Not even footprints

Reprinted from the Yodler.

It has been customary for people to assume that when we are not directly interfering with wildlife, we are not harming them. Besides being a convenient rationalization, this assumption is understandable: We assume that others, even members of other species, are like us. We don't feel very threatened by the presence of other species; we are, after all, the top predator. We also live surrounded by plenty; most of us can't imagine what it is like to go hungry for even one day.

Wildlife, however, does usually feel very threatened by our presence, and many organisms exist on a very tight (food/energy) budget. Also, they often have much greater visual and auditory acuity than we do, and hence can be disturbed by sensations that we wouldn't even notice. Amphibians, for example, are extremely sensitive to vibrations.

Technology has made it much easier for people to reach wildlife habitat, including areas where access used to be difficult, such as cliff faces, caves, under water, and inhospitable climates. Roads, trails, off-highway vehicles, mountain bikes, high-tech camping gear, freeze-dried foods, and even waterproof maps are some of the tools that allow people to travel far into wilderness in great comfort. That and increasing population have squeezed wildlife out of its preferred habitat, both temporarily and permanently, depriving it of needed foods, shelter, and mates. Roads are particularly pernicious, because they not only give humans easy access to wilderness, but also they fragment habitat because many cover-adapted species are afraid to cross them.

Here are some of the damaging effects that the mere presence of a human can have on wildlife: When an animal is guarding a nest, it can be scared away ('flushed') for some time, at least while a human is present. Besides using up energy that may not be plentiful, eggs and young are left exposed to dangerous temperatures and predators. The movement of the parent, or sometimes the odor of the human, can direct predators to the nest, causing the death of some of the young. Sometimes the parent in its rush steps on an egg or knocks it or its young out of the nest, leading to certain death for the offspring. Some parents may even abandon the nest or kill and eat the young, if they are frightened or startled enough. Young can get left behind when a parent flushes suddenly, get lost, and die of starvation or be eaten by a predator.

The stress of disturbance can increase energy needs, elevate heart rate (possibly leading to death), force the animal to temporarily or permanently abandon a feeding area, force it to become nocturnal, force it to spend a great amount of time watching for humans, interfere with reproduction, and in general decrease its productivity.

How can we continue enjoying the nature we love, and still protect it so that it will still be there for future generations? Ideally, we should be working to reduce all human access to wildlife habitat. But at the very least, we should eliminate mechanical access (with the exception of compromises for wheelchairs). Rather than restrict who can visit an area or when, the most humane way to reduce our impacts is to restrict the technologies that are allowed there.

For example, if vehicles are banned in wildlife habitat (including animals used as vehicles), we can all still enjoy it, but because we have to go on foot, not as many people will go there, they won't go as far, and they won't go as fast.

I don't think that the simple, direct enjoyment of nature with our bodies and senses has become obsolete. This morning I walked out to my backyard to look at my garden, and the warmth of the sun and the beauty of the plants and animals was overwhelming! I don't think that any technology could possibly make my enjoyment of that moment any greater.

Michael J. Vandeman is the past chair of the Wildlife Committee for the S.F Bay Area Chapter.