The dying lake - from Ein Gedi to Ein Evrona

Determining the carrying capacity of a nature reserve will always be a compromise between the need and the duty to maintain and preserve nature and the demand for visits and human activity in the field.

Some time ago I was asked how to determine the carrying capacity of a nature reserve? The carrying capacity of a movie theater is determined by the number of seats in it. According to the same index, the carrying capacity of a road, a stadium or a hotel and even a beach can be determined - (according to the parking lots). But how do you determine the carrying capacity of a forest or nature reserve?
The answer (in my opinion) is that since any foreign presence causes damage, since in most cases human presence is foreign and as such offensive, since most of the open areas, forests and reserves have been damaged in the past and therefore in most cases there is a need for their active management, then determining carrying capacity will always be a compromise between The need and duty to maintain and preserve nature amidst the demand for visits and human activity in the field.

I remembered this when I watched a TV program about the dying sea and the road that runs along it - Highway 90. In the program, we saw the head of the council accept that because of the sinkhole that opened on Highway 90 - between Nahal Ergot and Nahal David, the gas station and the restaurant were closed."
It is appropriate to set things straight. Access to the gas station and the restaurant was not affected as they are located south of Nahal Ergot. As you know, the transition to buses and private cars is open. Heavy trucks did not stop at the restaurant and will not refuel at the gas station even before the sinkhole opened, visitors to the restaurant can continue dining without interruption.
As for the gas station, from the day it opened, the activity there was minimal. So it is true, the situation of the Dead Sea is difficult and alarming, the sinkholes continue to open, but it is appropriate that the fishermen should not blame inactivity in this or that business in a situation that is not directly related, or maybe this is preparation for a compensation claim?
It is clear that the state has a direct (at least partial) responsibility for the dire state of the dying sea. It is clear that there is an immediate need for practical solutions, but it is important that everyone who deals with the issue knows and understands that even if tomorrow there is a release of large amounts of water into the sea, even if the drop in the level stops and starts over, the sinkholes will not disappear, they will continue to open and grow for many years to come, so the situation is difficult again And terrible, but this is not justification and it is not right to depend on such a bad situation for every injury.

In the same program, the director of the Ein-Gadi reserve said that the road that bypasses the sinkhole "causes tremendous damage to the reserve"?
is that so? For the public's information, the bypass road does not pass through the nature reserve but through the agricultural areas of Kibbutz Ein-Gadi. For many years, the road has been used by anyone who wants to reach Nahal Ergot. It is true that the traffic has increased because of the sinkhole, but due to the necessity of the circumstances, the travel is slow and according to the direction of the police, the travel is only in one direction alternately. The agricultural fields were first fenced to prevent goats from entering the area and then to prevent hikers from entering the plantations.
The travelers do not enter, but the goats and rabbits have found loopholes and openings and those who enter also enter. At the time, when the fence was erected around the agricultural areas, the kibbutz donated an area with a networked irrigation system where we raised pasture for goats, an observation structure was erected in front of the area, why is the area neglected and dry? Why was an observation structure dedicated to the spaces of the Druze community neglected?
The manager of the reserve is partially right because the ones who cause tremendous damage are the visitors' rivers. There is no doubt that the greater the number of visitors, the greater the damage to the reserve. When the initial fence was erected, a fee began to be collected for entering Nahal David, at the same time, parts of the reserve were closed where the presence of bullion was prohibited. Today, the prohibition is not enforced. why?
Along with the fencing, there was an initiative to restore part of the ancient agricultural terraces, under a sort of Ein-Gadi to add food to the goats and prevent them from entering the kibbutz's agricultural areas. A blessed entrepreneur who languished for many years and finally died.

Since the XNUMXs I have asked, demanded, begged to conduct a survey to determine the carrying capacity of the reserve. Later I asked to conduct a carryover survey also to the Eilat Mountains Reserve (and Eilat Beach). No survey was conducted and the only limitation on the amount of ingots in the reserve is the possibility of finding a parking space.
It is worth repeating that when dealing with the "carrying capacity" of a reserve, you are dealing with a compromise since travelers cause harm and the question is with what level of harm the surveyors are willing to compromise.
Since the collection of a fee for the entrance to the Ein Gedi reserve and other reserves has been added to the equation the desire (or the need) to show a high income. High income is the result of many visitors and this is of course an equation that is not in favor? the nature Here we will mention (again) that the "authority" is obliged by law to preserve nature.

A matter for a matter in the same matter. After the Evrona Reserve was cleaned of the oil spills, the Deputy Minister for Environmental Protection announced that the public is invited en masse. The Director General of the "Rasht" pointed out and held after him who said: "Residents of Israel are invited to come to the Teva Evrona Nature Reserve" right? Do the Deputy Minister and the Director General know what the level of harm will be to "the public at large"? Is behind the invitation to the "residents of Israel" a professional assessment of Evrona's carrying capacity? I have no doubt that the answer to both of these questions is negative.
The deputy minister and the CEO do not know that their role by law is to preserve nature, not to summon the "residents of Israel" nor the "public at large" but to preserve nature. Of course, the question or claim immediately arises for who or what preserves nature if not for the public. I repeat and claim that nature has a right to exist even without "mass visits". Nature has a right to exist and we who harm nature are morally obligated to moderate the harm to the minimum necessary.

When the necessary minimum depends on public visits and travelers, it is necessary to determine the carrying capacity of the area and to enforce compliance with the necessary minimum to allow for the proper existence of the reserve and its respect, since nature owes nothing to travelers and "the public at large", they owe a lot to nature.
Therefore again: according to morality, and for the CEO of the authority, also according to tradition in our sources, according to law, the duty of the appointed to preserve nature is not for the sake of "the public" but for the sake of nature.