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.