Mowing shows a general disregard for nature by most people.

People generally prefer an unnatural environment that at best mimics nature without any inconvenience. Even in parks well maintained and clearly marked trails see vastly more traffic than people just picking a random path through the woods. People seem to desire hiking trails of arbitrary distances not to actually explore.

We have so little respect for the fungal colonies in the leaf litter that process the organic matter back into sustenance for the trees.

My girlfriend is a gardener in a public parc. Moving leafs to the composte and then compost back to the garden takes a substantial time of her occupation.

That's why I suggest we just don't move them.

The point of trails in parks is to preserve nature and to localize and constrain the damage to it.

And some parks expressly forbid leaving the trails for that reason.

Yes and no, over a full year there’s ~6 visits to a national park per acre. Damage is a function of how much people concentrate in specific areas not an inevitable result of how many people visit parks.

You need trails for extreme attractions like old faithful or tiny parks near major metro area, but it’s fine to go far off the beaten path as nowhere close to enough people do so to meaningfully impact what’s there.

But that gets back to my point people in general aren’t looking to experience nature. They want those scenic overlooks, waterfalls, etc not a random spot.

Several, if not most, of the plants are extremely senstitive to being trampled on and take many months and years to recover. So even a single trek off the beaten path by a few people or even one person will damage the plant life. It will also disrupt animal life and potentially adjust travel patterns. For example, moss and young ferns are extremely sensitive and fragile.

People should not go off paths.

That really only applies to moderate traffic area.

Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve sees ~10,000 people per year and covers 8,472,506 acres. At the other end Grand Canyon National Park sees ~4.5 million visitors there’s a world of difference between them.

But even the Grand Canyon National Park has 1,217,262 acres the majority of which is seeing below 1 person per year. It’s hard to track someone walking through an area after even just a week, the actual impact from an individual visit is tiny, it’s only at scale that there’s issues.

Delicate plants taking years to recover isn’t an issue when a random square foot is unlikely to see 2 visitors in 1,000 years on average.

It just doesn't work that way. If you consider the small percentage of acres that are actually walkable by humans and how humans would get to those areas from feeder trails, then the impact isn't just a random person walking in a random square foot in the entire park. Humans don't just teleport to random square foot patches. They get there from feeder trails and are constrained by what is traversable in the first place. And who gets to choose who walks off path? Everyone gets to? Only certain people? I'm not sure why you're arguing this. It's been studied, and it's damaging. Going off trail also increases the chances of introducing non-native plant and insect species.

Nature isn't for us. The trails are enough to experience it. Going off trail is selfish and damaging.

* Off-Trail Trampling Has Lasting Impacts: https://daily.jstor.org/off-trail-trampling-has-lasting-impa...

* Going off trails: How dispersed visitor use affects alpine vegetation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...

* Off-trail trampling causes millions in damage to national parks: https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/off-trail-trampling-...

Nature is for us, my friend, but we have to be intelligent in how we care for it, and you have a very good understanding of how important that is. Cheers!

We must also care for each other in the same way that we should be caring for our beloved Earth, herself. Once we become consumed by compassion, we care for all we come into contact with. That is the pinnacle of human personal achievement, but few reach for that glorious happiness.

> If you consider the small percentage of acres that are actually walkable by humans

Grand Canyon was an extreme example, but people can go over rough terrain. That’s a big part of what being in nature means.

In terms of damage to nature, any large animal is going to trample plants, even deer trails very noticeably impact plants let alone a grizzly or moose. That’s just part of nature, it’s scale that’s the issue. Hiking trails are just points of concentrated damage which is one viable option.

> They get there from feeder trails and are constrained by what is traversable in the first place. And who gets to choose who walks off path? Everyone gets to?

Everyone gets to as long as they are in a low density area and don’t pick to exit at some interesting spot. You take a trail length divide by the number of people roughly using a trail, and as long as you get to ~1 person/foot per 50 years it’s fine to exit in a mathematically random spot not just because you pick what feels random. Obviously this excludes a great number of trails people frequent, but that’s kind of the point.

Now you should also avoid interesting destinations and be careful how you come back. Anyway, there you have it a scaleable rule that works for hundreds of millions of visitors without creating undo harm.

> Off-trail trampling causes millions in damage to national parks:

Did you read what you linked? That damage is explicitly mentioned as: “sinks ripped off restroom walls, road signs mowed down by some hooligan's pickup, spray-painted graffiti on roadside markers”

Yeah but we all keep feeding the monster.

You do not have to be rich.

Anyone choosing to eat meat is feeding into the system of abuse and torture. Anyone.

I take it you do not live in a food desert where access to fresh produce is limited.

Whether or not you love in a food desert, the result of your actions are the same. You may have no choice, but you're still financially supporting animal cruelty.

The action is cruel, not the people committing it.

That is no excuse.

You don't sound like you'd accept anything as an excuse, so that's really not saying a whole lot...

You can move.

You don't need fresh produce to not eat animals. Beans, whole grains, potatoes, canned vegetables are the cheapest foods around.

These people already weren't eating fresh produce, so why would they need fresh produce to swap meat for beans?

Though I think debating your idea of exceptions is a red herring unless you yourself are vegan and already concede that pretty much anyone reading this on HN should be vegan. But you probably don't grant that, so there's no need to go line-by-line through your idea of the exceptions when we can discuss why you still eat meat without making excuses for other people.

Sure. But that’s another discussion than the one about balance in nature.

I disagree. The agricultural revolution shows clear signs of using land that could otherwise be used by other species, not to mention the destruction of species that were there before we began tilling the soil. Additionally, the rich humans you call out are selling their product to the masses, who happily support their enterprise.