You can lead a bear to a wildlife corridor but…can you make her cross it?

I’m constantly amazed by the la-la-land approach of self-styled environmentalists.

Step forward Russell McLendon, opining on grandiose-sounding Mother Nature Network about “Why wild animals need wildlife corridors“.

McLendon like countless before him appears to be spending a lot of energy on stuff that looks good without any worry about effectiveness. It’s a lot of grandstanding without a proper concern for nature, as if environmentalists did it to soothe their soul and nothing else.

In this case I remember reading about the shaky scientific basis of these corridors and bridges. In other words…you can lead a bear to a wildlife corridor but…can you make her cross it?

For the record Wikipedia says

The effectiveness of these structures appears to be highly site-specific (due to differences in location, structure, species, habitat, etc..

Maybe our enviro-friends have more up to date information to share. Or maybe McLendon and friends don’t worry about the small detail of considering what the animals really want/need to do.