[HN Gopher] We should build for wildlife as well as people ___________________________________________________________________ We should build for wildlife as well as people Author : NotSwift Score : 144 points Date : 2021-07-28 15:58 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.bbc.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com) | throwawaysea wrote: | This is a lot harder than people anticipate. While we can "patch | up" gaps in supporting wildlife with things like highway | crossings (example: https://apnews.com/article/north-america- | mountains-us-news-w...) we have bigger ecological problems that | are harder to fight. For example, invasive species of plants and | animals are very hard to manage and require concerted efforts to | establish native species while removing non-native species. | Whether Asian carp or Scotch Broom or whatever, the widespread | footprint of invasive species has distorted our ecology so much | that minor accommodations from how we build may amount to a blip | on the radar. My point is not to say this isn't worth talking | about, but to draw attention to a larger need for something like | an "environment corps", funded to just put in the hard labor | required to address these other widespread issues affecting | health of wildlife and our environment. | neolog wrote: | There's really interesting research on integrating native ecology | into the human environment. Douglas Tallamy's recent book on | native-plant ecosystems [1] stands out. | | [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07NMH5GH5 | softwaredoug wrote: | I've been researching how to make my yard more insect friendly, | and a couple themes have crept up: | | 1. Don't mow your lawn, or mow less of it less frequently. Bugs | need tall grasses, and tall grasses hold moisture, attract other | bugs (ie prey). They flower and help pollinators. Mowed lawns are | like a desert for them. | | 2. Change outdoor lights to be motion activated, instead of | always on. Light pollution interferes with all kinds of bugs, | given their attraction, and some bugs like fireflies use light | for their own purposes | | 3. Don't spray insecticides or treat your lawn | | 4. Turn over part of your garden to wildflowers and native | plants, let it get a little overgrown in that boundary. Even a | few square meters can make a difference | | 5. Try to learn to tolerate / love insects more. They're closest | thing we have to aliens to interact with! There's of course | exceptions (ticks, mosquitos...), but so many of them are | beneficial. | | And I wish we had vaccines for malaria, lyme, etc so we had to | stress about insect caused maladies :( | actually_a_dog wrote: | Great points. FYI, at least in NorCal, native plants are | typically much hardier than regular grass and other plants used | for landscaping. In other words, they're well adapted to | periodic drought conditions, so, you probably won't have to | water them at all. | yellow_lead wrote: | Although it's restricted by HOA in many areas, one alternative | is also to not have a lawn. Grow native species, food, anything | that homogeneous non-native grass. | ocdtrekkie wrote: | Bear in mind, in many suburban neighborhoods, you will get | fined for not mowing your lawn, and then the city will mow your | lawn, and charge you for doing it. | sailorganymede wrote: | Build for problems means everything gets encompassed surely? Good | solutions will take into different facets of a problem. | yellow_lead wrote: | Specifically for roofs, I'm curious how much more expensive and | lasting a nature-roof is. For example, take a residential house. | The roof needs to be able to sustain the weight of the soil and | collected water. Roofs are typically built with slopes so that | the water doesn't collect. Now you have to design the structure | to support that. Drainage is an interesting problem too. How do | you drain the water without losing your soil and soil nutrients? | | I think a solar roof is a better use of the roof, if installed | properly. | throwaway984393 wrote: | Oh jesus christ, "green roofs"? "Bee bricks" ?? This is | ridiculous turd-polishing. The problem isn't that we haven't made | our buildings more freaky, it's that we've destroyed natural | ecosystems. _So restore the natural ecosystems._ | | Have less buildings. Leave more undeveloped land. Reintroduce | predators. Remove invasive species. Allow nature to take over (it | will). And news flash: hedgehogs and bees are only being saved | because humans think they're cute. What we actually need more of | are creepy crawly insects, weeds, grasslands, bushes, forests, | wetlands. You know, that "undeveloped" land that was here before | we bulldozed it all and installed strip-malls on top. | betwixthewires wrote: | If you read the article it tells you that only 1% of the | earth's habitable land has human development on it. There's | plenty of space for nature to thrive, and it does. | | The big problem for me is externalities that affect that | untouched world. Industrial and agricultural runoff, different | pesticides and things like that. | rkique wrote: | I agree with your sentiment but oftentimes small interventions | are the only kind possible. And I wouldn't say that something | like a pollinator strip is ineffective -- bees and other | pollinators are losing habitat, pollinator strips restore them. | It may only be one dimension of wildlife but it's a critical | one. | dukeofdoom wrote: | Need a green corridor across the continent, instead of border | wall. Border river with crocodiles. That way we can be | environmentally friendly with the migrants escaping climate | change down south | duxup wrote: | I like this idea, but once you build something with some given | wildlife in mind... what happens to the rest of the wildlife? | | I live in an area where open areas often have a lot of trees. | That's great, lots of deer, people like deer ... problem is the | deer have no predators. The deer don't have to move around and | love to eat certain tree saplings in particular. Result? The | forested areas simply don't have those trees or bushes that the | deer like to eat anymore. Forested areas that would have thick | underbrush are absolutely clear cut (as far as underbrush goes) | by the deer. It's so complete you'd think humans went through and | clear cut the brush, but it's the deer. | | Worse, that impacts other animals who rely on those trees and | bushes. | | I feel like there's WAY more balance to be considered here and | second order effects we don't understand. | | We like to help animals we like to see / are easy to help (there | are some rabbits outside my window now, I like them) but helping | them might not be the best choice. | gerbilly wrote: | Sounds like your area doesn't have a deer problem. It has a | wolf problem. In other words there aren't any. | | You might like this essay on this very topic: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_like_a_mountain | | https://www.ecotoneinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/aldo-l... | asciimov wrote: | I live in one of these areas (Texas). Wolves were taken out | by 1970. I do wish we would introduce them, but I'm not | certain that my neighbors would be so happy about it. | | In my area, we have city deer. These are deer that live in | the green belts and navigate through the city. I wonder what | would happen if wolves were reintroduced. Wolves normally | keep to the outskirts of human civilization, but would they | drive more deer into the city. Or would smart wolves head to | the city for the easy pickings. | jdavis703 wrote: | This really seems to be a problem of suburbanization (which | also drives of natural predators). If cities had strong urban | growth boundaries we could avoid a lot of this sort of | human/animal conflict. | duxup wrote: | If there was no sub-urbanization ... there would be same | issues on the edge of urbanization. | | It's a development thing, not a category I don't think. | mapster wrote: | Generally speaking, ecosystems should be managed for 'focal' | species, those with the largest requirements and pivotal role. | In this case, deers natural predators. a re-introduction or | deer culling may be paired with this approach. | johnrob wrote: | Chilling thought: Deer:Underbrush::Humans:Earth | Angostura wrote: | > I like this idea, but once you build something with some | given wildlife in mind... what happens to the rest of the | wildlife? | | You don't build for a particular species in mind. You build for | biodiversity. | duxup wrote: | By it's nature you can only be so diverse when you've decided | to build. | | The system is wonky to begin with, the opportunity to put | wolves in my area is ... pretty much 0. | Angostura wrote: | I'm not sure what you are saying. You plant a wide range of | pollinator and native trees designed to offer roosting and | nesting space for birds, bats and insects. etc. Wy jump | straight to wolves? | drewburg wrote: | Demonstrative example in practice of re-introduction of | predators is the wolves in Yellowstone[0][1]. There are also | studies which say that this instead destabilizes the | ecosystem[2]. For what it's worth, I think more data from | investigation is needed in more diverse ecosystems and | including different scopes of time. | [0]https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to- | do/wildlife/wolf-r... | [1]https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf-restoration.htm | [2]https://phys.org/news/2019-04-effects-reintroducing- | predator... | Schiendelman wrote: | The concept of "building for wildlife" doesn't mean picking and | choosing the cutest animals - it means trying to understand | that balance and maintain it. The people who study ecosystems | understand a lot of these second order effects well, and we're | always learning more. The concept here is to start listening to | those people. | soperj wrote: | i live in an area with lots of deer. They don't shoot the | cougars that come into town, they tranq them and relocate | them. So there are no predators for the deer. What's the | answer? | anonAndOn wrote: | The cougars don't just eat the deer, they also change the | behavior of the deer (as one would if they were constantly | worried about killers hiding in the bushes). The only way | to restore balance is to bring back the keystone species. | soperj wrote: | I know. I used to be able to walk right up to the deer | when I moved here. I've chased them off the property | enough times though now that as soon as they hear the | front door, they run, and they actually go quicker | through the yard then they used to. | liveoneggs wrote: | shoot the deer | duxup wrote: | The wildlife evolved to operate in an ecosystem with other | wildlife that building alone makes impossible. | | I don't buy into the idea that they can just 'balance' it | without many of the species. | | You can't tell deer to stop eating what they like, or | raccoons to stop breeding / living in denser populations in | suburban areas. | user-the-name wrote: | We're already messing up the balance massively by existing. | | The point here is to reduce the harm we are already doing. | edgyquant wrote: | This is a weird idea I've had but... would it be possible to | e.g. breed domestic dogs who will eat the deer but won't be | aggressive to humans? I have a pitbull who is really nice to | people, other dogs and even cats but absolutely goes crazy when | it sees one of these city rats coming out of a bush. I raised | her obviously she wasn't a wild animal. | | Just a thought | duxup wrote: | Would be interesting just to breed dogs to chase them ... a | lot. Sounds like a lot of work, but interesting idea. | | Some studies have found that just "scaring" some prey animals | reduces their breeding and encourages them to move around | more. | actually_a_dog wrote: | Lol, you don't really need to selectively breed dogs to | chase animals. All dogs have what's called a "prey drive," | to an extent, which is essentially their inborn desire to | hunt other animals. It's left over from when they were | wolves. Different breeds have higher or lower prey drives, | so it's not at all uniform from breed to breed or dog to | dog. | duxup wrote: | I'm thinking breed them to chase them... I'm thinking in | a manageable way. | | Any dog will chase them, and then the dog will also run | out into the road. We don't want dogs doing that ;) | actually_a_dog wrote: | You're talking about training, not breeding. Training is | what makes a herding animal herd rather than run off in | the woods and chase deer. :) | duxup wrote: | Valid point. Although I'll be picky and say that breeding | plays into that .... but admit I don't want to bread a | whole new dog for this imaginary and possibly | unproductive job ;) | h2odragon wrote: | Sounds like my hounds. One of our dogs has an arrangement | with a deer who got hit by a car a couple years ago, she | and her fawns can hang out under the dog's favorite oak | tree, but any other deer gets chased off with much noise. | | However, I can't say we've noticed any reduction in the | deer fecundity here because they get chased around. They | simply learned to tolerate the occasional chase as a cost | of living in our valley, which is evidently not too | burdensome on them. | cmh89 wrote: | The animals that traditionally hunt the deer aren't | aggressive to humans. It's trying to solve a problem that | doesn't exist. | | Most apex predators are hunted out of existence to protect | the marginal amounts of cattle they kill. See the great wolf | slaughter happening in Montana currently. After they kill off | all the wolves, the negative externalities of that action | will become apparent, yet again, and the federal government | will spend millions rehabbing the wolf populations until some | populist conservative decides to decimate the population | again. Rinse, repeat. | Aissen wrote: | I have often wondered if it wouldn't be cheaper for the | government to pay for the occasional lost cattle instead of | costly rehabilitation. Of course there would need to be | safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the mechanism, and | to prevent predators from getting used to easy preys. | ianai wrote: | Or, and this is just a personal opinion, but the world | could stand to lose some meat production. We could give | them a stipend for moving away from ranching to protein | production through plants or other goods. I know this is | controversial, but meat does require orders of magnitude | more water and resources and doesn't seem reflective in | the revenue realized. | | Edit-but definitely start by paying them for whatever | wolves eat. | robbedpeter wrote: | The wide ranging public pasture ranchers aren't where the | biggest ethical problems are in meat production, and | wolves aren't generally an issue with factory farming. | | Let's pump the brakes on torture box meat before we start | trying to solve something many people don't even consider | a problem (I believe ranching and free range meat are an | almost unmitigated good. ) | WalterBright wrote: | I've proposed this many times, but the idea gets no | traction. I don't really know why. I bet paying for a cow | now and then would be even cheaper than paying government | hunters to use helicopters, etc., to hunt the wolves. | | It's an appropriate use of tax money. | Someone wrote: | https://www.mda.state.mn.us/business-dev-loans- | grants/wolf-d...: _"the 1977 Minnesota Legislature | authorized the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) | to reimburse livestock owners for losses caused by | wolves"_ | | Reading | https://www.minnpost.com/environment/2020/02/heres-how- | much-..., that gets around 100 claims per year, for a | payout of about $100,000. | | The EU has a similar program | (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46153727) | WalterBright wrote: | Sounds like a good program. | | In Washington State, the newspaper articles on it always | present it as one of: | | 1. the state sends out the helicopters and gunmen | | 2. the rancher eats the cost of the dead cows | Someone wrote: | And yet, there's https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at- | risk/species-recover.... | | I wouldn't know whether that compensation is fair or how | bureaucratic the procedure is. | spaetzleesser wrote: | Me too. Compared to all the other subsidies agriculture | receives worldwide this would probably be pretty small. | | One problem with cattle is that they are being held in | one place, can't escape which makes them easy and | reliable prey . So once a predator has figured that out | they will come back more often. I have read about people | having good success with dogs that are trained to | confront predators like mountain lions and bears so they | won't come back. | theli0nheart wrote: | Urban deer--especially those with young--are very capable of | defending themselves. They can and do kill aggressive dogs. | It happened just a few weeks ago where I live. | jimkleiber wrote: | The problem I see is that wildlife don't pay property tax. | | It seems more and more trees are being torn down in my city to | make way for new buildings--houses, stores, etc. And I thought | about why it might be happening and I stumbled on the idea that | buildings increase property value, property value increases | property tax, cities (in the US) often run on property tax. | | Perhaps some wildlife areas can have economic value, such as | tourism, but I struggle to see how leaving certain places wild | and untouched fits with the incentive of property tax. | | Any suggestions? | h2odragon wrote: | Recognize the monetary value of the civic services they | provide! Raccoons should be paid at least half as much as a | human "sanitation engineer", right? | marapuru wrote: | Growth is the thing cities and business focus on. They may call | it sustainable growth but it's still growth at it's core. | | If you could somehow prove that wildelife areas generate some | sort of growth, short and long term, economically focused. | asdff wrote: | Natural areas can increase property values. Look at the | property values of the houses abbuting griffith park or | anywhere along the san gabriel mountains vs those in south | central LA. The difference in price for an otherwise identical | 3br home might be $1.5mm between areas with easy access to | nature and those without. I'm sure this is true in just about | any city, where neighborhoods near parkland are generally more | valuable than areas far from parkland surrounded by | development. | actually_a_dog wrote: | > Any suggestions? | | How about we recognize the inherent value of green space and | nature to humans? | | For instance: | | Mental Health Benefits: * Stress and violence | reduction. * Improved concentration. | | Physical Benefits: * Enhanced health. | * More rapid healing. * Improved environmental | conditions. | | Social Benefits * Crime reduction. | * Increased workplace productivity. * Safer | driving. * Economic stimulation. * | Positive effects on children. | | (Details and citations at | https://www.udel.edu/academics/colleges/canr/cooperative- | ext...) | | People in general are way too quick to reduce things to dollars | and cents. | jimkleiber wrote: | I agree it has those benefits and if I imagine those would | create a higher quality of life, then each property that does | have homes or businesses could be worth more. So city revenue | could go up because 1) each parcel is higher in value or 2) | the city could even charge more premium property tax rates to | be in such a high quality city. | | In other words, the city maintains itself more as a luxury | good than a commodity. | tellmedoyouread wrote: | That's a good idea but first we should fix ourselves. Daily we | produce so much toxins that ultimately harm the animals, so if we | want to fix anything we should fix ourselves. | megablast wrote: | Can we build for people?? And not cars?? | darrenf wrote: | " _As well as people_ " being in the headline certainly implies | that the article's author would answer yes to the former. | kfarr wrote: | Yes, my initial reaction as well -- we don't really build for | people in the US, we build for cars. If we truly built for | people, we wouldn't have sprawl and ridiculous vehicle | infrastructure that affects wildlife so much. | foxyv wrote: | Oddly enough, this would probably also solve a lot of problems | for wildlife as well. Reducing sprawl and increasing habitat. | fmajid wrote: | French highways have built-in crapauducs (toad-ducts) to allow | toads to safely cross: | | https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crapauduc | sandworm101 wrote: | This is all well and good in the UK. Bee bricks and bat boxes are | great. But the largest predators in the UK are badgers. The real | difficulty is how one accommodates bear and cougars. Even large | deer can be a problem. Up to 200 Americans are killed by road | accidents involving deer every year. Do we continue to close | schools and break out the dart guns every time someone sees a | bear in a tree? Or do we develop neighborhoods with pathways | through which the even non-cuddly animals can pass without | conflict. That costs far more than the occasional bee brick. | rmah wrote: | In fairness, I got the feeling that the author of the article | was writing in the context of western Europe. While Western | Europeans have a hard time understanding the large and | dangerous wildlife populations that exist in North America, | it's hardly surprising since they don't live there. The | author's prescriptions sound like nice and (relatively) easy | things people in the UK can do to make life a bit richer there. | It's doubtful he'd suggest pathways for bears through American | or Canadian suburbs :-). | notatoad wrote: | there's simply no way to build cities in a way that accomodates | bears or cougars, because they need a territory far larger than | the area we could possibly provide in a city. | | building for cougars or bears means building dense cities that | perserve as much wild space outside the city as possible for | animal habitats. | | i like the idea of adapting buildings to be less hostile to | animals that find themselves in the city, but anything that | increases sprawl is the worst thing you could possibly do for | wildlife. | Schiendelman wrote: | I appreciate seeing more people understand that density is | our way to preservation. Thank you! :) | bigthymer wrote: | I think it is starting to be one of those things that most | people on this site have come around to realizing. I'm | eager to see whether it permeates the rest of society and | what actions we start taking in that direction. | sandworm101 wrote: | I lived in a neighborhood (Vancouver) where bears were | regular back yard visitors. Cougars were around but rarely | seen. Many California suburbs seem to get alone with local | predator populations. I think the key is not to fence things | off in a manner than gives them no easy escape route when | confronted. | asdff wrote: | The big issue with California and predators is in what they | end up eating in the suburbs: trash and poisoned rats. A | lot of businesses in CA have a box in the back full of rat | poison. The rat eats that then walks off and dies | someplace, the coyote/couger/bear/owl/hawk/vulture finds | the carcass, eats the poison, and also dies. There aren't | many sources of high quality food in CA suburbs for | predators. You don't get large populations of deer, like in | suburbs out east that were clearcut from forest, since | suburbs in CA are developed out of farmland or pasture or | oil fields generally and there isn't much habitat | surrounding most of these developments that support larger | game populations like out east (compare satellite imagery | of Sacramento to Cleveland and see how stark the | differences in forest cover are in CA vs a typical eastern | city. | Angostura wrote: | There's a lot you can do in terms of building for biodiversity | that will benefit 10s of thousands of species before you have | ti to worry about the handful of apex preditors that harm | humans. | zabzonk wrote: | > Even large deer can be a problem. | | In the UK also - I've had several near-death experiences in a | car at night with deer in North London. | | Not that I want to get rid of them. | edgyquant wrote: | This happens a lot in the Midwest also. Deer are really | dangerous because they walk across roads in the night and | they freeze up when they see a bright light. | ehnto wrote: | Adelaide is an interesting case study. There is a river and | nature reserve that stretches from the hills to the coast that | cuts right through the city. They do incur on the edges of it | in a few locations but for the most part it's got native | vegetation for the full length of it. It's one of the many | nature corridors there, and the network of nature corridors | continues to expand throughout suburbia. They also have a ring | of parklands around the CBD all of which have native vegetation | in at least some areas if not quite the whole area. | | They're not unique in having a river cutting through the city, | but they were lucky to have the foresight of a city planner who | felt there was some value in keeping the native vegetation all | the way back at the city's inception. | | There is beautiful and diverse birdlife throughout the city and | that's in no small part due to the amount of native vegetation | kept around throughout the city and suburbia. From the | surrounding hills, the suburbs just look like a regular forest | with some buildings poking out here and there, it's incredibly | green. There is about as much parklands as there is real estate | in the CBD itself. | | https://d31atr86jnqrq2.cloudfront.net/images/aerial-city-ade... | zabzonk wrote: | Surprisingly, London has a huge amount of parkland and | multiple rivers - you only have to fly over it to see it all | (or live there to experience it). And lots of varied | creatures living there. | r00fus wrote: | Holy cow that looks paradisiac compared most major US cities. | sjf wrote: | The aerial view says otherwise: | | https://www.google.com/maps/@-34.9082898,138.5203148,29616m | /... | big_curses wrote: | This is going to come across as a nitpick on the title, the idea | is taken farther in the article and I think it's an important | distinction. | | No, we should not build for wildlife. We should only build for | people and what is good for people's lives. The only question | then is, "what is good for people?". If not harming the | biodiversity in a region and having more green spaces are good | for people (which they likely are), then we should do it, but it | is not the case that, as the article says, "whenever we build | something...it's our responsibility to accommodate wildlife that | would be displaced otherwise". Our only responsibility is to our | own lives and the rights of others, animals do not have rights | and cannot even conceive of them. If people want to help animals | because it makes them happy, that's great, but we don't owe any | moral responsibility to them. | seltzered_ wrote: | This is called anthropocentrism. When you consider the amount | of biodiversity loss and other land-use changes that've | happened over the past 100 years, along with the civilizational | collapses that've happened in prior history with that view, | perhaps you'll change your mind. | | Start with learning about the planetary boundaries framework: | https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-bound... | big_curses wrote: | Yes, but if biodiversity loss and changes in the land caused | by some action we've taken leads to civilizational collapse, | then obviously that's not good for our lives and we should | stop doing it. If biodiversity has effects that are good for | us, then we should build things with that in mind (I only say | "if" here because I have not read much in depth on the | effects of lessening biodiversity, although it's pretty | obvious how it could be destructive). I support | infrastructure that promotes biodiversity, but disagree that | we should do it for the animals, we should do it for us. | asdff wrote: | What is good for biodiversity is good for us because we rely on | biodiversity to generate crop varieties to feed ourselves. | big_curses wrote: | Exactly, so this would be a legitimate reason for us to | support biodiversity. | jklinger410 wrote: | The good news is that what is good for humans is to maintain | biodiversity and what's good for biodiversity is good for | animals. We are currently deficient in this area, so even if | the world was full of big_curses we would still need to make | some progress in protecting wildlife, if even for our own | selfish reasons. | | But you are wrong that animals don't have, or cannot conceive | of, having rights and that we don't "owe" them anything. The | truth is that we owe all living things the right to exist in | the same way your rights are granted by the constitution. It | may be a tough to shake off a barbaric mindset like the one | expressed above, but if you don't want society to leave you | behind, I suggest you try. | big_curses wrote: | > The good news is that what is good for humans is to | maintain biodiversity and what's good for biodiversity is | good for animals. | | Exactly, which is why I'm generally in support of building | things in a way that maintains biodiversity. But we should be | doing it for us as the principle driving this action, even if | the outcome seems the same. | | > But you are wrong that animals don't have, or cannot | conceive of, having rights and that we don't "owe" them | anything. The truth is that we owe all living things the | right to exist in the same way your rights are granted by the | constitution. | | Which animal can grasp a philosophically grounded conception | of rights? If they can't do that, they do not know of rights. | Certain species of primates may react to what they perceive | as fair and unfair, but this is founded in emotion and social | habits, not reason, which is required for a conception of | rights. You will never see an animal respecting your rights, | they simply happen to act in a way that doesn't directly | infringe on them, but only sometimes. Also, I should clarify, | just because animals don't have rights doesn't mean it is | good for us, as individuals, to do anything we want to them | at any time. Unnecessary cruelty is not good for an | individual psychologically, in addition to the fact that it | does not add to your life in any way. | agentultra wrote: | Sounds like a great idea. One of the many factors increasing tick | populations in Canada are roads. They subdivide forested areas | and migration paths for deer which are the primary hosts for deer | ticks. Which means deer stay closer together and so do the ticks. | Along with the warmer climate it's turning into an epidemic. | | It may not be perfect but starting to build affordances for | wildlife seems like a fantastic idea for our health and theirs. | asdff wrote: | If we can build an overpass over a freeway for some teensy town | of 400 people, it should be no issue at all to construct a | handful of overpasses for wildlife. Imo the issue with these | proposals is that these wildlife bridges are almost always | dramatically overbuilt and overlandscaped to look natural for | humans, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars, when just a | simple bridge and a fence funneling wildlife to the bridge | would do. A deer doesn't need the bridge to look like a perfect | natural feature. They walk along roads as it is just fine if | that's where they are heading. We just assume they want some | natural looking thing but I don't think there is data | suggesting that these sorts of wildlife overpasses are more | effective than a simple cheap ugly one. | AlbertCory wrote: | I like the idea of biodiversity on the roof. I would like it | better if they'd consulted some roofing contractors about what | that might do to the roof. | | Like, for example, the rain getting into your house because some | animal has forced a hole in the surface. | kderbyma wrote: | I would love to see more hybrid building in areas which can | support them natively, which is the key (native species) - but I | also would love to see combinations of aquaponics and LEED | engineering coming together with new biomaterials to build more | forest like ecosystems inside of our cities | kderbyma wrote: | and combined with reusable structures and prefab components | like DIRTT and others ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-28 19:00 UTC)