4 ms·

Mowing shows a general disregard for nature by most people. People generally prefer an unnatural environment that at best mimics nature without any inconvenien

by Retric 2y ago

Mowing shows a general disregard for nature by most people. People generally prefer an unnatural environment that at best mimics nature without any inconvenience. Even in parks well maintained and clearly marked trails see vastly more traffic than people just picking a random path through the woods. People seem to desire hiking trails of arbitrary distances not to actually explore.

MrMcCall 2y ago
We have so little respect for the fungal colonies in the leaf litter that process the organic matter back into sustenance for the trees.
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  My girlfriend is a gardener in a public parc. Moving leafs to the composte and then compost back to the garden takes a substantial time of her occupation.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    That's why I suggest we just don't move them.
bmitc 2y ago
The point of trails in parks is to preserve nature and to localize and constrain the damage to it.
- thfuran 2y ago
  And some parks expressly forbid leaving the trails for that reason.
- Retric 2y ago
  Yes and no, over a full year there’s ~6 visits to a national park per acre. Damage is a function of how much people concentrate in specific areas not an inevitable result of how many people visit parks. You need trails for extreme attractions like old faithful or tiny parks near major metro area, but it’s fine to go far off the beaten path as nowhere close to enough people do so to meaningfully impact what’s there. But that gets back to my point people in general aren’t looking to experience nature. They want those scenic overlooks, waterfalls, etc not a random spot.
  - bmitc 2y ago
    Several, if not most, of the plants are extremely senstitive to being trampled on and take many months and years to recover. So even a single trek off the beaten path by a few people or even one person will damage the plant life. It will also disrupt animal life and potentially adjust travel patterns. For example, moss and young ferns are extremely sensitive and fragile. People should not go off paths.
    - Retric 2y ago
      That really only applies to moderate traffic area. Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve sees ~10,000 people per year and covers 8,472,506 acres. At the other end Grand Canyon National Park sees ~4.5 million visitors there’s a world of difference between them. But even the Grand Canyon National Park has 1,217,262 acres the majority of which is seeing below 1 person per year. It’s hard to track someone walking through an area after even just a week, the actual impact from an individual visit is tiny, it’s only at scale that there’s issues. Delicate plants taking years to recover isn’t an issue when a random square foot is unlikely to see 2 visitors in 1,000 years on average.
      - bmitc 2y ago
        It just doesn't work that way. If you consider the small percentage of acres that are actually walkable by humans and how humans would get to those areas from feeder trails, then the impact isn't just a random person walking in a random square foot in the entire park. Humans don't just teleport to random square foot patches. They get there from feeder trails and are constrained by what is traversable in the first place. And who gets to choose who walks off path? Everyone gets to? Only certain people? I'm not sure why you're arguing this. It's been studied, and it's damaging. Going off trail also increases the chances of introducing non-native plant and insect species. Nature isn't for us. The trails are enough to experience it. Going off trail is selfish and damaging. * Off-Trail Trampling Has Lasting Impacts: https://daily.jstor.org/off-trail-trampling-has-lasting-impacts/ https://daily.jstor.org/off-trail-trampling-has-lasting-impa... * Going off trails: How dispersed visitor use affects alpine vegetation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479720304795 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... * Off-trail trampling causes millions in damage to national parks: https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/off-trail-trampling-causes-millions-in-damage-to-national-parks-uw-experts-say/ https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/off-trail-trampling-...

by Retric 2y ago

MrMcCall 2y ago

We have so little respect for the fungal colonies in the leaf litter that process the organic matter back into sustenance for the trees.

aziaziazi 2y ago
My girlfriend is a gardener in a public parc. Moving leafs to the composte and then compost back to the garden takes a substantial time of her occupation.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  That's why I suggest we just don't move them.

bmitc 2y ago

The point of trails in parks is to preserve nature and to localize and constrain the damage to it.

thfuran 2y ago
And some parks expressly forbid leaving the trails for that reason.
Retric 2y ago
Yes and no, over a full year there’s ~6 visits to a national park per acre. Damage is a function of how much people concentrate in specific areas not an inevitable result of how many people visit parks. You need trails for extreme attractions like old faithful or tiny parks near major metro area, but it’s fine to go far off the beaten path as nowhere close to enough people do so to meaningfully impact what’s there. But that gets back to my point people in general aren’t looking to experience nature. They want those scenic overlooks, waterfalls, etc not a random spot.
- bmitc 2y ago
  Several, if not most, of the plants are extremely senstitive to being trampled on and take many months and years to recover. So even a single trek off the beaten path by a few people or even one person will damage the plant life. It will also disrupt animal life and potentially adjust travel patterns. For example, moss and young ferns are extremely sensitive and fragile. People should not go off paths.
  - Retric 2y ago
    That really only applies to moderate traffic area. Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve sees ~10,000 people per year and covers 8,472,506 acres. At the other end Grand Canyon National Park sees ~4.5 million visitors there’s a world of difference between them. But even the Grand Canyon National Park has 1,217,262 acres the majority of which is seeing below 1 person per year. It’s hard to track someone walking through an area after even just a week, the actual impact from an individual visit is tiny, it’s only at scale that there’s issues. Delicate plants taking years to recover isn’t an issue when a random square foot is unlikely to see 2 visitors in 1,000 years on average.
    - bmitc 2y ago
      It just doesn't work that way. If you consider the small percentage of acres that are actually walkable by humans and how humans would get to those areas from feeder trails, then the impact isn't just a random person walking in a random square foot in the entire park. Humans don't just teleport to random square foot patches. They get there from feeder trails and are constrained by what is traversable in the first place. And who gets to choose who walks off path? Everyone gets to? Only certain people? I'm not sure why you're arguing this. It's been studied, and it's damaging. Going off trail also increases the chances of introducing non-native plant and insect species. Nature isn't for us. The trails are enough to experience it. Going off trail is selfish and damaging. * Off-Trail Trampling Has Lasting Impacts: https://daily.jstor.org/off-trail-trampling-has-lasting-impacts/ https://daily.jstor.org/off-trail-trampling-has-lasting-impa... * Going off trails: How dispersed visitor use affects alpine vegetation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301479720304795 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... * Off-trail trampling causes millions in damage to national parks: https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/off-trail-trampling-causes-millions-in-damage-to-national-parks-uw-experts-say/ https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/off-trail-trampling-...