The Loma Prietan
July/August 2001
Human-Free Habitat: A Modest Proposal
by Ed Smith, Wilderness Committee Chair
There is a growing awareness among wildlife biologists and conservationists that relatively benign human activities or even our mere presence may adversely affect many wildlife species. Those activities need not be hunting, chasing, shooting, destroying habitat, or in any way overtly harassing wildlife, but simply hiking or even quietly passing by.
For example, the Ecological Society of America reported last year that when people were near the nests of bald eagles in Alaska’s Gulkana National Wild River “the number of feeding bouts at the nest decreased by 20% per day. Further, the amount of prey consumed by the eagles decreased by an average of 29% per day.”
A modern approach to minimize human disturbance of wildlife is the wildlands design, whereby wildlife managers designate core habitat areas where human visitation and activities are severely restricted. A buffer area, where people may engage in customary wilderness recreation, surrounds the core. Some managers even design a layer of concentric buffers, with progressively reduced human activity in the inner layers. Where feasible, wildlife corridors may link otherwise isolated habitat areas.
In March, the Chapter Conservation Committee and Executive Committee adopted a resolution that carries the wildlands design one step further. It recommends that the Sierra Club advance the principle that some areas be designated as human-free habitat, that is, reserved exclusively for wildlife.
The resolution offers the Sierra Club an opportunity to lead society to develop a deeper respect for the needs of the other beings with whom we share the Earth. It is fully compatible with the Club’s Wildlife and Native Plants Policy. The policy recognizes the importance of “restoration and rehabilitation of depleted ecosystems,” but does not require human action where it is not warranted. The Chapter’s resolution in no way discourages active ecological management where such management can benefit nature. Rather, it advances the principle that some habitat be reserved exclusively for wildlife. Implementation would be on a site-specific basis, likely following appropriate hearings, reviews, and EIRs. Those processes would address potential problems and issues—such as enforcement, restoration needs, or the presence of invasive species or human artifacts—applying to the site in question.
Humans do not need to be everywhere; we already occupy virtually all accessible areas of the Earth. Leaving some space exclusively for nature is a modest step toward recognizing the legitimate needs of other beings and granting them respite from our presence.