. Trails create edges of habitat
on either side
where non-native or exotic organisms usurp energy and
nutrients
needed by native organisms. Exotic seeds are transported into the
existing ecosystem by the trail, carried and deposited by hiking
boots,
pets, horses, and bicycle and vehicle tires. As exotics
proliferate, they
penetrate from trail edges into interior habitat,
unfairly competing with
native species.
It is important to remember that humans, and our trail
recreation
needs, are part of the ecosystem, too. But 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 allowed 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, for
whatever reasons and
under whatever auspices--political or customary--we
generally
continue to do so.
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 of the consequences as
possible,
we should exercise conservative restraint. This perspective is
apolitical and is not a popularity contest. 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 the 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.
Dennis Hall is the former president of
High Country Citizens'
Alliance, where he initiated and coordinated HCCA's
Gunnison Basin
Biodiversity Project. He writes for the Crested Butte
Chronicle and
Pilot.
|
|
