The Loma Prietan
July/August 2001
A Letter on the Chapter’s Human-Free Habitat Resolution
At its March meeting the Chapter
Executive Committee adopted a resolution calling on the Club Board of Directors to advocate “human-free habitat”—core areas, preferably connected by migration corridors, that would be totally off limits to humans.
Human impact on wildlife and native plants is undeniable, and we believe that strong measures are needed to protect species and habitat. But expecting that designation of human-free zones will solve the problem is both
naive and impractical.
Proponents of the resolution point to studies which show negative altered behavior among eagles when humans are nearby. In our own Sierra, the California Bighorn Sheep Zoological Area is closed for six months each year. There is compelling evidence to support such restrictions. But the hypothesis that
essentially all human presence is harmful to a wide range of animal and plant species is simply not supported by the data in hand.
The Club’s existing Wildlife and Native Plants Policy recognizes the need for active human involvement in protecting plant and animal species. It
requires that we seek diversity and abundance through “minimum overt human interference,” not by abandoning intervention entirely. It recommends maintaining native habitat, monitoring, enhancement, and restoration/rehabilitation—all of which would be banned in a human-free zone.
The inability to monitor is particularly troubling. Without monitoring, it will be impossible to tell whether unexpected pathogens (or renegade humans) have interfered. Poachers, hermits, and the curious will be drawn to human-free areas. Proponents concede that there will be enforcement problems but suggest only that the areas be “inaccessible,” that “remote oversight” be instituted, and that the details can be worked out by “others.”
The goals in seeking human-free habitat may seem appealing at first glance; but they boil down to simply keeping all people out (including wildlife and plant professionals) and rather vaguely letting nature taking its course.
Human impact is ubiquitous; but declaring zones to be human-free is not the same as relieving all human impact. The goals behind this resolution are admirable, but the implementation could be disastrous.
We, members of the Black Mountain Group ExCom, recommend that the Chapter rescind its endorsement of human-free habitat. We wholeheartedly support practical and effective means to protect and encourage threatened plant and animal species. In our opinion, the human-free habitat resolution passed at the March ExCom meeting is not such a measure.
—Mary Bernstein, Shawn Britton, Shirley Brown, Jay Michlin,
Tim Sampson, Dick Simpson,
& Paul Worden