We’re going to give people the benefit of the doubt here, but we’re also going to repeat a statement we made in this space back in October – that “wildlife corridor” is becoming something of a term of convenience.
By term of convenience, we alluded to the fact that so many people, particularly when taking a negative stance against construction of affordable housing, will trip out the “what about the wildlife corridor?” statement.
In the case of impending development, the cry of “what about the wildlife corridor?” will also arise.
Unlike several decades ago, pretty much everybody now recognizes the term wildlife corridor, and many will comment on their intrinsic value to our ecosystem and natural spaces, and argue endlessly over their width, length and alignment.
And yet …
As a new study shows (page 1) – and really, this is embarrassing all around – thousands of people are ignoring wildlife corridors to the point where there are sometimes more humans (and their dogs, of course) than wildlife within them.
And this is where we’ll give people the benefit of the doubt.
We’re going to go ahead and assume that many people, because wildlife corridors are not signed every five or 10 metres, or solidly fenced off, simply find themselves within them because they don’t know where they are located.
If we don’t assume that, then what is the assumption?
That many residents and visitors alike are filled with such a sense of entitlement that wildlife corridors are simply something to be ignored as a barrier to their enjoyment of daily life? Ski, bike, hike and ignore the effects on wildlife?
Do we assume dog owners feel so entitled to roam wherever they please with their offleash pets that they as well feel free to ignore wildlife corridors in favour of getting Rover out for a run and a not-to-be-picked-up poop?
Is this the same sense of entitlement that allows mountain bikers to be out in the woods constructing features and cutting trails while ignoring routes constructed specifically for them? Or that allows dog owners to have their pooches at the Quarry Lake beach area, despite signage, or have them running around loose at Cascade Ponds and other trails, for example?
Maybe, or hopefully, the issue of human encroachment into wildlife corridors is not as wide-spread as it seems? Are the thousands of images of people in corridors more a result of consistent abuse by fewer entitled humans – chronic abusers, if you will – rather than wide abuse by greater numbers?
In the end, corridors will only be effective in providing safe havens for wildlife if humans and their offleash dogs stay out of them. That seems like an obvious statement, but one which, judging by the photographic evidence available, is not.
Should humans and their dogs continue traipsing through wildlife corridors, they may well contribute to the disappearance of the critters that draw people to the valley in the first place.
Maybe in future, when residents speak against projects in our towns, they should offer up a statement similar to those used in Alcoholic or Gamblers Anonymous meetings – “Hi, my name is (fill in the blank) and I do not enter wildlife corridors.”
