Skip to comments.Germany spends millions on animal-only bridges
Posted on 09/18/2013 10:03:47 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Germany is living up to its environmentally-friendly image by spending millions of euros on building bridges just for animals. Humans caught crossing them face a 35 fine. More than a hundred wildlife bridges are to be built in the next decade.
Gerhard Klesen, a forester employed by the Ruhr Regional Association, spent a decade campaigning for an animal-only bridge to be built over a motorway in the town of Schermbeck in North Rhine-Westphalia.
Man-made barriers such as roads and canals restrict animals natural movement, he said. That limits genetic diversity, which in turn leads to an increase in disease and shortened lifespans. The Green Bridges are designed to counteract this effect.
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.de ...
Actually, establishing ways for wildlife to cross major highways or man made barriers, etc. in general makes sense.
I have German relatives, so I have some experience - Germans are organized, very rational, and focused, but they are also often unquestioning followers with strong social pressure around them. Their productive energy and smarts are often led astray chasing fantasy rabbits down holes. We all know of previous cases in history where this has led to disaster, and their present love-affair with environmentalism involves the same type of thinking.
What about natural barriers? Like rivers, lakes, oceans, cliffs, ravines, canyons, etc...?
You'd think the enviroweenies who are so for evolution would accept that either the species adapt or it should die out.
Woman calls deer crossing signs irresponsible, says deer should be redirected to low-traffic areas
It seems to me that its so irresponsible of us to allow these deer crossings to be in an area where these deer are so likely to be struck by oncoming traffic, she said. Wouldnt you agree?
The hosts found it difficult to respond, uttering Errr at several junctures while holding back some measure of laughter.
Finally, one host attempts to explain that the deer crossing signs arent strategically placed to encourage the animals to cross at a particular location. Instead, the signs serve as a warning to drivers to be cautious on roadways where deer populations are large.
This explanation was apparently lost on Donna, who makes it clear that she is operating under the assumption that deer do indeed heed directives on traffic signs. She then offered a solution to the deer crossing epidemic she believes is plaguing the upper Midwest.
Relocate the deer crossing signs to nearby schools, Donna said, so that both the animals and children can safely cross the road together.
The government can direct the deer population anywhere they want to she said. All they have to do is move that deer crossing sign.
They have “wildlife undercrossings” built under some toll roads in California.
Did not know about the fines though for humans.
Wonder if the fines would apply to Gross Scholen?
The hosts found it difficult to respond, uttering Errr at several junctures while holding back some measure of laughter."
This lady doesn't have the intelligence God gave a rock...
Well now, who can argue against that?
Speaking of signs.....
Deer Crossings instead of just signs. LMAO
hopefully the deer signal their turns.
Get Cass Sunstein (Samantha Power’s husband)on the job:
Barack Obamas pick for regulatory czar, Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein, may be the incoming presidents most popular appointment so far.
a 2004 book that Sunstein co-edited with then-girlfriend Martha Nussbaum. In that book, Sunstein set out an ambitious plan to give animals the legal right to file lawsuits. We’re not joking:
[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law
Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients behalf.
Can deer read English or do we have the make the signs bilingual ( how does one say Cars have the right of way in Deerese?)
Now bats can cross the road safely.
We’ve had no such thing with railroads for their 1¾ centuries of existence and no species has died out. We sure don’t have them for city streets and country roads, which have been around for millennia.
This is just another public scam to waste money. If they want to reduce roadkill on the highways, then privatize them and let such structures be built from private revenue.
Wildlife only trail and a conibear 220. Sweet.
These wildlife overpasses not only save the four legged creatures, but the two legged kind traveling in automobiles and motorcycles.
A ten ton locomotive will kill a jack rabbit, deer, moose, elk, etc. with very little damage to the occupants of the train.
However, I can personally attest to the eye witness results of a moose and an automobile collision. It was not pretty for the people in the car.
I also was witness to a small herd of whitetail deer crossing a road one fall evening. Two deer ran into the car two spots ahead of me. It slammed on the brakes. The car directly in front of me hit that vehicle. I narrowly avoided both. The car behind me did not. There were also cars on the other side of the road that hit deer/cars. Altogether there were about 6 cars involved. The police ended up shooting one deer dead. The rest limped off into the woods. One car was totaled and two of its occupants went to the hospital. I needed to change my under ware.
Animals on a high speed road are a hazard.
You must have been addressing the rest of your comments to someone else.
Animals on a high speed road are a hazard to themselves. You want the government to protect them?
If I were addressing the other comments to someone else, then perhaps you are on the wrong board?
Animals on the road are a threat to safety.
We already spend all kinds of money on road safety.
Ergo, IN CERTAIN CASES it makes sense to consider making places for animals to cross.
Thats my argument, and final comment on this thread.
These hazards you describe have existed even before automobiles, motorcycles and highways. Yet both mankind and wildlife continue to persevere. Should the government pay for wildlife separation (assuming the wildlife stays off the highway), or should the public sector be allowed to tackle it?
BTW, herds of cattle can derail trains if they wander onto an active railroad track, especially if the locomotive is as light as ten tons; most freight locomotives these days weigh about 200-220 tons, and most passenger locomotives around 144 tons.
Government precedent equals justification for more government spending is a logical fallacy. As is name-calling.
Anything can be deemed “a threat to safety”. Animals have been there before the road was, remember. Living in an area surrounded by game lands in which white-tailed deer and bears are fruitful and multiply (as have interstate highways as well as several high-speed rural highways), I find that vigilance and the staccato horn signal serve me to the end of keeping wildlife away from my vehicle and the vehicles of others.
I am serious.
I was just guessing on the tonnage of a locomotive.
I know I said I was outta here, but I have to add - it could be underpasses, as well. In some cases just a 3 or 4 foot diameter piece of galvanized sewer pipe would probably suffice. Far cheaper.
That sounds far more feasible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.