Interesting Study on Hikers and Wildlife Impact

[Customweld]

MSN

 

[Yoder]

All I needed to see was MSN.

 

[Beendare]

Source is Idaho Wildlife officials from the Idaho Statesman

Does this really surprise anyone?

Now the question is are the antis going to use this to keep people from enjoying the woods? Share nature, right?

I try to get an arrow through those critters before they know I’m there, so I do I get extra credit for not disturbing the wildLife ? Grin

 

[Customweld]

All I needed to see was MSN.

I know the link was from msn. I used it that way because the article was behind a paywall with the Idaho Statesman. The Forest Service (not that they are any better than msn!) put the study together.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Time for a ban on hiking. Hunter come first.

 

[Customweld]

Source is Idaho Wildlife officials from the Idaho Statesman

Does this really surprise anyone?

Now the question is are the antis going to use this to keep people from enjoying the woods? Share nature, right?

I try to get an arrow through those critters before they know I’m there, so I do I get extra credit for not disturbing the wildLife ? Grin

One of the biologists answer was permits to go hiking. The woods are certainly busier than ever before. The impacts do not surprise me one bit.

 

[mike.adams.467]

Animals "leaving the area" for up to 2 weeks probably means they didn't walk down the trail in front of the camera for 2 weeks. This isn't exactly revolutionary information.

 

[RockAndSage]

This sounds like a perfect beginning to justify restrictions on public access to public land with permits - add in more cougars and wolves, and there's further reason to further limit hunters too. More and more restrictions on vehicles and bikes.

It's all heading in that direction, on the altar of "the only good earth is one untouched by humanity".

 

[Customweld]

This sounds like a perfect beginning to justify restrictions on public access to public land with permits - add in more cougars and wolves, and there's further reason to further limit hunters too. More and more restrictions on vehicles and bikes.

It's all heading in that direction, on the altar of "the only good earth is one untouched by humanity".

It definitely has that tilt.

 

[bucksnbirds]

I hate to be that guy, but anyone having an impact on natural resources should have to pay for said resources. Everything effects game populations, but hunters are the only ones footing the bill. If everyone who enjoyed nature actually paid for nature, populations in the west would be a different story. Instead, the granola crunches support big companies with anti hunting objectives.

 

[Forestryguy]

This discussion has been had before. As hunters, we need to be better aligned to fight back against other user groups if a user fee is placed on them. They will want a seat at the table to make decisions on the management of areas, more than they do now.

I'm not sure what the answer is. I do agree that areas have become over used, especially in areas that are calving and winter ranges. I disagree with the implementation of user fees. These areas are suppose to be open to the public for recreational use at no cost, other than the taxes that are already paid for their management. User fees push us more into the European models of letting the better off have more access to opportunities.

 

[bowkill]

I can see both sides of this. It would be nice to see some others have to help fund some of the resources, but it also feels like if the others have to pay to use it, they might all of a sudden not see the value in having the wild places and start pushing to use the land for playgrounds and water parks!

 

[Wyo_hntr]

I really hate to break the news to people but....

There is a small but very dedicated group of people that want to limit human access to wild places. They desire massive areas of Wildlands off limits to human beings. Surrounding those Wildland corridors are buffer zones where limited human presence would be allowed.

Now some may say that's a "conspiracy theory" due to the fact we (the U.S.) did not officially ratify the Convention of Biological Diversity in 1994. But if you look at it's key principles, bureaus within the US and state governments have been actively implementing different facets of the plan on their own.

Just for fun, does anything about this quote from 1992 sound like what is being done currently?.....
"Our vision is simple: we live for the day when Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska; when Gray Wolf populations are continues from New Mexico to Greenland; when vast unbroken forests and flowing plains again thrive and support pre-Columbian populations of plants and animals; when humans dwell with respect, harmony, and affection for the land…"

They play the long game...inch by inch.

 

[ThunderJack49]

Having a trail camera on trigger to suddenly blast audio does not seem like an apples to apples comparison and a weak study. People gravitate to these headlines and "research" but the cause and effect seem pretty obvious there. It is also cherry picking animal behavior, as many animals quickly adapt to any human pressure and do just fine, something we all know. "Research" or one study doesnt make it gospel, or at least that's what I remember from tenth grade science. We've lost that as a society, I believe.

 

[TaperPin]

Research like this is pretty much meaningless, but allowed the authors to publish a paper. Make no mistake, the main job of a university PhD is to publish papers, and it almost doesn’t matter how silly or useful they are.

I could have told them animals clear off of trails when noisy people are coming. I also could have told them if you jump an elk they will clear out and head to a different area.

There are so many heavily used trails in the popular recreation areas, according to these yo-yo’s animals should be nonexistent. Lol

 

[mt terry d]

That's right ban or tax (more) those guys !!

Like the powers in control don't want everyone gone?

Divide and conquer. It works. This forum is evidence.

Enjoy Your Public land from your city apartment on your I phone.

 

[Schoolhousegrizz]

I hate to be that guy, but anyone having an impact on natural resources should have to pay for said resources. Everything effects game populations, but hunters are the only ones footing the bill. If everyone who enjoyed nature actually paid for nature, populations in the west would be a different story. Instead, the granola crunches support big companies with anti hunting objectives.

Glad to foot the bill then they can't get rid of us.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Glad to foot the bill then they can't get rid of us.

Me too.

 

[SWFLhntr]

Entry by permit only, then a few years later oops we have a moratorium on new permits sorry!

 

[MattB]

I hate to be that guy, but anyone having an impact on natural resources should have to pay for said resources. Everything effects game populations, but hunters are the only ones footing the bill. If everyone who enjoyed nature actually paid for nature, populations in the west would be a different story. Instead, the granola crunches support big companies with anti hunting objectives.

How do you think the Forest Service is funded? Every tax payer contributes.