international journal of wilderness, vol 03 no 2, june 1997

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

J O U R N A L OF W IL D E R N E S SJune 1997 Volume 3, Number 2

FEATURES

3 WILDERNESS VIGILANCE

MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER

by John C. Hendee, Managing Editor

4 SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS

One Wilderness, Two Myths,Many Leadersby G. Jon Roush

7 ESTABLISHING A WILDERNESS

PRESERVATION SYSTEM IN NEW ZEALAND

A User’s Perspectiveby Hugh Barr

11 WILDERNESS IN NEW ZEALAND

A Policy Searchingfor Someone to Implement Itby Les Molloy

STEWARDSHIP

14 VISITOR PERCEPTIONS OF LIVESTOCK

GRAZING IN FIVE U.S. WILDERNESS AREAS

A Preliminary Assessmentby Laura C. Johnson, George N. Wallace,and John E. Mitchell

SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

21 ADVENTURE RECREATION

AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR WILDERNESS

by Alan W. Ewert and Steven J. Hollenhorst

27 PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNATIONAL VISITORS

TO NEW ZEALAND WILDERNESS

by James Higharn

Front cover photo of Mount Ruapehu as seen from the KaimanawaRanges to the east by Les Molloy. Inset photo of hikers in WestlandNational Park, New Zealand, by Les Molloy.

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

30 RESPONSE TO “ECOLOGICAL MANIPULATION

IN WILDERNESS” BY DR. DAVID N. COLE

by Bill Worf

32 WILDERNESS @ INTERNET

Participation of Scientists in theWilderness Internet Dialogby Lloyd Queen

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES33 WILDERNESS—DIFFERENT CULTURES,

DIFFERENT RESEARCH NEEDS

Comparing Conflict Research Needsin Finland and the United Statesby Liisa Kajala and Alan E. Watson

WILDERNESS DIGEST

37 ANNOUNCEMENTS AND

WILDERNESS CALENDAR

41 LETTER TO THE EDITOR

42 BOOK REVIEWS

James R. Eazio, Book Review Editor

46 GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

48 REMEMBERING SIR LAURENS VAN DER POST

by Vance Martin, Executive Editor

2 THE IN TERNA TIONAL JOU RNAL OF WILDERNESS Volume 3, Number 2

EXECUTIVE EDITORSAlan W. Ewert, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George B.C., Canada

Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation/ICEC, Ojai, Calif., USAWayne A. Freimund, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA

Alan E. Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USAJames R. Fazio, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA

MANAGING EDITORJohn C. Hendee, Director, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho, USA

PRODUCTION EDITORMichelle S. Mazzola, Conservation District Manager, State of Washington, USA

ASSOCIATE EDITORSGreg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo., Hugh Barr, Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, Liz Close, U.S. Forest Service,Missoula, Mont., Dave Cockrell, University of Southern Colorado, Pueblo, Colo., Dave Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.,Don Duff, U.S. Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah, William Forgey, Medical Doctor, Crown Point, Ind., Nancy Green, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.,Glen Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo., Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg., Steve Hollenhorst, West VirginiaUniversity, Morgantown, W.Va., Jon Jarvis, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, Glennallen, Alaska, Kris Kennett, British Columbia Parks, Williams Lake, B.C.,Canada, Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, David Lime, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn., Les Malloy, Department of Conservation,Wellington, NZ, Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt., Joe Mazzoni, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, N.M., Michael McCloskey,Sierra Club, Washington, D.C., Richard Meganck, United Nations Environment Programme, Osaka, Japan, Jonathan Miller, Environment Australia, Austra-lia, Chris Monz, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wy., Bob Muth, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass., Connie Myers, Arthur CarhartWilderness Training Center, Huson, Mont., Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif., Max Oelschlaeger, University of North Texas,Denton, Tex., Margaret Petersen, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg., Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick,Natal RSA, Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions and the Wilderness Guides Council, Ross, Calif., Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg,Va., Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo., Ron Rutledge, Forest Service, Fort St. John, B.C., Canada, Mitch Sakofs, OutwardBound, Garrison, N.Y., Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg., Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wy., AlanSchmierer, National Park Service, San Francisco, Calif., Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea, Jerry Stokes, U.S. Forest Service,Washington, D.C., Ralph Swain, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colo., Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif., Pamela Wright, Simon FraserUniversity, Burnaby, B.C., Canada, Tom Zimmerman, National Park Service, Boise, Idaho, Franco Zunino, Wilderness Associazione Italiana, Villavallelonga,Italy

International Journal of Wilderness

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) published three issues in 1996and will publish quarterly issues in 1997 (March, June, September, andDecember).

Manuscripts to: University of Idaho, Wilderness Research Center, Mos-cow, ID 83844-1144, USA. Telephone: (208) 885-2267; fax: (208) 885-2268; e-mail: [email protected].

Business Management and Subscriptions: WILD Foundation, Inter-national Center for Earth Concerns, 2162 Baldwin Road, Ojai, CA 93023,USA. Fax: (805) 649-1757; e-mail: [email protected].

Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are inU.S. dollars only—$30 for individuals and $50 for organizations/librar-ies. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico add $10; outside NorthAmerica add $20. Back issues are available for $15.

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness copyright ©1997 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation. In-dividuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to makefair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide aresolicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, andallocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptions ofkey programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and envi-ronmental education; wilderness-related science and research from alldisciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilder-ness; and international perspectives describing wilderness worldwide.Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book reviews,announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are encouraged.A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is available fromthe managing editor.

Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions areencouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signedby the author.

Reprints: Manuscript reprints are available from the managing editor’soffice for a nominal charge.

Printed on recycled paper.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS• Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • International Center for Earth Concerns (ICEC) • InternationalWilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation • National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outward Bound • TheWilderness Society • University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center • University of Montana School of Forestry,Wilderness Institute • University of Northern British Columbia (Faculty of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalStudies) • U.S.D.A. Forest Service • U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management • U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S.D.I.National Park Service • Wilderness Education Association • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Inquiry• Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa) • Wilderness Watch

The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interestedcitizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning, management,

and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship.

THE IN TERNA TIONAL JOU RNAL OF WILDERNESS Volume 3, Number 2 3

FEA TU RE

WILDERNESS VIGILANCEMORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER

BY JOHN C. HENDEE, MANAGING EDITOR

tell the wilderness story to everyone. We need to assure peoplethat the wilderness tent is a large one, with room for biparti-san, local, state, regional, and national and cultural views, in-cluding those with differing wilderness interests. While eachof us may find plenty to disagree with among the diverse inter-ests in wilderness, we must pull together in our common in-terest to thwart opponents who would do away with wilderness.Toward that goal IJW again reinforces our intention to be aforum for all wilderness interests to express their views.

Alan Ewert to Become IJW Managing EditorThis will be my last column as IJW managing editor. Alan Ewert,currently IJW executive editor for education, will manage IJWcontent and write this column, at least until the end of vol. 3,no 4. Alan is professor and recreation program chair at theUniversity of Northern British Columbia and has distinguishedwilderness credentials as USFS scientist and national wilder-ness research coordinator, training coordinator for Pacific CrestOutward Bound, professor at Ohio State University, survivalinstructor for the U.S. Air Force, and the author of AdventureEducation: Concepts and Models.

Alan’s willingness to assume this responsibility will allowme to continue my 1997 sabbatical in California, working forWilderness Transitions, Inc., where I have been studying theimpacts of wilderness-vision questing on peoples lives and alsowilderness-related international travel. IJW

NOW THAT THE NEW U.S. CONGRESS IS FULLYINSTALLED, we have heard debate on the new fed-eral budget, and a new balance has evolved among

competing interests, it’s clear that vigilance for wilderness isneeded as never before. Wilderness will be impacted by thefollowing aspects: continuing downsizing of the federal gov-ernment; competition for funding with other worthy environ-mental programs and less worthy initiatives; politicaldecentralization of authority to state and local levels; adminis-trative threats such as the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) proposalto establish 129 wilderness heliports in Alaska; legislative threatsfrom the 104th Congress such as increasing motorized use ofthe Boundary Waters Canoe Area, building a road through wil-derness to the rim of Hells Canyon, restoring and permanentlyoperating flow regulation dams in the Emigrant Wilderness inCalifornia, and amending The Wilderness Act to grant outfit-ters 20-year permits for reserved campsites and improvements.

Likewise, and perhaps even more so, the threats to wilder-ness and wildland areas around the globe are increasing dra-matically. A significant aspect of IJW’s mission is to clarify theinternational issues surrounding wilderness protection and uti-lization, and to promote better research, management, and leg-islation to maintain wildland values. These issues are very acuteoutside of developed nations, as can be seen by the fact thatonly Zimbabwe (among developing nations) has a form of rec-ognition (on specific communal lands) to recognize and main-tain wilderness. Much needs to be done, and quickly, which isa function of the 6th World Wilderness Congress that will con-vene in India in October 1997 (see IJW, vol. 2, no. 1).

To further our international mission, each issue of IJW has afocus country or region. For this issue its New Zealand—and whata response we received from our wilderness colleagues down un-der. Check out the comments by Vance Martin, IJW’s internationaleditor (on page 7), to put New Zealand in perspective with othernations that have wilderness legislation. The Kiwis continue to doa tremendous job, with commitment and passion, as evidencedby the fact that we received more (high-quality) submissions fromNew Zealanders than from any other nationals, besides Ameri-cans—and just consider the size difference! As a result, we couldnot put them all in this issue, which we regret. Fortunately, thisenables us to sprinkle the other ones in future issues of IJW.

Whether in the United States or New Zealand, Finland orZimbabwe, to counter the threats to wilderness, the wilder-ness community needs to be very ecumenical, and reach out to

IJW managing editor John Hendee.


FEA TU RE

THIS IS A CRUCIAL TIMEfor those who care aboutwilderness in the United

States. For most of the 20th century,we have played by rules that evolvedin a nearly straight line. We evenhelped write many of them. We havelearned to use private initiatives andgovernment programs to protect wild-lands, and those techniques havecome to feel like second nature. Now,although the work is far from finished,the rules are shifting emphatically. TheUnited States is changing course fromfederal action toward local action,from public toward private action,

from solving isolated problems toward managing whole systems.These trends are not just changing the rules; they are changingthe game. Two stories illustrate the difference. Each could serveas a cultural myth, embodying a distinct set of values. The firststory is well known. Some scholars see it as the beginning of themodern conservation movement in the United States. It is thedramatic fight to save California’s Hetch Hetchy valley.

The Tuolomne River flowed out of Yosemite Park through adeep, beautiful valley that Indians had named Hetch Hetchy,describing its grassy meadows. The Tuolumnes waters eventu-ally reach San Francisco Bay. By the late 19th century water hadbecome very important to the people of San Francisco. The pri-vately owned Spring Valley Water Company had been chargingSan Franciscans high rates for poor service. Mayor James D.Phelan decided to fix that. At his behest, in 1901 Congress passeda bill permitting water conduits through national parks “for do-mestic, public, or other beneficial uses.” Then the city of SanFrancisco applied to the Interior Department for the rights toHetch Hetchy’s water. Theodore Roosevelt’s Secretary of InteriorEthan Hitchcock denied the application. He thought nationalparks were poor places for public works projects. But anothermember of the Roosevelt administration had other ideas.

Gifford Pinchot argued that the Hetch Hetchy valley couldbe dammed without aesthetic harm. John Muir, Yosemite’schampion, responded with a letter to his friend Roosevelt, de-scribing the history of prior proposals for Hetch Hetchy dams,all of which, he said, “show forth the proud sort of confidencethat comes of a good sound irrefragable ignorance.” The battlewas joined. It raged on through three administrations and in

the national press, until 1913, when President Wilson finallysigned a bill approving the dam.

Movements Need MartyrsThe Hetch Hetchy battle was a galvanizing moment for America’syoung conservation movement. It was one step toward trans-forming the Sierra Club from a sleepy group of San Franciscohikers into a national force for conservation. It created a nationalnetwork of conservation groups. It was the first time that thenational press paid significant attention to an environmental is-sue. It inspired rhetoric from which activists like me still borrow.As a classic environmental issue, the Hetch Hetchy battle hadeverything. It had the archetypal split between Muir and Pinchot:preservation versus multiple use. It pitted conservationists againstdevelopers. It also pitted the interests of a local economy againsta national interest in conserving public land. And it confirmed adivide between professionals (in this case the city’s engineersand consultants) and citizen activists. Through most of the 20thcentury, those divisions have been the recurring motifs in ournational disagreements about natural resources. By now they areso familiar that they seem to have the inevitability of nature, likethe division between earth and sky.

Louisiana Black Bear: Conflict AvertedThe other story is not nearly so well known as the Hetch Hetchystory, but as an example, it is no less important. It is the story of aconflict that was avoided. It begins in 1990, a century after theopening salvos of the battle of Hetch Hetchy. The U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) received a petition to list the Louisianablack bear as a threatened species. With its habitat range in Louisi-ana, Mississippi, and east Texas, the bear was in trouble, partly be-cause its habitat was disintegrating. Ninety percent of the Louisianablack bears habitat is on private land, most of it commercial timber-land. Many communities in the region depend on that timber forincome. People in the region and in the timber industry feared thatlisting the Louisiana black bear would hurt their economy. On theother hand, the bear is an indicator species for hardwood bottomland ecosystems. Its conservation would also help many other spe-cies. Environmentalists were determined to protect the bear, andlandowners were determined to protect their rights. The situationhad all the makings of another classic environmental showdown.What actually happened did not follow the script. A group of 18people—representing industry, federal and state agencies, landown-ers, and conservation groups—started meeting, calling themselves

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESSOne Wilderness, Two Myths, Many Leaders

BY G. JON ROUSH

Article author G. Jon Roush.


the Black Bear Conservation Committee(BBCC). They set some important groundrules. They agreed to respect each other, toset aside their personal agendas as much aspossible, and whenever possible, to let sci-entific data and theories be the primary cri-teria for decisions.

Meanwhile, biologists from theUSFWS determined that the bears’ habitatneeds could be compatible with normalforest practices in the region. The BBCCagreed to some early steps to protect thebears, and those steps allowed the USFWSto delay listing the species, to give the BBCCsome time. The Louisiana black bear wasfinally listed as threatened, but with a pro-vision exempting any unintentional killingas a result of normal logging activities. TheEndangered Species Act refers to such un-intentional killing as “incidental takings.”Since then, the BBCC has enlarged its mem-bership and continued to work on behalfof the bear in issues involving habitat, man-agement, education, research, and funding.They have produced a management hand-book for landowners. They have launcheda public education campaign to persuadepeople in the region, especially landown-ers, that the black bear is an asset. The En-dangered Species Act requires that theUSFWS draft a recovery plan for the bear.At this time, the BBCC is completing a res-toration plan that will be the core of thatdraft recovery plan.

Two Modelsfor Conflict SettlementWe have here two models for resolvingissues of natural resource management. Inthe Hetch Hetchy model, combatants takepositions and slug it out in legislatures andexecutive offices, in courts, in corporateboard rooms, and in the press. Finally,someone with enough public authoritymakes a decision. The deed is done, caseclosed, with clear winners and losers. Inthe BBCC model, the stakeholders don’tjust influence the process. To a large ex-tent, they are the process, and they arecommitted to inclusiveness. They look fora solution in which everyone wins. Theirgoal is to protect the environment andjobs, to address both national and localconcerns. They agree to be guided by thebest available science, and that agreementhelps them rise above personal agendas.

The BBCC was an early example ofwhat have become hundreds, perhapsthousands, of significant efforts for com-munity-based conservation. In the South-east, Northwest, Sierra Nevadas, and inNew England, wherever decisions aboutwildland are politically polarized, there alsohave sprung up initiatives to reach consen-sus through diverse participation. Theseinitiatives vary greatly in strategies andgoals, but we can see some commonthreads. Community-based conservation istypically, but not always, a local or regionalphenomenon. Scale is crucial. People closeto problems often can see appropriate so-lutions. Community-based conservation isinclusive. It seeks to involve all stakehold-ers in defining issues and solutions. Itstresses accountability. When decisions aremade in full public light, government agen-cies, elected officials, business executives,and everyone else is accountable for thosedecisions. In community-based conserva-tion, the emphasis is not on winning buton gaining consensus. People are encour-aged to ask not, “Does the decision give meeverything I want?” but, “Can I live withit?” This emerging model involves systems-thinking, rather than piecemeal conserva-tion. And it involves decision-makingprocesses in which technical expertise isessential and specialists are not the finalarbiters. It seeks not to make choices be-tween economics and the environment, butto meld them. It places more control overdecisions in the hands of people who willbe most affected by those decisions. It re-quires that people see themselves as repre-senting shared principles as well ascompeting interests.

Many of these efforts have one otherelement in common. Some are not work-ing well, and others have failed, at least fornow. Yet that is not a reason to discard themodel. It is difficult work under the best ofcircumstances, and circumstances are rarelythe best. The question is, can it producegood decisions? It has much to recommend.It encourages people to address a whole setof connected issues, rather than narrowproject-by-project regulation. It generatesbuy-in from people who will help carry outthe decisions, and as a result, it increasescertainty Tapping peoples unpredictablecreativity, the model encourages innovation.It benefits from the knowledge of peoplewho are close to the problem and have rel-

evant local experience. It also builds trustso that people are better prepared to worktogether again on other issues.

A Study in theDemocratic ProcessHaving said all that, we still have not an-swered the question. Does the model pro-duce good decisions? The answer to thatquestion is a

definite maybe. If the goal is to

produce sustainable systems, the results canbe more uncertain. A decision could be per-fectly democratic, participatory, and sociallyequitable, and yet still injure nature. In othercases, consensual models are not appropri-ate. We can design decision processes to beparticipatory and equitable only to havethem undone by bad faith. The communitymodel does not work when conventionalpower politics overpower it. Where thestakes are high and consensus is unlikely,we need old-fashioned regulation. Evenwhen consensus is possible, we still oftenneed to promulgate standards, leaving roomfor communities to negotiate the means tomeet those standards.

So the new model is not a panacea.Still, we are gaining enough experiencewith it to see that it can be a powerful al-ternative. I believe we can learn from itssuccesses and failures, so that we get bet-ter at it. We must learn, because some-times we have no practical alternative, andeven when we do, it squares best with theethics of democracy.

Three driving forces, three macro-trends, are moving our society toward thenew model. The forces are the integrationof human and natural systems, a shift to-ward local action, and a shift toward pri-vate solutions. The first force, systemintegration, may be the big story. The logicis inescapable. To save ecosystems, focuson human communities; to save humancommunities, focus on ecosystems. Anecosystem conservation strategy must con-sider the behavior of people in and nearthe ecosystem. A community developmentstrategy must consider the whole ecologi-cal context. This idea, clear and simple asit is, has deep implications for almost ev-ery dimension of public policy and pri-vate behavior. Whether the model itself isnew or old, it is undeniably a new idea tomost people in the United States. Apply-ing it to actual situations involves complex


and uncertain assumptions. Especiallyuncertain are principles that should guidecommunity-based conservation.

Based on the experience of commu-nity-based conservation work to date, Ithink there are five prerequisites for suc-cess. A region or community that hasthese prerequisites has a good chance tointegrate natural and human systems. (1)A pre-existing spirit of community. Re-gions that are experiencing rapid growthhave difficulty with community-basedconservation, because there are so manynewcomers with little or no psychologi-cal investment in the place. (2) A locallyperceived need. A crisis in the localeconomy, a polluted river, the threat offederal action, even an inspiring visionfor change—whatever the motivation, itmust be urgent enough to stir people toset aside their differences and engage inthe hard work of conservation. (3) Ad-equate technical support. People mayneed G1S capability or help with tech-niques of visualizing alternative futures.They may need professional facilitators,scientists, or technicians. Many commu-nities do not have those capacities athand, and they must be able to turn tostate or federal agencies. The technicalsupport also can take the form of state orfederal standards, which can provide es-sential guidance for the community. (4)An institutional framework for action.They may need facilitating by publicagencies or private organizations, as wellas appropriate laws and social customs.These institutions provide the legal and

moral authority that will bring peopletogether and enforce decisions. The in-stitutional framework is often weak whenthe action entails multiple communitieswithin an ecosystem, like a watershed.(5) Leadership. I have saved the mostimportant for last. Someone in the com-munity needs to have the idea, gather thepeople, and hold them together when thegoing gets rough. No matter how strongthe other community assets, if no onemobilizes them, they will languish.

Leadership Is KeyThe key that unlocks it all is leadership,but in the drive for local and private con-trol, leadership is the weak link. To saythat is not to denigrate current leaders,local or national, private or public. Ex-isting leadership may be superb but stillbe in the wrong place. We are decentral-izing responsibility to thousands of ju-risdictions and private entities. How canwe assure that their leaders have the skillsand information for this daunting work?We need nothing less than a nationalcadre of conservation leaders, many inlocal and private organizations inexperi-enced in conservation. If successful, theywill have all the normal qualities of lead-ership. They will understand both thesmall details and the large principles ofconservation. They will see solutions toimportant issues. They will inspire oth-ers to work for those solutions.

Can we make the leap to train thoseleaders? In our democracy, we have 200years of experience in developing leader-

ship at all levels. We also have a wealthof knowledge about conservation issuesand about the skills for pulling peopletogether in a common cause. If we cancombine those assets, our communitieswill have a chance for prosperity, equity,and sustainability all in one package.Without good leadership, nationally, re-gionally, and locally, we will not do so.Some of the leaders we need will emergespontaneously Many already have. Yet theneed is too great to leave to chance. Weneed a commitment from educationalinstitutions, government agencies, evencorporate training programs, to teach theprinciples and skills of conservation. Wenow lack the systems to find, recruit, andtrain the citizens who can lead the nextgeneration of conservation action. As wehand the work of conservation off to pri-vate parties and local communities, de-veloping those systems should be ourhighest priority. IJW

G. JON ROUSH is a senior fellow for theConservation Fund in Washington, D.C. Heserved as president of The Wilderness Societyfrom 1994-1996. He holds a Ph.D. in Englishfrom the University of California-Berkeley. Jonwas an assistant professor of literature andhumanities at Reed College and a programofficer at the Carnegie Corporation of NewYork. He also worked for The NatureConservancy, first in the western United States,and then as executive vice president. He canbe reached at 2326 20th Street NW,Washington, D.C. 20009, USA. Telephone:(202) 232-0633; e-mail: [email protected].


(15% of New Zealand), protective reserves, or as public conser-vation land. The philosophy of management of these public wild-lands, called the Public Conservation Estate, is one of preservationand protection, not production. Subject to protecting native eco-systems, the public has the right of free entry to enjoy and recre-ate in these wildlands.

New Zealand was one of the first countries to set up nationalparks, with the first being initiated in 1887 over the North IslandsTongariro volcanoes. Setting up these parks was a lengthy battleagainst development interests (Thorn 1987; Burrell 1983). But ithas only been during the second half of the 20th century thatNew Zealand recreational and conservation users realized that ifpublic land was not protected by a nature protection designation,it would be privatized, and cease to be available to all.

FEA TU RE

Editor’s Note: The IJW received such an enthusiastic response from New Zealand to our request for papersthat we could not include them all in this issue ... therefore, more to come in the next issue(s). The New Zealandwilderness story is an important example of the critical role played by citizen activists cooperating withgovernment in safeguarding wilderness values.

—Vance G. Martin, Executive Editor

ESTABLISHING A WILDERNESSPRESERVATION SYSTEM IN NEW ZEALAND

A User’s Perspective

BY HUGH BARR

Cathedral Peaks, Fiordland National Park. The Cathedral Peaks (foreground) isjust one of hundreds of mountain ranges in the vast 1.25 million hectare wildernessof Fiordland National Park. The lake in the background is Lake Manapouri, thecenter of a major controversy during the 1970s when conservationists successfullypersuaded the New Zealand government not to raise its level to generate hydro-electricity. Photo by Les Molloy.

NEW ZEALANDERS HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED ITTHEIR BIRTHRIGHT TO GO TO THE BEACH, climbor ski the mountains, tramp (a New Zealand term for

backpacking) the forests and wildlands, hunt for introduceddeer, goats, and pigs, and fish the rivers for introduced salmonand trout. We relish the ability to get away from all the stress ofcivilization, relax in a simpler, natural, and more stress-freeenvironment, and choose our own level of challenge, whetherit be climbing, tramping, skiing, or hunting. Access to thebackcountry rivers, and beaches is a fundamental componentto what New Zealanders see as quality of life and as part of ouridentity as a fit and free outdoors people.

A Beautiful but Rugged LandNew Zealand’s 27 million hectares (100,000 square miles)makes it about the size of the United Kingdom, or the averageU.S. state. This smallness belies the major range of landscapes,climate, and vegetation types. This is because New Zealand ison the edge of two major tectonic plates—the Pacific andAustralo-Indian plates (Stevens, et al. 1988). The Southern Alpsresult from the Australo-Indian plate sliding under the Pacificplate. These Alps rise to over 3,500 meters, the highest peaksin Oceania. New Zealand mirrors the range of climates andlandforms of an east-west transect across North America, inonly 160 kilometers across the South Island.

New Zealand is separated from the nearest major land mass,Australia, by over 2,000 kilometers. As a small piece of the oldsouthern super continent, Gondwanaland, it has evolved sepa-rately for the last 70 million years, with a large range of uniquenative plant species but almost no mammals.

Because of the tectonic and ice age glacial activity, mostmountain areas are young, rugged, and often rapidly eroding.Some 30% of the country is mountain land or steep land foreststill in its natural state and is unsuitable for productive use suchas pastoral agriculture or timber production. Almost all of these“wildlands” are in public ownership as national or forest parks


About 10% of the population is con-cerned about conservation land issues.There is broad public sympathy for pro-tecting forests, such as the South IslandWest Coast beech forests (Searle 1974)and North Island podocarp forests, andin protecting magnificent scenery suchas Lake Manapouri from hydroelectricdams (Peat 1995). Because of this, recre-ation and conservation interests havebeen able to ensure protection to approxi-mately 28% of the country. Protecting theremaining 3% of predominantly drylandmountain grassland (tussockland) is acurrent campaign.

New Zealand’sWilderness EthicNew Zealand has been colonized by hu-mans for only 1,000 years. At first it wasby the Polynesian Maori tribes and forthe last 225 years also by Europeans. Inthat time vast changes have been wroughtto the native bird life. The giant Moa andgiant New Zealand eagle have been ex-terminated, along with many other birdspecies. The native forest cover has beenremoved over 60% of the country, turnedinitially to grassland farms, with morerecently an increasing area being plantedin exotic pine for timber.

Since European arrival there hasbeen an ethic of exploration, adventure,and going into the unknown, both forpragmatic reasons of finding grazing landor gold and as recreation for exploringuntrodden areas and climbing virginpeaks. The rugged and inaccessible na-ture of much of the land, coupled withthe wet and stormy climate makes suchexpeditions challenging. (Spearpoint1996; Crothers 1987).

The Federated Mountain Clubs(FMC) of New Zealand is the nationalalliance of tramping (backcountry walk-ing), mountaineering, skiing, and

of which two especially—the Olivinesand the Hooker-Landsborough—weredesignated “Mountaineers Wildernesses.”But in spite of forwarding to the ministerno progress was made.

Concern continued in the 1970s. Itcentered on the increase in huts, tracks, andtourist and deer recovery aircraft flights(fixed wing and helicopter) that were di-minishing wilderness values (Molloy 1976)and the threat of hydroelectric dammingand large-scale mining (Molloy 1983). In1977 FMC resolved to promote the con-cept of a “Wilderness Commission” to setup a wilderness system.

Federated MountainClubs’ 1981 WildernessConferenceThe Federation’s landmark 50th JubileeWilderness Conference in 1981 (Molloy1983) proposed 10 major new wildernessareas throughout New Zealand, coveringlands that were largely de facto wilder-ness. But rather than being small, periph-eral, uninteresting lands, they were largecore areas pioneered and used by thetramping and mountaineering fraternityfor their wilderness recreation. Somewere up to 100,000 hectares and all weremore than 30,000 hectares in extent(Molloy 1983), the total area encompass-ing 3% of New Zealand.

Wilderness areas are at the difficultend of the Recreation Opportunity Spec-trum. Users are, of necessity, more fit, morecapable, and more experienced than theaverage backcountry user who is used toeasier terrain, huts, and tracks. Wildernessusers need to be fully self-sufficient, ableto cope with rugged country, and possessthe skills and stamina necessary to carryall their gear and food for at least five days.Skills, such as river-crossing, route-find-ing in inclement weather and throughrough country, glacier travel, snow- andice-climbing, and survival in storms, arenecessary as is the ability to carry a 60-pound (2 5-kilogram) backpack and travelfor 10 to 12 hours a day.

Within the 10 wilderness proposalsthere is, however, a significant gradationof difficulty. Four areas—Kaimanawa,Tasman, Garvies, and Pegasus—are rela-tively open tramping wildernesses, with-out glaciers, that are not particularly

Island Lake, Kahurangi National Park. Island Lake is oneof many lakes lying in the heart of the Tasman Moun-tains in Kahurangi National Park. The core of the park isstrictly protected as the 96,000-hectare TasmanWilderness Area, completely devoid of tracks, huts, andmechanical access. Photo by Les Molloy.

New Zealand wilderness advocates haveadopted a purer concept of wilderness, often ina more difficult and hostile environment, thantheir North American colleagues.

deerstalking clubs, with some 15,000members throughout the country out ofa total population of 3.7 million. TheFMC is the major advocate for wilder-ness in New Zealand. In an endeavor toaddress this confusion over the wilder-ness concept, the FMC executives con-cluded in 1960 that there was general andwidespread desire by trampers and climb-ers to have some large undeveloped ar-eas of public wildlands set aside aswilderness areas (Burrell 1983), to givefuture generations the same opportuni-ties to “pioneer.” Consultation with mem-ber clubs gave rise to six proposed areas,


difficult outside winter. Another three—Raukumara, Paparoa, and Poteriteri—aremore rugged, with occasional difficult riv-ers, but do not involve glaciers. The finalthree—Adams, Hooker-Landsborough,and Olivine—are the toughest, with ex-tensive glaciers, very rugged terrain, highpasses, and difficult rivers.

The conference made progress be-cause it led to the formation of a Wilder-ness Advisory Group of bothnongovernment officials (NGOs) anddepartmental officials, which developeda joint wilderness policy and appraisedthe 10 wilderness area proposals.

Progress: 1982 to PresentThe 1984 change of government, andsubsequent amalgamation of governmentbackcountry recreation and conservationagencies into a new but underfundedDepartment of Conservation (DOC),slowed progress toward designation ofthe FMCs’ wilderness areas. Only strongpolitical lobbying led to the designation(gazettal) of the Raukumara and Tasmanwildernesses in 1988. The approach of ageneral election led to the successfulgazettal of the Hooker-Landsboroughwilderness in 1990.

Lack of DOC funds, and other con-servation board and departmental priori-ties have heretofore stalled progress onthe remaining six proposals. This under-funding has been crippling to the depart-ments performance (Barr 1996). By 1996DOCs staff had been cut to half of that ofthe agencies it replaced in 1987. But it isnow legislatively required to carry outsignificantly increased responsibilities,and there has been greatly increased useof the estate. DOCs “Visitor Strategy”(Department of Conservation 1996) sup-ports wilderness as part of a RecreationOpportunity Spectrum approach, and thedepartment will seek designation(gazettal) of the remaining five wildernessproposals on the public conservation es-tate, namely Olivine, Paparoa, Tin Range-Pegasus, Southern Fiordland, and Adams.The 10th proposal, Garvies, is on Crowngrazing leases and cannot be consideredfor wilderness until surrendered fromthese leases. The DOCs ConservationManagement Strategies for Stewart Islandand the West Coast (Department of Con-servation 1996 [2]) advocate gazettal.

These wilderness proposals are generallysupported by the tourist industry and notopposed by the main South Island Maoritribe, Ngai Tahu.

Maori Land ClaimsThe New Zealand government has em-barked on a program of compensatingMaori tribes for perceived wrongs in gov-ernment purchases and confiscations ofland from tribes, during the establish-ment of New Zealand as a British Colonyfrom 1840. Up to that time the Maoripopulation had been greatly decreased byintertribal wars, cannibalism, and intro-duced disease (Evison 1993).

As a primarily stone age, hunter-gatherer society supplemented by someagriculture, most Maori settlement wasnear the coast, or in the fertile river val-leys. There were no permanent settle-ments in the areas proposed at the FMCconference for wilderness. The lack ofproductive value of these areas is preciselythe reason they have been left alone byMaori and colonial developers alike. Theyare viewed as wasteland by both cultures.The government and the Ngai Tahu tribeagreed in principle to settle the tribesclaim just prior to New Zealand’s 1996general election. This claim concerns thegreatest land area of any claim, the lower

half of New Zealand. It contains eightwilderness areas, but no actual or pro-posed wilderness areas are involved in thesettlement.

Changing User PerceptionsIn recent years New Zealanders have hadone of the most capitalistic governmentsin the Western world. Unemploymenthas soared, and working hours have in-creased significantly. Those with jobshave less leisure time, and a consequentdesire to use air access or guides, ratherthan rely on their own efforts and skills(Gabites 1996).

The interests of the New Zealandbackcountry user also appear to bechanging. The elite are as interested asever in challenge and feats of endurance.But many now see this as a “man (orwoman) conquering nature” short dura-tion fitness challenge, not the more sym-biotic and skills-based philosophy ofprimitive wilderness users (Spearpoint)(Crothers). Two day “Coast to Coast” and“Mountains to the Sea” competitive en-durance races are in vogue.

Also, for climbers, there is the lure ofSouth American, Himalayan, and Euro-pean climbs, as travel is relatively cheapernow than in the past. Hard climbs andtransalpine wilderness expeditions still

Mount Ngauruhoe, Tongariro National Park. Mount Ngauruhoe (2,291 meters) is one of the youngestvolcanic cones in Tongariro National Park, New Zealand’s first national park and the fourth in the world.The international importance of the andesitic volcanoes of the park and the significance of this sacredlandscape to the indigenous Maori people (Ngati Tuwharetoa) have been recognized in its World Heritagestatus. Photo by Les Molloy.


provide vital experience and training justas they did for Sir Edmund Hillary, jointfirst conqueror of Everest, more than 40years ago. It is likely that the current re-duced activity phase will pass, and NewZealanders will return in greater numbersto enjoy the challenge of their primitivewilderness recreation in the future.

Threats to the EcosystemThe threat of overdevelopment has van-ished with the major reduction in DOCfunding. Overseas tourist numbers havemore than doubled. This has led to gov-ernment directives to DOC to “withdrawfrom the backcountry” (Department ofConservation 1996) and instead providemore services to peripheral users andoverseas tourists. This is a major setbackfor New Zealand backcountry users gen-erally But it removes any threat of over-development of wilderness areas.

The threat of mining will be greatlydiminished in the future. Legislation isnow being passed banning mining innational parks, as well as in gazetted wil-derness areas. The hydroelectric dam-ming threat has diminished, because ofthe difficulty, remoteness, and expense ofmost sites, although it will probably re-emerge in the future.

The major conflict is that contradic-tion in terms, Adventure Tourism—guided

activities such as white-water rafting,heliskiing, fishing, and hunting, all usu-ally seeking air access. Air access for white-water rafting and tahr hunting are issuesin the Hooker-Landsborough wilderness,as are air access for commercial fishingguides to the mid-Karamea river, in theTasman Wilderness. Heliskiing was athreat on the Ramsay Glacier of the AdamsWilderness (FMC Bulletin September1985). But attractive heliskiing opportu-nities outside the wilderness area proposalare now being used instead.

Both North Island wilderness propos-als, Raukumara and Kaimanawa, facethreats of air access by recreational huntersseeking deer and other introduced wildanimals. This is presently allowed by thewilderness policy to provide wild animalcontrol. The desire for a primitive wilder-ness hunting experience is not strong in theNorth Island, in contrast to the wildernessWapiti hunters in Fiordland National Park’srugged wildernesses.

ConclusionsThe struggle by users and administratorsto set up adequate wilderness areas topreserve the challenge of primitivebackcountry recreation in New Zealandin perpetuity has been a lengthyrollercoaster ride. But it is nearingcompletion. New Zealand wilderness

advocates have adopted a purer conceptof wilderness, often in a more difficultand hostile environment, than theirNorth American colleagues.

Threats to wilderness such as creep-ing development, overuse, mining, andhydroelectric development have receded,at least for the time being. There is a con-sensus among users and administratorsin favor of designating more wildernessareas, as well as acceptance from Maoriand tourism groups.

This is likely to translate into pas-sage of most of FMC’s remaining wilder-ness proposals by the year 2000. If thisoccurs, New Zealand will have adequatelyrecognized the outstanding and variedwilderness qualities of its natural wild-lands, and preserved their major recre-ational challenge not only for NewZealanders, but for a world in which wil-derness is forever diminishing. IJW

HUGH BARR has been tramping New Zealand’sbackcountry since his youth. He is a pastpresident of the FMC of New Zealand and hasserved on its executive board for the last 20years. He attended the FMC’s 1981 wildernessconference and subsequently served on thegovernment’s Wilderness Advisory Group.Contact Hugh Barr at 12 Versailles Street,Wellington 5, New Zealand. Telephone/Fax:+64-4-476-9781; e-mail: [email protected].

ReferencesBarr, H. Feb. 5, 1996. “Conservation

underfunding closing down parks” NewZealand Herald, feature article.

Burrell, R. W., ed. 1983. Fifty Years of MountainFederation. Wellington: FederatedMountain Clubs of New Zealand.

Crothers, B. 1987. “Flight 925.” Taraua Annual,Tararua Tramping Club, Box 1008,Wellington, New Zealand.

Department of Conservation. 1996. “Visitorstrategy.” Box 10–420, Wellington, NewZealand.

Evison, H. C. 1993. “Te Wai Pounamu—ahistory of the southern Maori during theEuropean colonisation of New Zealand.”Aoraki Press, Chris tchurch, NewZealand.

FMC Bulletin. 1985. “Storm clouds over theRamsay.” Federated Mountain Clubs ofNew Zealand, Wellington, September.

________1994. “Use of protected public landsfor recreation and tourism” FMC Policy.Federated Mountain Clubs of NewZealand, Wellington, November.

Gabities, G. 1996. “Yesterday’s heroes” NewZealand Alpine Journal, Wellington, New Zealand.Molloy, L. F. 1976. “Wilderness diminishing.”

New Zealand Alpine Journal, 29: 65–75.Molloy, L. F, ed. 1983. “Wilderness recreation

in New Zealand.” In Proc. of the FederatedMountain Clubs 50th Jubilee WildernessConference 1981. Federated MountainClubs of New Zealand, Box 1604,Wellington, New Zealand.

Peat, N. 1995. Manapouri Saved. Dunedin:Longacre Press.

Searle, G. 1974. Rush to Destruction—AnAppraisal of the New Zealand BeechForest Controversy. Wellington: A. H. andA. W. Reed.

Stevens G., M. McClone, and B. McCulloch.1988. Prehistoric New Zealand.Auckland: Heinemann Reed.

Spearpoint, G. 1996. “Gardening in the Bracken.”New Zealand Alpine Journal, NZ Alpine ClubBox 3040 Wellington, New Zealand.

Thorn, D. 1987. Heritage—The Parks of thePeople. Auckland: Lansdowne Press.

Department of Conservation. 1996 [2]. “West coastdraft conservation management strategy.”Department of Conservation, Hokitika.

THE IN TERNA TIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDERNESS Volume 3, Number 2 11

IN 1976 I WROTE THE ARTICLE “WILDERNESS DIMIN-ISHING” for the New Zealand Alpine Journal (Molloy1976), which painted a picture of recreational development

sweeping through New Zealand’s mountain lands. I lamentedthe rapid loss of wildness in one of the worlds most remoteisland groups—islands so ancient in their origins, yet so newin their colonization by humans. It is interesting now, 20 yearslater, to review what has happened to wilderness in the inter-vening years, a period of rapid change in the country’s socialand economic environment, as well as attitudes toward theprotection of biodiversity and wildness.

The decade 1976 to 1986 was a time of environmentalcontroversy in New Zealand. Public opposition particularlyfocused on state-sponsored natural resource exploitation, es-pecially the loss of wild and scenic rivers to hydroelectricitygeneration, the “Think Big” petrochemical projects in Taranaki,wide-scale loss of wetlands and shrublands through agricul-tural subsidies, and the nonsustainable milling of indigenousforests. The number of national parks—10 in all—had remainedstatic between 1964 and 1986; there was poor progress in theprotection of marine ecosystems; wild, introduced animals werewreaking havoc on New Zealand’s unique flora and fauna; and,the overseas tourist boom was just beginning to impinge onthe traditional outdoor recreation activities of New Zealanders.

The Beginning of aWilderness Area SystemIn 1981 the country’s first wilderness conference was organizedby the Federated Mountain Clubs (FMC) of New Zealand, aloose federation of approximately 100 mountaineering, bushtramping, and hunting clubs. Subsequently, FMC proposed theestablishment of 10 new wilderness areas (Molloy 1983), suf-ficient to protect about 3% of New Zealand’s land area in acompletely undeveloped condition.

Interestingly, this initiative did not come from the GreenMovement, which was more concerned with the protection offorest, river, tussockland, and coastal natural heritage. Rather,the push for wilderness areas was a response from the outdoorrecreation community, concerned about the loss of wildness inNew Zealand’s most extensive ecosystem, the mountain lands.Because mountains, hill country and steep lands made up morethan 70% of New Zealand’s land area, they have always beentaken for granted, assumed to be still wild, always there, etchedin purple on the horizon. Mountain lands also made up the larg-est proportion of the protected landscapes at that time, the na-

FEA TU RE

WILDERNESS IN NEW ZEALANDA Policy Searching for Someone to Implement It

BY LES MOLLOY

Article author Les Molloy.

tional parks and forest parks.Ironically, the outdoor recre-ational community, which spentthe previous 50 years trying todevelop roads, tracks, and hutsinto the mountains, suddenly be-came concerned that there wouldsoon be few truly wild places left.

The legacy of the wildernessconference was a government-appointed Wilderness AdvisoryGroup (WAG), which spent thenext two years developing a wil-derness policy (see Figure 1) andevaluating 10 wilderness area pro-posals endorsed at the conference.Only two of these proposals,Raukumara and Tasman, wereadvanced through public consultation procedures by the relevant govern-ment agencies; both, in fact, lay in forest parks administered by the NewZealand Forest Service (NZFS). On the other hand, the National Parks andReserves Authority showed little interest, with no further wilderness areasbeing formed in the national park system for another 15 years. The NZFShad strong philosophical ties to the U.S. Forest Service, with its multiple-use management concepts, and it quickly adopted an American planningapproach using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum as a tool to helpprovide a wide range of recreational opportunities in state forests.

Mount Ruapehu, Tongariro National Park. Mount Ruapehu (2,797 meters) viewedhere from the Kaimanawa Ranges to the east is the highest mountain in the NorthIsland of New Zealand. This ancient volcano erupted spectacularly in September1995, causing evacuation of the skifields on its slopes. Photo by Les Molloy.


The Advent of theDepartment of ConservationDuring a government restructuring in themid- to late 1980s the NZFS, the Depart-ment of Lands and Survey (who admin-istered national parks and reserves), andother land conservation agencies wereabolished and replaced by the Depart-ment of Conservation (DOC). The legis-lative provisions for wilderness areas inthe National Parks Act and the ReservesAct were now supplemented by similarprovisions in the Conservation Act of1987. With the Forests Act eclipsed bythe Conservation Act, the so-called “Con-servation Estate” (public lands adminis-tered by DOC) now included about 29%of New Zealand, including hundreds ofsmaller islands of high significance forbiodiversity conservation.

Formal wilderness area protectionsoon became a low priority for DOC inlieu of the protection of threatened habi-tats in the lowlands (lowland forests,wetlands, estuaries), in the tussocklandintermontane basins of Canterbury andOtago, and in the seas covering the con-tinental shelf. Mountain wilderness was

considered to be secure, at least in theshort term. However, one substantial wil-derness area of 41,000 hectares, centeredon the Hooker Range and the headwa-ters of the rugged Landsborough Riverin South Westland, was established byDOC in 1990.

During the early 1990s, each of DOC’s14 conservancies was required to producecomprehensive Conservation Manage-ment Strategies (CMS) after gathering widepublic consultation. Essentially, a CMS isa regional statement of the value of placesand how they will be managed to protectconservation values, including their valuefor wilderness recreation. Gradually, thelist of potential wilderness areas evaluatedby WAG were dusted off and, where vi-able, incorporated into the CMS as an in-dication of the departments futuremanagement intent.

The Upsurge inOverseas Visitors:The 1996 Visitor StrategyThe public lands and visitor facilitiesmanaged by DOC are of vital importanceto the tourist industry because they in-clude 2 World Heritage (natural) Sites,13 national parks, 19 forest parks, andthousands of scenic, nature, scientific,recreational, and marine reserves. Therange of visitor facilities within these pro-tected areas is equally impressive: 960backcountry huts, 250 campsites, morethan 11,000 kilometers of tracks (trails),and hundreds of picnic sites, interpretedfeatures of interest, roads, jetties, airstrips,and so on. Many department-managedsites are of prime importance to interna-tional visitors—Milford Sound, MountCook, the Tasman Glacier, Franz Josefand Fox Glaciers, and the volcanoes ofTongariro National Park. In addition, thedepartment manages the eight “GreatWalks”—Milford, Routeburn, Kepler,Rakiura, Lake Waikaremoana, Heaphy,Abel Tasman, and Tongariro NorthernCircuit—which contribute most to NewZealand’s international reputation foroutstanding opportunities for wildernesstramping.

During the decade 1985 to 1995,New Zealand experienced an unprec-edented increase in overseas visitors,more than doubling from 0.67 million

in 1985 to 1.41 million in 1995—withan almost static domestic population ofaround 3.5 million. This sharp increasewas largely due to intensive marketingof New Zealand’s image of “clean, greenoutdoors,” especially by the newlyformed New Zealand Tourism Board(NZTB). While this rapid growth in over-seas visitors was occurring, DOC (themanagers of most of the network of parksand natural attractions that the touristwanted to see) was experiencing steadilydiminishing budgets for managing visi-tor facilities and services.

The predictable backlash from NewZealanders occurred. The internationalvisitor growth targets set by the NZTBwere widely criticized for failing to rec-ognize the extent to which increased visi-tation would impinge upon traditionalwilderness uses. Of particular concernwas pressure from the industry for moreroads and sightseeing flights through anumber of South Island national parks.Many of these proposed mechanical in-trusions into formal or de facto wilder-ness areas include, for example, a“Cascade-Hollyford Road” (beside theOlivine Wilderness Area) in TeWahipounamu (southwest New Zealand)World Heritage Area, and a “Karamea-Collingwood Road” beside the TasmanWilderness Area in Kahurangi NationalPark. Likewise, increases in sightseeingflights in Milford Sound and across theglaciers and peaks of Westland andMount Cook National Parks impacted onthe quiet enjoyment of the parks.

In all of this, DOC tried, with dimin-ishing staff and finances, to protect wil-derness values yet also foster appropriatevisitor use. The main vehicle for dialogwith all interested parties was prepara-tion of a “Visitor Strategy” (Departmentof Conservation 1996) addressing keyissues, such as how many visitor facili-ties should be provided, to what standard,and at what sites. The strategy proposesallocation of visitor facilities and services(huts, tracks, campsites, visitor centers,visitor publications, etc.) between thefrontcountry and backcountry and sevendifferent types of visitor groups.

It is anticipated that many back-country huts and tracks, with low numbersof backcountry adventurer visitor groupusers, will no longer be maintained. Over

Craigieburn Range. Limestone outcrops mark Castle Hillbasin between the Carigeburn Range and Torlesse Rangein the Canterbury high country. Sheep graze therangeland in the foreground, but the snow-coveredranges are protected for soil conservation and arepopular winter skifields. Photo by Les Molloy.


time, the effect will be for a gradual in-crease in true wilderness without visitorfacilities—the type of landscape soughtby another visitor group, the remotenessseeker. At the same time, this strategyplaces a lot of emphasis upon the needto protect natural quiet, particularlythrough the restriction of aircraft flyingover the backcountry. The strategy com-mits the department to “seek restrictionson airspace” to “... maintain natural quietto ensure visitor enjoyment.”

The Visitor Strategy further commitsDOC to seek designation of the remain-ing five viable wilderness areas proposedby WAG in the early 1980s:

Olivine (Mount Aspiring National Park)Paparoa (Paparoa Range, adjacent toPaparoa National Park)

Adams (mid-southern Alps, northeast ofWestland National Park)

Southern Fiordland (Fiordland NationalPark)

Tin Range-Pegasus (Stewart Island)

The proposed Olivine Wilderness Areawas finally designated in early 1997, hav-ing been planned for nearly 20 years. InDecember 1996, the New Zealand Con-servation Authority endorsed DOC’s in-tention to initiate planning proceduresduring 1997, with a view to eventualdesignation for the Paparoa and South-ern Fiordland wilderness areas.

Conclusions: “TakingWilderness for Granted”The evolution of a system of formallyprotected wilderness areas throughoutNew Zealand has been a slow process,and is far from complete. The first wil-derness—Otehake, 12,000 hectares ofmountain and gorge in Arthur’s Pass Na-tional Park—was designated in 1955;since then, only another six areas meet-ing the strict criteria of the wildernesspolicy have been so protected (totaling400,000 hectares, or about 1.5% of thecountry’s land area). This is only half thearea suggested at the 1981 wildernessconference.

New Zealand has an internationalreputation for its commitment tobiodiversity conservation and for the high

quality of its parks and other protectedareas. Yet, why such modest progress onwilderness area protection over the last Please see MOLLOY on page 45.


THE WILDERNESS ACT OF 1964 ALLOWS LIVESTOCKGRAZING TO CONTINUE where it existed prior to thedesignation of an area as wilderness. Congress further

clarified its position through the grazing guidelines of the Colo-rado Wilderness Act of 1980, which stated that livestock grazingcould not be curtailed because of wilderness designation. Thus,barring a change in law and congressional policy, grazing willcontinue to be allowed in many existing and newly designatedwilderness areas (McLaran 1990). Grazing now occurs in morethan 35% of U.S. wilderness areas (Reed, et al. 1988) and this islikely to increase as the mid- and lower elevation Bureau of LandManagement wilderness roadless areas are added to the wilderness

system. So, managers in the United States, and perhaps even morefrequently in other countries (MacKinnon, et al. 1986), must accom-modate livestock grazing while simultaneously protecting wilder-ness values. An understanding of the perceptions and beliefs ofwilderness visitors about livestock grazing can help managers, graz-ing permittees, and all users cooperate to improve both grazingmanagement and communication toward those goals.

Existing Social Science ResearchIncreasing public awareness of environmental problems hasresulted in growing support for environmental protection anda shift toward ecosystem management on public lands (Dunlap1991; Brown and Harris 1992). All resource managers mustnow be increasingly sensitive to broader viewpoints, the socialvalues held by various publics, and their perceptions aboutparticular management actions (Brunson 1992).

Research on perceptions of grazing in wilderness is lim-ited, but began in 1949 when the Legislative Reference Servicesurveyed land management and conservation organizations tomeasure support for federal wilderness preservation and pub-lic sentiment on wilderness uses including grazing. They foundqualified acceptance for grazing as a nonconforming use “onlyby sufferance and with a view to its eventual elimination”(Keyser 1949). In a study of visitor perceptions of wildernessrecreational carrying capacity, Stankey (1973) found definitionsof crowding that included references to environmental factors,such as littering, excessive use levels, and damage associatedfrom grazing, noting that a majority of visitors were opposedto corrals for pack stock in wilderness. Wells (1995) reviewed

S TEWARDSHIP

VISITOR PERCEPTIONS OF LIVESTOCKGRAZING IN FIVE U.S. WILDERNESS AREAS

A Preliminary Assessment

BY LAURA C JOHNSON, GEORGE N. WALLACE, AND JOHN E. MITCHELL

(Peer Reviewed)

Abstract: More than 1,000 visitors to five U.S. Forest Service wilderness areas in the intermountain west weresurveyed using on-site interviews and a mail-back questionnaire to determine both site-specific and general perceptionsabout livestock grazing in designated wilderness and on public lands in general. The proportion of visitors whoaccepted livestock grazing in wilderness (43%) was similar to the proportion who considered grazing to be unacceptable(40%). Three-quarters of those who accepted grazing, however, predicated their approval on proper management toprotect rangeland ecosystems. A majority of the wilderness visitors surveyed reported that direct encounters andlivestock impacts detract from a wilderness experience. Results describe the types of impacts that were perceived andthe relative acceptability of different types of encounters. Wilderness visitors were more tolerant of grazing onnonwilderness public lands if properly managed to protect ecosystems.

Cattle were most frequently seen on trails, in meadows and near lakesand streams.


articles in popular media on public landsgrazing and found that critics and pro-ponents alike typically present positionsthat are highly polarized.

Brunson and Steel (1994) conducteda national survey to identify public atti-tudes about federal rangeland manage-ment. They found that the public believedovergrazing and poor water quality dueto livestock impacts continued to beproblems on rangelands. Further, a ma-jority of the respondents supported theestablishment of more rangeland wilder-ness areas but did not support livestockgrazing in wilderness.

An on-site study conducted in Or-egon examined the effect of grazing in-tensity on scenic quality (Sanderson, etal. 1986). National forest visitors evalu-ated photographs of three types of land-scapes (mountain grasslands, meadows,and forests) under three types of grazingmanagement. While visitors gave highpreference ratings to landscapes under allthree types of grazing management, pref-erence ratings decreased as grazing inten-sity increased.

Wallace, et. al (1996) surveyed na-tional forest visitors about their percep-tions of livestock grazing on public landsand described specific types of livestockencounters or evidence that detracted fromvisitor experiences (e. g., cows near camp,manure on the trail, cows or impacts nearstreams, etc.) Other types of livestock en-counters added to the recreational experi-ences of many visitors (calves withmothers, cattle in the distance, cowboysmoving cattle, etc.). Visitors in dispersedcampsites were more critical of livestockgrazing than were visitors in developedcampgrounds (Mitchell, et al. 1996). Thestudy also examined 10 associated issuesthat the literature associates with livestockgrazing, such as range condition, conflictswith wildlife, and conflicts with recreation,and found that the biophysical impacts ofgrazing were more objectionable than werethe social impacts. The majority of visi-tors approved of grazing on public landsbut also predicated their support for graz-ing on improving range conditions andriparian areas and reducing conflicts withother users.

The present study extends this lineof research by examining wilderness visi-tor perceptions and beliefs about livestock

grazing in designated wilderness to(1) describe the effects of variousaspects of livestock grazing on wil-derness visitor experiences; (2) de-scribe the overall position held bywilderness visitors regarding live-stock grazing in wilderness and onpublic lands; and (3) evaluate theimportance of various subissues re-lated to livestock grazing for wilder-ness visitors.

MethodologyFive USDA Forest Service wildernessareas with ongoing interaction be-tween livestock and visitors were se-lected for study, the first four inColorado and the last one in Utah:Weminuche (San Juan National Forest[NF]), West Elk (Gunnison NF),Uncompahgre (Uncompahgre NF), FlatTops (White River NF), and High Uintas(Wasatch-Cache and Ashley NFs). Whilethey are not intended to be representativeof the entire National Wilderness Preserva-tion System (NWPS) they are typical of themore than seventy upper-elevation wilder-ness areas found in the intermountain west.

Estimated visitor use ranges from70,000 visitor days per year in the WestElk Wilderness to 233,000 in theWeminuche Wilderness. The livestockgrazing allotments in these wildernessareas were designated for either cattle andhorses, or sheep and goats. They werejudged by area range conservationists as

having satisfactory health or at least“good” overall range condition—eventhough some localized impacts were evi-dent. Livestock were typically brought tothe allotments during late June to mid-July and were taken off in September orOctober. The period of highest recreationvisitor use in the study areas also corre-sponded with the presence of livestock.

The sampling frame comprised na-tional forest wilderness visitors presentin any of the five study sites during July,August, and early September 1994, strati-fied by weekend/weekday and by early,middle, and late summer. Trailheads withmoderate- to high-use levels, registrationboxes, and a likelihood that visitorswould encounter livestock during their

Article coauthors George Wallace and Laura Johnson.


perceptions were found on both the in-terview and mail-back-only surveys), therewere 608 respondents for a response rateof 53%. Site-specific items comprised themajor portion of the survey.

Site-Specific PerceptionsWilderness visitors answered three open-ended questions before learning that thestudy focused on livestock grazing. Whenasked to identify anything that interferedwith their wilderness visit, 38% said “noth-ing interfered” while 62% perceived sometype of interference with their visit. Themost frequently cited interference was fromother visitors (18%), including crowding(11%), litter (3%), and inappropriate be-havior (4%). Others who felt that some-thing interfered with their visit attributedthe problem to livestock (15%), citing di-rect encounters (12%) and related impactssuch as manure (3%) or horses (5%).

A second open-ended questionasked respondents to describe any nega-tive impacts to the environment that theyhad observed, and their causes. Fifty per-cent of the respondents failed to men-tion noticing any negative impacts to theenvironment, but of those visitors whodid notice impacts, 19% (of all visitors)attributed them to human activities, cit-ing litter (11%), fire rings (3%), inappro-priate behavior (3%), and crowding (2%)as impacts. Seventeen percent of all re-spondents attributed negative impacts tolivestock, mentioning overgrazing (6%),manure (4%), trail erosion (4%), andpoor water quality (2%), among others.

The third open-ended question askedwhat changes in management, if any, visi-tors thought should occur. Many respon-dents did not specify any preferredchanges for the wilderness area that theyvisited (48%). Notable, however were the(16%) who recommended changes in live-stock management, including eliminatinglivestock (12%), and some suggested re-ducing livestock numbers and concentra-tions (4%). Other visitors (15%) suggestedchanges in visitor management includingtrail improvements (9%), limiting visitornumbers in wilderness (8%), changingbehavior of visitors through education orenforcement (5%), or zoning areas or trailsfor different uses (2%).

These open-ended questions werefollowed by items specifically related to

visit were selected for sampling. A com-bination of mail-back surveys and inter-views were used to gather information.(Readers interested in sampling detailsand data analysis procedures should con-tact the authors).

ResultsAll visitors who were approached agreedeither to complete an interview or to takea mail-back survey form. A total of 1,035

full-length mail-back surveys were dis-tributed and 487 returned for a responserate of 47%. Of the 121 interviewed, 50returned the mail-back portion (contain-ing only sociodemographic items andnonsite specific questions about grazing),resulting in a response rate of 41% forthe shortened mail-back survey. Whenthe 121 interviewees were combined withthe 487 mail-back-only respondents (allthose survey items that tested site-specific


livestock grazing. Most visitors (53%) hadno expectations regarding the number oflivestock encounters they would experi-ence, about a fourth did not expect toencounter livestock, and the rest expectedto have between one and five encounterswith livestock. These expectations did notvary according to the number of days visi-tors had spent in wilderness during theirtrip. People expecting to see livestockwere less likely to report that livestock-related impacts interfered with their en-joyment than were those not expectingto see livestock (p < .05). Forty-one per-cent of the respondents saw livestock andmost of those had between one and fiveencounters (36%). Livestock were seenmost frequently in meadows (32%), nearlakes and streams (26%), and on trails(26%). Fewer respondents reported see-ing livestock in campsites (12%).

Respondents were asked to choosefrom among three position statementsabout livestock grazing in the area that theyvisited (see Table 1). Only 11% of the re-spondents accepted grazing in wildernessas it is currently managed. Thirty-two per-cent of those surveyed accepted grazing inwilderness contingent on the proper man-agement of rangeland ecosystems, but 40%felt that livestock grazing in wilderness wasunacceptable because of environmentalimpacts and conflicts with other uses. Ap-proximately 17% of those surveyed felt thatthey did not know enough about grazingin wilderness to choose a position on theissue. Notably, visitors expecting to see live-stock were much more likely to accept graz-ing in wilderness as practiced or contingenton the improvement of management prac-tices than were those not expecting to seelivestock (p < .01).

General Perceptions andEffects on the VisitorExperienceVisitors then evaluated the degree towhich 12 types of encounters affect awilderness experience (see Table 2). Ap-proximately two-thirds reported that di-rect encounters with livestock detractfrom a wilderness experience. Many alsocited encounters with outfitters (65%),cowboys (63%), other visitors (54%),horses (51%), and dogs (48%) as detract-ing from a wilderness experience.

Respondents alsorated the effect of vari-ous types of livestockencounters, impacts,and structures on thewilderness experience(see Table 3). Formany visitors, all live-stock encounters andrelated impacts andstructures listed de-tracted from the wil-derness experience butsome clearly more of-ten than others. No-ticeable detractorswere manure in camp-sites (88%), livestockencounters in camp (87%), livestocknear streams and lakes (82%), and onor near trails (78%). Seeing areas wherelivestock congregate (76%) and manureon trails (78%) also detract from a wil-derness experience for most visitors.Seeing young livestock with mothers(52%), and seeing sheep herders (51%),and cowboys (47%) detract from a wil-derness experience for about half of therespondents. Respondents who did notrate livestock encounters and relatedstructures as detracting from a wilder-ness experience tended to rate them as

Perceptions aboutLivestock GrazingIn general, wilderness visitors were moretolerant of livestock grazing on publiclands than they were about grazing indesignated wilderness (see Table 4). Only12% agreed that grazing on public landsunder current policy is acceptable butmost (57%) felt that grazing on publiclands is acceptable if properly managedto protect rangeland ecosystems. Twentypercent chose the position that grazingon public lands is unacceptable, while the

Encounters with livestock near riparian areas detracted highly (from visitorenjoyment).

Many respondents indicated that livestockgrazing is completely unacceptable in wilderness.

neutral rather than as enhancing anexperience.

When asked in an open-endedquestion what they perceived were in-dicators of proper management, themost frequent responses were healthy-looking and tall vegetation (18%), anarea that does not appear overgrazed(9%), healthy riparian areas (4%), ap-propriate stocking rates (5%), a naturalbalance in the ecosystem (5%), and arotational grazing system (3%). Themost frequently cited indicators of im-proper allotment management wereovergrazing (25%), impacted or shortvegetation (14%), erosion (14%), toomuch manure (9%), bare soil (7%),trampling (5%), and overstocking (4%).

remainder (12%) did not know enoughabout the issue to choose a position.

Ten subissues related to grazing onpublic lands were all assigned some de-gree of importance by wilderness visitors(see Table 5). The ranking of these sub-issues according to the mean importancescores shows that three of the four mostimportant issues relate to biophysical ef-fects (e.g., impacts on fragile lands, rangecondition, impacts on wildlife). Wilder-ness visitors also considered compatibil-ity between livestock grazing andrecreation to be one of the most impor-tant subissues. Issues such as protectingthe ranching way of life, the importanceof public versus private lands for livestockproduction, and the economic benefits


grazing more acceptable to wildernessvisitors. Ivy, Stewart, and Lue (1992) andWells (1995) have discussed the impor-tance of addressing both situational (on-site variables) and dispositional(preconceived beliefs and expectations)factors in order to reduce conflict andincrease tolerance among wilderness us-ers, managers, and livestock producers.

Situational FactorsSituational factors include those on-siteaspects of livestock grazing and manage-ment that affect the wilderness visitor ex-perience, some of which can be managed.Encountering livestock or livestock-re-lated impacts on trails, at campsites, orin riparian areas detracts from a wilder-ness experience for a large proportion ofvisitors. Over three-quarters of those in-terviewed indicated that livestock en-counters near lakes and streams detractfrom a wilderness experience, yet theyfrequently did encounter livestock in ri-parian areas. Management practices thatminimize the amount of time livestockspend near riparian areas would addressthese concerns.

Results show that livestock seen in thedistance impact visitors considerably lessthan livestock encounters close to visitoruse areas. Findings also indicate that thepresence of cowboys or sheep herdersdetracts far less than encountering live-stock in high-use or riparian areas. Thissuggests that grazing will be more accept-able to wilderness visitors if riders are usedoften enough to prevent cattle from con-gregating and to keep them away fromvisitor-use areas. While sheep are not dis-persed in the same way as cattle, herdersdo have control over band location andcould make a concerted effort to avoidpopular visitor-use areas. Careful place-ment of salt, drift fences, and water im-provements can complement efforts todisperse livestock away from visitor-useareas. Managing herd characteristics overtime can change distribution, decrease theuse of riparian areas, and otherwise makegrazing more compatible with visitation(Howery et al. 1995; Scott, et al. 1996;Roth, et al. 1983).

Livestock can be moved neartrailheads and along trails on weekdaysor during periods of low visitor use. Thedispersal and handling of livestock

of livestock production were rated lowerin importance, though they still heldsome importance in forming the respon-dents’ overall attitude or position on pub-lic lands grazing.

Discussion: Implicationsfor Wilderness ManagersThis study reveals that many wildernessvisitors currently find grazing unaccept-able in wilderness or acceptable only with

improved management. Our findings alsosuggest that certain actions by managersand livestock permittees might lessen theunacceptability of livestock grazing towilderness visitors and, in some cases,increase the protection of wilderness re-sources. For example, social indicatorsand visitor standards for wilderness con-ditions might be incorporated into graz-ing management plans, along withbiophysical indicators of range condi-tions, with the goal of making livestock


around specific visitor-use areas shouldalso be addressed in allotment manage-ment plans. In all cases, there should bea good deal more communication be-tween wilderness managers and rangeconservationists.

Findings indicate that wildernessvisitors are also concerned about the bio-physical impacts that livestock grazinghas on ecosystem health. Three of the fourgrazing subissues that were assigned thehighest importance by wilderness visitorsaddressed biophysical impacts. One-thirdsaid they would accept grazing in wilder-ness if management continues to improverange condition and protect rangelandecosystems. Range managers could pro-tect natural conditions in wilderness bycarefully managing riparian areas andfragile lands to reduce impacts. Grazingmanagement in wilderness could alsofocus on achieving natural vegetativecommunities rather than vegetative com-munities with the highest possible for-age value. Since it is not easy for mostvisitors to judge factors associated withrange condition, such as percent utiliza-tion, natural erosion rates, species com-position, and so forth, and since approvalis linked to improvements in grazingmanagement or range condition for many,such improvements should be interpretedfor wilderness users. Wilderness users areoften characterized by their high levelsof education and a concern for the wil-derness resource (Lucas 1990; Roggen-buck and Lucas, 1987), and are typicallyreceptive to such information (Lucas,1990 [2]). Although much of this type ofeducation will be best conducted off-site,wilderness ranger contacts and trailheadbulletin boards can be utilized for thistype of interpretation on-site.

Dispositional FactorsImproving on-site grazing managementand interpretation alone may not changevisitor perceptions and beliefs about graz-ing in wilderness. Dispositional factors,including visitor expectations about live-stock encounters, knowledge about theorigins of legal but nonconforming usesin wilderness, and the relationship be-tween grazing allotments and the futureof nearby private ranch lands, should alsobe addressed carefully over time by man-agers. Many visitors either had no pre-

trip expectations about encountering live-stock or had expected to see no livestockat all. Those who did expect to see live-stock, however, perceived fewer impactsand were less likely to choose a positionflatly opposing grazing in wilderness.Numerous studies link expectations tosatisfaction (Manning 1986). Thus, man-agers should inform the public aboutgrazing, thereby reducing the number ofvisitors with false expectations about thepresence of livestock in wilderness areaswith grazing allotments.

materials that revisit the history of The1964 Wilderness Act and The 1980Colorado Wilderness Act.

Community-based conservation isan increasingly accepted strategy amonginternational wildland managers and en-vironmental nongovernmental organiza-tions (NGOs) that work to win thesupport of local people living next to pro-tected areas. When such support isachieved, they propose, it is local peopleand traditional land uses that becomes abuffer against the encroachment of more

This study reveals that many wildernessvisitors currently find grazing unacceptable inwilderness or acceptable only with improvedmanagement.

If livestock are to be moved throughvisitor-use areas or along frequently usedroutes, visitor pretrip information be-comes especially important. Wildernessusers can be informed about which trailsgo through grazing allotments.Backcountry trail selector brochures de-scribing trail attributes (i.e., use levels andscenery) have been successfully used inYellowstone National Park to redistrib-ute visitor use (Krumpe and Brown1982). Wilderness trail selectors could bedeveloped, which include informationabout livestock grazing and other non-conforming uses in trail or area attributedescriptions. This would also allow visi-tors who prefer to avoid livestock tochoose areas and routes where they areless likely to encounter livestock or tovisit portions of wilderness areas that donot have grazing allotments.

Many respondents indicated thatlivestock grazing is completely unac-ceptable in wilderness. Conflicts be-tween these visitors and livestock mightbe lessened if visitors are exposed to in-formation that explains the nonconform-ing use compromises that werenecessary to achieve the passage of TheWilderness Act and the formation of theNWPS. Off-site educational efforts mightinclude displays, videos, and published

intense and less desirable development(Elliot 1996; IUCN 1995; MacKinnon, etal., 1986). Knight, et al. (1995) point outthe interdependence of ranch based prop-erties and public land grazing allotments.In the United States we are just begin-ning to apply this concept and have beenslow to see ranchers, Native Americans,and other nearby traditional rural resi-dents as “local people” whose support weneed to protect wilderness from the im-pacts associated with unprecedented sub-division and development in the rualintermountain west (Reibsame, et al.1996).

Although biophysical conditionswere important to wilderness visitors,many visitors judged appropriate rangecondition and allotment managementlargely by the appearance and length ofvegetation on an allotment. These andother open-ended responses indicate thatmany users do not understand other eco-logically based criteria utilized in the fieldof range-land science. It would, therefore,be useful to incorporate explanations ofrange condition and rangeland manage-ment techniques into off-site or near-siteinterpretive programs where they may betreated more adequately than at a trail-head or during a brief encounter. It mayalso be especially important to be honest


about substandard range conditionswhere they occur and that are in the pro-cess of being improved.

Future ResearchFuture research should consider test-ing for changes in wilderness visitorperceptions of grazing after manage-ment actions have been taken to im-prove livestock-visitor interactions and/or range condition. Other studies mightcompare perceptions about livestockgrazing among visitors to wildernessand other nonwilderness area settings.

Finally, both biophysical and social re-search are needed to support grazingmanagement in achieving natural veg-etative communities while minimizingvisitor impacts in wilderness wheregrazing occurs. IJW

LAURA C. JOHNSON is a graduate student inprotected area management in the departmentof natural resource recreation and tourism atColorado State University. She may be reachedby writing the department, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521-1480,USA. Telephone: (970) 491-6591.

GEORGE N. WALLACE is associate professor inthe department of natural resource recreationand tourism at Colorado State University, wherehe works in wilderness management andwilderness ecosystem planning and providestraining and technical assistance to protectedarea managers. Telephone: (970) 491-5165;e-mail: [email protected].

JOHN E. MITCHELL is a range scientist at the USDAForest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station in Fort Collins, Colorado,where he studies human dimensions of livestockgrazing on public lands. Telephone: (970) 498-1862; e-mail: [email protected].

ReferencesBrown, G., and C. C. Harris. 1992. “The U.S.

Forest Service: toward the new resourcemanagement paradigm?” Society andNatural Resources, 5(2): 231–245.

Brunson, M. W. 1992. “Professional bias,public perspectives, and communicationpitfalls for natural resource managers.”Rangelands, 14(5): 292–295.

Brunson, M. W., and B. S. Steel. 1994.“National public attitudes toward federalrangeland management.” Rangelands,16(2): 77–81.

Dunlap, R. E. 1991. “Trends in public opiniontoward environmental issues: 1965–1990.” Society and Natural Resources,4(3): 285–312.

Elliot, W. 1996. “Wilderness in the new SouthAfrica.” IJW, 2(2): 9–14.

Howery, L. D., F. D. Provenza, R. E. Banner,and C. B. Scott. 1995. “Differences inhome range and habitat use amongindividuals in a cattle herd.” AppliedAnimal Behaviour Science, 49: 305–320.

Ivy, M. I., W. P. Stewart, and C. Clue. 1992.“Exploring the role of tolerance inrecreational conflict.” Journal of LeisureResearch, 24(4): 348–360.

Keyser, F. 1949. “The preservation of wildernessareas: an analysis of public opinion onthe problem.” Legislative ReferenceService, U.S. Congress, Id: 53–55.

Knight, R. L., G. N. Wallace, and W. Riebsame.1995. “Ranching the view: subdivisionsversus agriculture.” Conservation Biology,9(3): 459–461.

Krumpe, E. E., and P. J. Brown. 1982.“Redistributing backcountry use throughinformation related to recreation experience.”Journal of Forestry, 80(6): 360–362.

Lucas, R. C. 1990. “Wilderness use and users:trends and projections.” In WildernessManagement, J. C. Hendee, G. H.Stankey, and R. C. Lucas, eds. Golden,Colo.: North American Press: 355–387.

________1990. “The wilderness experience andmanaging the factors that influence it.” InWilderness Management, J. C. Hendee,G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas, eds.Golden, Colo.: North American Press:477–480.

MacKinnon, J., K. MacKinnon, G. Child, andJ. Thorsell, eds. 1986. ManagingProtected Areas in the Tropics. Gland,Switzerland: IUCN.

McLaran, M. P. 1990. “Livestock in wilderness:a review and forecast.” EnvironmentalLaw, 20(4): 857–889.

McNeely, J. A., ed. IUCN. 1995. ExpandingPartnerships in Conservation. Covelo,Calif.: Island Press.

Mitchell, J. E., G. N. Wallace, and M.D.Wells. 1996. “Visitor perceptions aboutcattle grazing on national forest land.”Journal of Range Management, 49(1):81–86.

Reed, P. C., G. Haas, and L. Sherrick. 1988.“Nonrecreational uses of the NationalWilderness Preservation System.” InWilderness Benchmark: Proceedings of theNational Wilderness Colloquium, USDAForest Service General Technical ReportSE-51: 220–228.

Reibsame, W. E., H. Gofnell, and D.M.Theobald. 1996. “Land use andlandscape change in the Coloradomountains.” In Theory, Scale and Pattern.Mountain Research and Development,16(4): 395–405.

Roath, L. R., and W. C. Kreuger. 1982. “Cattlegrazing and behavior on a forestedrange.” Journal of Range Management,35: 332–338.

Roggenbuck, J. W., and R. C. Lucas. 1987.“Wilderness use and user characteristics:a state-of-knowledge review.” In Proc. ofthe National Wilderness ResearchConference, July 23–26, 1985, FortCollins, Colo., R. C. Lucas, compiler. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, Utah: USDAForest Service, Intermountain ResearchStation: 204–245.

Sanderson, R. H., R. A. Megank, and K. C.Gibbs. 1986. “Range management andscenic beauty as perceived by dispersedrecreationists.” Journal of RangeManagement, 39(5): 100–103.

Scott, C. B., F. D. Provenza, and R. E. Banner.1995. “Dietary habits and interactionsaffect choice of foraging location bysheep.” Applied Animal BehaviourScience, 48: 225–237.

Stankey, G. H., 1973. “Visitor perception ofwilderness recreation carrying capacity.”Research Paper INT 142. Ogden, Utah:USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station.

Wallace, G. N., J. E. Mitchell, and M. D. Wells.1996. “Visitor perceptions about grazingon a Forest Service cattle allotment.” USDAForest Service Research paper RM-RP-321.Rocky Mountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station, Fort Collins, Colo.

Wells, M. D. 1995. “The application of a goalinterference model of recreation conflictto the public land grazing controversy.”Ph.D. dissertation, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, Colo.


THE GROWTH OF LEISURE ENDEAVORS THAT IN-HERENTLY CONTAIN ELEMENTS OF DANGER to theparticipant has coincided with the increase in wilder-

ness visitation worldwide. As the popularity of adventurerecreation grows, there will be increased pressure exerted onthe wilderness resource by this expanding number of adventureseekers. In this article, we compare and contrast the theoreticalfoundations of the wilderness and adventure experience. Theadventure recreation phenomenon is then described from the per-spective of current status, trends, and economic impacts, and whatimplications and future management challenges face the wilder-ness manager who must respond to these new pressures.

Defining the Wildernessand Adventure Recreation ExperiencesLike other wilderness experiences, adventure recreation activi-ties are essentially nonutilitarian and provide intense, positive,intrinsically enjoyable experiences to participants (Arnould andPrice 1993). Concepts that characterize the nature of both ex-periences include extraordinary experience (Abrahams 1986;Arnould and Price 1993), flow (Csikszentimihalyi 1975, 1990),and the Adventure Model (Ewert and Hollenhorst 1989, 1994).Embodied in these concepts are the experiential qualities ofclear focus and extreme concentration; merging of action andawareness; spontaneity of action; personal control and aware-ness of power; intense enjoyment; and perhaps transcendenceof self as congruency is found between the challenges inherentin the activity and ones abilities to respond competently tothose challenges. Going beyond the traditional set of benefitsascribed to leisure experiences (e.g., physical exercise), adven-ture and wilderness experiences have both been described as ameans to crystallize selfhood through personal testing, pro-vide life meaning and perspective, confer awareness of one’sown mortality, reduce anxiety, and improve fear-coping mecha-nisms (Arnould and Price 1993; Abrahams 1986; Ewert 1988;Ewert and Hollenhorst 1989).

Despite the similarities between the wilderness and ad-venture recreation experience, there are some important dif-ferences. In order to understand these similarities anddifferences, one must look at the interplay of two factors undereach experience form. These factors are (1) risk, danger, anduncertainty, and (2) interaction with the natural environment.

Risk, Danger, and UncertaintyAdventure recreation can be defined as: “Recreational activitiesthat contain structural components of real or perceived dangerand usually involve a natural environment setting in which theoutcome is uncertain but influenced by the participant.”

Apparent from this definition, adventure recreation in-volves activities such as mountaineering, rock climbing, scubadiving, backcountry skiing, whitewater boating, and spelunk-ing. Activities that have more recently appeared on the riskrecreational scene include snowboarding, play-boating,


ADVENTURE RECREATIONAND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR WILDERNESS

BY ALAN W. EWERT AND STEVEN J. HOUENHORST

(Peer Reviewed)

Abstract: A number of increasingly popular adventure recreation activities, including rock climbing, mountaineering,and remote-area trekking often take place in wilderness. This paper discusses the current status, trends, economicimpacts, ecological implications, and future management challenges facing wilderness managers who must respond toadventure recreation in wilderness.

Article coauthors Alan W. Ewert (right) and Steve J. Hollenhorst (left),taking a break on top. Photo by A. W. Ewert.


Indoor activities such as climbingwalls and ropes courses, while valuablefor training and expression of physicaltalent, not only lack in naturalness, butalso cause exposure to noncontrived risk,danger, and uncertainty. Such activitiescould be considered “threshold” adven-ture recreation experiences that may leadto or prepare participants for greater lev-els of involvement, including activities inwilderness. Thus, the offering of outdoorand indoor adventure activities may ulti-mately lead to an increase of wildernessactivity. Given this interplay between thewilderness and adventure concepts, itmay be important for the wildernessmanager to be cognizant of the currenttrends and issues facing adventure.

Variables InfluencingAdventure RecreationThere are a number of variables that in-fluence participation in adventure recre-ation including demographics, locationof population, participation trends, andtechnological innovations. The effect ofthese variables is summarized in Table 1.

Demographic VariablesBecause of the physical demands, increas-ing age will generally serve to reduce par-ticipation in adventure recreation (Marcin1993). Older adults, however, may substi-tute many of their current adventure recre-ation activities for other less demandingadventure endeavours. For example, moun-taineering may be replaced by mountain-walking or engaged in at easier,less-challenging levels. Second, technologymay serve to offset age by offering equip-ment that is lighter, more multifunctional,and provides for a higher level of safety.Third, population subgroups may have dif-ferent expectations relative to activities andparticipation. For example, Miller (1995)points out that the children of the babyboomers born between 1978 and 1995 (i.e.,“echo-boomers”) will form an age cohort of73 million and will begin to impact the num-ber of households aged 24 to 34 around theturn of the century. Thus, a new influx ofpotential adventure recreation participantswill be emerging in the next five years.

Younger participants are already im-pacting adventure recreation by pushingthe extreme edge of various activities,

Table 1: Influencing Factorsand Their Implications.

sailboarding, cave-diving, rapids swim-ming (aka “bull-frogging”), and helihiking.

Such experiences are catalysed by sev-eral factors, the first of which is the pur-poseful inclusion of elements of risk ordanger (Ewert and Hollenhorst 1994). Therisk or danger may be either perceived (i.e.,apparent to the participant but not reallypresent) or real (i.e., actual injury or deathmight occur and in some situations havea substantial probability of occurring).Close proximity to danger tends toheighten concentration and adds conse-quence to individual decision making. Arelated factor is the concept of “uncertaintyof outcome.” In contrast to the chanceprobabilities inherent in gambling, thisuncertainty can be influenced by skills andactions of the participant. Chance occur-rences such as bad weather and falling rockare attenuated by the decisions of therecreationist. Competent response to thisuncertainty requires appropriate actionsand intense concentration, both of which

contain the potential ofleading to extraordinaryexperiences. Risk and uncer-

tainty also accompanymany types of wilder-ness experiences, but,unlike adventure recre-ation, they are not nec-essary antecedents tothe experience. Indeed,it is not difficult toimagine wilderness ex-periences somewhatdevoid of danger anduncertainty This is acritical distinction: riskand danger are requi-site components to theadventure experience,but are only accessoryto many types of wil-derness experiences.

Interaction with theNatural EnvironmentA critical element in both adventure andwilderness experiences is interaction withthe natural environment. Remote and natu-ral settings imply less availability of out-side aid and corresponding increases in theneed for self-sufficiency, leading to a height-ened sense of consequence and awareness.

An important difference between thetwo concepts is that while interaction withpristine natural environments is generallyconsidered a prerequisite to satisfying wil-derness experiences, such interactions areonly accessory to many adventure recre-ation experiences. In fact, adventure ex-periences are commonly pursued inrelatively developed or urban settings.Examples include Whitewater boatingthrough urban areas, rock climbing oncrags located adjacent to roadways andparking lots, or ice climbing in quarry sites.


such as the new breed of kayakers whohave abandoned traditional whitewaterrivers to perform first descents of ex-tremely difficult and dangerous “steepcreeks.” The same phenomenon is bring-ing revolutionary change to other adven-ture activities such as mountaineeringand rock climbing.

Changing family structures will im-pact adventure recreation in two ways.First, the increase in single-parent fami-lies will probably reduce participation inadventure recreation by decreasing theamount of available time, disposable in-come, and opportunity awareness.

Second, family engagements in ad-venture recreation, as already observedin a number of adventure recreation ac-tivities such as rock climbing andWhitewater canoeing, will be increased.From an adventure travel perspective,family engagements involve the follow-ing statistical breakdown, beginning withspouses (58%), children and grandchil-dren (36%), and parents or grandparents(11%) (TIA 1994).

Third, changes in race and ethniccomposition suggest that an increasingproportion of younger potential partici-pants will be nonwhite. Since adventurerecreation has traditionally been associ-ated with white participants, the effect ofthis change is relatively unknown. Moreimportant influences to participation maybe associated with available opportuni-ties, disposable income, discretionarytime, and age (Murdock, Backman,Hoque, and Ellis 1991).

Distribution of the PopulationPopulation distribution impacts partici-pation in two ways: (1) regional shifts and(2) movement from urban to suburban/rural locations. In the first case, regionalshifts will involve movement to the Southand West (Wetrogan 1988). Increases inadventure recreation participation can beexpected because of increased exposureto traditional adventure activities such asmountaineering.

Movement from urban areas to sub-urban and rural locations may serve todisrupt areas previously used for adven-ture recreation activities, by the emer-gence of housing tracts and otherdevelopment activities. This trend will bemore amplified with the micromovement

of people, as predicted by Lessinger(1987), from suburbia to nearby openspaces. In response, advocacy groupssuch as the climbing community’s AccessFund have formed with the purpose ofensuring access to climbing areas is main-tained despite development pressure.

Popularity of Adventure RecreationThere continues to be growth in outdoorrecreation participation (ORCA 1993),although at a slower rate than in the1960s and 1970s. Substantial increases,however, are predicted in the next sev-eral decades. A sample of some of theseincreases in outdoor recreation activitiesare listed in Table 2 (ORCA 1993).While some increase in adventure rec-reation participation can be directlylinked to participation patterns in moretraditional outdoor recreation activities,such as day-hiking versus wilderness

users (e.g., Global PositioningDevices)

• Reductions in environmental impacts

Innovations in technology will result indramatic increases in adventure recre-ation participation, primarily for threereasons. First, technology such as light-weight equipment has increased the easeof access to many adventure recreationsites. Second, technological innovationshave enhanced the ability of the partici-pant to deal with dangerous events orenvironments. Improvements in cloth-ing and equipment, such as climbingropes, have increased the margin ofsafety. Technological innovations forsome participants, however, will createan “illusion of safety.” For example,hand-held global positioning devicescan provide navigational informationbut not knowledge or safety about travel

A crevasse rescue exercise. Photo by A. W. Ewert.

Limiting or restricting access because the settingpresents a dangerous situation overlooks thefact that risk and danger are the raison d’etreof the activity.

camping, the real connection lies in thegrowing public acceptance of all formsof outdoor recreational activities as le-gitimate forms of leisure pursuits. Ulti-mately what this implies is an overalllessening of the belief that adventureactivities are only for the “daredevil” and“reckless.” Rather, adventure recreationis increasingly seen as an alternative tothe more traditional forms of leisureexpression as portrayed through out-door recreation.

Technological InnovationsBengston and Xu (1993) report a num-ber of changes in outdoor recreation fromtechnological innovations including:

• New recreation markets and activities(e.g., cave-diving)

• Increased diversity and quality inequipment

• Opportunities for “new” or inexperienced


Global ParticipationPatternsThe continued globalization of the worldeconomy, combined with the growth ofthe alternative travel component of theinternational tourism industry, will havea positive influence on adventure partici-pation. Indeed, adventure recreation ac-tivities have enjoyed substantial andcontinued support throughout the world,particularly in North America, parts ofEurope, Eurasia, and in the coastal areasof South America and Japan. From a glo-bal perspective, the overall popularity ofadventure recreation is shown in Table 3.

As can be seen, there is substantialvariance in participation levels as a func-tion of country and activity. Even ac-knowledging this variance, however,adventure recreation activities representimportant recreational endeavors for sig-nificant segments of each population.

Major Trendsand ImplicationsMajor trends within the field of adven-ture recreation include efforts toward in-ternal regulation, growing concern overrisk management and liability, diversifi-cation of activities, and issues related tomarkets and delivery of opportunities(see Figure 1).

Internal RegulationPrograms, instructors, and commonlyused techniques, such as belaying proce-dures, will become more standardizedand subject to “peer review.” Moreover,the accreditation and licensing of indi-viduals and programs according to someaccepted set of procedures, such as thepeer practices through the Association ofExperiential Education, the AmericanMountain Guide, and InternationalMountain Guide Association certifica-tions, will become widely accepted. Thischange has already occurred in Europeand Canada where certified mountainguides have become the norm.

Risk Management/Liability ConcernsOverall, there will be a continued andincreasing need for insurance for bothprograms and individuals, and insurance

in rough or impassable terrain. Technol-ogy will also serve to increase the typesand diversity of participation by providingfor different experiences and accommo-dating differing levels of skill. Examplesof this diversification through techno-logical changes include mountain bik-ing, snowboarding, hang-gliding, andheliskiing/hiking.

Third, technology will play an im-portant role in providing informationabout potential opportunities, safety,costs, and other valuable knowledgecomponents (Coates 1992). This infor-

mation explosion will apply to all formsof tourism including adventure traveland other similar endeavors (e.g.,ecotour-ism). The input and output ofthis information will become increas-ingly sophist icated as adventurerecreators become more experiencedand knowledgeable. Providing forthese “information bundles” will cre-ate a market niche for companies andconsulting groups capable of under-standing the adventure recreation ex-perience and the information needs ofthese participants.


schemes will be complemented by the useof bonding and pay-for-services in theevent of search and rescue or need formedical attention with programs increas-ingly opting for “personal assumption ofrisk” protocols. This approach will leadto varying degrees of “protection” depen-dent on overall risk management plan-ning (Hanna 1991).

Diversification andSpecialization of ActivitiesIncreased diversification has led to expo-nential growth in the number of adven-ture experience types. For example,increasing specialization in mountaineer-ing has resulted in spinoff activities suchas: ice climbing, rock climbing, sportclimbing, big wall climbing, backcountryskiing, extreme skiing, telemarking, andsnowboarding and whitewater boating,with activities such as Whitewater canoe-ing, kayaking, rafting, inflatablekayaking, rodeo boating, squirt boating,and steep creeking.

The American wilderness system hasoften been criticized as containing mostly“rock and ice,” and this means that someof the most spectacular mountaineeringin the United States can be found withinwilderness. This is in stark contrast to theAlps where most peaks are accessible bytrain or cable car. Mountaineering andother climbing-related wilderness usecontinues to grow. For example, climb-ers of Mount McKinley in Denali NationalPark, Alaska, increased from 935 in 1991to 1,200 in 1994 (American Alpine Jour-nal, 1991-1994). Diversification includesthe quest for speed ascents and especiallynew, previously unclimbed routes. Me-dia coverage of climbing deaths on MountEverest appear to have actually increasedbusiness for adventure travel providers.

Diversification within wildernessrecreation happens at slower rates thanin adventure recreation because wilder-ness recreation is steeped in tradition,mores, and normative codes that have astabilizing affect on change. In contrast,adventure recreationists often tend to re-ject tradition and behavior norms in fa-vor of unique and novel experiences. Thetendency of adventure seekers to disre-gard wilderness norms and etiquette (e.g.,using bolts on rock climbs) poses a tre-

mendous challenge for wilderness man-agers charged with protecting those tra-ditions.

Marketing the Adventure MystiqueMarket-related issues revolve aroundthree components: (1) addressing thedifferent “images” held by potential con-sumers of adventure recreation activitiesand equipment; (2) developing equip-ment and training packages suitable forspecific targeted groups; and (3) empha-sizing service and opportunities. As canbe seen in Figure 1, program designs suchas “family orientations,” “green market-ing” (i.e., environmentally friendly pro-grams), and specialty courses areincreasingly popular.

In studying commercial whitewaterrafting, Arnould and Price (1993) iden-tify three organizing themes associatedwith satisfying adventure experiences: (1)opportunity for communion or connec-tion with nature; (2) opportunity to buildcommunity and connect with others out-side of one’s normal circles; and (3) op-portunity for extension and renewal of self.

Use of adventure recreation imagesto evoke these archetypal themes is com-mon in the marketing of a diverse amountof services and products. While it seemsparadoxical to link adventure recreationspromise of renewed self with automobilesales, award-winning advertisers havedone just that (Arnould and Price 1993),

which thereby may also increase demandfor adventure recreation services.

Wilderness Managementand Research ChallengesWilderness management implications foradventure recreation includes, first, lim-iting or restricting access. But since riskand danger are the raison d’etre for ad-venture recreation “safeguarding partici-pants,” either physical modification of theresource or limitation of access will di-minish or even destroy the very attrac-tion of the setting.

Second, since adventure recreationistshave a spectrum of preferences rangingfrom pristine remote wilderness on oneend to “activity focused” experiences onthe other (where a pristine remote settingis superfluous to the experience), provid-ing nonwilderness adventure settings maybe a means of reducing pressure on wil-derness.

Third, adventure recreation is com-ing under increasing criticism for envi-ronmental degradation, such as fromplacement of permanent anchor bolts byrock climbers, and devegetation, soilcompaction, and erosion on steep ap-proach trails used by mountain climbers.

Other issues include search and res-cue policy and funding, the developmentof partnerships between managing agen-cies, and a growing diversity of specific

High altitude wild country brings special challenges. Photo by A. W. Ewert.


interest groups, in addition to how topreserve both wilderness and adventurerecreation experiences under growinguse. For example, should adventureguidebooks be curtailed or restructuredto preserve both natural conditions andthe social/psychological atmosphere?

From a research perspective severalissues seem important for study. What isbehind the attraction of risk-taking ex-periences? Is participation in an adven-ture recreation experience a result ofpersonality factors, such as sensation-seeking, or from some other attributes,such as setting and opportunity (Bromileyand Curley 1992)? Are adventure recre-ation benefits substantially different fromwilderness recreation benefits? What fac-tors influence participation patterns inadventure recreation? Are these patternspredictable?

In ConclusionWhile adventure recreation and wilder-ness experiences are often closely inter-related, the adventure recreationgenerally involves a deliberate seeking-out of risk and danger and may or maynot be wilderness dependent. One can-not assume that adventure recreationistsautomatically require a wilderness settingor that participants are even wildernessadvocates. Indeed, access to suitable lo-cations for adventure recreation may bemore important to some adventure seek-ers than the presence of wilderness.

Participation in adventure recreationactivities is expected to continue to growat a faster rate than other outdoor activi-ties (ORCA 1993), and this growth willbecome a more important issue for wil-derness managers as participants seekgreater access to wilderness locations. A

better understanding of wilderness visi-tors seeking adventure and risk in theirwilderness outings will be helpful in de-veloping a reasoned response to the ad-venture phenomenon in protectingwilderness. IJW

ALAN W. EWERT is professor and program chairof the resource recreation and tourism programat the University of Northern British Columbia.He can be reached at the University of NorthernBritish Columbia, 3333 University Way, PrinceGeorge, BC V2N 4Z9, Canada. Telephone:(250) 960-5863; e-mail: [email protected].

STEVEN J. HOLLENHORST is associate professor inthe division of forestry at West Virginia University.He can be reached at West Virginia University,P.O. Box 625, Morgantown, WV 26506-6125,USA. Telephone: (304) 293-3721; e-mail:[email protected].

ReferencesAbrahams, R. D. 1986. “Ordinary and

extraordinary experience.” In TheAnthropology of Experience, Victor W.Turner, and Eward M. Bruner. eds. Urbana,III.: University of Illinois Press, 45–73.

Arnould, E. J., and L. L. Price. 1993. “Rivermagic: extraordinary experience and theextended service encounter.” Journal ofConsumer Research, 20 (June), 24–45.

Bengston, D. H., and Z. Xu. 1993. “Impact ofresearch and technical change in wild-landrecreation: evaluation issues and approaches.”Leisure Sciences, 15: 251–272.

Bromiley, P., and S. Curley. 1 992. “Individualdifferences in risk taking.” In Risk-takingBehavior, F. Yates, ed. New York: JohnWiley and Sons, pp. 89-132.

Coates, J. F. 1992. “The future of tourism.” Paperdelivered to the 41st Annual Conference,Pacific Asia Travel Association, HongKong, April 2.

Csikszentimihalyi, M. 1975. Beyond Boredomand Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Workand Games. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

________1990. Flow: The Psychology of OptimalExperience. New York: Harper & Row.

Ewert, A. W. 1988. “Reduction of trait anxietythrough participation in Outward Bound.”Leisure Sciences, 10(2), 107–117.

Ewert, A. W., and S. J. Hollenhorst. 1989.“Testing the adventure model: empiricalsupport for a model of risk recreationparticipation.” Journal of Leisure Research,20(3): 124–139.

________1994. “Individual and settingattributes of the adventure recreationexperience.” Leisure Sciences, 16(4):177–191.

Ewert, A. W., and R. Schreyer. 1990. “Riskrecreation: trends and implications for the1990s. In Proc. of the Outdoor RecreationTrends Symposium III, Indianapolis, IN,March 29–31.

Foot, D. K. 1990. “The age of outdoorrecreation in Canada.” Journal ofApplied Recreation Research, 15:159–178.

Green, P. 1995. Personal communication.Hanna, G. 1991. Outdoor Pursuits Programming:

Legal Liability and Risk Management.Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press.

Hollenhorst, S. J., M. Schuett, D. Olson, and D.Chavez. 1995. “An examination ofcharacteristics, preferences, and attitudesof mountain bike users of the nationalforests.” Journal of Park and RecreationAdministration, 13(3): 41–51.

Jones, C. 1995. Personal communication.

The Leisure Development Center. 1991. Leisureand Recreational Activities in Japan. Tokyo:Leisure Development Center.

Lessinger, J. 1987. “The emerging region ofopportunity.” American Demographics, 9:33–37.

Marcin, T. C. 1993. “Demographic change:Implications for forest management.”Journal of Forestry, 93(11): 39–45.

Miller, T. E. 1995. “New markets for information.”American Demographics, 17: 46–54.

Murdock, S. H., K. Backman, M. Hoque, andD. Ellis. 1991. “The implications of changein population size and composition onfuture participation in outdoor recreationalactivities.” Journal of Leisure Research, 23:238–259.

Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America(ORCA). 1993. “Human-powered outdoorrecreation: state of the industry report.”Boulder, CO: ORCA.

Travel Industry Association of America (TIA). 1994. Adventure Travel: Profile of aGrowing Market. Washington, D.C.: TIA.

Wetrogan, S. I. 1988. “Projections ofpopulation of states by age, sex, and race,1988–2010.” Curr. Pop. Rep. ser P-25,no. 1017. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C.


THE NEW ZEALAND TOURISM INDUSTRY has experi-enced uninterrupted growth in international visitor arrivals since the mid-1960s (Statistics New Zealand

1995), and during the last decade a growth of 8-14% perannum. During this time frame the New Zealand Tourism Board(NZTB) has maintained a marketing focus in order to achieveforeign exchange and employment, with a target goal of 3million visitors per annum by early in the next millennium.Currently New Zealand hosts approximately 1.5 million inter-national visitors. This period of rapid growth has coincidedwith the emergence of ecotourism, and it is no surprise whenone considers that New Zealand’s greatest tourist resource is itsextensive system of national parks and reserves.

While the NZTB succeeds in attracting international touristsin increasing numbers, demands upon New Zealand’s pro-tected area system have also increased. Called the conservationestate, this system covers more than one-third of New Zealand’smainland area as well as marine parks, sub-Antarctic Islandsand Antarctic claims. It includes all of New Zealand’s nationalparks and much of New Zealand’s designated wilderness.

The evolution of tourist preferences includes a shift indemand from the concentrated use of a small number of highlyaccessible and closely managed key sites (e.g., Milford Sound,Mount Cook, and the Westland Glaciers), toward the increas-ingly dispersed use of less accessible natural areas. O’Neill andKearsley (1994) propose that pressure on wilderness recreationresources has intensified more than increasing inbound touristarrivals alone would indicate. While inbound tourism increasesat the rate of 8-14% per annum, an increasing proportion ofthese tourists seek to experience qualities of wilderness duringtheir visit. Tourists, while still visiting the key sites, are increas-ingly looking beyond these high-profile attractions to wildernesssettings and to visiting them too.

The Perceptual Approachto Wilderness ManagementKliskey and Kearsley (1993) note that ecotourists seek”... naturalenvironments and wild places and, as their numbers have

grown, so too has pressure upon wilderness resources.” How-ever, the management of wilderness recreation is complex(Dubos 1974; Tuan 1974), with growing needs to appreciatethe wilderness perception of visitors. The term “wilderness”can be used as either an adjective or noun (Nash 1982), andthis has led to growing attention in the field of wilderness per-ception imagery (Kearsley 1983; Lesslie and Taylor 1985;Shultis 1991; Kliskey 1992). Shultis and Kearsley (1990) rec-ognize that natural environments are “... perceived, evaluated,and interpreted by the brain.” It is therefore apparent, asGresham (1983) explains, that “wilderness experience is notconfined to wilderness areas.” In light of these points, Davison(1983) places heavy emphasis upon the need for an apprecia-tion of wilderness perceptions and values, drawing attentionto subsets of the recreation population who may hold quitedistinct perceptions of wilderness. These perceptions are likelyto be reflected in the demands and preferences associated withthe notion of wilderness recreation.


PERCEPTIONS OF INTERNATIONALVISITORS TO NEW ZEALAND WILDERNESS

BY JAMES HIGHAM

Abstract: This paper presents results from a recent study of the wilderness perceptions of international visitors to NewZealand. International visitors to New Zealand have experienced record growth in the last decade, and visitors andpatterns of demand for tourist experiences are evolving. Once focused exclusively on accessible locations or “keysites,” tourist demand now focuses increasingly on backcountry locations offering wilderness experiences. This situationposes the immediate threat of recreational impact upon areas designated primarily for conservation.

Lake Waikaremoana, Te Urewere National Park. This remote lake lies high in theHuiarau Range, the largest forested wilderness left in the North Island. Photo byLes Molloy.


questionnaire was designed, pilot tested,and administered at a range of selectedbackcountry locations, employing thecluster sampling method. The question-naire was designed to minimize writtenresponses and was translated fully or inpart into four languages. Questionnaireswere personally delivered to 465 inter-national tourists on twelve tracks ofvarying remoteness, facility develop-ment, and use intensity A response rateof 72.3% generated a sample frame of336 respondents representing twentynationalities. (Readers interested in sam-pling and statistical details should con-tact the author.)

Dimensions of WildernessImagery: Nonpurists toPuristsA list of 21 variables addressing variousqualities of wilderness experience wasdeveloped drawing on previous research(Brown and Haas 1980; Shultis 1991)and personal experience. The use of afive-point Likert scale afforded touriststhe opportunity to express the degree towhich listed variables were consideredappropriate or inappropriate to wilder-ness recreation settings (see Table 1).

The middle ground nationals whowere predominantly “neutral” or “mod-erate purists,” proved to be ContinentalEuropeans, namely Swiss, German,Dutch, and Austrian. The most puristperceptions of wilderness were held byNorth Americans, Britons, and Austra-lians. Gender and levels of educationalachievement proved to have little bear-ing on the wilderness purism of theseinternational visitors. The extent to whichvisitors had backcountry experience wasalso related to the purism scores with firsttime, occasional, and regular backcountryrecreationists achieving different meanpurism scores (2.36, 2.63, and 2.91 re-spectively). Indeed 57.2% of nonpuristswere first time trampers, while 58.3% ofstrong purists were regular trampers. Theassociation between increasing recre-ational experience and strong purismprovides clear supporting evidence ofresearch conducted by Vaske, Donnelly,and Heberlein (1980); Schreyer, Lime,and Williams (1984); Kearsley (1990)and Bourassa (1991).

WildernessPerception ScalingWilderness perception scaling in theNew Zealand context has been the sub-ject of academic attention since the late1970s (Wilson 1979; Kearsley 1983;Shultis 1991; Kliskey 1992). This se-quence of research confirms that”...many environmental contexts are ac-ceptable as wilderness depending on theimagery and the attitudes of the visitor”(Kearsley, 1990). Research conducted byShultis (1991) and Kliskey (1992) in-cluded the development and mappingof a purism scale that “represents a gra-dient of perception levels based onbackcountry users’ personal concepts ofwhat constitutes a wilderness setting”(Kliskey 1992). These research programsconfirm that wilderness perceptions aresubjective. Wilderness perceptions may

be a function of social and cultural con-ditioning as well as individual preferenceand experience (Stankey and Schreyer1987; Kearsley 1990). It is probable,therefore, that inbound tourists to NewZealand, from a diversity of national,social, ethnic, and cultural settings,bring an equally diverse range of wil-derness preferences to recreational set-tings in this country. Thus, anappreciation of the qualities of wilder-ness experience sought by internationalvisitors would seem relevant to the man-agement of wilderness recreation re-sources in New Zealand.

Research MethodsThis study applied wilderness perceptionscaling to international visitors to wilder-ness settings in New Zealand, a specializedsurvey instrument (Higham 1996). A


DiscussionSince it is well established that wilder-ness perceptions are shaped by culturaland sociological factors (Stankey andSchreyer 1987; Kearsley 1990) it is nosurprise that international visitors to NewZealand fall into a wide range of wilder-ness purism classes, and that class mem-bership is positively correlated withnationality. This information affords theopportunity to project international visi-tor demand for recreation resources of-fering qualities of wilderness experiencebased on visitor statistics and tourismforecasts as published by the NZTB. Forexample, it is apparent that Asian visi-tors generally hold nonpurist perceptionsof wilderness. As such, these visitors arelikely to seek certain qualities of wilder-ness experience (e.g., naturalness andscenery) in a relatively safe and human-ized natural setting (e.g., with search andrescue services and a high level of facilitydevelopment provided). Continental Eu-ropean visitors occupy the middle rangeof the spectrum and are most likely tohold neutralist or moderate purist per-ceptions of wilderness. This perhaps sug-gests that they seek locations of moderateremoteness and naturalness with somelevel of facilities. North American, Brit-ish, and Australian visitors are those whoexhibit the strongest purism. In relativeterms then, these tourists seem mostlikely to seek the least humanized wil-derness settings.

ConclusionThis study confirmed that internationalvisitor perceptions of wilderness varyaccording to nationality and previousbackcountry experience. This suggeststhat providing a spectrum of wildernessrecreation opportunities is needed tomeet the diverse visitor preferences andthat wilderness sites must be managedto provide stated qualities of experienceabout visitor activities, facilities, and ser-vices. This, however, requires that thevarious qualities of wilderness experiencebe available at a wide range of recreationalsettings to allow tourists to achievewilderness experiences that reflect theirwilderness expectations. IJW

JAMES HIGHAM holds the position of lecturer inthe Centre for Tourism at the University of Otagoin New Zealand. His research interests focuson the issues of sustained wilderness values inNew Zealand. His recently completed Ph.D.thesis examines management concerns arisingfrom increasing international tourist demand forqualities of wilderness experience while in New

Wairaurahiri Beach, Waitutu. The remote Waitutu coastline stretches along the southern shoresof Fiordland. This is one of the wildest parts of New Zealand, separated from Stewart Island bythe stormy seas of Foveaux Strait. Photo by Les Molloy.

The most nonpurist of visitors, in terms of thewilderness images held, were Japanese andIsraeli, with 91.7% and 80.0% of respondentsfrom these nations respectively scaling as“nonpurists” or “neutralists.”

Zealand. Contact James Higham at the Centrefor Tourism, Commerce Division, University ofOtago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.Phone: 64-3-4798500; fax: 64-3-4799034; e-mail: jhigham@commerce. otago. ac.nz.

Please see HIGHAM on page 45.


THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE THOUGHT PROVOK-ING PAPER BY DR. DAVID N. COLE in the May 1996(vol. 2, no. 2) issue of the IJW, entitled “Ecological

Manipulation in Wilderness—An Emerging ManagementDilemma.” I agree completely with Dr. Cole’s conclusion that”...in the near future, management action (or inaction) willincreasingly exert a significant influence on the long-term valueof wilderness. Managers may continue to allow wildernessconditions to diverge from a pristine state by electing not topursue active manipulation. Or they may compromise ourfuture ability to monitor the effects of human actions by inten-tionally manipulating the last of our wildlands. Neither optionis attractive. Clearly there is need for active restoration inwilderness management, but its extent and magnitude needsto be more intensely debated.” I agree that debate on this issueis long overdue. However, I do not agree that The WildernessAct gives managers three conflicting goals.

Dr. Cole says “One goal is to preserve lands ‘in their natu-ral condition’ (section 2[a]).” Actually there are three parts tosection 2 [a]. First, it states the reason why The Wilderness Actwas needed—”In order to assure that an increasing popula-tion, accompanied by expanding settlement and growingmechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas withinthe United States and its possessions, leaving no lands desig-nated for preservation and protection in their natural condi-tion.” This simply recognizes “natural condition” as somethingthat was being lost as a result of occupation and modification.

Second, it establishes congressional policy “to secure for theAmerican people of present and future generations the benefits ofan enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is herebyestablished a National Wilderness Preservation System ... .”

Finally, The Wilderness Act establishes the goal for wil-derness managers when it says that wilderness areas “shall beadministered for the use and enjoyment of the American peoplein such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future useand enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the pro-tection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness char-acter, and for the gathering and dissemination of informationregarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness” (emphasisadded). It is important to emphasize that the goal is not tomaintain and/or restore the “natural (pristine) condition” butinstead to preserve “their wilderness character.”

The Wilderness Act defines wilderness character (section2 [c]) ideally”... as an area where the Earth and its community

of life are untrammeled by man ... .” However, Congress knewthat striving for “ideal” wilderness was not a realistic goal. There-fore it qualified the goal by saying that,

wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area ofundeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval characterand influence, without permanent improvements or humanhabitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserveits natural conditions and which (1) generally appears tohave been affected primarily by the forces of nature, withthe imprint of mans work substantially unnoticeable; (2)has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitiveand unconfined type of recreation ....

At this point it is important to note that wilderness estab-lished by this Act is to be “protected and managed so as topreserve its natural conditions.” The phrase natural condition(singular) would imply “pristine.” Little if any land in the UnitedStates can be called truly pristine. However, all wilderness ar-eas will have one or more conditions (plural) that are naturalor close to natural. Congress said in effect, preserve those con-ditions that are natural. This was the foundation for the“nondegradation policy” adopted by the U.S. Forest Service.

This interpretation of section 2 [c] is supported by legisla-tive history. The 1963 Congressional Record (House page20,352) quotes Congressman John Saylor in a section by sec-tion explanation of H.R. 9070. He said:

Section 2[b] (in the final version this became 2[a]) defineswilderness in three sentences. The first states the nature ofwilderness in an ideal concept of area where the naturalcommunity of life is untrammeled by man, who visits butdoes not remain. The second sentence describes an area ofwilderness as it is to be considered for the purposes of theAct—areas where man’s works are substantially unnoticeable,where there is outstanding opportunity for solitude or aprimitive or unconfined type of recreation and where theremay also be ecological, geological, or other features ofscientific, educational, scenic, or historical values ....

Dr. Cole confers that “The third goal is to provide a variety ofpublic benefits that derive from use of wilderness—the publicpurposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conserva-tion, and historical use (section 4[b]).” He misreads this portionof the Act. Congress recognized that human use (of any kind)would tend to impact on the “ideal” or “pristine” concept of

EDUCA TION AND COMMUNICA TION

RESPONSE TO ECOLOGICAL MANIPULATIONIN WILDERNESS” BY DR. DAVID N. COLE

BY BILL WORF


wilderness. At the same time wildernessareas are established for the use and enjoy-ment of the American people as wilderness.Framers of The Wilderness Act crafted sec-tion 4 to provide administrative guidance.Section 4 does not provide “goals.” Instead,it identifies those activities that are appro-priate in the “use and enjoyment” of wil-derness and establishes some limitations.Section 4[a] tells managers that they can-not ignore the basic purposes for which na-tional forests, national parks, and nationalwildlife refuges were established; 4[b] liststhose uses that are generally appropriate inwildernesses; 4[c] lists those uses that areinappropriate and generally prohibited; and4[d] gives guidance for those non-conform-ing uses that represent compromises nec-essary to get the legislation passed.Returning to section 4[b], it tells the ad-ministrator that s/he shall generally allow“recreational, scenic, sci-entific, educational, con-servation, and historicaluse” but first it remindsadministering agenciesthat they are “... respon-sible for preserving thewilderness character of thearea and shall so adminis-ter such area for such other purposes forwhich it may have been established as alsoto preserve its wilderness character.” Thisadmonition applies to recreational, scenic,scientific, educational, conservation, andhistorical use as well as to the purposescovered in 4 [a].

The Goal of WildernessManagementAll this proves that administrators haveonly one fundamental and overridinggoal: “to provide for the protection ofthese areas, the preservation of their wil-derness character, and for the gatheringand dissemination of information regard-ing their use and enjoyment as wilder-ness.” I believe Congress recognized thatideal or pristine wilderness was disap-pearing rapidly, but it did not direct man-agers to attempt the impossible task oftrying to re-establish a “pristine” condi-tion. However, administrators must aimto come as close to the ideal as is feasiblewhile still complying with the provisionsof section 4. To put it another way, the

Earth and its community of life must notbe further trammeled if this can beavoided. As Dr. Cole said this will be mostdifficult on the smaller wilderness areas.The challenge of allowing fire to play itsnatural role is a case in point.

There are some pervasive changescaused by external factors that wildernessmanagers are powerless to control orundo, such as ambient air pollution orglobal warming. Beyond this, the wilder-ness exists to provide benefits, to be usedas wilderness. This means some modifi-cation is unavoidable, but managementof these primary wilderness uses mustseek to hold the impact this use will haveto the lowest possible level. The specifi-cally excepted, nonwilderness uses mustbe side benefits. Manipulating naturalecology deliberately to enhance humanuses is unacceptable.

The short-term effects of some of thistype of manipulation might be “substan-tially unnoticeable,” and might enhancerecreational use. But this is still no basisto take deliberate action that will modifynatural processes. These sorts of modifi-cations would impair the scientific andeducational use and enjoyment of thewilderness. The qualifications on pristinewilderness in section 2 [c] of The Wil-derness Act must be viewed as an accep-tance of unavoidable modifications, notas an endorsement of deliberate change.Nature is amoral, and in wilderness weallow it to be itself.

There are no “good” or “bad” spe-cies or changes in nature, only by hu-man standards related to particular uses.Elk may diminish and pine squirrels in-crease as a result of natural processes; ifso, in a wilderness, we watch it happen,and some sorts of recreational use willsuffer. In another time or place, elk num-bers may boom and related uses will ben-efit. Wilderness use, whether recreationalor scientific, takes the wilderness as it is.It can’t do anything else and be wilder-

ness use. Experiencing, contemplating,studying the uncontrolled ecosystem andfacing the challenge and adventure oftraveling and living without structural ormechanized aids, with a liberal dose ofsolitude, and with only what you can takewith you, is the “wilderness experience.”There will often be better places thanwilderness to catch fish or see elk, wheremanagement is directed to optimize theseopportunities.

Summary and ConclusionsManagers are not faced with conflictinggoals. There is no mandate for managersto attempt to achieve a pristine condi-tion. There is no mandate to optimizerecreational, scenic, scientific, educa-tional, conservation, or historical uses.There is a mandate to allow natural pro-cesses to operate freely to the extent pos-

sible. Manipulationshould generally be lim-ited to those minimumactions that will establishconditions that will allownatural processes to holdsway once again. Resto-ration involving reduc-ing the noticeable

evidence of human works (except forsome historically significant works)should be given high priority Any sug-gestion for large-scale restoration of theecological component of the wildernesscharacter must be approached with ex-treme caution. It would likely conflictwith the overriding mandate to back offand allow the untrammeled flow of natu-ral processes. Perhaps the greatest chal-lenge managers face is to resist the humanurge to manipulate. They must adopt aposture of humility and respect towardwildness. Dr. Cole’s quote of Frank Egier,“Ecosystems are not only more complexthan we think, but more complex thanwe can think,” underscores this need forextreme caution. Humans are not now,and probably never will be, smart enoughto reconstruct an ecosystem to exactlywhat it would have been—“pristine.”IJW

BILL WORF is president of Wilderness Watch.He can be reached at P.O. Box 9175, Missoula,MT 59807, USA. Telephone: (406) 542-2048;e-mail: [email protected].

Manipulating natural ecologydeliberately to enhance human usesis unacceptable.


IN THE MAY 1996 ISSUE OF THE IJW, Freimund andQueen proposed a conceptual ensemble of audiences thatare participating in todays wilderness cyberculture. One

group of participants in that multicultural dialog is scientists.As described in that article, much of todays internet resourceis oriented to wilderness visitors and on-site users. Many websites, for example, focus on brief geographic narratives aboutspecific areas, provide landscape snapshots or video image clipsfrom scenic attractions, and preview the essentials of how toplan a trip to the area. It is rare that science, basic or applied, ispresented or highlighted on wilderness web sites.

Users who browse wilderness sites may seek specific infor-mation on issues of interest (e.g., charismatic mega fauna orthreatened and endangered flora) that inhabit an area. In somecases, scientists working on those issues may be able to providethe in-depth and factual information that more directly meetsthe needs of a web visitor. An added dimension of the internet isas a forum for sharing the results of scientific research with audi-ences that rarely are reached through conventional outlets (e.g.,peer-reviewed literature). Access to the results of scientific in-vestigation is all the more compelling given the advocacy andintervention dialog that permeates much of the World Wide Web.Review of issues such as biodiversity and sustainable develop-ment and use begs the need for access not only to opinions andeditorials, but also to web-based wilderness databases.

During an afternoon spent looking for integration of sci-ence into wilderness web sites, I was surprised at the lack ofparticipation by scientists with an ecological or biological per-spective. The prevailing voice of science is strongly that of therecreation resource scientist. Other science disciplines are vir-tually absent as participants in this forum. A notable exceptionis the National Wilderness Inventory site supported by theAustralian Heritage Commission (URL: http:// www.erin.gov.au/newsletter/n22/erinyes_22_NWI.html). This site is unique incomparison to other sites reviewed in this column (see vol. 2,no. 3, pp. 34-35), yet provides a number of powerful examplesfor how scientists, and the data and information that they gen-erate, can be integrated into the web wilderness dialog.

The site begins with a short, text-based overview of theNational Wilderness Information (NWI) program and its spon-sors. The inventory involves landscape-scale data. This consis-tency allows an overall picture of the status of wilderness areasto be assessed. A weak point is the lack of legends on the browsemaps. There is, for example, a continental-scale map of “wilder-ness quality,” but no immediate access to metadata that describeshow “quality” is determined. The banner line that tops the web

page links the user to powerful, streamlined search engines thatlet the browser surf the site efficiently. These engines supporttopical or taxonomic searches of a number of federal, state, andterritorial databases. Users can specify geographic constraintson the thematic data that they search, and both policy andmetadata documentation for all databases is provided on thesite, although it is housed under a separate database item. Thecompanion technologies of database management systems(ORACLE), Geographic Information Systems, and remote sens-ing are also integrated into the site. These tools allow users toperform structured thematic and spatial queries. Access to whitepapers on policy and public participation, budgetary statements,and media releases are also presented in chronological format.

Overall the NWI site is a unique offering to the wildernessinternet user. Limited use of graphics and a structured, sys-tematic design offer outstanding performance and user sup-port. Notably, the site allows scientists to offer as well as accessdatabases on critical issues. The data format and content stan-dards documented at the site ensure comparatively easy ac-cess, and allow the user to determine potential efficacy of thedata before it is downloaded to the local site. This model isvery similar to the effort underway in the United States to de-velop a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) throughthe Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) (see URL:http:// www.fgdc.gov/ for more information). The NSDI en-compasses policies, standards, and procedures for organiza-tions to cooperatively produce and share geospatial data. TheFGDC has assumed leadership in the evolution of the NSDI incooperation with state and local governments, academia, andthe private sector. The data sharing capabilities as demonstratedby the NWI site are critical to an enhanced role in and partici-pation by scientists. IJW

LLOYD P. QUEEN works at the School of Forestry, University of Montana,Missoula, MT 59802, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

EDUCA TION AND COMMUNICA TION

WILDERNESS @ INTERNETParticipation of Scientists in the Wilderness Internet Dialog

BY LLOYD QUEEN

Dear Readers:

IJW can now be found on the World Wide Web at(www.wilderness.net). At our site you can review the con-tents of previous and future issues, sample articles, contactour sponsors, or subscribe for a friend. Please visit the siteand share our location with your friends and colleagues.

Sincerely, Wayne A. Freimund


IN TERNA TIONAL PERSPEC TIVES

THE NEWLY DRAFTED FINNISH WILDERNESS RE-SEARCH PROGRAM (FWRP) cited conflicts betweendifferent interest groups (e.g., reindeer herding, forestry,

recreation, mining, fishing, and hunting) as one of the highestpriorities for research in the Finnish wilderness system (Sippola,et al. 1995). Since a major goal of the FWRP is to developinternational cooperation in examining priority wilderness is-sues, in this paper we (1) compare and contrast the Finnishwilderness system with the older wilderness protection systemin the United States, in order to (2) seek guidance for wilder-ness conflict research in Finland.

A Comparison ofthe Two Wilderness SystemsThe U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) wasestablished in 1964, but the Finnish Wilderness Act was not passeduntil 1991 (Eramaalaki 1991). There has also been research onconflicts between wilderness recreationists in the United Statesfor several decades. For example, there were early studies of con-flict between canoeists and motor boaters in the Boundary WatersCanoe Area in Minnesota (Lucas 1964), a study of the historicaland continuing conflict between hikers and horse users across theUnited States (Watson and Kajala 1995), and more recent researchon conflicts between nontra-ditional users, such as llama packers,and other recreation visitors (Blahna, et al. 1995). While there hasbeen a recent effort to more deeply explore the contributors torecreation conflict in additional recreation contexts, there is also achallenge to expand this research beyond on-site, interpersonalrecreation conflict issues (Watson 1995).

The different land use histories and wilderness legislationlead to several differences between the Finland and the U.S.wilderness systems, with implications for differences in con-

WILDERNESS—DIFFERENT CULTURES,DIFFERENT RESEARCH NEEDS

Comparing Conflict Research Needs in Finlandand the United States

BY LIISA KAJALA AND ALAN E. WATSON

Abstract: Among the highest priorities identified for wilderness management and research in Finland is the conflictbetween different wilderness interest groups. Finland’s unique land use history is reflected in its wilderness legislation.A significant difference between U.S. and Finland wilderness issues is how each has prioritized research on conflictissues. In Finland, conflict occurs between recreationists coming from distant locations and local people with localsubsistence orientations toward the area, whereas in the United States, the most common conflict that has been studied,and managers struggle to address, is between members of different types of recreation groups. These differences infocus on wilderness conflict have important implications for future research.

Article coauthors Liisa Kajala (top) andAlan E. Watson (bottom).

flict research needs. The twelveexisting Finnish wilderness ar-eas were established, primarilyin the remote north, “to preservethe wilderness character of theareas, to protect the Sami cul-ture and the traditional subsis-tence use of the areas, and toenhance possibilities for mul-tiple-use of nature” (Eramaalaki1991). Thus, Finnish wildernessareas are a transition type of na-ture protection area betweennational parks, other strict na-ture conservation areas, andcommercial land (Tynys 1993).This allows the wildernesses tobe large in their surface area, buton the other hand leaves thearena open for several controver-sies. For instance, small-scalelogging operations are allowedin certain portions of some Finn-ish wilderness areas.

U.S. wildernesses wereestablished to preserve areas”... where the Earth and itscommunity of life are untrammeled by man, where man him-self is a visitor who does not remain ... .” (U.S. WildernessAct). Because of the more severe restriction on human pres-ence in wilderness, the situation in the United States is quitedifferent from Finland. U.S. wilderness areas are more strictlyprotected from human influence than are national parks,which in the United States usually include roads and


commercial services. Therefore, inmany cases wilderness areas have alsobeen established within U.S. nationalparks, among other things to keep cer-tain areas roadless. In Finland this kindof dual protection is not necessary be-cause in the Finnish national parks,construction of new roads is generallyprohibited and other uses are also more

national parks havebeen established inplaces with compara-tively less recreationaluse and thereforemore wildernesslikeconditions prevail.Consequently, lessregulation is alsoneeded in these zones,thereby providingrecreationists with aless regimented expe-rience. This system ispossible as long asonly a few people areinterested in going tothese regions. In theUnited States it issometimes quite the

opposite; wildernesses within nationalparks are often very popular and use pat-terns are sometimes strictly controlled.

Comparing Use in theTwo Wilderness SystemsBecause of the historical land use back-ground and consequent legislation, a

though most of it is single-day use.Because wildernesses in both coun-

tries tend to be located in harsher cli-mates, recreational use is usually highlyconcentrated in relatively short seasons.For example, more than 80% of the rec-reational use of Kasivarsi Wilderness Areaoccurs in four months: April-May (46%)and July-August (36%) (Enojarvi 1996).

An apparent difference exists betweenusers of the two systems in the level ofdependence on human-created trails. Off-trail hiking appears to be more commonin Finland than in the United States. Thismight be due to the fact that, for the mostpart, Finnish wildernesses are located infairly easy hiking terrain and thereforethere is little need to establish trails. In bothcountries, picking berries and mushroomsis popular and requires one to leave trails,but in the United States trails are morelikely to access wilderness features suchas lake basins, scenic vistas, and moun-tain streams. In Finland, people—espe-cially foreign visitors who often find itdifficult to orienteer in terrain withoutmajor landmarks—are beginning to ex-press desires for more established trails.

In northernmost Finland, where allof the Finnish wilderness areas are lo-cated, local people depend heavily onwilderness areas for their traditionalsources of livelihood (e.g., reindeer herd-ing, hunting, fishing, and berry picking).Therefore, one of the main reasons forestablishing these wilderness areas wasto secure future access to these traditionalresources. The native Sami culture is tiedclosely to reindeer herding and othernature-dependent sources of livelihood.Thus, these areas are of substantial im-portance to local people, not only eco-nomically, but socially and culturally too.

The Finnish Wilderness Act recog-nizes the value to local people of protect-ing these wild lands from uncontrolleddevelopment. To these people, however,there is not such a concept as “wilderness”as described in the legislation. This is es-pecially the case with the Sami people,who historically have considered the wild-lands as their home because they roamedthese areas with reindeer herds. The localpeople traditionally just go “to the moun-tains” or “to the forests,” while “wilderness”is a more popular concept amongstnonlocal recreationists (Hallikainen 1993).

Snowmobiling is allowed on marked routes in Finnish wilderness areas. Localsare allowed to snowmobile outside marked routes. This picture is from thehighest point in Finland, Haiti, 1,328 meters above sea level in the KdsivarsiWilderness. Photo by Arvo Olli.

Because of the historical land use backgroundand consequent legislation, a broader range ofactivities is allowed in Finnish than in Americanwilderness areas. In general, there is lessnonlocal recreational use in Finnish wildernessareas than in U.S. areas.

strictly controlled than in the Finnishwilderness areas.

Something similar to the legislativelyprotected wilderness areas within U.S. na-tional parks exists in larger northern Finn-ish national parks. In Finland there areseveral management regions within eachpark, one of the most remote being calleda wilderness zone. However, the reasonsfor administratively protecting these zonesin Finland differ from the reasons for legis-lative protection within U.S. national parks.In Finland, the wilderness zones within

broader range of activities is allowed inFinnish than in American wilderness ar-eas. In general, there is less nonlocal rec-reational use in Finnish wilderness areasthan in U.S. areas. Because of their re-mote locations, the amount of single-dayvisits to Finnish wilderness areas remainslow compared to the United States. Onthe other hand, Finnish national parksstart right at the roadside and thereforeget high day-use numbers. Thus, a coupleof Finnish national parks with wildernesszones receive substantial recreational use,


In the United States, only recentlyhave accurate perceptions of trends inhuman use of wilderness and user char-acteristics been documented. Recreationremains the largest use of wilderness (orat least the most studied/reported on) andthe types of recreation activities pursuedin wilderness have remained roughly thesame for many years. Total recreational useof wilderness in the United States hassteadily increased since passage of TheWilderness Act in 1964. Most wildernessesare experiencing growth in visitation, eventhough many experienced a period of de-clining use during the 1980s (Cole 1996).Visitors seek opportunities the wildernessoffers to enjoy nature, solitude, and self-renewal. Wilderness managers and thepublic alike, however, are beginning tofocus more on values beyond the purelyrecreational use of wilderness. WhatAmericans value about wilderness, in ad-dition to what they do in wilderness,should guide how it is described and man-aged. To date, most studies have focusedon recreational use of wilderness, but nowmore interest is being displayed by scien-tists in studying relationships betweenhumans and nature.

In the United States there was oftenlocal objection to establishing wilder-nesses because that would restrict loggingor mining, important sources of revenuefor many rural communities. Thus, someexceptions for mining as well as cattlegrazing, airstrips, and irrigation waterimpoundments, were written into U.S.wilderness legislation to accommodatehistoric uses for some areas in the West.

More commonalties are found be-tween Finland and Alaska. In Alaska,some aboriginal people live close to wil-derness areas and conflicts between rec-reation and subsistence uses of wildlandresources are a significant issue. More-over, legislation that added Alaska wild-lands to the NWPS allowed severalexceptions to accommodate nativepeoples dependence on these lands.

Implications forWilderness ConflictResearch and ManagementIn Finnish wilderness areas, conflicts oc-cur most often between recreationists andlocal people with subsistence orientations

toward the area. The fact that, generally,less recreation occurs in Finnish wilder-ness areas, reduces the potential for con-flict between user groups. The U.S.wilderness legislation is much more re-strictive of human presence than theFinnish one, thereby reducing the poten-tial for some conflicts encountered in Fin-land. This reflects a basic differencebetween the Nordic and American landmanagement cultures. The abundance ofresources in the United States has led tomore segregative land management prac-tices, whereas Nordic countries, with alonger habitation history and smaller landbase, have established a more integrativeapproach (Sievanen and Knopp 1992;Stankey 1995). The current trend in theUnited States, however, is toward moreintegrative approaches to natural resourcemanagement. The ecosystem manage-ment approach adopted by federal landmanagement agencies and some privateindustries in the 1990s is a strong moti-vator for greater integration of science andmanagement disciplines and implies aneed for broader understanding of con-flicting demands on all natural resources.

Some conflicts do occur betweenrecreationists in Finland (Saarinen1995), and this conflict needs researchto direct management, but the greaterproblem is reports of recreationistsdisturbing traditional sources of live-lihood and the reverse—traditionalusers’ activities interfering with recre-ation pursuits (e.g., conflicts betweenskiers and snowmobiles operated bysubsistence users intheir work). Somerecreationists questionwhether snowmobilesor All-Terrain Vehicles(ATVs) are appropri-ate. On the otherhand, some reindeerherders are concernedabout the relativelynew appearance ofrecreational dog sled-ding in areas where ithad not existed previ-ously. They are afraidof the impact thesedogs and this activitymay have on their re-indeer herds.

Consequently, in order to focus onthe issues surrounding conflict in Finn-ish wilderness, research needs to be ofa different scope than what it has tra-ditionally been in the contiguousUnited States. An approach to study-ing conflict is needed that encompasseseven the most indirect human conflict,such as the conflicts between reindeerherders and tourism entrepreneurs, andtheir associated differences of opinionabout the desirability of promotingtourism in the region. For example, inKasivarsi Wilderness Area and UK Na-tional Park in Finland these are impor-tant issues.

As conflict studies are developed inFinland, commonalties between the mix-ture of wilderness uses in Finland andAlaska should be kept in mind. Coop-erative studies in Finland and Alaskacould be particularly fruitful because theywould be truly crosscultural, with sev-eral cultures involved, and not just inter-national.

Research methodologies must bedeveloped and tested to address the spe-cific conflict issues in Finland. Watson(1995) has suggested that in conflict re-search only recently has there been aneffort to look at social conflict, differenti-ating it from the more traditional inter-personal conflict issues. There is a needto understand and describe social con-flict, values conflict, and social accept-ability, yet we are still largely usingpsychometric measurement methods inmost conflict studies.

Among Finnish recreationists it is becoming increasingly popular to accesswilderness by nontraditional methods, such as by airplane. Photo by TeppoLoikkanen.


Research methods developed forstudying the contribution of personal andsocial meaning differences to conflict(Brandenburg and Carroll 1994; Gibbonsand Ruddell 1995; Williams 1993) mayhave particular application potential inthe Finnish context. These studies arelikely to be more qualitative, focusing lesson recreation motivations and more onthe relationships people have with thelandscape.

In terms of selecting conflict manage-ment techniques, recent American re-search on the impacts different techniqueshave on visitor experiences (Asp, et al.1996; McCool and Lime 1989) is likely tobe important also in Finland. Tradition-

ally, management options have been de-scribed as direct or indirect based uponthe levels of management presence, withthe belief that the less visible managementis, the less impact the technique has onvisitor experiences. This impact has beenrecently measured and described as ob-trusiveness. However, for some conflictsituations it can be that more direct ap-proaches to management may be the leastobtrusive to those involved. This questionremains to be addressed for situations in-volving diverse user groups such as in Fin-land wilderness. IJW

LISA KAJALA works with the Finnish Forest andPark Service, planning for management of

wilderness and peat land protected areas inthe northwest Finnish Lapland. She can bereached at Finnish Forest and Park Service,Northern Lapland District for WildernessManagement, 99400 Erontekio, Finland.

ALAN E. WATSON is the research social scientistat the Aldo Leopold Wilderness ResearchInstitute in Missoula, Montana, and an executiveeditor for the IJW.

An earlier version of this paper was presentedat Conflict Management and Public Participationin Land Management, an internationalconference sponsored by the European ForestryInstitute, Joensuu, Finland, June 17–19, 1996.

ReferencesAsp, C. H., A. E. Watson, and J. A. Walsh.

1996. “The obtrusiveness of recreationalconflict management techniques.”Unpublished report to RecreationEquipment Incorporated, on file at the AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institute.

Blahna, D. J., K. S. Smith, and J. A. Anderson.1995. “Backcountry llama packing: visitorperceptions of acceptability and conflict.”Leisure Sciences, 17: 185–204.

Brandenburg, A. M., and M. S. Carroll. 1994.“Your place, or mine: the effect of placecreation on environmental values andlandscape meanings.” Paper presented atThe Fifth International Symposium onSociety and Resource Management. FortCollins, Colorado. June 7–10, 1994.

Cole, D. N. 1996. “Wilderness recreation usetrends, 1965 through 1 994.” ResearchPaper INT-RP-488, USDA Forest Service,Ogden UT: Intermountain Research Station.

Enojärvi, K. 1996. “Autio—ja varaustupienhuoltokustannukset.” Päättötyö.Rovaniemen metsäoppilaitos.

Erämaalaki. 1 991. The Finnish Wilderness Act.Suomen säädöskokoelma, law no. 62, pp.129–143.

Gibbons, S., and E. J. Ruddell. 1995. “The effectof goal orientation and place dependenceon select goal interferences among winterbackcountry users.” Leisure Sciences, 17:171–183.

Hallikainen, V. 1993. “The social wilderness inthe minds and culture of the Finnishpeople.” In International WildernessAllocation, Management, and Research,J. C. Hendee, and V. G. Martin, eds.Proceedings of a symposium during the5th World Wilderness Congress, Tromso,Norway, September 1993, pp. 259–266.

Lucas, R. C. 1964. “Wilderness perception anduse: the example of the Boundary WatersCanoe Area.” Natural Resources Journal,3: 394–411.

McCool, S. F., and D. W. Lime. 1989. “Attitudesof visitors toward outdoor recreation policy.”USDA Forest Service General Technical ReportSE-52. Southeastern Forest ExperimentStation, Athens, GA, pp. 401–411.

Saarinen, J. 1995. “Urho Kekkosenkansallispuiston retkeily-ympäristönviihtyvyys.” Metsähallituksen luonnon-suojelujulkaisuja. Sarja A: 37.

Sievänen, I, and T. Knopp. 1992. “Outdoorrecreation in Finland and Minnesota:integration vs. designation.” In NordicOutdoor Recreation: InternationalComparative Studies, T. Sievanen, ed.Proceedings of the workshop held inSiuntio, Finland, September, 9–10, 1992,Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen tiedon-antoja439, pp. 9–31.

Sippola, A., J. Jokimdki, V. Hallikainen, andP. Sepponen. 1995. “The Finnish

wilderness research program.” IJW,1(1): 36.

Stankey, G. H. 1995. “Integrated naturalresource planning and management: socialscience perspectives.” In Caring for theForest: Research in a Changing World, E.Koriplahti, H. Mikkela, and T. Salonen, eds.IUFRO XX World Congress, August 6–12,1995, Tampere, Finland, pp. 391–398.

Tynys, T. 1993. “Management and planning ofthe wilderness areas in Finland.” InInternational Wilderness Allocation,Management, and Research, J. C.Hendee, and V. G. Martin, eds.Proceedings of a symposium during the5th World Wilderness Congress, Tromso,Norway, September, pp. 88–92.

Watson, A. 1995. “An analysis of recent progressin recreation conflict research and perceptionsof future challenges and opportunities.”Leisure Sciences, 17: 235–238.

Watson, A. E., and L. Kajala. 1995. “Inter-group conflict in wilderness: balancingopportunities for experience withpreservation responsibility.” Arctic CentrePublications, 7: 251–270.

Williams, D. R. 1993. “Recreation and multi-resource conflict: a framework for examiningpublic ties to place.” Working paper basedon presentation at Connections SeminarSeries, USDA Forest Service, WashingtonOffice, November 19.


Helicopter Plan Still HoversOver Tongass WildernessesThe U.S. Forest Service (USFS) hasn’t backed off its plan to estab-lish 129 helicopter landing sites in 12 wildernesses on the TongassNational Forest. Wilderness Watch has been joined in opposingthe proposal by the Department of Interior and by former InteriorSecretary Cecil Andrus. As interior secretary, Andrus led the Carteradministrations efforts that led to designation of most of the wil-derness in Alaska. He stated in a letter to the USFS that its planwill “actually remove these lands from a technical ‘wilderness’ clas-sification.” In a very strongly worded letter, Assistant Interior Sec-retaries Bob Armstrong and George Frampton urged then USFSChief Jack Ward Thomas to “withdraw the idea from consider-ation altogether.” They noted the dangerous precedent for wilder-nesses elsewhere, and the damage helicopters pose to thewilderness’s wildlife and recreation values. (Excerpted fromWilderness Watch, Current Issues Update.)

Al Gore Talks Wilderness in South AfricaU.S. Vice President Al Gore spent five days in South Africa formeetings of the U.S.-South Africa Binational Commission, whichhe jointly chairs with Thabo Mbeki, deputy president of SouthAfrica. The longest single meeting with a private citizen was a

two-hour stint with Dr. Ian Player, founder of the WILD Foun-dation, The Wilderness Leadership School, and the World Wil-derness Congress. They met at Tshongweni, just 30 minutesoutside Durban, one of the premier “urban wilderness” initia-tives in the country. Wildland trails, reintroduction of Africanwildlife and big game, and wilderness education and trainingwere on the agenda, in addition to the cultural and psychologi-cal importance of wilderness areas. Vice President Gore clearlyunderstood the need for rugged, wildland type areas close tocities, to make them accessible to the people from the townshipsand urban areas who otherwise would never understand theimportance of wilderness. Two days later, when the vice presi-dent addressed a state gathering in Capetown, he referred to histime at Tshongweni with Dr. Player as of singular importanceand interest to him, and for the future of South Africa.

The Problem with RoadsTwo generations ago, there were no highways in the Yukon.Now, more than 5,000 kilometers of roads, and at least another5,000 kilometers of vehicle access routes have left a spaghettipattern across many parts of the territory.

These roads and associated developments have broughtbenefits to some, but at what cost? Wildlife populations inparts of the southern Yukon are already at risk, much of it

WILDERNESS DIGEST

ANNOUNCEMENTS ANDWILDERNESS CALENDAR

• Helicopter Plan Still Hovers Over Tongass Wildernesses• Al Gore Talks Wilderness in South Africa• The Problem with Roads• University of Idaho Has New Wilderness Publications• Bobby Unser Cited for Wilderness Trespass• Jasper National Park• Disability Accessible Wilderness Horse Camp• Excellent Reading Opportunities• Wilderness Discovery Program Featured in ABC Documentary• Snowmobiles Cause Air Pollution• WCWC Alberta’s “Save the Grizzly” Campaign• Employment Resources• Conservation Directory Available• Yukon Wildlands Project• U.S. Legislative Action• Canada’s Grassroots Wilderness Advocates• Upcoming Conferences


due to overhunting from increased roadaccess.

Historically, we have viewed roadsas progress, as keys to economic devel-opment. The Yukon government has of-ten financed roads into remotewilderness areas; even when mineraldevelopment potential has not beenproven, they just want to “open up thecountry.” This “roads to nowhere” no-tion is a death sentence for wildlife andfor wildlands. The real costs of randomand unnecessary road building are rarelythought about. Roads can (1) fragmentwildlife habitat and cause the decline ofsome species; (2) create barriers to themovement of some wildlife species, suchas caribou and grizzly bears; (3) encour-age overhunting and poaching, whichleads to more management costs andultimately intervention in the ecosystem;(4) result in road kills of wildlife (e.g.,in the southern Rocky Mountains roadkill is the leading cause of death formany large mammal species such aswolves); and (5) spur more road build-ing and further access by All TerrainVehicles. (Excerpted from Yukon Wild-lands Project, winter 1996-1997.)

University of IdahoHas New WildernessPublicationsNew publications available from the Uni-versity of Idaho, Wilderness ResearchCenter include:

Studies on the Use of Wilderness forPersonal Growth, Therapy, Education,and Eeadership Development: AnAnnotation and Evaluation. By GregFriese, J. Taylor Pitman, and JohnC. Hendee. 1996, paperback, 103pp., $30.00.

Directory of Wilderness ExperiencePrograms. By Gregory Friese. 1996.Paperback, 34 pp., $5.00.

Either publication can be ordered fromthe University of Idaho, WRC, CFWRRoom 18A, Moscow, ID 83844-1144,USA. Telephone: (208) 885-2267; e-mail:wrc@uidaho. edu.

Bobby Unser Cited forWilderness TrespassIJW congratulates the USFS for hangingtough and issuing a citation to BobbyUnser for trespassing in the southern SanJuan Wilderness with a snowmobile.Unser and friend Robert Grayton weresnowmobiling and got trapped by a bliz-zard, spending two nights stuck in thewilderness (USA Today, 1/10/97).

Jasper National ParkCardinal River Coals Ltd. is proposingconstruction of a strip coal mine in im-portant grizzly bear habitat adjacent toJasper National Park. A large percentageof the coal from this mine is slated to beshipped directly to Japan. The WesternCanada Wilderness Committee (WCWC)Alberta was the first group to publicly raisethe alarm about this proposed develop-ment and has produced a short video onmountain parks with supporter Lee GodbyArmed with some graphic posters,WCWC Alberta campaigner Gray Jonestraveled to Japan in November 1996 tolet the Japanese people know that devel-opment of this coal mine will not only bedamaging to our threatened grizzlies butwill also impact their ability to enjoy Jas-per National Park as a tourist destination.E-mail information: [email protected].(Excerpted from WCWC Educational Re-port, winter 1996.)

Disability AccessibleWilderness Horse CampThe Backcountry Horsemen of Washing-ton State—Cascade Horse Club Chapterin cooperation with the Wenatchee Na-tional Forest over the past five years—has now made the Chiwawa Horse Campcompletely accessible for disabled horse-back riders. In August 1996, Equi Friends“Riding Program for the Disabled” heldtheir first trail ride at the camp. For in-formation, call Equi Friends at (360) 568-4183. (By Ann Lange, Chair, BackcountryHorsemen of California.)

Excellent ReadingOpportunitiesA Short HistoryFrom the Forest Preserve of New YorkState in the Adirondack and Catskill

Mountains comes this 40-page bookletdescribing the origins of the “foreverwild” forest and its constitutional protec-tion ($6). Also available, Forest and theLaw, an in-depth, illustrated examinationof the constitutional and legislative recordsurrounding the forest preserve ($3).Contact the Association for Protection ofthe Adirondacks at (518) 377-1452. (Ex-cerpted from Taproot, fall 1996.)

The World of Wilderness:Essays on the Power andPurpose of Wild CountryEdited by T. H. Watkins and PatriciaByrnes, this collection of essays publishedin Wilderness magazine attempts to illu-minate the role of wilderness in Americanlife. Proceeds benefit The Wilderness So-ciety. (Excerpted from Taproot, fall 1996.)

Yellowstone Bear TalesEdited by Paul Schullery, this narrativepresents a rich and varied cross sectionof early encounters with the parks mostfamous wild residents. (Excerpted fromTaproot, fall 1996.)

Wilderness DiscoveryProgram Featured in ABCDocumentaryOn January 23, 1997, the ABC televisionnetwork ran “Miracle at Trapper Creek,” aone-hour documentary about the TrapperCreek Job Corps Center and the Wilder-ness Discovery Program. Wilderness Dis-covery is a seven-day backpacking programfor youth at risk that was developed andtested for the Job Corps by the Universityof Idaho Wilderness Research Center. The44-minute video is available from the Uni-versity of Idaho Wilderness Research Cen-ter and shows how a wilderness experiencesupplements the development of sociallyand economically disadvantaged youngpeople in the nations premier job trainingprogram, the Job Corps. For informationcall (208) 885-2267.

SnowmobilesCause Air PollutionAccording to the California Air ResourcesBoard, the fumes from 1,000 snowmo-biles—typical on an average winter day


at Yellowstone National Park—are equalto the total nitrous oxide and hydrocar-bon output of 1.7 million automobiletailpipes. (Excerpted from Coalition forEducation in the Outdoors, April 1996.)

WCWC Alberta’s “Savethe Grizzly” CampaignThe Bow Valley that runs through BanffNational Park is a 4-kilometer-wide mi-gration corridor for ungulates and largecarnivores, including the grizzly This cor-ridor also contains the Trans-Canada High-way Highway 1A, the Canadian-Pacific railline, an airstrip, a 27-hole golf course,three ski resorts, the village of Lake Louise,and the town of Banff, population 7,500.The highways and railroad have led toextremely high bear mortality rates. Re-ducing the road/rail speeds is one objec-tive of the Western Canada WildernessCommittee (WCWC) Alberta’s “Save theGrizzly Campaign.” WCWC is also cam-paigning to stop poaching and huntingand vastly increase habitat protection. E-mail information: [email protected]. (Ex-cerpted from WCWC Educational Report,winter 1996.)

Employment ResourcesThe Job Seeker is published twice monthly,specializing in the natural resource andenvironmental fields nationwide. Con-tains listings ranging from internships tosenior executive positions. Editors areseeking vacancies from employers also.For more information, contact The JobSeeker at Route 2, Box 16, Warrens, WI54666-9501, USA. Telephone: (608)378-4290.

AEE (Association for Experiential Edu-cation) Jobs Clearinghouse is publishedmonthly and gives up-to-the minute in-formation on available jobs and intern-ships, primarily in adventure andenvironmental education. For more in-formation, contact AEE Jobs Clearing-house at 2305 Canyon Boulevard, Suite100, Boulder, CO 80302, USA. Tele-phone: (303) 440-8844.

Wilderness Job Referral Service. Wilder-ness Education Association, Departmentof Recreation Resources, Colorado StateUniversity Fort Collins, CO 80523,

USA. Telephone: (970) 223-6252; e-mail: [email protected]. (Ex-cerpted from Coalition for Education inthe Outdoors.)

Conservation DirectoryAvailableThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mon-tana Fish and Wildlife Management As-sistance Office, has compiled a nationaldirectory of Native American Conserva-tion Departments. Each listing describesan active tribal conservation program. Aresource such as this may be useful tomany parks and other land managers inestablishing contact with tribal liaisonsregarding conservation issues and goalson adjacent federal and tribal lands. Con-tact Joe Early at (406) 585-9010 inBozeman, Montana, for a free copy (Ex-cerpted from Park Science.)

Yukon Wildlands ProjectThe Yukon Wildlands Project is part of aNorth America-wide strategy to stop thedisappearance of wildlife and the wildplaces upon which they depend. In ev-ery region of the continent, grassrootsorganizations are working to preservevanishing biological diversity In Canada,the Endangered Spaces campaign, led bythe World Wildlife Fund, aims to set asidea representative part of each natural re-gion by the year 2000. The WildlandsProject and the Endangered Spaces Cam-paign go hand in hand. The EndangeredSpaces Campaign is a key part of theYukon Wildlands Project as it focuses oncore protected areas. The WildlandsProject aims to ensure that those coreareas are connected to healthy ecosys-tems, and that the Yukon wildlands re-main wild. The Yukon Wildlands Projectand the Endangered Spaces campaign area cooperative effort of three environmen-tal groups in the Yukon: CPAWS-Yukon,(Telephone: [403] 668-6321), the YukonConservation Society (Telephone: [403]668-5678), and Friends of Yukon Rivers(Telephone: [403] 668-7370).

U.S. Legislative ActionU.S. Representative Jim Oberstar (D-MN)and Senator Rod Grams (R-MN) intro-duced legislation to dramatically increase

motorized use of the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW), andto shift management of the BWCAW andVoyageurs National Park to a council oflocal politicians. Oberstar’s legislationwould have opened the Boundary Wa-ters to trucks and jeeps, and expandedthe waters where motorized use is al-lowed by 50%. Congressman Bruce Vento(D-MN), a strong wilderness advocate,introduced a counter-measure to increaseprotection for the million-acre BWCAWby closing parts of three lakes (Basswood,Loon, and Lac La Croix) that are currentlyopen to motorized use.

U.S. Representative Wes Cooley (R-OR) pushed legislation to reduce theboundary of Hells Canyon Wilderness inorder to allow for a road onto the HellsCanyon rim. The excluded lands are partof a migratory corridor for bighorn sheep,elk, and mule deer. The proposed roadwould access one of the few unroadedareas on the western rim of the canyon.

The Emigrant Wilderness was threat-ened by legislation introduced by Rep.John Doolittle (R-CA) that would haverequired the USFS to restore and perma-nently operate a number of flow regula-tion dams on lakes in the High Sierras.The draft Emigrant Wilderness manage-ment plan proposed eliminating severalof the dams. Wilderness Watch has ar-gued that all of the dams should be re-moved or allowed to naturallydeteriorate. A handful of local citizenswant the dams rebuilt and convincedDoolittle to introduce this bill.

In a parting shot on the last day theSenate was in session, Senator Larry Craig(R-ID), at the behest of Idaho outfitters,introduced legislation that amounts to thefirst significant amendment to The Wil-derness Act in its 32-year history!

Canada’s GrassrootsWilderness AdvocatesThe Canadian Parks and Wilderness So-ciety (CPAWS), founded in 1963, isCanada’s national grassroots voice forwilderness. They were built from theground up by people who care passion-ately about wildlands and wildlife. Overthe years CPAWS has helped protect morethan 100,000 square kilometers ofCanada’s magnificent natural heritage.


They focus on establishing new protectedareas, improving the management of ex-isting parks, and on conservation-relatedlegislative and policy reform. They are aprogressive, solution-oriented group with10,000 members. Nine chapters span thecountry: Yukon, British Columbia,Alberta (2), Saskatchewan, Manitoba,Ontario (2), and Nova Scotia. For moreinformation call CPAWS at (800) 333-W1LD; e-mail: [email protected]; website:http://www.afternet.com/~tnr/cpaws/cpaws.html.

Upcoming Conferences• 7th International Symposium on

Society and Resource ManagementThis biennial symposium from May 27-31, 1998, will focus on the contribu-tions of the social sciences tounderstanding the environment and re-

source management. Activities includepaper and poster sessions, panel andround table discussions, film sessions,and field trips. Encouraged participantsinclude researchers, managers, acade-micians, policy specialists, and studentsinterested in the human aspects of re-source management. For informationcontact Dr. Sandy Rikoon, Universityof Missouri-Columbia, Department ofRural Sociology, Room 108, Columbia,MO 65211, USA. Telephone: (573)882-0861; e-mail: [email protected]; website: http ://silva. snr.missouri. edu/ issrm.

• Wilderness Sciencein a Time of ChangeSince the first national wilderness re-search conference in 1985, interest inwilderness has increased, international

and societal definitions of wildernesshave evolved, and wilderness sciencehas improved. This conference, fromMay 17–22, 1999, in Missoula, Mon-tana, will present research results andsynthesize knowledge and its manage-ment implications. Outcomes shouldinclude state-of-the-art understandingof wilderness-related research, and animproved understanding of how re-search can contribute to the protec-tion of wilderness in the 21st century.Anticipate a call for papers and fur-ther information later this year. Con-ference proceedings will be published.For more information contact Natu-ral Resource Management Division,Center for Continuing Education,University of Montana, Missoula, MT59812, USA. Telephone: (406) 243-4623; e-mail: [email protected].


Dear IJW Editor:

John Hendees article, “The Sustainability of U.S. Wilderness—Ecologically Socially and Politically” in the December 1996issue was right on target. My old agency the U.S. Forest Ser-vice, has been doing an outstanding job sustaining the first,and a miserable job with the latter two. Social and politicalsustainability is taking a beating because forest service wilder-ness managers do not seem to fully understand the values andbenefits of wilderness experience and, as a result, the politicalsupport of wilderness is being eroded.

Many many potential wilderness visitors are being deniedaccess because they are dependent on outfitter/guides of somekind for a relatively safe visit (novices, senior citizens, youth,and the disabled). Others who wish an educational experiencein conjunction with a visit are denied access for the same rea-son. Outfitter/guide permits are being arbitrarily limited innumber and in person/days allowed per permit for wildernessesin areas where there is no overall rationing or need for ration-ing of visitor use.

The problems are compounded when even tax supportededucational institutions (universities, colleges, etc.), tax sup-ported local governments (park and recreation departments,etc.), and nonprofit organizations (museums, nature centers,outings clubs, etc.) are required to obtain commercial outfit-ter/guide special use permits. These organizations specialize in

low-cost wilderness education and experience trips for theaforementioned segments of our population. And they are notcommercial under any definition of the word or, for thatmatter, the provisions of Secretary of Agriculture CFR, title 36,251.50, special uses, which exempts noncommercial groupsfrom the permit requirement.

By being classified as commercial outfitter/guides, thesenoncommercial organizations are subject to the limitations andharassment usually reserved for true commercial operators (therules are excessive even for them). Costs are significantly raised,mainly because of the time required to contend with the bu-reaucratic nonsense. Leaders and participants who are eventu-ally favored by a trip to a wilderness generally receive a verypoor understanding of both the agency and the wilderness con-cept. Certainly, partnerships in providing quality wildernesseducation and experience are not fostered by such treatment.

I would like to see some major changes in treatment ofboth the commercial outfitter/guides and the organizations thatI believe are illegally misclassified as commercial. We wentthrough an exercise called the “National Recreation Strategy”in 1986-1988, which I thought would preclude this type ofnonsense. Maybe the forest service should revisit their outfit-ter/guide policies pursuant to the intent of the recreation strategyand make some major corrections.

Richard SpraySunriver, Oregon

E-mail: [email protected]

WILDERNESS DIGEST

LETTER TO THE EDITOR


In the final selection in The Soul Unearthed, theologian BeldenC. Lane offers a phrase that captures the fundamental theme ofthis diverse anthology of personal testimonials about wilder-ness: “We are saved in the end by the things that ignore us.”Originating in writings about Buddhist meditation, the phraseis a response to landscapes of vast grandeur in the north ofIndia. In the vast resources of divine disinterest is discovered afreedom and a joy that cut through our temporal entrapments.“The presence of such wild landscapes awakens a silence in us,refreshes our courage with the purity of their detachment.”

In the foreword, Elizabeth Roberts ensures us that The SoulUnearthed is not “nature mysticism.” I would agree with this,although Fred Swinney’s (Graywolf) night vision and assimila-tion of the wolf persona is clearly a mystical transformation. Thereare many other transcendent junctures at which both authorand reader cease to distinguish between “the experiencer andthe place.” But the selections in the book are “grounded,” asAdams says. They are based on the hard truths of physical con-tact with wild places, the paradox that while wilderness is ourevolutionary home, it is intimidating and in some respects alien.

Ironically, The Soul Unearthed brings into focus the double-edged truth of the deep ecologists—that we are indeed the equalsof the other species of this Earth, and therefore subject to thesame ecological mechanisms, sufferings, and incomplete under-standings. Intimate contact with wilderness heightens aware-ness of our earthly frailty, but simultaneously clarifies our essentialoneness with the Earth. The 66 selections included here are strik-ing and eloquent testimonials to the heightened consciousnessavailable through intense contact with wild places.

The primary difficulty with this work is one of definition,and I believe Adams would view this assessment as a compli-ment. It is difficult to know how to use the book. Personally, Ibegan to read the selections, one each day, as guides to mydaily meditation. I found many of the selections too conceptu-ally complex for this purpose. As a comprehensive investiga-tion of any of the main topics of the book, however, there isnot enough depth. Adams hopes that he has provided an an-thology that is “solid and accessible.” I would describe it asexpansive, yet thematically unified. I do not find it accessible,but it is certainly compelling.

As a survey of subject matter, the book crosses many dif-ferent genres. Several chapters are solidly anchored in deep

ecology and ecopsychology and the ideas corroborate (but donot glorify) the principles of deep ecology through the some-times harsh realities of wilderness experience. Several chaptersbuild on the foundation of the wilderness vision quest experi-ence, with an emphasis on the pan-cultural, physical compo-nents of a quest, especially for non-Indian peoples. One chapterbuilds as well on the men’s and women’s movements. Adamsprovides a very centered, eloquent, higher-ground perspectiveon gender issues that stays completely focused on the connect-edness of the human soul with the sacredness of all life. Alsoincluded are selections based on encounters with wildlife, suchas bobcats, wolves, orcas, elk, and bears. The emphasis here ison the commonalities humans share with wild animals—theinsights they bring us into our own animal, yet sacred natures.One chapter addresses ecodefense, but again with the perspec-tive that we are a part of the wilderness, and it is a part of us.John Seed’s Zenlike acceptance here is that “if we are destroy-ing the earth, then we are an expression of the earth destroyingitself and that’s quite a noble task.” Whatever it is that is hap-pening is exactly what is meant to happen.

The book also includes a section on wilderness education.I single out this particular perspective as I call myself a wilder-ness educator and respond to the ideas included with a propri-etary interest. Adams takes to task the inquiry method ofanalyzing and labeling in outdoor education, and he offers inits place an approach grounded in “letting wildlands speak forthemselves, with minimal interpretation,” as Saul Weisberg putsit. This idea is consistent with the primary theme of the book,that personal wilderness experience becomes the stuff of tran-scendent earth-centered spirituality. It fits as well in the con-text of educational programming as it does as a lens forunderstanding vision questing or wildlife encounters. It is also,however, considered naive in some circles as a pedagogicalphilosophy. “The Mountains Speak for Themselves” model waspredominant in the early days of Outward Bound programs inthe United States and has been somewhat superseded by a meta-phorical model in which the lessons to be transferred back tothe civilized illusion are spelled out ahead of time by the wil-derness educator. The question is how well the language of themountains transfers back to town for certain kinds of students.

But then Bob Hendersons “Thoughts on the Idea of Adven-ture” perhaps even further advances our now sophisticated

WILDERNESS DIGEST

BOOK REVIEWSJAMES R. FAZIO, BOOK REVIEW EDITOR

The Soul Unearthed: Celebrating Wildness and Personal Renewal Through Nature edited byCass Adams. 1996. Tarcher/Putnam, New York. 288 pp., $14.95 U.S. (paperback).*


pedagogies in wilderness education. Hesuggests that “adventure” is coming totruly accept ones place in a grand designat the level of the “comforted soul.” Theultimate transference from the wildernessback to civilization is coming to see all theworld, including ourselves, as a “wildness.”

Indeed, throughout the book thereis a recurring realization that “wilderness”itself is an artifact, created out of civiliza-tion and artificiality. In the section on eth-ics, Renee Soule asks the tough questionsabout the meaning of wilderness: “Canwe learn to live with diversity without

splitting differences into alienated duali-ties [like civilization and wilderness]?”She answers yes, by discovering that wil-derness is not a separate haven, but a wayof seeing life right here, right now, withevery breath, every action. Like engagedBuddhism, she says engaged ecopsy-chology moves us to a place of openawareness and openheartedness to em-brace even that which we detest, fear, orwish to ignore. Wilderness is the templatefor wholeness and health, and life itselfbecomes a wilderness experience in thefullest sense of the word.

I would not recommend The SoulUnearthed to the previously uninitiated.As a survey of concepts about wildernessit teases us (like Emerson’s Nature) withchallenging and timely truths that arefrustratingly suggestive in their brevityHowever, I do believe anyone concernedwith the preservation of wilderness in thenext century (or life on Earth for thatmatter) needs to understand the perspec-tives collected in this unusual work.

*Reviewed by David Cockrell, communitydevelopment specialist, Colorado StateUniversity.

The Lochsa Story: Land Ethics in the Bitterroot Mountains by Bud Moore. 1996. Mountain PressPublishing, Missoula, Montana. 461 pp., $20.00 U.S. (paperback), $36.00 (hardcover).

Few people travel the trails of the Lochsacountry and remain unaffected by thisremnant of wild America—this reviewerincluded. It is a special place. Its heightsform the jagged boundary between Idahoand Montana, partly in the great Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area and partly in adisgraceful patchwork of clearcuts whereit has been said there are islands of treesamid a sea of roads. Even so, thenonwilderness portion still containsroadless areas, one of which includes theonly place in America where the faint traceof Lewis and Clark’s route can be experi-enced under virtually the same conditionsencountered by the expedition.

Bud Moore took it upon himself toencapsulate the history of this big coun-try. No one could be better qualified, forhere is an author whose 80 years spanthe entire era of change in the Lochsa.He grew up on a farm in Montana just“over the hill” from the Lochsa River’swild and mysterious tributaries. Trappersmade regular stops at the farm, firingyoung Buds imagination and passing tohim the compulsion to spend most of alifetime among the granite peaks andcrystalline waters of the Lochsa countryThis lifetime included solo explorationsof the wild country at age 13, his owncabin and 80-mile trap line at age 18, anda 47-year career with the Forest Service.

Not only does Moore’s life span theera from first trappers to women forestrangers, he writes about all with clear

insights and literary skill. Had Moorechosen a life holding a pen instead of riflesand Biltmore sticks, he would, in myopinion, rival DeVoto and Stegner. Here’sa sample from his boyhood entry into theLochsa country: “... the trail left thestreamside and led me over a low ridgeinto a rocky draw where I could no longerhear the sounds of water flowing in theBrushy Fork. Twilight deepened. Thensomething moved in the shadows ahead.He came toward me, not more than thirtyfeet away. His head swung back and forthnear the ground; I saw the short nose,the broad flat face with rounded ears setnearly a foot apart, the big hump on hisshoulders, the black hair luminous in thetwilight, and peppered with gray on hishead, neck, and hump. Grizzly.”

Moore came into a land we canhardly imagine today—a land markedonly by Indian trails and a few cabins toshelter the solitary trappers. What he leftbehind is a land scarred and broken, ex-cept for pockets of roadless tracts and thewilderness saved through the vision ofBob Marshall and his kindred spirits.Moore’s story is a microcosm of land usein the mountain West, first at the handsof white hunters and miners, then therailroad barons, and finally, ourgovernment’s own rangers. To anyonewho knows and loves the land in thisstory, it can bring tears to read of theslaughter by gun and steel trap of up to40 grizzly bears each year, of streams once

laden with trout suddenly poisoned byDDT spread in the war against sprucebudworms, of ageless springs of purewater buried by bulldozers, and of old-growth forests laid bare. “In this place,”Moore reflected, “an emptiness spreadover the once-vibrant land.”

Should the reader be angry at Moore,one of the parade of district rangers whoworked shoulder to shoulder with theroad builders and loggers? In AmerieanEnvironmentalism: Readings in Conserva-tion History, Roderick Nash wisely coun-sels, “... rather than shaking moralisticfingers at pioneers, environmental histo-rians would do better to attempt to un-derstand why people acted as they didtoward nature.”

This is perhaps Moore’s greatest con-tribution. He shows how decisions weremade and why. You sweat with firefightersfacing what they thought was the forest’sworst enemy. You sit in the saddle withMoore in his beloved spruce stand won-dering how to stop the damned barkbeetles. You try to build roads with littlemore than a hand level and the whims ofa dozer operator. And in the end, you feelthe authors frustration and sadness: “Insick fish and in sandbars untraveled bymink lay for me the beginning of eco-logical wisdom in managing land.”

Moore’s ecological awakening wasahead of his agency’s recent discovery of“ecosystem management.” At the end ofthe book, he stands on a peak studying


the contrast of wilderness andnonwilderness in the panorama beforehim. Then he visits his 1930 campsite atElk Meadow where he says the “com-bined operations of Plum Creek (TimberCo.) and the Forest Service have changed,and are still changing, this once-ecologi-cally diverse land to a utilitarian treefarm.” You sense remorse. But more im-portantly, you can sense hope for current

managers— particularly if all were re-quired to read this book—as Moore pro-vides one of the more lucid explanationsof ecosystem management.

Looking with the clarity of a back-ward glance, Moore says at his old camp-site: “... what I am feeling is not so muchdisappointment at the application of sci-ence as a wish that ethical matters of theheart and soul were more connected with

science by those who manage the Lochsa’slands.” And to those stewards, present andfuture, he offers this good advice: “It isimportant ... to remember that nature doesnot extract—it displaces, replaces, andrecycles. That’s why our approach to man-aging national forest lands should focusmore on what to leave to keep the landwhole in the long run than on the bountyto be harvested for immediate use.” IJW

WILDERNESS EXPERIENCES IN JUNIPERPRAIRIE WILDERNESS

BY ALAN WATSON

Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings described the people, the plants, the bugs, and the animals along JuniperRun (Creek) in her Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Yearling, including Penny and Jody’s encounterwith that hog-thievin’ black bear known as Ol’ Slewfoot. Today Juniper Springs, the place where Jodyused to hunt alligators, is a popular picnic, camping, and swimming development on the Ocala Na-tional Forest in Florida, giving rise to the “run” as it meanders through the Juniper Prairie Wilderness.Wilderness visitors rent canoes from the outfitter or paddle their own through the maze of cypress treesand palmetto. They see many forms of wildlife, including alligators and snakes, and often must duckunder fallen logs. The number of daily permits are limited to protect the solitude experience for visitors.

A team of scientists from Virginia Tech, Clemson University, the University of Illinois, the Universityof Montana, and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute joined in a cooperative project withthe Southern Region of the U.S. Forest Service, the National Forests of Florida, and local Forest Servicemanagers to identify important aspects of the experience of today’s wilderness visitors that requirespecial stewardship planning. Using qualitative methods, groups were interviewed and stories wererecorded for later analysis. While no one actually saw 01' Slewfoot, the importance of interactions withnature (including ducking under those snakey logs and seeing alligators) was clearly the dominatingaspect of the experience. These interactions were actually positive at low-recreation use times but weremore of a negative element of the experience when more crowded conditions were allowed to occur.Managers are contemplating their responsibility to provide access to recreationists by removing some ofthese logs and the potential impact that removal may have on the essence of the experience at JuniperPrairie Wilderness. This research project provided managers with information needed to establish along-term monitoring program at Juniper Prairie to understand the effects of use pressures and thingsmanagers do which influence visitor experiences.

Direct questions to Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula,MT 59807, USA. Telephone: (406) 721-5697; e-mail: fswa/s=a.watson/[email protected].


MOLLOY continued from page 13.

20 years? I think there are two main rea-sons. First, many New Zealanderssimply take their wilderness for granted.They consider that most of the 29% ofthe country managed by DOC is, in ef-fect, wilderness, and highly protectedthrough its status as national park,reserve, or conservation land. Second, theConservation Act of 1987, creating DOCas the management agency, downgradedthe importance previously accorded tobackcountry recreation. The Conserva-tion Act requires the DOC to fosterrecreation on the lands it manages, butthis has been interpreted by successiveadministrations as less important thanDOC’s mandate to conserve indigenousecosystems and to advocate for conser-

vation in general. Since its creation, DOChas been preoccupied with (1)biodiversity conservation (especially re-covery plans for threatened species andthe eradication or control of pests andweeds); (2) developing a partnership withMaori tribal groups in the managementof conservation lands; and (3) managingthe increasing number of internationalvisitors and regulating (through conces-sions) the use of the conservation estateby the tourism industry. Only with therenewed emphasis provided by the Visi-tor Strategy exercise of the mid-1990s hasthe need to protect New Zealand’s re-maining true wilderness reassumed somedegree of its former priority. IJW

The author of several books on the naturalhistory of New Zealand, LES MOLLOY is a one-

time wilderness mountaineer and longtimeadvocate for the protection of New Zealand’swilderness. From 1987 Dr. Molloy was a seniortechnical specialist in visitor services in the headoffice of New Zealand’s Department ofConservation. Since leaving DOC in May1987, he now works as a private heritageconservation consultant.

ReferencesDepartment of Conservation. 1996. “Visitor

strategy.” Department of Conservation,60pp.

Molloy, L. F. 1976. “Wilderness diminishing.”New Zealand Alpine Journal 29:65–75.

Molloy, L. F. 1979. Outdoor Recreation on theWest Coast. Wellington: FederatedMountain Clubs of New Zealand, 122pp.

Molloy, L. F. 1983. Wilderness Recreation inNew Zealand. Wellington: FederatedMountain Clubs of New Zealand, 142pp.

HIGHAM continued from page 29.

ReferencesBourassa, S. C. 1991. Aesthetics of Landscape.

London: Belhaven Press.Brown, P. J., and G. E. Haas. 1980.

“Wilderness recreation experiences: theRawah case.” Journal of Leisure Research,12(3): 229–241.

Davison, J. 1983. “Wilderness research needsfrom wilderness recreation.” In Proc. of theF.M.C. 50th Jubilee Conference onWilderness, L. F. Molloy, ed. Rotoiti Lodge,Nelson Lakes National Park. August,1981.

Dubos, R. 1972. The God Within. New York:Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Gresham, P. 1983. “Tourism and wildernessfrom wilderness recreation.” In Proc. of theF.M.C. 50th Jubilee Conference onWilderness, L. F. Molloy, ed. Rotoiti Lodge,Nelson Lakes National Park. August 1981.

Higham, J. E. S. 1996. “Wilderness perceptionsof international visitors to New Zealand:the perceptual approach to themanagement of international touristsvisiting wilderness areas within NewZealand’s conservation estate.”Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University ofOtago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Kearsley, G. W. 1983. “Images of wildernessand their implications for national parkmanagement.” International ImageryBulletin, 1(1): 32–38.

________1990. “Tourism development and theuser’s perceptions of wilderness in southernNew Zealand.” Australian Geographer,21 (2): 127–140.

Keogh, C. 1992. “Natural resources undermanaged, not overused.” Tourist IndustryFederation News and Views, June 1992.

Kliskey, A. D. 1992. “Wilderness perceptionmapping: a GIS approach to theapplication of wilderness perceptions toprotected areas management in NewZealand.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.University of Otago, Dunedin, NewZealand.

Kliskey, A. D., and G. W. Kearsley. 1993.“Mapping multiple perceptions ofwilderness in southern New Zealand.”Applied Geography, 13: 203–223.

Lesslie, R. G., and S. G. Taylor. “The wildernesscontinuum concept and its implications forAustralian wilderness preservation policy.”Biological Conservation, 32: 309–333.

Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the AmericanMind, Third Ed. New Haven, Conn.: YaleUniversity Press.

O’Neill, D., and G. W. Kearsley. 1994. “Someperceptions of crowding at selected NewZealand tourism sites.” Unpublished paper.University of Otago. Dunedin, NewZealand.

Schreyer, R., D. W. Lime, and D. R. Williams.1984. “Characterizing the influence of pastexperience on recreation behavior. Journalof Leisure Research, 16(1): 34–50.

Shultis, J. D. 1991. “Natural environments,wilderness and protected areas: ananalysis of historical western attitudes andutilization, and their expression incontemporary New Zealand.”

Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University ofOtago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Shultis, J. D., and G. W. Kearsley. 1988.“Environmental perception in protectedareas.” In Proc. of the Symposium onEnvironmental Monitoring in NewZealand. Wellington: Department ofConservation, pp. 166–177.

Stankey, G. H. 1973. “Visitor perceptions ofwilderness recreation carrying capacity.”USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-142. Ogden, Utah 84401.

Stankey, G. H., and R. Schreyer. 1987.“Attitudes toward wilderness and factorsaffecting visitor behavior: a state ofknowledge review.” In Proc. of theNational Wilderness ResearchConference: Issues, State of Knowledgeand Future Directions. General TechnicalReport INT-220. Intermountain ResearchStation, Ogden, UT.

Statistics New Zealand. 1995. New ZealandOfficial Yearbook. Auckland, NewZealand.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.

Vaske, J. J., M. P. Donnelly, and T. A. Heberlein.1980. “Perceptions of crowding andresource quality by early and more recentvisitors.” Leisure Sciences, 3(4): 367–381.

Wilson, M. L. 1979. “Dimensions of thewilderness image.” Unpublished bachelorof arts dissertation. University of Otago,Dunedin, New Zealand.


Editorial PolicyThe International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) invites contribu-tions pertinent to wilderness worldwide, including issues instewardship, education, research, international perspectives,and inspirational articles. IJW also publishes articles, commen-taries, letters to the editor, photos, book reviews, and a “wil-derness digest” section of upcoming events and announcements.

The IJW solicits manuscripts for peer review not previ-ously published or simultaneously submitted elsewhere.Materials revised or reoriented by the author(s) sufficiently toconstitute a new contribution are also welcome. In addition,the IJW invites feature articles and opinion pieces that will notbe peer reviewed (these may include previously publishedmaterial). Authors are requested to accompany their manu-scripts with a cover letter explaining: (a) any previous use ofdata or information in the manuscript, (b) how the submittedmanuscript is different, and (c) that it has not been submittedelsewhere for publication.

The International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foun-dation holds copyright for materials printed in the IJW. Au-thors will be asked, prior to publication, to assign their rightsto the WILD Foundation. Authors whose work is not subjectto copyright, such as material produced by governmentemployees, should so state when submitting their manuscripts.The managing editor reserves the right to edit all manuscripts.

Four Major Article Types1. Manuscripts. These are both peer reviewed and nonpeer

reviewed reports of wilderness-related research, steward-ship, international, and education issues presented in afactual manner. It is strongly advised that the results(factual) and discussion (interpretive) sections be keptseparate to enhance clarity; sections reporting recommen-dations and implications are encouraged. Articles musthave an abstract of 50 to 100 words, in which objectives,methods, and major findings are clearly summarized.Stewardship, science, and education articles may be peerreviewed prior to acceptance. Photos, with captionsillustrating key points in the submitted text, are stronglyencouraged.

2. Commentaries. A commentary consists of a reasonedargument culminating in recommendations or proposalsfor some action (e.g., a research program, a change inadministrative procedure, etc.). Narratives should beapproximately 500 words and deal with an importantwilderness issue. Accompanying photos with captions areencouraged.

3. Special Features. IJW contains special feature sections: The“Soul of the Wilderness” section presents inspirationalarticles and a proactive voice for global wilderness bynotable figures. Nominations of potential “soul” authorsor materials are encouraged. The “Wilderness @ Internet”section describes and reviews wilderness-related internetmaterial and feature articles dealing with the implicationsand use of electronic media for wilderness.

4. Letters, Announcements, and Updates. Letters to theeditor, announcements of meetings and important events,photos, administrative policy updates, major personnelchanges, and special event information is welcome for the“Wilderness Digest” section.

Style and FormManuscripts must be submitted in final form. The author isresponsible for accuracy of data, names, quotations, citations,and statistical analyses. Strict economy of words, tables, for-mulae, and figures should be observed and specialized jargonavoided. Submissions from the United States will use Englishunits, followed by metric units in parenthesis. Submissions fromoutside the United States will feature metric followed byEnglish units in parenthesis. Usage must be consistent through-out the manuscript. Target length of articles is 2,500 words;shorter articles may be published sooner; longer articles maybe rejected for length.

First Submission. Initially, three double-spaced copies of themanuscript should be submitted to the managing editor. Allaccompanying tables, charts, and photo captions should beincluded.

Final Submission. Once manuscripts have been reviewed,accepted, and review comments have been incorporated, thefinal manuscript should be submitted with one computerdiskette, clearly labeled with the title and version of standardsoftware (DOS preferred), authors name(s), and document titleas it appears on the diskette. Paragraphs must be double-spacedand contain no indentations.

Subheadings are desirable. Article titles should be short andexplicit, beginning with a key word useful in indexing. Thetitle, authors name(s), and the abstract should be found at thetop of the first page.

About the Author(s): A photo of the author(s), waist up andoutdoors should be sent with each final manuscript submittal.At the end of the manuscript please include a two- to three-

WILDERNESS DIGEST

GUIDELINES FOR CONTRIBUTORS


sentence biography for each author. Thisshould contain affiliation, location, andcontact information, including mailingaddress, telephone number, and e-mailaddress (if applicable).

Figures and Tables. If the tables containany graphics such as pie charts, maps,bar graphs, etc., authors can submit ei-ther of the following:

1. A laser printout of the chart alongwith the manuscript. Authors mustmake sure all information containedtherein is exactly correct. Tables ofthis nature cannot be edited, theywill be submitted to the publisheras camera-ready art.

2. Save the table on disk in Macintoshformat as either an “.eps” or “.tif’ file.Hard copies must be enclosed withthe final manuscript.

3. If figures or tables are not format-ted, please include the data in a

word processing format so that wecan create the chart without retyp-ing the data. Hard copies depictingexactly how the final chart shouldlook must be enclosed with thefinal manuscript.

Literature Citations. Cite references par-enthetically at the appropriate location inthe text by author and date (e.g., “Hendee1995”). List all references alphabeticallyby senior author, and in chronologicalorder for multiple publications by thesame author at the end of the article. Donot use footnotes. Citations should in-clude full name(s) of authors, date ofpublication, title of material cited, source,publisher, and place of publication. Usecorporate titles where relevant. Thesesand unpublished manuscripts or occa-sional papers may be included sparingly.

Illustrations. All photographs, line draw-ings, maps, and graphs are designated asfigures and must be keyed to the text.They should be submitted consecutively

numbered and identified with soft pen-cil on the reverse side. Photo captionsshould be listed at the very end of themanuscript and keyed to numbered pho-tos. Figures should not duplicate datapresented in tables.

Photographs. Glossy black-and-whitephotos are most desirable. High-resolu-tion color slides and photos are also ac-ceptable. These will be printed in blackand white in the journal.

Questions. Direct all correspondencepertaining to manuscripts, includingname, address, business phone, fax, ande-mail address of the lead author to: JohnC. Hendee, Managing Editor, Interna-tional Journal of Wilderness, Universityof Idaho, Wilderness Research Center,Moscow, Idaho 83844-1144, USA. Tele-phone: (208) 885-2267; fax: (208) 885-2268; e-mail: [email protected].


A CURIOUS ASPECT OF MY TEENAGE YEARS was thatI loved nature and wildness, but spent quite a lot oftime in the house. To my parents’ way of thinking, this

was for good reason. It had to do with wildness, but not thewilderness type.

In any event, the excessive time indoors needed filling, soI read a lot—mostly about the outdoors. During one of myinvoluntary retreats, after rushing through every one of LouisL’Amour’s books and learning about the craft of formula writ-ing, I came across a crumpled paperback, Heart of the Hunter. Imeandered through it and discovered the art of storytelling.Even more, I experienced for the first time someone who couldwrite about what I really felt—the sense and texture of wilder-ness. I discovered Sir Laurens van der Post.

Laurens left our midst on December 15, 1996, two daysafter his 90th birthday. A human being of singular character, hewas the most complex man I have ever known. Except for thefact that it is a cliché, I would even call him unique. This isnowhere more evident than in the many obituaries that appearedin the major newspapers of the world. Each touched upon thataspect of himself which Laurens had revealed at some time tothat particular writer: prolific author, exotic explorer, courageoussoldier, profound philosopher, classical scholar, psychologist,champion of forgotten tribal people, friend of the elite, unoffi-cial diplomat, confidant to princes and prime ministers. Noneof these labels alone do justice to a man who willingly claimedto not even know himself. Yet this claim had little to do withself-knowledge or understanding because, in that respect, Laurensknew himself better than one thought possible. It actually hadmore to do with a profound personal experience and belief inthat which is best described in a line by a poem from his friend,T. S. Eliot: “... knowing myself yet being someone other.”

Laurens firmly believed in the “someone other,” and this iswhy he was one of the great wilderness figures of the 20th cen-tury. To him, wilderness is more than a collection of wildlife, plants,and naturally occurring processes. It is certainly a template whichreveals the proportion and relationship necessary to sustain hu-man civilization—in contemporary jargon, a sort of formula forsustainability, if you will—but it is also at once a mirror that re-flects the best of human potential and the worst of human excessand alienation. Even more, it is an environment of hope and heal-ing, where hubris has no place and the now is everything. Most ofall, it is the doorway through which we can venture to the interior,and in an unspeakable manner experience the “someone other.”

If this sounds a bit far out, it is purposely so: Laurens was aperson of profound perspective. Yet this rarified visionary self waswell-salted with humor and a quirky appreciation of irony, and

grounded by a rigorous, well-tested discipline. And his many di-mensions were strictly compartmentalized, the result of a survivalinstinct forged through hardship, of which he suffered much inhis life. One such extreme experience spawned in him a remark-able capacity to forgive those who trespassed against him, as hedid to the Japanese in whose prisoner of war camp he enduredthree years of hellish abuse and torture during World War II.

But further, when he was freed from the camp, he performed,without a moments hesitation, one of the greatest acts of emotionalstrength, physical endurance, and mental resilience of which I’ve everknown. He immediately went back on active duty as a senior officerin Lord Mountbatten’s command, as postwar Java came under Britishrule. Laurens was incredibly tough. He served in this capacity formore than two years, before finally allowing himself a break and re-turning to Africa. Upon arriving on his native soil, before seeing asingle friend or member of his family, he went into the African lowveldwilderness, to spend 30 days healing and rediscovering himself.

In a wonderfully synchronistic event, 15 years after readingHeart of the Hunter, I met Laurens when he sat down next to me inthe very back row of the open benches at a race track which wasthe crowded, jostling site of the public opening of the 2nd WorldWilderness Congress (Australia 1980). Later that day, Ian Playerformally introduced us, after which ensued one of the most memo-rable nights of my life in which I joined Laurens, Ian and EnosMabuza (now the chairman of the National Parks Board in SouthAfrica) around the kitchen table of a modest motel in Cairns,Queensland, eating fried chicken prepared by Enos’ wife, Esther.We talked late into the night, around the camp fire of an incandes-cent bulb, and they welcomed my story as one with theirs. Overthe next 20 years, the opportunity to work side by side with Laurensin shaping and convening the World Wilderness Congress, and attimes being both encouraged and firmly schooled by him, was agreat gift from the someone other. Thank you, Laurens.

REMEMBERING SIR LAURENS VAN DER POSTBY VANCE G. MARTIN, EXECUTIVE EDITOR

WILDERNESS DIGEST

international journal of wilderness, vol 03 no 2, june 1997

Documents

wilderness society

wildernessone wilderness

university of vermont

university of montana

university of minnesota

colorado state university

n t e r n

coleby bill worf32 wilderness