3 ms·
I’ve advertised this before: one viable option is to have “sanctuaries”, large areas where humans are strictly forbidden to enter. The case of Chernobyl shows t
by baxtr 8y ago
I’ve advertised this before: one viable option is to have “sanctuaries”, large areas where humans are strictly forbidden to enter. The case of Chernobyl shows that wild life recovers from humans pretty quickly once they’re gone.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-wildlife-thirty-year-anniversary-science/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/060418-chernobyl-...
- fireattack 8y agoBut is the "recovery rate" in Chernobyl significantly better than normal conservation sites? My point is, why "strictly forbidden to enter" if conservation areas are successful enough?
- baxtr 8y agoThat’s a very good question. I don’t know the answer. My experience is though that some rules have to be very strict, because the freedom will be invaded step by step. First just a small road, then maybe a visitor center, then some tour rides etc.
- drb91 8y ago> My point is, why "strictly forbidden to enter" if conservation areas are successful enough? Why allow humans in at all? We have plenty of room, and no need.
- jhauris 8y agoOne reason may be that for most people to care about conservation they need an opportunity to see or experience what they're conserving. It's the reason most conservation funding in the US comes from hunters.[0][1] 0: (PDF) https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/3615/1853/8699/The_State_Conservation_Machine-FINAL.pdf https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/3615/1853/869... (page 9) 1: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-...