Quote:
Originally Posted by Honus
Don't both reasons apply, though in different degrees? I once was looking to get a bird feeder. The guy at the store said I shouldn't get it unless I intended to keep up with it. He said birds will become to prefer it as a source of food, which only works if I keep it full. I'm sure that the primary reason for rules against feeding animals is to keep them wild, for the reasons you state, but I suspect that another reason might be to avoid dependency.
|
Having lived in a wilderness area for well over 10 years I only know from my own experiences where I have not seen any sense of dependency upon wildlife that is fed occasionally or regularly.
I agree that most creatures will opt for the easy meal but that doesn’t imply or suggest they don’t know how to feed themselves otherwise. A real dependence requires that the animals know of no other way of feeding themselves and they depend on the hand out.
As an example, some near me feed a deer population regularly, but not only does this not stop the deer from feeding on their traditional sources of food, but during late spring through autumn, they usually won’t touch the offered food (alfalfa or hay) that is placed in a location known to the deer, as deer prefer fresh grasses and related food instead.
I know of several who use bird feeders seasonally, because most birds here go to different locations when the conditions change. We have pretty severe winters with lots of snow. Anywho, the birds aren’t dependent but do go for the easy meal.
In contrast, an animal that is raised in a home or lab, who knows of no other source for food is dependent, and represents a different set of circumstances than described here.
Due to this, I think the alleged NPS statement is BS intended for little but to protect the NPS from litigation, and people from being chewed.
Quote:
|
To apply that concept to humans is a bit obscene.
|
I agree that applying the comment made by the OP to humans is a stretch designed to offend.