谁该为破坏大自然负责

 　　Readers respond to a Sunday Review article, “Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again.”

　　本文是对《户外运动打破了大自然的宁静》（2015年2月17日）一文的回应。
　　谁该为破坏大自然负责
　　To the Editor:
　　致编辑：
　　“Leaving Only Footsteps? Think Again,” by Christopher Solomon (Sunday Review, Feb. 15), is a reminder 1 that we humans affect the natural world even when we think that we don’t. But two caveats 2.
　　克里斯托弗·所罗门的《户外运动打破了大自然的宁静》提醒我们：人类在自身没有察觉的情况下也仍可能对自然界产生影响。不过有两点需要说明。
　　First, even if a hiker or a skier 3 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给野生动物带来的惊吓多过一辆行驶的雪地摩托车，摩托车也仍可能产生更多的影响。为什么呢？摩托车的平均单次活动距离比人多出许多倍。因此，相比于那些仅凭自身力量的人，摩托车会影响更多的动物栖息地。
　　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 4 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 5 and lynx. Such roads not only slice and dice 6 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，环保主义者集中关注边远地区开矿和伐木活动造成的破坏，这是合理的。因为这些项目不仅对动物栖息地造成直接破坏，还无法避免地要求修建新的公路。例如，最近一项在科罗拉多国家森林内增开煤矿的计划，要求在原本无路的区域开辟6英里（约9.66千米）的新路。该区域正是黑熊、麋鹿和山猫的栖息地。这样的新路不仅将动物的生存区域分割成小块，还扩大了人类活动的影响，比如各种休闲旅游活动，同时为入侵物种提供了载体，增加了森林野火的发生机率。
　　TED 7 ZUKOSKI
　　泰德·祖科斯基(TED ZUKOSKI)
　　Boulder 8, Colo.
　　美国科罗拉多州博尔德
　　The writer is an environmental lawyer for Earthjustice, Rocky Mountain office.
　　作者是“地球正义”(Earthjustice)落基山脉分部的环境事务律师。
　　To the Editor:
　　致编辑：
　　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 9 recreational activities.
　　克里斯托弗·所罗门描述了金伯利·海因梅耶(Kimberly Heinemeyer)关于最温和的休闲活动的研究成果，在美国的公共土地上，各种各样的“休闲活动”导致野生动物对人类的躲避行为持续增加。
　　Working for the National Park Service two years ago as a biological technician, I noted 10 harassment 11 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.
　　两年前，作为一名生物技术人员，我在国家公园管理局(National Park Service)工作。我注意到，公园中野生动物受到的骚扰大多来自人类制造的噪音和混乱。然而，肆无忌惮的猎人携带“休闲”活动的许可，等待野生动物越过国家公园的边界，然后在国家森林的土地上用猎枪射杀它们。
　　Which type of “recreation” do you think causes more avoidance of human beings?
　　你认为哪一种“休闲活动”引起了生物对人类更多的躲避呢？
　　JUSTIN PHILLIPS
　　贾斯汀·菲尔普斯(JUSTIN PHILLIPS)
　　Olympia, Wash.
　　美国华盛顿州奥林匹亚
　　To the Editor:
　　致编辑：
　　Christopher Solomon may be right in arguing that even something so benign as a mere 12 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 13 buggies and off-road or all-terrain vehicles.
　　克里斯托弗·所罗门或许是正确的，他提出，即便是一些很温和的活动，如林间散步（不露营、不生火、不留下垃圾）这种我本人也偶尔参加的活动，也可能对野生动物造成伤害。但只要公园和沿海地区仍对直升机空降滑雪、雪地履带式滑雪、雪地摩托车、山地自行车、沙丘车和越野、多地形车开放，所罗门就不会得到任何支持。
　　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 14.
　　把如此多样的户外运动混淆在一起，置于同一标题下，是没有任何意义的，只留下所罗门先生一人在孤独的荒野中大吼。
　　BILL MARSANO
　　比尔·马萨诺(BILL MARSANO)
　　New York
　　美国纽约
　　To the Editor:
　　致编辑：
　　Christopher Solomon’s intriguing 15, and alarming, article about the adverse 16 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·所罗门的文章引人入胜，引发担忧，它描述了一些看似温和的活动，如徒步等，对野生动物产生的负面影响，这也意味着我们应该准备接受对进入公园和野生保护区的限制了。
　　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，我们破坏环境的方式远不止于林间散步，随便举两个例子：向海洋排放上吨的塑料废品和制造超量的温室气体。
　　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.
　　不过所罗门是正确的。限制进入——特别是当需求减少的时候——是保护野生动物和保护地球的良策。
　　Earth resources are fixed 17 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.
　　地球资源是有限的，但对于一定数量的居民来说远远足够。我们所有环境方面的顾虑都可以和人口增长引发的需求增长联系起来。如果人口减少，塑料瓶、发电站，没错，徒步路线的需求也将减少。
　　The arguments against responsible population control are manifold and persuasive 18. 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 19 indefinitely.
　　反对人口控制的意见是多种多样、具有说服力的。对于一代人而言，过去50年的许多环境担忧恐怕只留存在记忆中，海平面上升、特大旱灾和食物、水资源的短缺也被他们无限地推迟到了遥远的未来。
　　MARK S. BACON
　　马克·S·贝肯(MARK S. BACON)
　　Reno, Nev.
　　美国内华达州里诺
　　To the Editor:
　　致编辑：
　　Footsteps do affect fragile ecosystems 20. But as custodians 21 of open space eagerly pursue tourism, they pursue development.
　　户外活动确实会影响脆弱的生态系统。户外空间的管理人渴望发展旅游业，其实是在追求经济发展。
　　In our mid-Hudson town of New Paltz, the Mohonk Preserve, in a longstanding partnership 22 with the for-profit Mohonk Mountain House resort, plans 100-plus car parking, visitor center, boardwalk, bulldozed trails, toilet sheds and outdoor lighting 23, encouraging visitors from far and near to leap into their fossil-fueled vehicles to swarm 24 in ever greater numbers into the unspoiled.
　　在我们哈德逊河中部城市新帕尔茨，莫康克保护区(Mohonk Preserve)与营利性的莫康克山豪斯酒店(Mohonk Mountain House)有着长期合作关系，他们规划了100多个停车位和游客中心、浮桥、旅游路线、卫生间棚、户外照明，鼓励远近的游客一跃而上跳到他们的化石燃料供能车里，以前所未有的数量涌向未被破坏的土地。
　　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 25 of both wild and human habitat. It affects not only the trampled 26 green space but also its buffer 27, where someone, till now, could stop to help a tortoise cross the highway without setting off half a mile of honking 28 cars.
　　休闲是一个盈利、具有竞争力的产业，而自然是一种可以像任何其他资源一样被残酷掠夺的资源，可以对野生动物和人类的生存空间造成破坏。它不仅影响了被侵入的自然空间，还影响了缓冲区，在那些地方，人们以前还可以停下来让一只龟穿过公路，而不必担心阻断车流，引致半英里的汽车鸣笛。
　　C. A. RODRIGUEZ
　　C·A·罗德里格斯(C. A. RODRIGUEZ)
　　New Paltz, N.Y.
　　美国纽约州新帕尔茨
　　To the Editor:
　　致编辑：
　　Christopher Solomon’s article is sad but not surprising. For animals that live in wilderness, the sound, sight or scent 29 of humans is a threat. The more of us there are, the fewer of them there will be.
　　克里斯托弗·所罗门的文章令人悲伤但并不令人惊讶。对于生活在野外的动物来说，人类的声音、景象和气味都是威胁。我们越多，它们越少。
　　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.
　　正如所罗门所写：“一个世纪前，大自然还有一些自己的空间。”或许问题最好的解决办法是意识到这样一个事实：一个世纪之后的今天，对于这个星球来说，需要养活的人实在太多了。
　　LAURIE HAMMOND
　　劳瑞·海蒙德(LAURIE HAMMOND)
　　Los Altos, Calif.
　　美国加利福尼亚州洛思阿图斯