This commentary is by Nancy Zimny of Richmond.
What Vermonter has not enjoyed the thrill of a fast downhill ski run, the adrenalin of a mountain bike turn, the wonderful exhaustion after a long hike or cross-country ski, the quiet pleasure of a walk in the woods or the “awesomeness” of the view from a mountaintop? Outdoor recreation feeds our spirit, strengthens our bodies, often supports the local economy, and therefore has exploded in popularity.
Consequently, Vermont communities face pressure to provide more access to more land to accommodate more outdoor recreation opportunities. And providing human access for outdoor recreation usually means trails.
Because the effects of recreation trail traffic on wildlife and nature are often more subtle and indirect, and not as immediately visible to the human eye as other activities like housing, logging or road construction, recreational trails may seem to have relatively little environmental impact, promoting conservation over development — a “win-win” situation: good for us and good for nature.
Is our human use of recreational trails as benign or beneficial as many outdoor recreationists, the public and even some land stewards seem to believe? This attractive premise is accepted readily as true, and the underlying “win-win” assumption is so ubiquitous that few question its validity.
But scientific concerns about the impact of recreational trails on wildlife and natural habits have existed since the 1980s. Trails essentially provide a gateway for what are called cumulative effects to occur. These are persistent, repetitive, seemingly inconsequential — but ultimately negative — stresses on wildlife and nature caused by a high volume of recreational traffic. And these effects can occur well beyond the physical trail itself — in zones of influence that surround the trail.
Trails have various possible effects. Habitats fragmented by recreational activity can disturb key animal movement patterns. Human presence alone can affect where and how wildlife live, forage and procreate by inducing repetitive flushing and flight behaviors. This imposes an increase in energy demands that increases animals’ stress and mortality — especially if it occurs during winter or other periods of limited food — and may decrease nest fidelity, or drive habitat abandonment.
Behavioral alterations associated with breeding and prey-predator relationships in plant and animal species can occur. Ultimately, species fitness, sustainability and diversity are compromised.
We use recreational trails in a variety of ways — walking, running, hiking, skiing or biking. Some behaviors. such as having dogs on or off leash, loud sounds, hikers cutting switchbacks, or bikers creating rogue trails, are likely to exacerbate problems. But even well-behaved trail recreationists can’t negate the conservation impact of repetitive high-volume use, and newer recreation technology that may further stress wildlife and nature.
No type of outdoor recreation can escape its responsibility in producing trail-based effects on conservation. However, the exponential rise in mountain biking draws particular attention to its role. Its popularity alone drives an intensive push for more trails to accommodate growing numbers of participants, and since bicycles allow people to go farther into the land’s interior, any negative effects on conservation are spread more broadly, potentially extending into areas that used to otherwise provide safe refuge for wildlife from human activity.
Furthermore, characteristics that humans consider highly desirable in mountain biking, such as separate trails for ascent and descent, loops, maximizing variety and technical challenges, and inter-connectivity of trails to form extensive networks, are all ancillary features that expand the human footprint and its effects on wildlife and habitat.
The call for “sustainable” trail-building within the mountain biking community is directed primarily at issues of soil erosion and water drainage — a laudable nod to conservation of the trails themselves — but these efforts alone do little to minimize the human impact on wildlife and habitat that more “sustainable” trails still invoke.
Many outdoor recreationists likely consider themselves conservationists. However, given the constellation of positive health, pleasure and economic factors that drive the popularity of outdoor recreation today, it is not surprising that any recreation trail-based concerns about impact on wildlife and habitat — even though known for many years — have gained little traction in the minds of outdoor recreationists or the public.
Attention to human impact of recreation trails on wildlife and habitat is growing. Studying it presents some logistical and scientific challenges. Still, just because we don’t know everything, doesn’t mean we know nothing.
In systematic literature reviews of the impact of recreation on wildlife, most show a generally negative effect that includes impact not only on well-recognized mammals, but also insects, herpetofauna, and birds.
Other studies reveal the negative effect of human presence on wildlife is potentially stronger, more widespread, or serious than humans are aware of or are willing to believe, and that human interpretation of wildlife behavior can be fraught with inaccuracy. Certainly, enough information already exists to warrant significant skepticism that trail-based recreation is either innocuous or benign.
Trail-based recreation benefits humans. But when land management decisions about trail development are being made in our towns, we humans need to choose reality over wishful thinking. We need to be mindful of the potential impact our personal outdoor recreational activities have on nature and wildlife habitats, and stay wary of the power of our anthropocentric beliefs that may lead us to ignore or dismiss scientific knowledge about what nature truly needs.
If we cannot be honest, humble or smart enough to do so, we risk making a dangerous Faustian bargain that may have enormous human appeal in the short term, but over time, will inevitably reveal itself as a very bad deal for nature and us.
