Nature: Hands-Off and Hands-On Conservation (natural, environmental, best, Alaska)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I want to discuss an issue that's been bothering me ever since I worked with AmeriCorps Tribal Civilian Community Corps as an Environmental Steward and Native Cultural Community Aide.
It started when I expressed my refusal to cut down any kind of large tree and my uncomfortableness with cutting down any trees and killing any plants at all for other than practical reasons (such as building a native damn to catch fish in the river to feed the tribe).
Planting seeds to help restore a devastated by Human activity area of the forest seems like a great and honorable activity to me, but still feels somewhat like it interferes too much especially when the seeds are planted in straight rows as trees don't naturally grow in straight rows.
Actually shaping the land to build trails for Human use and convenience seems unnecessary, selfish, and interferes far too much. Why not just travel the forest like any other creature instead of carving a pathway through?
I've learned of many conservation efforts: efforts to "manage" natural resources, efforts to "restore", efforts of "stewardship", etc..
My question is: Why?
What's the point of removing a few plants of a certain species that isn't native to the area? There are far more of it than we can realistically remove including seeds and pollen. Nature changes, it is not natural for a forest to not change over time.
Why build flood pathways? Floods are natural in nature and happen all the time as do natural forest fires.
Nature has been "managing" and balancing itself for far longer than we Humans have been here on this planet.
Why not simply farm all our resources and pass laws to forbid anything unnatural from being brought into the wild such as plastic, machines, etc.? Why are we still using wood?
I understand somewhat environmental restoration as an effort to counteract Human devastation of nature, but how much "helping" is too much?
First I respect your opinion/thoughts on things and I am only giving you mine, since you asked.
What you posted is a tricky response that isn't easily answered and surely will not be "solved" by an internet forum. I don't have all of the experiences necessary to have the best well rounded idea either. So here is my perspective as a person raised in a large city who has recently moved to a less crowded city in Alaska. Albeit, in the area of the largest city in Alaska.
I"ll address the easy part first. Animals so change the environment to make their life easier, yes, not to the extent humankind does. Bears make trails from the stream/river to their den. Beavers make dams to divert the natural flow of water. I've sure seen insects destroy forests and a lot of buildings too. This brings me to a natural order of things point. Wolf populations seem to ebb and flow with the population of food (usually rabbits). Humans by farming, medicine advancements, and being more efficient at producing food have surpassed what I think would have been a normal population limiting events.
To me the above ties into conservancy. As human we have plowed over "natural" areas of the earth, removed the natural vegetation and planted typically just a few crops of all the same type and rotate them. (as they say a good farmer doesn't grow crops, he makes fertile soil). So to save an endangered animal or plant is part of what makes us human. We want to save what once was and not let it be lost forever. Controlled burns in forests means that you get the undergrowth removed without taking the whole forest with it. Now having said that, in Florida, we have areas that are maintained natural areas and other areas that are not maintained. No plants are picked, planted or moved, No controlled burns either.
I know my ideals are not perfect. I think that you might be suited to watch over a non-maintained natural area, rather than a conservancy that attempts to maintain the natural order of things by keeping changes (new/foreign/exotic plants and animals out)
Have you read the book Walden, by Henry David Thoreau?
First I respect your opinion/thoughts on things and I am only giving you mine, since you asked.
What you posted is a tricky response that isn't easily answered and surely will not be "solved" by an internet forum. I don't have all of the experiences necessary to have the best well rounded idea either. So here is my perspective as a person raised in a large city who has recently moved to a less crowded city in Alaska. Albeit, in the area of the largest city in Alaska.
I"ll address the easy part first. Animals so change the environment to make their life easier, yes, not to the extent humankind does. Bears make trails from the stream/river to their den. Beavers make dams to divert the natural flow of water. I've sure seen insects destroy forests and a lot of buildings too. This brings me to a natural order of things point. Wolf populations seem to ebb and flow with the population of food (usually rabbits). Humans by farming, medicine advancements, and being more efficient at producing food have surpassed what I think would have been a normal population limiting events.
To me the above ties into conservancy. As human we have plowed over "natural" areas of the earth, removed the natural vegetation and planted typically just a few crops of all the same type and rotate them. (as they say a good farmer doesn't grow crops, he makes fertile soil). So to save an endangered animal or plant is part of what makes us human. We want to save what once was and not let it be lost forever. Controlled burns in forests means that you get the undergrowth removed without taking the whole forest with it. Now having said that, in Florida, we have areas that are maintained natural areas and other areas that are not maintained. No plants are picked, planted or moved, No controlled burns either.
I know my ideals are not perfect. I think that you might be suited to watch over a non-maintained natural area, rather than a conservancy that attempts to maintain the natural order of things by keeping changes (new/foreign/exotic plants and animals out)
Have you read the book Walden, by Henry David Thoreau?
Thank you for that reply and no I haven't read that book yet.~
I'm actually trying to get into the field of Environmental Education in my own way: live in the wild, learn about nature, and teach others this.~
There's an internship I'm trying to get into that offers a Naturalist degree: if accepted, for a year I would live on a mostly Wilderness Preserve with a small-scale Farm in the middle called HiddenVilla in California teaching children and adults about nature while touring the small-scale farm and hiking the large wilderness preserve. The training I would receive would all be hands-on with little if any indoor-classroom time.
My personal opinion is: live and let live. I have no wish nor need to take more than what I practically need and I always try to give back. While I care for all things, I understand that creatures kill each other to live and this is natural. I do not see myself as any "better" nor "worse" than any other creature of nature. I do not believe anyone inherently "deserves" anything. I am simply me and I do things how I wish to do them.
I've already stated my opinion on hands-on and hands-off conservation.
I think that book would at least give you some insight. I would look the author up too... Interesting person. I bet you would get a lot of reading his works.
I wish you luck with your endeavor, sounds great. and nothing wrong with a live and let live attitude. (surprised this is going on in California, to be honest - not a state I attribute to that attitude typically)
I don't see myself as better or worse either...
I am glad that we have changed some natural things to the betterment of humankind. And I am selfish here, as my wife, my son, and I would not be alive if it was not for modern medicine.
There are designated wilderness areas on federal lands that are about what you're thinking. Minimal trail development and a generally hands-off management.
I think we've done so much to change the environment in a rapid manner that doesn't allow things to evolve naturally we have to intervene at times. Areas that have been cut over and where no regeneration of trees is taking place need to be planted or else we will have problems. Introduced species can wipe out species that belong here and destroy biodiversity. Be it buckthorn choking out native vegetation where I live or insects like the emerald ash borer killing every mature ash tree where they spread.
Moreover, our population is so vast now we can't leave everything natural. I am glad we can in this country have vast areas of wilderness still but we could never restore the corn belt or NYC to what they were 400 years ago.
These are great generalist replies, but how about discussing some of these subjects in detail: such as the purpose of trails as well as pros and cons?~
IMHO, The purpose of a trail is protect the other areas around it. If we all walk anywhere we want and all over it destroys the undergrowth. So you either avoid it completely or you make a trail. It creates the least amount of damage to a natural area while still allowing access. Especially if multiple people access the area multiple times a day.
There is a park in South Florida - Called Big Cypress and there were some trails, but you were not limited to them so you could go wherever you wanted. Now, you must follow the trails because the sensitive wetlands were being destroyed. And the rules keep getting stricter to the point that soon it will be foot access only.
There's some state land near me with no trails to a mountain peak that many want to see. So there are now several unofficial trails that random people cut and marked to the top, many of them in bad locations in terms of erosion issues. Trails concentrate the impacts of human access to a smaller area, and they can be built to avoid the more sensitive and fragile areas.
Seems like a response I was expecting, have heard before, and is reasonable.~ There's always that question in my mind though: Why don't these Humans learn how to walk in the wild without causing lasting damage and if they don't they shouldn't be allowed in that area to begin with?
In other words: I believe many Humans are incredibly arrogant to think that they have some "right" to tread upon these wild lands to even begin with when they refuse to live by the rules of the wild: I mean if you're going to "walk" in the wild, then "walk" in a way that is like the other wild animals: without causing lasting damage as an example. I also believe that every Human should be taught how to do this by other Humans who have learned from wild animals and if they don't abide by these rules, then they should be legally banned from the wild areas of this planet.~
This may sound harsh but: I think people who have no respect for the wild should stay in their cities away from it and those of us who actually respect the wild might be much happier.~
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
