6 ms·

For tldr;/context, the Y2Y initiative's main goal is to establish (or, re-establish) "habitat connectivity"––the idea that organisms can move freely within an e

For tldr;/context, the Y2Y initiative's main goal is to establish (or, re-establish) "habitat connectivity"––the idea that organisms can move freely within an ecosystem without too much deleterious impact of human interactions. This is incredibly ambitious, because the "Yukon to Yellowstone" region is massive –– 2,100 miles long, from northern Canada to the Western US. One of the landmark achievements of this organization is not necessarily any particular kind of project but rather their skill in bringing together really diverse stakeholders across a massive geography to work toward this goal. But, because "connectivity" is really the primary mission, and because roads/highways are some of the most substantial human barriers to habitat connectivity, a large majority of Y2Y projects involve making roads safer for wildlife––and people too.

cratermoon 4y ago
It's a massive region, but because the region very sparsely populated, it seems doable. There will be fewer NIMBYs to object to having a road rerouted or a an area deemed wild. On the other hand, some of those NIMBYs are property owners who will have political or financial interests that conflict with conservation.
- mistrial9 4y ago
  I attended a private meeting of landowners that border Yellowstone on one side -- many small moments that could be described.. however, it is easy to say that almost every person in that meeting was distinctly territorial .. those landowners (mostly) prefer to keep things exactly as they are now, not "your big plan from the city" .. however (mostly) they are there in that location due to personal history and (mostly) think and talk in terms of "stewardship of the lands" and some even claim personal relationships with some of the more prominent creatures that cross their lands. Short version is - most will say that they know far better than you what the wildlife wants in order to thrive, if it is scientifically true or not. Secondly they (mostly) will actively tell urban environmentalists to keep their "opinion" to themselves, and there is the door. Is this surprising among people who managed to own and live on land like that, in the 21st century ? ps- almost no one in the meeting spent the majority of the calendar year on their lands, that I could tell. Also construction of any kind is rarely done as far as I know.. time between changes is certainly measured in years.. even in California, a registered private forest landowner must file and wait for years to make small changes to structures, or other serious landscaping. pps- elaborating on "those landowners (mostly) prefer to keep things exactly as they are now" .. they are in a social and legal system right now, and for decades, that approaches changes with huge barriers.. personal objection merges with legal prevention and finance limitation.. You think they have a few hundred FAANG shares to cash out to make some change? no, money is on different paths there and half that I could tell, were pretty limited with the cash flow. The point is, it is personal will PLUS personal finance limitation PLUS legal oversight PLUS decades-learned behavior ppps- each attendee was/is deeply aware of the natural world there. Thinking a lot more about this now, I suspect that the meeting I was in, many years ago, in California, was a direct component of this 'Yellowstone to Yukon' plan, though I have no details.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    > almost no one in the meeting spent the majority of the calendar year on their lands And this is the thing. Many are absentee landlords, and their 'stewardship', such as it is, amounts to doing little-to-nothing until the borders of far-flung suburbs edge up to their property, then they can either sell it to Wal*Mart or outlet store developer and make a tidy profit, or contract with a housing developer to get it rezoned, parcel it out, and make a huge profit turning it over to homebuyers. They are all territorial and have personal relationships with the land until someone waves a few $million in front of them.
    - mistrial9 4y ago
      well frankly, the obvious flaming on those landowners here, more than just being obvious, is causing me to reflect on my own bias while posting on this real meeting I attended, instead of fighting personal demons in some outrage internet comment. First and foremost -- why did the people in that meeting bother to show up? maybe because the ones in the room (mostly) DO care about the wildlands. So my comment about "there is the door" was my own projection.. no one in that meeting said that, I did while thinking about it.. Those people did meet and probably some of them are now part of this proposed corridor action
      - germinalphrase 4y ago
        Were you present as an owner of wild lands? Would you join this proposed plan?
        mistrial9 4y ago
        I presented a small bit of technical detail at that meeting as part of the convening environmentalist organization; zero interest in computers there, basically. re: decisions, the authority of a single vote YES/NO is at a maximum in that crowd; even getting the physical meeting was a year+ of prep IIR.
      - cratermoon 4y ago
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > NIMBYs are property owners who will have political or financial interests to my ear, the word NIMBY has an urban flavor that does not describe rural or wilderness landowner behavior.
  - cratermoon 4y ago
    The worst NIMBYs are the ones in rural areas who think that because their family has owned the land for 3 generations they have a natural right to it. Never mind that it was stolen from indigenous peoples who have a better claim on those grounds, because the current landowners will say those people never "used" the land, they were just visitors. Edit to add an example: https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.7/north-extremism-how-a-trail-in-rural-oregon-became-a-target-of-far-right-extremism https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.7/north-extremism-how-a-trail-...
    - b112 4y ago
      Everyones land was "stolen" from someone else. Everyones. There is no place on this entire planet, where a domicile sits, that wasn't taken from another by force. No where. Nada. You think natives didn't ever kill each other over territory? Hunting rights, especially in times of famine? You do realise that all of the Americas were settled, then resettled again, and again, in multiple waves of europeans (all natives settled the new world too, they didn't evolve here), by those we call natives, with blood and spear? We just displaced the last "thieves", who displaced those before us, and so on. The only unfairness is if we signed treaties, to end the fighting, and then did not honour them. Those are being addressed, at least in Canada, by the courts. Note: where's my family's land, from 500 years ago, taken when the French invaded, or 2000ya when the Romans, and so on?? Why don't I get my people's land back? Is it because I am white? Or, because it was 500 years ago, not 200? Is it OK, because a white man killed my family and took the land of another white man? Or...? Why?! Natives lost their land, as did billions before. But none are alive today, and I could care less about historical loss. I do care about poverty, and right to societal cohesion and access. I don't care why, what historical reason led to things, I just care about fixing what is a problem now. If you look at native americans, their reservations are their biggest source of poverty. Enough. Make sure every child has access to good food, clean water, housing, and education. The rest will solve itself.
- panzagl 4y ago
  In the US a lot of that territory is Native American land/reservation. Feel free to convince them you know how to best use their land.
ehnto 4y ago
On a smaller scale, we have completed a similar project in my state in Australia, and the benefits for both wildlife and humans is really something I'm finding fascinating. There's a very notable increase in mobility for animals and I'm seeing animals near my house I've not seen anywhere nearby before, especially different species of birds but also bigger marsupials, even Kangaroos, and I live in suburbia. Couple the nature corridor with native flora in your yard and in the parks for humans and you really do see animals flourishing. Again, birds in particular are absolutely reveling in it. I now hear diverse birdcalls throughout the day and I feel like I'm back in my childhood where I lived in the outback. This nature corridor goes from the coast, through suburbia as revegetation projects, across a low mountain range and into the plains, a fantastic diversity of habitats for wildlife now interconnected. The default thinking is that cars are what shoes away animals, and it's partly true, but it's really the infrastructure and what we take away to build it that causes issues. You can have cars, roads, and a more symbiotic relationship with nature if you're smart about your infrastructure and make sure to account for nature's use of the land. Same with your home, if you have a yard don't just flatten it and keep mowed lawn. Native flora is easier to maintain, better for the animals and better for the soil and water runoff. You become part of the nature-corridor.
- eloff 4y ago
  Where do you live? You paint such a lovely picture that I want to visit it one day. I'm planning a trip to Australia sometime in the next year.
samstave 4y ago
<3 There should be a standard of though-puts every X distance whereby a road MUST provide an under-pass FULL STOP. Animals need to be able to roam
- jamincan 4y ago
  Here in Ontario it seems that the standards for new divided highways now include wildlife over or underpasses, at least in the north.
  - samstave 4y ago
    Yeah, I think you bitches invented this idea!!

cratermoon 4y ago

It's a massive region, but because the region very sparsely populated, it seems doable. There will be fewer NIMBYs to object to having a road rerouted or a an area deemed wild. On the other hand, some of those NIMBYs are property owners who will have political or financial interests that conflict with conservation.

mistrial9 4y ago
I attended a private meeting of landowners that border Yellowstone on one side -- many small moments that could be described.. however, it is easy to say that almost every person in that meeting was distinctly territorial .. those landowners (mostly) prefer to keep things exactly as they are now, not "your big plan from the city" .. however (mostly) they are there in that location due to personal history and (mostly) think and talk in terms of "stewardship of the lands" and some even claim personal relationships with some of the more prominent creatures that cross their lands. Short version is - most will say that they know far better than you what the wildlife wants in order to thrive, if it is scientifically true or not. Secondly they (mostly) will actively tell urban environmentalists to keep their "opinion" to themselves, and there is the door. Is this surprising among people who managed to own and live on land like that, in the 21st century ? ps- almost no one in the meeting spent the majority of the calendar year on their lands, that I could tell. Also construction of any kind is rarely done as far as I know.. time between changes is certainly measured in years.. even in California, a registered private forest landowner must file and wait for years to make small changes to structures, or other serious landscaping. pps- elaborating on "those landowners (mostly) prefer to keep things exactly as they are now" .. they are in a social and legal system right now, and for decades, that approaches changes with huge barriers.. personal objection merges with legal prevention and finance limitation.. You think they have a few hundred FAANG shares to cash out to make some change? no, money is on different paths there and half that I could tell, were pretty limited with the cash flow. The point is, it is personal will PLUS personal finance limitation PLUS legal oversight PLUS decades-learned behavior ppps- each attendee was/is deeply aware of the natural world there. Thinking a lot more about this now, I suspect that the meeting I was in, many years ago, in California, was a direct component of this 'Yellowstone to Yukon' plan, though I have no details.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  > almost no one in the meeting spent the majority of the calendar year on their lands And this is the thing. Many are absentee landlords, and their 'stewardship', such as it is, amounts to doing little-to-nothing until the borders of far-flung suburbs edge up to their property, then they can either sell it to Wal*Mart or outlet store developer and make a tidy profit, or contract with a housing developer to get it rezoned, parcel it out, and make a huge profit turning it over to homebuyers. They are all territorial and have personal relationships with the land until someone waves a few $million in front of them.
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    well frankly, the obvious flaming on those landowners here, more than just being obvious, is causing me to reflect on my own bias while posting on this real meeting I attended, instead of fighting personal demons in some outrage internet comment. First and foremost -- why did the people in that meeting bother to show up? maybe because the ones in the room (mostly) DO care about the wildlands. So my comment about "there is the door" was my own projection.. no one in that meeting said that, I did while thinking about it.. Those people did meet and probably some of them are now part of this proposed corridor action
    - germinalphrase 4y ago
      Were you present as an owner of wild lands? Would you join this proposed plan?
      - mistrial9 4y ago
        I presented a small bit of technical detail at that meeting as part of the convening environmentalist organization; zero interest in computers there, basically. re: decisions, the authority of a single vote YES/NO is at a maximum in that crowd; even getting the physical meeting was a year+ of prep IIR.
    - cratermoon 4y ago
mistrial9 4y ago
> NIMBYs are property owners who will have political or financial interests to my ear, the word NIMBY has an urban flavor that does not describe rural or wilderness landowner behavior.
- cratermoon 4y ago
  The worst NIMBYs are the ones in rural areas who think that because their family has owned the land for 3 generations they have a natural right to it. Never mind that it was stolen from indigenous peoples who have a better claim on those grounds, because the current landowners will say those people never "used" the land, they were just visitors. Edit to add an example: https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.7/north-extremism-how-a-trail-in-rural-oregon-became-a-target-of-far-right-extremism https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.7/north-extremism-how-a-trail-...
  - b112 4y ago
    Everyones land was "stolen" from someone else. Everyones. There is no place on this entire planet, where a domicile sits, that wasn't taken from another by force. No where. Nada. You think natives didn't ever kill each other over territory? Hunting rights, especially in times of famine? You do realise that all of the Americas were settled, then resettled again, and again, in multiple waves of europeans (all natives settled the new world too, they didn't evolve here), by those we call natives, with blood and spear? We just displaced the last "thieves", who displaced those before us, and so on. The only unfairness is if we signed treaties, to end the fighting, and then did not honour them. Those are being addressed, at least in Canada, by the courts. Note: where's my family's land, from 500 years ago, taken when the French invaded, or 2000ya when the Romans, and so on?? Why don't I get my people's land back? Is it because I am white? Or, because it was 500 years ago, not 200? Is it OK, because a white man killed my family and took the land of another white man? Or...? Why?! Natives lost their land, as did billions before. But none are alive today, and I could care less about historical loss. I do care about poverty, and right to societal cohesion and access. I don't care why, what historical reason led to things, I just care about fixing what is a problem now. If you look at native americans, their reservations are their biggest source of poverty. Enough. Make sure every child has access to good food, clean water, housing, and education. The rest will solve itself.
panzagl 4y ago
In the US a lot of that territory is Native American land/reservation. Feel free to convince them you know how to best use their land.

ehnto 4y ago

On a smaller scale, we have completed a similar project in my state in Australia, and the benefits for both wildlife and humans is really something I'm finding fascinating. There's a very notable increase in mobility for animals and I'm seeing animals near my house I've not seen anywhere nearby before, especially different species of birds but also bigger marsupials, even Kangaroos, and I live in suburbia. Couple the nature corridor with native flora in your yard and in the parks for humans and you really do see animals flourishing. Again, birds in particular are absolutely reveling in it. I now hear diverse birdcalls throughout the day and I feel like I'm back in my childhood where I lived in the outback. This nature corridor goes from the coast, through suburbia as revegetation projects, across a low mountain range and into the plains, a fantastic diversity of habitats for wildlife now interconnected. The default thinking is that cars are what shoes away animals, and it's partly true, but it's really the infrastructure and what we take away to build it that causes issues. You can have cars, roads, and a more symbiotic relationship with nature if you're smart about your infrastructure and make sure to account for nature's use of the land. Same with your home, if you have a yard don't just flatten it and keep mowed lawn. Native flora is easier to maintain, better for the animals and better for the soil and water runoff. You become part of the nature-corridor.

eloff 4y ago
Where do you live? You paint such a lovely picture that I want to visit it one day. I'm planning a trip to Australia sometime in the next year.

samstave 4y ago

<3 There should be a standard of though-puts every X distance whereby a road MUST provide an under-pass FULL STOP. Animals need to be able to roam

jamincan 4y ago
Here in Ontario it seems that the standards for new divided highways now include wildlife over or underpasses, at least in the north.
- samstave 4y ago
  Yeah, I think you bitches invented this idea!!