|
The classic definition of wilderness will need to be discarded soon. Management of all land is increasingly important because natural processes cannot adequately cope with climate change and international spread of introduced species. There's really no going back at this point.
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
glowing-fish posted:There are some situations where managing a landscape for purposes of mitigating climate change would be different for managing it for the benefit of biodiversity and wildlife: a densely packed forest is going to handle more carbon, but is probably going to be unfavorable for landscape and wildlife. (An open canopy allows greater biodiversity in understory flora, some animals like bighorn sheep prefer open woodlands over forests) I'm using the term "management" loosely. What I mean is that the Wilderness Act's definition of wilderness is quaint; a hands-off/minimalist approach often does nothing but preserve raw acreage and perceived wildness. Mechanized tools are going to do less damage to a wilderness area than failing to adequately address the spread of invasive species. A visitor may perceive the chainsaw as degrading the "naturalness" of the place, but that's just because he's unaware that he's totally surrounded by a monospecific stand of privet. Obviously the approach will be very different in a desert area or a marine one. It needs to be very area-specific. I guess in reference to your example, we should dedicate enough public resources so that allowing wildfires to burn can stem from a deliberate decision rather than a lack of resources. In other areas, we should be the ones starting the burns. Again, very area-specific. I'm just thinking out loud. This is a very broad topic.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
There really isn't a clear answer to that. All preservation is IMO arguably selfish and human-centered, even if it involves minimizing human impact. We're preserving because we want to, not because it's some sort of objective good. So pre-human ecosystems aren't inherently any better than disturbed ones, even though we frequently value them more for their rarity, uniqueness, etc. I'm not familiar with Isle Royale, but you'd want to weigh the inputs of the affected interest groups, the feasibility of the different preservation plans, the (non)existence of similar protected areas, etc. You probably can't revert a place like Isle Royale that drastically to its pre-human state, but you're more likely able to revert it to a sort of pre-Columbian state. Whether that's a good idea would come down to the input from interest groups and uniqueness or the site vs its value for recreation, education, or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
I would prefer to save every species, even if humans aren't responsible for their decline  That's what I mean about it being subjective though. Except mosquitoes. They can gently caress off.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
call to action posted:This is total nonsense, there is a huge amount of value to well-established ecosystems. And please don't bother me with the "wellll really there's no such thing as good or bad when you think about it, maaan" moral relativism idiocy. lol, dude, don't throw a big tantrum just because you don't understand what we're talking about. The guy's question was over which state of an ecosystem to preserve. The answer is that it doesn't matter outside of our own wants and capabilities. The island in question has gotten along fine with both wolves and lynxes as apex predators. Restoring one over the other is entirely subjective. boo hoo
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
CountFosco posted:Except for that the island might be too small to support a sustainable wolf population, whereas Lynx seem to fit into the environment better. On the other hand, the wolf population has been a great subject for research. Again, there are multiple things that can be managed for on any given piece of land.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 14:54
|
|