誰該爲破壞大自然負責大綱

Readers respond to a Sunday Review article, “Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again.”
本文是對《戶外運動打破了大自然的寧靜》（2015年2月17日）一文的迴應。

To the Editor:
致編輯：

“Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again,” by Christopher SoloMon (Sunday Review, Feb. 15), is a reminder that we humans affect the natural world even when we think that we don’t. But two caveats.
克里斯托弗·所羅門的《戶外運動打破了大自然的寧靜》提醒我們：人類在自身沒有察覺的情況下也仍可能對自然界產生影響。不過有兩點需要說明。

First, even if a hiker or a skier frightens wildlife more than a passing snow machine, the machine probably still has more effect. Why? Because motor vehicles travel many times farther on an average trip, and thus affect much more habitat compared with those traveling under their own power.
首先，即便一位徒步者或滑雪者給野生動物帶來的驚嚇多過一輛行駛的雪地摩托車，摩托車也仍可能產生更多的影響。爲什麼呢？摩托車的平均單次活動距離比人多出許多倍。因此，相比於那些僅憑自身力量的人，摩托車會影響更多的動物棲息地。

Second, conservationists have rightly focused on the damage caused by mines and logging in the backcountry not only because such projects directly destroy habitat, but also because they inevitably require new roads. For example, a recently proposed coal mine expansion on national forest in Colorado would require six miles of new road in roadless habitat that is home to black bear, elk and lynx. Such roads not only slice and dice habitat, but they also extend human effects, including recreational travel of all kinds, while also creating vectors for invasive species and more frequent wildfires.
其次，環保主義者集中關注邊遠地區開礦和伐木活動造成的破壞，這是合理的。因爲這些項目不僅對動物棲息地造成直接破壞，還無法避免地要求修建新的公路。例如，最近一項在科羅拉多國家森林內增開煤礦的計劃，要求在原本無路的區域開闢6英里（約9.66千米）的新路。該區域正是黑熊、麋鹿和山貓的棲息地。這樣的新路不僅將動物的生存區域分割成小塊，還擴大了人類活動的影響，比如各種休閒旅遊活動，同時爲入侵物種提供了載體，增加了森林野火的發生機率。

TED ZUKOSKI
泰德·祖科斯基(TED ZUKOSKI)

Boulder, Colo.
美國科羅拉多州博爾德

The writer is an environmental lawyer for Earthjustice, Rocky Mountain office.
作者是“地球正義”(Earthjustice)落基山脈分部的環境事務律師。

To the Editor:
致編輯：

Christopher Solomon describes the results of Kimberly Heinemeyer’s survey of different types of “recreation” on the increasing avoidance of humans by wildlife on public land in the United States in terms of the most benign recreational activities.
克里斯托弗·所羅門描述了金伯利·海因梅耶(Kimberly Heinemeyer)關於最溫和的休閒活動的研究成果，在美國的公共土地上，各種各樣的“休閒活動”導致野生動物對人類的躲避行爲持續增加。

Working for the National Park Service two years ago as a biological technician, I noted harassment of wildlife in the park, mostly by human noise and mess. But unscrupulous hunters armed with “recreation” permits would wait for wild animals to cross over the National Park border and then blow them away with hunting rifles on National Forest land.
兩年前，作爲一名生物技術人員，我在國家公園管理局(National Park Service)工作。我注意到，公園中野生動物受到的騷擾大多來自人類製造的噪音和混亂。然而，肆無忌憚的獵人攜帶“休閒”活動的許可，等待野生動物越過國家公園的邊界，然後在國家森林的土地上用獵槍射殺它們。

Which type of “recreation” do you think causes more avoidance of human beings?
你認爲哪一種“休閒活動”引起了生物對人類更多的躲避呢？

JUSTIN PHILLIPS
賈斯汀·菲爾普斯(JUSTIN PHILLIPS)

Olympia, Wash.
美國華盛頓州奧林匹亞

To the Editor:
致編輯：

Christopher Solomon may be right in arguing that even something so benign as a mere walk in the woods (no camping, no fires, no trash left behind), something that I occasionally do, can be damaging to wildlife, but he will generate absolutely no support so long as parks and shorelines are open to heli-skiing, Sno-Cat skiing, snowmobiles, mountain bikes, dune buggies and off-road or all-terrain vehicles.
克里斯托弗·所羅門或許是正確的，他提出，即便是一些很溫和的活動，如林間散步（不露營、不生火、不留下垃圾）這種我本人也偶爾參加的活動，也可能對野生動物造成傷害。但只要公園和沿海地區仍對直升機空降滑雪、雪地履帶式滑雪、雪地摩托車、山地自行車、沙丘車和越野、多地形車開放，所羅門就不會得到任何支持。

Lumping such a wide range of outdoor activities under the same heading makes no sense. And it will only leave Mr. Solomon alone, a voice crying in the wilderness.
把如此多樣的戶外運動混淆在一起，置於同一標題下，是沒有任何意義的，只留下所羅門先生一人在孤獨的荒野中大吼。

BILL MARSANO
比爾·馬薩諾(BILL MARSANO)

New York
美國紐約

To the Editor:
致編輯：

Christopher Solomon’s intriguing, and alarming, article about the adverse effects on wildlife from seemingly benign activities like hiking suggests that we should be prepared to accept restricted access to parks and wildlife areas.
克里斯托弗·所羅門的文章引人入勝，引發擔憂，它描述了一些看似溫和的活動，如徒步等，對野生動物產生的負面影響，這也意味着我們應該準備接受對進入公園和野生保護區的限制了。

Unfortunately, we are assaulting our environment in many more ways than wandering forest trails: flooding the oceans with tons of plastic refuse and creating excess greenhouse gases, to name two.
不幸的是，我們破壞環境的方式遠不止於林間散步，隨便舉兩個例子：向海洋排放上噸的塑料廢品和製造超量的溫室氣體。

But Mr. Solomon is correct. Reduced access — particularly when it’s caused by reduced demand — is the answer for the protection of wildlife and the planet.
不過所羅門是正確的。限制進入——特別是當需求減少的時候——是保護野生動物和保護地球的良策。

Earth resources are fixed but are more than sufficient for a given number of inhabitants. All our environmental concerns can be linked to increasing demands from an expanding population. If there were fewer people, there would be fewer demands for plastic bottles, power plants and, yes, for hiking trails.
地球資源是有限的，但對於一定數量的居民來說遠遠足夠。我們所有環境方面的顧慮都可以和人口增長引發的需求增長聯繫起來。如果人口減少，塑料瓶、發電站，沒錯，徒步路線的需求也將減少。

The arguments against responsible population control are manifold and persuasive. Yet in one generation, many of the environmental fears of the last 50 years could be just memories, and a future of rising sea levels, mega-droughts, and food and water shortages postponed indefinitely.
反對人口控制的意見是多種多樣、具有說服力的。對於一代人而言，過去50年的許多環境擔憂恐怕只留存在記憶中，海平面上升、特大旱災和食物、水資源的短缺也被他們無限地推遲到了遙遠的未來。

MARK S. BACON
馬克·S·貝肯(MARK S. BACON)

Reno, Nev.
美國內華達州里諾

To the Editor:
致編輯：

Footsteps do affect fragile ecosystems. But as custodians of open space eagerly pursue tourism, they pursue development.
戶外活動確實會影響脆弱的生態系統。戶外空間的管理人渴望發展旅遊業，其實是在追求經濟發展。

In our mid-Hudson town of New Paltz, the Mohonk Preserve, in a longstanding partnership with the for-profit Mohonk Mountain House resort, plans 100-plus car parking, visitor center, boardwalk, bulldozed trails, toilet sheds and outdoor lighting, encouraging visitors from far and near to leap into their fossil-fueled vehicles to swarm in ever greater numbers into the unspoiled.
在我們哈德遜河中部城市新帕爾茨，莫康克保護區(Mohonk Preserve)與營利性的莫康克山豪斯酒店(Mohonk Mountain House)有着長期合作關係，他們規劃了100多個停車位和遊客中心、浮橋、旅遊路線、衛生間棚、戶外照明，鼓勵遠近的遊客一躍而上跳到他們的化石燃料供能車裏，以前所未有的數量涌向未被破壞的土地。

Recreation is a profitable and competitive industry, and green access is a resource that can be exploited as ruthlessly as any other, to the detriment of both wild and human habitat. It affects not only the trampled green space but also its buffer, where someone, till now, could stop to help a tortoise cross the highway without setting off half a mile of honking cars.
休閒是一個盈利、具有競爭力的產業，而自然是一種可以像任何其他資源一樣被殘酷掠奪的資源，可以對野生動物和人類的生存空間造成破壞。它不僅影響了被侵入的自然空間，還影響了緩衝區，在那些地方，人們以前還可以停下來讓一隻龜穿過公路，而不必擔心阻斷車流，引致半英里的汽車鳴笛。

C. A. RODRIGUEZ
C·A·羅德里格斯(C. A. RODRIGUEZ)

New Paltz, N.Y.
美國紐約州新帕爾茨

To the Editor:
致編輯：

Christopher Solomon’s article is sad but not surprising. For animals that live in wilderness, the sound, sight or scent of humans is a threat. The more of us there are, the fewer of them there will be.
克里斯托弗·所羅門的文章令人悲傷但並不令人驚訝。對於生活在野外的動物來說，人類的聲音、景象和氣味都是威脅。我們越多，它們越少。

As Mr. Solomon wrote, “A century ago, nature had elbow room.” Perhaps the best solution is to wake up to the fact that a century later, there are simply too many humans for this planet to support.
正如所羅門所寫：“一個世紀前，大自然還有一些自己的空間。”或許問題最好的解決辦法是意識到這樣一個事實：一個世紀之後的今天，對於這個星球來說，需要養活的人實在太多了。

LAURIE HAMMOND
勞瑞·海蒙德(LAURIE HAMMOND)

Los Altos, Calif.
美國加利福尼亞州洛思阿圖斯