international journal of wilderness, vol 07 no 3, december 2001

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

Journal of WildernessDECEMBER 2001 VOLUME 7, NUMBER 3

FEATURESEDITORIAL PERSPECTIVESWilderness StewardshipBY CHAD P. DAWSON

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESSStewardship to Address the Threats toWilderness Resources and Values

BY JOHN C. HENDEE and CHAD P. DAWSON

WILDERNESS LEADERSHIP IN FOCUSIan Player: MadoloBY VANCE MARTIN

STEWARDSHIPSustainable Financing of Wilderness Protection:An Experiment with Fees in the United StatesBY ALAN E. WATSON

Why Opposition to Fee Demo Is GrowingBY DAVID BROWN

Recreation Fees at Federal SitesBY DERRICK CRANDALL

Opposition to the Recreational FeeDemonstration Program

Hydrologic Connectivity:A Call for Greater Emphasis in the World’s WildernessBY CATHERINE M. PRINGLE

Restoring Old Roads and Maintaining Waterfor Wildlife in the BLM Maricopa Complex

Wilderness in ArizonaBY RICH HANSON and JIM MAHONEY

The Ocean Wilderness ChallengeBY ROGER RUFE

SCIENCE AND RESEARCHPERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESSRESEARCH INSTITUTEA Focus on Circumpolar North WildernessValuesBY ALAN E. WATSON

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVESThe Toda People:Wildland Plants and ValuesBY TARUN CHHABRA

An Update on Wilderness Conservationin the New South AfricaBY WILLIAM R. BAINBRIDGE

WILDERNESS DIGESTAnnouncements and Wilderness Calendar

Bureau of Land Management Primitive Skills

Team Wins First Corrigall WildernessStewardship Award

Letters to the Editor

Book ReviewsOutdoor Behavioral Healthcare: Definitions,

Common Practice, Expected Outcomes, and aNationwide Survey of ProgramsBy Keith C. Russell and John C. HendeeREVIEWED BY JENNIFER DAVIS-BERMAN and DENE BERMAN

Phantom Parks: The Struggle to Save Canada’sNational ParksBy Rick SearleREVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS

Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the SocialSciences and HumanitiesEdited by Paul H. Gobster and R. Bruce HullREVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS

12

17

19

21

27

30

35

38

43

45

46

47

3

4

10

34

20

Front cover photo of Fever Trees surrounding the Ndumo Pan at the Ndumo Game Reserves in KwaZuluNatal, South Africa. Inset photo: local community employment is a major factor in wildland sustainability,a guide from KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. Both photos © 2001 courtesy of Ulf Doerner.

2 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2001 • VOLUME 7, NUMBER 3

EXECUTIVE EDITORSAlan W. Ewert, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., USA

Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Ojai, Calif., USAAlan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA

John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFJohn C. Hendee, Director, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho, USA

CO-MANAGING EDITORSChad Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA

Steve Hollenhorst, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA

WEB MASTERWayne A. Freimund, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—INTERNATIONALGordon Cessford, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; Karen Fox, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Les Molloy,Heritage Works, Wellington, New Zealand; Andrew Muir, South African Wilderness Leadership School, Durbin, South Africa; Ian Player, South Africa NationalParks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal, Republic of South Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; WonSop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea; Anna-Liisa Sippola, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Pamela Wright, BamfieldMarine Station, Bamfield, B.C., Canada; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATESGreg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; Liz Close, U.S. Forest Service, Washington D.C.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute,Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State Univer-sity, Fort Collins, Colo.; Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Dr. William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. ForestService, Mesa, Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo,Calif.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land Management, Sierra Vista, Ariz.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont,Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey,Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Christopher Monz, Dean, Sterling College, Craftsbury Common, Vt.; Bob Muth, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.;Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren,Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions and the Wilderness Guides Council, Ross, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Vir-ginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Mitch Sakofs, Outward Bound, Garrison,N.Y.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Jerry Stokes, U.S. ForestService, Washington, D.C.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.

International Journal of Wilderness

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) publishes three issues per year(April, August, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication.

Manuscripts to: University of Idaho, Wilderness Research Center,Moscow, ID 83844-1144, USA. Telephone: (208) 885-2267. Fax:(208) 885-2268. E-mail: [email protected].

Business Management and Subscriptions: WILD Foundation, P.O.Box 1380, Ojai, CA 93024, USA. Fax: (805) 640-0230. E-mail:[email protected].

Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are inU.S. dollars only—$30 for individuals and $50 for organizations/libraries. 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© 2001 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation.Individuals, 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,and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptionsof key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, andenvironmental education; wilderness-related science and research fromall disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects ofwilderness; and international perspectives describing wildernessworldwide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, bookreviews, announcements, and information for the wilderness digest areencouraged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines isavailable from the editors.

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

World Wide Website: www.ijw.org.

Printed on recycled paper.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS• Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Indiana University, Department of Recreation and Park Administration • NationalOutdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outward Bound™ • SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry • The WILD®

Foundation • The Wilderness Society • University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center • University of Montana, School of Forestryand Wilderness Institute • USDA Forest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDINational Park Service • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Inquiry • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)

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.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2001 • VOLUME 7, NUMBER 3 3

FEATURES

E D I T O R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E S

Wilderness Stewardship

BY CHAD P. DAWSON

One threat to wilderness isproviding adequate funding tosupport wilderness manage-ment and stewardship. Thisissue of IJW presents a forumof views about one effort toaddress this—the RecreationFee Demonstration Program.Begun in 1995 and later ex-tended into 2001, “Fee Demo”authorizes the National ParkService, Bureau of Land Man-agement, U.S. Fish and Wild-life Service, and USDA ForestService to collect new user feesat selected sites, and to use therevenues in recreation programs and at the sites where theyare collected for on-the-ground improvements.

The IJW neither supports nor opposes the RecreationFee Demonstration Program. Our goal is to provide a forumfor various points of view on this and other controversialwilderness issues. Alan Watson reviews some of the perti-nent research literature. David Brown expresses concernsabout the implementation of the program. Derrick Crandalloffers a supportive statement about the use of recreation fees,and information is presented from some selected Fee Demoopposition websites around the U.S.

CHAD DAWSON is co-managing editor of IJW. E-mail:[email protected].

If future generations are to remember us more with gratitude than with sorrow,we must achieve more than just miracles of technology. We must also leave them a glimpse

of the world as it was created, not just as it looked when we got through with it.—President Lyndon Johnson

upon signing the 1964 Wilderness Act

The remarkable progress of wilderness preservationin the United States would probably impress manyof the wilderness visionaries who inspired us to this

achievement. The National Wilderness Preservation Systemcurrently has more than 105.7 million acres under man-agement by four federal agencies. The popularity ofwilderness continues to grow, and in 2000 more than 14.3million wilderness recreation visits were reported on justthe U.S. Forest Service’s 34.7 million acres of wilderness.However, with the needs and demands of the more than285 million people in the U.S. population and more than 6billion people worldwide, there are and will be increasingthreats to wilderness.

What will there be in resource, experiential, and man-agement conditions of wilderness for future generations toappreciate and enjoy? How can we steward these resourcesto maintain or improve the natural conditions and processeswhile still providing benefits to society? In this issue of theIJW, some of the stewardship issues are addressed, and theyalert us to the challenges we face if we are to provide wil-derness for present and future generations.

IJW Editor-in-Chief John Hendee and I identify and de-scribe 17 categories of threats to wilderness. Rich Hansonand Jim Mahoney give examples of restoration approaches inthe Maricopa Complex Wilderness of Arizona. CatherinePringle issues a call to better understand and manage waterresources because of the ecosystem and resource connectionswithin wilderness and from adjoining lands and watersheds.Roger Rufe warns of the need to create aquatic wildernessareas since the majority of the Earth is water and not land.

Article author Chad P. Dawson.


FEATURES

S O U L O F T H E W I L D E R N E S S

Stewardship to Address theThreats to Wilderness Resources

and Values

BY JOHN C. HENDEE and CHAD P. DAWSON

upon relevant literature and our experience and discussionswith wilderness users, managers, and researchers. Some threatsrepresent inevitable, though lamentable, global or local change,but for other threats wilderness stewardship can often make adifference. When it can, we urge wilderness managers to ex-ercise the strongest possible protective or mitigating action.

1. Fragmentation and isolation of wilderness as eco-logical islands disconnect them from surrounding natu-ral habitat so they may not be wholly functioningecosystems. The 600-plus units of the National Wilder-ness Preservation System (NWPS) tend toward smallerunits (42% are from 10,000 to 50,000 acres) rather thanlarger units (four wildernesses in Alaska include more than

Wilderness resources and values are becomingscarcer every year as they are lost to urbansprawl, roads, resource extraction, human de-

velopment and intrusions from inholding landowners, glo-bal influences, and more; and even well-meaningstewardship may dilute or impact wilderness. In the futurewilderness may represent the only remnants of many eco-systems, wild conditions, and opportunities in which toexperience solitude and natural landscapes. The degree towhich those qualities remain in wilderness tomorrow willreflect our stewardship efforts to deal with the threats towilderness reviewed here, and more.

We define threats to wilderness here as a general concept,focusing on change agents or processes that negatively oradversely impact wilderness resourceconditions and values, as noted byLandres et al. (1998a). We are talkingabout change agents that come directlyor indirectly from human influencesand not natural disturbances (e.g.,lightning-caused fires, volcanoes, hur-ricanes, etc.). For example, increasingvisitor use of wilderness areas (i.e., achange agent) can impact wildernessexperiences through resulting crowding,visitor conflicts, loss of solitude, andfrom direct impacts on wildernessresources such as loss of vegetativeground cover at campsites, and soilerosion on trails.

We identify 17 categories of threatsto wilderness and their impacts, drawing Article coauthors John C. Hendee (left), photo by Marilyn Riley, and Chad P. Dawson, photo courtesy of Chad P. Dawson.


5 million acres) (Landres andMeyers 2000). The lack of large or“corridor connected” wildernessunits most pronounced in the east-ern United States often creates eco-logical “islands” more vulnerable toexternal and adjacent forces than ar-eas of a million acres or more. Be-yond limiting the seasonalmigrations of wilderness fauna,small units may limit the mixing offlora and fauna species populations,so essential to genetic diversity andupon which their long-term healthand survival depends. Some wilder-ness species require large undis-turbed home ranges, such as wolvesand grizzly bears. How to combatfragmentation and isolation of wil-derness? We need comprehensivewildland management that main-tains wild corridors between smallwilderness areas and a wildernessdesignation strategy that expandsand connects areas.

2. The loss of threatened and endan-gered species, and sometimesintrusive actions to save them, canthreaten wilderness naturalness andsolitude. While the protection ofthreatened or endangered speciesmay require special efforts, includ-ing mechanical intrusions into ormanipulation of the wilderness en-vironment to favor them, such well-intentioned and legal activities maycause other impacts. We must askhow much is enough, and try tostick with the minimum, necessarytools. For example, are efforts toprotect bighorn sheep in the CabezaPrieta and other wilderness areas byproviding water structures and haul-ing water actually necessary? Arethey a justifiable intrusion on otherwilderness resources and values?Are they trying to support unnatu-rally high sheep populations?

3. Increasing commercial and pub-lic recreation visits cause im-pacts forcing managers toincreasingly regulate and controluse. Recreation use and visitormanagement are already intensein some high-use locations, in themore popular wilderness areas,and in some places, times and sea-sons—even in large and remoteareas. So the impacts of both com-mercial and recreation use andefforts to control them maythreaten wilderness resources andvalues (Cole 2000). Clearly, pre-serving wilderness naturalnessand solitude requires visitor regu-lation in many places, thoughadmittedly such regulation takesaway the freedom and spontane-ity that characterize wildernessexperiences. It is a continuing bal-ancing act, weighing the need toregulate use to control impactsagainst the impacts of visitor man-agement on freedom and sponta-neity of user experiences and theloss of wilderness opportunitiesfor those turned away or limited.

4. Livestock grazing by domesticcattle and sheep and recreationalpack stock is legally allowed in wil-derness where it existed prior toWilderness designation, but it is of-ten a threat to naturalness and im-pacts user experiences. Permittinggrazing in wilderness was a compro-mise that was politically necessaryto achieve passage of The Wilder-ness Act (TWA), but it impacts soiland water, and the consumptionand trampling of vegetation maydirectly impact competing wildlifeor change the composition of theforage base, which may further im-pact wildlife (Murray 1997). Thepresence of domestic livestock alsoencourages predator control andmay discourage programs for therecovery of endangered predatorssuch as wolf and grizzly bear. Wemust respect the legality of grazingin wilderness, but we need tighterregulation of grazing in wildernessto limit its impacts.

5. Exotic and nonnative species areincreasingly invading wilderness

Threats to wilderness resource conditions or visitor experiences stem from a variety of sources, such as heavy recreation useor congestion on mountain summits and overlooks. Photo by Chad Dawson.


ecosystems, impacting naturalness,triggering ecosystem changes, anddisplacing native species. For ex-ample, noxious weeds such as knap-weed, star thistle, cheat grass, leafyspurge, and others have outcompetednative species and are rapidly spread-ing in wilderness (Asher andHarmon 1995). Control efforts arenot benign either, as secondary im-pacts may result from biological,chemical, or physical control mecha-nisms, and they may not work. Theinvasion of wilderness by nonnativespecies, especially noxious weeds,is a very serious threat to wildernessnaturalness. What to do? This is acomplex dilemma for wildernessmanagers, with no easy answers thatwork. But when considering con-trol options, first do no harm.

6. Excessive administrative access,facilities, and intrusive manage-ment can threaten naturalness andwilderness values (also see numbers12 and 14). Mechanized access towilderness by managers is legal un-der TWA when it is the minimum

method to accomplish a legitimateand necessary wilderness or endan-gered species purpose, includingfacility construction and mainte-nance. Such management may bein support of any legitimate wilder-ness purpose, such as visitor manage-ment, grazing, mining, commercialoutfitting, maintaining historic struc-tures, or trail construction. Recentwilderness designation laws, like theCalifornia Desert Protection Act of1994 (P.L. 103-433), expandedmanagement access by providing formechanized intrusions to supportfish and wildlife management (notjust endangered species) and lawenforcement in the 69 BLM wilder-ness areas it established. Withmechanized access to wilderness soeasily justified, management re-straint and judgment is especiallyimportant in not abusing the privi-lege. We still need to ask: is mecha-nized access really necessary? Is itthe minimum tool that will work?

7. Adjacent land management anduse can impact wilderness and is

a concern for managers because theyoften have little or no control overwhat happens beyond the wildernessboundary (Landres et al. 1998b). Asurvey of U.S. wilderness managersin 1995 reported 60 different per-ceived impacts that adjacent landuses had on the wilderness (Kelsonand Lilieholm 1997); the top five were:fire management, military over-flights, exotic plant introduction, airpollution, and off-road vehicle use.Wilderness managers need to ex-pand their awareness, communica-tion, and educational efforts beyondwilderness boundaries and seek bet-ter coordination of adjacent landmanagement activities to minimizetheir impacts on wilderness.

8. Inholdings of private or publiclands within wilderness areas cancreate impacts because inholdershave a right to reasonable access anduse of their lands. Some inholdingscontain historic impacts, such as oldmining claims or homesteads, oth-ers serve as active ranches or pri-vate retreats, giving their ownersprime access to wilderness sur-roundings. Sometimes motorizedaccess is granted to inholders onprimitive roads, by aircraft, or byboats. Inholdings may be used bycommercial outfitters and providesites for supporting facilities andservices (e.g., stock facilities, aircraftlanding fields), access (e.g., interiorprivate roads), and visitor facilities(e.g., outfitter camps, private dwell-ings). Wilderness managers needcourage here to stand as firm as pos-sible against nonconforming activi-ties taking place on inholdings. Acurrent example is a proposal by aninholder in California’s arid PalenMcCoy Wilderness to build an ac-cess road to haul a large telescopeand well-drilling equipment, all to

Installation, maintenance, and monitoring of wilderness boundary signs is an important management challenge. Photo byJohn Hendee.


support private retreats to the site.We (the wilderness community) canhelp managers by responding toagency Notices of Proposed Actions(NOPAs) in wilderness with objec-tions to intrusive proposals and in-sistence that their impacts beminimized.

9. Mining and extraction from estab-lished claims is allowed in wilder-ness, although further mineralexploration has been phased outunder TWA. For example, oil de-velopment is being considered inAlaska and silver mining on exist-ing claims near the Cabinet Moun-tains Wilderness in Montana. Thenegative impacts of mining to wil-derness naturalness and wildnessare extensive. Even old mines thathave been “played out” may con-tinue to impact wilderness with theirresidual buildings, junk heaps, minetailings, and roads that continue toerode and which invite vehicle tres-pass, not to mention the visual andecological impacts of these historicalremnants. Managers need publicsupport for imposing conditions asstrict as possible on current miningoperations, and public participationin efforts to clean up the messes leftat old mining sites, such as publiclands day cleanup projects and othervolunteer rehabilitation efforts.

10.Wild land fire suppression, adja-cent to and inside wilderness, ischanging ecosystems by reducingnatural fire frequencies, leading tochanges in ecosystem structure andcomposition. Allowing natural pro-cesses like fire to continue to func-tion in their natural role in wildernessecosystems and landscapes is nowrecognized as important to providingdiversity and natural variation. Butthe tendency is for federal agencies

to suppress most fires, in part be-cause of the fear and risk that theywould spread to adjacent, non-wil-derness lands and, in part, becauseof political pressure to suppressthem. The massive stand-replacingfires that have occurred in recentyears (in 2000 more than 6 millionacres burned in 80,000 wildlandfires) are confirming that past firesuppression allowed tremendousfuel loads to build up, contributingto today’s larger and more intensewildfires. Wilderness has not beenimmune from this fuel buildup. Dif-ficult as it is and will be, restoringnatural fire regimes in wilderness isimportant to the integrity of wilder-ness ecosystems.

11.Polluted air is a threat to wilder-ness naturalness because of itsphysical and biological impacts andthe accompanying reduced visibil-ity that may impact wilderness ex-periences. Bell et al. (1985) havereported that visual impairmentfrom pollution can cause visitors tochange trip schedules or to chooseanother location that has better vis-

air quality improvement was com-pleted (Stokes 1999). The air qual-ity in wilderness serves as animportant indicator of overall am-bient air quality, and this connectswilderness to concerns of the largersociety. Wilderness’s role in moni-toring air quality for the nation pro-vides an excellent opportunity toexplain how wilderness serves ev-eryone, even those who will nevergo there.

12.Water storage facilities requirethe legal reconstruction and main-tenance of dams and reservoirs inwilderness for water storage,thereby impacting wilderness soli-tude and naturalness. Such storageis important because of historic useof wilderness water for irrigation invalleys below, and growing compe-tition in the western United Statesfor water to maintain “in stream”flows for fisheries, aquatic biota, andwildlife. But maintenance and re-construction of water storage facili-ties in wilderness are verycontroversial because of the mecha-nized intrusions that are required.

In the future wilderness may represent the only remnantsof many ecosystems, wild conditions, and opportunitiesin which to experience solitude and natural landscapes.

ibility. In the eastern United States,acid rain from industrial and urbanemissions can be especially harm-ful to high-elevation ecosystems. Inthe West, in 1996 the U.S. ForestService (USFS) notified the state ofWashington that visibility in the Al-pine Lakes and Goat Rocks Wilder-ness areas was adversely impactedby a coal-fueled power plant inCentralia, Washington, and subse-quently a mediated settlement for

Again, the mandate is for wildernessnaturalness. Water is an increasinglyscarce commodity, the best of whichmay come from wilderness. Howcan we do what’s needed and re-quired while minimizing impacts?

13.Advanced technology threatens toreduce wilderness solitude withelectronic communication, navigationdevices, and mechanical transportequipment that dilute remoteness,


risk, and discovery. Technology alsointrudes with high-tech outerwearand backpacking gear that insulatevisitors from historic wilderness ex-periences (Knapp 2000). The use ofGPS equipment, cell phones, radios,and other electronic technology bysearch-and-rescue personnel is gen-erally accepted, much like the useof high-technology ropes and climb-ing gear. The use of mechanicaltransport in search-and-rescue op-erations is also accepted when hu-man life is at stake. But theavailability of modern electroniccommunication, navigation devices,and mechanized access may givevisitors a false sense of security andcontribute to irresponsible behav-iors based on their assumption thatrescue is only a cellphone call andhelicopter flight away. But whycan’t users be asked to observemore of a minimum-tool approachto wilderness recreation? We thinktheir wilderness experiences andbenefits would be better for it, andwe urge wilderness managers toprovide leadership in transmittingthis message.

14.Motorized and mechanicalequipment trespass and legaluse can dilute wilderness solitudeand damage resources. For ex-ample, operators of snowmobilesand all terrain vehicles (ATV’s) cantravel cross-country and enter awilderness area inadvertently, orthe trespass may be deliberate forconvenience or recreational pur-poses, and go undiscovered in re-mote locations. Management’s useof motorized vehicles and me-chanical equipment is legal in wil-derness where it is the minimummethod for accomplishing a legiti-mate wilderness purpose, and insome areas for such activities aswildlife management and law en-forcement. Examples that might beapproved are helicopters for specialprojects, ATVs for beach patrols,four-wheel-drive vehicles for wild-life management activities, andchain saws for trail construction.When wilderness visitors see man-agers using mechanized vehicles orequipment, it affects how they viewthem and shapes visitors’ views ofwhat wilderness should be. To the

contrary, when visitors see wilder-ness managers—and researchers—carrying out their work withprimitive tools, it sends a positivemessage of respect for the wilder-ness and conveys that living withprimitive skills and tools is possible!

15.Aircraft noise from aircraft over-flights of wilderness by commer-cial and military aircraft causenoise and visual pollution, anddilute solitude with a dramatic re-minder of modern society to whichwilderness users object (Tarrant etal. 1995). There are also legal pri-vate and public airfields in wilder-ness in Montana and Idaho usedby private visitors as well as out-fitters moving supplies and cus-tomers (Meyer 1999). In Alaskathe preexisting use of aircraft, es-pecially floatplanes, continues indesignated wilderness. Lowlevelmilitary overflights can be trau-matic to wilderness visitors andresident fauna, though such privi-lege is legally sanctioned in manyareas. As overflights and the useof aircraft to access wildernessgrows, wilderness managers mustdetermine what management dis-cretion is available to limit themor mitigate their impacts, and thenface objections from the military,private pilot, and wilderness out-fitter organizations that do notwant such privileges limited. Wehope wilderness managers willexercise their fullest possible dis-cretion and influence to keep over-flights and air access intowilderness from escalating, and re-ducing them when possible.

16.Urbanization and encroachingurban development toward wil-derness boundaries dilutes wilder-ness with civilized sights, sounds,Public Lands Day Cleanup in the Old Woman Mountains Wilderness (BLM) in the California Desert. Photo by Marilyn Riley.


they should be added to the NWPS,and many areas recommended forwilderness years ago have not beenacted upon by Congress. This lackof political and financial support forwilderness stewardship may be oneof the most serious threats to wil-derness in the long run. Funding forpeople and programs is required tomaintain high standards of wilder-ness naturalness and solitude. Weall need to help meet this threat byspeaking out for wilderness toelected officials, and enlisting helpfrom organizations and the largerpublic to whom elected officials areresponsive.

ConclusionThis list of 17 threats to wildernessoversimplifies them, their seriousness,their current escalation, and how theymight be addressed. We encourage astronger stand against them by man-agers, and proactive support for man-ager resistance to them by thewilderness community. Reducing thedilution of wilderness resources andvalues by these threats and impacts isessential to help wilderness achieve itspotential.

JOHN C. HENDEE is professor and directorof the University of Idaho WildernessResearch Center, Idaho, USA, and IJWeditor-in-chief.

CHAD P. DAWSON is professor, College ofEnvironmental Science and Forestry, StateUniversity of New York (SUNY) at Syracuse,New York, USA, and IJW co-managingeditor

This article is based on a new chapter onthreats to wilderness in J. C. Hendee andC. P. Dawson. In press. Wilderness Manage-ment: Stewardship and Protection of Resourcesand Values, 3rd ed. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum

Publishing.

and diminished remoteness. Ur-ban sprawl has dramatically af-fected wilderness conditions withsmog, encroaching roads thatmake access easier, noise, and ca-sual day use in urban-proximatewildernesses such as San Gorgoniooutside Los Angeles. We fear thatincreasingly diverse and urbanizedvisitors to wilderness may be sat-isfied with trips to crowded andheavily impacted wilderness dueto their lack of previous experiencein more pristine areas and maydevelop a wilderness frame of ref-erence more tolerant of crowdingand oblivious to impacts. Yet theseusers may need the respite offeredby wilderness the most. We urgemanagers to expand their educa-tional efforts about what wilder-ness is, what it is meant to provide,why management is necessary—and to do everything possible tosee that diverse, urban visitorshave the chance to enjoy a wilder-ness experience. We need the sup-port and understanding of thesepeople to sustain wilderness.

17.Lack of political, and thus finan-cial support for wilderness pro-tection and management is a greatconcern of the federal agencies, asexpressed by then chief of the USFSMike Dombeck, “…the resourcescommitted to protect and managewilderness have not kept pace withour needs. …particularly for fieldwork budgets and staff” (1999). Theevidence of such neglect is wide anddeep. Long overdue wildernessplans are still in progress or have notbeen started. Others are in need ofrevision and updating. Numerousroadless and wilderness study areasare being evaluated to determine if

REFERENCESAsher, J. E. and D. W. Harmon. 1995. Invasive

exotic plants are destroying the naturalnessof U.S. wilderness areas. IJW 1 (2): 35–37.

Bell, P. A., W. Malm, R. J. Loomis, and G. E.McGlothin. 1985. Impact of impaired vis-ibility on visitor enjoyment of the GrandCanyon. Environment and Behavior 17 (4):459–474.

Cole, David N. 2000. Natural, wild, un-crowded, or free? Which of these should wil-derness be? IJW 6 (2): 5–8.

Dombeck, Mike. 1999. A wilderness agendaand legacy for the U. S. Forest Service. IJW5 (3): 4–6.

Kelson, A. R., and R. J. Lilieholm. 1997. Theinfluence of adjacent land activities on wil-derness resources: U.S. wilderness managerperceptions. IJW 3 (1): 25–28.

Knapp, D. 2000. Activities and technology: tech-nology and wilderness in the 21st century.IJW 6 (2): 20.

Landres, Peter B., P. S. White, G. Aplet, and A.Zimmermann. 1998a. Naturalness andnatural variability: definitions, concepts, andstrategies for wilderness management. In D.L. Kulhavy, and M. H. Legg eds. Wildernessand Natural Areas in Eastern United States:Research, Management and Planning.Nacogdoches, Tex.: Stephen F. Austin StateUniversity, Arthur Temple College of Forestry,Center for Applied Studies. pp. 41–50

Landres, Peter B, S. Marsh, L. Merigliano, D.Ritter, and A. Norman. 1998b. Boundaryeffects on wilderness and other natural ar-eas. In R. L. Knight, and P. B. Landres. Stew-ardship across Boundaries. Covelo, Calif.:Island Press, pp. 117–139.

Landres, Peter B. and S. Meyer. 2000. Nationalwilderness preservation system database:key attributes and trends, 1964 through1999. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-18, rev.ed. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Meyer, S. S. 1999. The role of legislative his-tory in agency decision-making: a case studyof wilderness airstrip management in theUnited States. IJW 5 (2): 9–12.

Murray, M. P. 1997. High elevation meadowsand grazing: common past effects and fu-ture improvements. IJW 3 (4): 24–28.

Stokes, J. 1999. Wilderness management pri-orities in a changing political environment.IJW 5 (1): 4–8.

Tarrant, M. A., G. E. Haas, and M. J. Manfredo.1995. Factors affecting visitor evaluationsof aircraft overflights of wilderness areas.Society and Natural Resources 8: 351–360.

U.S. Public Law. 103-433. 1994. CaliforniaDesert Protection Act of 1994.


Ian Player: MadoloBY VANCE MARTIN

He has walked more miles in the deep wildernessthan most people walk in three lifetimes, each steppainful due to a deformed knee from a boyhood

accident. This defining physical characteristic earned IanPlayer the name Madolo (ma-door-lo), “the knee,” from theZulu people with whom he worked and lived in the Zululandwilderness-like game reserves of Natal Province, South Af-rica. Player claims, “This time in wilderness changed mylife,” and through his efforts the wilderness experiencewould change the lives of many more, and wilderness wouldbecome a reality in South Africa.

Player began his conservation career in 1952 as a reliefgame ranger on the shores of Lake St. Lucia, patrolling forpoachers in one of Africa’s largest, most beautiful, and bio-logically diverse estuaries. He rose rapidly through the ranksof the provincial conservation service, ultimately to becomechief conservator of all game reserves in Zululand. In theprocess he was credited for leadership in saving the whiterhino from extinction (he insists that he led “a superb team”)

FEATURES

and declaring the first wilderness area in Africa in theUmfolozi Game Reserve in 1958.

Responding to a higher vision in 1974 at age 47, andforgoing all pension benefits, Ian Player left the conserva-tion service to focus on wilderness. Player recalls, “Every-one thought I had lost my marbles.” But his experienceswalking among lion and rhino, canoeing wild rivers, andsleeping countless nights in the African bush had “saved”his life. He believed that the experience of wilderness thathad changed his life for the better could change the lives ofother people, and even change the world. Without the se-curity of a guaranteed paycheck or budget, he started theWilderness Leadership School (WLS), a new, nonprofit or-ganization to give leaders and young people a wildernessexperience. To finance this venture he traveled South Af-rica and the world, lecturing, writing, fundraising, andspeaking for wilderness, and leaving at home a supportivewife and three school-aged children.

Defying the odds in apartheid-era South Africa, hepioneered multiracial outdoor experiential education.To date, the WLS has taken more than 35,000 people insmall groups into the African wilderness on foot treks,or “trails.” Player and Magqubu Ntombela, his (nowdeceased) Zulu friend and mentor, personally led manyof these groups. The diaries penned by the participantsof all races—corporate executives, school children,housewives—all contain a single phrase more than anyother, “This experience changed my life.”

Player went on to create an international wildernessmovement. Working with associates in other countries hefounded the Wilderness Trust in the United Kingdom andThe WILD Foundation based in the United States. Work-ing with WILD he established the World Wilderness Con-gress to create greater global awareness and action throughperiodic gatherings in different countries. More recently heled the Wilderness Foundation in South Africa in wildernessIan Player with Magqubu Ntombela. Photo by Jane Campbell.

W I L D E R N E S S L E A D E R S H I P I N F O C U S


advocacy and action, playing a pivotalrole in saving Lake St. Lucia from pro-posed dune mining and then in itsdeclaration as South Africa’s firstWorld Heritage Area. In recognitionof his growing and visible wildernessachievements and scholarship, he re-ceived an honorary doctorate from theUniversity of Natal in 1990. He hashanded over the director’s position ofthe Wilderness Foundation, SouthAfrica, to Andrew Muir.

Practical game ranger, scholar, self-trained ecologist, author, philosopher,international diplomat, husband-fa-ther-grandfather, and possessed of oneof the largest personal libraries inSouth Africa on Carl Jung’s psychol-ogy, he is still respectfully greeted inZululand as Madolo. Knee surgery twoyears ago allows him to walk withoutpain for the first time in more than 55years, but the name remains. Althoughold injuries from wilderness fieldworkand game capture are returning tohaunt him at age 74, he is still wagingthe battle for wilderness with his pen,strong voice, and commanding pres-ence. His experience and knowledge

are profound, and his goal is clear: savewilderness and thus, save the humanspirit.

Some of Ian Player’s notable adventures,achievements, and ideas are described in his

books: Men, Rivers and Canoes (out of print)1964; The White Rhino Saga, (out of print),1972; South African Passage (Fulcrum Pub-lishing), 1987; Zulu Wilderness: Shadow andSoul (Fulcrum Publishing), 1998. For moreinformation, contact Fulcrum Publishing atwww.fulcrum-books.com.

Ian Player and his wife of 40 years, Ann Player. Photo by Marilyn Riley.

This leaf is the erythrina caffra, or naked coral

tree, and is the international logo for a family of

distinct but collaborating wilderness organiza-

tions founded by Ian Player. At Ian’s request to

suggest a symbol, Magqubu Ntombela selected

this particular leaf because in Zulu culture the

tree is found both in settlements and in the wild.

The tips of the three leaflets represent an

individual’s relationship to the land, to other

humans, and to God.


Sustainable Financing ofWilderness Protection

An Experiment with Fees in the United States

BY ALAN E. WATSON

PEER REVIEWED

STEWARDSHIP

IntroductionWilderness protection has typically been financed throughtaxes. However, budgets fluctuate, making consistent man-agement difficult. The tasks of monitoring, public educa-tion, and restoration of impacted sites and ecosystems isbecoming increasingly difficult to accomplish within cur-rent budget allocations. There are some good aspects offinancing wilderness protection through taxation, however.Federal legislation and federal taxes to protect wildernessin the United States acknowledge the many values of wil-derness realized by society as a whole. Nonusers and fu-ture generations can be acknowledged as beneficiaries ofthis protection, and we collectively provide these benefits.

There are alternatives to financing wilderness protectionthrough taxes. Although The Wilderness Act (TWA) made itclear that the secretaries of agriculture and interior were au-thorized to accept contributions and gifts in order to meet theobjectives of the wilderness system, donations to provide wil-derness protection services are relatively untried (Martin2000). Barnes (1998) discussed the need for taxing nonusevalues in Namibia as a way to transfer benefits from the inter-national community to local villages. Excise taxes and licenseshave been used in fishing and hunting programs in the UnitedStates extensively, and national and international organizations,

such as the Nature Conservancy, the Global EnvironmentalFacility, and the World Bank, have been crucial to protection ofmany threatened places in the world. Local commitment

Article author Alan Watson (far right) and his family in Pyhätunturi (the Holy Field)National Park, Finland. Photo courtesy of the Aldo Leopold Institute.

Abstract: While wilderness protection has traditionally occurred from tax support, there are other options. Inthe United States, currently there is an experiment to charge fees for recreation access, including wilderness.Questions remain about whether the public supports wilderness recreation fees, how fees might changerelationships between people and wilderness, whether a buyer-seller relationship between federal landmanagement agencies and wilderness visitors is desirable, how wilderness fees may differ from recreationfees, and who will be affected most by wilderness use fees.


through “Friends” groups has also pro-vided funding to continue importantwilderness management work in manyplaces. While these are all potential newsolutions to sustainable financing prob-lems, the approach currently receivingthe greatest attention in the UnitedStates is user fees.

Recreation User FeesThe U.S. Congress authorized the Na-tional Park Service, the Fish and Wild-life Service, the Bureau of LandManagement, and the Forest Service toimplement the Recreational Fee Demon-stration Program (RFDP) in 1996. TheRFDP gave these agencies freedom, evena mandate, to test a variety of new recre-ation use fees, including general use feesand access and use fees for specific sites,facilities, and programs. The legislationallows at least 80% of revenues to be keptlocally for on-site facility and programimprovements. Originally the test wasonly to last for three years, but it was ex-tended for two additional years with sub-sequent legislation, and then again forone more year in 2000.

The purpose of this article is to re-flect on knowledge developed fromrecent research on recreation fees(Watson and Herath 1999), with a fo-cus on issues associated with charg-ing fees to enter wilderness.

Important WildernessFee IssuesThere is no intent stated in TWA (Pub-lic Law 88-577) to always provide freeaccess to wilderness, nor are user feesaddressed. The only mention of financ-ing within TWA is that no appropria-tion from Congress will ever be givenfor expenses or salaries for the admin-istration of the National WildernessPreservation System as a separate unit,nor for any additional personnel tomanage these areas. Thus, wilderness

must be financed as an effort within thelarger agency of which it is part. With agrowing system of wilderness, and in-sufficient funds within the land man-agement agencies to finance all needs,user fees have surfaced for considerationas an approach to at least supplementCongressional funding. But, chargingfor admission to wilderness throughuser fees raises some new questions notpreviously addressed in U.S. literature.

Does the Public SupportWilderness RecreationFees?We have heard federal officials claim,and critical voices admit, that the ma-jority of the American public gener-ally support recreation fees on publiclands. Some recent studies supportthat generality. Most ofthe recent research, how-ever, has depended onlyupon responses from cur-rent visitors who havepaid the fees.

In their study of differ-ent communities of interestin southern California,Winter et al. (1999) founda vast majority disapprovedof fees, and an additionalminority expressed onlyconditional acceptance.Bowker et al. (1999) alsofound support for provid-ing recreation services fromtaxes outweighed supportfor using only fees or a com-bination of fees and taxeson 6 of 10 types of fees pro-posed. The user fee approachhas been controversial, andit has not yet been resolvedif it will become publiclyacceptable or not. We havenot adequately assessed theopinions of those who have

decided not to pay a fee, or the generalpublic who may or may not visit the area,but are members of the collective com-munity that has established public lands.

How Might User FeesChange the RelationshipBetween People andWilderness?One of the major complaints heardabout the fee program is that it com-mercializes national treasures of publiclands. On the other hand, today in theUnited States there is a substantial callfor government to operate more like theprivate sector through applying morecost-efficient business and marketingprinciples. There may be many lessonsto be learned from the private sector,

Indian drawings in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. Visitor supportfor use of fees suggests public concern about overdevelopment of wilderness.Photo by Alan Watson.


but many questions arise about adopt-ing marketing and business economicsto improve efficiency in providing wil-derness opportunities. We must askourselves if the creators of wildernessin the United States intended for us tomanage it for individual utility maximi-zation, as economic theory describes,or as a societal good. Further, manypublic land managing agencies areworking to focus on and increase “cus-tomer satisfaction” among visitors; howwill user fees affect satisfaction amongwilderness customers?

There have been three approachesused in establishing fee levels at recre-ation demonstration sites in the UnitedStates. First, typically the objective isgenerating maximum revenue (Martin1999), so information about how manytrips would be taken annually at vari-ous price levels yields a demand curvethat suggests an optimum price. Second,some managers have set prices at a levelcomparable to those in the private sec-tor for similar services or experiences.This works for campgrounds, but sub-stitutes for wilderness are not availablein the United States. Third, fee levelscould be based on the cost of providingservices. But, costs for providing wilder-ness experiences are difficult to track,especially within large bureaucratic or-ganizations, and the on-site services forvisitors are often a small part of the costsand benefits of wilderness protection.

Consideration of wilderness from acollective perspective suggests the need

to be more concerned with the abilityto protect these places as havens whereadvancing civilization is not welcome.Exchanging currency for services maybe one of the primary differences be-tween places where human influencedominates and those places that are pri-meval, untrammeled, and where self-reliance and independence are highlyvalued. We cannot accurately predicthow fees for entry might change awilderness experience and subsequentbeneficial effects.

Is the Relationshipbetween Buyer andSeller of WildernessExperiences Desirable?We know from research by Schneiderand Budruk (1999) that displacementoccurs among some public land visi-tors due to new fees. But few reason-able substitutes are available for thosewho might be displaced from wilder-ness because of user fees. Are we asfree as the private sector may be todisregard displacement effects of wil-derness user fees?

Trainor and Norgaard (1999) foundhigh incompatibility between eco-nomic values and the values placed onwilderness. They found that peoplehad great difficulty placing a monetaryvalue on wilderness experiences. Wehave specifically avoided this incom-patibility as a society by establishingpublic land as common property in the

first place, and then designating a por-tion of those lands as symbolically freefrom the pressures of resource extrac-tion and modern civilization.

Vogt and Williams (1999), found thatwilderness visitors tended to support theuse of fees to maintain current condi-tions, at least as much if not more thanimproving them, suggesting a concernby some about fees leading to overde-velopment of wilderness. There has of-ten been an assurance by public landmanagers that fees will indeed lead toimproved services. This is a commonjustification for charging fees, much aswould be used in a private market situ-ation. For these agencies the easiest wayto show results from the fees are bypainting, cleaning, or repairing bath-rooms, upgrading parking lots, or replac-ing old signs. But in recent research, theservices wilderness visitors want sup-ported by fees are not so easily visible orso materials-oriented. Desolation Wil-derness visitors wanted fees spent onrestoration of human-damaged sites, lit-ter removal, and information about waysto reduce impacts (Vogt and Williams1999). Thus, if wilderness user fees areto be used to supplement insufficientwilderness budgets, assurance is neededthat the public purpose of the place willnot be violated (e.g., developing servicesand facilities in wilderness).

How Are WildernessFees and Recreation FeesDifferent?There has been the assumption that thepublic is more supportive of fees at ar-eas where facilities are provided. Bowkeret al. (1999) found that the public sup-ports use of fees to provide boat ramps,campgrounds, special exhibits, andparking areas, but some other facilitieswere among the least supported. Vogtand Williams (1999) found strongestsupport among wilderness visitors to be

Exchanging currency for services may be one of theprimary differences between places where humaninfluence dominates and those places which are primeval,untrammeled, and where self-reliance and independenceare highly valued.


for several nonfacility-related expendi-tures. It appears that the public is sup-portive of fees to accomplish the moregeneral intended public purpose of anarea; sometimes the public purpose re-quires facilities and sometimes it doesnot. Providing wilderness experienceopportunities is not dependent uponfacilities. Rather it is dependent upon con-fidence that the agency is maintainingthe wilderness qualities of naturalnessand solitude—the wildness—of desig-nated areas. Wilderness user fees mustcontribute to these purposes, not im-proved rest rooms, signs, and parking lots.

Who Will Be Affected Mostby Wilderness User Fees?There is naturally concern that low-income people will be most impactedby access fees. Unfortunately, how-ever, there are much greater financialobstacles to participation by the im-poverished than relatively small userfees. More (1999) challenges us toexpand our concern beyond the poorto those on the income margins.Stratifying the public to more closelyexamine the effects of user fees onmiddle-income, working-class, work-ing-poor, and impoverished peoplewill likely reveal more than separat-ing the American people into “lowincome” and everyone else. Very low-income visitors are underrepresentedamong wilderness visitors, and userfees would obviously further reducetheir access, but there may be poten-tial income effects on visitors in otherincome groups as well.

It is unclear whether those mostcommitted to wilderness or involvedin wilderness activities would be mostsupportive of fees. But, those living inclosest proximity and most involvedhave been found less likely to havepositive response to wilderness fees(Puttkammer and Watson 1998;

Williams et al. 1999). We need to fur-ther understand who is affected by feesin order to understand the costs asso-ciated with this potentially sustainablesource of wilderness funding.

ConclusionHow the public responds to wilder-ness management actions is not justa function of how well they perceivethat action to be in protecting thewilderness. Public response is partlya function of how the public per-ceives the agency has done in otherstewardship responsibilities. Publictrust (Winter et al. 1999) cannot bedeveloped through concentration ona single management issue any morethan ecosystems can become sus-tainable by focus on a single elementof the environment.

Around the world we are strugglingto retain some wildness in our land-scapes through legislation, responsiblestewardship, and education of visitorsand the public about wilderness val-ues. But the success of these effortsdepends on funding the continuingneeds for management, restoration,monitoring, scientific investigation,and visitor services. So far, general taxrevenues appropriated to land man-agement agencies have been the sourceof funding for wilderness managementin the United States. If wilderness rec-reation fees are to be a long-termsource of funding wilderness protec-tion in the United States, we need toimplement them in a way that respectsthe relationship between wildernessand the American people.

Not all countries have established atradition of public funding of wilder-ness protection. To understand the landuse history of the United States neces-sarily involves understanding the rea-sons for mass immigration to avoidrestrictions on land in other countries,imposed by more privileged classes. It

may be that as a society we face somechoices. Do we want fee support to en-able accomplishment of most of theobjectives of wilderness protection butwith associated displacement and com-mercialization effects? Or do we con-tinue a campaign to increase andstabilize fluctuating public support ofwilderness programs in order to fulfillthe original intent of wilderness places?Decisions about whether to charge fed-eral land recreation fees will be made inthe political arena. Exactly where tocharge fees and how much to chargemay be a political decision or left to in-dividual managers. Hopefully, there willbe due consideration of the findingsfrom recent research in establishing ourpublic land fee policies, no matter wherethe policies originate.

ALAN E. WATSON is a research socialscientist with the Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute, USDA Forest Service,Missoula, Montana, USA. He was a U.S.Fulbright Scholar in 1999 at the ArcticCentre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi,Finland.

People living in close proximity to wilderness are less likely torespond positively to fees.


REFERENCESBarnes, J. I. 1998. Economic value of wilder-

ness in Namibia. IJW 4 (1):33–38.Bowker, J. M., H. K. Cordell, and C. Y. Johnson.

1999. User fees for recreation services onpublic lands: a national assessment. Jour-nal of Park and Recreation Administration17 (3):1–14.

Martin, S. R. 1999. A policy implementationanalysis of the recreation fee demonstrationprogram: convergence of public sentiment,agency programs, and policy principles?Journal of Park and Recreation Administra-tion 17 (3):15–34.

Martin, S. R. 2000. Donations as an alternativeto wilderness user fees—the case of the Deso-lation Wilderness. In D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool,W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, comps. Wil-derness science in a time of change confer-ence—Volume 4: wilderness visitors,experiences, and visitor management—May23–27, 1999, Missoula, Mont. Proceedings

RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, Utah: USDA, For-est Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

More, T. A. 1999. A functionalist approach to userfees. Journal of Leisure Research 31 (3): 227–244.

Puttkammer, A., and A. E. Watson. 1998. Ac-ceptability of fees for various recreation ac-tivities as a function of activity orientationand past fee behavior. In A. Watson and A.Puttkammer comps., Societal response torecreation fees on public lands: a synopsisof papers presented at the Seventh Interna-tional Symposium on Society and ResourceManagement: Culture, Environment, andSociety. May 27–31, 1998, University ofMissouri–Columbia. www.fs.fed.us/research/rvur/wilderness/recreation_ fees.htm.

Schneider, I. E., and M. Budruk. 1999. Displace-ment as a response to the federal recreationfee program. Journal of Park and RecreationAdministration, 17 (3): 76–84.

Trainor, S. F., and R. B. Norgaard. 1999. Recre-ation fees in the context of wilderness values.

Journal of Park and Recreation Administra-tion 17 (3): 100–115.

Vogt, C. A., and D. R. Williams. 1999. Supportfor wilderness recreation fees: the influenceof fee purpose and day versus overnight use.Journal of Park and Recreation Administra-tion 17 (3): 85–99.

Watson, A. E., and G. Herath. 1999. Researchimplications of the theme issues “RecreationFees and Pricing Issues in the Public Sector”(Journal of Park and Recreation Administra-tion) and “Societal Response to Recreation Feeson Public Lands” (Journal of Leisure Research).Journal of Leisure Research 31 (3): 325–334.

Williams, D. R., C. A. Vogt, and J. Vitterso. 1999.Structural equation modelling of users’ re-sponse to wilderness recreation fees. Journalof Leisure Research 31 (3): 245–268.

Winter, P. L, L. J. Palucki, and R. L. Burkhardt.1999. Anticipated responses to a fee pro-gram: the key is trust. Journal of Leisure Re-search 31 (3): 207–226.

From WILDERNESS DIGEST on page 44

the National Parks and Wildlife Service)and Japan International CooperationAgency, this plan has declared a wilder-ness zone for the first time in the his-tory of Zambian protected areas. Theconsultative process included extensiveinterchange with local communities andNGOs. More than 61% (13,500 sq.km.) of the 22,400-square-kilometer(8,650 sq. acre) park now includes defacto wilderness management: six Spe-cial Conservation Zones (no human dis-turbance, protection and research only),or 2% of the park; and 10 WildernessZones (access by foot, horseback, andcanoe), or 59% of the park.

This is a significant step in the evo-lution of wilderness internationally.Zambia has no national legal instrumentgoverning designation and managementof wilderness areas. However, this ma-jor commitment to zonation and man-agement for wilderness values sends astrong signal that local communities andnational resource agencies in develop-ing countries understand and committo the protection and sustainability ofwilderness values.

Commitment to the plan existsright to the top of the ZWA, and alsoamong the local communities adjacentto the park that hope to gain fromwilderness tourism. The task beforethe ZWA is to now find the resourcesto train staff and implement the plan.The next step in the training processwill occur at the 7th World Wilder-ness Congress, in which several ZWAstaff will participate as part of the con-gress scholarship program.

Great Bear VictoryAfter 10 years of activism by a consor-tium of Canadian and internationalnongovernmental organizations, theCanadian government and timber in-dustry officials have agreed to protect3.5 million acres of the BritishColumbia’s coastal rain forest from log-ging. Called “The Great Bear” by ac-tivists, this temperate rain forestcontains far-reaching stands of 1,000-year-old spruce trees. Constructiongiant Home Depot adopted a policyof phased-out purchases of old growthtimber. At nearly twice the size of

Yellowstone National Park, the areasupports the rare white-collared blackbear. Environmentalists are hopefulthat this agreement will serve as amodel for protection of other remain-ing old-growth forests.

Kakadu Mining Decisionto Be ReviewedThe Australian Wilderness Society andother key environmental groups hailedan announcement by the Rio TintoZinc (RTZ) mining company that castdoubt over renewed uranium miningat Jabiluka inside the famous KakaduNational Park, Northern Territory.Against a backdrop of record-low ura-nium prices and public and indig-enous opposition, RTZ said thatJabiluka’s production prospects “werenot good.” The Wilderness Societycorporate campaigner, LeanneMinshull, affirmed that environmen-tal groups welcome the change in thecompany’s position and will encour-age them to end the project once andfor all.


Why Opposition to Fee DemoIs Growing

BY DAVID BROWN

has not kept pace with inflation, higher overhead, or withincreased recreational use of public lands. These budget prob-lems have been aggravated by shifts in budget priorities. TheClinton administration, for example, consistently proposedmore money for land acquisition without increasing funding

America Outdoors’s position on the Recreational FeeDemonstration Program for federal agencies is bestdescribed as “evolving.” We are reevaluating our

position as members gain more experience with the pro-gram and as opposition to it builds. Outfitters, who makeup the membership of America Outdoors, have long paidfees for the privilege of operating on federal lands, and weexpect to continue to pay fees. In general, we support theconcept of returning fees to the resource or agency thatcollects them. But there are a number of problems with theimplementation of Fee Demo among all the agencies thatshould be corrected before the program is extended or re-authorized, not the least of which is the layering of severaldifferent fees on the outfitted public.

Currently outfitters are facing three separate fee initia-tives in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and theU.S. Forest Service (USFS).

• Franchise or use fees related to special use permits.• Fee Demo fees• Cost recovery for permit administration, including ap-

plications, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)analysis, and performance evaluations

Most of these fees are levied without regard for the level offee overhead that the market can bear. The viability of out-fitted trips was clearly threatened by some of these initia-tives that are currently under review. So, it is against thatbackdrop that the Fee Demo program is viewed by informedoutfitters. Fee Demo is supported in areas where the agen-cies have worked with its customers, taken input, andmodified plans to fit the market. A command and controlmentality will not work in this market environment. Out-fitters simply cannot pass on all these costs to the consumerin an era with so much competition for the leisure dollar.

The shortfall in the recreation budget for the USFS andBLM is real and has to be dealt with. The recreation budget

Article author David Brown with his daughter, Hillary, in Wyoming. Photo courtesyof Robin Brown.

STEWARDSHIP


for recreation management. Under thisscenario, at a time when balancing thebudget became a priority, it was natu-ral for agencies to look to users to takeup the slack.

But many recreationists and outfit-ters also realize that congressional in-terest in user fees to pay for federalbenefits has been selective. Private pi-lots pay no fees to the Federal Avia-tion Administration for managementof air space. Pleasure boats generallydo not pay fees to navigate throughlocks and dams. In national forests andon BLM lands, agencies have oftenturned a blind eye to illegal outfittingor provided free access to some groupswhose use is clearly commercial. Forexample, BLM provided letters of au-thorization to nonprofit groups to op-erate without paying fees in some areasin Oregon. Congress completely ex-empted most nonprofit activities fromregulations and fees in national parks.Why should outfitters pay more whentheir competition is getting a free ride?

Opposition to Fee Demo is grow-ing in the recreation community be-cause some users also feel the agenciesare transferring the costs for inefficientprocesses to the public and increas-ing fees for access to areas that manybelieve are theirs to use at no chargedue to the taxes they already pay. Us-ers see themselves paying more withno tangible increase in benefits. Thegoals of the program shift constantlydepending on whom you talk towithin the agency. Opposition willgrow even more when the fee author-ity is expanded beyond 100 sites, un-less changes are made.

In a parting shot, distributed widelyby e-mail, a retiring USFS budget of-ficer described it this way: “We havespent an ungodly amount of thepublic’s treasury producing ForestPlans that provide the public nothingin return but fewer and fewer goods

and services. We are now being askedto spend even more to increase theweight of these Forest Plan documentsto protect every fly, plant, critter thatcrawls or walks on minimum of fourlegs, etc. But absolutely nothing for thetwo-legged public who we expect tobe underwriting this farce.”

This retiree’s comment is especiallypertinent to wilderness management.Outfitters are finding that wildernessmanagement strategies in some areasare becoming so restrictive that opera-tions are not economically viable.Agencies certainly cannot expect togarner fee revenue from outfitterswhen their operations are marginal ornonexistent.

Some suggestions to gain outfitters’support for a similar fee initiative in-clude the following actions:

• Consolidate fees for outfitters to al-low for the existing permit fee andFee Demo fees to be used to coverthe cost of permit administration.We realize that a consolidated feewould be more than the access feepaid by self-guided users. However,Fee Demo fees should not be leviedon the outfitted public unless allusers are paying it.

• Agencies should not exempt non-profit operations from fee pay-ments. The largest commercialoperations on public lands arenonprofits, and responsiblenonprofits support fee payments.Ironically, the National Park Ser-vice, in one of the most irrespon-sible positions ever taken by aland-managing agency, recentlytestified in support of the exemp-tion from most regulations for non-profit trips in the backcountry.

• NEPA costs are part of the broadprogrammatic responsibilities ofthe agencies. Permittees that arenot proposing significant changes

in operations and that do not de-viate from approved managementplans should not be required topay those costs.

• Agencies should show more inter-est in stopping illegal operations.How can legitimate outfitter opera-tions be expected to cooperate infee programs when the agenciesturn a blind eye to illegal and un-permitted operations?

Users are rebelling, but against thesymptom (Fee Demo) and not againstthe more significant problem: the lackof consensus and political will to dealwith these funding and agency “pro-cess” problems. Federal agencies’funding initiatives consist of a seriesof opportunistic, piecemeal strategies,instead of long-term plans that projectcosts and balance those costs with pro-jected revenues from a variety ofsources. As a former federal employee,I also know that the agencies’ empha-sis is on increasing the annual operat-ing budget with far less concern forcontrolling costs. Achieving greater ef-ficiencies needs to be considered alongwith funding sources.One of the consequences of Fee Demois a healthy consumer interest inagency management and spending. Byrejecting the inappropriate use of thecongressional appropriations processto authorize fee demo, perhaps userscan encourage Congress to deal withthis program through the authorizingcommittees in a way that providesmore clarity and consensus. Then we’llhave clear rules that specify the typesof activities that are appropriate forfees and provide clear parameters onuse of the money.

DAVID BROWN is executive director ofAmerica Outdoors, P.O. Box 10847,Knoxville, Tennessee 37939 USA. E-mail:[email protected].


Fees for use of public recreation facilities and serv-ices are not new. Fees were established early in thehistory of the national park system and today gen-

erate more than $100 million annually in federal receipts,collected chiefly by the National Park Service and the For-est Service through entrance fees, camping fees, ski areapermit fees, and assorted other recreation fees collected fromrecreationists and those providing recreation services onpublic lands.

Much of the philosophical and legal basis for recreationfees is outlined in the 1964 Land and Water ConservationFund Act. The act was the product of those who recognizedthe importance of recreation in America, and it has enrichedour lives immeasurably through strategic increases to federaland state land systems. Yet a great deal has changed since thetime of this act, and, despite periodic amendments, the crite-ria and specific provisions for fees deserve careful review anda new clear and comprehensive strategy.

The framework for a new recreation fee strategy is out-lined in the 1987 report of the President’s Commission onAmericans Outdoors. It argued that public recreation pro-gram spending needed to rise and that primary responsibilityfor the increases should fall upon those who are the directbeneficiaries of these programs. The report noted that recre-ation expenditures by Americans exceed $300 billion annu-ally and represent a steadily increasing share of consumerdiscretionary spending. But the report also argued for account-ability between fees and services provided.

The American Recreation Coalition (ARC) supports fed-eral recreation fees if the fees meet the following principles:

• The fees are equitable, and aimed at recovering costswhere the services and facilities provided represent sig-nificant costs to American taxpayers.

• The fee system is efficient, costing the least amountpractical to administer.

• The fees are convenient for the recreationist, so thatvoluntary compliance is readily achievable.

• The fee system is coherent and integrated, so thatoverlapping charges are minimized, and federal, stateand local fees are integrated where appropriate.

• The fee revenues are returned to benefit resources,facilities, and programs utilized by those paying thefees.

ARC believes that new andhigher recreation fees musthave a demonstrable positiveimpact on resource protec-tion and visitor services.While it is true that recre-ationists today do not payfees equivalent to the entirecost of managing recreationon federal lands, fee in-creases that are designedsolely to replace generalfund appropriations will beunpopular and difficult toimplement. Moreover, recre-ational activities are a non-consumptive use of theAmerican legacy of the out-doors, in contrast to certainother public land uses—which also often fail to payfully for the costs to the tax-payer.

DERRICK CRANDALL ispresident of the AmericanRecreation Coalition, 1225 NewYork Avenue, NW, Suite 450,Washington, D.C. 20005, USA.

STEWARDSHIP

Recreation Fees atFederal Sites

BY DERRICK CRANDALL

A fee payment station at the entrance towilderness. Photo by Chad Dawson.


The Public Access Coalition’s members “are strong sup-porters of America’s land management agencies. The For-est Service, National Park Service, Bureau of LandManagement, and Fish and Wildlife Service provide Americawith a unique range of recreational experiences. These agen-cies also perform a Herculean task in managing these landswith minimal funding, staffing, and resources. It is criticalfor outdoor users, the agencies, and Congress to develop afunding program for the agencies that is fair and effective,while ensuring the continued protection of the resourceand facilities maintenance. Our members would prefer tosee Fee Demo terminated; however, we also recognize theimportance of working to ensure that the existing system isas fair, efficient, and productive as possible. As a result, wehave taken a frank look at Fee Demo and commented onits successes as well as its faults.”Website: www.nofees.org

Wild Wilderness “believes that America’s public recreationlands are a national treasure that must be financially sup-ported by the American people and held in public owner-ship as a legacy for future generations. For the past 100years, our nation’s public lands have been managed so as tomaximize the commodity value that could be extracted fromthem. Today, a major shift in federal land management policyis being developed and implemented. Instead of extractingcommodities from nature, nature itself is being convertedinto a commodity to be repackaged, marketed and sold inthe form of value-added recreation products. … Congres-sional budget cuts are creating a deliberate maintenancecrisis for federally managed recreation lands and facilities.The rescue of a decaying public system, by private investors

and corporate sponsors, is the intended outcome. …We would support an honest, equitably applied trailfee system.”Website: www.wildwilderness.org.

American Whitewater is a nonprofit organization that“was one of many national recreation organizations thatinitially supported Fee Demo and even testified on its be-half before Congress. Our support was based on the civicideal that as recreationists we would like to help with theimprovement and maintenance of the environment and visi-tor experience on our public lands. However, we have with-drawn our support for Fee Demo based on the uncorrecteddeficiencies of this project and the fact that the widespreadcollection of fees has substantially detracted from ourmember’s enjoyment of visiting America’s public lands. Inour experience, the implementation has frequently beenunfair, arbitrary, unpopular, and inconsistently appliedacross resource areas.”Website: www.nofees.org

Free Our Parks and Forests is a not-for-profit, all volun-teer organization founded to advocate for free and equalnoncommercial access to publicly owned lands. “We be-lieve that access to our national lands is a right which maynot be restricted on the basis of income. We are opposed tocharging a fee to access National Parks, National Forests,National Wildlife Refuges, and other such publicly ownedlands, or to use services therein. We believe public landsfunding ought to be a Congressional priority, supportedthrough the general tax base.”Website: www.freeourparks.org

STEWARDSHIP

Opposition to theRecreation Fee Demonstration Program

Editor’s Note: The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, passed in 1996, has been opposed by individualsand recreation organizations and has even encouraged the formation of new organizations. Here is what some ofthese organizations say about themselves and their concerns.


Hydrologic connectivity refers to the movement ofmatter, energy, and/or organisms within water andbetween elements of the hydrologic cycle (Pringle

2001 a, b). Humans have altered this property on local,regional, and global scales. Because of the continual trans-port that characterizes hydrologic systems, an effect originat-ing in any part of the landscape may be evident at a distantgeographic location, sometimes within protected places suchas wilderness. Therefore, dams, water diversions, groundwa-ter extraction, and nutrient and toxic loading outside of wil-derness pose significant threats that are difficult to forecast.

The subject of hydrologic connectivity has typically beenignored in theoretical and practical pursuits of wildernessprotection. When allocation decisions and management tra-ditions were established for most wilderness in the UnitedStates, the science of hydrologic connectivity was in its in-fancy. Also, many alterations of hydrologic connectivity arebeyond the direct control of managers because they are out-side wilderness boundaries, and there is commonly a lackof data on hydrologic connections between wilderness re-sources and surrounding areas. The role of water, bothaboveground and below the surface, must become a moreintegral consideration of wilderness integrity.

Waterways in wilderness can be defined as having interac-tive pathways along three spatial dimensions: longitudinal(headwater-estuarine), lateral (riverine-riparian/floodplain),and vertical (riverine-groundwater) (Ward and Stanford 1989).Only when all of these dimensions are adequately consid-ered, along with climatic factors, are we really talking abouthydrologic connectivity at landscape levels (Pringle 2001 b).Hydrologic connectivity has not been part of the traditionalscientific literature surrounding the management and conser-vation of wilderness landscapes. Only during the last decadehave we accepted the premise generally that groundwater andsurface waters are interconnected as a single resource (e.g.,

STEWARDSHIP

Winter et al. 1998). We still lack data on how the hydrologyof wilderness areas and wild rivers fit into the greater land-scape. There is little information in the U.S. about the contri-bution of wilderness or wild river classification to theprotection of water quality, either within wilderness or foroff-site benefits. Basic information on river discharge is oftennot available. There is a need to consider the size, shape, andconfiguration of wilderness areas with respect to watersheds,regional aquifers, and precipitation patterns in making allo-cation decisions and understanding the effects of natural orhuman-caused disturbance (Pringle 2001 b).

How Is Wilderness Affected byHydrologic Connectivity?Four global patterns have emerged in human-dominated land-scapes that have important implications for the location and

Hydrologic ConnectivityA Call for Greater Emphasis in the

World’s Wilderness

BY CATHERINE M. PRINGLE

Article author Catherine M. Pringle with her 14-month-old daughter, Pamela-Julissa, tubing theChattahoochee River in northern Georgia. Photo courtesy of Catherine Pringle.


plains, connecting wetlands, and ri-parian ecosystems; (3) the deteriora-tion of irrigated lands and connectingsurface waters; and (4) the isolationof upper watersheds. The isolation ofupper watersheds, many of which areprotected within wilderness bound-aries, merits close attention by thewilderness community.

Trends in human settlement andsocioeconomic development haveplayed a major role in determiningwhere wilderness has been protectedwithin watersheds. Human popula-tions have exhibited a general patternof settling in lowland coastal areas andfertile river valleys and then movinginland and upland. Consequently,many wilderness areas are located inupper watershed areas of highlandsrock and ice.

Oftentimes governments set asideland as wilderness because of a com-bination of low potential for agricul-tural production, high scenic value,and/or protection for human watersupplies—with ecological and wildlifevalues as a secondary benefit. Many

of these areas now contain some of thelast vestiges of intact habitat, wildlife,and other natural features in human-dominated landscapes across theglobe, yet they are vulnerable becausethey have become progressively moreand more isolated from their lowerwatersheds (Pringle 1997).

Effects of isolation of upper water-sheds on the biological integrity ofwilderness are not well understood.We do know, however, that modifica-tions of lower watersheds such as wa-ter abstraction, channel modification,land use changes, nutrient discharge,and toxic discharge can set off a cas-cade of events upstream that are oftennot immediately associated with theseoriginal downstream sources of distur-bance (Pringle 1997). Human distur-bances in lower watersheds can alterstreams and rivers in their upstreamreaches on levels from genes to eco-systems (see Figure 1): (1) genetic andspecies-level changes, such as reducedgenetic flow and variation in isolatedupstream populations; (2) populationand community-level changes thatoccur when degraded downstreamareas act as population “sinks” forsource populations of native speciesupstream or, conversely, as “source”populations of exotic species that mi-grate upstream; and (3) ecosystem-andlandscape-level changes in nutrientcycling, primary productivity, and/orregional patterns of biodiversity. Thereis a critical need for research at all ofthese levels.

The U.S. Caribbean National For-est (the largest [11,269 ha, 27,825 ac]natural forest left in the Caribbean Is-lands) provides a neotropical exampleof how downstream hydrological al-terations and pollution outside of abiological reserve can potentially af-fect upstream ecosystem dynamics. Incontrast to the anadromous salmonidsof the Pacific Northwest of the United

Figure 1—Potential downstream influences on upstreamcommunities. Figure from Pringle (1997).

Figure 2—The Espiritu Santo dam and water intake downstream from the Caribbean National Forest in northeastern PuertoRico. Note the defunct fish ladder (below the dam) and the triple-barred water intake (above the dam sill on the right).Photo by Catherine Pringle.

management of wilderness: (1) the extensiveand rapid deterioration of lower watersheds,deltas, estuaries, and receiving coastal waters;(2) the deterioration and loss of riverine flood-


States, which are often blocked bydams, most of the fishes and shrimpsthat inhabit the streams of the Carib-bean National Forest are amphidromous(drifting to the estuary and/or ocean aslarvae, where they spend a relativelyshort period of time, and then return-ing upstream as juveniles to spendtheir adult lives).

Since all of the fishes and shrimpsthat inhabit the nine major streamsdraining the forest are migratory (e.g.,March et al. 1998), water extractionassociated with dams and pollutionfrom sewage treatment plants (in rap-idly developing coastal areas) can po-tentially affect recruitment of adultsupstream and related ecosystem pro-cesses. For example, low versus highabundances of shrimps can causeinterstream differences in algal andinsect abundance, algal communitycomposition, and total amounts ofbenthic organic matter (Pringle et al.1999). If migratory shrimps and fisheswere to be extirpated above dams andwater intakes, as has been observedabove high dams without water spill-ways in other regions of Puerto Rico(Holmquist et al. 1998), concomitantchanges in ecosystem structure andfunction might occur. While dams as-sociated with water intakes within andoutside of the Caribbean National For-est are not large (usually less than 3meters; see Figure 2) and they havespillways, the large number of thesestructures and the volume of waterwithdrawn from rivers is cause formajor concern (Pringle and Scatena1999; Figure 3). Water intakes resultin massive mortality of larval shrimpsmigrating down to the estuary. Dur-ing some times of the year, no water isreleased over many dams and all fishand shrimp larvae suffer direct mor-tality when they are sucked into thewater intake during their migration tothe estuary. Recommendations for

improving hydrologic connectionsbetween the Caribbean National For-est and downstream adjacent areasinclude establishment of in-streamflow and habitat requirements of mi-gratory biota and maintenance ofminimum flows over dams, installa-tion and upkeep of functional fish/shrimp ladders on dams, and imple-mentation of more environmentallysensitive water withdrawal systems(Benstead et al. 1999).

Beyond the WildernessWatershedThe sheer magnitude and extent ofhydrologic alterations in the globallandscape are now affecting wildernessthrough increasingly broad feedbackloops. It is ironic that, just as we arenow beginning to understand thecomplexities of human effects on lo-cal hydrologic processes within water-sheds, wilderness reserves are beingthreatened by regional and global pro-cesses such as overdrawn aquifers, at-mospheric deposition, and globalclimate change.

Just as watersheds are the naturalunit of management for surface waters,aquifers are the natural unit of manage-ment for groundwaters. Since bothgroundwater and surface water are in-tegrally connected and aquifers do notalways coincide with watersheds, themanagement of both aquifers andwatersheds needs to be coordinated.Management has generally underem-phasized groundwater problems (NRC1999), all-too-often focusing on surfacewaters, when in fact, the landscape iscomposed of a diverse and intercon-nected mosaic of geohydrologic units(Gibert et al. 1994). In some regions ofthe world, aquifers and aquifer systemsstill need to be delineated. In other re-gions, where aquifer systems have beenthoroughly mapped, much research isstill necessary to fully characterizegroundwater quality conditions andgroundwater surface water interactions(e.g., Reetz 1998). The situation is alsocomplicated by fragmented manage-ment of small portions of aquifers byjurisdictions with different managementobjectives.

Figure 3—Location of the Caribbean National Forest, Puerto Rico, sites of water withdrawals (i.e., intakes for potablewater, power generation, private sewage treatment plants, and filtration plants). Figure from Pringle (2000).


The Cumberland Island NationalSeashore Wilderness Area in coastalGeorgia, USA, faces potential waterresource problems related to ground-water withdrawals occurring well out-side the island’s watershed. The islandis connected to the mainland by theregional karst aquifer on which thebarrier island is perched. Extensivegroundwater withdrawals from thisregional aquifer have occurred on themainland, resulting in an approximate9-meter permanent decline in the po-tentiometric surface of the aquifer(Johnston et al. 1980, 1981). This isjust one example where groundwaterwithdrawals well outside the bound-aries of a wilderness are threateningecological values protected therein.

Water deficit, defined as the excessof water pumping over recharge fromrainfall, has been estimated at 160 bil-lion tons per year on a global basis(Postel 1999). Correspondingly,

groundwater depletion and streamdewatering are contributing to lossand alteration of wetland and ripar-ian ecosystems throughout theworld, with particularly strong effectson “protected areas” in arid and semi-arid regions because surface andgroundwater are in high demand forhuman use by burgeoning humanpopulations (Pringle 2000; Pringle2001 a, b).

The biological integrity of a givenwilderness is affected by cumulativealterations of hydrologic connectivitywithin and outside of its boundaries,from relatively local (e.g., single dameffect), to regional (e.g., cumulativeeffects of dams, overdrawn aquifers,atmospheric deposition), and global(e.g., climate change) phenomena.The location of a given wilderness inthe hydroscape (i.e., juxtapositionwith respect to watersheds, regionalaquifers, and wind and precipitation

patterns) plays a key role in determin-ing how it will be affected by alter-ations in hydrologic connectivity.Wilderness reserves in biomes, rang-ing from arid deserts to tropicalrainforests, are vulnerable regardlessof their size and watershed location.While an old adage of conservationbiology is “the larger the reserve thebetter,” the hydrologic connectivity oflarge reserves must correspondingly bemanaged on very large scales that of-ten transcend cultural, political, na-tional, and/or international boundaries.There is an increasing need for innova-tive new strategies to manage hydro-logic connectivity across theboundaries of biological reserves asthey become remnant natural areas inthe human-dominated landscape.

Hydrologic Connectivityand the Future ofWildernessThe U.S. population is expected to in-crease from 263 million in 1995 to 394million by 2050 (U.S. Department ofCommerce 1997). Population growthwill continue to be highest in aridwestern states where most public landsare located (see Figure 4). Over thenext 30 years, the West is projected togrow at nearly twice the national av-erage, while the Northeast and Mid-west will grow at one-half the U.S. totalrate (Campbell 1996). Water is largelyunavailable to meet new demands inmany western states as existing water-courses and aquifers have been fullyallocated, and the best dam sites havealready been developed.

Increasingly, managers of publiclands in the United States are steppingforward and fighting for water rightsto meet ecological needs. As a resultof their efforts, in some cases water isnow being diverted from off-streamuses back to public lands because of

Figure 4—Distribution of national parks in the United States and the projected annual rate of population increase (% per1,000 population) between 1995 and 2025. Small dots indicate the location of a park that was too small to be drawn toscale. The National Park Service (NPS) manages a network of 368 park units totaling 79 million acres (about 12% of federalland holdings). The United States is participating in water rights adjudications for 50 NPS units in the arid western states.Increasing numbers of water resource conflicts are emerging in the East, and pressure on NPS units are predicted to increasethroughout the United States with increasing population growth over the next millennium. (Population data from the U.S.Department of Commerce Bureau of Census [1997]). Figure from Pringle (2000).


inadequate water supplies to maintainfish and wildlife. The U.S. NationalPark Service is participating in waterrights adjudications in more than 50national park system units in just thewestern states (Pringle 2000). Con-flicts between the private sector andstate and federal governments over thecontrol of water resources are frequentand widespread. Increased pressure todam rivers and pump aquifers nearpublic lands, as a result of water short-age coupled with increased human de-mands, are major threats to the bioticintegrity of these areas. The ColoradoRiver in Grand Canyon National Parkhas been so highly altered by streamregulation associated with an upstreamdam that it is considered an exotic eco-system (Johnson and Carothers 1987).

It is important to develop coopera-tive partnerships between federal landmanagement agencies and both aca-demic and federal scientists. Suchpartnerships will play a critical role indeveloping science-based guidelines tomanage hydrologic connections acrosspublic land boundaries. One land-mark example is the trial flood in theGrand Canyon that was implementedat Glen Canyon Dam by the InteriorDepartment’s Bureau of Reclamation,in part as a result of scientific requests.In an attempt to restore some of thepre-dam features of the highly regu-lated dam, managers increased dis-charge over the dam by more thanfourfold during a weeklong period inMarch 1996. Never had an intentionalflood been released specifically for en-vironmental benefits, and more than30 scientific projects were designed toexamine its effects (Collier et al. 1997).

Effective management of effects ofcumulative hydrologic alteration out-side public land boundaries not onlyrequires more research, but also incor-poration of existing scientific informa-tion into management actions. A rich

scientific literature exists on hydro-logic connections and integrated man-agement at watershed levels that couldbe more effectively used by public landmanagers. All too often, however, wa-ter resource managers focus on sur-face waters and, if groundwaterresources are recognized, only volumeand accessibility receive attention,while water quality and biologicalcharacteristics are ignored (NRC1999). Management and policy mustrecognize that the flow pathways ofsurface and groundwater are intercon-nected along a continuum of geohy-drologic units and that the interactionbetween surface and groundwater in-fluences biological patterns at land-scape scales (Pringle and Triska 1999).

The last relatively undisturbed eco-systems in the United States exist onpublic lands, and they are threatenedby mounting human pressures. The de-velopment of effective science-basedguidelines to manage hydrologic con-nections across public land boundariesis critical to the long-term stability ofthese remnant ecosystems. Federal landmanagement agencies are in a transi-tional phase as they move toward eco-system management approaches. Thisprovides a window of opportunity forscientists to get involved on a variety ofdifferent levels, including research, de-velopment of management guidelines,and environmental outreach.

CATHERINE M. PRINGLE is a professor atthe Institute of Ecology at the University ofGeorgia, 306 BioSciences, Athens,Georgia 30602, USA. E-mail:[email protected].

Pringle’s work on hydrologic connectiv-ity was supported by the USDA ForestService and the National Science Foun-dation. Special thanks to Alan Watsonof the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Re-search Institute for his editorial helpwith this paper, which is based onPringle 1997, 2000, 2001 a, b.

REFERENCESBenstead, J. P., J. G. March, C. M. Pringle, and

F. N. Scatena. 1999. Effects of a low-headdam and water abstraction on migratorytropical stream biota. Ecological Applica-tions 9: 656–668.

Campbell, P. R. 1996. Population projectionsfor states by age, sex, race, and Hispanicorigin: 1995–2025. Washington, D.C.: Bu-reau of Census PPL-47.

Collier, M. P., R. H. Webb, and E. D. Andrews.1997. Experimental flooding in Grand Can-yon. Scientific American 276 (1): 82–89.

Gibert, J., J. A. Stanford, M. J. Dole-Oliver, andJ. V. Ward. 1994. Basic attributes of ground-water ecosystem and prospects for research.In J. Gibert, D. L. Danielopol, and J. A.Stanford, eds. Groundwater Ecology. SanDiego, Calif.: Academic Press, pp. 7–40.

Holmquist, J. G., J. M. Schmidt-Gegenbach, andB. B. Yoshioka. 1998. High dams and ma-rine-freshwater linkages: effects on nativeand introduced fauna in the Caribbean.Conservation Biology 12: 621–630.

Johnson, R. R. and S. W. Carothers. 1987. Ex-ternal threats: the dilemma of resource man-agement on the Colorado River in GrandCanyon National Park, USA. Environmen-tal Management 11: 99–107.

Johnston, R. H., R. E. Krause, F. W. Meyer, P.D. Ryder, C. H. Tibbals, and J. D. Hunn.1980. Estimated potentiometric surfacefor the Tertiary Limestone Aquifer system,southeastern United States, prior to de-velopment. U.S. Geological Survey OpenFile Report 80–406.

Johnston, R. H., H. G. Healy, and L. R. Hayes.1981. Potentiometric surface for the TertiaryLimestone aquifer system, southeasternUnited states, May 1980. U.S. GeologicalSurvey Open File Report 81–486.

The last relatively undisturbed ecosystems in theUnited States exist on public lands, and they arethreatened by mounting human pressures.


March, J. G., J. P. Benstead, C. M. Pringle, andF. N. Scatena. 1998. Migratory drift of lar-val freshwater shrimps in two tropicalstreams, Puerto Rico. Freshwater Biology 40:261–274.

NRC (National Research Council). 1999. Newstrategies for America’s watersheds. Wash-ington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Postel, S. L. 1999. Pillar of sand: Can the Irri-gation Miracle Last? New York: W.W.Norton.

Pringle, C. M. 1997. Exploring how disturbanceis transmitted upstream: going against the

flow. Journal of the North AmericanBenthological Society 16: 425–438.

Pringle, C. M. 2000. Threats to U.S. public landsfrom cumulative hydrologic alterations out-side of their boundaries. Ecological Appli-cations 10: 971–989.

Pringle, C. M. 2001 a. Managing riverine con-nectivity in complex landscapes to protect“remnant natural areas.” Plenary talk.Verhandlungen Internationale Verein. Limnol27 (3): 1149–1164.

Pringle, C. M. 2001 b. Hydrologic connectivityand the management of biological reserves:

Costa Rican Marobrachium carcinus. Photo by Catherine Pringle.

a global perspective. Ecological Applications11: 981–998.

Pringle, C. M., N. H. Hemphill, W. McDowell,A. Bednarek, and J. March. 1999. Linkingspecies and ecosystems: different biotic as-semblages cause interstream differences inorganic matter. Ecology 80: 1860–1872.

Pringle, C. M. and F. N. Scatena. 1999. Fresh-water resource development: case studiesfrom Puerto Rico and Costa Rica. In U. Hatchand M. E. Swisher, eds. Tropical ManagedEcosystems: The Mesoamerican Experience.New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 114–121.

Pringle, C. M. and F. J. Triska. 1999. Emergentbiological patterns in streams resulting fromsurface-subsurface water interactions atlandscape scales. In J. B. Jones, and P. J.Mulholland, eds. Surface-subsurface inter-actions in stream ecosystems. New York:Academic Press, pp. 167–193.

Reetz, G. 1998. Water quality in the West. Re-port to the Western Water Policy ReviewAdvisory Commission. Denver, Colo.: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency.

U. S. Department of Commerce. 1997. Demo-graphic state of the nation: 1997. SpecialStudies Series. Washington, D. C.: Bureauof the Census, pp 23–193.

Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford. 1989. The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. Jour-nal of the North American BenthologicalSociety 8: 2–8.

Winter, T. C., J. W. Harvey, O. Lehn Franke,and W. M. Alley. 1998. Groundwater andsurface water: a single resource. Geologi-cal Survey Circular (USA) 1139.

mocracy between various social groupsand nature. The antirestoration argu-ments, largely articulated by Eric Katz,argue that restoration reflects humanhubris and vanity: “There are no limitsto our power and ambition to develop,degrade, restore, and manage the natu-ral world. Nature itself—a nature un-modified by human intention,knowledge, technology and power—will lose its value. … We will create forourselves a totally artificial world, aworld in which the presence of humanintentionality is inescapable” (p. 47).

This book came from the 1996 res-toration controversy that erupted in

Chicago, and the resulting six sessions(26 papers) presented at the Interna-tional Symposium on Society and Re-source Management in 1998. Whileedited books based on conference pre-sentations often lack focus and con-tain repetitive passages, the editorshave done an excellent job in address-ing these potential dangers.

Restoring Nature provides athought-provoking, challenging,and multidisciplinary analysis of afascinating issue facing contempo-rary wilderness and resource man-agers. The book succeeds because itforces the reader to confront the

many difficult questions regardingecological restoration posed by writ-ers representing different disciplin-ary and ideological perspectives.Managers of areas from wildernessto urban parks will be increasinglybrought into the restoration fray(e.g., the prescribed burning issue),and they would be well advised toconsider the wealth of ideas, casestudies, practical management tech-niques, and perspectives offered inthis book.

Reviewed by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW bookreview editor. E-mail: [email protected].

From BOOK REVIEWS on page 48


The Maricopa Complex Wilderness includes 172,000acres of lower Sonoran desert, located about 20 to30 miles southwest of Phoenix, Arizona. Four wil-

dernesses were designated by the Arizona Desert Wilder-ness Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-628)—Sierra Estrella, NorthMaricopa Mountains, South Maricopa Mountains, and TableTop—and are referred to as the Maricopa Complex Wil-derness. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managesthe Maricopa Complex Wilderness and surrounding lands.

The Maricopa Mountains (1,000 to 3,000 feet elevations)include ridgelines and isolated peaks separated by gulliesand wide washes, and include a representation of manySonoran Desert plant species such as saguaro, cholla, andocotillo. Desert wildlife includes mule deer, javelina, desertbighorn sheep, desert tortoise, coyote, and many varietiesof lizards and birds.

The wilderness appears natural, with little or no evi-dence of human disturbance besides old roads and vehicletracks, cattle grazing fences and water devices. The areaprovides outstanding opportunities for solitude and natu-ralness since it is generally inaccessible due to rugged ter-rain and rough access roads. Annual visitation by recreationusers is estimated as fewer than 2,000 visitor days, mainlyday-hiking, dispersed across the open terrain or over a fewmarked trails and along old roads, and with some use byvisitors on horseback. The demand for recreation access tothese wildernesses is expected to increase over the nextdecade due to its close proximity to Phoenix and a popula-tion of more than 2 million people (USDI Bureau of LandManagement 1995).

Restoring Old Roads andMaintaining Water for Wildlifein the BLM Maricopa Complex

Wilderness in Arizona

BY RICH HANSON and JIM MAHONEY

STEWARDSHIP

A management plan for the Maricopa Complex Wilder-ness was completed by the BLM in 1995 for implementationover a 10-year period. The plan addressed five categories ofissues: (1) protecting and enhancing the natural character ofwilderness, (2) providing opportunities for solitude and primi-tive recreation, (3) managing other land uses and activitiesprovided for by The Wilderness Act, (4) managing wildlife,and (5) managing vegetation. Two of the more notable man-agement problems and actions to address them are describedhere: removing evidence of old roads and former vehicle ac-cess, and maintaining wildlife water development structuresbuilt prior to wilderness designation.

Article authors Rich Hanson and Jim Mahoney mark a trail with a rock cairn to concentratetravel in this fragile desert landscape. Photo by Marilyn Riley.


Old RoadsIn 1995 there were approximately 95miles of old roads and vehicle routesin these four wilderness areas, and dueto the sparse vegetation and open ter-rain, illegal vehicle access created fur-ther tracks. This was a major concernsince old roads and vehicle tracks cantake 50 to 100 years or more to healnaturally in the arid, southwest desert.Further, the boundary designationsprovided for some primitive dirt roadsto continue to exist for some distanceinto the wilderness area (i.e., “cherrystems”). Thus, an important manage-ment approach was to install bound-ary markers and vehicle barriers alongthe cherry stems, and to reduce evi-dence of the 95 miles of old roads andvehicle routes by rehabilitating 16miles of them to trails, restoring 19miles to natural conditions, and allow-ing 60 miles to rehabilitate naturally.By 2000, notable progress had beenmade. For example, several miles ofold roads were rehabilitated in theNorth Maricopa Wilderness by remov-ing the middle and edge berms, loos-ening and leveling the soil, and thenreplanting the moved vegetation tonarrow the pathway. Rocks and deadvegetation were likewise “trans-planted” to look like the surroundingarea (see photos).

Water Facilities forWildlifeAnother key management issue waswildlife water development struc-tures—eight rainwater catchments,“guzzlers” and one well, all used bywildlife such as mule deer and desertbighorn sheep. These wildlife waterdevelopment structures were con-sidered necessary in the wildernessto maintain the herd of 200 to 300desert bighorn sheep whose historicmigration routes to water had been

… old roads and vehicle tracks can take 50 to 100years or more to heal naturally in the arid, southwestdesert.

A stand of saguaro cactus and cholla in the lower Sonoran Desert of the Maricopa Mountains. Photo by Chad Dawson.

Jim Mahoney inspects a vandalized North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness sign. Photo by Marilyn Riley.


cut off by highways and agriculturalor residential developments on ad-jacent lands. For these reasons thewildlife water development struc-tures were allowed to stay and bemaintained and, at times, refilled bywater trucks driving into the wilder-ness areas or by helicopter. But toreduce the need for continuedmechanized intrusions by water-supply vehicles, the reconstructionof six wildlife catchments was pro-posed to make them self-supplyingfrom natural water sources.

For example, in the NorthMaricopa Wilderness, the 1995 planauthorized construction to make anexisting water facility self-sustaining.This guzzler, built in 1958 with a2,500-gallon tank and a concretecatchment pad, had to be refilled pe-riodically by water truck in the dryseason, even when fenced to excludelivestock permitted to graze seasonallyin the area. In 1996, using mechani-cal equipment as allowed under theArizona Desert Wilderness Act of1990, a permanent wildlife water sys-tem was constructed by the BLM withthree additional 3,150-gallon under-ground tanks, all connected to theexisting tank and catchment apronthrough a gravity feed system (seephotos).

While such construction activi-ties in wilderness are controversial,the intrusion has eliminated theneed for water trucks to enter thewilderness to refill the original smalltank, and it now provides an annu-ally sustainable supply of water fordesert bighorn sheep and otherwildlife. To complete the project thetruck road on which water used tobe hauled to the guzzler is beingrehabilitated to encourage its resto-ration to natural conditions.

Rehabilitating old roads originally constructed for grazing and mining into recreation trails is especially difficult in arid desertlandscapes. Photo by Chad Dawson.

Rich Hanson points to wildlife water development structures built in 1958 in what is now the North Maricopa MountainWilderness. Photo by Chad Dawson.

RICH HANSON is a recreation planner inthe Phoenix Field Office, BLM, Phoenix,Arizona, USA.

JIM MAHONEY, formerly with the PhoenixField Office, is now on the staff of the BLMSan Pedro Project Office, Sierra Vista,Arizona, USA.

REFERENCESU.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. 1995. Maricopa ComplexWilderness Management Plan, Environmen-tal Assessment and Decision Record. Ari-zona State Office, Phoenix District Office.


The word wilderness traditionally conjures up imagesof wild, uninhabited, and untamed land. But thispicture can also be painted for the vast wilderness

of the world’s oceans. Beneath our seas lies a fantastic worldteeming with diverse ecosystems and thousands of species.Comprising about 70% of the Earth’s surface, these abun-dant ocean resources have long been taken for granted. Forcenturies, the oceans were considered a vast and resilientrealm, impenetrable to damage or destruction. Today theyshow unmistakable signs of abuse and neglect. Changesmust occur to protect the oceans and their ecosystems.

Building on a nearly 30-year record of landmark achieve-ments in protecting oceans and marine wildlife, The OceanConservancy (TOC) has developed the Ocean WildernessChallenge. The challenge aims to achieve wilderness pro-tection for 5% of U.S. waters and educate the public aboutthe vital role the ocean plays in all of our lives. As a nation,we need to value our oceans just as much as we value ourland. We must view the oceans in a new way—not as an

infinite and inexhaustible resource, but as a national andglobal treasure that is at risk.

The United States’ ocean territory encompasses morethan 4 million square miles of coastal waters and open seas.However, less than one-tenth of 1% of that entire area isprotected from “extractive uses” such as fishing, oil drill-ing, dredging, or sea-floor mining.

Why Ocean Wilderness?The value of wilderness was familiar to most Americansdecades before the 1964 Wilderness Act designated areasto be set aside by the federal government. As defined inthis historic legislation, wilderness areas are places “wherethe earth and its community of life are untrammeled byman.” The Wilderness Act, however, was limited largely topreserving valuable land areas. It was only very recentlythat preserving ocean wilderness began to take hold as anequally desirable goal.

Calls for increased wilderness protection for the oceanshave coincided with a greater understanding of the wildworld that exists just under the waves. More than 95% ofour oceans are unexplored. But from the 5% that has beenexplored, we know oceans are home to diverse and com-plex ecosystems that range from calm seagrass beds to ac-tive underwater volcanoes, from biologically rich coral reefsto 600-degree-Fahrenheit hydrothermal vents—each a deli-cate, balanced ecosystem relying on all of its parts to sur-vive and adapt to the ever-changing conditions of life.

In the same way that we are coming to appreciate the wild-ness of the oceans, we also are seeing that the oceans are notimmune to the “imprint of man’s work.” From water pollu-tion to oil drilling, from commercial fishing to seaborne ship-ping, from vessel groundings to invasive species, humanactivities have fundamentally altered the nature of our oceans.

Protecting areas of the ocean as wilderness can help turnback the clock by restoring fish and wildlife populations,

STEWARDSHIP

The Ocean WildernessChallenge

BY ROGER RUFE

A Humpback Whale along the Alaskan coast. Photo by Doc White/Innerspace Visions.


preserving precious marine ecosys-tems such as coral reefs, and helpingto maintain the oceans’ biodiversity—all of which can provide significanteconomic benefits. Healthy, function-ing ocean ecosystems, for example,can help bring back some of the fishspecies that have been devastated byoverfishing. In addition, whale-watch-ing tours, dive shops, and beach com-munities will benefit if our oceans arehealthy and unpolluted.

Even more important than the eco-nomic benefits are the less quantifi-able benefits that come with settingaside a piece of the Earth for protec-tion from harmful human activities.Protecting North America’s ocean wil-derness is tantamount to protectingsomething inside ourselves—thatmemory of being at the beach as achild and looking out at the vast blue-green expanse and imagining anotherworld. It is about knowing in ourhearts that there are still places wherewild creatures can live and flourish.We must shift our focus from theoceans as fish warehouses anddumpsites and focus on them as natu-ral ocean communities to be cherishedand protected.

From Land to Sea:Broadening theConservation EthicThe National Wilderness PreservationSystem now includes 643 wildernessescovering nearly 106 million acres ofland—the equivalent of nearly 5% ofall of the land in the United States. Itis now time to apply that same goal toour oceans.

The United States already has es-tablished 13 National Marine Sanctu-aries in its ocean territories, and a 14this in the process of being establishedin the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.These sanctuaries were established to

conserve, protect, andenhance their biodiver-sity, ecological integrity,and cultural legacy.Sanctuary designationdoes not automaticallyconvey total protection,however. For example,commercial fishing isallowed in most areas ofmost U.S. marine sanc-tuaries. Adding to theproblem, many sanctu-aries are operating un-der management plansthat are more than 20years old and that don’tcome close to providingan adequate level ofprotection for the fullrange of marine speciesand habitats.

The OceanWildernessChallengeTOC has identified fivenational sites and oneinternational site that it views as thebeginning of a strategy to preserveocean wilderness in North Americanwaters and beyond. The sites includeGlacier Bay and Prince William Soundin Alaska, the Northwestern Hawai-ian Islands, the Channel Islands off thesouthern California coast, Florida’sDry Tortugas, and the San Andrés Ar-chipelago off the coasts of Nicaraugaand Honduras. While one could ar-gue that the entire ocean has value aswilderness, these six sites are special;they contribute immensely to theplanet’s overall health and, at the same

time, are increasingly vulnerable todamage and degradation.

Prince William Sound(Alaska)A refuge from the storm, Gulf of Alaska,Prince William Sound provides incred-ibly diverse land and seascape sheltersand sustains a wide array of marine andterrestrial wildlife, including many rareand endangered species, as well as mil-lions of Pacific salmon. Since the March1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, oil still re-mains on the beaches and only two ofthe 23 wildlife species affected by the

Kelp forest in the Channel Islands, National Marine Sanctuary, California. Photo byDoug Perrine/Innerspace Visions.

As a nation, we need to value our oceans just asmuch as we value our land.


spill have recovered. Making mattersworse, the global attention that accom-panied the spill has caused Prince Wil-liam Sound to become an internationaltourist attraction, which is putting evengreater pressure on habitats and species.

Channel Islands (California)The Channel Islands, five in a chain ofeight islands near Los Angeles, residein one of only two places on Earth wheretwo ocean currents—the warm Califor-nian water mass originating near theequator, and the cold Alaskan watermass—collide. The result is a one-of-a-kind biological hotspot renowned forits diversity and abundance of fish,marine mammals, and other ocean life,including the largest congregations ofthe blue whale—the biggest animal onEarth. The Channel Islands National

Marine Sanctuary is under ever-presentdanger from oil and gas development,overfishing, land-based pollution, andrecreational overuse. Currently, sanctu-ary managers are in the midst of a pro-cess in the Channel Islands to decidewhich places within the sanctuaryshould be closed to all fishing.

Glacier Bay (Alaska)Located northwest of Juneau, GlacierBay is a designated national park andpreserve encompassing more than 3million acres of spectacular lands andwaters. More than one-fifth of the parkis purely marine and home to 200 spe-cies of fish, including all five species ofPacific salmon. In addition, Glacier Bayis an important foraging ground for sev-eral marine mammal species, includingthe Steller’s sea lion and endangered

humpback whale. Some park watershave been designated as wilderness, butno areas are closed to all fishing and theecosystem is threatened by increasedtourism development.

Northwestern HawaiianIslands (Hawaii)The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands,approximately 120 nautical miles westof the main Hawaiian Islands andstretching northwest for more than1,200 nautical miles, are home to theHawaiian monk seal, the most endan-gered marine mammal found exclu-sively in U.S. waters. Today, only about1,300 Hawaiian monk seals remain.One reason the seals are under threat isbecause the islands and their reefs traptons of derelict fishing gear and otherwaterborne debris coming in on thecurrents, much of it originating thou-sands of miles away. Since 1982 observ-ers have reported 155 monk sealentanglements. And, because reefs areessential habitat for fish, sea turtles,sharks, and other ocean life, the debristhreatens a wide array of species, as wellas the coral reefs themselves. In Decem-ber 2000, a presidential executive or-der created the Northwestern HawaiianIslands Coral Reef Reserve, which pro-vides a framework for permanent no-take protections.

Dry Tortugas (Florida)The Dry Tortugas are a historic andbeautifully remote cluster of seven is-lands 70 miles west of Key West and170 miles from mainland Florida. Theislands themselves have been protectedas a national park since 1992.TheTortugas are known for their clear, cleanwaters, their coral reefs, and their fish,sharks, lobsters, and other ocean crea-tures. Until recently, the area’s remote-ness and a prohibition on commercialfishing inside Dry Tortugas NationalPark provided some protection for the

We must shift our focus from the oceans as fishwarehouses and dumpsites and focus on them asnatural ocean communities to be cherished andprotected.

Hawaiian monk seal. Photo by David B. Fleetham/Innerspace Visions.


area. However, fishing pressure fromcommercial vessels outside the nationalpark and recreational users throughoutthe area has increased dramatically andis causing damage to the Dry Tortugasunderwater ecosystem. A formal pro-cess to establish two areas as no-takereserves is almost complete. Pendingaction to fully protect an adjacent areawithin the Dry Tortugas National Parkwould complete the process of preserv-ing this truly world-class ocean wilder-ness covering almost 200 squarenautical miles. The specific boundariesfor the area, known as the Tortugas Eco-logical Reserve, were recommended bya diverse working group of fishers,divers, and conservationists.

San Andrés Archipelago(Colombia)Colombia’s San Andrés Archipelago,located in the Caribbean Sea near thecoasts of Honduras and Nicaragua in-cludes several species of coral and over270 species of fish. The archipelago’srich biological diversity is threatenedby overfishing, improper waste dis-posal, and a fast-growing humanpopulation. The Ocean CORALINA isthe government agency responsible forthe archipelago’s sustainable develop-ment and developing a system of fourMarine Protected Areas, each of whichincludes ocean wilderness areas.

There are ten components to TOC’sOcean Wilderness Challenge:

1. Define and accomplish oceanwilderness designation for 5% ofocean areas from the shoreline tothe 200-mile limit of the U.S. Ex-clusive Economic Zone.

2. Collaborate internationally to pro-tect ocean wilderness beyond theU.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.

3. Establish ecosystem-based man-agement as the new paradigm forocean management.

4. Build an effective Marine Pro-tected Area network, includingsubstantial no-take reserves thatunderpin wilderness every-where.

5. Use ocean wilderness to lead anew way of thinking about andseeing our oceans through apositive conservation lens, ratherthan an extractive one.

6. Work at the local level to iden-tify and secure specific ocean wil-derness sites in each region of thecountry and internationally.

7. Help state governments getocean wilderness designated instate ocean waters.

8. Conduct a nationwide dialogueon ocean wilderness in 2001 inkey regions leading to a NationalOcean Wilderness Summit in2002.

9. Obtain 1 million signatures fromthe public in support of a newocean ethic and ocean wilderness.

10. Work with national and stateeducation organizations to in-clude marine science in nationalscience education standards.

In the months and years ahead, TOCwill be working to achieve wildernessdesignation for each of the six flagshipsites. Equally important, in order toachieve the goal of seeing 5% of U.S.oceans protected as wilderness, TOCwill be launching a broader effort tomake ocean wilderness a mainstreamissue for all Americans whether theylive in Nebraska or Florida. BabaDioum, a Senegalese conservationist,notes that “In the end, we will con-serve only what we love, we will loveonly what we understand, and we willunderstand only what we are taught.”

TOC wants Americans to embracethe need to protect special ocean ar-eas with the same enthusiasm theyshow for Yellowstone, Yosemite, andMount Rainier. TOC wants people tolook out on the ocean with a new ap-preciation for what’s under the waterand to realize that we are all respon-sible for protecting our oceans—weare their only hope.

ROGER RUFE is president of The OceanConservancy. E-mail:[email protected].

Smallmouth grunts schooling under elkhorn coral along the Florida coast. Photo by Doug Perrine/Innerspace Visions.


SCIENCE and RESEARCH

P E R S P E C T I V E S F R O M T H EA L D O L E O P O L D W I L D E R N E S S R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

What are the most important arctic and subarc-tic wilderness research topics for the next fiveyears? In an effort to answer this question, a

group of 80 scientists, state and federal managers, membersof indigenous northern cultures, nongovernmental organiza-tion representatives, students, and wilderness users gatheredfrom May 15 through 17, 2001, at the University of Alaska inAnchorage (UAA) to share information and plan for futurecollaboration on northern wilderness research issues. Thismeeting was co-chaired by Lilian Alessa of UAA and AlanWatson of the Leopold Institute, with sponsorship from theNational Science Foundation (Office of Polar Programs), In-ternational Programs of the Forest Service, the Alaska Officeof the US Fish & Wildlife Service, and the University ofMontana’s Wilderness Institute.

For three productive days, participants from Iceland,Canada, Norway, Finland, Russia, Denmark, and the UnitedStates defined the most serious threats and immediate oppor-tunities to protect the values associated with wild places inthe circumpolar North. They heard about the latest trends intourism, efforts and needs to protect traditional relationshipswith nature, and increasing values associated with protectionof unique arctic ecosystems. Participants then provided inputon high priority information needs and the needs for advance-ment in research methods to address unique issues in theArctic. Discussions were initiated on the priorities for educa-tion and how to accomplish them, as well as how to developa forum, or working group, to continue the interdisciplinaryand international dialogue.

Among the highest priority research topics identified wasthe need for better understanding of how to create awarenessand appreciation of the divergent range of relationships peoplehave with circumpolar North wilderness. Some of the rela-tionships discussed include the perspectives of native peopleand their traditional relationships with wild places, the unin-formed visitor, the nonvisiting public, the economic valuesassociated with protection as wilderness, industrial develop-

ment values, personal growth opportunities, and those rep-resented by legislation that establishes wilderness protectionor protects wildness (e.g., U.S. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act). Thegreatest need for research on threats to wilderness in the cir-cumpolar North centers on energy resource development im-pacts and tourism promotion.

Abstracts from the presentations are posted atwww.forestry.umt.edu/kiosk/seminars/circumpolar andsubmitted papers are being compiled into a book for pub-lication in the near future. Important commitments weremade by many participants to continue to work as a coor-dinated group to further share information and resources,coordinate research and advances in science methods, andwork toward education of all interests about the many andsometimes conflicting values associated with the protec-tion of wild places as wilderness. To assure the effective-ness of these future collaborative efforts in Alaska, it wasgenerally agreed that industrial and commercial interestsneed to join current participants in a continuing dialoguefocused on understanding the values and threats associ-ated with wilderness protection.

For more information contact LILIAN ALESSA, e-mail:[email protected], or ALAN WATSON, e-mail: [email protected].

A Focus on Circumpolar NorthWilderness Values

BY ALAN E. WATSON


The Todas are the ancient inhabitants of the upperNilgiri plateau in southern India. They refer to themselves simply as Awl. With their striking counte-

nance, curious barrel-vaulted temples and houses, uniquedairy temple rituals, and ferocious looking buffaloes, theyhave fascinated the world ever since these hills were openedup to “civilization” 180 years ago.

The Toda culture has a central commitment to both thesacred buffalo and its milk, as well as to wildland plantsand values. They have six grades of dairy temples, each ofwhich has a corresponding herd of sacred buffaloes. Only aman who undergoes the elaborate ordination ceremoniesspecific to each grade can become the priest (in the pro-cess, using a variety of specific floral species consideredpurificatory), and then can milk the corresponding gradeof sacred buffaloes and ritually process it into butter, but-termilk, curd, and ghee (clarified butter). While doing so,a mind-boggling array of rituals are incorporated, and manyof these are specific to each grade of temple.

When outsiders first arrived in the upper Nilgiris, it wasone great Toda wilderness. Now, vast areas have been takenover by civilization—tea gardens, townships, exotic treeplantations, and hydel reservoirs. Fortunately, the British,perhaps understanding their close link with nature, did notrelocate the Todas to new areas. Sadly, modern governmentseems not to care: abandoned Ti dairy sites—the most sa-cred grade of temples—are planted with exotic trees; thesacred hill of the creator goddess Teikirshy is quarried forstone; and sacred migratory routes are blocked by reser-voirs and tree or tea plantations.

Despite inhabiting the Nilgiri hills since ancient times,how did the Todas manage to preserve, and indeed, man-age their wilderness so perfectly until modern incursionoverran much of their land? The answers are manifold—one, by staying within the cycle of nature and, therefore,keeping their own population to a minimum (even today,only 1,300 persons); two, since they had to use specified

plants for various lifetime ritu-als, the environment aroundtheir immediate homeland hadto be used sustainably; lastly,many elements of the wilder-ness in their vicinity were con-sidered sacred to the Todas.

The homeland of the Todasis a relatively small area, but ishome to around 90 endemicplants that are seen nowhereelse in the world. The Todashave a name for every impor-tant plant (several hundredspecies), such as the Shola tree,or other grasses, herbs andplants in the upper Nilgiri pla-teau. Many of these plants areused in various rituals, othershave medicinal values, and some play a role in differentaspects of daily life. For example, by looking at the plantsin flower and the species of pollinating bees, the medicinalproperties of the honey gathered in the vicinity can be as-certained. The Todas have traditionally used flowers to tellthe time of the day and the six o’clock flower (Oenotheratetraptera) that blooms at almost exactly that time everyevening, irrespective of weather conditions, is a well-knownexample.

From their ancient songs and stories, it is known that sev-eral of their essential items are modeled after nature. For ex-ample, their barrel-vaulted houses are inspired by the rainbow,and their unique cane milk-churning stick by a flower. Andindeed, the blooms of Ceropegia pusilla are identical to a min-iature churning stick! There is even a flower called arkilpoof(Gentiana pedicellata), which literally means “the worry flower.”This flower, when held by the stem, indicates one’s level ofanxiety—if you are worried, then it can close in a flash. Or if

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

The Toda PeopleWildland Plants and Values

BY TARUN CHHABRA

Article author Tarun Chhabra. Photo by MichelDanino.


there are less worries, it could take afew minutes to close. If you are one ofthose carefree persons, the flower wouldstay open!

The Todas are able to predict thevarious seasons of the year by lookingat certain plants in bloom. The south-west monsoon could be raging withall its fury, but the elder can predictthe coming end of the monsoonnonchalantly. This is just by observ-ing the mass flowering of the mawrsh(Michelia nilagirica) trees in the Sholathickets. Todas have a name for differ-ent stars that are visible during thenight sky and an identical name forthe weather pattern of that period andthe same name corresponding with aprominent herb in flower at the sametime. There are 28 such star-weather-herb combinations.

The Toda homeland is home to 40-odd species of balsams—perhaps thelargest concentration of these speciesfor its size. Of these, a dozen are to-tally endemic.

Every mandatory lifetime ritual fortraditional Todas requires the use ofseveral floral species that are specifiedand cannot be substituted under anycircumstance. For example, the preg-nancy and paternity rites entail the useof the following plants: Ochlandra sp.of bamboo reeds; Mappia foetidaleaves; rhododendron Arboreum ssp.nilagiricum sticks; Rubus ellipticusleaves; Myrsine capitellata branches;Eugenia arnottiana; Sophora glauca; andAndropogon schoenanthus grass. So if allthe species that are used in a Toda’slifetime rituals and cultural uses wereto be counted, we would have a total

of more than 100 plant species thatthey require in the vicinity.

The construction of temples alsorequires the use of only specific spe-cies, such as stone or specified treewood for the planks; Sideroxylon sp.tree poles; rattan cane—Calamuspseudotenuis; Arundinaria wightianabamboo; Ochlandra sp. bamboo reeds;specified wood for the door and thecarved kweghaishveilz like a totem infront; a rare thin bamboo reed calledtheff (only recently identified asPseudoxytenanthera monadelpha[Thwaites] Soderstrom and Ellis fromsamples sent by us to a bamboo ex-pert, Dr. Muktesh Kumar); and thethatch grass now provisionally identi-fied as Dichanthium polyptychum(Steud.) camus var. deccanense Bor. Thisthatch grass called avful by the Todaswas once seen in swamps all over theirhomeland. Now it is restricted to a fewdistant swamps and only seen inpatches. The possible reasons could bethe planting of exotic trees such aseucalyptus and acacia, the prohibitionof Toda grassland firing rituals by theforest department, and overgrazing insome areas. The WILD Foundation(USA) has initiated the support of aproject to study, save, and perhapslater, propagate this valuable species.It is to be remembered that the Todasare not allowed to substitute the thatchon their temples with other species(except in a couple of hamlets in theextreme east) and, therefore, if thisgrass were to become locally extinct,then the unique cultural heritage ofthe Todas would collapse.

Most elements of the wildernessthat surrounds the Toda homeland areconsidered sacred. Therefore, a typi-cal prayer chanted by the priest hasspecific (to each temple) chant namescalled kwarshm for various sacrednatural landmarks that include thepeaks, slopes, valleys, ridges, pools,

A Toda priest at a newly rethatched temple. Photo by Tarun Chhabra.

Every mandatory lifetime ritual for traditional Todasrequires the use of several floral species that arespecified and cannot be substituted under anycircumstance.


streams, rivers, caves, rocks, Sholathickets, trees, swamps, meadows, andother features of the area. If all theprayers were to be studied, then wewould have a corpus of several hun-dred such sacred sites.

During the earliest times, the godslived among the Todas. Each of theirlife stories is well known to manyTodas, and natural landmarks associ-ated with their exploits still exist.These gods and goddesses, after theirtime, went on to occupy various hillsummits where they are still believedto reside. These are called theo thit, or“deity peaks,” of which there are morethan thirty. Even today, a Toda elderwould not commit the sacrilege ofpointing out the location of a deitypeak with his finger—he would, in alllikelihood, point at the neighboringhill and say, “The peak next to that.”

After the deity peaks, there are alsovery sacred hills that are usually likedeity peaks to one or two clans. Thenthere are hills of sanctity to a coupleof clans. Lastly, are the locally sacredhills that are mentioned in the prayersof a few temples in that vicinity. TheToda sacred hills are the core of theToda wilderness—a wilderness undergreat threat. If it is to survive or re-vive, then the following need to beimplemented forthwith:

• Declare the Toda deity hills asWorld Heritage Sites and then pro-tect them accordingly.

• Declare much of the wildernessencompassing the diety peaks asan area of aboriginal sanctity.

• Remove exotic tree plantationsfrom these sacred areas and sacredmigratory routes.

For the sake of the Toda peopleand world cultural and ecologicaldiversity, we must work to save theToda wilderness.

A Toda priest with a sacred buffalo. Photo by Tarun Chhabra.

A Toda couple. Photo by Tarun Chhabra.

TARUN CHHABRA is a practicing dentistwho helped found the Toda NalavaazhvuSangam, an organization that strives tokeep Toda culture intact. Since itsinception, several unoccupied dairytemples and migratory hamlets havebeen restored. Of late, a project torevive traditional housing has resulted in

the construction of almost 30 newstructures. In his study of Toda ethno-botany, Chhabra has photographedmore than 200 wild Nilgiri flowers. Heis an authority on the wild balsams ofthe Nilgiris, and the white rhododen-dron that he discovered is named afterhim by the Royal Horticultural Society.


IntroductionThis article follows the synopsis of mountain wildernessareas and a historical account of wilderness managementin South Africa (SA) in IJW (vol 7, no. 2, Bainbridge 2001a).It attempts to provide an update and short overview of thestatus of the wilderness areas of SA as a component of thenational protected area (PA) system, in the context of thenew South Africa, following the democratic elections in1994. It also provides some insights into the present statusof the wilderness system and considers some of its valuesand future prospects for improved legal protection.

SA has played a leading role in the establishment andmanagement of protected areas in Africa for more than acentury, since proclamation of the first reserves on the con-tinent in 1895 (Pringle 1982). The national system com-prises more than 400 individual areas that cover about 6%of the land surface and about 5% of marine and coastalenvironments. This includes 11 legally designated wilder-ness areas and a number of wilderness zones on other pro-tected area categories. These, however, have only beenestablished in the past 50 years. The total extent of the des-ignated wilderness areas is small in comparison with thatof all other PAs, forming less than 3% of the PA systemnumerically and only 0.5% of the total extent (Departmentof Environment Affairs & Tourism [DEAT] 2000; Bainbridge2001b).

Most of the PA system was designated prior to the newpolitical dispensation brought about in 1994. Since the elec-tion in that year, which brought to power the democraticgovernment led by Dr. Nelson Mandela, some importantadvances have been made in nature conservation in thiscountry. In the first instance, the national PA system has

been extended by some380,000 ha (938,300 acres),and several new marine pro-tected areas have been de-clared. Also, an officialannouncement has beenmade to further increase theextent of the terrestrial systemup from 6 to 8% (DEAT2000). In the second instance,a Board of Investigationheaded by Mr. JusticeKumleben was constituted toinvestigate and make recommendations on the institutionalarrangements for nature conservation in SA. These devel-opments are likely to bring significant benefits to the coun-try and its citizens. They include the development of aconservation model and institutional arrangements aimedat rationalizing the PA system, in order to optimisebiodiversity conservation and economic development. ThePA system should also have significant benefits for wilder-ness conservation.

The Key Role of the PA System inProtection of the National BiodiversityResourcesSA is a country rich in biodiversity resources, on which thelivelihoods of many of its people depend. It is recognizedas one of the three most biologically diverse countries world-wide, characterized by seven biomes and nearly 70 distinctvegetation types. These have high levels of species-richness

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

An Update on WildernessConservation in the New

South Africa

BY WILLIAM R. BAINBRIDGE

Article author William R. Bainbridge


and high levels of endemism. SA is asignatory to the Biodiversity Conven-tion, and in fulfilment of its obliga-tions and responsibilities in terms ofthis, has published a nationalbiodiversity conservation strategy, theWhite Paper on Conservation and Sus-tainable Use of South Africa’s BiologicalDiversity (1997). This states that theseresources are at risk. Both plant andanimal species are overutilized by bothcommercial and subsistence use.There is growing awareness of theneed for decisive action to be takenfor the protection of both the na-tional terrestrial and marine re-sources. The national PA systemforms a key role in the overall na-tional strategy to achieve this.Bainbridge (2001b) indicates as-pects of the significant contributionmade by the wildernesses towardthese aims.

Legal Protection of theProtected Area SystemThe national PA system was estab-lished in a somewhat haphazard anduncoordinated manner, largely accord-ing to historical circumstance. Therange of protected area categories hasbeen proclaimed in legislation at bothnational and provincial levels, withconsiderable variation in the form oflegal protection afforded. The WhitePaper outlines the situation as follows:

The fragmented, polarised, andinefficient administrative andlegislative structures created byapartheid resulted in no fewerthan seventeen governmentdepartments having primaryresponsibility for natureconservation prior to the 1994election. This situation did notimprove with the establishmentof new provinces and govern-ment structure. Divided responsi-bilities, together with aduplication of effort, a profusion

of laws, and, most importantly,a lack of coordination, havebeen major factors hamperingthe effective conservation ofbiodiversity. Aggravating thishas been a lack of integrationof biodiversity considerationsinto national decision-making,weak political will with regardto environmental conservation,and the insufficient anddeclining allocation of resourcesto conservation. Over andagain, the need to linkbiodiversity conservation to theneeds of South Africa’s peoplehas been highlighted as a majorconcern, as well as the impor-tance of integrating conserva-tion into an overall strategy forconserving and using naturalresources sustainably.

As an example of the somewhat hap-hazard approach to protection of thenational PA system, there are some 19national parks proclaimed under theprovisions of The National Parks Actof 1976. This provides secure protec-tion against incursion or nonconform-ing land uses, such as mining. In

contrast, the statutes by which provin-cial PA s are protected do not enjoy thesame levels of protection, especiallyagainst mining. Yet, while the NationalParks Act provides protection to someof the most important PAs in the coun-try (such as the Kruger National Park),

Sani Pass, Ukahlamba-Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site, providing one of the few roads linking KwaZulu-NatalProvince, South Africa (foreground) and Lesotho (background in snow). The pass is flanked on the south of the MzimkuluWilderness Area, and on the north by the Mkhomazi Wilderness Area. Photo by William R. Bainbridge.

Woollynecked stork, southern portion of the lake wilderness,Great St. Lucia Wetland Park World Heritage Site. Photo byWilliam R. Bainbridge.


in terms of the biodiversity and otherresources they conserve, some nationalparks must be considered significantlyless important than certain of the pro-vincial PA s (Kumleben et al. 1998).

The Forest Act is part of nationallegislation, and until recently, was theonly statute that made provision for

the designation of wilderness areas. Italso provided a higher degree of legalentrenchment than that enjoyed byprovincial legislation (except againstmining). However, it is only applicableto state forest land, and could not beemployed for the designation of wil-derness areas on other land. Recently,

the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conserva-tion Management Act of 1997 has beenamended to enable the declaration ofwilderness areas, but this is only appli-cable to PAs in that province.

Possible New Legal Statusfor Wilderness AreasThe report of the Kumleben Board ofEnquiry has presented important rec-ommendations to government to re-dress a number of these problems.New legislation is currently beingdrafted to implement the nationalstrategy for conservation ofbiodiversity resources defined in theWhite Paper. Of particular significancefor wilderness areas and importantprovincial reserves, the board recom-mended the following:

There should be a scientificappraisal of all existing PAs, todetermine those that qualify forsuch status, and at the sametime, to determine the categoryin which an approved PA shouldbe included. The protectedareas thus determined should begiven formal national and legalrecognition, and be known asNationally Proclaimed Pro-tected Areas (NPPAs).

All NPPAs that have beendetermined as Category I or IIprotected areas are to have thestatus of “National Parks”, andare to be entitled to suchappellation, regardless of theirmanagement authority.

It is envisaged that most, if not all,existing wilderness areas, listed asCategory I(b) by the InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources (IUCN)international list of protected areacategories (IUCN 1994), and possi-bly some candidate areas will qualifyfor NPPA status (Bainbridge 2001b).

Hippopotamus in the lake wilderness, Lake St. Lucia Wetland Park World Heritage Site. The lake holds the largest populationof this species in South Africa. Photo by William R. Bainbridge.

Male Kalahari lion, Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, shared between South Africa and Botswana. A top predator of thecandidate wildernesses in one of the premier protected areas of the two countries. Photo by William R. Bainbridge.


This is potentially of utmost impor-tance for entrenchment of the na-tional wilderness system.

Other ChallengesPossibly the most important challengeto wilderness enthusiasts is to gener-ate public awareness, support, andresources for wilderness conservationin the new SA. It is unfortunately areality in this country that:

• The wilderness concept is hardly,or not at all, understood or appre-ciated by the ordinary SA or vil-lager or person in the street;

• Obtaining the support of thepeople, or more significantly, thatof our leaders for the concept, isat least as important (possiblymore important) than legal protec-tion for the long-term survival ofwilderness conservation in thiscountry; and

• The alarming and rapid decline innational and provincial govern-ment budgets for nature conserva-tion activities poses significantchallenges, not the least of whichis possible loss of “institutionalmemory” and skills at staff level.

Responsibility for the necessary ac-tion to remedy this situation lies withboth the official nature conservationagencies, as well as with wilderness-oriented nongovernmental organiza-tion (NGO) movements. It is possiblethat neither are currently sufficientlyactive to meet the very large challengethat lies ahead. Much of the wilder-ness initiatives that have been put inplace have their origins in the NGOmovements. This is to some extent un-derstandable in that wilderness con-servation does not feature prominentlyon the national priority list, and theofficial agencies have experienced

enormous pressures since the intro-duction of democratic government. Tothose of us who are committed to thecause, there is no question in ourminds that it is in the public interestthat not only should the present wil-derness system be retained in its en-tirety but, if possible, should beexpanded to include the most impor-tant candidate areas. There is reasonto believe that a significant number oftraditional leaders and politicians aresupportive of this, but far greater ef-fort is needed to nurture this supportand to meaningfully expand the sup-port base.

It is also important that the wilder-ness concept be interpreted in localidiom (wilderness in an African con-text) in order that Africans themselves

may understand and appreciate itsvalues in ethnic and cultural terms.

Finally, the role of the NGO move-ment within SA and internationallycannot be overemphasized. As publicagency budgets decline, greater re-sponse from other sectors is required,and financial assistance for publicawareness, training, and education ofcurrent and future wilderness leadersis imperative. Important initiatives arecurrently underway, such as the part-nership that has been developed be-tween the University of Montana ofthe United States of America and theUniversity of Natal of South Africa ondevelopment of the Protected AreaManagement Programme, which willinvolve postgraduate studies, research,and exchange programes. A component

Aerial view of the portal to the candidate marine and lake wildernesses in the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park World HeritageSite, new Cape Vidal. Photo by William R. Bainbridge.

[South Africa] is recognized as one of the threemost biologically diverse countries worldwide,characterized by seven biomes and nearly 70

distinct vegetation types.


of this is professional training in wil-derness conservation undertaken bythe University of Natal, the WildernessAction Group, and the United StatesForest Service. The WILD Foundationis collaborating with the WildernessFoundation and others to fund andimplement the 7th World WildernessCongress in South Africa. The benefitof these partnerships will be felt notonly in the status and sustainability ofwilderness in SA but will spreadthroughout Africa. This is evident inthe Wilderness Management Trainingcourse conducted for the first timeprior to the 7th World WildernessCongress, in which 10 African nationswill participate (also for the first time)with participants from other countries.

ConclusionThe national wilderness system ofSA is a priceless natural heritage ofwhich its citizens, the government,and official nature conservationagencies may be justly proud. Al-though relatively restricted in rela-tion to the extent of the remainderof the national PA system, the wil-derness areas conserve vitally impor-tant watersheds, biodiversityresources of both national and in-ternational importance, and sacredspace. They are the only areas ofpublic land in which true wildernessexperience is available, on foot andwithout the filtering effect of me-chanical transport. The system hasalready acquired an international

reputation because it includes thefirst wildernesses on the Africancontinent to be afforded formal pro-tection, but also because of the highstandards to which they have beenmanaged and the unique resourcesthey protect, some of which are ofoutstanding universal value.

Considerable attention will benecessary in the future from bothofficial agencies and NGOs to ensurethat the system receives the most se-cure and effective legal protection inthe new dispensation under consid-eration for the national PA system,and that the high standards of man-agement afforded the system in thepast are maintained.

WILLIAM R. BAINBRIDGE is a naturalresources consultant in South Africa. He isfounder of the Wilderness Action Group,and a frequent contributor to the IJW.E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCESBainbridge, W. R. 2001a. Mountain wilderness

in South Africa. IJW 7 (2): 30–34.Bainbridge, W. R. 2001b. An Update of the Sta-

tus and Prospects of Wilderness Areas inSouth Africa. In V. Martin, ed., Wildernessand Humanity: The Global Issue, proceed-ings of the 6th World Wilderness CongressGolden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

DEAT. 2001. A Bioregional Approach to SouthAfrica’s Protected Areas 2001/2002.Pretoria, South Africa: DEAT. www.environment.gov.za

IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected AreaManagement Categories. Gland, Switzer-land: IUCN Commission on National Parksand Protected Areas.

KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Manage-ment Act, 1997. Provincial Gazette ofKwaZulu-Natal, pp 2015–2029.

National Forests Act, No. 84 of 1998. Republicof SA Government Gazette.

National Parks Act, No. 57 of 1976. Republicof SA Government Gazette.

Pringle, J. 1982. The Conservationists and theKillers. Cape Town, South Africa: T.V. Bulpin.

White Paper on Conservation and SustainableUse of South Africa’s Biological Diversity.1997. Government Notice 1095 of 1997.Government of the Republic of South Africa.

Nile crocodile (Crocodylus nilotica) in the Lake St. Lucia wilderness, Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park World Heritage Site. The lakeand associated wetlands hold one of the largest populations of this species in southern Africa. Photo by William R. Bainbridge.

The national wilderness system of SA is a pricelessnatural heritage of which its citizens, the government,

and official nature conservation agencies maybe justly proud.


WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcements andWilderness Calendar

Nikita Lopoukhine NamedHead of Parks CanadaFollowing a national competition,Nikita (Nik) Lopoukhine has beennamed director-general of NationalParks Canada. Lopoukhine has a for-estry degree from Syracuse Universityand a master’s degree in plant ecologyfrom the University of Saskatchewan.Lopoukhine has been with ParksCanada since 1981. He has served as asenior science advisor in ecology andhas led initiatives, such as the introduc-tion of the current Fire ManagementPolicy. His most recent position wasexecutive director of the Ecological In-tegrity Panel in the National Parks Di-rectorate, where he led efforts toimplement the recommendations of theEcological Integrity Panel and the fed-eral government strategy for species atrisk. He has served as the executive ofthe International Society for EcologicalRestoration and is currently a memberof the International Union for the Con-servation of Nature and Natural Re-sources (IUCN) World Commission onProtected Areas and director on theCanadian Council for Ecological Areas.

Ocean Conservancy Kicksoff Ocean WildernessCampaignOn June 19 The Ocean Conservancy(TOC) launched the Ocean Wilderness

Challenge, a bold new initiative aimedat protecting five U.S. sites and one Car-ibbean site as ocean wilderness. Thesesites include areas in Glacier Bay andPrince William Sound in Alaska; theNorthwestern Hawaiian Islands; theChannel Islands off the southern Cali-fornia coast; Florida’s Dry Tortugas; andthe San Andrés Archipelago off thecoasts of Nicaragua and Honduras. TOCwill work closely with local and nationalpartners to achieve their conservationgoals. For more information visit TheOcean Conservancy website at: www.oceanconservancy.org.

Bosworth Named Chiefof U.S. Forest ServiceIn a move that drew tentative approvalfrom both environmental groups andthe timber industry, U.S. AgricultureSecretary Ann Veneman named DaleBosworth to head the U.S. Forest Ser-vice (USFS). A longtime USFS em-ployee, Bosworth has been regionalforester since 1997 for the agency’sNorthern Region, which covers 25 mil-lion acres in 12 national forests in Idaho,Montana, and the Dakotas. MikeDombeck, USFS chief under formerpresident Clinton, praised Bosworth,noting that he was a key architect ofClinton’s plan to ban road building andlogging on 58.5 million acres of nationalforest land. The Bush administration hassent strong signals that it would like to

roll back the plan, and industry folkswill now be watching Bosworth to seewhether he fights for it or recommendsthat it be diminished. On June 7Bosworth issued interim protections forroadless areas by requiring his approvalof any proposed road building and tim-ber harvesting in these areas. On July 6he opened a 60-day comment periodaimed at revisions that will provide moresay for local communities in the roadlessdesignation process. For more on ChiefBosworth and the roadless rule, visitthe U.S. Forest Service Roadlesswebsite at: www.roadless.fs.fed.us.

Judge’s Ruling Favors NoWilderness RoadsA judge has ruled against three Utahcounties that sought to block the fed-eral government from establishing wil-derness protections across millions ofacres of public land by claiming un-paved trails were county roads. On June25th, U.S. District Judge Tena Campbellruled in favor of the Southern UtahWilderness Alliance and the Sierra Clubin their suit to stop the counties fromusing heavy equipment to grade newroads through federal lands. The deci-sion is a significant setback for off-road-vehicle groups and others seeking toblock wilderness designation of federallands. In California, four-wheel-drivegroups are claiming a right-of-way forBlack Sands Beach under the same 1866

Submit announcements and short news articles to STEVE HOLLENHORST, IJW Wilderness Digest editor. E-mail: [email protected].


law used in the Utah case. The unre-solved fight over recreational rights be-gan when the federal government closedthe beach just north of Shelter Cove tomotor traffic in 1999. Because the Utahcase is in a different judicial circuit, itdoesn’t serve as precedent for the Califor-nia dispute. Source: Wilderness Infor-mation Network, www. wilderness.net.

Bush Fails to DefendRoadless RuleThe roadless rule for national forestlands is still alive, but caught in a legaland bureaucratic labyrinth. On July 9the Bush administration missed thedeadline to appeal a decision by U.S.District Court Judge Edward Lodge. TheIdaho judge blocked the roadless rulewith a preliminary injunction in May,citing “grossly inadequate” public com-ment. The rule, which would protect58.5 million acres of federal forests fromroad building, was established by theClinton administration after 600 pub-lic meetings and 1.6 million public com-ments. The environmental law firmEarthjustice, which intervened in thecase on behalf of several environmentalgroups, will pursue an appeal of Lodge’sdecision. The rule is also the subject ofseven other lawsuits, now in variousstages at district courts around the coun-try. The Bush administration has alsoreopened the comment period, indicat-ing a shift away from national-levelroadless protection. The July 10 FederalRegister announcement states that it is“difficult, and perhaps infeasible to col-lect in a short time frame” the local in-formation needed for a national roadlessrule. Any changes to the rule or its sup-porting environmental impact statementare likely to bring on further lawsuitsfrom environmentalists. Forest ServiceChief Dale Bosworth is currently requir-ing his personal approval of any roadbuilding or timber harvest in roadlessareas. For more information see

chief ’s letter at: www.roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/1230_Roadless_Ltr.htm. Source: High Country News(www.hcn.org).

Norton Snubs GrizzliesOn June 20 Interior Secretary GaleNorton set aside a Clinton-era plan toreintroduce grizzly bears to the 3.7-mil-lion-acre Selway-Bitterroot Wildernessof central Idaho and western Montana.The landmark plan was the first majorwildlife recovery plan to propose giv-ing local citizens a direct voice in man-aging the recovery effort. Under theplan, a Citizen Management Commit-tee composed of 12 members nomi-nated by the governors of Idaho andMontana, as well as one member eachfrom the Nez Perce Tribe, the Fish andWildlife Service, and the U.S. ForestService, would oversee the reintroduc-tion of 25 grizzly bears over five years.In scuttling the plan, Norton argued thatreintroduction is not popular in theWest, “and building support from stateleaders is an important element to anypotential partnership of this size andscope.” Norton’s proposal supports theposition of Idaho Governor Dirk Kemp-thorne, a Republican who sued to stopthe plan two days before President Bushtook office last January. “Massive, flesh-eating carnivores,” Kempthorne says,have no place in his state. Conservation-ists, who worked for six years with tim-ber-industry officials to write thereintroduction plan previously in place,promise to fight back. Source: HighCountry News (www. hcn.org).

New Publication Outlinesthe State of Wilderness inNew ZealandThe State of Wilderness in New Zealand,edited by G. Cessford, is now availablethrough the New Zealand Departmentof Conservation. A compendium based

on a series of articles recently publishedin IJW, the work includes several papersdescribing the development of the wil-derness idea in New Zealand. For moreinformation contact: DOC SciencePublishing, Science & Technical Cen-tre, Department of Conservation, P.O.Box 10420, Wellington, NewZealand. E-mail: [email protected]. Website: www.wgnhoiis2/cons/scires/scires.

Richard Bangs NamedNew Outward BoundUSA, PresidentOutward Bound USA has selected in-ternational explorer, entrepreneur,Internet pioneer, and award-winningauthor Richard Bangs for its new presi-dent. Bangs is currently editor-at-large,spokesperson, and strategist forExpedia Inc., which operates Expedia.com, a leading online travel service.After several years as a river guide onthe Colorado River through the GrandCanyon, Bangs founded SOBEK Ex-peditions at the age of 22. Over thenext two decades he led first descentsof 35 rivers around the world. Bangscreated and produced the first adven-ture travel CD ROMs, launched thefirst adventure travel website, and wasa pioneer in the concept of virtual ex-peditions. In 1996 he joined Microsoftto create and run Mungo Park, agroundbreaking online magazine thatorganizes expeditions in real time viathe Internet.

New Zambia WildernessThe Zambia Wildlife Authority (ZWA)is implementing the 1999 revised Gen-eral Management Plan for the KafueNational Park in Southwest Zambia.The product of three years of expertconsultation between ZWA (formerly

Continued on page 17


Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s)California Desert Primitive Skills Team(PST) is winner of the first KeithCorrigall Wilderness StewardshipAward. The team includes Paul Brink,Chris Rolholt, Katie Wash, and DaveWash from the Bureau of Land Man-agement and Maria Bromley from theStudent Conservation Association(SCA). The Corrigall Award, named forlongtime BLM national wilderness co-ordinator, honors professional or citizencontributions to wilderness stewardshipand is administered by the IJW.

The team, based in the RidgecrestCalifornia Field Office, completes wil-derness restoration work throughoutthe California desert, often campingin the desert for several weeks ormonths. The PST developed a creativefunding strategy, securing money fromthree sources: the California Off RoadVehicle Commission, the SCA, and theBLM. The funds were used to hire andsupport two teams, a college crew anda high school crew.

In 2001 through August, the teamhad closed and rehabilitated morethan 85 former vehicle routes in sevendesert wilderness areas, removing vis-ible berms, scattering rocks andwoody vegetation along the route, andscalloping the surface to create seed-beds for vegetation establishment.When needed, barriers were con-structed or signs installed. A monitor-

ing record is a part of each project, andeach disturbance is mapped (both to-pographic and GPS) and photo-graphed before and after. In the futurethe BLM will check each project fornew trespass and the establishment ofnative vegetation on the restored area.The work is already a major successin restoring wilderness to a more natu-ral appearance and stopping currentoff-road-vehicle trespass.

In addition to the fieldwork, theteam has been telling the public aboutwilderness and restoration in publictalks, articles, books, and slide showsin southern California (see IJW vol. 7,no. 1, 2001, p.30).

The team reports several lessonslearned in the course of this work:1. Natural restoration starts quickly

after rehabilitation when off-road-vehicle trespass stops.

2. Primitive tools and methods arecost effective, and they work.

3. The project success, the partner-ship, and the enthusiasm of theparticipating youth has had a ma-jor positive impact on everyoneinvolved or having contact withthem.

4. The rapid accomplishments of thePST indicate that BLM’s plannedrestoration work in the Californiadesert can be completed in fiveyears, not the 20 years that wereoriginally anticipated.

5. BLM’s California Desert PST hascreated a simple, practical resto-ration approach that brings manypositive benefits to the wildernessand the people involved.

Especially important, the young SCAmembers of the PST are learning vitallessons about wilderness resource man-agement and public land agencies. Someof them will use this experience as afoundation for resource managementcareers, or in other ways will continueto contribute to stewardship of wilder-ness and natural resources in the future.

Keith Corrigall was deeply involvedin shaping the designation of wilder-ness in the California Desert. The workof the primitive skills team is a logicalstep in fulfilling Keith’s vision.

For more information, contactthe award-winning team members:

PAUL BRINK, BLM Statewide WildernessCoordinator, California State Office, 2800Cottage Way, Sacramento, California95825, USA. Telephone: (916) 978-4641.

CHRIS ROLHOLT, Wilderness Coordinator,BLM California Desert District, 6221 BoxSprings Boulevard, Riverside, California92507, USA. Telephone: (909) 697-5395.

KATIE WASH and DAVE WASH, PrimitiveSkills Team Coordinators, BLM, RidgecrestField Office, 300 South Richmond Road,Ridgecrest, California 93555, USA.Telephone: (760) 384-5400.

MARIA BROMLEY, Student ConservationAssociation, Ridgecrest Field Office, 300South Richmond Road, Ridgecrest,California 93555, USA. Telephone: (760)384-5442.

Bureau of Land Management Primitive Skills Team WinsFirst Corrigall Wilderness Stewardship Award

The California desert before and after restoration. Photo courtesy of BLM.

The PST in the California desert. Photo courtesy of BLM.

WILDERNESS DIGEST


WILDERNESS DIGEST

Letters to the EditorCarhart Wilderness Training Center Announces Policy History Project

Dear IJW,It gives me great pleasure to announcea new project of the Carhart WildernessTraining Center. The project is calledWilderness Stewardship Policies: AnHistorical Analysis. We are creating anevolutionary history of federal agencywilderness policies starting from TheWilderness Act of 1964 to the present,including policies for all four land man-agement agencies—the Bureau of LandManagement, National Park Service,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.Forest Service. Our goal is to create anarchive of agency policy materials andprovide a description of their wildernesspolicy histories.

This letter also serves as a call fordocuments, reports, testimonies, andother materials that describe wilder-ness stewardship decisions, discus-sions, and suggested policy text for anyof the agencie’s decisions pertinent tothe revision of their policies or guid-ance for interpretation of policy.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 was abold statement of human restraint inthe name of protecting wild country.Once enacted, the federal agencies re-sponsible for protecting wilderness

then faced the difficult task of admin-istering designated and proposed ar-eas in accordance with the act. Agencypolicies have evolved over the yearssince 1964, but there is no organizedrecord of how and why they changedand which would contribute to anunderstanding of their evolution. Thisis essential to provide the context nec-essary to address today’s complex wil-derness stewardship questions.

The goal of the Policy History Projectis to provide agency wilderness stew-ards, policymakers, researchers/scien-tists, and students a clear, historicaldescription of wilderness stewardshippolicy evolution. This is a history of wil-derness administration as opposed towilderness designation. The primaryfocus will be on how the language ofthe act was translated into policy, regu-lations, and national direction for wil-derness stewardship since 1964. Manyof the people who were instrumental intranslating The Wilderness Act intopolicy are retiring, and early documentsare in danger of being lost. We want tocollect, archive, and summarize theagencies’ institutional memories andmake them accessible to future wilder-

ness stewards before this memory is lost.Oral history interviews will be con-ducted, and documents will be collectedand stored in a searchable database. Asummary of the evolution of federalwilderness management policies willthen be written.

We have already collected over 200documents, and the number contin-ues to grow. In order to minimize du-plication, we have established a list ofalready collected documents on ourwebsite, www.wilderness.net/carhart/policy. Before sending a document tous, please check to see if we alreadyhave it. Thank you for helping us withthis exciting project. If you have ques-tions or suggestions, please don’t hesi-tate to call or e-mail us, and senddocuments to the address below.

Sincerely,

Connie G. Myers, DirectorArthur Carhart National Wilderness

Training Center, 32 Campus Drive #3168,

Missoula, Montana 59812, USA.

Telephone: (406) 243-4627.

Fax: (406) 243-4717.

E-mail: [email protected].


Outdoor BehavioralHealthcare: Definitions,Common Practice, ExpectedOutcomes, and a NationwideSurvey of ProgramsBy Keith C. Russell and John C. Hendee.2000. Technical Report # 26. IdahoForest, Wildlife, and Range ExperimentStation, Moscow, Idaho. 87 pp., free,(paperback).

The stated goal of this technical reportfrom the University of Idaho Wilder-ness Research Center and its OutdoorBehavioral Healthcare (OBH) ResearchCooperative is to “improve under-standing about outdoor behavioralhealthcare” for a variety of affectedgroups including parents, insurancecompanies, land managers, and socialservice agencies. The report does justthat. It also reviews the history, phi-losophy, and methods employed in theOBH industry and outlines the 86 pro-grams (of 116) that responded to a na-tionwide survey.

Part one of the report discusses thephilosophy and evolution of OBH in-dustry from wilderness therapy to out-door treatment programs, describesthe various program models now be-ing used, and reviews the literature inthe field. Conditions of change incounseling and therapeutic elementsof group therapy are presented, alongwith a detailed explanation of the pro-cesses used in OBH treatment. Thematerial includes an excellent reviewof literature related to therapeutic out-door program outcomes such as self-concept, social skills, substance abuse,and recidivism.

Part two of the report is a descrip-tive presentation of the authors’ studyof 86 OBH programs, including pri-vate and public programs for adjudi-cated youth. The study data includeinformation on program models, pro-gram organization and sponsorship,treatment cost, client characteristics,licensing, insurance reimbursement,and a variety of other topics of inter-est to outdoor professionals and layaudiences.

Russell and Hendee are on the fore-front of therapeutic outdoor program-ming today, and they understand theneed to demonstrate the credibility ofsuch programs with objective dataabout outcomes, economic viability,insurance reimbursement, and clientprofiles. It is easy to read and com-prehend, with tables and figuressupplementing the text.

We recommend this volume for un-dergraduate and graduate students,practicing professionals, and familiesconsidering an OBH program for theirchild. Given the variety of therapeuticoutdoor programs operating today, itis helpful to have such summary dataabout this growing industry.

Reviewed by JENNIFER DAVIS-BERMANand DENE BERMAN, authors of Wilder-ness Therapy: Foundations, Theory andResearch.

Phantom Parks: TheStruggle to Save Canada’sNational ParksBy Rick Searle. 2000. Key Porter Books,Toronto. 288 pp., $19.95 CAD(paperback).

In a sense, Phantom Parks is the Cana-dian equivalent to Joseph Sax’s Moun-tains Without Handrails. Like hisAmerican counterpart, Rick Searleprovides an intimate indictment of hiscountry’s (mis)management of the na-tional parks, using a nontechnicalwriting style to convince the publicthat major changes are required forCanadian parks to remain ecologicallyintact for future generations.

Searle paints a far bleaker pictureof Parks Canada, the Canadian na-tional parks agency, than does Will-iam Lowry in The Capacity for Wonder,who suggested that Parks Canada wasmore effective and less politically in-fluenced than the U.S. National ParkService. This may still be true, butSearle successfully depicts ParksCanada as an agency in chaos: staffhave been decimated by budget cuts,fractured by the new “entrepreneurialapproach” to park management, anddisillusioned by constant shuffling ofthe agency between various govern-ment departments.

Perhaps the most critical issuenoted in Phantom Parks is the continu-ing chasm between the legislated man-date and managerial actions of ParksCanada. Like most other park agen-cies, Parks Canada has long struggledwith the dual mandate of “preserva-tion versus use” embedded in early

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Book Reviews


metaphors: parks as preserves, parksas playgrounds or parks as profit pro-ducers. Each of these metaphors is thesource of serious problems for main-taining and restoring wildness in thenational parks” (p. 185). As manyother authors have noted, Searle be-lieves a change from anthropocentricto biocentric societal values is requiredto overturn these metaphors.

Phantom Parks is the latest of a re-markable series of works that are highlycritical of Parks Canada: the AuditorGeneral’s Report (1996), Banff-Bow Val-ley Task Force Study (1996), 1997 Stateof the Parks Report (1998), and agency-sponsored Report of the Panel on the Eco-logical Integrity of Canada’s National Parks(2000) all highlight the failings of ParksCanada in considerable and painful de-tail. While these failings are serious, itbodes well that these criticisms are en-tering the public domain and that thecurrent minister is courageous enoughto open Parks Canada to such scrutiny.

Of all these publications, Rick Searle’sprovides the most personal and impas-sioned account of the issues facing ParksCanada. Hopefully, the geographical andphilosophical travels through the na-tional park system portrayed in Phan-tom Parks will succeed in their objective:to raise the ire of the Canadian publicand thus force the federal governmentto address the crisis in the national parksand Parks Canada.

While most appropriate for Canadianreaders, this book will be of interest topark and wilderness managers every-where, for almost every protected areasystem is being bombarded by the sameecological, economic, and political pres-sures that are facing Canadian nationalparks. Its damning observations willring true, I fear, in most contemporarypark and wilderness agencies.

Reviewed by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW bookreview editor. E-mail: [email protected].

Restoring Nature: Perspectivesfrom the Social Sciences andHumanitiesEdited by Paul H. Gobster and R. BruceHull. 2000. Island Press, Washington,D.C. and Covelo, California. 269 pp.,$25.00 (paperback).

To restore or not to restore: that is thequestion posed in Gobster and Hull’sbook. In Shakespeare’s time, the ques-tion would never have been asked, asWestern culture was almost com-pletely fixated on destroying the wild.While one might argue that this is stillthe majority position today, a growingnumber of people wish to begin “re-storing” or “re-wilding” some of thesetamed landscapes: that is, returningthem to some previous, healthier eco-logical condition (e.g., before Europe-ans entered the New World). RestoringNature scrutinizes the pros and consof restoration from the perspective ofthe social sciences and humanities.The book adopts a postmodern,constructivist position in that “nature”and “wilderness” are considered to becultural constructs imbued with dif-ferent meanings and values to variousgroups of people, each of which isequally meaningful and appropriate.The debate on whether to restore land-scapes, the authors argue, is essentiallya social rather than biological issue.At the heart of the matter is the age-old question of whether humans are“a part of” or “apart from” nature.

Proponents of restoration suggestthat the natural area (re)created by res-toration—called “landscapes of ambiva-lence” (p. 24) by one author becausethey are neither strictly natural nor arti-ficial—not only helps conserve natureand ecological processes, but perhapsmore importantly creates a sense ofcommunity between humans and na-ture, or even forms a new type of de-

park legislation. However, in 1988changes were made to the NationalPark Act that seemed to create a clear,singular mandate: “Maintenance ofecological integrity through the pro-tection of natural resources shall be thefirst priority when considering parkzoning and visitor use in a manage-ment plan.” Current park policy notesthat, “In every application of policy,this guiding principle [ecological in-tegrity] is paramount” (p. 30).

As Searle demonstrates, while ParksCanada “talks the talk,” they do not“walk the walk”: ecological integritystill plays second fiddle to recreationand tourism development. To someextent, the rise of right-wing economicpolicies, which slashed governmentspending and emphasized revenuegeneration, have blocked agency ef-forts to address ecological integrity.However, Searle suggests that even ifthese forces had not become domi-nant, national parks would still beendangered. He notes, for example,that most senior staff still embrace thedual mandate or the “parks are forpeople” (use) philosophy. Moreover,fewer than 2% of Parks Canada’s 3,000employees have graduate degrees,which makes it difficult, if not impos-sible, to manage for ecological integ-rity, even if ecologists could agree uponwhat ecological integrity is and how(or if) we should manage (i.e., con-trol) it. Nor does Parks Canada haveenough ecological knowledge or datato determine the state of ecologicalintegrity of one park, let alone thewhole park system.

Finally, Searle notes that the Cana-dian public is unaware of the dangersfacing its cherished national parks andParks Canada’s inability/unwillingnessto meet its new legislated mandate.Searle suggests we must changesociety’s perceptions of national parks,“which are dominated by three major Continued on page 26

international journal of wilderness, vol 07 no 3, december 2001

Documents

wilderness foundation

wilderness conservationin

university of alberta

indiana university

university of montana

south africa ian player

valuesby john

new south africaby william