As an unabashed tree-hugger, some of the comments recently made in the threads about "Sharing" disturb me greatly...some points to ponder: In an article that I recently read, Bob Otis, a behavioral psychologist from Ripon College in Wisconsin, is studying the impact of boats on the behavior of the Orcas that travel through Haro Strait, between Vancouver and Washington. One of his main concerns is the growing number of boats around these orcas. While his main concern was with powerboats, he also addressed the problems of kayakers specifically. I'm quoting him here: "Whales also tend to act unusual around kayakers, who frequently speed out to get closer to the passing animals. It's easy for kayaks and smaller boat to sneak up on orcas," he says, "and we've witnessed whales skipping or cutting short a breathing cycle when encountering kayakers." The full text can be read at this URL: http://elpc54136.lboro.ac.uk/orcas/boating.html I myself have witnessed boaters chasing dolphins here on the coast of Texas in Galveston Bay. Under the American Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 establishes guidelines that prohibit boaters -- including kayaks and inflatable crafts -- from actively approaching cetaceans closer than 100 yards. Another researcher (Dr M. Markus in South Africa) has had to abandon his behavior research on the Great White shark due to eco-tourism disturbances. Replying to some specific points previously made, on 4/22/98 12:55PM, R. Walker wrote: >Rights are legal constructs. People have a right to kayak / travel >on navigable waterways [legal definition]. Thats just the way it >is. Try navigating the Grand Canyon without a permit-if you get caught, you'll be fined (and boats and gear confiscated) and that's really the way it is. >I also wonder what kind of waterfowl you have that flee at a range >of close to 1000 yards. Waterfowl of all sorts down here on the >gulf coast routinely ignore boaters and people up till you get within >50 yards or so. This isn't just kayakers, its jet skies, bass boats, >pontoon boats, etc. In a kayak I can often get within 10 yards >before they even bother to react, and even then its a "jee, I guess >I'll swim a few feet" as opposed to "alert! alert! flee!!!" I'm also on the Gulf Coast-in fact, as I am writing this, I'm in a hotel room in Gulfport, Ms overlooking a portion of the beach declared off-limits to humans because the least terns are nesting here at this time of the year. And they are nesting here with a highway, hotels, casinos, etc. only a few yards away. Superficially this looks great for the tourists, but when you investigate deeper, this same beach area was once the nesting area of over 20 other species of water birds, none of which nest here anymore because they can't compete with man's intrusion into their habitat. Diversity of species is a barometer of a healthy habitat. And yes it's true, some species here on the Gulf coast ignore boaters and people, but these are the species that are becoming increasingly commensal with man, like laughing gulls. The more environmentally sensitive species have long since vacated the area or have otherwise been extirpated from this portion of their original ranges. And your statement about "Jee, I guess I'll swim a few feet" is typically anthropocentric. As I remember, a study done by Texas A&M University students suggests that Great Blue Herons will abandon a hunting territory if repeatedly disturbed when they are not used to human intrusion. As you may or may not know, Great Blues are territorial and when disturbed by boaters, will casually fly a few yards upriver and then land again. They will continue to do this until the boater reaches the end of the heron's territory. The heron then will circle back behind the boater to the beginning of their territory. So, you may think the heron is not disturbed because he only flies a few yards away and lands again, but actually, he's trying to hold on to his territory against an intruder and he is very much disturbed. >Lets put it this way, you can have ecotourism in kayaks, or you >can have ecotourism in cruise ships and helicopters. Choose your >poison. Cause you aren't going to be able to eliminate ecotourism. >And you certainly aren't going to be able to ban boats on navigable >waterways, whether kayak or 400 hp inboard/outboard driven go-fasts. This is not a black and white issue. As noted before, the public beach area here on the Coast of Mississippi is closed to human intrusion. Some wildlife management areas are closed at environmentally sensitive times also. The closing of wildlife habitat to all human intrusion is not unprecedented Permits are also (sadly) becoming a way of life. And I'm not sure even those work as I discovered while backpacking once during tourist season in Yellowstone. The back-country looked like a backpacking convention. And even in spite of licensing procedures by the Texas Dept of Parks and Wildlife, the shrimping industry in Texas was badly damaged in the '70's when the Vietnamese refugees began shrimping along with the Texas natives and severely depleted the available resource. Re-iterating, there are no easy answers here. We definitely need more studies done by objective parties to determine just how much human intrusion an environmentally sensitive habitat can stand, but unfortunately, there's not a lot of funding for this sort of research. On 4/22/98 18:05PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: >But until then, your ire is misplaced. You are pointing the finger >at a small segment of the population whose activities have minimal >impact, who are generally quite environmentally aware, *and* who are >often responsible for calling attention to problems (e.g. pollution >in the Cheat River Canyon) and dealing with them (e.g. the Ridley Creek >cleanup here last Saturday). You *should* be pointing the finger at >the Exxons and Weyerhausers of the world -- but they're not so small >and easy to pick on, are they? We are all guilty and probably like the rest of the subscribers to this list, I am not willing to give up the joy of paddling a river-to paraphrase a popular bumper sticker here in the south, you'll get my paddle when you pry it from my cold, dead hand! And yes, I even drive to the put-in point in a GMC Jimmy SUV, which are not the most fuel-efficient vehicles on the road. But, the nature of our sport allows us the freedom to go into more environmentally sensitive areas than larger watercraft, and I believe that with this freedom comes a responsibility to leave nothing but foot prints on the shore and to take nothing but pictures. On 4/22/98 14:18PM, James Lofton wrote: >Dave Forman said something to the fact that..there should be places that >have no maps. If you wanted to enter you had to do so on natures terms. >No rescues if you screwed up or anything like that. No whinning and >filing sute if you were hurt in an accident or run over by a moose or >mauled by a bear. Make a decision thats wrong and pay the price. REAL >unspoiled wilderness! I'm down with this! It worked for John Wesley Powell AND Hayduke! ------------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Harrison-Houston, Texas email: nil_at_nol.net (_at_ _at_) web: www.nol.net/~nil/ ----------------------------ooO~(_)~Ooo---------------------------- 100% recycled electrons *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
> >Rights are legal constructs. People have a right to kayak / travel > >on navigable waterways [legal definition]. Thats just the way it > >is. > > Try navigating the Grand Canyon without a permit-if you get caught, > you'll be fined (and boats and gear confiscated) and that's really the > way it is. Sorry, but read again. I said "navigable waterways [legal definition]" That has a very specific meaning, and I am almost positive that the colorado wihin the confines of grand canyon NP ain't one of them. Could be wrong. In any event, I don't do national parks. To much like the local zoo, and the zoo is cheaper. This is also starting to sound like a Western issue, not a kayak issue. > >I also wonder what kind of waterfowl you have that flee at a range > >of close to 1000 yards. Waterfowl of all sorts down here on the > >gulf coast routinely ignore boaters and people up till you get within > >50 yards or so. This isn't just kayakers, its jet skies, bass boats, > >pontoon boats, etc. In a kayak I can often get within 10 yards > >before they even bother to react, and even then its a "jee, I guess > >I'll swim a few feet" as opposed to "alert! alert! flee!!!" > > I'm also on the Gulf Coast-in fact, as I am writing this, I'm in a hotel > room in Gulfport, Ms overlooking a portion of the beach declared > off-limits to humans because the least terns are nesting here at this > time of the year. And they are nesting here with a highway, hotels, > casinos, etc. only a few yards away. People step on eggs. Restricting a beach keeps people from stepping on eggs. But that is land. I'm not interested in what they do with restricting land. I'm talking legally navigable waters. > And your statement about "Jee, I guess I'll swim a few feet" is typically > anthropocentric. As I remember, a study done by Texas A&M University It was meant to be anthropomorphic. You know, common literary device used to associate human actions or feelings with an animal or its actions? I was thinking of the typical behavior of cormorants(sp) when I wrote that. [aka water turkey, looks like a scrawny duck with a ring marking around its neck..] > students suggests that Great Blue Herons will abandon a hunting territory > if repeatedly disturbed when they are not used to human intrusion. As > you may or may not know, Great Blues are territorial and when disturbed > by boaters, will casually fly a few yards upriver and then land again. > They will continue to do this until the boater reaches the end of the > heron's territory. The heron then will circle back behind the boater to > the beginning of their territory. So, you may think the heron is not > disturbed because he only flies a few yards away and lands again, but > actually, he's trying to hold on to his territory against an intruder and > he is very much disturbed. Thats very good to know, thanks. Now question. I'm five miles upstream on a river that is approx 40 ft across. Da Heron is downstream of me doing this fly a few yards and land trick. How should I go about getting around him so he doesn't have to hop all the way to the end of his territory? I actually had this happen once. I paddled way upstream on a river section between two resevoirs, several miles past the point where normal power boats would have to give up, then came back down. Ran into the heron on the way back. He did this hop trick a couple times before circling upstream. > Permits are also (sadly) becoming a way of life. And I'm not sure even > those work as I discovered while backpacking once during tourist season > in Yellowstone. The back-country looked like a backpacking convention. > And even in spite of licensing procedures by the Texas Dept of Parks and > Wildlife, the shrimping industry in Texas was badly damaged in the '70's > when the Vietnamese refugees began shrimping along with the Texas natives > and severely depleted the available resource. TPWD has pretty much fixed this problem, and is working to make the situation better, buying back licenses and not issueing new ones. This lets shrimpers get out if they want, as opposed to being economically trapped by the size of their investment in boat and license. No one expected several hundred families to show up with boats, ready to shrimp, all at once. They all lined up for licenses, paid their money, and went to work. That can't happen again. > Re-iterating, there are no easy answers here. We definitely need more > studies done by objective parties to determine just how much human > intrusion an environmentally sensitive habitat can stand, but > unfortunately, there's not a lot of funding for this sort of research. The problem isn't money if you ask me. Its finding objective parties who have time to run studies. Find some unutilized people that Ducks Unlimited, Audobon, and the Jet Ski association will all approve of. Ack. People of one type or another always get suscpicious when a "study" is done to decide whether to close an area to some activity. > >Dave Forman said something to the fact that..there should be places that > >have no maps. If you wanted to enter you had to do so on natures terms. > >No rescues if you screwed up or anything like that. No whinning and > >filing sute if you were hurt in an accident or run over by a moose or > >mauled by a bear. Make a decision thats wrong and pay the price. REAL > >unspoiled wilderness! > > I'm down with this! It worked for John Wesley Powell AND Hayduke! The no maps idea is silly. Maps already exists for entire US. I like the no rescue idea, and generally follow that principle when legally permissable. I don't go into wilderness to have helicopters come hunt for me if I don't keep a time table. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:49 PDT