Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Posted by: LoamtoHome
word on the street is that Quarry Rock is/will be permanently "closed". Too much of a shit show and the environmental damage is huge.
Not sure if that's a serious comment or not...? Assuming it is serious, what do you mean by environmental damage? Bunch of people walking on a relatively short path in the woods is an issue... to what?
I'm sure it will be swarmed by people with selfie sticks soon enough.
Posted by: bux-bux
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Posted by: LoamtoHome
word on the street is that Quarry Rock is/will be permanently "closed". Too much of a shit show and the environmental damage is huge.
Not sure if that's a serious comment or not...? Assuming it is serious, what do you mean by environmental damage? Bunch of people walking on a relatively short path in the woods is an issue... to what?
I'm sure it will be swarmed by people with selfie sticks soon enough.
"Look where I am today." "Look what I'm doing today!" etc. In reality, no one cares what you are doing.
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Not sure if that's a serious comment or not...? Assuming it is serious, what do you mean by environmental damage? Bunch of people walking on a relatively short path in the woods is an issue... to what?
I can't see the BP trail getting any worse than it already is, but over the last year, Cove Runner, which used to be not much more than a goat path, has been completely beat down due to all the traffic it has been getting as an alternative to the BP.
Posted by: PaulB
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Not sure if that's a serious comment or not...? Assuming it is serious, what do you mean by environmental damage? Bunch of people walking on a relatively short path in the woods is an issue... to what?
I can't see the BP trail getting any worse than it already is, but over the last year, Cove Runner, which used to be not much more than a goat path, has been completely beat down due to all the traffic it has been getting as an alternative to the BP.
Yeah that's the point I was trying to make... how is Quarry Rock any different than any other hiking trail near a populated area?
Re. environmental damage - what does that even mean? Like are there endangered species plants in the direct route of the trail? Are the people hiking causing some sort of pollution to our drinking water? Or are people just worried that there's a walking path in the woods? Assuming it's the latter... Canada is like 99% untouched wilderness, and in terms of environmental issues, people using the wilderness for personal recreation are the the least of your worries... compared to mining, forestry, oil and gas, real estate, etc.
I really disagree when people use the environmental argument to say that building mountain bike trails is bad (aside from very specific circumstances). Why is a 2 foot wide path in the woods such a bad thing?
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
......... the environmental argument to say that building mountain bike trails is bad (aside from very specific circumstances). Why is a 2 foot wide path in the woods such a bad thing?
Won't somebody please think of the frogs!!!
😉
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Why is a 2 foot wide path in the woods such a bad thing?
There’s a real answer for that.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Why is a 2 foot wide path in the woods such a bad thing?
There’s a real answer for that.
I'm completely ignorant of why that is, can you shed some light on that?
Posted by: thaaad
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Why is a 2 foot wide path in the woods such a bad thing?
There’s a real answer for that.
I'm completely ignorant of why that is, can you shed some light on that?
Considering our forest is all urban the answer has to be an environmental proxy argument for money. Establishing a right of way could be a legal irrritation come construction or clear felling time.
Posted by: thaaad
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Why is a 2 foot wide path in the woods such a bad thing?
There’s a real answer for that.
I'm completely ignorant of why that is, can you shed some light on that?
Well to start with all things are relative. And of course even if we're living off the land and forgoing all manufactured goods, we're still having an impact on the environment. However in that case there would be far less humans on the planet so our net impact would be negligible.
But consider that your theoretical 2ft wide path is rarely 2ft wide and will change over time due to erosion, particularly so depending on the nature of the trail. As that path degrades and the organic layer wears away it begins to channel water and hasten the erosion effect. As that happens a tree's roots become exposed, damaged and eventually destroyed, harming the health of the tree. The more 2ft paths there are the more forest that is impacts. Wildlife is also impacted, as humans encroach on an area with significant activity wildlife retreats from the area, possibly losing access to food and water resources. Now of course most healthy trees are able to withstand some damage and it's estimated that once you're outside of the tree's canopy you could eliminate the roots to one side of the tree which would be about 25% and it would not kill or irreparably harm the tree. So realistically most mature trees are not going to be significantly harmed by the theoretical 2ft path.
A choice I've made recently is to try and have as little negative effect on the forest floor as possible with my trail building. I think that 25% marker is too much, and aim to keep it down to less than half of that. This means extra work for me - but I'm ok with that.
There's been research lately that shows the forest is an organism, and that trees communicate with each other via the organic layers and their root systems. Here's a fascinating article if you're interested: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ . So that 2ft path, or more correctly multiple 2ft paths running in all manner of directions, are a bad thing. Now in the big picture, between natural forest fires,and wind storms that kill trees, our 2ft paths don't have a lot of impact. But you could probably think of our impact like getting a new paper cut every few days. It surely won't kill you, but it's not overly pleasant. Compare that to clear cut logging that ravages the surface of the earth and that old growth trees are the most important, and then to the blockades at Fairy creek, and suddenly those efforts to save the last tiny percentage (less than 1% in my estimate from here: https://nsmb.com/forum/forum/nbr-not-biking-related-9/topic/old-growth-logging-132060/ ) of South Coast rain forest from the rape and pillage of the last 150 years seems pretty fucking heroic if you ask me. But I digress. Yeah our 2ft paths matter. But so does everything else we do, unfortunately on a much larger scale.
So that 2ft path matters. It may help in getting people out into nature to appreciate what we have, but my perception is that it actually leads to false impressions where people think we have way more nature than we do. And they take what we have close by for granted which blinds them to what's happening on a global scale. On that global scale, the amount of habitat destruction since the Industrial Revolution is massive, and I think that 2ft path deludes a lot of people into thinking things are A-Ok. It's easy to be wasteful when one has the impression of an endless supply of things. News flash, we don't.
TLDR - that 2ft path in a way represents everything wrong with the way modern society views the planet - as a resource simply to be consumed. This is part of why I'm shifting more to an Indigenous way of thinking. While Indigenous peoples across the globe are not a monolith, they have a very different view of nature and how to interact with it than modern society does.
Edit: kind of a weird divergence for a covid thread.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: thaaad
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Why is a 2 foot wide path in the woods such a bad thing?
There’s a real answer for that.
I'm completely ignorant of why that is, can you shed some light on that?
Well to start with all things are relative. And of course even if we're living off the land and forgoing all manufactured goods, we're still having an impact on the environment. However in that case there would be far less humans on the planet so our net impact would be negligible.
But consider that your theoretical 2ft wide path is rarely 2ft wide and will change over time due to erosion, particularly so depending on the nature of the trail. As that path degrades and the organic layer wears away it begins to channel water and hasten the erosion effect. As that happens a tree's roots become exposed, damaged and eventually destroyed, harming the health of the tree. The more 2ft paths there are the more forest that is impacts. Wildlife is also impacted, as humans encroach on an area with significant activity wildlife retreats from the area, possibly losing access to food and water resources. Now of course most healthy trees are able to withstand some damage and it's estimated that once you're outside of the tree's canopy you could eliminate the roots to one side of the tree which would be about 25% and it would not kill or irreparably harm the tree. So realistically most mature trees are not going to be significantly harmed by the theoretical 2ft path.
A choice I've made recently is to try and have as little negative effect on the forest floor as possible with my trail building. I think that 25% marker is too much, and aim to keep it down to less than half of that. This means extra work for me - but I'm ok with that.
There's been research lately that shows the forest is an organism, and that trees communicate with each other via the organic layers and their root systems. Here's a fascinating article if you're interested: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ . So that 2ft path, or more correctly multiple 2ft paths running in all manner of directions, are a bad thing. Now in the big picture, between natural forest fires,and wind storms that kill trees, our 2ft paths don't have a lot of impact. But you could probably think of our impact like getting a new paper cut every few days. It surely won't kill you, but it's not overly pleasant. Compare that to clear cut logging that ravages the surface of the earth and that old growth trees are the most important, and then to the blockades at Fairy creek, and suddenly those efforts to save the last tiny percentage (less than 1% in my estimate from here: https://nsmb.com/forum/forum/nbr-not-biking-related-9/topic/old-growth-logging-132060/ ) of South Coast rain forest from the rape and pillage of the last 150 years seems pretty fucking heroic if you ask me. But I digress. Yeah our 2ft paths matter. But so does everything else we do, unfortunately on a much larger scale.
So that 2ft path matters. It may help in getting people out into nature to appreciate what we have, but my perception is that it actually leads to false impressions where people think we have way more nature than we do. And they take what we have close by for granted which blinds them to what's happening on a global scale. On that global scale, the amount of habitat destruction since the Industrial Revolution is massive, and I think that 2ft path deludes a lot of people into thinking things are A-Ok. It's easy to be wasteful when one has the impression of an endless supply of things. News flash, we don't.
TLDR - that 2ft path in a way represents everything wrong with the way modern society views the planet - as a resource simply to be consumed. This is part of why I'm shifting more to an Indigenous way of thinking. While Indigenous peoples across the globe are not a monolith, that have a very different view of nature and how to interact with it than modern society does.
Edit: kind of a weird divergence for a covid thread.
I'm really glad I clicked on this thread out of boredom. This is completely new to me and I'm better for it, thanks.
The sketch seemed exaggerated to me. Turns out, its not.
https://deepgreenpermaculture.com/tag/calculating-the-tree-protection-zone-tpz/
Posted by: syncro
There's been research lately that shows the forest is an organism, and that trees communicate with each other via the organic layers and their root systems. Here's a fascinating article if you're interested: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ .
Not just communicate, but share resources. I've been fascinated by this since stumbling across that article last year. There is a prof at UBC who has been studying it as well:
Posted by: PaulB
Posted by: syncro
There's been research lately that shows the forest is an organism, and that trees communicate with each other via the organic layers and their root systems. Here's a fascinating article if you're interested: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ .
Not just communicate, but share resources. I've been fascinated by this since stumbling across that article last year. There is a prof at UBC who has been studying it as well:
I just finished reading Simard's book and have also read Wohlleben's. Both are excellent. Really enjoyed Simard's discussions of her research and the system's thinking approach. And all her research was done here in BC too, so made it seem more relatable to me. And fascinating to get a little glimpse into forestry decisions.
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Posted by: PaulB
Posted by: Bull_Dozer
Not sure if that's a serious comment or not...? Assuming it is serious, what do you mean by environmental damage? Bunch of people walking on a relatively short path in the woods is an issue... to what?
I can't see the BP trail getting any worse than it already is, but over the last year, Cove Runner, which used to be not much more than a goat path, has been completely beat down due to all the traffic it has been getting as an alternative to the BP.
Yeah that's the point I was trying to make... how is Quarry Rock any different than any other hiking trail near a populated area?
Re. environmental damage - what does that even mean? Like are there endangered species plants in the direct route of the trail? Are the people hiking causing some sort of pollution to our drinking water? Or are people just worried that there's a walking path in the woods? Assuming it's the latter... Canada is like 99% untouched wilderness, and in terms of environmental issues, people using the wilderness for personal recreation are the the least of your worries... compared to mining, forestry, oil and gas, real estate, etc.
I really disagree when people use the environmental argument to say that building mountain bike trails is bad (aside from very specific circumstances). Why is a 2 foot wide path in the woods such a bad thing?
2ft path is no where near 2ft anymore and continues to grow. Off leash dogs are a nightmare on the surrounding area. I think people can survive if they can't access Quarry Rock from Deep Cove.
I would say it is more due to the increased popularity of Deep Cove and infrastructure that cant handle it.
Then the upper access is closed by the Woodlands Nimby's that don't want people interrupting their daily race track commute.
Forum jump:
