Quote:
Originally Posted by Albertadiver
|
I haven't had a chance to read it in detail yet, but a few things jump out at me beyond the obvious bias of the authors, which is to be fully expected.
The biggest one is the pie chart showing the actual footprint of human activities in the Castle region. Pages and pages on the "linear footprint" and its
inferred impact, and yet the sum total of the entire thing is
less than 1% of the surface area of the region.
The follow up to that, is that of even that 0.9% identified, if you look at the maps provided, I'd estimate that
maybe 10% of that is flagged as potentially being high impact to fish habitat or wildlife corridors.
And yet, for some, the sky seems to be falling, and somehow the "science" says that the solution is to ban all motorized access. I don't get it.
I'll keep reading, maybe it'll start to make more sense to me, but I kinda doubt it...