A new look at an old attitude? - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

 4Likes
  • 2 Post By tinman610
  • 2 Post By Trail Talk
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of (permalink) Old 12-23-2016, 03:33 PM Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chwk, , Canada.
Posts: 5,318
Default A new look at an old attitude?

http://www.northcountrypublicradio.o...recreation.mp3

Maybe hiking isn't as innocent as previously thought...
TheShadow is offline  
Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of (permalink) Old 12-23-2016, 07:10 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
tinman610's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: White Rock
Interest: Professional Rock Licker
Posts: 340
Default

Its time to ban hiking

if you're not hiking you should be skiing
tinman610 is online now  
post #3 of (permalink) Old 12-24-2016, 12:15 AM Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chwk, , Canada.
Posts: 5,318
Default

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.
TheShadow is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of (permalink) Old 12-26-2016, 05:27 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
tinman610's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: White Rock
Interest: Professional Rock Licker
Posts: 340
Default

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.
Trail Talk and 61146 like this.

if you're not hiking you should be skiing
tinman610 is online now  
post #5 of (permalink) Old 12-26-2016, 08:24 PM Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chwk, , Canada.
Posts: 5,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman610 View Post
You probably drive to the trail head for example.
...as do most.

Some more reading:

https://www.adventure-journal.com/20...s-might-think/
"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.”


http://source.colostate.edu/outdoor-...acts-wildlife/
"Surprisingly, studies of hiking and other non-motorized activities found negative effects on wildlife more frequently than studies of motorized activities."


Last edited by TheShadow; 12-26-2016 at 10:49 PM.
TheShadow is offline  
post #6 of (permalink) Old 12-27-2016, 11:19 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
dlofting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Posts: 258
Default

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.
dlofting is offline  
post #7 of (permalink) Old 01-08-2017, 04:20 PM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Interest: Adventure travel
Posts: 332
Default The actual study

Here is the complete study http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0167259. 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?
jefffski and 61146 like this.

Trail Talk
"Retired but not yet tired"
Trail Talk is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

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

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1