I was walking on a publicly accessible piece of land around a drinking water reservoir. A sign caught my eye, a classic water company land sign. One that said what you could and couldn't do. It said "Passive Recreation Only" and "no fishing, hunting, motor vehicles". It also stated "dogs must remain leashed".
I thought about that sign. It was meant to reduce activities that could pollute the water. The irony there being that the water volume in the reservoirs was so huge that any pollutants introduced by the sorts of prohibited actions would be so diluted as to be completely negligible. But dog walking was allowed, along with their urine and feces which would undoubtedly run off into the reservoir. And allowing people to walk around an area isn't really passive. People don't float inches off the ground, thereby leaving it undisturbed. If you are in a place, you impact that place.
I've been thinking more and more about that term, "passive recreation", recently. That term is generally used in reference to things like hiking, biking, bird watching, and other activities that don't have a direct and clear impact on the landscape. I don't agree with that terminology, though. I don't believe any outdoor activity can truly be passive. You always impact something, and almost always negatively. The question is simply just how severe that impact is. Something like fishing, obviously, isn't at all passive. You may not have though into it that much though, so lets do that.
When you travel to a fishing spot, you add wear to existing paths or start beating your own. Those of us who are very obsessive anglers can probably remember beating a well trodden path into a spot that very few people were fishing before you came along. That's an impact... you trod down existing brush, probably moved some seeds around, cause erosion, and so on. In the process of arriving you alter the behavior of the wildlife that are present, and they have to make changes in their behavior. Then you start fishing, perhaps you hook some fish- you stab a hole in them, more insignificant if it's a small barbless hook, pretty severe if it's big and barbed. More than one hole if you're using a treble hook. Then you force the fish to expend energy, fighting for it's life. Maybe you keep it, removing an organism from the ecosystem. If you release that fish, you still haven't actually done it much of a favor and there is some chance your actions result in that fish dying after you let it go. Not very passive, that's for sure.
But what about something that would be considered passive? Let's take the most common example, hiking. To hike you need a trail. Trails can cause a serious amount of damage to the landscape depending how heavily traveled they are and where they are located. A trail right along a stream ran result in bank erosion and disruption of the habitats of fish and other stream dwelling wildlife. Trails on rocky high ground can severely impact slow growing low brush, nesting birds, and herpetofauna. If trail thoroughly spiderweb an area and are heavily traveled, large wildlife may struggle to accomplish important life functions even in daylight. Trail also represent access, and not everyone that can access an area will do so responsibly. In the world of CT herpetology, we're fighting mountain bikers right now. They're moving into new areas, building new trails, and causing huge habitat disruption. They likely don't perceive their actions as destructive at all, but the have been. One unauthorized trail I've been working with the state on represents a substantial threat to an endangered species. It must be stopped. And trails like it are popping up all over the state. Actions like moving rock, beating back brush, moving leaf litter, and building structures always have a negative impact. Sometimes that impact can be huge.
 |
| A CT DEEP herpetologist installs a remote camera to monitor an unauthorized trail through protected habitat. |
