131–140 of 237 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>"I also think we need to reduce how many people visit certain places" - Yes, please start with yourself
No. That would not help. This is the case when it is better to start from the neighbor and not yourself.
Starting with yourself, while making a negligible impact, makes an impact that is positive (according to you) and shows your commitment to enacting that policy.
Have integrity: do it first.
This is nice, but I bet you the moment SIP is lifted Yosemite is going to be absolutely flooded with people and will receive an all-time high level of visitors. Enjoy the peace and quiet while it lasts, animals.
People will take time to go back in dense public spaces, entertainments, with still that (irrational) fear of viruses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>"I also think we need to reduce how many people visit certain places" - Yes, please start with yourself
Sorry but "practice what you preach" isn't a valid response to talking about systemic issues.
Why should people believe you’re genuinely arguing that the thing is worth doing, rather than acting out selfish authoritarian impulses, if you’re not actually willing to do that thing?
Bear sightings have quadrupled
I hope this inspires our generation. I hope we remember that the way things were recently aren’t they way have to be, or the way things naturally are. We need more pollution controls, clean power, and less driving. I also think we need to reduce how many people visit certain places as the harsh reality is that impact is clearly related to visits. It will mean a shared sacrifice but a healthier planet. Hopefully limit…
Ultimately we need fewer people in order to preserve the natural world. We can start by disincentivizing and de-emphasizing growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They define "population" as the number of bears living in that area. That could easily quadruple if bears move there from surrounding areas, which is to be expected if humans are out of the equation. This is no different from the human population of cities - it goes up or down not just due to births and deaths, but also due to individuals moving in or out.
I don't think we'd accept population estimates for our cities as "anecdotal observation from random hotel employee" either though.
How do we know they're not migrating away from fires that are raging now uncontrolled in the valley?
Because we have satellite coverage and people outside the park would be able to see smoke plumes, so if there were huge fires raging we'd know about it.
"Amid coronavirus shutdown, Yosemite wildlife roams free"
And I read it as "wildfire". I saw it first on my phone, then tried searching for it on my computer and realized that I misread the headline.
As noted in the article, the headline is misleading. The population obviously hasn't quadrupled since Yosemite closed to visitors on March 20th. It is remarkable though to see how quickly wildlife is willing to re-enter areas that have historically been overrun with humans!
This is probably why rabbits have been getting abnormally bold in my yard lately...
> This month is typically a busy month in Yosemite: Of the almost 4.6 million tourists that visited the valley in 2019, about 308,000 came during April. "This month is typically a busy one: less than 1/12th of the number of annual visitors." ️
As noted in the article, the headline is misleading. The population obviously hasn't quadrupled since Yosemite closed to visitors on March 20th. It is remarkable though to see how quickly wildlife is willing to re-enter areas that have historically been overrun with humans!
This is just the natural response of the local ecosystem from having reduced numbers of competitors for resources.