Wildlife Need
Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
mjvande@pacbell.net
October 12, 1997
Updated August
23, 2024
"Of what avail are forty freedoms, without a blank spot on
the map?" Aldo
Leopold
"For every living creature [including humans!], there are
places where it does not belong." p.251 "I believe it is a public
responsibility to safeguard what we can of wilderness before the great push of
man's numbers; and to safeguard with it ... the shy wild ones that need
man-less expanses in which to thrive." p.262. Paul L. Errington, Of
Predation and Life
"I confess to
further disquieting thoughts as to how much moral right man actually has to
regard the Earth as his exclusive possession, to despoil or befoul as he will.
Man has or should have some minimal responsibility toward the Earth he claims
and toward the other forms of life that have been on the Earth as long as or
longer than he has." Paul Errington, A Question of
Values, p.153.
"If you want
to be good to the environment, stay away from it." Edward L. Glaeser
"The biggest thing for habitat and
grizzly bear conservation is managing human access. If you can keep people
away, you can keep grizzlies safe. Over 90 per cent of grizzly mortalities
in Alberta are caused by humans." Carl Morrison
"It is true to
say that large tracts of Tropical Africa are still sealed off from settlement
by man because they are occupied by the tsetse-fly" V. B. Wigglesworth, The Life
of Insects, p.311.
"As humans we
live with the constant presumption of dominion. We believe that we own the
world, that it belongs to us, that we have it under our firm control. But the
sailor knows all too well the fallacy of this view. The sailor sits by his
tiller, waiting and watching. He knows he isn't sovereign of earth and sky, any
more than the fish in the sea or the birds in the air." Richard Bode, First You Have
to Row a Little Boat, p.3.
"There is a way that
nature speaks, that land speaks. Most of the time we are simply not patient
enough, quiet enough, to pay attention to the story." Linda Hogan
"We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and
some life pasturing freely where we never wander." Henry
David Thoreau
"When most
wild animals first encounter humans, they respond as they would to any predator
-- by running, swimming or flying away." Samia et al
"As our species spread to
various continents, we wiped out their large mammals; as we progressed to
oceanic islands, we extinguished many mammals that were much smaller, and even
more birds, especially flightless species." Paul S. Martin
People recreate outdoors because they enjoy being in the wilderness. But
the more that humans insert themselves into natural habitats, the less wildlife
seem to want to be there. … But Matt Shinderman, a
natural resources professor at OSU-Cascades, says the thought process needs to
go beyond balancing types of recreation. Sometimes, he says, the only
appropriate human use is no human use. 'Striving for balance would be great,' Shinderman says. But, 'we need to start by asking
ourselves, as a community, is there anything we are willing to leave
alone?'" http://www.bendsource.com/bend/near-and-mule-deer/Content?oid=2524009
"It’s a
fact that we have to share nature with dangerous animals. Whether it is by land
or by sea, there could come a time when we run across a creature that is wired
in such a way that it does not want us around."
https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2016/07/05/montana-bear-kills-mountain-biker/
Chiribiquete National Park is a park
in the Country of Columbia that is the largest rainforest park in the
world. It received World Heritage Site designation a few years
ago. Columbia has it completely closed to people, except
biologists who are employed to monitor and study it. It is very
strictly regulated. It has some "uncontacted tribes" living
there that are protected. It is a model of what can be possible if a
culture/country wants it.
The Northwest Hawaiian
Islands are off-limits to everyone except biologists. But, of course, the
wildlife have a hard time distinguishing biologists
from normal people. ;)
1.5% of the land
area of Russia is protected as strict Zapovednik
nature reserves with very limited access. http://www.georgewright.org/181danilina.pdf
The Problem
Human beings think that
we own, and have the right to dominate, every square inch of the Earth. That,
besides being an absurd idea, is the basic reason why we are losing, worldwide,
about 100 species per day. Habitat loss is at the top of every list of
the primary reasons why species have become extinct or are in danger of
becoming extinct.
Outright destruction of
habitat (for example, paving it or turning it into farms, golf courses, housing
developments, or parks) is not the only way that an area can become untenable
(useless) as habitat. Anything that makes it unattractive or unavailable to a
given species causes habitat loss. Have you ever wondered why most animals run
away when we come near? It certainly isn't because they love having us around!
Many animals simply will not tolerate the presence of humans. The grizzly bear
and mountain lion are just two examples. The grizzly needs a huge territory,
can smell and hear a human being from a great distance, and will avoid going
near a road.
Humans are the ants
at every other species’ picnic. One of the first things that children learn
about wild animals is that most of them run (fly, swim, slither, hop) away
whenever we get close to them. (A few, such as mosquitoes, like having us
around.) Some are more tolerant of us than others, but in any given area, there
are at least some that don’t like having us around.
Let’s take as a premise
that we do not want to cause any extinctions. I think that most people agree
with that. But what follows, is that we have to set aside adequate habitat for
all existing species, and that much of it must be human-free. That is not
understood by most people, even most biologists. We claim to believe in the
Golden Rule, but we apply it only to fellow humans. It has been said that "The
measure of a culture is how well it treats its least powerful members". By
this, our own measure, human society is a failure in its relations with the
rest of creation.
In 6 million years of
human evolution, there has never been an area off limits to humans -- an area
which we deliberately choose not to enter so that the species that live there
can flourish unmolested by humans. There are places called
"wildlife sanctuaries", where human recreation, hunting, logging, oil
drilling, or even mining are usually allowed. There are a few places where only
biologists and land managers are allowed (e.g. California’s condor sanctuary).
There have been places called "sacred", where only priests could go
(in other words, they were "sacred" only to ordinary people). But to
my knowledge, there has never been any place, however small, from which the
human community has voluntarily excluded itself.
There has been a lot of
talk in recent years about looking for life on other planets. For its
sake, I hope we never find it! Why, after the inconsiderate way we have treated
wildlife on this planet, should we be allowed to invade the even more
fragile habitats that may be found in other places? While the thought of
finding such life is intriguing, I haven’t heard anyone suggest that we
consider its feelings and wishes, e.g. the likelihood that it would want
to be left alone (quite reasonable, considering our history!). How are we going
to communicate with intelligent life on other planets, when we can’t even
communicate with the intelligent life on this planet? Besides, since the
laws of physics and chemistry are universal, it is unlikely that any such
organisms would be dramatically different from those on Earth.
What scientific evidence
do we have that wildlife need to be free of human intrusion? Not much, probably
because scientists are people, and like the rest of us are instinctively
curious about every thing and every place, and don’t
care to be excluded from anywhere. For most of us, travel is just
entertainment, but scientists probably see their livelihood and success as
depending on being able to travel to any part of the globe and "collect"
(i.e., kill) any organism they find there. I doubt that there are many
scientific studies of the environmental harm done by the pursuit of science.
(As recently as 1979
(Wilkins and Peterson, p. 178), we find statements like "Populations of
wild animals can have the annual surplus cropped without harm". Insect
field guides, e.g. Powell and Hogue (1979), also recommend collecting insects
as "an exciting and satisfying hobby for anyone" (p. 359). Does that
mean that collecting grizzlies or tigers is also an acceptable "hobby"?)
However, there is
recent research (e.g. Knight and Gutzwiller, 1995)
showing that recreation, even activity traditionally thought of as harmless to
wildlife, can be harmful, or even deadly: "Traditionally, observing,
feeding, and photographing wildlife were considered to be 'nonconsumptive'
activities because removal of animals from their natural habitats did not
occur.... nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was
considered relatively benign in terms of its effects on wildlife; today,
however, there is a growing recognition that wildlife-viewing recreation can
have serious negative impacts on wildlife" (p. 257). "Activities
[involving] nonmotorized travel ...
[have] caused the creation of more ... trails in wildlands.... These activities are extensive in nature and have the ability to
disrupt wildlife in many ways, particularly by displacing animals from an
area" (p. 56). "Recreational disturbance has traditionally
been viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season.
Recently, it has become apparent that disturbance outside of the animal's
breeding season may have equally severe effects" (p. 73). "People have an impact on wildlife habitat and all that
depends on it, no matter what the activity" (p. 157). "Perhaps the major way that people have influenced wildlife
populations is through encroachment into wildlife areas" (p. 160).
"Recreationists are, ironically, destroying the very thing they love:
the blooming buzzing confusion of nature.... The recreation industry deserves
to be listed on the same page with interests that are cutting the last of the
old-growth forests, washing fertile topsoils into the
sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere"
(p.340). (Note: wildlife have a hard time
distinguishing between biologists and recreationists!)
In other words, if we
are to preserve the other species with which we share the Earth, we need to set
aside large, interconnected areas of habitat that are entirely off limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Our idea of what constitutes viable
habitat is not important; what matters is how the wildlife who live there
think. When a road is built through a habitat area, many species will not cross
it, even though they are physically capable of doing so. For example, a bird
that prefers dense forest may be afraid to cross such an open area where they
may be vulnerable to attack by their predators. The result is a loss of
habitat: a portion of their preferred mates, foods, and other resources have
become effectively unavailable. This can reduce population sizes, cause
inbreeding, impoverish their gene pool, and impair their ability to adapt to
changing circumstances (such as global warming). It can lead to local (and
eventually, final) extinction. Small, isolated populations can easily be wiped
out by a fire or other disaster. Other species are not as flexible as we are.
We can survive practically anywhere on Earth, and perhaps other places as well!
What Wildlife Need
Wildlife are not that different from us. Chimpanzees, for example,
are genetically 98% identical with us. Therefore, we should expect that they
need just what we need: a place to live that contains all necessary
resources (food, water, shelter, potential mates, etc.). It is not too hard to
tell when animals are dissatisfied -- they vote with their feet; they die, or
leave. The key is to look at things from the wildlife’s point of view. As
simple and obvious as it sounds, it is rarely done. For example, how often do
road builders consider how wildlife will get across the road? My cat
communicates clearly what he wants: when he wants to go out, he whines and then
goes to the door and stares at the doorknob; when he is hungry, he leads me to
the refrigerator or his dish. We are proud of our power of empathy, but rarely
apply it to wildlife. We don’t want to be bothered by wildlife in our homes;
wildlife apparently feel the same.
"Pure Habitat"
Go to any library, and
try to find a book on human-free habitat. Apparently, there aren’t any!
There isn’t even a subject heading for it in the Library of Congress subject
index. I spent two days in the University of California’s Biology Library (in
Berkeley), a very prestigious collection, without success. The closest subject
is probably "wilderness", but wilderness is always considered a place
for human recreation. So-called "wildlife sanctuaries" encourage
recreation, and often allow hunting, logging, oil drilling, or even mining. The
category "animal-human relationships" should contain such a book, but
doesn’t. The idea is conceivable, because I just did it, but apparently no one
has even considered it important enough to write about, since we "own the entire Earth".
I once read Dolores LaChapelle’s Sacred Land Sacred Sex (1988), hoping
to learn what sacred land is. I didn’t find an answer in the book, but I took
the fact that sacred land is often restricted to the "priesthood" to
imply that sacred land is honored by not going there! So we could say
that human-free habitat is "sacred" land, except to priests and
scientists (a type of "priest"), who are always allowed to go there.
(This is another indication that science desacralizes whatever it touches.
Ironically, it is science that has proven the need for sacred land!)
Probably the simplest term is "pure [wildlife] habitat", but "wilderness"
and "wildlife sanctuary" should be synonymous with it. ("Wildlife"
is "all non-human, nondomesticated species",
and thus doesn’t include us.)
(Note: I am not talking
about de facto human-free habitat, that is
off-limits simply because it is difficult to get to, such as the inside of a volcano
or the bottom of the ocean. Such areas will all be visited in time, as
technology becomes available that makes them accessible. The key is the
conscious decision of the human community to restrain itself from going there.)
Why Create Pure Habitat?
Some wildlife are sensitive to the presence of people. In order to
preserve them, we need to create areas off-limits to humans.
It’s educational.
Publicity about areas where people aren’t allowed teaches people about what
wildlife need, and how to preserve them.
Some animals are more
dangerous to people or livestock than humans are willing to accept (e.g. tigers
or grizzlies). The only way we can preserve such species is to grant them a
place to live where there are no people or livestock. Otherwise, whenever they
attack someone, we kill them, as recently happened to a tiger that attacked a
zoo employee in India.
The more accessible an area is to people, the less it is respected. "Sacred"
land is accorded the highest respect. "Terra incognito" was not even
mapped. A map tells people (nonverbally) that it is okay to go there. So do
trails. Roads, which are built by bulldozer, "say" that we can do
anything we want to the land. Many park trails are now created by bulldozer.
Even when bikes aren’t allowed there, it is hard to keep them out, because the
use of a bulldozer indicates that the land is not important, and that rough
treatment won’t hurt it. Part of being sacred is the feeling of mystery.
Mapping, roads, and other aids to human access destroy much of that feeling of
mystery. For example, a map trivializes all areas and reduces them to a few
lines and colors on paper. Beauty (except for some "scenic highways")
and biodiversity are generally ignored.
Wildlife generally
prefer human-free habitat. Since they are so similar to us (98%, in the case of
the chimpanzee, and probably a similar large percentage for every other
species), we have very little excuse to treat them differently. If we
deserve to be unmolested in our homes, so do they.
There are too many
species on the Earth, and too little time, to study them all and determine
their precise habitat requirements. The only safe course is to assume that they
all need at least the habitat that they now occupy, and preferably,
access to their traditional territory. Or, as Aldo Leopold said, we need to "save
all the pieces".
Obviously, we need to
experience wilderness in order to appreciate it. But equally obviously, we need
to practice restraint, if we are to preserve that wilderness. Having areas
completely off-limits to humans will remind us of that need to practice
restraint. It is a reminder of the importance of humility, like the practice of
saying grace before meals.
It is the right thing to
do. Why not ask for what we want?
Practical Considerations
Parks, because they
already provide some protection, are a good place to start building a network
of wildlife sanctuaries. They provide the "seeds" of a "full-function"
habitat-and-corridor matrix designed to preserve our biological heritage. But
they need to be changed and renamed, because "parks" are, by
definition and practice, places for pleasuring humans. Many parks should be
allowed to revert to wilderness, and wilderness should be a place that we enter
rarely, reverently, and on its own terms.
It is obviously nearly
always impractical to maintain an area free of people by force. Probably the
best that we can do is to remove all human artifacts, including nearby trails
and roads. (This should be done soon, because it will become enormously more
expensive, as soon as we run out of oil!) Then a few people may be able to
enter the area, but at least it will be at their own risk (no helicopter
rescues!). If we aren’t going to go there, then we don’t need to retain the
area on maps; they can be "de-mapped" and replaced with a blank spot
and the words "terra incognito".
Roads and other
rights-of-way are a particular problem. Due to the fragmenting effect of any
such corridor, where it cannot avoid crossing a habitat area, it should, if possible,
tunnel under the wildlife area, so that wildlife can travel freely
across it.
Where Should Wildlife Sanctuaries Be Located?
Everywhere.
In large wilderness areas, there should be large wildlife sanctuaries, but even
in cities, and back yards, where there is less viable habitat available, some
of it should still be set aside for the exclusive use of wildlife, because (a)
it is fair, and (b) it would serve to remind us to always keep wildlife in
mind, just as indoor shrines in Japanese homes (and photos on our fireplace
mantels) serve as a constant cue to remember gods and deceased relatives. After
all, most human habitations are located on land that was also attractive to
wildlife (e.g., near a source of drinking water). (Remember, we are 98% identical
....) And cities form significant barriers to wildlife travel.
Having pure habitat
nearby is very educational. I am experimenting with setting aside a 20 x 20
foot area in my back yard as pure habitat. It gives me a good opportunity to
learn how to cope with my feelings of curiosity about what is going on there,
desire to "improve" it as habitat, the need for a way to maintain its
pristinity in perpetuity, etc. Creating travel
corridors is a major difficulty. However, recently I have heard that some San
Francisco residents are tearing down their backyard fences in order to make it
easier for wildlife to travel across the city.
Difficulties
What will wildlife and
wildlands "managers" do for a living? Not all wildlife habitat will be closed to humans. They can manage the
remainder. For those that will be closed, they can remove all human
artifacts and invasive non-native species, restore the area to its "wild"
condition, and educate the public about what they are doing.
Roads, as we discussed,
fragment habitat. How can it be prevented? Probably most major roads
should be replaced by rail lines, which are much narrower in relation to their
carrying capacity, and present much less of a barrier to wildlife. For example,
the time between trains is much greater than the interval between motor
vehicles on a road. Besides, we will soon be running out of oil, and won’t be
able to justify keeping so many lane miles of roadway open for the dwindling
number of cars and trucks.
Many people may have to
move. But compared to wildlife, people can pretty well take care of themselves.
Wildlife, if we are to preserve them, must be given priority. They cannot
protect themselves from us.
"People will not
appreciate what they can’t see and use". This is an obvious myth. Many
people appreciate and work to protect areas that they may never experience
directly. I don’t need to visit every wilderness area in the world, to
know that they need to be protected. I don’t need to see every Alameda whipsnake to want to save the entire species. Why cater to,
and hence promote, selfishness? Besides, we need to protect many areas (e.g.
Antarctica and the bottom of the ocean) long before we are able to bring
people there to learn to appreciate them directly. The relationship
between the number of visitors, and the degree of protection given the area, is
not linear!
We have an instinct to
explore; if an area is closed to us, that is exactly where we want to go! There
are many areas of life where we need to practice restraint, and where we all
benefit from it -- for example, in our relations with our family, friends, and
community. Margulis and Sagan (1986) argue
convincingly that cooperation (e.g. between eukaryotic cells and their
symbiotic mitochondria), just as much as competition, has been responsible for
our successful evolution. If we compete with other species, we will surely "win"
-- and then doom ourselves to extinction, just like a symbiont that destroys
its host. We don’t have to indulge all of our "instincts"; in fact,
we are better off if we don’t!
We still need access to
wilderness in order to learn to appreciate it, but since we aren’t closing all
wilderness to people, that need can still be
satisfied. In fact, all children should be taken to see wilderness soon after
they are born, because it is the only place they can see how things are
supposed to be in this world! If they grow up around nothing but concrete, then
concrete may become their ideal!
How Pure Habitat Benefits Us
It preserves species
that are an essential part of our own ecosystems, and on whom we are dependent
for essential (e.g. foods) or desired (e.g. a variety of foods) products
and services. It provides a source of individuals to repopulate or revitalize
depleted local populations (assuming that connecting wildlife corridors are
maintained).
Knowing that wildlife
are safe and healthy gives us a feeling of safety and security (like the canary
in the mine), as well as the satisfaction we get from cherishing others
(satisfying our "maternal/paternal" instincts?). We must carry a
heavy load of guilt when we learn that our lifestyle is causing the suffering,
death, or even extinction of our fellow Earthlings (e.g. from clearcutting
tropical forests)!
Wildlife, even if we
don’t utilize it directly, can teach us by giving us an independent view of
reality and examples of different values (assuming that we listen).
For the sake of the
environment, for our own health and happiness, and for our children, we need to
move toward a more sustainable lifestyle. The primary obstacle is our reliance
on technology. Coincidentally, the primary threat to wildlife is also
technology -- e.g. tools that make wildlife habitat more accessible, such as
maps, GPS sensors, satellites, bulldozers, 4-wheel-drive vehicles, mountain
bikes, rafts, climbing equipment, night-vision goggles, etc. Banning the use of
such technologies in order to protect wildlife can at the same time help us move
toward a more sustainable future.
Perhaps the greatest
benefit of all, is distracting us from our selfish, petty concerns, and giving
us something more meaningful to work on. Remember "We Are the World"?
People from all over the world united to come to the aid of a third party: the
world’s starving children. While working together, they were able to forget
their own needs, and focus wholly on rescuing children who were in trouble.
Well, wildlife are in even more trouble! We all
(according to E.O. Wilson) instinctively love nature. Why not focus on this
common value, work together to rescue the large proportion of the world’s
wildlife that are in serious danger (according to the IUCN, one fourth of the
world's animals are threatened with extinction), and put aside our relatively
petty squabbles -- e.g. those causing wars all over the world?
Human groups often fight
over things so subtle that outsiders have trouble understanding what all the
fuss is about. For example, Canadians have long been bickering over which
language to speak, while their forests are being clearcut
and their water contaminated with mercury! Language and culture are important,
but not in comparison to what wildlife have to endure, including
extinction!
Conclusion
The existence of life on
the Earth is probably inevitable, given the laws of chemistry and physics and
the range of conditions and elements available here. However, at the same time,
the life of any given individual is exceedingly fragile. A hair’s
breadth separates the living state from the dead. In fact, there is apparently
no difference between living and inanimate matter.
The proof is a seed. Take, for example, one of the seeds that germinated after being in
an Egyptian pyramid for 3000 years. What was that seed doing for 3000
years? Obviously, nothing! If it did anything, it would consume energy,
and use up its store of nutrients. Therefore, it was "alive"
(viable), but undetectably so. (Similarly, there are frogs that yearly survive
being frozen solid! Viruses and prions are two other examples of dead matter
that engages in processes usually associated only with being alive.) In other
words, life is simply a process, like the flowing of water, that can stop and
start. (Or perhaps we should say that we are all dead, but sometimes undergo
processes that are usually associated with, and called, "being alive".)
And it also follows that we are essentially indistinguishable from
inanimate matter.
As I discussed earlier,
we are also essentially indistinguishable from other organisms. Every lever by
which we have attempted to separate ourselves from other species has, in the
end, failed. So how should we treat them? We have no rational basis for
treating them any different from ourselves. We need a place to live that
is satisfactory to us, and wildlife need, and deserve, the same.
When I enjoy nature, I
feel that I incur a debt. What better way to repay that debt, than to grant
wildlife a human-free habitat -- to which they were adapted and accustomed for
4 billion years?! Are we big (generous) enough to give other species what they
want and need, and share the Earth with them? Do we really have a choice?!
References:
Boyle, Stephen A. and Fred B. Samson, Nonconsumptive
Outdoor Recreation: An Annotated Bibliography of Human-Wildlife Interactions.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
Special Scientific Report -- Wildlife No. 252, 1983.
Clinchy, Michael, Liana Y. Zanette, Devin Roberts,
Justin P. Suraci, Christina D. Buesching,
Chris Newman, David W. Macdonald. Fear
of the human "super predator" far exceeds the fear of large
carnivores in a model mesocarnivore. Behavioral
Ecology, 2016; arw117 DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arw117
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes
and Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House,
1981.
Errington, Paul L., Of Predation and Life. Ames, Iowa: Iowa
State University Press, 1967.
Errington, Paul L., A Question of Values. Ames, Iowa: Iowa
State University Press, 1987.
Fennell, Mitchell J. E., Adam T. Ford, Tara
G. Martin, A.
Cole Burton, Assessing the impacts of recreation on
the spatial and temporal activity of mammals in an isolated alpine protected
area. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.10733, November 28, 2023.
Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York:
Harmony Books, 1991.
Grumbine, R. Edward, Ghost Bears.
Washington, DC: Island Press, 1992.
Hammitt,
William E. and David N. Cole, Wildland Recreation -- Ecology and Management. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1987.
Harrod,
Howard L., The Animals Came Dancing.
Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2000.
Hilty, Jody A., Annika T. H.
Keeley, William Z. Lidicker Jr., and Adina M. Merenlender, Corridor Ecology - Linking Landscapes for
Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Adaptation. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press, 2019.
Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller,
eds. Wildlife and Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island
Press, c.1995.
LaChapelle,
Dolores, Sacred Land Sacred Sex -- Rapture of the Deep. Durango,
Colorado: Kivaki Press, c.1988.
Liddle, Michael,
Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London, c.1997.
Life on the Edge. A Guide to
California's Endangered Natural Resources: Wildlife. Santa Cruz,
California: BioSystem Books, 1994.
Monkey-Only Hot Springs: http://uverse.com/watch/c___YNtMk2hcJW3i?ref=yfp
Margulis,
Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Microcosmos
-- Four Billion Years of Microbial Evolution. Berkeley,
California: University of California Press, c. 1986.
Martin, Paul S. Twilight of the Mammoths – Ice Age Extinctions
and the Rewilding of America. Berkeley: University of California Press,
c.2005.
Myers, Norman, ed., Gaia: An Atlas of
Planet Management, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1984.
Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects
of Roads", in "Killing Roads", Earth First!
Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy: Protecting and
Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo, California,
1994.
Powell, Jerry A. and Charles L. Hogue, California
Insects. Berkeley: University of California Press, c. 1979.
Pryde, Philip R., Conservation in the
Soviet Union. London: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Reed, Sarah E. and Adina M. Merenlender, "Quiet, Nonconsumptive
Recreation Reduces Protected Area Effectiveness". Conservation
Letters, 2008, 1–9.
Samia, Diogo S. M., Shinichi Nakagawa, Fausto Nomura,
Thiago F. Rangel, Daniel T. Blumstein. Increased
tolerance to humans among disturbed wildlife. Nature Communications, 2015; 6: 8877 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9877.
Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William
Kaufmann, Inc., 1973.
Terborgh, John, Carel
van Schaik, Lisa Davenport, and Madhu Rao, eds., Making
Parks Work. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2002.
Vandeman, Michael J., http://www.imaja.com/as/environment/mvarticles and https://mjvande.info, especially "Wildlife and the Ecocity" and "‘Harmless’ Recreation Kills
Wildlife!"
Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of
Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the Preservation of Biodiversity. New
York: Bantam Books, 1994.
Weiner, Douglas R., A Little Corner of Freedom. Russian Nature Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1999.
"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont:
The Cenozoic Society, 1994.
Wilkins, Bruce J. and Steven R. Peterson, "Nongame Wildlife",
in Wildlife Conservation: Principles and Practices, Richard D. Teague
and Eugene Decker, eds. Washington, D. C.: The Wildlife Society, c. 1979.
Wilson, Edward O., The
Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press,
1992.
NOTE: This article was published in Journal of Health Science,
Volume 3, Number 1, January 2015 (Serial Number 14)