> Only in some areas is recreation the primary threat to conservation. Usually it's something more like logging, mining, or simple development that threatens a

> Only in some areas is recreation the primary threat to conservation. Usually it's something more like logging, mining, or simple development that threatens a natural area. When I last visited Rocky Mountain National Park, it was quite clear that the park's existence itself was detrimental to conservation. Even while I was there, a black bear had been hit by a car and several other wildlife killed by vehicles getting into and out of the park. The trails were packed and people swimming in unauthorized ponds and lakes, leaking sunscreen, bug spray, and whatever else contaminates into the water and other such harmful behavior. There was little understanding from visitors that we were in someone else's home, where they fight for survival and aren't just there for recreation. It became quite clear that they are going to have to start limiting visitation and closing off areas of the park to cars. Some of the best conservation I have seen is done by non-government foundations that have very specific trails and subsequently limit and even outright prevent any expansion whatsoever. In otherwords, they just let nature alone.