The Perils of Human Activity
To the Editors:
I am most appreciative of John Litvailis' article "Saving the Wood Turtle" [Spring 2018, page 54].
I've studied wood as well as spotted and Blanding's turtles in New Hampshire for over 40 years, and in addition to my own long-term field work have conducted research for many agencies, including the National Park Service and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
My observations point to a key consideration in any attempt to protect wood turtles: they don't coexist well with humans. As the article points out, wood turtles spend a great majority of their active season, roughly mid-April into October, in terrestrial habitats, though not in "woods" per se. They favor shrub and vine communities; glades of !orbs (goldenrod, bracken, sweet fern); brushy hayfield and oldfield ecotones -areas in dense cover. These habitat preferences render them far more vulnerable to human activities than essentially aquatic species.
The elucidating study by Garber and Burger that was mentioned in the story -where researchers documented the collapse of a stable wood turtle population 1 O years after a watershed was opened to the public -has been cited for years. But where has this, and so many other studies, led in terms of taking the right, actually obligate, action? It is all well and good to conduct radio-tracking studies, head-start hatchlings, write reports, have meetings, make recommendations, and engage in habitat restoration; but without targeted exclusion of public access to viable ecosystems, these efforts are all but invariably destined to go for naught.
I have a long history with such initiatives. My experiences with conservation commissions, land trusts, and private, state, and federal agencies, have shown them to be ineffective at truly protecting declining species. And it's because they make far too many concessions to human use, recreational and beyond.
The Wood Turtle
The Wood Turtle
It is cammonly touted, and believed, that once development rights have been bought up and wheeled vehicles prohibited, a habitat and its "wildlife" have been "saved." And yet so many of these acquisitions and easements facilitate the opening of the natural landscape to peopleserving demands. The so-called nature sanctuaries soon become human theme parks, playgrounds, dog parks. The accepted drill goes something like: "We need to allow access so that people will contribute to our organization so that we can acquire more properties where people can go, so that we will receive more donations with which to purchase more places where ... "
A compelling example in my own history involves a 40-year effort to have an extensive ecosystem harboring robust wood, spotted, and Blanding's turtle populations. Conservation easements were eventually put in place, specifically with the goal of protecting these three at-risk turtle species. This was based on my advocacy, and extensive long-term documentation of the turtles and their associated ecologies on the sites.
As each of three parcels in the approximately 900-acre habitat block was acquired, the land trust charged with holding the easements placed ads in a local weekly publication that goes out to 16 towns (over 20,000 postal addresses) and the Concord Monitor inviting the public to guided tours, with light refreshments. All agencies involved in funding the project mandated public access. When I reported human, dog, and horse tracks all over the limited nesting habitat of the wood turtles just as hatchlings were emerging from nests, one agency responded, "... bad news." I no longer file reports.
A new menace arises in Warner -where I have lived for 48 years and witnessed the elimination and marginalization of habitat -in the form of a "rail trail" initiative that would run a 10-foot wide, crushed stone boulevard with two-foot berms on each side along some six miles of riverine and riparian habitat. This wildly popular road project would link Concord with Newbury Harbor -"ice cream every 45 minutes" was one selling point put forth at an information meeting I attended.
Obviously there are many properties that are suited for varying levels of human activities, either due to limited acreage, or already degraded ecosystems, or location. But I see no attempts being made to acquire and preserve land that merits sanctuary-level protection, with the understanding that such habitat is to be designated off-limits to the public. I believe that there would be meaningful financial support for such an agenda.
I am all for such agencies as the Trust For Public Lands, and conserving places for people to go; but where do we not go?
DAVID M. CARROLL, WARNER, NEW HAMPSHIRE
No comments:
Post a Comment