Leaving only footsteps - think again: 100 meter 'death zone' on either side of trails

Thanks HikerBrian, but let me pose this. Do you believe that trails, huts, hiker traffic, litter, dogs, campfires, leantos, don't impact where animals live and breed and these factors don't have an adverse impact on them? If we (all of us here) were on some different type of forum, not hiking - might we be saying that it would be a good idea to study this further? Or don't we really want to go there because of the potential impact to 'our' sport?

I shared the NYT article with fellow directors of a municipal land trust. One, who has been in the "business" a lot longer than me, replied

... trails are wonderful, but should definitely be limited, and not put in sensitive wildlife areas. For instance, when the E.Boston Camps Masterplan Committee was meeting, I fought long and hard to prevent a trail from being built along Keyes Brook in East Boston Camps. That's where all the wildlife is, because of so many walkers (with dogs) on the Stony Brook side. So far, there is no trail along Keyes Brook, thankfully.

Click to expand...

So, the sentiments in the article have already informed local decisions on trail development.

nietzschescat said:

The animals use the hiking trails too. I've followed fox and coyote tracks up many mountains in the Catskills. I like to look for bird nests and you can find a lot of nests along the trails. I've seen little flocks of birds come very close to check us out in the winter. Obviously our ridiculous consumption of resources impacts every other living thing on this planet, but it's hard to see walking in the woods in a negative way especially since our love for these places is what is going to save them.

Click to expand...

I agree. I sort of feel that way about hunting too. I am not hunter, but I recognize hunting groups are among the largest supporters of preserving wild places and loss of habitat is the greatest threat to wildlife.

This topic reminds of the deer the frequented by backyard when I lived in the Champlain islands. If I was on foot a couple of hundred feet away they were on high alert, ready to bolt, and sometimes they did. Yet I could ride my riding mower within a few feet of them and they seemed totally at ease. Not sure what goes through the mind of a deer, perhaps it is becasue they know deer hunters never hunt on riding mowers ? Perhaps there should be wild areas that should only be accessible by riding mowers ? Further research required to determine whether the blade needs to be up or down. In general it seem to me wildlife is more skiddish when I am on foot. Moose, deer seem to be less bothered by my presence when I am in a canoe or kayak then on foot.

Excellent point, but when we impact the habitat, we impact the residents.

I look at this in a similar way to how I look at zoos.

I don't like seeing animals in captivity, out of their element, but at places like Busch Gardens, young and old alike see the beauty and spirit of animals that they in some cases work very hard to preserve and protect. So I see zoos as a small negative that can result in large positive. A few gorillas in captivity can result in catalyzing the next Jane Goodall.

Similarly, hikers are a large group of people who tend to work to preserve the environment. Although our actions on trails are detrimental to the local ecology, the environmental good that comes from exposure to the natural environment IMO far outpaces the bad. Speaking for myself, I do far more to preserve earth's natural systems than I do to harm them and at least in my case, time on hiking trails drives that passion. That said, it's important to minimize our impacts as we can.

I fully support closing some areas off where there is known irreparable impact to wildlife. Example is the Plum Island shore in MA is closed seasonally to protect nesting birds.There is an area near Sand Bar State park in Vermont that is closed off to the public, even paddlers, again because it is known nesting birds will be severly impacted by any human presence. I think some cliffs are closed off to climbers for similar reasons. A large tract of land in the far north of Rocky Mt NP gets closed off for sheep mating season, if I recall. There is a 1.7 mile trail through marshes in South Hero, VT that is not closed off, but Vermont F&W will not allow improvements to the trail through there for fear the increase in traffic the improvements would attract would have a severe negative impact in the wild life there. I think we need to consider each area case by case. I fear if closed off too much the political will to preserve wild spaces at all would erode. I see it as a balancing act. Truly debatable what "balance" is.

jrbren said:

This topic reminds of the deer the frequented by backyard when I lived in the Champlain islands. If I was on foot a couple of hundred feet away they were on high alert, ready to bolt, and sometimes they did. Yet I could ride my riding mower within a few feet of them and they seemed totally at ease. Not sure what goes through the mind of a deer....In general it seem to me wildlife is more skiddish when I am on foot. Moose, deer seem to be less bothered by my presence when I am in a canoe or kayak then on foot.

Click to expand...

Deer are funny that way. Very seldom can you just walk up to one, although I did it a couple of times.

Once, when trail running in a pine grove, I came within 40 ft of two deer browsing by a stone wall. They sensed me, but I stayed motionless and they eventually returned to feeding.

Bushwhacking uphill in NW CT on a very windy day once, I got within 15ft of a deer behind some rocks. He popped his head up and we both froze, until I flinched and he bolted. Amazing to see.

By far the best deer encounter I've had was while running in Sleeping Giant State Park, in the winter maybe ten yrs ago. I was in the eastern side of the park, less traveled, in about a foot of snow. I was going off-trail to a spot I frequent that has a couple trees perfect for chin-ups and a rock flat enough for push-ups. But as I approached, I could see a deer right where I needed to go. I watched for a moment, but eventually decided to make for the tree. The deer was completely unphazed as I walked within 20ft of it and did a set of chin-ups. At this point, the deer was directly between me and the rock I sought. I was completely amazed now, and figured I should see just how close I could get before it bugged out. I was able to get within 6 feet of it, while it munched on blueberry shrubs. I reached out to see if I could pet it, and that's when it decided I was in its space, and it sauntered off. Awesome. Too bad I didn't have an iPhone back then.

I have spent a lot of my life in the backcountry. I have always been fascinated by its wild creatures and being a soloist have seen many, that groups never get to see. We certainly impact the wilds we explore, but if we tread lightly, I think we fit in just fine and can be accepted by the wildlife. If I come across certain animals and it looks like I might be a problem, I try and correct it. Example, I came across a very small moose in the trail, Me and my dog made a fairly large bushwack to avoid " distressing'' the young moose for fear of chasing him to far from his mom, did it matter? I don't know, but it was worth it to try. As far as closing lands for the sake of animals, I would be hesitant on that, except when it directly effects the reproduction of offspring concerning semi endangered species. For instance, back in my rock climbing days, I ran into more then one closure due to Falcons nesting. I had zero issues with this step to protect such a beautiful bird, there are plenty of cliffs for me as well. We are frankly part of the cycle of life once we set foot into the backcountry. Don't get me wrong, its my woods as much as thiers, I belong there every bit as they do. That being said, I will do my best to fit in in a way that doesn't effect the balance of the lives out there. We are smarter, we have technology that can tip the scales in our favor, doesn't mean we should abuse it.

Can a "Wilderness Area" still be a wilderness if humans pass through? Is nature still natural once I'm there? I would argue yes on both counts if we behave in ways that are reflective of the very respectful and considerate comments being made here. I do not believe that one's mere presence on a hiking trail creates a negative impact on the lives of the other animals in the neighborhood although one's behavior certainly could have the potential to cause harm.

I once took a boat across a lagoon in Mexico in order to see flamingos. I assumed the guide was imbued with eco-ethics but discovered just in time that I was wrong. I made him stop the boat before we got too close and let him know I was fine seeing them at a distance thru binoculars. He was going to speed right by them to make the flock take flight. That particular behavior would have been very harmful but the presence of birders on the lagoon was not. The eco-tourism itself was a legitimate attempt to provide a way of living for the locals and prevent a cement factory or some other industry being built close by which would have likely displaced the birds entirely. As we approach what, 7 billion? humans on the planet, we have to find ways to coexist because walling off nature won't work.

Your premise that our passing through creates no negative harm directly contradicts the points raised in the articles.

Peakbagr said:

Your premise that our passing through creates no negative harm directly contradicts the points raised in the articles.

Click to expand...

Yes, that accurately reflects my position. Or to put it another way, all animals passing through the territory of other animals impact them in some way but they/we are (need to be) capable of adapting in order to survive. The mourning doves that roost on my balcony are passing through, resting on, often defecating on, "my" territory, but I tolerate that and life goes on.

I share the point of view that Grey J has shared here.

I'm working on a theory, though, that repeated trapping and GPS collaring of theatened wolverines MAY negatively impact their populations.

The impact of a particular species passing through an area inhabited by another/other species is both fleeting and entirely natural. Just because we wear Gore-Tex doesn't mean we are anything but another large mammal in the woods. (when on foot)

A 200 meter corridor negatively impacted by a trail in the WMNF? I don't think so.

Doesn't just impact the WMNF, we have readers from all over. As hard as I try to avoid thinking about it, I believe we're all in a little denial that the sport we love might have negative impact on the natural world around us.

Peakbagr said:

Doesn't just impact the WMNF, we have readers from all over. As hard as I try to avoid thinking about it, I believe we're all in a little denial that the sport we love might have negative impact on the natural world around us.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how we are less entitled to the backcountry as the wildlife is. We belong there too, I mean to be fair when the trail is covered in Moose dung doesn't that impact my experience? I think we by nature separate ourselves from wild animals, why should we?

Peakbagr said:

As hard as I try to avoid thinking about it, I believe we're all in a little denial that the sport we love might have negative impact on the natural world around us.

Click to expand...

I don't care for the term "denial" in this context. Or denier. It's loaded with innuendo that's unfair to all of us as a group. Denial suggests we've been shown conclusive proof that we're harming nature by walking in the woods, and we refuse to accept the fact. That's simply not the case, especially as far as this opinion piece is concerned. It's more likely true that we all are aware of the problem, have a reasonable level of concern, and just don't see it as that much of a problem.

Consider the Butterfly Effect, where a butterfly's wings flapping starts a chain of events eventually leading to a hurricane. Perhaps we should just stay inside and play video games. Or write posts here.

It's vital to weigh all the positive things, the benefits that the hiking community brings to the environment. Consider the state of the White Mountains in the 1800s compared to today. There's a great deal of stewardship and care given, and it should be accounted for in any assessment.

I read somewhere, I think it was in The Resilient Earth (great book) that over 99 percent of species in Earth's history have gone extinct. Something to think about. Life on Earth is precarious, and many species are thriving or fading away by no fault of humankind. Should we be thoughtful? Absolutely. Should we get our shorts in a wad over a walk in the woods? Not from what I've seen.

One more wildlife story. My favorite. This happened shortly before my daughter and I went to see the first Harry Potter movie, and if you're familiar with that series, you'll see the relevance. I was mtn biking through a dense grove of cedar and saw a large bird flash by, to my left. Excited, I sped up on the winding trail and tried to catch a glimpse of it again. After a while, I gave up and stopped in the trail to take a breather and get a drink. After a moment, I turned around, and behind me in a tree, about 12 feet away was a Barred Owl perched on a branch about seven feet off the ground. It did the typical owl behavior, moving its head around, and eventually I was compelled to make small talk with it, telling it what an awesome bird it was. Unforgettable. I eventually left it on its own and took off down the trail. Now, of course the Harry Potter books/movies have plenty of owls, so it made it even more "magical." Stay warm, my friends.

I think the term denial is appropriate. There some good rationalizations given here illustrating irrelevent cases to side step the real question of should we close off areas where wildlife, such as to protect species that are severely impacted by any human presence, should be done. Fortunately it is done in many cases, I gave a few examples earlier.

Were the CT Wood turtles disappearance solely due to impact from hikers or some other stress in their ecosystem? As more invasive species are introduced in environments. saying people just being there as a cause seems simplistic.

While hiking I've come pretty close to deer a few times, either solo or with just one or two others who were quiet at that point. Sometimes it places where few hike, CT has many State parks and trails, some like Bear Mt are often busy, others are seldom used. I've also come quite close to at Harriman right at the top of Bear Mt where there are many people but I was at the top for sunrise, no one else there then. Definitely see more solo than with a group.

Some trails, especially in National Parks are very busy & could see the 100 yard comment being true. Not thinking I'd see a lot of wildlife along the busiest trails in NH or the ADK either. The Van Hovenberg, The White Dot or White Cross up Monadnock or the Tuckerman Ravine trail are not places I'd go to try and see Wildlife but the trails in Evan's Notch, the flatter parts of the Pemi trails (the trails that don't lead to peaks)

Not every area needs a trail either. Where do you draw the line on impact though? I see plenty of deer having impact (literally) with autos on highways, don't see us getting rid of cars or highways anytime soon.

Driver8 said:

It's a New York Times opinion piece - very seldom will you find footnotes and formal citations in such pieces. The author does give a good amount of info naming and referring to the studies. Bet it wouldn't be hard to Google and find them. With respect, this is not a fair complaint. Also, it'd be easy to e-mail the author at Outside magazine, for which he is tagged in the subject opinion piece as a correspondent.

As for strip mines and clear cuts vs. hiking and skiing - I don't think he was equating heavy activities with low-impact ones, just making clear that "low" means "some" impact. Important point, to be sure.

Click to expand...

Hi Driver8, I hear ya on the opinion piece bit. But I wasn't complaining, I was making a statement of value on the reliability of what was presented. Given the lack of actual data of any kind, the "science" that is presented can't be considered reliable. I'm not suggesting that what is presented is true or not, I'm saying we don't know.

You're right, I could probably do some searches and come up with the studies that are loosely referenced. I have done that many times in replying to various topics presented here on VFTT: the toxicity of DEET, diuretic effect of caffeine, relationship between pesticide exposure and autism, to name a few. In this case, I don't think it's worth my time to do it. First, I think it's unlikely I'll learn anything new (most likely conclusion: hikers have an impact, and we're not certain of the magnitude of the impact); second, I think it's unlikely the loosely referenced studies are going to be very informative. It's difficult to design a study that accurately measures hiker impact.

You're also right that the author does not directly equate strip mining with hiking. However, placing all of those activities right next to each other in the same paragraph is a well-known rhetorical device: while the author doesn't specifically equate the activities, the structure of that paragraph implicitly suggests they're related. I feel that's unwarranted. But of course rhetoric is interpreted differently by different people.

Peakbagr said:

Thanks HikerBrian, but let me pose this. Do you believe that trails, huts, hiker traffic, litter, dogs, campfires, leantos, don't impact where animals live and breed and these factors don't have an adverse impact on them? If we (all of us here) were on some different type of forum, not hiking - might we be saying that it would be a good idea to study this further? Or don't we really want to go there because of the potential impact to 'our' sport?

Click to expand...

Hi Peakbagr, I think it's pretty obvious that hikers have an impact. You don't need to look any further than the 6' wide treadways in many areas to know this is true. But I think the more important questions are: 1) What is the nature and magnitude of the impact; and 2) Is this article informative on the topic? As I mentioned previously, this article is not very informative; the referenced studies might or might not be. I lean towards probably not, but I could be wrong, and I'm not going to go digging. That's not because I'm afraid of what I'll find, it's because I doubt I'll find much of interest. The answer to 1), therefore, remains "Who knows?" If anyone cares what I "think": I think if there were't trail maintainers and a WMNF plan of sorts, many areas would rapidly revert to their "natural" state. Rapidly.

Is this worth following up on? Should "more studies" be done? Yes, I think so. Again, I'd like to know what my impact is. But there are several dangers to this type of reporting: First, these half-baked opinion pieces tend to show up before anyone really knows how to interpret the study results, and then otherwise well-intentioned people run out to "make a difference" - perhaps by limiting access, closing areas, etc., which may impact my enjoyment of the outdoors. Second, impressionable people (non-hikers and nascent hikers) see strip mine and hiking in the same paragraph and get an altogether false idea of the impact (if any) that hikers actually have. That's not to even mention, "100 meter death zone." You never know what impact repeatedly comparing strip mining and hiking will have on the next might-have-been John Muir. Third, when hikers are placed in the "negative impact" bin indiscriminately (and most people tend to separate the world into black/white, good/evil, etc.), we lose our voice as conservationists. I think that's a shame.

So again, there's research than can and should be done, I'm simply advocating for taking a measured approach to acting on the "science" that's presented in the article.