ClubTread Community

ClubTread Community (
-   Conservation Corner (
-   -   A new look at an old attitude? (

TheShadow 12-23-2016 04:33 PM

A new look at an old attitude?

Maybe hiking isn't as innocent as previously thought...

tinman610 12-23-2016 08:10 PM

Its time to ban hiking

TheShadow 12-24-2016 01:15 AM

I don't think that "banning" hiking is the agenda here....moreso a re-think of the whole situation, in light of this new information.
Suddenly, motorized recreation is not the boogie man anymore.

tinman610 12-26-2016 06:27 PM

It doesn't matter what we do, there are so many of us in the world that we will have a negative impact on the environment regardless of our efforts. It extends to almost everything we do. You probably drive to the trail head for example.

TheShadow 12-26-2016 09:24 PM


Originally Posted by tinman610 (Post 763226)
You probably drive to the trail head for example. do most.

Some more reading:
"Surprisingly, signs pointed to non-motorized recreation having a greater negative effect that motorized"
"...Counter to public perception, non-motorized activities had more evidence for a negative effect of recreation than motorized activities, with effects observed 1.2 times more frequently. Snow-based activities had more evidence for an effect than other types of recreation, with effects observed 1.3 times more frequently.”
"Surprisingly, studies of hiking and other non-motorized activities found negative effects on wildlife more frequently than studies of motorized activities."

dlofting 12-27-2016 12:19 PM

Interesting reading and listening....thanks for posting. There are still a lot of questions to be answered and more, specific research will help. It's possible, for example, that some species like crows and rodents (maybe black bears, deer, skunk, raccoons) are able to adjust more quickly to having humans around than are reptiles and amphibians.....who knows at this point. It's still good to keep in mind that we do impact wildlife population, regardless of how careful we are.

Trail Talk 01-08-2017 05:20 PM

The actual study
Here is the complete study If you get through it all, you may find as I did that the broadcast was entirely misleading. The report itself is flawed; a statistical review of existing studies which under-represented motorized activity at only 26.3% of articles studied. I'm not a statistician but it seems a great many of the percentages don't support their conclusions once the confidence levels are applied. From the report; "non-motorized had greater negative effects (40.3 4.0% versus 34.0 8.6%)". So non-motorized negative effects could be anywhere from 36.3 to 44.3% while motorized negative effects could be from 25.4 to 42.6%, so in fact the results could just as likely be reversed?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2021 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome