international journal of wilderness, vol 12 no 1, april 2006

Wilderness fire policy and stewardshipWildland fire managementWildland fire and social influencesSouth Africa, Alaska, Montana

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

Journal of WildernessAPRIL 2006 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1

On the Cover

FRONT: Morning Light on Little Horn, Cradle Mountain, Tasmania,Australia. Photo by Peter Dombrovskis, © Liz Dombrovskis.

INSET: Rainforest fungi, Southern Ranges, Tasmania, Australia. Photo byPeter Dombrovskis, © Liz Dombrovskis.

FEATURESEDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES

3 Anticipating Change for Wildland Fire Usein Wilderness EcosystemsBY ALAN E. WATSON

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS4 Take Back the Conservation Movement

BY DAVE FOREMAN

STEWARDSHIP9 Evolution of Wilderness Fire Policy

BY GREGORY H. APLET

14 Wilderness Fire Stewardshipon the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, AlaskaBY JOHN M. MORTON, EDWARD BERG,

DOUG NEWBOULD, DIANNE MacLEAN, and LEE O’BRIEN

18 Wilderness Fire Managementin a Changing WorldBY CAROL MILLER

SCIENCE AND RESEARCH22 Understanding Social Influences on

Wilderness Fire Stewardship DecisionsBY KATIE KNOTEK

FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLDWILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

26 Amphibians and Wildfire in the U.S. NorthwestBY BLAKE R. HOSSACK

27 Understanding Place Meanings for WildernessPersonal and Community Values at RiskBY KARI GUNDERSON

SCIENCE AND RESEARCH32 Wildland Fire Effects on Visits and Visitors

to the Bob Marshall Wilderness ComplexBY WILLIAM T. BORRIE, STEPHEN F. MCCOOL, andJOSHUA G. WHITMORE

36 Barriers to Wildland Fire UseA Preliminary Problem AnalysisBY DUSTIN DOANE, JAY O’LAUGHLIN,

PENELOPE MORGAN, and CAROL MILLER

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION39 Trust in Wildland Fire and

Fuel Management DecisionsBY ADAM LILJEBLAD and WILLIAM T. BORRIE

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES44 The Challenge of Wilderness Fire Stewardship

in a Time of ChangeA South African PerspectiveBY SONJA KRÜGER

WILDERNESS DIGEST48 Announcements and Wilderness Calendar

Book Reviews51 Collapse

How Societies Choose to Fail or SucceedREVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS

51 Rewilding North AmericaA Vision for Conservation in the 21st CenturyREVIEWED BY RUDY SCHUSTER

2 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1

EDITORIAL BOARDPerry Brown, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA

H. Ken Cordell, Wilderness and Trends Research Forestry Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, Ga., USATroy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA

Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Ojai, Calif., USARebecca Oreskes, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, N.H., USA

John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., CanadaAlan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA

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

MANAGING EDITORChad P. Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—INTERNATIONALGordon Cessford, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; Karen Fox, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Andrew Muir,Wilderness Foundation Eastern Cape, South Africa; Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal, Republic ofSouth Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea; Anna-LiisaSippola, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATESGreg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University ofMaine, Orono, Maine; Lisa Eidson, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.; Don Fisher, USFS, Washington D.C.; Joseph Flood, East Carolina University,Greenville, N.C.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Gary Green, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University,Fort Collins, Colo.; William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. Forest Service, Mesa, Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of LandManagement, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Greg Kroll, El Rito, N.M.; Ed Krumpe,University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Yu-Fai Leung, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.; 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 ofMinnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club; Christopher Monz, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y.; Connie Myers, Arthur CarhartWilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Northern Arizona University,Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions Inc., Sausalito, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III,Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Keith Russell, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.;Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, N.Y.; Michael Tarrant, University of Georgia,Athens, Ga.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.; Dave White, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, Ariz.

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: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, OneForestry Drive, Syracuse, N.Y. 13210, USA. Telephone: (315) 470-6567.Fax: (315) 470-6535. E-mail: [email protected].

Business Management and Subscriptions: WILD Foundation, P.O. Box 1380,Ojai, CA 93024, USA. Telephone: (805) 640-0390. Fax: (805) 640-0230.E-mail: [email protected].

Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are inU.S. dollars only—$35 for individuals and $55 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© 2006 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 managing editor.

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 • Conservation International • National Outdoor 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 Forestry and Wilderness Institute • USDAForest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDI National Park Service • WildernessFoundation (South Africa) • 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 APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 3

FEATURES

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

Anticipating Changefor Wildland Fire Use

in Wilderness EcosystemsBY ALAN E. WATSON

F. Stuart Chapin, in the Alaska theme issue of IJW (vol. 10,no. 2, August 2004) suggested to the wilderness communitythat we manage not for a set of uniform physical attributesbut for protection of a wilderness character that is difficultto define, and that acknowledges the integral nature of thedynamic relationship between people and land. Chapinstressed that we need to orient our management towarduncertain but inevitable change, rather than managing toprevent change. If you went to the 8th World WildernessCongress (WWC) in Anchorage, Alaska, this past October,you probably noticed that a major focus of technical andplenary sessions there was fueled by Chapin’s commentsin 2004.

One of 11 technical session themes at the WWC wasWilderness Stewardship in a Changing Environment, andwas chaired by David Parsons of the Leopold Institute. Togive us a greater understanding of some of the changes weneed to anticipate and how to respond to them, there weremore than 40 presentations in sessions plus workshops oneverything from climate change and monitoring methodsto detect change, to the effects of changing social balancein African countries and bemoaning the inevitable loss ofwild time to civilization. One of the sessions, organizedand moderated by Katie Knotek of the Leopold Institutewas on The Challenge of Wilderness Fire Stewardship in aChanging Environment. The presentations from this singlesession form the core of the papers in this theme issue.

It is with great excitement that IJW brings you not onlyarticles from agency, academic, and nongovernmental sci-entists on the challenges of fire restoration in wildernessdue to change, but also from wilderness managers in bothAlaska and South Africa to give us broader understandingof the influence of social, environmental, and politicalchanges. Some additional pieces were invited that werebelieved to illustrate some of the issues discussed in theWWC presentations by Knotek, Aplet, Morton, Miller, andKrüger, or that expanded the discussion into areas not ad-dressed at the WWC. Borrie, Liljeblad, Gunderson, Doane,and Hossack provided those articles. All articles were re-viewed by two or more of the other authors or outsidereviewers, and several authors read all papers before finalrevision of their papers, allowing some cross-fertilizationand references.

If you are not aware of some of the challenges associatedwith wildland fire use for resource benefits in a time of suchchange, we hope this issue will be informative. We hope itreflects or goes beyond the presentations and discussion atthe session within the WWC. We hope it stimulates progressin science, education, stewardship, and international circlesto act quickly to facilitate better fire use decisions in wil-derness and on adjacent lands. We expect the theme ofchange and its implications for wilderness stewardshipis one that we’ll see given increasing attention in futureIJW issues. IJW


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

FEATURES

Take Backthe Conservation Movement

BY DAVE FOREMAN

In my 35 years as a conservationist, I have never beheldsuch a bleak and dreary situation as I see today. Theevidence for my dismay falls into three categories: the

state of Nature, the power of anticonservationists, andappeasement and weakness within the conservation andenvironmental movements. None of this is reason forshrugging our shoulders and giving up, however. Thebleakness we face is all the more reason to stand tall for ourvalues and to not flinch in the good fight. But it is importantfor us to understand the parts and pieces of ourpredicament, so we might find ways to do better.

The State of NatureI’ve just authored a book, Rewilding North America (IslandPress, 2004; see book review in this issue), which goes intoconsiderable detail describing and analyzing the Seven Eco-logical Wounds that drive the Sixth Great Extinction, whichis the fundamental fact and problem in the world today.Around the world, direct killing of wildlife, habitat destruc-tion, habitat fragmentation, loss of ecological processes,invasion by exotic species and diseases, ecosystem pollu-tion, and catastrophic climate change are worsening. Wesix-and-a-half-billion too-clever apes are solely to blame

(Lovejoy 1980; Wilson 1992; Leakey and Lewin 1995).Duke University ecologist Stuart Pimm (2001) has shownin careful detail how humans are now taking 42% of Earth’snet primary productivity (NPP). As we add half again asmany people in the next few decades, how much NPP willwe be gobbling up? How much will be left for the otherseveral million species with which we share Earth? Despiteimpressive successes here and there, the overall state ofNature continues to decline. This is simple reality, despitethe scolding we hear not to be doom-and-gloomers.

Power of the AnticonservationistsIn the United States, the federal government has becomethe sworn enemy of conservation. Not only have the cor-porate toadies running the presidency and Congress stoppedany progress for the conservation and restoration of Na-ture, they are dedicated to overthrowing the 20th century’slegacy of conservation and environmental policy and pro-grams. They are unabashedly trying to go back to theunfettered, uncaring era of the robber barons in the late19th century. This revolution is both philosophical andpractical (Pope and Rauber 2004). Bad as this is, the radi-cal right is also dedicated to shredding science, particularly

The First 10 years of the International Journal of Wilderness on CD!

Orders to:The WILD Foundation • Phone: 805-640-0390 • Fax: 805-640-0230

On line: www.wild.org

$95 Regular Price

$70 IJW Subscriber Price, Save 25%!

$50ea. When you buy 10 or more


biology, and time-traveling back tobefore the Enlightenment.

While the United States is an ex-traordinary political case, elsewheresome of the supposedly most civilizednations on the planet, such as Canada,Norway, and Japan, are again waging19th-century crusades against wildNature: frontier-forest mining, slaugh-ter of troublesome animals (such asseals, wolves, bears), and commercialwhaling, just for starters. Japanese,European, Chinese, and Americanbusinesses are looting the last wildplaces for timber, pulp, wildlife, min-erals, and oil, opening up such placesto further habitat destruction andbushmeat hunting by local people.

Although the radical-right control ofthe U.S. presidency and Congress wasgained by a very small margin in 2004(no mandate), it is backed by powerfuland popular forces and by a shockingdescent into prescientific irrationalityby large sections of the public.

Appeasement andWeakness in theConservation andEnvironmental MovementsEfforts to protect wild Nature and toclean up pollution face internal sub-version from the right and left thatleads to deep compromises not onlyon policies but also on fundamentalprinciples. We can stuff these calls toback off into several boxes, includingsustainable development, resourcism,Nature deconstruction, politically cor-rect progressivism, and anthropocentricenvironmentalism—which I combineunder the umbrella of enviro-resourcism.

First, some brief definitions: con-servation or Nature conservation is themovement to protect and restore wild-lands and wildlife (Nature for its ownsake); resourcism or resource conser-vation is the resource-extractionideology of multiple-use/sustained

yield as practiced bythe U.S. Forest Serviceand other agenciesaround the world (Na-ture for people);environmentalism isthe campaign to cleanup pollution for humanhealth and make citieslivable (the ”built” en-vironment for people).When they turn theirattention to Nature, en-vironmentalists can beeither conservationistsor resourcists. I callthose environmentalists with aresourcist approach to wild Natureenviro-resourcists.

Internationally since the 1980s,conservation efforts to protect wild-lands and habitat by means of nationalparks, game reserves, and other pro-tected areas have been undermined asfinancial-aid agencies, and even sometop international conservation groupshave shifted to promoting so-calledsustainable development and commu-nity-based conservation overprotected areas. Dutch botanist MariusJacobs warned the IUCN against thisapproach in 1983 but went unheeded(Jacobs 1983). Although these ap-proaches are sometimes soundconservation tactics, in practice theyhave elbowed Nature into secondplace (Oates 1999; Terborgh 1999;Soulè 2000/2001). This establishmentundercutting of Nature conservationhas been aided by the leftist passionof some anthropologists and other so-cial engineers to reject protected areasin favor of indigenous extractive re-serves and land redistribution forpeasants. Shockingly, criticism of pro-tected areas rides high in the pageseven of Conservation Biology (Terborgh2005), and sustainable developmentgains more and more adherents in

resource management graduateschools and large “conservation”organizations. In some circles “conser-vation” is seen as a poverty alleviationtool, not as a way to protect wild spe-cies and habitats. Some members ofthe academic left have becomedeconstructors of Nature, denying thatit independently exists, proclaimingthat we invent it; therefore there is noreason to protect it (Soulè and Lease1995; Vale 2002). Right-wing advo-cates of resource extraction glom ontothe arguments of the wildernessdeconstructionists (Whitlock andKnox 2002).

Pressured from the left and rightduring the last 25 years, conservationand environmental organizationsworldwide have moved away fromforthright calls for zero populationgrowth, even though human over-population is the underlying cause ofall conservation and environmentalproblems (Kolankiewicz and Beck2001; Ryerson 1998/1999). We heara growing drumbeat that there is adearth of births and that developednations face economic collapse be-cause of fewer young people(Longman 2004). Conservationistsand environmentalists stand silent inthe face of this cornucopian madness.

Figure 1—Rafting on the Salmon River in the Frank Church River-of-No-ReturnWilderness in Idaho (Bureau of Land Management). Photo by George Wuerthner.


Similarly, the conservation and environ-mental movements in general shy awayfrom acknowledging the reality of hu-man-caused mass extinction. If wedon’t even clearly state the problem,how can we do anything about it?

We can also see a shift in the UnitedStates from conservation to resourcismamong several prominent and influ-ential entities. Once the preeminentconserver of biological diversity, TheNature Conservancy (TNC) has beensteadily moving to a resourcist ap-proach. They talk now of “workingtimberlands and ranches,” a fancy eu-phemism for logging and livestockgrazing, and insist that their employ-ees talk about people instead of Nature(Weigel 2004). Nonetheless, TNC alsocontinues to protect priceless hotspotsof biodiversity.

I am particularly concerned aboutthe strengthening whip hand enviro-resourcists hold over the conservationmovement. Enviro-resourcists aregenerally progressive-movement pro-fessionals who believe that conservationshould be about people, not Nature.They are found among staff and boardmembers of grant makers, consultingand training groups that help conser-

push them, including grassroots wilder-ness groups, into enviro-resourcism inthese ways: (1) downplay Nature-for-its-own-sake values in favor ofeconomic and other anthropocentricvalues as the reason for conservation;(2) replace strict protected areas, suchas wilderness areas and national parks,with sustainable development, ecosys-tem management, “working” ranches,and extractive reserves; (3) “retireCassandra” or downplay doom-and-gloom in favor of smiley-face optimism;(4) negotiate with other “stakehold-ers,” including anticonservationists,for “win-win” compromises for landmanagement; (5) get measurable re-sults, including the designation of newwilderness areas and other protectedareas, even if they represent a net lossof wildness, and then proclaim unvar-nished victory—Canadians seemparticularly good at this (Paquet2005); and (6) emphasize the healthof the organization over its mission.Not all enviro-resourcists push all ofthese approaches.

Such enviro-resourcists are aided andabetted internationally on the politicalright by international funding institu-tions such as the World Bank and

organizations to essentially go out ofbusiness and just become part of theprogressive wing within the DemocraticParty (Werbach 2004; Shellenbergerand Nordhaus 2004). In the UnitedStates, the overwhelming identifica-tion of environmentalism with theprogressive movement and the Demo-cratic Party is a key reason that it lackscredibility with much of the Ameri-can public.

Just as there has been a worrisomeshift in attitudes among large segmentsof the public, so have there been trou-bling changes among members of theconservation public. To be blunt,many of the employees and activistswith conservation groups are ignorantof our history and have not read theclassic books of conservation. Thereis a stunning lack of intellectual curi-osity in the movement. On the whole,staff and leaders of radical-right groupsboth read and think more than doconservationists and environmental-ists (interestingly, most of the criticismof an earlier version of this paper wasdirected at this claim). As far as out-door recreation goes, young people,who once would have been hikers andbackpackers, now seek thrills onmountain bikes and thus cut them-selves off from experiencing truewilderness and from having self-inter-est in protecting roadless areas. I don’tsee kids out messing around in littlewild patches; they’re inside, pluggedin to a virtual reality.

Take Back theConservation MovementThese are trends. Of course there areexceptions. There are true-blue conser-vationists in all of the outfits I mentionedabove, including land- and wildlife-managing agencies. And I’m limited byavailable space from backing up mywarnings and assertions. Dwelling onthe exceptions, though, keeps us from

The bleakness we face is all the more reason to standtall for our values and to not flinch in the good fight.

vation groups with “organizationaleffectiveness,” media consultants water-ing down the messages of conservationgroups, new leaders and staff membersof conservation groups motivated byambition and lacking a gut feeling forwilderness, and in the ranks of anthro-pologists and other social scientistsworking for poverty alleviation. Witha crowbar of financial support and or-ganizational control, enviro-resourcistsbreak into conservation groups and

corporations, and by United Nationsagencies.

Several bright young men havegained a disturbing amount of atten-tion with their recent speeches aboutthe “death” of environmentalism. In-sofar as they consider Natureprotection at all, they demand thatconservationists drop their prioritiesto focus on social justice and otheranthropocentric progressive causes.Overall, they call on environmental


doing something about the real prob-lems. I’m not doing “nuance” here. Thissober, unapologetic cataloging of thearray of problems Nature conservation-ists face is, however, the first step indeveloping a more effective strategy forNature lovers to take back the conser-vation movement, which I believe isessential for halting or at least lesseningthe destruction of wild Nature. Othersteps include the following:

• Recognize the differences betweenresourcism, environmentalism,and conservation. Seeing the pro-tection and restoration of wildlifeand wildlands as a separate con-servation movement will eliminateconfusion and allow Nature lov-ers to focus on our priorities.

• Overcome the “environmentaliststereotype.” In the United States,environmentalists and conserva-tionists are stereotyped as part ofthe progressive wing of the Demo-cratic Party, urban, politicallycorrect, vegan, and antihunting.Whether or not certain conserva-tionists fit into this stereotype isirrelevant. The stereotype discour-ages many who would otherwisesupport conservation measuresfrom supporting conservationgroups. Similar “greenie” stereo-types plague conservationistsoutside the United States.

• Proudly proclaim the basic valuesof Nature conservation. Don’t beshy about saying, “I love wildernessand big cats!” Our distinguishingfield mark is that we cannot livewithout wild things, that we try toprotect snow leopards, whales,ivory-billed woodpeckers, and theirhabitats for their own sakes, not forspecific benefits to humans. Cel-ebrating the intrinsic value of alllife-forms and the magnificent pro-cess that has brought all this

diversity into being is the bedrockof the conservation mind (Leopold1949; Ehrenfeld 1981; Naess1986; Foreman 1991). So long aswe do not hide our fidelity to theintrinsic value of other species, itis acceptable to use utilitarian ar-guments in favor of protected areasand other conservation measures.We should also encourage sustain-able use of resources in areas thatare no longer wild.

• Recognize that the outstandingproblem is human-caused mass ex-tinction, and its driving cause is the

• Be strong and unwavering in pro-tecting and restoring wild Nature.Nearly everyone wants to be a player,to rub shoulders with the rich andpowerful. The cost of doing so, how-ever, is to water down your views,to hide your emotions and outrage,and to wink at self-serving resourceindustries playing good guys atinternational conservation confer-ences. Conservationists need not berude, but we do need to be honestand forthright.

• Defend strict protected areas as“the most valuable weapon in ourconservation arsenal” (Soulè andWilcox 1980). Conservation biolo-gists and conservation activistshave long seen protected areas, thestricter the better, as the center-piece of conservation (Nash 1967;Noss et al. 1999). Many now em-brace the “rewilding” approach toprotected area design: restorationof missing carnivores and otherecologically effective species; pro-tection of large roadless coreprotected areas; and identifyingand protecting important linkagesfor the movement of wildlife andnatural ecological processes (Soulèand Noss 1998; Foreman et al.2000; Ray et al. 2005).

• Strategically redirect conservationfunding to build a powerful move-ment for the long run (Lavigne andOrr 2004). Over the last 40 years,the radical right has directed hun-dreds of millions of dollars intofunding think tanks, trainingyoung activists, supporting lead-ers and organizations for the longterm, and underwriting books andlectures. Resource extraction in-dustries and ideological opponentsof public lands and conservationhave been mainstays of that fund-ing. The radical right has been

Let us instead offer abold, hopeful vision for

how wilderness andcivilization can live

together.

human population explosion,revved up by rising affluence, tech-nology, and globalization. Althoughmany organizations at all levels workto protect and restore threatened andendangered species, few forthrightlytalk about the human-caused SixthGreat Extinction. Indeed, were a polltaken, I doubt that most membersof conservation groups would showawareness of mass extinction or rateit as the highest priority. The retreatof resourcist, environmental, andconservation groups from calling forpopulation stabilization as we did 30years ago is perhaps the most aston-ishing and shameful deed in ourhistory. Conservationists need to beseized by how growing humanpopulations cause the loss of spe-cies and the degradation of habitats(Crist 2003).


disciplined about thinking and act-ing for the long term; we havefailed in part because we do nothave a long-term strategy to whichwe stick. Conservation funders areoften fickle and fund short-termprojects with measurable results.They have not built the movementby backing ideas, leaders, books,lectures, and so on.

• Encourage intellectualism withinthe conservation movement. Sadto say, the opponents of conserva-tion have been better funded tobuild an intellectual basis for do-ing away with land and wildlifeprotection. Numerous hard-rightthink tanks with good fundinghave developed new ideas andstrategic plans to kneecap conser-vation, and they have taught their“children” well. Conservationfunders have ignored think tanksand the intellectual needs of theconservation movement. Youngconservation staffers are generallynot well-read and are unfamiliarwith the lore and history of con-servation. It is a priority to givethem the intellectual grounding tobe better leaders.

• Reach out to the political main-stream, including moderateRepublicans and their counterpartsin other countries. Conservationwill fail if it confines itself to theleft. By only modestly strengthen-ing our support among moderateRepublicans or their counterpartselsewhere, close votes in Congressand parliaments could go our way.For example, in the fall of 2005, ahandful of brave House Republi-can moderates killed plans for oildrilling in the Alaska NationalWildlife Refuge. Conservationistsneed to fold our ideas and projectsinto the language of traditional

conservatism: prudence, piety,posterity, responsibility, and anti-materialism (Bliese 2001).

• Proclaim and work for a vision thatis bold, practically achievable, sci-entifically credible, and hopeful.Ask the public if we have the gen-erosity of spirit, the greatness ofheart to share Earth with otherspecies and wild places. A move-ment is not made strong simply byopposing its foes. Conservationneeds a big, bold, hopeful visionthat can grab people in their hearts,an overarching vision into whichall our efforts can fit. Continental-scale rewilding networks, such asthe North American WildlandsNetwork, can do this (Soulè andNoss 1998; Soulè and Terborgh1999; Foreman 2004).

These are just a few of the stepsconservationists need to climb if weare to take back our movement fromenviro-resourcists and to boldly tacklethe forces of ecological destruction.

In December of 1776, the Ameri-can Revolution was in its darkest hour.In response, Tom Paine wrote his first“Crisis” paper:

These are the times that try men’ssouls. The summer soldier andthe sunshine patriot will in thiscrisis, shrink from the service ofhis country; but he that standsit now, deserves the love andthanks of man and woman.

General Washington had the paperread to his miserable, disheartenedtroops in their frozen winter camps.There was no surrender. Years of hardbattle lay ahead but victory was gained(Fast 1945).

We need Tom Paine conservation-ists in our dark hour. Let us notapologize for loving wild Nature, forcaring about other species, for speak-ing the truth. Reach out to others.

Make deals when they are good deals.But let us not be frightened and brow-beaten into appeasement. Let usinstead offer a bold, hopeful vision forhow wilderness and civilization canlive together, and be unyielding indefending and restoring wild Natureand standing up for the idea and real-ity of wilderness areas and otherprotected areas. IJW

AcknowledgmentsAdapted from the Introduction toForeman’s Myth(s) of the Environmen-tal Movement forthcoming in 2006.Myth(s) will develop these thoughtsand others in greater detail. Thanksto Rewilding Institute Fellows for com-ments on this paper.

REFERENCESBliese, John R. E. 2001. The Greening Of

Conservative America. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Crist, Eileen. 2003. Limits-to-growth and thebiodiversity crisis. Wild Earth Spring: 62–65.

Ehrenfeld, David. 1981. The Arrogance ofHumanism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fast, Howard. 1945. Selected Work of TomPaine/Citizen Tom Paine. New York: TheModern Library, 44–47.

Foreman, Dave. 1991. Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Crown.

Foreman, Dave. 2004. Rewilding NorthAmerica: A Vision for Conservation in the21st Century. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Foreman, Dave, Kathy Daly, Barbara Dugelby,Roseann Hanson, Robert E. Howard, JackHumphrey, Leanne Klyza Linck, Rurik List, andKim Vacariu. 2000. Sky Islands WildlandsNetwork Conservation Plan. Tucson, AZ: TheWildlands Project, Sky Island Alliance,Naturalia, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance,and Southwest Forest Alliance.

Jacobs, Marius. 1983. The spirits of Bali. IUCNBulletin 14: 64.

Kolankiewicz, Leon, and Roy Beck. 2001.Forsaking Fundamentals: The EnvironmentalEstablishment Abandons U.S. PopulationStabilization. Washington, DC: Center forImmigration Studies.

Lavigne, Peter M., and David W. Orr. 2004.Rethinking green philanthropy. OneNorthwest,September 8, http://blogs.onenw.org/onelist/001685.html#comments.

Continued on page 31


Evolution ofWilderness Fire Policy

BY GREGORY H. APLET

Just as wilderness ecosystems have been shaped by fire(and the condition of those ecosystems has shaped firebehavior), wilderness policy has been affected by

fire policy (and vice versa). The Wilderness Act and sub-sequent wilderness bills have addressed fire, and policy hasevolved to recognize the free play of fire as a natural pro-cess. Similarly, fire policy has evolved to accommodate thepeculiar demands of wilderness.

This co-evolution has its origin in the confluence of eco-logical thought and wilderness philosophy that occurredin the late 20th century. For most of the century, fire wasconsidered a universal threat to people, resources, and wild-lands. Eventually though the observations of foresters likeAldo Leopold (1924) and Elers Koch (Arno and Fiedler2005) added to the research of scientists such as HaroldWeaver (1943) and Herb Stoddard (1935) to force realiza-tion of the role of fire in sustaining species and maintainingthe character of ecosystems. In 1963 a panel of ecologistsresponded to the National Park Service’s request for a man-agement review with the suggestion that “The goal [of parkmanagement] is to maintain or create the mood of wildAmerica” (Leopold et al. 1963). They recommended fire berestored to the national parks.

Passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 represented theculmination of the “fight for the freedom of the wilderness”begun by John Muir and sworn to by Robert Marshall (1930)and the other founders of The Wilderness Society in 1935.According to the Wilderness Act definition, “Wilderness[retains] its primeval character and influence [and] gener-ally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces ofnature” (emphasis added). It became clear that those “forcesof nature” include fire.

The purpose of this article is to briefly review the policyhistory of wilderness fire, identify some barriers to its increaseduse, and propose some policy changes that could lead to moreharmonious relations among people, fire, and wilderness.

Wilderness Fire PolicyThis article is by no means intendedto provide a comprehensive reviewof wilderness fire policy. For sucha review, there is the excellent workof Kilgore (1986) and Parsons andLandres (1998), a number of paperspresented at the 1999 WildernessScience Conference (Agee 2000;Parsons 2000; Zimmerman andBunnell 2000), or, for a more po-etic treatment, Pyne’s 1995 “VestalFires and Virgin Lands.” Together,these reviews characterize the his-tory of policy from the advent andgrowth of wilderness fire management, to the calamity ofYellowstone in 1988, and through rebirth and recovery.

Briefly, wilderness fire policy history began with the firesof 1910, which burned millions of acres in Idaho and Mon-tana, killing 86 people and destroying entire communities.That experience led to a policy of intolerance and all-outsuppression of fire throughout most of the 20th century.The accumulation of scientific evidence and societal desireto leave some parts of the country beyond direct humancontrol, however, led to a shift in policy, initiated by theNational Park Service in 1968 and followed by the USDAForest Service in 1978, whereby some natural fires couldbe allowed to burn in specified locations under previouslyidentified conditions. Over two decades, this prescribednatural fire (PNF) policy spread from its original applica-tion in California to national parks and wilderness areasacross the country (see figure 1).

Whatever momentum had built up over that periodended abruptly in the summer of 1988 when a successionof fires that were allowed to burn in Yellowstone NationalPark encountered extreme fire weather and blew up into the

STEWARDSHIP

Greg Aplet. Photo by Sander Aplet.


largest fire event in the United Statessince that catalyzing year of 1910.Immediately, federal officials sus-pended the PNF policy, although areview of federal policy immediatelyafter the Yellowstone fires concludedthat the objectives of prescribed natu-ral fire programs were sound(Wakimoto 1990).

In the years since Yellowstone, fed-eral fire policy has been modifiedmany times, with each revision fun-damentally endorsing wilderness fire.The most important of these, the 1995Federal Wildland Fire ManagementPolicy and Program Review, changedthe nomenclature of fire managementbut firmly endorsed Wildland Fire Usefor Resource Benefit (WFU) as an ap-propriate response to natural fire. Sostrong was the wording of the policythat federal fire managers (Zimmer-

man and Bunnell 2000) concludedthat wilderness fire implementationopportunities and accomplishmentswould grow as federal agencies imple-mented the 1995 Federal Wildland FireManagement Policy. Another review andupdate of the fire policy in 2001 directed“wildland fire will be used…and, asnearly as possible, be allowed to func-tion in its natural ecological role,” andthe 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy,developed to implement the NationalFire Plan in 2002, established a goal torestore, rehabilitate, and maintain “fire-adapted ecosystems.”

It seems clear that federal fire man-agement policy strongly supportswilderness fire. Parsons (2000), how-ever, found that, in 1998, less than15% of wilderness areas outside ofAlaska had fire management plans thatallowed some natural fires to burn,

leading him to conclude skeptically,“The optimism evinced by Zimmermanand Bunnell … is promising but mustbe more fully evaluated.” Although theyears leading up to 1998 showed a pat-tern of increasing Wildland Fire Use,the trend has not continued. The num-ber of acres burned through WildlandFire Use saw increases in 2003 and2005, but the number of incidents ofWFU has remained relatively stable (seefigure 2).

Barriers to ImplementationFor better or worse, environmentalpolicy in the United States largelytends to be written in a way that al-lows for good decisions to be made butdoes not require those decisions to bemade. To the extent that WFU isimplemented, it is a direct result of thecommitment of dedicated profession-als who are willing to take risks forthe benefit of the land. Managers facea number of impediments, many ofwhich have been discussed in thepolicy reviews cited above. Here, Iclassify them into three groups for dis-cussion: attitudinal, institutional, andpolitical barriers.

Attitudinal BarriersAttitudinal barriers are those impedi-ments to WFU resulting not frompolicies per se, but from individuals’beliefs. These barriers may apply towilderness managers themselves, butmore often, they apply to their supe-riors, who are in positions to influencefire use decisions. First and foremostamong these barriers is the legacy of“suppression bias” afflicting land man-agement agencies. Most agencypersonnel are trained in the techniquesof fire suppression; they perceive them-selves to be suppression professionalswhose job it is to put fires out, not tolet them burn. The very idea of lettinga natural fire burn may be anathema

Figure 1—Natural fire acres burned on National Park Service lands, 1967–1998. Data from Parsons (2000).

Figure 2—Number of Wildland Fire Use events on National Park Service and USDA Forest Service lands, 1994 throughOctober 2005.

Note: Data from 1994 to 1998 are from Zimmerman and Bunnell (2000); data from 1998 to 2005 are derived from the final IncidentManagement Situation Report for each year (see http://iys.cidi.org/wildfire/). The two data sets share only 1998 in common, and because the values aredifferent in each data set, the number of WFU events is normalized to a common 1998 value for display.


to them, and this bias can be an im-pediment to wilderness fire.

Another attitudinal barrier is thefact that wilderness managers often donot perceive tremendous supportwithin their agencies. In some agen-cies, such as the Forest Service andBureau of Land Management, wilder-ness management was traditionallyrelegated to “lesser” subdivisions of thebureaucracy, such as recreation or cul-tural resources, and not considered bysome senior managers as part of thecore mission of the agency. As a re-sult, wilderness management, andmaintaining wilderness fire in particu-lar, was considered “somebody else’sjob” and consequently was not sup-ported by superiors responsible formaking WFU decisions.

One especially challenging attitu-dinal barrier results from the sheerdifficulty of managing wilderness fire.Whether the perceptions are of alteredecosystems resulting from fuel build-ups, threats of invasive plants,presence of threatened or endangeredspecies, or of fragmented ownershipand the proliferation of the wildland–urban interface, many managersperceive the job of fire restoration asprohibitively difficult.

Institutional BarriersAlthough attitudes can prevent somemanagers from considering WFU, thededicated manager, who understandsWFU as part of the job, can still runinto impediments and disincentives.Institutional barriers result from pro-cedural requirements of WFU itself andfrom other forces external to wildernessfire. An example of the former is theadditional process required by WFU. AWFU decision requires that a sound firemanagement plan (FMP) has been de-veloped that provides for WFU. WhileFMPs exist for most federal adminis-trative units, many are out-of-date and

do not allow for WFU. Bringing an FMPinto compliance with fire policy repre-sents extra work for the managers.Similarly, implementation of WFU re-quires the preparation of a WildlandFire Implementation Plan (WFIP) dur-ing the fire event, which some managersmay see as “more trouble than it’sworth.” Often, risk aversion in advanceof a fire has led to such small “burnwindows” (i.e., the envelope of fuel,weather, and topographic conditions

tion goal; however, a change in policyin 2003 prevented wildland fire useevents from being counted as “acrestreated,” thus removing a powerfulincentive to implement WFU (Gregory2005). Similarly, WFU events, becausethey are managed for resource benefit,are not eligible for postfire emergencystabilization funds. Therefore, a man-ager who otherwise wants to restorefire, but who is concerned about pos-sible undesirable effects, is less inclined

There are many excellent managers distributed aroundthe federal agencies who support wilderness fire, but

they struggle against a culture of suppression.

inside of which WFU could be allowed)that it is difficult even to produce animplementable WFIP.

Another procedural barrier toimplementing WFU is the require-ment to arrange for emergencysuppression personnel and equipmentto be on hand, should conditionschange and the fire exceed prescrip-tion. Also, certain types of experts,such as long-term fire analysts and firebehavior analysts, which are not typi-cally staffed on site, must be broughtin to help manage a WFU event.

Another type of institutional bar-rier is disincentives (or, often, simplythe absence of incentives) to make theWFU decision. For example, underthe National Fire Plan, agency man-agers are under tremendous pressureto show that they have addressed haz-ardous fuel conditions through fueltreatments such as prescribed fire andthinning. The “acres treated” are re-ported back up through the agencyand serve as a basis for determiningfuture budgets. Historically, WFUacres were considered fuel treatmentsand counted toward the hazard reduc-

to choose WFU because funds will notbe available to mitigate damage.

As powerful as these disincentivesare, none is as powerful as individualexposure to liability. A fire managerwho selects the option of WFU is ex-posing him/herself to tremendouspersonal and professional risk. No onehas ever been faulted for making thedecision to suppress fire, but careershave ended as a result of decisions toallow fire. Until line officers are pro-vided some limitation fromliability—and provided a formal in-centive to support wildernessfire—fear of professional exposure willcontinue to affect fire use decisionmaking.

Political BarriersEven if a manager has a positive at-titude toward wilderness fire andcan overcome institutional barriers,external political influences canhinder WFU. Although the benefitsof fire have been well-known to thescientific community for years, thepublic has been slow to embrace them.People, understandably, remain


concerned for their safety in theevent of fire, and sensationalistmedia coverage has not helped toeducate them on the nuances of fireecology. Recent public opinion poll-ing has shown that publicacceptance of fire has increased, butmanagers’ perceptions of public fearcan dissuade the fire use decision.Similarly, public concerns aboutsmoke, whether for nuisance orhealth reasons, can translate intopolitical pressure to extinguishWFU events or avoid them alto-gether. This pressure can beespecially strong from communities

that depend on tour-ism for their economicbase.Another source of ex-

ternal pressure comesfrom commercial in-terests that oppose fire.Particularly powerfulamong them are other“airshed consumers,”such as agriculture orelectric power, thatdepend on their abil-ity to pollute, and seenatural fire as compet-ing with their interests.

Because of the way air quality laws arewritten, natural fire is subordinated tothese interests, and many WFU eventshave been extinguished to make roomin the airshed for other sources of pol-lution (see figure 3).

Policy SolutionsAlthough many of these challengeshave no easy solutions, there are somechanges that could be made relativelyquickly to improve prospects for wil-derness fire. One of the mostimportant is to establish a supportiveculture within agencies. There aremany excellent managers distributed

around the federalagencies who sup-port wilderness fire,but they struggleagainst a culture ofsuppression. Strongstatements of supportfrom agency leaders,matched by support-ive budgets, wouldsend a loud signalthat “It is your job!”Directions could be-gin with notificationthat revised Land andResource Manage-ment Plans should be

developed to maximize the use of fireas a management tool, and fire man-agement plans should be developed tomaximize the conditions under whichWFU may be implemented. Most im-portant, though, is for managers toknow that their WFU decisions will besupported at the top levels. Therefore,establishment of policies limiting per-sonal liability if the properdecision-making process is followed islikely to have a greater effect than anyother single change.

A complementary policy changethat is likely to have far-reachingeffects would be to provide incentivesfor WFU, such as the institution of for-mal performance measures thatencourage WFU decisions. An obvi-ous example is to restore the countingof WFU events as “acres treated” un-der the National Fire Plan. Anotherwould be to track the proportion ofplanning areas in which WFU may beconsidered or the number of candi-date ignitions that are classified asWFU events. Of course, decisions toimplement WFU must be supportedby adequate resources for the devel-opment of good FMPs, resources (bothpersonnel and budgets) to manageWFU events, and access to emergencystabilization money, should damageoccur during WFU events.

Another important way in whichpolicy can support WFU is to fund re-search to solve the difficult challengesof fire management. Questions remainabout appropriate “burn windows,”effects on invasive species, quantifyingbenefits, and mitigating risk to commu-nities. Fire managers need good toolsfor analyzing where and when WFU isappropriate (see figure 4). Recentresearch combining fire behavioranalysis and GIS/remote sensing hasdramatically improved our ability tomodel various real-world scenarios.Continued funding of wilderness fire

Figure 3—Smoke from a wilderness fire. Because of the way air quality laws are written,natural fire is often subordinated to these interests, and many WFU events have beenextinguished to make room in the airshed for other sources of pollution.

Figure 4—Firefighters from the Kings Peak Fire Use Module monitoring weather on aWFU event. WFU depends on managers who are willing to take risks for the good of theland. Photo by Northern Arizona Type 2 Incident Management Team.


research will help address the uncertain-ties and resulting fears that currentlyprevent managers and the public fromtaking full advantage of WFU.

Policies should also support pub-lic education about the benefits of fireto wilderness ecosystems and topeople. Smokey Bear and other fireprevention programs have proven theeffectiveness of public education. Simi-lar efforts aimed at increasing publicknowledge about fire, particularly ef-forts aimed at changing sensationalistmedia coverage, could also mitigatepublic fear and produce a society sup-portive of wilderness fire. A betterunderstanding of fire ecology will benecessary among the public, but es-pecially among air quality regulators,before policies can be developed thatsimultaneously address human healtheffects of smoke and sustain healthywildland ecosystems.

Finally, perhaps the most importantpolicy step that can be taken is to ad-dress public fear through necessaryfuel treatment work in and aroundcommunities to lower fire danger.Only when people begin to feel safein their homes will they warm to theidea of expanded wilderness fire. Re-sources are urgently needed to supportplanning and implementation of fuel

treatment on private lands where thecommunity protection challenge ismost acute. IJW

REFERENCESAgee, J. K. 2000. Wilderness fire science: A state-

of-knowledge review. In Wilderness Sciencein a Time of Change Conference, Volume 5:Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Man-agement, comp. S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole,W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, 5–22. May 22–26, 1999, Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Arno, S. F., and C. E. Fiedler. 2005. MimickingNature’s Fire: Restoring Fire-prone Forestsin the West. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Gregory, L. 2005. Following the Money: NationalFire Plan Funding and Implementation. Wash-ington, DC: The Wilderness Society.

Kilgore, B. M. 1986. The role of fire in wilder-ness: a state-of-knowledge review. In Pro-ceedings: National Wilderness ResearchConference: Issues, State of Knowledge,Future Directions, , 70–103, ed. R. C. Lucas.July 23–26, 1985, Fort Collins, CO. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: USDA For-est Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber, andfire in southern Arizona. Journal of Forestry22(6): 1–10):

Leopold, A. S., S. A. Cain, C. H. Cottam, I. N.Gabrielson, and T. L. Kimball. 1963. Wild-life management in the national parks.American Forests 69(4): 32–35, 61–63.

Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of the wilder-ness. Scientific Monthly 30: 141–48.

Parsons, D. J. 2000. The challenge of restoringnatural fire to wilderness. In Wilderness Sci-ence in a Time of Change Conference, Vol-ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and

Management, comp. S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole,W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, 276–82. May 22–26, 1999, Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Parsons, D. J., and P. Landres. 1998. Restoring fireto wilderness: how are we doing? In Fire in Eco-system Management: Shifting the Paradigm fromSuppression to Prescription, ed. T. L. Pruden andL. A. Brennan, 366–73. Proceedings of the TallTimbers Fire Ecology Conference, no. 20.

Pyne, S. J. 1995. Vestal fires and virgin lands.In World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth,238–55. New York: Henry Holt.

Stoddard, H. L. 1935. Use of controlled fire insoutheastern upland game management.Journal of Forestry 33: 346–51.

Wakimoto, R. H. 1990. National Fire ManagementPolicy. Journal of Forestry 88(10): 22–26.

Weaver, Harold. 1943. Fire as an ecologicaland silvicultural factor in the ponderosa pineregion of the pacific slope. Journal of For-estry 41:7-15.

Zimmerman, T., and D. Bunnell, 2000. The Fed-eral Wildland Fire Policy: Opportunities forwilderness fire management. In WildernessScience in a Time of Change Conference, Vol-ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, andManagement, comp. S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole,W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, 288–97. May 22–26, 1999, Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station.

GREGORY H. APLET is senior forestscientist in The Wilderness Society’s Denveroffice, at 1660 Wynkoop Street, Suite 850,Denver, CO 80202, [email protected].

From WILDERNESS FIRE MANAGEMENT on page 21

ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, andManagement, comp. D. N. Cole, S .F.McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Laughlin,276–82. Proceedings RMRS–P-15-Vol-5.Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Parsons, D. J., and P. B. Landres. 1998. Restor-ing natural fire to wilderness: How are wedoing? Proceedings of the Tall Timbers FireEcology Conference, No. 20, 366–73.

Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, S. I. Stewart, J. S.Fried, S. S. Holcomb, and J. F. McKeefry. 2005.The wildland-urban interface in the UnitedStates. Ecological Applications 15:799–805.

USDA and USDI 2001. Review and Update ofthe 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Manage-

ment Policy. Washington, DC: United StatesDepartment of Agriculture and United StatesDepartment of the Interior.

USDA and USDI. 2003. Interagency Strategy forthe Implementation of Federal Wildland FireManagement Policy. June 20. Washington,DC: United States Department of Agricultureand United States Department of the Interior.

USDA and USDI 2005a. Wildand Fire UseImplementation Procedures ReferenceGuide. May. Washington, DC: United StatesDepartment of Agriculture and United StatesDepartment of the Interior.

USDA and USDI 2005b. Interagency standardsfor fire and fire aviation operations. In FireManagement Planning, ch. 8. Washington,

DC: United States Department of Agricul-ture and United States Department of theInterior. http://www.fire.blm.gov/Stan-dards/Redbk/Chapter08.pdf.

USDA and USDI 2005c. Quadrennial fire andfuel review report. Final content draft forcomment. May 20.

CAROL MILLER is a research ecologist,studying how to steward fire as a processin wilderness, at the Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research Institute in Missoula,Montana. She can be reached [email protected].


STEWARDSHIP

Wilderness Fire Stewardship onthe Kenai National Wildlife

Refuge, AlaskaBY JOHN M. MORTON, EDWARD BERG, DOUG NEWBOULD,

DIANNE MacLEAN and LEE O’BRIEN

IntroductionThe policies of all four federal agencies responsible for managingwilderness in the United States recognize the importance of fire asa natural ecological process and the desirability of restoring the

historic role of fire to wilderness ecosystems (Par-sons and Landres 1998). In 1995 theDepartments of the Interior and Agriculture is-sued Federal Wildland Fire Management: Policyand Program Review, which provided policy di-rection for all federal wildland fire activities. Aguiding principle of this new policy is that therole of wildland fire as an essential ecologicalprocess will be incorporated into the planningprocess. This new policy allows naturally ig-

nited fires to be managed for resource benefits wherever anapproved fire management plan is in place (Parsons et al. 2003).

However, despite the increased emphasis on managing wil-derness fire for resource benefits—Wildland Fire Use (WFU)—noagency has a fully successful wilderness fire management pro-gram (Parsons 2000). In addition to the policy and administrativeconstraints that have limited the use of natural fire, even on thelarger units, there are other reasons why natural fire can never beexpected to be allowed to burn in some wilderness units.

In this article, we review the 2005 fire season on theKenai National Wildlife Refuge (KENWR), especially thefive lightning starts in wilderness. The decision process forsuppressing these fires, or not, clarifies some of the majorobstacles to allowing wildland fires in wilderness.

Kenai National Wildlife RefugeThe 2-million-acre (800,000-ha) KENWR is in south-cen-tral Alaska on the Kenai Peninsula, which is formed by theCook Inlet and Prince William Sound. KENWR shares

boundaries with Chugach National Forest and Kenai FjordsNational Park. KENWR was established in 1941 as the KenaiNational Moose Range but was renamed under the AlaskaNational Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in1980. ANILCA also gave KENWR its mandates, of whichthe primary purpose is to conserve fish and wildlife popu-lations and habitats in their natural diversity.

Biodiversity is unusually high for this latitude becauseof the juxtaposition of two biomes on the peninsula: thenorthern fringe of the Sitka spruce-dominated (Piceasitchensis) coastal rainforest on the eastern flank of the KenaiMountains, and the western-most reach of boreal forest inNorth America on the western side of the Kenai Moun-tains. Forests on KENWR are dominated by white (P. glauca)and black spruce (P. mariana) with an admixture of aspen(Populus tremuloides) and birch (Betula neoalaskana). Exten-sive peatlands are interspersed among spruce in the KenaiLowlands. Lichen-dominated tundra replaces mountainhemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) and subalpine shrub abovetreeline in the Kenai Mountains and Caribou Hills.

Unlike the other 15 refuges in Alaska, KENWR has a fairlysubstantial urban interface with issues more typical of the lower48 states, such as high recreational use and expanding adja-cent resident population, but also with oil and gas activities,contaminants, and commercial fisheries. More than 50,000people live on the Kenai Peninsula, and as one of only twoAlaskan Refuges on the road system, KENWR is a recreationaldestination for many Anchorage residents and tourists.

Wildfire and spruce bark beetles (Dendroctonus rufipennis)are the dominant disturbance processes on KENWR. Thereare two distinct fire cycles: black spruce has a mean fire returninterval of 79 years (De Volder 1999), whereas white spruceburns much less frequently, averaging once in 400 to 600 years

John M. Morton. Photo fromU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


(Berg and Anderson, in press). The twolargest fires in the last century were in1947 (310,000 acres; 125,506 ha) and1969 (86,000 acres; 34,818 ha).

Fire ManagementIn 1980 Congress designated 1.35 mil-lion acres (550,000 ha) or about 69%of KENWR as wilderness in three sepa-rate geographic units. Wilderness onKENWR is managed in accordancewith the Wilderness Act, ANILCA,National Wildlife Refuge System Ad-ministration Act, Federal regulations(50 CFR), and U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (USFWS) policy. The 1985Comprehensive Conservation Plan(CCP) established the current directivesfor managing fire and wilderness onKENWR. Specifically, WFU is allowedon 97% of KENWR, prescribed fire isnot allowed in wilderness, and wildfiresnot contributing to management goalsare suppressed using the “minimumappropriate tool.” WFU is naturally ig-nited wildland fire whereas prescribedfire is management-ignited fire; both aremanaged to achieve specific, plannedresource objectives in approved landand fire management plans.

The 1998 Alaska Interagency Wild-land Fire Management Plan furtherdefines how fire is managed on KENWR.This plan defines four Fire ManagementOptions that can be applied by KENWRto help define suppression priorities andthe default response to wildland fires indifferent areas. The options range fromCritical, where human life or inhabitedproperty is at stake, to Full where unin-habited property or cultural/historic sitesare at risk, and to Limited where thereare few anthropocentric resources. Un-der the Modified option, fire is managedas Full until a conversion date changesthe option to Limited. Only in Limited isthe default response (i.e., initial attack)to allow a fire to burn, whereas suppres-sion is the default for the other three

options. This classification, which isunique to Alaska and applies only to natu-rally ignited fires (all human-caused firesare suppressed), was first applied toKENWR in 1984. In 2004, Fire Manage-ment Options on KENWR were adjustedto increase the likelihood of natural wild-fire being managed for resource benefit.The Limited option area was increasedfrom 780,000 acres (316,000 ha) to1,283,000 acres (520,000 ha), effectivelyplacing 97% of wilderness under the Lim-ited option. This change helped set thestage for the relative success of fire man-agement activities in 2005.

In 2005, there were 54 fire starts onthe Kenai Peninsula, of which 30 wereanthropogenic, 22 were lightningstrikes, and two were from unknownsources (see figure 1). Of the 22 light-ning-ignited fires, 15 were on KENWR.All but two of the 15 wildfires were sup-pressed, despite the fact that six occurredin Limited and five were in wilderness.

The Brown’s Lake Fire was a light-ning start in black spruce in a Full optionarea. It was immediately suppressed dueto its proximity to several subdivisionsand the community of Funny River, at acost of $5,000. Similarly, the Moose Lake

Figure 1—Lightning strikes, fire starts and Fire Management Options on the Kenai Peninsula in 2005, withspecific reference to five wildfires in wilderness. Map courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.


Fire was a lightning start in black spruce,but it occurred in a Limited option area.Although the default response shouldhave been to allow it to burn, it was sup-pressed for three reasons: (1) there wereseveral other concurrent fire starts onKENWR, (2) the fire was showingextreme behavior, and (3) there was con-cern that personnel at a nearby researchfacility could not be evacuated safely.This fire was small (13.5 acres, 5.4 ha),but suppression costs were $114,000.

The King County Creek Fire was alightning start in black spruce, initiallyin a Limited option area. However, thefire spread rapidly to the northwesttoward areas designated as Full sur-rounding the town of Sterling. This isone of the few areas on KENWR whereWilderness is designated as Full ratherthan Limited management option dueto the values at risk. The Incident Man-agement Team contained the fire withinnatural barriers using aerial ignition toburn out unburned fuels in advance ofthe wildfire. The firing operation con-sumed an area almost as large as thewildfire footprint, with suppressioncosts estimated at $3 million for a firethat totaled 10,100 acres (4,100 ha).

The Fox Creek Fire was a lightningstrike in beetle-killed white spruce in aLimited option area. It was designatedfor WFU (i.e., allowed to burn) becauseit was flanked to the north by TustumenaLake, and to the east and west by wild-fire scars from 1994 and 1996,respectively, with no nearby humanhabitation or structures to the south.However, the fire advanced westwardinto the remnant fuels left by the 1996fire, threatening private cabins outsideboth wilderness and refuge boundaries.The fire also spread toward a historicalcabin on the Tustumena Lake shoreline.Consequently, firefighters used aerial andhand ignition methods to both flank thefire in the west and to defend the cabin,both of which proved to be successful

actions. The fire ultimately burned26,300 acres (10,650 ha), with suppres-sion costs estimated at $1 million.

The Irish Channel Fire was a lightningstrike in mountain hemlock in a Limitedoption area. It was designated for WFUfairly soon after detection because it wasflanked on the east by a previous fire in2003, to the north and west by SkilakLake, and to the south by tundra and gla-cier. This fire slowly consumed 925 acres(375 ha); management costs were negli-gible, essentially restricted to surveillance.

These five wildfires in wildernessdemonstrate some of the vagaries ofwilderness fire stewardship on KENWR.All five fires were lightning strikes inwilderness, four of which were in Limited.Three were suppressed in varying degrees,and two were allowed to burn as managedwildfires. The 27,225 acres (11,025 ha)burned by these latter two fires were theonly WFU acreages reported by theUSFWS in 2005. The 37,325 acres(15,111 ha) burned by all firesapproximates the total acreage (41,350acres/16,740 ha) that had previously beenburned by anthropogenic and naturalwildfire during 1985–2004 on KENWR.

DiscussionWe recognize that managed wildfiremust be used more effectively onKENWR. Several factors constrain WFUon KENWR, the most significant ofwhich is the proximity of the urbaninterface to wilderness boundaries.Furthermore, because Wilderness onKENWR is fragmented into three units,the wilderness boundary (470 miles/760km) exceeds the refuge boundary (409miles/660 km), even though the formeris within the latter. This geometricartifact increases the risk of wildfire tohuman safety, property, and structures.

The threat of personal liability to therefuge manager may be a substantivehindrance to WFU. Frankly, fewmanagers would approve the Maximum

Manageable Area of 128,400 acres(52,000 ha) that was defined for the FoxCreek Fire. A fire of this magnitude raisespublic and political ire both locally andin Anchorage. Air quality degradationassociated with fire elicits complaints andsometimes financial penalties from theAlaska Department of EnvironmentalConservation. Fortunately, mostpeninsula residents were supportive of thedecision to not suppress the Irish Channeland Fox Creek Fires. Both fires wereremote, and local educational outreachabout the need for fire appeared to besuccessful; most complaints originatedfrom Anchorage, not the peninsula.

Logistics played a role in thedecision to suppress the Moose LakeFire, even though it was in LimitedManagement Option in wilderness.This fire was detected shortly after asevere June lightning storm andseveral fires elsewhere on thepeninsula were already being managedor suppressed. Fire managementresources on the peninsula andelsewhere in Alaska are limited andmay have been inadequate forcontrolling multiple, concurrent largefires with extreme fire behavior.

Prescribed fire has been the landmanagement tool most advocated formimicking or restoring natural fireregimes in wilderness. In the lower 48,the USFWS has relied almost entirelyon prescribed fire to accomplishwilderness management objectives,including the reduction of hazardousfuels, range improvement, wildlifehabitat enhancement, and restoration ofnatural fire regimes (Parsons 2000).However, there continues to beconsiderable opposition both within andoutside the USFWS and other agenciesto prescribed fire in wilderness.Prescribed fire is viewed by many asinappropriate intervention that detractsfrom the wild or untrammeled natureof wilderness, and that its use conflicts


with the primary purposes of wilderness.Perhaps of greatest concern is that theuse of prescribed fire could become anaccepted alternative to natural ignitionsand as such would soon become thedominant wilderness fire managementstrategy (Parsons 2000).

During a recent USFWS workshop,five situations were identified in whichprescribed fire might be an appropriatetool in Alaskan wilderness: (1) to restoreor enhance habitats of federally listedthreatened and endangered species; (2)to control or eradicate invasive flora; (3)to increase the likelihood of naturallyignited fire to burn unimpeded (byreducing hazardous fuel loads aroundstructures and the urban interface); (4)to restore a natural fire regime that hasbeen temporarily altered (e.g., extremefuel loads due to blowdown from ahurricane); and (5) to mimic a naturalfire regime that has been altered and isnot expected to be restored due toconstraints on wildfire management.

Currently, situations 1, 2, 4, and 5do not apply to KENWR. KENWR doesnot have listed species, invasive florahave not yet been identified that requirefire treatment, and the fire regime at alandscape scale does not appear to bealtered, temporarily or otherwise.However, situation 3 is a need that hasbeen identified on KENWR. Aerialignitions were used during the 2005season to both contain wildfire (KingCountry Creek) and protect structures(Fox Creek). The use of prescribed fireto remove fuels or convert forest typeswould have presumably been safer andless expensive than managed wildfires.In this context, using prescribed fire toreduce fire risk at the wildland-urbaninterface, around structures, and alongadministrative boundaries may be animportant approach to increasing thelikelihood of WFU in wilderness.

The use of prescribed fire withinwilderness has been proposed in the draft

revised CCP for KENWR. Despite highsuppression rates, there is concern that thenatural fire regime is gradually beingaccelerated by increasing ignition rates, a10-year outbreak of spruce bark beetlesof unprecedented magnitude and size(Berg et al., in press), and a resident humanpopulation growing at 2.2% per year

Prescribed fire in wilderness is notwithout its concerns. Collateral damageassociated with fire management activitiesmay include exotic plant introduction,physical impacts associated withmechanical treatments, use of constructedfire lines for legal and illegal access bysnowmachines and other off-roadvehicles. Translating landscape-levelestimates of the natural fire regime intowhen and which acre gets burned is alsohighly problematic; most fire behaviormodels are not spatially and temporallyexplicit at this resolution.

We are also concerned that historicfire regimes may be changing in responseto global climate change. For example,long-term colonization of peatlands byblack spruce will provide continuity offuels across previously wet muskegs thatserved as firebreaks in fires such as the1947 fire (Klein et al. 2005). Thisexpanded fuel bed, coupled with longer,drier summers may be conducive tolarger and more severe fires in thelowland black spruce forests, as well asputting more fire on the flanks of uplandwhite spruce stands. As yet, we are notaware of any policy that articulates howhistoric fire regimes should be viewed(i.e., is it “natural”?) as global climatechange becomes more apparent. IJW

REFERENCESBerg, E. E., and R. S. Anderson. In press. Fire

history of white and Lutz spruce forests onthe Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, over the lasttwo millennia as determined from soilcharcoal. Forest Ecology and Management.

Berg, E. E., J. D. Henry, C. L. Fastie, A. D. DeVolder, and S. Matsuoka. In press. Long-termhistories of spruce beetle outbreaks in spruceforests on the western Kenai Peninsula, Alaska,

and Kluane National Park and Reserve, YukonTerritory: Relationships with summertemperature. Forest Ecology and Management.

De Volder, A. 1999. Fire and climate history oflowland black spruce forest, Kenai NationalWildlife Refuge, Alaska. Unpublished MS thesis,Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Klein, E., E. E. Berg, and R. Dial. 2005. Wetlanddrying and succession across the Kenai PeninsulaLowlands, south-central Alaska. CanadianJournal of Forest Research 35(8): 1,931–41.

Parsons, D. J. 2000. The challenge of restoringnatural fire to wilderness. In WildernessScience in a Time of Change Conference,Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats,and Management, ed. D. N. Cole, S. F.McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, 276–82. May 23-27, Missoula, MT. ProceedingsRMRS-P-15-Vol-5. Ogden, UT: USDA ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Parsons, D. J., and P. B. Landres. 1998. Restoringnatural fire to wilderness: How are we doing?(eds.). In Fire in Ecosystem Management:Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression toPrescription, ed. T. L. Pruden and L. A. Brennan,366–73. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology ConferenceProceedings, No. 20. Tallahassee, FL: TallTimbers Research Station.

Parsons, D. J., P. B. Landres, and C. Miller. 2003.Wildland fire use: The dilemma of managingand restoring natural fire and fuel in the UnitedStates wilderness. In Proceedings of FireConference 2000: The First National Congresson Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management,ed. K.E.M. Galley, R. C. Klinger, and N. G.Sugihara, 19–26. Misc. Publ. No. 13.Tallahasee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. KenaiNational Wildlife Refuge ComprehensiveConservation Plan. Anchorage, AK 99503.

JOHN M. MORTON is supervisorybiologist at Kenai National Wildlife Refuge,U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box2139, Soldotna, AK 99669, USA. Email:[email protected].

EDWARD E. BERG is ecologist at KenaiNational Wildlife Refuge. Email:[email protected].

DOUG NEWBOULD is fire managementofficer at Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.Email: [email protected].

DIANNE MacLEAN is assistant firemanager officer at Kenai National WildlifeRefuge. E-mail: [email protected].

LEE O’BRIEN is GIS manager at KenaiNational Wildlife Refuge. Email:[email protected].


Wilderness Fire Managementin a Changing World

BY CAROL MILLER

STEWARDSHIP

Several strategies are available for reducing accumu-lated forest fuels and their associated risks, includingnaturally or accidentally ignited wildland fires, man-

agement ignited prescribed fires, and a variety of mechanicaland chemical methods (Omi 1996). However, a combina-tion of policy, law, philosophy, and logistics suggest there is

a more limited set of fuels man-agement activities that areappropriate in wilderness (Bryan1997; Parsons and Landres 1998;Nickas 1998). Naturally ignitedwildland fires is the commonlypreferred fuels management strat-egy in wilderness (Miller 2003),with management-ignited pre-scribed fire being considered insome cases (Landres et al. 2000).Restoring the ecological role of fireto wilderness has proven difficult,

as the majority of lightning-caused ignitions in wildernessare suppressed for myriad biophysical and social reasons(Morton et al. this issue; Miller and Landres 2004; Parsonsand Landres 1998). This article discusses fire managementoptions currently available to managers of wilderness in theUnited States and speculates how these might change withnationally and globally important influences.

Wildland Fire Use in U.S. WildernessWilderness fire managers in the United States have a rangeof options for responding to unplanned (naturally or acci-dentally caused) ignitions, and the appropriate responseshould be based on ecological, social, and legal conse-quences of the fire (USDA and USDI 2001). U.S. federalfire policy currently distinguishes two types of wildlandfire that can result from unplanned ignitions: wildfire andWildland Fire Use (WFU). Wildfire is unwanted fire that

results from either human or natural causes, and the man-agement objective is to stop the spread of the fire andextinguish it at the least cost (USDA and USDI 2001). Insome cases, concerns about firefighter safety and suppres-sion costs will result in a less aggressive suppressionresponse to a wildfire, with features of the landscape beingused to allow fire to burn within a designated area. WFU isthe management of naturally ignited wildland fires to pro-tect, maintain, and enhance resources in predefined areasoutlined in fire management plans (USDA and USDI 2001).The management objective is to allow fire, as nearly as pos-sible, to function in its natural ecological role. In some cases,certain suppression tactics might be used with WFU to pro-tect life, property, or specific values of concern. Recently,there has been discussion about effectively dissolving thedistinction between wildfire and WFU, and managing allwildland fires with an appropriate management response(AMR) (USDA and USDI 2005c).

The use of naturally ignited wildland fires to achieveresource objectives on federal lands began in the 1960s(Aplet, this issue). At that time, these fires were called Pre-scribed Natural Fires (PNFs); a policy change in 1995introduced the new terminology of Wildland Fire Use(WFU). Since the early 1970s, when policies were firstimplemented to use natural ignitions, well over 1 millionacres (404,858 ha) have been allowed to burn by eitherPNF or WFU in national parks and national forests, withthe vast majority of PNF or WFU occurring within desig-nated wilderness. Over the past 35 years, WFU has beenimplemented with varying degrees of success in wilderness.In recent years there has been increased application, andthe expectation by managers is that it will continue to in-crease (Miller and Landres 2004). There is also increasingapplication of WFU outside wilderness, and a significantportion of the total area burned by WFU during the fireseason of 2005 occurred outside designated wilderness.

Carol Miller.


Information collected through tele-phone and email interviews in 2003indicate that at least 29% of wildernessunits in the United States have the neces-sary authorization for WFU in approvedland and resource management plans(LRMPs) and fire management plans(FMPs) (unpub. data) (see figure 1). Thepercentage of areas with authorization forWFU has likely increased in the past twoyears as the FMP process has continued(e.g., USDA and USDI 2005b). Further-more, all federal lands in Alaska havestrategies equivalent to WFU, but the ter-minology of WFU is not necessarily used.More than half of the wilderness units inAlaska have a written FMP that explicitlyallows WFU, but those that don’t are notincluded in the 29% figure.

Not surprisingly, there is a tendencyfor managers of larger wilderness areasto have the WFU option (see figure 2).Because fires are more likely to escapefrom a smaller wilderness area, local andregional staff may consider WFU aninfeasible strategy in those smaller areas,and WFU is less likely to be authorizedin the plans. Oftentimes, the consider-able effort involved with revising andupdating a plan is not seen as worthwhileif there is little opportunity for WFU.

However, even in many wildernesseswhere the fire management plan allowsfor WFU, the majority of lightning ig-nitions are suppressed (Morton et al.,this issue). Where the potential for fireto escape the wilderness boundary ishigh and when fire behavior can beexpected to be erratic or of high inten-sity, managers may feel less comfortablemaking the WFU decision (Miller andLandres 2004; Doane et al. 2005). Fur-thermore, there is an inherentdifference in the longevity of a typicalsuppression fire versus a WFU event.Suppression fires typically have a life-time of days or a couple of weeks,whereas the WFU decision requirescommitment by a manager to living

with that fire—along with any changesin resources or weather—for the re-mainder of the fire season.

Forces of ChangeTo anticipate the future of WFU in U.S.wilderness, one needs to consider thedynamic human and ecological environ-ments within which any wilderness arearesides. Many factors can be expected torestrict or expand the range of optionsavailable to fire managers, but two of thestrongest influences will likely be humandevelopment patterns and climate.

Rural areas, particularly in the west-ern United States, have seen dramaticincreases in human populations dur-ing the past few decades. Much of thisincrease has resulted in the creation andexpansion of the wildland-urban inter-face (WUI), where wildland vegetationand houses intermingle (Radeloff et al.2005). As housing densities increaseand the WUI continues to expand, thepotential threats to life and propertyfrom wildland fire increase (Hammeret al. 2004). Where WFU is not yet anoption, the continued expansion of theWUI casts serious doubt on whether

revisions of management plans will everauthorize the strategy. Where WFU isalready an option, wilderness fire man-agers will find it increasingly difficultand costly to mitigate the risks posedby WFU. The result could be fewerdecisions to exercise the WFU option.

The impact of encroaching humandevelopment will be felt most intensely

Figure 1—Status of authorization for WFU in US wilderness areas.

Figure 2—Size distribution of wilderness units with the necessary authorization for WFU in approved LRMPs and FMPscompared to size distribution of all wilderness areas.


by managers of smaller wilderness ar-eas, where there is a higher likelihoodof fires escaping. Managers of wilder-ness with certain shapes and geographicorientations will also face additionalchallenges. For example, wildernessareas situated along mountain rangesin the western United States are typi-cally oriented north-south, as are theadjacent populated valleys. This orien-

tation is problematic for the fire man-ager because the prevailing winddirection—which influences directionof fire spread—is west-east. In thesekinds of settings, the decision to imple-ment WFU may be especially difficult.

Forecasts about future climate in-clude warmer temperatures in winterand summer, with an unprecedentedrate of warming (IPCC 2001). This islikely to lead to increased drought,longer fire seasons, and more areaburned (McKenzie et al. 2004). Snow-melt will occur earlier at high elevations,bringing more area within a wildernessinto the fire season for a longer periodof time. All of these forecasted changeswill compound the challenges currentlyfaced by wilderness managers. Wilder-ness managers may find it more difficultto handle the increased load of fire ac-tivity that can be expected under a futureclimate. Longer fire seasons will requirelonger-term commitments to managinga WFU, potentially stretching the com-fort level of many managers. Fireintensities and spread rates increase withdry conditions (Catchpole et al. 1998).If WFU decisions are limited now by

concern over expected behavior andrisk of escape, managers may becomeeven more reluctant to make theWFU decision in a warmer and drierclimate. Finally, under drier condi-tions, we can expect individual firesto be larger, and perhaps more oftenspread out of a wilderness.

The Prescribed Fire OptionBecause of the risks involved, WFUmay not be feasible in all wildernesses(Parsons 2000), and in such cases,management-ignited prescribed firemay be a viable option (see figure 3).Changes in housing development pat-terns and climate that present increasedchallenges for the application of WFUmay make prescribed fire an attractiveoption to wilderness managers (seefigure 4). However, for philosophical,ecological, and practical reasons, theuse of prescribed fire in wilderness willlikely be limited. Philosophically, pre-scribed fire represents a manipulationthat is inconsistent with the “untram-meled” intent of wilderness describedin the 1964 Wilderness Act (Nickas1998). Ecologically, prescribed firesmay not be an adequate substitute fornatural fire (Baker 1994). Finally, pre-scribed fire will not be a practical optionfor many wilderness areas that are typi-cally difficult and costly to access.

The implementation of prescribedfire in wilderness is fundamentally dif-ferent from WFU implementation. Tomeet the requirements of the 1969National Environmental Policy Act,prescribed fires must undergo someform of public review, but this reviewcan be done on a case-by-case basis andso prescribed fire use does not have tobe approved in the LRMP or FMP. Evenso, as of 2003, 42% of wilderness unitshad the authorization for prescribed fireexplicit in their management plans.This is probably because many wilder-ness fire managers do not feel

Figure 3—Because of the risks involved, WFU maynot be feasible in all wildernesses, and in such cases,management-ignited prescribed fire may be a viableoption. Photo by U.S. Forest Service.

Figure 4—The impact of encroaching human development will be felt most intensely by managers of smaller wildernessareas, where there is a higher likelihood of fires escaping. Photo by U.S. Forest Service.


comfortable conducting prescribedburns in wilderness unless the fire man-agement plan explicitly prescribes it.

ConclusionHow we steward wilderness fire in achanging environment requires thatwe recognize our management optionsmay be changing. The combination ofincreasing development and a warmerclimate is likely to make the decisionto implement WFU more difficult inthe future. It is more important thanever for the wilderness managementcommunity to fully exploit availableoptions now. Management actionstaken today will influence the rangeof options that will be possible in thefuture, widening or narrowing the fu-ture decision space for WFU.

The option of WFU needs to bemade available in many areas where itdoesn’t currently exist. In many cases,this requires not only the revision andupdate of FMPs, but also revision ofLRMP. The recent trend in fire man-agement planning efforts of extendingthe WFU option to lands outside wil-derness, especially in the westernUnited States, will improve the abilityof managers to more fully realize WFUobjectives. In many cases, improvedcooperation across agencies will alsobe necessary. The management flex-ibility of allowing a WFU fire to crosspolitical boundaries essentially in-creases the effective size of wildernessand makes it easier for a wildernessmanager to make the WFU decision.

Where WFU is already an option,managers need support and incentivesfor implementation (Aplet, this issue).Fire management decisions made to-day have great potential to keep futuremanagement options open becausetoday’s fires can serve as tomorrow’sstrategic firebreaks on the landscape.Increasing the implementation of WFUwill mean helping managers overcome

some of the barriers and disincentivesfor WFU (Doane et al. 2005).

WFU is arguably one of the most ef-fective fuels management strategies wehave, but it needs to be integrated withother fuels management strategies onsurrounding lands, and in some cases,in wilderness. As WFU becomes moredifficult to implement, wilderness man-agers will need to identify if, when, andwhere WFU needs to be supplementedwith prescribed fire or other fuel ma-nipulations. As such, we can expect thedebate about when and where pre-scribed fire is appropriate in wildernessto intensify in the future. Although thisdebate may not be easily resolved, it willplay a key role in shaping future stew-ardship of wilderness. IJW

REFERENCESBaker, W. L. 1994. Restoration of landscape

structure altered by fire suppression. Con-servation Biology 8: 763–69.

Bryan, D. C., ed. 1997. Conference proceed-ings: Environmental Regulation and Pre-scribed Fire: Legal and Social Challenges.Tampa, FL, March 14–17, 1995. Tallahas-see, FL: Center for Professional Development,Florida State University.

Catchpole, W. R., E. A. Catchpole, B. W. But-ler, R. C. Rothermel, G. A. Morris, and D. J.Latham. 1998. Rate of spread of free-burn-ing fires in woody fuels in a wind tunnel.Combustion Science Technology 131: 1–37.

Doane, D., J. O’Laughlin, P. Morgan, and C.Miller. 2005. Barriers to wildland fire use inUSDA Forest Service wilderness areas asperceived by wilderness fire managers. Con-tribution No. 1006, College of Natural Re-sources Experiment Station, University ofIdaho, Moscow.

Hammer, R. C., S. I. Stewart, R. L. Winkler, V.C. Radeloff, and P. R. Voss. 2004. Charac-terizing dynamic spatial and temporal resi-dential density patterns from 1940–1990

across the north central United States. Land-scape and Urban Planning 69: 183–99.

IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scien-tific Basis. Contribution of Working Group Ito the Third Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, ed.J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M.Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K.Maskell, and C. A. Johnson. Cambridge, UK,and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Landres, P., M. W. Brunson, L. Merigliano, C.Sydoriak, and S. Morton. 2000. Natural-ness and wildness: The dilemma and ironyof managing wilderness. In Wilderness Sci-ence in a Time of Change Conference, Vol-ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, andManagement, comp. D. N. Cole, S. F.McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Laughlin,377–81. Proceedings RMRS–P-15-Vol-5.Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station.

McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, andP. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire,and conservation. Conservation Biology 18:890–902.

Miller, C. 2003. Wildland fire use: A wilder-ness perspective on fuel management. InFire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Resto-ration: Conference Proceedings, ed. P. N.Omi and L. A. Joyce, 379–85. April 16–18, 2002, Fort Collins, CO. ProceedingsRMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, CO: USDA ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Miller, C., and P. B. Landres. 2004. Exploring In-formation Needs for Wildland Fuels and FireManagement. RMRS-GTR-127. Fort Collins,CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Nickas, G. 1998. Wilderness fire. WildernessWatcher 10: 1, 4–5.

Omi, P. N. 1996. Landscape-level fuel manipu-lations in greater Yellowstone: Opportuni-ties and challenges. In The Second BiennialConference on the Greater Yellowstone Eco-system, 7–14. September 19-21, 1993,Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.

Parsons, D. J. 2000. The challenge of restoringnatural fire to wilderness. In Wilderness Sci-ence in a Time of Change Conference, Vol-

WFU is the management of naturally ignitedwildland fires to protect, maintain, and enhance

resources in predefined areas outlined infire management plans.



SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Understanding Social Influenceson Wilderness

Fire Stewardship DecisionsBY KATIE KNOTEK

Abstract: Federal land managers and the public engage in many decisions about stewardship of wildernessin the United States, including decisions about stewardship of fire. To date, social science research lacks aholistic examination of the decision-making context of managers and the public about stewardship of fireinside wilderness and across its boundaries. A conceptual model is presented to guide research on thisdecision-making context, with emphasis placed on social influences on public and manager decision making.

IntroductionThe Wilderness Act of 1964 mandates that the natural con-ditions of wilderness be protected and preserved while beingmanaged for human uses and values. Wildland fire (anynonstructure fire in a wildland area) is a natural disturbanceprocess in many wilderness ecosystems, and therefore, inthese places wilderness stewardship (careful and responsible

management) must allow theoccurrence of fire to preservenatural conditions. At the sametime, wilderness stewardshipmust also consider how fire in-teracts with human uses andpublic values associated withwilderness and adjacent lands.Thus, federal land managers,engaged with the public, must

make decisions about the appropriate stewardship of fireinside and across wilderness boundaries (see figure 1).

Strategies for fire stewardship can include both suppressionand use of wildland fire (either naturally ignited or manage-ment ignited). Guided by the 2001 Federal Wildland FireManagement Policy in the United States, managers must assessthe costs and benefits of these options when making steward-ship decisions, taking into account both short- and long-termecological and social outcomes. For example, managers mustconsider the impact (positive or negative) of different decisions

on ecological elements, such as flora, fauna, air and water qual-ity, and social elements, such as human life, private property,and local, regional, and national values attached to public lands.Members of the public must also consider such impacts whenevaluating fire stewardship decisions proposed by land man-agement agencies. This creates a complex decision-makingcontext for managers and the public concerning the steward-ship of fire inside and outside wilderness.

This article presents a model to guide research in under-standing and facilitating these decisions. Because social factorsare among the primary influences on decision making, em-phasis is placed on understanding how these factors caninfluence fire stewardship decisions and how research can fa-cilitate such decisions. A model originally proposed to explainsocial influences on wilderness policy, human and ecologicalvalues, and codes of behavior for wilderness visitors (Watsonand Landres 1999) has been adapted to understanding socialfactors that influence manager and public decisions about firestewardship. The adapted model (see figure 2) provides in-sight into social influences on fire stewardship decisionsgenerally, which includes decisions regarding the stewardshipof fire in wilderness ecosystems specifically.

Cognitive Disposition toward FireDecisions made by managers and the public about fire aredirectly influenced by their cognitive disposition (see figure 2),reflecting human values, value orientations, attitudes, norms,

Katie Knotek. Photo by Jeff Brooks.

PEER REVIEWED


and behavioral intentions. The Cogni-tive Hierarchy, a theoretical framework(Fulton et al. 1996; Vaske and Donnelly1999), suggests that an individual’s per-sonal view of the environment is shapedby these cognitive components, and thateach of these components builds uponthe other, from fundamental values (thecenter of one’s personal belief system)to specific behaviors. Thus, the theoryholds that fundamental values and valueorientations can be used to understandand predict human attitudes, norms,and behavioral intentions with referenceto a specific object or subject such asthe stewardship of wildland fire.

A large proportion of social scienceresearch applied to fire issues has fo-cused on investigating the variouscomponents of the Cognitive Hierarchyand their influences on decision mak-ing (Machlis et al. 2002). For example,scientists have assessed value orienta-tions (Bright et al. 2003), attitudes(Jacobson et al. 2001; Manfredo et al.1990; McCool and Stankey 1986),norms (Kneeshaw et al. 2004), and be-havioral intentions (Jacobson et al. 2001)related to fire stewardship inside andoutside wilderness. Such research hasbeen emphasized because, as purportedby the Cognitive Hierarchy, knowledgeof human values, attitudes, and normsis critical to predicting human behaviorand decision making. This line of re-search, however, lacks an examinationof more broad social influences that ul-timately drive cognitive dispositionstoward stewardship of fire (see figure 2).

General Societal Trendsand Specific InfluencesIn order to fully understand the con-text within which managers and thepublic make decisions about fire stew-ardship, there is a need to link the studyof cognitive components held by indi-viduals, such as values and attitudes,to larger societal influences (Manfredo

et al. 2004). Detailed below are a selectset of some general societal trends andspecific influences and discussion abouttheir relationship to decisions regard-ing stewardship of wildland fire.

Shifting Orientationstoward Natural ResourcesShifting orientations toward naturalresources is a societal trend that has sig-nificantly influenced public landmanagement, including stewardship ofwildland fire. Historically, Americansociety has dominantly displayed utili-tarian or anthropocentric orientationstoward natural resources, focusing pub-lic lands policy and management on theextraction and utilization of natural re-sources for economic benefit (Williams2005). In the second half of the 20thcentury, however, American society hasshifted to less utilitarian and morebiocentric orientations toward naturalresources, valuing resources for theirinherent worth as amenities or scarceresources to be protected and con-served (Williams 2005). The formeranthropocentric orientation towardnatural resources spurred a fire policyof strict suppression emphasizing com-modity protection (Pyne 1982;Williams 2005). But today, as society

increasingly values natural resources asamenities, there is greater support fordecisions to manage fire in ways thatwill preserve the natural features andfunctioning of wildlands (Manfredo etal. 1990; McCool and Stankey 1986).

Increased Knowledgeof Natural ProcessesAnother societal influence on attitudesabout fire stewardship is an increasedunderstanding of natural processes.Scientific understanding of natural pro-cesses, such as wildland fire and itsimportance in proper ecosystem func-tioning, has increased over time,particularly since the 1970s (Pyne1982). For example, fires within wil-derness were previously perceived to

Figure 1—Fire does not adhere to political or administrativeboundaries, thus federal land managers and the public mustmake decisions about fire stewardship across the wilderness andnonwilderness interface. Photo by Josh Whitmore.

Figure 2—A model for understanding social influences on fire stewardship decisions.


be detrimental to public resources andvalues, causing fire suppression to beviewed as essential for protecting wil-derness values (Parsons 2000).Research has shown, however, that fireis indeed a natural process in manywilderness ecosystems, as it providesfor nutrient cycling, regeneration ofvegetation, and reduction of hazardousfuel loads, among other benefits (Pyne1982). As a result, federal land man-agement agencies initiated new policiesin the late 1960s and 1970s that wouldallow some wildland fires to burn un-der prescribed conditions (Pyne 1982).As science produces new knowledgeabout wildland fire, these policies arebeing updated and expanded to in-crease the use of fire both inside andoutside wilderness (Aplet, this issue).

Development and Growthof the Wildland-Urban InterfaceOne of the most influential societalchanges that has affected fire stewardshipdecisions has been the development andgrowth of the wildland-urban interface(WUI) (Miller and Landres 2004). Thegrowing WUI represents the increase inresidential housing and recreational usein urban fringe areas that has occurredover the past several decades. In theseareas, society is faced with the necessityand risk of wildland fire, while managersstruggle to understand and meet publicexpectations regarding fire stewardship

(Jacobson et al. 2001; Winter and Fried2000). At the same time, fire policy (e.g.,the National Fire Plan) increasingly em-phasizes community protection and riskprevention in the WUI (Glickman andBabbitt 2000), which often constrains de-cisions to use fire on adjacent areas,including wilderness. Social trends andprojected growth in the WUI (Radeloffet al. 2005) is important information formanagers and the public to inform deci-sions about fire and protecting values atrisk across the interface of wilderness andadjacent lands. Data such as these, as wellas other changes in the WUI environmentwill become increasingly important inmaking decisions about fire stewardshipas growth of the WUI continues.

Public TrustPublic trust in land management agen-cies is an example of a specific influenceon how the public evaluates and respondsto policy governing fire stewardship(Liljeblad and Borrie, this issue; Tomanand Shindler 2003; Winter andCvetkovich 2003). Trust in public landmanagement agencies has been assessedthrough measurement of perceptions ofshared values, direction, goals, views,actions, and thoughts (Earle andCvetkovich 1995). Trust is facilitatedthrough a collaborative relationship be-tween the public and the agency, in whichthe agency takes responsibility for pro-tecting the public purpose of public lands(Borrie et al. 2002). Therefore, public per-ception of the land management agency’sability to reflect public values, goals, di-rection, and so forth influences supportfor agency policy and decisions relatedto fire stewardship. Research to under-stand public trust in an agency’s ability tomake fire stewardship decisions that con-sider local values is crucial. Research ofthis type equips scientists with the abilityto assess and monitor trust levels overtime, providing feedback on stewardshipdecisions (Liljeblad and Borrie, this issue).

Place Meanings and AttachmentsThe type and degree of attachments thatpeople hold in regard to specific publiclands influence their views of fire stew-ardship. Stewardship practices andenvironmental conditions acceptable inone setting are not necessarily accept-able in another, depending on placemeanings and landscape context(Brunson 1993). Place-based meaningshave been investigated through the con-cept of “place attachment” (Moore andGraefe 1994; Williams et al. 1992), de-fined as a psychological indicator of aperson–place relationship and the mean-ings that are inherently a part of thatrelationship. All wildland fires have thepotential to impact (positively and nega-tively) relationships humans have withplaces, and in turn, how they perceivewildland fire and decisions pertainingto its stewardship (see figure 3). Researchhas been used to map personal valuesand meanings across wilderness andnonwilderness lands to understand howplace meanings and attachments caninfluence decisions about fire steward-ship (see, for instance, Gunderson, thisissue). The results of this research pro-vide social understanding that, coupledwith ecological modeling efforts, can beused to evaluate the social and ecologi-cal consequences of potential firestewardship decisions. Research suggeststhat through the investigation and map-ping of place meanings and attachmentsit is possible to better inform managerand public decisions concerning firestewardship, providing a valuable toolto facilitate manager and public decisionmaking in the future.

ConclusionsThere are other examples of acknowl-edged, but not understood, socialinfluences on decisions about fire stew-ardship, such as institutional incentivesand disincentives, education initiativesto inform homeowners about personal

Figure 3—It is important to consider how fire influences humanrelationships with wildlands and perceptions of appropriate firestewardship activities. Photo by Josh Whitmore.


responsibility, increasingly urban popu-lations, and cultural differences in placemeanings and attachments. Guided bythis conceptual framework, however,research should be aimed at not onlyindividual cognitive components thatpredict decision making, but also theselarger changing social factors that influ-ence decisions about stewardship of fireinside and outside wilderness. Investi-gation of issues on the topic areas andrelationships depicted in this model willprovide a more detailed understandingof agency and public decision making.Such a research pursuit is timely as fed-eral land managers, engaged with thepublic, act to restore the natural role offire to many ecosystems. IJW

REFERENCESBorrie, W. T., N. Christensen, A. E. Watson, T.

A. Miller, and D. W. McCollum. 2002. Pub-lic purpose recreation marketing: A focuson the relationships between the public andpublic lands. Journal of Park and RecreationAdministration 20(2): 49–68.

Bright, A. D., J. J. Vaske, K. Kneeshaw, and J.D. Absher. 2003. Scale development of wild-fire management basic beliefs. InHomeowners, Communities, and Wildfire:Science Findings from the National Fire Plan.Proceedings of the Ninth International Sym-posium on Society and Management, comp.P. J. Jakes. 18–25. June 2–5, Bloomington,IN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-231. St. Paul, MN:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser-vice, North Central Research Station.

Brunson, M. W. 1993. “Socially acceptable”forestry: What does it imply for ecosystemmanagement? Western Journal of AppliedForestry 8(4): 116–19.

Earle, T. C., and G. T. Cvetkovich. 1995. SocialTrust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society.Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Fulton, D. C., M. J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb,J. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A con-ceptual and measurement approach. HumanDimensions of Wildlife 1: 24–47.

Glickman, D., and B. Babbitt. 2000. Managingthe Impact of Wildfires on Communities andthe Environment: A Report to the Presidentin Response to the Wildfires of 2000. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Agricultureand U.S. Department of the Interior.

Jacobson, S. K., M. C. Monroe, and S.Marynowski. 2001. Fire at the wildland in-terface: The influence of experience and mass

media on public knowledge, attitudes andbehavioral intentions. Wildlife Society Bulletin29(3): 929–37.

Kneeshaw, K., J.J. Vaske, A. D. Bright, and J. D.Absher. 2004. Acceptability norms towardfire management in three national forests. En-vironment and Behavior 36(4): 592–612.

Machlis, G. E., A. B. Kaplan, S. P. Tuler, K. A.Bagby, and J. E. McKendry,. 2002. BurningQuestions: A Social Science Research Planfor Federal Wildland Fire Management.Moscow, ID: Idaho Forest, Wildlife andRange Experiment Station, College of Natu-ral Resources, University of Idaho.

Manfredo, M. J., M. Fishbein, G. E. Haas, and A.E. Watson. 1990. Attitudes towards prescribedfire policies. Journal of Forestry 99(7): 19–23.

Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, and A. D. Bright. 2004.Application of the concept of values and atti-tudes in human dimensions of natural resourcesresearch. In Society and Natural Resources: ASummary of Knowledge, ed. M. J. Manfredo,J. J. Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R. Field, and P. J.Brown. Prepared for the 10th InternationalSymposium on Society and Resource Manage-ment. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho.

McCool, S. F., and G. H. Stankey. 1986. Visitorattitudes toward wilderness fire managementpolicy—1971–84. Res. Pap. INT-357. Ogden,UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Intermountain Research Station.

Miller, C., and P. Landres. 2004. Exploring In-formation Needs for Wildland Fire and Fu-els Management. Gen. Tech. Rep.RMRS-GTR-127. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. 1994. Attach-ment to recreation settings: The case of rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences 16: 17–31.

Parsons, D. J. 2000. Restoration of natural fireto United States Wilderness Areas. In Per-sonal, Societal, and Ecological Values ofWilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Con-gress Proceedings on Research, Manage-ment, and Allocation, vol. II, comp. A. E.Watson, G. H. Aplet, and J. C. Hendee. P.42–47. October 24–29, 1998, Bangalore,India. Proceedings RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser-vice, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Pyne, S. J. 1982. Fire in America: A CulturalHistory of Wildland and Rural Fire.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, S. I. Stewart, J. S.Fried, S. S. Holcomb, and J. F. McKeefry. 2005.The wildland urban interface in the UnitedStates. Ecological Applications 15: 799–805.

Toman, E., and B. Shindler. 2003. Hazardous fuelreduction in the blue mountains: Public attitudesand opinions. In Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Eco-logical Restoration: Conference Proceedings,tech. ed. P. N. Omi and L. A. Joyce.p.241–254. April 16–18, 2002. Ft. Collins, CO. Pro-ceedings RMRS-P-29. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station.

Vaske, J. J., and M. P. Donnelly. 1999. A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildlandpreservation voting intentions. Society andNatural Resources 12: 523–37.

Watson, A., and P. Landres. 1999. Changingwilderness values. In Outdoor Recreation inAmerican Life: A National Assessment ofDemand and Supply Trends, prin. investi-gator H. K. Cordell, 384–88. Champaign,IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Williams, D. R., M. E. Patterson, J. W.Roggenbuck, and A. E. Watson. 1992. Be-yond the commodity metaphor: Examiningemotional and symbolic attachment to place.Leisure Sciences 14: 29–46.

Williams, G. W. 2005. The USDA Forest Service—The First Century. Washington, DC: USDAForest Service, Office of Communication.

Winter, G., and J. S. Fried. 2000. Homeownerperspectives on fire hazard, responsibility,and management strategies at the wildland-urban interface. Society and Natural Re-sources 13: 33–49.

Winter, P. L., and G. T. Cvetkovich. 2003. A studyof Southwesterners’ opinions on the manage-ment of wildland and wilderness fires. River-side, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

KATIE KNOTEK is a social science researchassistant with the Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute and the Bitterroot EcosystemManagement Research Project, USDA ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station.She can be reached at [email protected].

Research suggests that through the investigation andmapping of place meanings and attachments it is

possible to better inform manager and publicdecisions concerning fire stewardship.


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


Amphibians and Wildfirein the U.S. Northwest

BY BLAKE R. HOSSACK

Recent evidence of amphibian declines along withoutbreaks of large wildfires in western North Ameri-can conifer forests has underscored our lack of

knowledge about effects of fire on amphibians in theseecosystems. Understanding the connection between amphib-ian declines and wildfire is proving complex in some areasbecause the past century of fire suppression and other man-agement activities have already altered amphibian habitats.For example, ponderosa pine forest types typically had lowseverity understory fires that likely maintained open habi-tats preferred by some amphibians. Fires in these, or otherforests that have been altered by fire suppression, may bemore intense than what occurred historically, and may haveimmediate negative effects on amphibians (direct mortality)or long-term beneficial effects (habitat restoration).

Amphibian communities in the southeastern United Statesbenefit from frequent (1–5 years) low intensity fires, and pre-scribed fire is now a tool in managing some forests forbiodiversity. In western North American forests, wildfire wasthe dominant historic disturbance, but there have been sur-prisingly few studies on its short- or long-term effects onamphibians. Notably, one study in Oregon and Washingtonfound that abundance or richness of most terrestrial and stream-dwelling amphibians did not differ between young (40- to80-year-old) and old-growth (up to 450-year-old) Douglas firforests. Although this was not directly a fire study, it was con-ducted in forests naturally regenerated after stand-replacingwildfire, and the results suggest few long-term effects of fire.

There are several studies now underway in the Northwestexamining the role of fire in amphibian conservation. D. J. Ma-jor (Utah State University) and R. B. Bury (U.S. GeologicalSurvey) are investigating the effects of fire on fuel loads andterrestrial salamanders in the Klamath province of northernCalifornia. Initial results from that study suggest that downed

wood and fine fuels (e.g., leaf litter) were reduced after fire,but strong negative effects on the salamander communitywere not immediately evident. Covering a larger geographicarea, D. S. Pilliod (California Polytechnic University–SanLouis Obispo), R. B. Bury, and P. S. Corn (USGS–LeopoldInstitute) are conducting a five-year study of the patterns ofdistribution and abundance of stream amphibians in areasburned by recent wildfires in the northern Rocky Mountains(including the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilder-ness) and southern Oregon. The amphibian community ofheadwater streams in these study areas is often dominatedby either the Rocky Mountain tailed frog or the Pacific tailedfrog, depending upon location. Species such as tailed frogsand other stream-breeding amphibians are expected to beespecially sensitive to disturbances such as wildfire becausethey breed in cold headwater streams, have larvae that cantake more than three years to metamorphose, and are sensi-tive to increases in stream sedimentation and temperature.Data from this study so far suggest densities of tailed froglarvae are reduced by wildfire, especially in south-facingwatersheds, and younger larvae are more susceptible to envi-ronmental changes that ensue.



Understanding Place Meaningsfor Wilderness

Personal and Community Values at Risk

BY KARI GUNDERSON

Abstract: Information about human relationships with wilderness is important for wilderness managementdecisions, including decisions pertaining to the use of wildland fire. In a study about meanings attached to anational forest, local residents were asked to identify places they valued on the forest, why they valued them,and how fuel treatments affected those values. Local residents attach many meanings to the wilderness part ofthe landscape and they have opinions about the use of wildland fire as a fuel treatment there. Understandingthe meanings humans attach to wilderness and how it influences their perceptions of fire and fuels manage-ment there can help managers anticipate public response to planned activities.


PEER REVIEWED

IntroductionInformation about human relationships with wilderness isimportant for wilderness management decisions, includ-ing decisions pertaining to the use of wildland fire. In astudy about meanings attached to a national forest, localresidents were asked to identify places they valued on theforest, why they valued them, and how fuel treatments af-fected those values. Local residents attach many meaningsto the wilderness part of the landscape, and they have opin-ions about the use of wildland fire as a fuel treatment there.Understanding the meanings humans attach to wildernessand how it influences their perceptions of fire and fuelsmanagement there can help managers anticipate public re-sponse to planned activities.

The importance of considering the interests of local resi-dents in public land decision making is growing(Brandenburg and Carroll 1995; Eisenhauer, Krannich, andBlahna 2000; Endter-Wada, Blahna, Krannich, and Brunson1998; Mitchell, Force, Carroll, and McLaughlin 1993;Schroeder 1996; Vining and Tyler 1999). Human connec-tivity is an important influence on public response to publicland management policies. The connection between hu-mans and places may be due to emotional attachments, beactivity driven, and/or incorporate functional meanings. Thestudy reported here attempts to create an understanding of

the meanings local people attach to the wilderness portionof a national forest landscape and their opinions about theuse of wildland fire in fuels management there.

Human Connectivity to Public LandsPeople have relationships with places, and scientists havecontributed substantially to under-standing these relationships. Somelocations are more important thanothers to people, and in order toanticipate public response to pro-posed resource managementactivities, managers need to under-stand these relationships. Tuan(1977) referred to “geopiety” as anindividual’s bonding with nature ingeneral, and specific places in par-ticular. He described place as a center of meaningconstructed by experience. Place attachment has been as-sociated with choices of homes, neighborhoods, andcommunities (Feldman 1990). The concept of place attach-ment has been an important research issue in public landsplanning (Moore and Graefe 1994; Schreyer, Jacob, andWhite 1981; Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, and Watson1992; Williams and Roggenbuck 1989).

Kari Gunderson. Photo by Anne Dahl.


The BitterrootNational ForestThe Bitterroot Valley is located in west-ern Montana, south of Missoula. TheBitterroot Front, on the west side ofthe Bitterroot Valley, features an eastto west continuum, beginning with de-veloped private lands in the valleyfloor, transitioning to the wildland/urban interface, then to roaded na-tional forest lands, then upslope toroadless nonwilderness areas, and fi-nally reaching the Selway-BitterrootWilderness to the west (see figure 1).About 77% of the property in the wa-tershed is within the BitterrootNational Forest.

Ravalli County, which includes mostof the Bitterroot watershed, experienceda 43% increase in population duringthe 1990s and was the fastest growingcounty in Montana (Swanson 2001).Today the Bitterroot Valley is charac-terized by an influx of new people withdifferent values and economic means.The once very rural communities areevolving into communities of commut-ers to the Missoula area, retirees, and agrowing service and high technologybusiness center, while trying to main-tain a strong relationship withagriculture and the area’s natural re-sources largely managed by theBitterroot National Forest. Most of theBitterroot Range above the BitterrootValley is protected as wilderness and isa source of much of the water that flowsdown and through the otherwise fairlyarid valley environment. The quality oflife in the Bitterroot Valley is high, andit is deeply connected to the area’s natu-ral resources, outdoor recreationalopportunities, and naturalness of themountain landscape.

During the summer of 2000, wild-fires burned more than 350,000 acres(141,700 ha) of Bitterroot NationalForest, Montana State Trust, and pri-vate forest land in southwestern

Montana. Since the occurrence ofthese fires, relationships between lo-cal residents and the forest, with eachother, with the Forest Service, andwith firefighters have changed. Thereis an “inseparability of fuels manage-ment and fire psychology” (Daniels2000). Daniels states (pp. 30–31):

People who built their houses inthe valley had powerful feelingsabout their place in nature.People’s dreams as well as theirlife savings are connected to theirhomes and their properties; theyidentify with the land aroundthem, and now it’s burned.

A postfire assessment of the Bitter-root Valley fires of 2000 resulted in twomajor postulates about communitymember beliefs: (1) there was a need tochange current forest stewardship prac-tices to more effectively reduce wildlandfire fuels, and (2) there was a lack of trustin the Forest Service to make decisionsabout fuel and fire management thatconsider local values (Watson 2001).Research was needed to create under-standing of the local values attached to

the 471,000-acre (190,688-ha) Bitter-root National Forest landscape by localresidents to allow them to be more effi-ciently and effectively considered in fueltreatment programs.

MethodsThere were 12 semistructured inter-views with Bitterroot Valley residentsfrom four principal communities inRavalli County; eight key informantinterviews with people recognized ascommunity leaders (including onemember of the Confederated Salishand Kootenai Tribes); and two focusgroups with intact community orga-nizations. Participants were asked toindicate: (1) the specific places youspend the most time on the BitterrootFront; (2) the areas that you considerimportant, but that you have seldomor never spent time; (3) the reasonsthese places are important to you; and(4) feelings about hazardous fuel treat-ments, including wildland fire use atthese important places. Maps wereavailable for respondents to locate spe-cific places that had meaning to them,

Figure 1—The meanings local people have for the wilderness portion of the National Forest landscape, like thisforest area, need to be heard through their own words. Photo by Kari Gunderson.


and all interviews were tape-recordedfor transcription and analysis.

Participants were also shown twofixed-point photographs illustratingcommon conditions before and afterfuel treatments. Respondents were toldthat examples of fuel treatments couldinclude using fire alone, using mechani-cal fuel treatments alone, and using acombination of burning and mechani-cal treatments, although intervieweeswere informed that mechanical treat-ments could not be applied in thewilderness portion of the forest.

ResultsRespondents commonly indicated someof the most important areas to them tobe in the wilderness (Gunderson,Watson, Titre, and Nelson 2004). A va-riety of meanings are attached to placesthey go and don’t go within the wilder-ness boundary (e.g., emotional,symbolic, and functional), using a vari-ety of terms to describe the character ofthese places (e.g., remote, roadless, pris-tine, few people). For example:

I think that not very manypeople get up into any of these.… [It] is extremely remote,extremely remote. … It’s a longways from trails up there. Notvery many people are willingto crawl on their hands andknees with a full backpack. It’svery pristine. The remoteness.In fact, with all of these areasthe reason is that it feels likerarely do people get up there.(Interview # 05-01)

I want to pull that wildernessboundary down to where wedelineate that that is roadless,that it’ll never be roaded andthat we should extend the wil-derness boundary to that placeto give that area the protectionthe Wilderness Act gives it. (In-terview # 02-01)

It is all important. There werecertain trails and passes over

the divide, through the wilder-ness over into Idaho that wereused by families for thousandsof years and they’re continuallyused. Not only is it our aborigi-nal territories for the tribes andme individually, I’d say that it’smore than just a special place.It’s our homeland, you know?(Interview # 06-01)

Several respondents offered opinionson the use of wildland fire in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and itscompatibility with the values they asso-ciate with some of the important placesthey had indicated there. For example:

Fire will reintroduce itself. I don’tthink we need to go in there withfire. Let nature take over. I wouldsay that with much of this, wherethese prescriptions may be pro-posed, let’s back off with our in-tensive practices of scarifying theland and let nature come in. (In-terview # 04-03)

Fine, let it burn … it burnedfor eons of time before we eversaw it, and we’re just a speckon the flow of time there. (In-terview # 02-01)

There should be absolutely zeromanipulation of woody mate-rial in wilderness areas. I thinkin wilderness fires ought to belet burn. (Interview # 05-01)

If there is a great big, huge for-est fire I just say let it rip andnot go in there and do anything.See, the problem is that they tryto go fix things and when theygo in there and fix things andthey disturb things that’s whenthey make it worse. But natu-rally, if a fire burnt through therenaturally I wouldn’t see that youwould need to do any treat-ments. Because it’d come backnaturally. (Interview # 06-03)

If we’re talking about fuels re-duction … either the wildernessis going to burn or it’s not going

to burn, or we’re going to allowthat to kind of run its normalcourse. And if there’s a beautifulplace in there that I like burnsup, that’s just what’s going tohappen in my lifetime. I’m notgoing to lose any sleep over thatone. (FOCUS GROUP # 01)

Responses from Bitterroot Valley resi-dents indicated uncertainty regardingwhether wildland fire use is considereda fuel treatment tool and identifiedsome barriers to use of wildland fire onthis landscape. For example:

Are you going to classify wild-land fire use fires as hazardousfuel reduction? It’s not veryprecise, it’s kind of heavy-handed sometimes because,and especially some of thoseplaces down in those drain-ages. They’re due to burn upbig time, not just nice littlepretty underburn to make itlook beautiful 10 years fromnow. It’s going to cook. (FO-CUS GROUP # 01)

Getting back to wilderness, theSelway-Bitterroot Wilderness,we do have authorization orauthority to allow wildland fireto meet resource managementobjectives in those areas. Butcertainly the issue with that isthat we’re limited in our abil-ity to do that, just based ontypical weather patterns, to-pography, geography of thearea, and historically how firesonce being established up can-yon have a tendency to moveout onto the face. But, I mean,that is a fuels reduction tool wehave in the wilderness. (FO-CUS GROUP # 02)

There was some support for allowing“naturally occurring fire” to play a rolein reducing fire hazards both insideand adjacent to the Selway-BitterrootWilderness, if trust between the pub-lic and the Forest Service can becomestronger. For example:


I think ultimately we’re goingto come to the realization, aswe have with wilderness, thatnatural fire will play a role, asit always has. And that will ap-ply also to roadless lands andother lands of the national for-est. We will let fire have its headin many instances in the na-tional forest, but this extremedenudation of the landscapewith fire I think in the worst ofthese examples is unconscio-nable. And we really need tostand by research that gives ussome balance with this andavoid the pitfall of justifyingtreatment, fire treatment, wherethe bottom line is getting thelogs out. (Interview # 04-03)

The biggest issue with regardsto fuel management on the Bit-terroot Front is probably trust,I guess. The public under-standing of the need to do thework to accomplish objectives.(FOCUS GROUP # 02)

ConclusionThe research briefly described here pro-vides insight into how current emphasison fuel treatment on public lands in theUnited States may influence relation-ships humans have with landscapes.Many of the comments obtained aboutwilderness places and needs for fuelmanagement there gravitated towardfuel buildup and things that might beaccomplished at the interface betweenwilderness and nonwilderness in orderto protect both. Concern about homesat risk of wildfire and the risk of unde-sirable landscape modification due tostand replacement fires certainly influ-

ence support of fuel treatment objec-tives on all parts of the landscape. Fearsof hidden agendas connected to fuelmanagement likely suggest the feelingthat some members of the public aresuspicious of how well the agency un-derstands or represents the values localpeople attach to this landscape.

This study provided insight intomeanings that local residents attach tothe wilderness portion of the landscape.This knowledge is needed by agencymanagers and planners to more effec-tively consider how fire and fuelsmanagement activities inside wildernessand across its boundaries will affect hu-man relationships with the landscapeand, in turn, public response to man-agement activities. Managers need tohear from people about their relation-ships with places, including wilderness,and understand how management ac-tions might influence these relationships.

Efforts to understand human con-nectivity to the national forestlandscape may contribute to buildingtrust in the agency (Liljeblad and Borrie,this issue). Information gained fromthis research in the Bitterroot Valley wasused, along with ecological modeling,to propose fuel treatment locations toaccomplish ecological restoration andhazardous fuel reduction targets. Whenprojecting the long-term effects of fireon the landscape, under alternative fueltreatment scenarios, anticipating theinfluence of social response to alterna-tive treatment options is vital.

Future research needs to provide morecomplete understanding of the influencesof alternative fuel treatments on human

relationships with the landscape. Al-though there has been progress incapturing variation in the spatial scale ofattachments, it is likely that the attach-ments might also vary in the intensityof feelings about how that place on thelandscape contributes to identity, providessome functional value, or is unique.

Future efforts to proactively includethis type of social science data in mod-eling efforts to locate priority areas anddetermine appropriate methods for fueltreatment are crucial. Currently, fire andfuels management programs on publiclands are placing an increased emphasison building public trust, understand-ing and protecting economic andnoneconomic values at risk associatedwith public lands, and gaining morecollaborative engagement with the pub-lic. This kind of research will contributeto all of these objectives. IJW

REFERENCESBrandenburg, A. M., and M. S. Carroll. 1995.

Your place, or mine: The effect of place cre-ation on environmental values and land-scape meanings. Society and NaturalResources 8: 381–98.

Daniels, S. 2000. Conference presentation. InNational Conference on the Social Accept-ability of Fuel Treatments on Western PublicLands, ed. J. Burchfield, 30–34. Final re-port. USDA, Rocky Mountain Research Sta-tion, Fort Collins, CO.

Eisenhauer, B. W., R. S. Krannich, and D. J. Blahna.2000. Attachments to special places on pub-lic lands: An analysis of activities, reason forattachments, and community connections.Society and Natural Resources 12: 421–41.

Endter-Wada, J. D., D. Blahna, R. Krannich, andM. Brunson. 1998. A framework for under-standing social science contributions to eco-system management. Ecological Applications8(3): 891–904.

Feldman, R. M. 1990. Settlement identity:Psychological bonds with home places ina mobile society. Environment and Behav-ior 22: 183–229.

Gunderson, K. I., A. E. Watson, J. Titre, and R.Nelson. 2004. Mapping Place Meanings onthe Bitterroot National Forest—A Landscape-level Assessment of Personal and CommunityValues as Input to Fuel Hazard ReductionTreatments. Report to the Bitterroot Ecosys-tem Management Research Project, USDA

Local residents attach many meanings to thewilderness part of the landscape, and they have

opinions about the use of wildland fire asa fuel treatment there.


Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Sta-tion. On file, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Re-search Institute, Missoula, MT.

Mitchell, M. Y., J. E. Force, M. S. Carroll, and W.J. McLaughlin. 1993. Forest places of the heart:Incorporating special spaces into public man-agement. Journal of Forestry 91(4): 32–37.

Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. 1994. Attach-ments to recreation settings: The case of rail-trail users. Leisure Sciences 16: 17–31.

Schreyer, R. M., G. Jacob, and R. White 1981.Environmental meaning as a determinant ofspatial behavior in recreation. Papers andproceedings of the Applied Geography con-ferences: Vol. IV, 294–300. Kent State Uni-versity, Kent, OH.

Schroeder, H. W. 1996. Ecology of the heart:Understanding how people experience natu-ral environments. In Natural Resource Man-agement: The Human Dimension, ed. A.Ewert, 13–27. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Swanson, L. 2001. The Bitterroot Valley of west-ern Montana area economic profile.

O’Conner Center for the Rocky MountainWest, the University of Montana, Missoula.

Tuan, Y. F. 1977. Space and Place. London:Arnold.

Vining, J., and E. Tyler. 1999. Values, emotions,and desired outcomes reflected in publicresponses to forest management plans. Hu-man Ecology Review 6(1): 21–34.

Watson, A. E. 2001. Bitterroot National Forest.Community telephone survey open-endedquestions analysis. Report to the BitterrootNational Forest. March 2001. Availablefrom Bitterroot National Forest and the AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institute.

Williams, D. R., and J. W. Roggenbuck. 1989.Measuring place attachment: Some prelimi-nary results. In Abstracts: 1989 Leisure Re-search Symposium, eds. L. H. McAvoy andD. Howard, 32. Arlington, VA: NationalRecreation and Park Association.

Williams, D. R., M. E Patterson, J. W.Roggenbuck., and A. E. Watson. 1992.Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining

emotional and symbolic attachment to place.Leisure Science 14: 29–46.

Williams, D. R., and S .I. Stewart. 1998. Senseof place: An elusive concept that is findinga home in ecosystem management. Journalof Forestry 96: 18–23.

KARI GUNDERSON is the contractedwilderness coordinator at the USDA ForestService Mission Mountain Wilderness inMontana, the education coordinator andinstructor for the Wilderness ManagementDistance Education Program at theUniversity of Montana, a teacher at theConfederated Salish & Kootenai College inPablo, Montana, and maintains a researchassociation with the Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research Institute in Missoula,MT. She can be reached [email protected].

From TAKE BACK CONSERVATION MOVEMENT on page 8

Leakey, Richard, and Roger Lewin. 1995. TheSixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Fu-ture of Humankind. New York: Doubleday.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanacand Sketches Here and There. New York:Oxford University Press.

Longman, Phillip. 2004. The global baby bust.Foreign Affairs May–June.

Lovejoy, Thomas E. 1980. Foreword. In Con-servation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecologi-cal Perspective, ed. Michael E. Soulè andBruce A. Wilcox. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Naess, Arne. 1986. Intrinsic value: will the de-fenders of nature please rise? In Conserva-tion Biology: The Science of Scarcity andDiversity, ed. Michael E. Soulè, 504–15.Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Nash, Roderick. 1967. Wilderness and theAmerican Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-versity Press.

Noss, Reed F., Eric Dinerstein, Barrie Gilbert,Michael Gilpin, Brian J. Miller, JohnTerborgh, and Steve Trombulak. 1999. Coreareas: Where nature reigns. In ContinentalConservation, ed. Michael E. Soulè and JohnTerborgh, 99–128. Washington, DC: IslandPress.

Oates, John F. 1999. Myth and Reality in theRain Forest: How Conservation StrategiesAre Failing in West Africa. Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press.

Paquet, Paul. 2005. Faith Based Conservation—A Risky Investment. Raincoast ConservationSociety’s science comments on Sufficiency

Analysis.Pimm, Stuart L. 2001. The World According to

Pimm: A Scientist Audits the Earth. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Pope, Carl, and Paul Rauber. 2004. Strategic Ig-norance: Why the Bush Administration Is Reck-lessly Destroying a Century of EnvironmentalProgress. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Ray, Justina C., Kent H. Redford, Robert S.Steneck, and Joel Berger. 2005. Large Car-nivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Ryerson, William N. 1998/1999. Political cor-rectness and the population problem. WildEarth Winter: 100–103.

Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Nordhaus.2004. The death of environmentalism: Glo-bal warming politics in a post-environmen-tal world. Speech to the EnvironmentalGrantmakers’ Association. September 29.Kaua’i, Hawaii.

Soulè, Michael. 2000/2001. Does sustainabledevelopment help nature? Wild Earth Win-ter: 56–61.

Soulè, Michael E., and Bruce A. Wilcox. 1980.Conservation biology: Its scope and Its chal-lenge. In Conservation Biology: An Evolu-tionary-Ecological Perspective, ed. MichaelE. Soulè and Bruce A. Wilcox, 4.Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Soulè, Michael E., and Gary Lease, eds. 1995.Reinventing Nature? Responses toPostmodern Deconstruction. Washington,DC: Island Press.

Soulè, Michael, and Reed Noss. 1998.

Rewilding and biodiversity: Complementarygoals for continental conservation. WildEarth Fall: 18–28.

Soulè, Michael E., and John Terborgh, eds.1999. Continental Conservation. Washing-ton, DC: Island Press.

Terborgh, John. 1999. Requiem for Nature.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Terborgh, John. 2005. Letters. Conservation Bi-ology 19(1): 5–6.

Vale, Thomas R., ed. 2002. Fire, Native Peoples,and the Natural Landscape. Washington,DC: Island Press.

Weigel, Lori. 2004. Lessons learned regardingthe “language of conservation” from thenational research program. Public OpinionStrategies memorandum to The Nature Con-servancy/Trust for Public Land.

Werbach, Adam. 2004. Is environmentalismdead? Speech to the Commonwealth Clubin San Francisco. Dec. 8.

Whitlock, Cathy, and Margaret A. Knox. 2002.Prehistoric burning in the Pacific Northwest:Human versus climatic influences. In Fire,Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape,ed. Thomas R. Vale, 222–23. Washington,DC: Island Press.

Wilson, Edward O. 1992. The Diversity of Life.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

DAVE FOREMAN is chairman andexecutive director of The Rewilding Institute,www.rewilding.org, and can be reachedby email at [email protected].


Wildland Fire Effects on Visitsand Visitors to the Bob Marshall

Wilderness ComplexBY WILLIAM T. BORRIE, STEPHEN F. McCOOL,

and JOSHUA G. WHITMORE

Abstract: Wildland fire can affect wilderness visits and scientific efforts to understand visitor relationshipswith wilderness places. Large-scale and long-lasting fires occurred in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex,Montana, in 2003. A study of visitors that year to monitor long-term trends in visit and visitor characteristicswas repeated in 2004 to fully understand how the 2003 fires affected trend analysis. This article considers thequestion of how wildland fire changes the relationship people have with wilderness, particularly related totheir visits and visitor attitudes toward fire management.


A Wilderness Visitor Study—And Dilemmas over FireIn 2003 a survey was conducted of visitors to the Bob MarshallWilderness Complex (BMWC), an area of 1.5 million acres(600,000 ha) straddling the continental divide in Montana.It is managed under the provisions of the Wilderness Act of1964 and comprises three units of the National WildernessPreservation System (the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Scape-goat Wildernesses). The BMWC is managed by the U.S. ForestService and has proven to be an ideal setting for a variety ofsocial science research and planning activities (McCool 2005).

The BMWC is a mountain ecosystem, ranging in eleva-tion from 4,000 feet (1,200 m) to more than 9,000 feet (2,800m). It provides habitat for grizzly bears, mountain lions,moose, Canadian bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and manyother plants and animals. Many of the ecosystems in theBMWC are fire-adapted, such as low-elevation ponderosapine forests and higher elevation western larch–lodgepolepine forests, although it has been estimated that 80% of light-ning-ignited fires in the BMWC were suppressed in the1988–1998 period (Parsons 2000).

As part of the national forest plan revision process, atrend analysis of visit and visitor data was needed. Infor-mation on the characteristics of wilderness visitors, theirtrips into the BMWC, and their attitudes and preferencestoward the management of the Bob were previously col-lected in 1970 (Lucas 1980) and 1982 (Lucas 1985;McCool 1983).

Sampling of recreation visitors to the BMWC began at 12of the most popular trailheads in late June 2003. However,during the summer a series of lightning-ignited fires occurred,a pattern also seen in Glacier National Park just to the north.Beginning at the end of July, many popular trailheads wereclosed to public entry to reduce safety hazards. By the end ofSeptember 2003, when all trailheads had reopened, 41

PEER REVIEWED

Article co-authors (left) William Borrie and Stephen McCool and (right) Joshua Whitmore.


separate fires and nearly 100,000 acres(40,485 ha) had burned in the BMWC(Lasko 2004).

The presence of fires was quitenoticeable throughout western andcentral Montana during this period.Not only were trailheads and trailsclosed, but roads and campgroundsnear the wilderness boundaries werealso inaccessible. News of fire activ-ity was common in the local andregional media, and a large amountof information, including photo-graphs and maps showing the extentof the fires, was available on a varietyof websites. In addition, much of theregion was clouded in smoke fromthese and other nearby fires. It is, there-fore, reasonable to assume that almostall visitors to the BMWC were awareof fires burning in the wilderness.

Whether management-ignited ornatural, fire impacts all aspects of themanagement of wilderness. Whereasthe biological effects of wildland fire arerelatively well known (e.g. Agee 1996,2000; Brown et al. 1995), there is lessknown about the impact of fire on rec-reation and other human activities. Thepresence of wildland fire could be ex-pected to influence wilderness visitorsin a number of ways, both direct andindirect. Not only would some areas beinaccessible, the fires would also havechanged conditions and experiences atthese places. Thus, visitors mightchange their plans as a result of accessrestrictions, but they might also changetheir expectations or evaluations of wil-derness visits. Visitors may haveconcerns for safety and avoid travelingnear currently burning fires, throughrecently burned areas, or to locationswhere fire might “trap” them or other-wise disrupt their immediate travelplans. Fire and fire-related activity candamage recreation infrastructure, andvisitors may want to avoid disruptionof fire management activities.

Managers and scientists expressedconcern that some visitors might bemore affected than others by the fires.Perhaps those with more experienceor more visits to the BMWC would feelless compelled to change their plans.There might also be influences fromlocal knowledge and access to mediainformation. Locals might have moreflexibility in plans, with less commit-ment of time and resources to travel.Hikers might be more worried abouttheir ability to leave the wildernessshould the fires become too threaten-ing, although horse riders might beparticularly concerned about theirstock and their ability to travel throughburning or burned landscapes.

Our sampling plan had been predi-cated on all trails being open to thepublic, but many of the trailheadsscheduled for sampling were closed.This first comprehensive study of visi-tors in the BMWC since 1982 may notbe representative enough to understandtrends in visits and visitors. Since thisstudy involved contacting visitors attrailheads, access and infrastructure clo-sures led to a reallocation of trailheadsampling. Visitors to the BMWC havechoices when selecting a trail (there areabout 75 trailheads in the complex),but relatively few (a dozen or so) ac-count for about 50% of the use.

Sampling of four-day weekdayblocks and three-day weekend blockswas conducted at trailheads, with prob-abilities proportional to size (so that

those trailheads with higher levels ofuse were sampled more frequently thanthose with lower levels of use). This biastoward higher-use trailheads was thenaccounted for in the analysis by weight-ing data inversely proportional to sizeof sample, as was undertaken in earlier1970 and 1982 studies (Lucas1985).On-site and mail-return ques-tionnaires were used, with allrespondents to the on-site survey in-cluded in the mail-back survey.

Results and DiscussionThere is confidence that the 2003sample accurately describes the visits,visitors, and visitor attitudes for thatyear, but findings could not be confi-dently compared to previous datapoints. That is, the visits and visitorsof 2003 may not be representative ofvisitors and their responses if the fireshad not occurred. Although it can beacknowledged that no one particularyear of sampling can ever be perfectlygeneralizable, we were particularlyconcerned that the presence of largescale fires for a lengthy period, of re-gional firefighting activities, and ofsmoke may have made 2003 a particu-larly unrepresentative year.

As a result, sampling in 2004 wasconducted to provide data for compari-son to 2003. This was an opportunityto assess the consequences of the fireson wilderness visitors and their atti-tudes and behaviors, as well as provideconfidence in trend analysis. No major

Table 1. Respondents to Bob Marshall Wilderness ComplexVisitor Surveys.

Year of data collection# Visitors 2003 2004

Contacted at trailheads 605 408Refusals 7 12Undeliverable addresses 6 3Completed questionnaires returned 462 294

Response rate 76% 72%


fire events occurred in the BMWC orsurrounding areas in 2004, thus sur-vey data in that year were not directlyaffected by the presence of fire, al-though it should be noted that variousimpacts of the 2003 fires continued into2004 (e.g., blackened vegetation,opened vistas, and minor damage toinfrastructure) and will continue for theforeseeable future.

Although staff and resource limita-tions prevented a complete replicationof the 2003 sampling plan, the 13trailheads estimated to receive the heavi-est use by wilderness visitors were againsampled from the beginning of the sum-mer, when the majority of the trails firstopened, through the first significantsnow event in the fall, when access roadswere covered with snow and visitationdropped off sharply (see table 1).

A nonresponse bias check compar-ing respondents to nonrespondents tothe mail-back questionnaires in bothyears found no significant differences

on each of six key variables (educa-tion level, amount of previousexperience in the BMWC, mode oftravel, length of stay, use of outfitters,and season of use).

If fire is an important influence onvisitors, we would expect to find sig-nificant differences between the yearsin use patterns, visitor characteristics,and attitudes toward management ac-tions. To address these potentialimpacts, between-year comparisonsare made in three time periods, sincenot all of the 2003 season was heavilyaffected by fire: (1) prefire (June andJuly)—before the 2003 fires started tohave an impact on visitors; (2) duringfires (August and September)—whentrailhead closures had begun and ar-eas of the BMWC were closed torecreational use; and (3) postfire (Oc-tober)—after fires were extinguishedand trailheads had reopened

The “prefire” and “postfire” timeperiods were not directly affected by fire

and firefighting activity in 2003. Thus,we generally did not find significantdifferences when compared with thesame time periods in 2004. We foundno significant differences in the char-acteristics of the visitors between 2003and 2004. That is, the average age, sex,place of residence, level of previousexperience in the BMWC, and level ofeducation, did not differ between thetwo years generally (see table 2), orbetween the three individual time pe-riod groups specifically.

Although the characteristics we ex-amined of people visiting the BMWCdid not vary overall between 2003 and2004, the nature of their visits didshow some significant differences. Wefound changes in how people visitedthe complex, such as a greater percent-age of visitors hiked in 2003 than in2004 (65.5% versus 54.5%). As canbe seen in table 3, this difference ismost noticeable for the fire-affectedperiod, with a smaller proportion ofvisitors traveling on horseback duringthis time in 2003 than in the nonfire-affected year. Paralleling this is areduction in the average number ofstock in the travel group in the fire-affected year (average of 7.5 in 2003versus 10.8 in 2004). Visitors were lesslikely to use outfitters during the firesin 2003 than during that period in2004 (11.8% versus 31.2%).

We also observed significant changesin recreational activity participationduring the wilderness visit (e.g., fish-ing, hunting, rafting, swimming, etc.);most noticeably a smaller percentagereported fishing in 2003 than in 2004.This was most prevalent in the “duringfires” period (see table 3). The averagelength of stay was also found to be sig-nificantly shorter in 2003 than in 2004.In particular, during August and Sep-tember trip lengths were significantlyshorter in the fire year. Finally, visitorsin 2003 reported seeing fewer groups

Table 2. Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex Visitor Characteristics(no significant differences p ≤ .05).

Year of data collection2003 2004

Age 43.7 43.5Sex (% male) 68.7 71.1Level of education (years) 15.3 15.6Place of residence (% in Montana) 64.8 62.4Previous experience (# visits to the Bob) 11.1 13.8

Table 3. Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex Visit Characteristics(all response pattern differences significant at p ≤ .05).

Sampling period and year

August & August & Whole WholeSeptember September Season Season

2003 2004 2003 2004

Mode of travel (% hiking) 64.7 35.3 65.5 54.5

(% on horseback) 35.3 59.1 34.5 45.5

Percentage using an outfitter 11.8 31.2 14.0 21.9

Participated in fishing (%) 30.8 51.9 41.9 52.7

Average length of stay (# nights) 2.4 3.8 2.2 3.3

Number of groups encountered 3.8 5.2 4.2 5.5


in the wilderness on their trip than visi-tors in 2004 reported seeing.

Respondents were also queried abouttheir attitudes toward a large variety ofsocial and physical conditions in thewilderness, as well as potential manage-ment actions (46 items total). There werefew differences between the attitudes of2003 visitors and those in 2004, withsome notable exceptions. Table 4 showsthe five attitudes that did differ between2003 and 2004. The provision of fire-places (cement or loose-rock fire rings),prohibiting wood fires, and eliminatinggrazing were considered desirable bymore respondents in the fire year. And,very importantly, natural forest fires wereconsidered desirable by a smaller pro-portion of visitors in 2003 than in 2004.In combination, these differences (andlack of other differences) indicate thelikelihood that attitudes toward fire andfuels management were significantly al-tered by the fires in August andSeptember of 2003.

ConclusionIn summary, the research opportunitypresented by the BMWC fires in 2003has yielded some important insightsabout the impacts of wildland fire onvisitors and on science. Sampling isbased on a set of assumptions, one ofthose being that the conditions underwhich sampling occurs are representa-tive. Whereas there is no such thing asan average year in the northern Rocky

Mountains, there are surely limits togeneralizability. In 2003 we saw thoselimits exceeded. Had the study not beenreplicated in 2004, for example, a seri-ous underestimate of outfitted usecould have resulted in poor decisionsabout outfitter allotments.

Fortunately, there was an opportu-nity to replicate data collection in a yearfar less impacted by fires. Comparingdata provided by visitors in each of thetwo years indicated no significant dif-ferences in the visitor characteristics wemeasured and in most of their attitudes.However, it does appear that the firesaffected some visit characteristics. Visi-tors adapted to the presence of fires bystaying fewer nights in the wilderness,were more likely to hike than to travelby stock, and were less likely to fishand/or use outfittersthan visitors in 2004. Aconsequence of thesechanges was that visi-tors encountered fewerother visitors duringtheir stay. Attitudes to-ward fuels and firediffered between 2003and 2004, with thosestudied in the fire yearexpressing more sup-port for fire controlmeasures (see figure 1).

The impacts ofnumerous and wide-spread fire events in the

BMWC are likely to be long-term andprofound (large-scale fires occurred in1988 and 2001 as well). As wildernessagencies move toward more than firesuppression for their wildland fire andfuels management, we could expectmore fluctuation in the accessibility ofspecific areas within wilderness. Giventhe fire regime of many wildernesses inthe northern Rockies—large, infrequent,but stand replacement regimes—thevisual effects of these fires will be presentfor many years. In addition, we haveidentified some short-term impacts thathave required response by researchersand managers alike. As fire becomesmore a part of the wilderness landscapewe need to be aware of its impact onvisitors and the implications for socialscience data collection. IJW

REFERENCESAgee, James K. 1996. Fire Ecology of Pacific North-

west Forests. Washington, DC: Island Press.Agee, James K. 2000. Wilderness fire science: A

state-of-knowledge review.In Wilderness Sci-ence in a Time of Change Conference—Vol-ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, andManagement, comp. D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool,W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Laughlin, 5–22. Pro-ceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Fort Collins, CO:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Table 4. Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex Visitor Attitudes(% who found management action desirable)

(all response pattern differences significant at p≤.05).

Year of data collectionDesirability of … 2003 2004

cemented rock fireplaces with metal grates 20.3% 13.8%small, loose rock fireplaces (fire rings) 58.1% 44.8%prohibiting wood fires where dead wood is scarce 54.4% 44.6%eliminating grazing by visitors’ horses 38.4% 33.9% (require carrying horse feed)natural forest fire started by lightning 49.3% 68.4%

Figure 1—Natural forest fires were considered desirable by a smaller proportion ofvisitors in the fire year than in 2004. Aldo Leopold Research Institute photo.



Wildland Fire Usein Wilderness in the United StatesAmerican society has a general cultural bias toward con-trolling nature (Glover 2000) and, in particular, a strongbias for suppressing wildfire, even in wilderness (Savelandet al. 1988). Nevertheless, the Federal Wildland Fire Man-agement Policy directs managers to “allow lightning-causedfires to play, as nearly as possible, their natural ecologicalrole in wilderness” (FWFMP 2001). Each year, however,approximately 85% of natural fire ignitions in national forestwilderness areas are suppressed (Sexton 2004).

Roughly 20% of all national forest wilderness lands havebeen significantly altered from historical ecological condi-tions (Miller 2003), and the risk of losing key ecosystemcomponents within these altered landscapes is high(Schmidt et al. 2002). Current management practices fa-voring suppression of natural ignitions cannot sustain thefunctional role of fire in wilderness areas (Cole and Landres1996). Although concerns and issues that influence firemanagement decisions on U.S. federal lands have been iden-tified (Miller and Landres 2004), to our knowledge therehas not been a systematic national assessment to identifyand measure Wildland Fire Use (WFU) barriers.

Three requirements must be met in order to manage anatural ignition as WFU in national forests. Managing a natu-ral ignition as WFU requires a land and resource managementplan (LRMP) that authorizes WFU, a fire management plan(FMP) that authorizes WFU, and a recommendation to man-age a fire (i.e., natural ignition within the WFU managementzone) as WFU (USDA/USDI 2005). If the fire managementplan authorizes WFU, it is still possible that the majority ofnatural ignitions may be suppressed. The fire manager—theindividual who counsels or provides advice to the respon-sible line officer, usually the forest supervisor—must make arecommendation that the fire be managed as WFU (USDA/

Barriers to Wildland Fire UseA Preliminary Problem Analysis

BY DUSTIN DOANE, JAY O’LAUGHLIN,PENELOPE MORGAN, and CAROL MILLER


USDI 2005). The line officer then must accept the firemanager’s “go” recommendation. The line officer is ultimatelyresponsible for all fire management decisions within the scopeof the two plans. When the plans authorize WFU as an op-tion, the line officer usually decides to accept the fire manager’sadvice (Sexton 2004).

We used an Internet-based questionnaire (seewww.cnr.uidaho.edu/wildernessfire) to collect data from firemanagers in national forest wilderness areas covering the2002–2004 period, sent electronically to all Forest Serviceunits with wilderness responsibilities. These years wereselected because of substantial policy changes in 2001. Atotal of 72 wilderness fire managers responded to the ques-tionnaire, with at least one response from all nine ForestService regions. The response rate is estimated at only 14%of potential respondents. We relied on the agency’s admin-istrative hierarchy to identify the target group of managersand invite questionnaire responses from them. This ap-proach was not effective in generating the response neededto generalize to all wilderness areas, but does provide in-sight into how these managers describe barriers.

Those responding indicated that 25% of the total naturalignitions in the 2002–2004 period were within wildernessareas that have been approved for WFU; and only 40% ofthis 25% received the “go” recommendation. These resultssuggest that even if WFU is authorized by plans, the major-ity of WFU opportunities may likely be suppressed.

Managing fire to attain wilderness objectives through WFUis likely constrained by five categories of factors: (1) organiza-tional culture, (2) political boundaries, (3) organizational capacity,(4) policy directives, and (5) public perceptions (Doane et al.2005). In this summary we focus only on barriers rated impor-tant by managers that can be mitigated by the agency, whichincludes factors related to organizational culture, capacity, andpolicies originating within the agency that influence WFU


planning and implementation decisions(see table 1). Results are based on re-sponses from managers who identifiedand rated the importance of factors pos-ing barriers to WFU on national forestwilderness areas. Political boundaries areimportant barriers but cannot be ad-dressed by the agency, and results suggestthat public perceptions can pose barri-ers, but not to the same extent as otherfactors (Doane et al. 2005).

Recommendations forMitigating WFU BarriersEight general themes were developedfrom the 69 suggestions received from 38wilderness fire managers (see table 2).Based upon managers’ suggestions andrecent literature, we developed sevenrecommendations for mitigating WFUbarriers:1. Encourage WFU at all levels within

the organization in ways thatprovide support for managerialactions and decisions,

2. Provide district- or forest-level firemanagers with greater flexibility inmanaging WFU in wilderness,

3. Emphasize the national directive tomanage natural ignitions as WFUso as to increase awareness of it andclarify ambiguity,

4. Increase land areas available to WFU,5. Increase the organization’s knowl-

edge of WFU,6. Use management ignitions to sup-

port WFU efforts, and7. Periodically assess and monitor the

barriers to WFU.

ConclusionsSuppression of wildland fire alters eco-logical processes and conditions, often inways that are counter to maintaining wil-derness values. Results of our studyidentify many factors that make it diffi-cult for managers to allow fires to burnfreely in national forest wilderness. Otheragencies may have similar problems, and

Table 2. Managers’ Suggestions for Increasing Wildland Fire UseOrganized by Themes and Percent Responding.

Increase training and education (22%)• Educate the agency and the public on WFU• Provide more WFU training and experience with WFU in the agency• Evaluate the adverse effects of suppressing natural ignitions

Provide institutional support (19%)• Provide encouragement for WFU from higher levels in the organization• Support and protect the wilderness fire manager and his or her decisions• Provide managers an incentive

Increase management flexibility (13%)• Increase management flexibility for the wilderness fire manager

Increase lands available to WFU (12%)• Increase the lands available for managing natural ignitions as WFU via memorandum

of understanding (MOU) with Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management,Forest Service, etc.

• Purchase private inholdings (private property within wilderness areas)

Change organizational culture (7%)• Revise Forest Service Manual 2320 (Wilderness section) to emphasize WFU• Emphasize the national directive to manage natural ignitions as WFU and managing

for wilderness objectives• Make WFU fires equal to suppression fires when ordering resources

Utilize management ignitions (6%)• Utilize management ignitions to support WFU efforts• Minimize impacts from smoke by treating fuels through management ignitions

Prevent negative outcomes from WFU events (3%)• Prevent negative outcomes (e.g., destruction of private property) from WFU events

Miscellaneous (18%)• Amend plans to make WFU an option• Forest is looking at WFU• Eleven other miscellaneous suggestions that do not fit any general theme

Table 1. Internal Factors Posing Barriers to Wildland Fire Use.

Planning factors preventing WFU from being an option:

1. WFU is not the cultural norm of the forest and/or the region2. Lack of time and resources to conduct a sufficient analysis to incorporate WFU into

the LRMP or the FMP3. Insufficient natural ignitions to justify the planning effort4. Managing for wilderness objectives is not a priority for the forest and/or the region5. The planning team’s discomfort with the uncertainty associated with managing a

WFU event, including political consequences6. Lack of memorandum of understanding with adjacent landowners to transfer WFU

fires across the boundary7. Insufficient qualified personnel to manage a WFU event

Implementation factors leading to the suppression of candidate fires:

1. The regional directive was to suppress all ignitions regardless of whether or not anatural ignition could have been managed as WFU

2. Lack of qualified personnel to make the decision to manage the fire as WFU3. Personal discomfort with the political consequences associated with managing as WFU4. The likelihood that the line officer would accept the recommendation to manage as

WFU was low due to his or her discomfort and the political consequencesassociated with managing as WFU


managing natural ignitions as WFU islikely even more challenging onnonwilderness lands. The Federal Wild-land Fire Management Policy directiveto restore natural fire regimes applies notjust to national forest wilderness, but toall lands administered by the federal gov-ernment (FWFMP 2001). Restoring firewill require cooperation among variouslevels within an individual agency, alongwith various federal, state, and local gov-ernments, and local and nationalcommunities (DellaSala et al. 2003).

Learning to live with fire is a socialissue (Dombeck et al. 2004). Wildernesscan be a proving ground for demonstrat-ing the benefits of restoring fire across thelandscape. Suppression, however, is likelyto remain the cultural norm unless barri-ers to managing natural ignitions as WFUcan be overcome. This research suggeststhat viable options for mitigating these

barriers do exist, and we recommendsystematic and periodic assessments ofthe factors influencing WFU implemen-tation as part of program evaluation. Abetter understanding of the factors thatinfluence managers is a meaningfulcomplement to accountability measuresof the number of fires allowed to burnfreely and acres subjected to WFU. IJW

REFERENCESCole, D. N., and P. B. Landres. 1996. Threats to

wilderness ecosystems: Impacts and researchneeds. Ecological Applications 6(1): 168–84.

DellaSala, D. A., A. Martin, R. Spivak, T.Schulke, B. Bird, M. Criley, C. Van Daalen,J. Kreilick, R. Brown, and G. Aplet. 2003.A citizen’s call for ecological forest restora-tion: Forest restoration principles and crite-ria. Ecological Restoration 21(1): 14–23.

Doane, D., J. O’Laughlin, P. Morgan, and C. Miller.2005. Barriers to wildland fire use in USDAForest Service wilderness areas as perceivedby wilderness fire managers. Contribution No.1006, College of Natural Resources Experi-ment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow.

Dombeck, M. P, J. E. Williams, and C. A. Wood.2004. Wildfire policy and public lands: Inte-grating scientific understanding with socialconcerns across landscapes. ConservationBiology 18(4): 883–89.

FWFMP (Federal Wildland Fire ManagementPolicy). 2001. Review and update of the1995 Federal Wildland Fire ManagementPolicy. Washington, DC: various governmen-tal agency partners.

Glover, J. M. 2000. Can we stop trying tocontrol nature? International Journal of Wil-

From FIRE EFFECTS ON VISITS on page 35

derness 6(1): 4–8.Miller, C. 2003. Natural fire regimes in wilder-

ness. International Journal of Wilderness9(2): 33, 48.

Miller C., and P. B. Landres. 2004. ExploringInformation Needs for Wildland Fire andFuels Management. RMRS-GTR-127. FortCollins, CO: USDA Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station.

Saveland, J. M., M. Stock, and D. A. Cleaves.1988. Decision-making bias in wilderness firemanagement: Implications for expert systemdevelopment. AI Applications 2(1): 17–30.

Schmidt, K. M., J. P. Menakis, C. C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, and D. L. Bunnell. 2002. The De-velopment of Coarse-scale Spatial Data forWildland Fire and Fuel Management. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Ser-vice, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Sexton, T. 2004. Personal communication. Fireuse program manager, USDA Forest Service,Washington, DC, and National InteragencyFire Center, Boise, ID.

USDA/USDI. 2005. Wildland Fire Use Imple-mentation Procedures Reference Guide.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agri-culture and U.S. Department of the Interior.

DUSTIN DOANE is a USDA Forest Servicesmokejumper based in McCall, Idaho;Email: [email protected].

JAY O’LAUGHLIN is professor and director,Policy Analysis Group, College of NaturalResources, University of Idaho.

PENELOPE MORGAN is professor, Departmentof Forest Resources, University of Idaho.

CAROL MILLER is wilderness fire researchecologist, Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute, Missoula, MT.

Brown, James K., Robert W. Mutch, Charles W.Spoon, and Ronald H. Wakimoto, tech. co-ordinators. 1995. Proceedings: Symposiumon Fire in Wilderness and Park Management.USDA Forest Service Intermountain ResearchStation Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-320.Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station.

Lasko, Rich. 2004. Wildland fire use: Decision,outcomes, and the future. Paper presentedin March 2004 at the Wilderness Steward-ship in the Rockies: Let’s Talk conference ofthe Rocky Mountain Cooperative EcosystemStudies Unit.

Lucas, Robert C. 1980. Use patterns and visitorcharacteristics, attitudes and preferences innine wilderness and other roadless areas.Research Paper INT-253. Ogden, UT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station.

Lucas, Robert C. 1985. Visitor characteristics,attitudes and use patterns in the BobMarshall Wilderness Complex. ResearchPaper INT-345. Ogden, UT: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, IntermountainResearch Station.

McCool, Stephen F. 1983. The Bob MarshallWilderness visitor study. School of Forestry,University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 89 p.

McCool, Stephen F. 2005. Social science re-search and planning in the Bob MarshallWilderness Complex. International Journalof Wilderness 11(2): 28–29.

Parsons, David J. 2000. Restoration of naturalfire to United States wilderness areas. In

Personal, Societal, and Ecological Values ofWilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Con-gress Proceedings on Research, Manage-ment, and Allocation, vol. II, comp. A. E.Watson, G. H. Aplet, and J. C. Hendee, 42–47. RMRS-P-14. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station.

WILLIAM T. BORRIE is associate professor,STEPHEN F. McCOOL is professor, andJOSHUA G. WHITMORE was a graduateresearch assistant in the College of Forestryand Conservation, the University ofMontana. Dr. Borrie can be reached [email protected].

Results of our study identifymany factors that make itdifficult for managers to

allow fires to burn freely innational forest wilderness.


Trust in Wildland Fire and FuelManagement Decisions

BY ADAM LILJEBLAD and WILLIAM T. BORRIE

Abstract: Public land managers are stewards of public lands and of the relationship between the public andthese lands. Maintaining one aspect of this relationship, trust in the agency, can be challenging. Lack of trustcan influence public response to management decisions, including about wildland fire use. By considering thefactors that influence trust, managers can be more effective in accomplishing fire stewardship objectives.

Trust—An Essential Elementof Fire StewardshipToday, resource managers are likely to consider social, eco-nomic, and ecological effects when making or implementingfire management decisions. However, recent studies haveshown that significant portions of the public do not fullytrust the fire and fuels decisions that managers make(Shindler and Toman 2003; Winter et al. 2004). This lackof trust is one of the primary factors influencing publicevaluation of these decisions (Knotek, this issue; Brunsonand Evans 2005; Vogt et al. 2002; Winter 2002).

Without trust, it is easy for the public to become disen-franchised and withhold their support for decisions regardlessof the merit of the decisions (Shindler et al. 2002). Many ofthe political barriers to wildland fire use (WFU) describedby Aplet (this issue) may be remedied by addressing issuesof trust between the public and managers. Not only is wil-derness fire management a matter of assessing what to do,but also of having the necessary public support to carry itout. Managers need, therefore, to maintain or increase pub-lic trust in wildland fire decisions if they are to be fully effectiveas public land stewards (see figure 1). As Shindler et al. (2002)suggest, trust building should be “the central long-term goalof effective public process” (p. 44).

Trust affects the public’s evaluations of public lands policy(Borrie et al. 2002). Although federal lands are national re-sources and need to be managed to meet intended nationalpublic purpose, managers are increasingly concerned aboutprotecting the meanings that local residents attribute to theseplaces, as well (Gunderson, this issue). Because of their prox-

imity to wildlands, local residents are disproportionately im-pacted by fire management decisions (Danks 2001). Localcommunity members frequently take issue with fire manag-ers’ prioritization of available resources, have long-held beliefsabout the desired conditions of the forest, and tend to be sus-picious of outside influences on local land managementdecisions (see, for instance, Gunderson, this issue).

Recent research has shown that public attitudes toward firemanagement decisions are at least partially dependent on per-ceived impacts (Kneeshaw et al. 2004; Winter et al. 2003; Winteret al. 2004). In general, the greater the benefits the public per-ceives to be associated with each fire management option, themore trusting the public is likely to be. Similarly, the greater theperceived risk associated with each option, the less public trust.Using fire and fuel management techniques that the public con-siders to be unacceptable or believes to pose high risk will likely

PEER REVIEWED

EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

Adam Liljeblad and Bill Borrie. Photo by Adam Liljeblad.


lead to a decrease in the public’s trust inthe agency (Winter et al. 2004).

In order to get support for manage-ment decisions, such as WFU, it requiresa significant extension of public trust.WFU is inherently risky, and the publicmust have confidence that wildland firemanagers will not let fires escape tothreaten homes, lives, or other values atrisk. Local residents also sometimes ex-press distrust of fire and fuel managersbecause many incident command teamsmanaging large fires are from outside thearea and are less likely to understand lo-cal values or utilize local knowledge(Black et al. 2004; Carroll et al. 2005; Kentet al. 2003). These transient teams pos-sess the level of experience and skillneeded to manage larger fires—some-thing local firefighters rarely have.However, as these managers take thefirefighting reins, utilizing the knowledgeand expertise of local firefighters and man-agers may contribute to trust. Local firedepartments have much greater knowl-edge of the tradeoffs associated withdecisions, are able to provide continuity,and have an understanding of historicalevents that transient managers do not(Danks 2001; McCool et al. in press).

Currently, some mechanisms do ex-ist for considering local knowledge inthe decision-making process. During thescoping process under National Envi-ronmental Policy Act, for example, thereare numerous opportunities for localcommunity residents to comment onproposed plans and policies. Most cur-rent methods of engagement, however,are not typically systematic attempts toincorporate knowledge about contribu-tors to trust into this process.

Systematic Considerationof Trust ContributorsThe public’s trust is critical to long-termsuccess of fire and fuel managementdecisions. Trust exists on multiple lev-els, from trust in an individual to trustin an institution (Kramer 1999). Whenthe public trusts a management agency,it suggests managerial success throughthe implementation of effective policiesand practices, a strong and attentiverelationship between resource manag-ers and the public, and perhaps mostimportantly, that managers are fulfill-ing their public purpose mandate to bestewards of natural resources as well asstewards of the relationship the public

has with public places (Watson andBorrie 2003).

Having a trusting relationship be-tween a managing agency and the publicnot only directly benefits public landsbut also the government as a whole, thespecific managing agencies, and thepublic (Hardin 1993). Trust contributes,for example, to overall governmentaleffectiveness by minimizing transactioncosts, the external costs associated withany interaction or exchanges betweenparties. With trust, there is a measure offaith in the actions and intentions of oth-ers, so there is reduced need forextensive regulation, contractual agree-ments, or litigation (Fukuyama 1995;Putnam 2000). Through these actionsof voluntary compliance, parties are ableto cooperate in a more open, honestfashion, consequently developing amoral consensus, which results in moremutually agreeable decisions. Relation-ships of all types are built around thenotion of social capital, referring to thebonds of honesty, reciprocity, and trustthat form between parties as they inter-act openly. Organizations high in socialcapital are believed not only to be moreeffective and innovative, but also areperceived as having greater legitimacythan organizations with lower levels ofsocial capital, because there is an in-creased sense of a collective good(Putnam 2000).

A recent study examined the public’strust in one national forest’s fire and fuelmanagement program (Liljeblad 2005).Seventeen hypothesized contributors totrust were identified in a broad-reach-ing review of social science literature.Although each of those 17 items con-tributed significantly to trust, sevenwere determined to be the most influ-ential. These seven interrelated itemsreflected the public’s level of agreementwith the actions of fire managers; theirperceptions of the fairness and equityin the fire and fuel management process;

Figure 1—Having the trust of the public allows managers to be more effective stewards of the land. White Knoll WildlandFire in the Manti-La Sal National Forest in 2005. Photo from U.S. Forest Service.


the public’s willingness to endorse agen-cies to act as stewards on their behalf;how well managers are doing their job;the degree of confidence that the pub-lic has in the actions of fire and fuelmanagers; the extent to which manag-ers can be relied upon to perform in aconsistent manner; and the public’sperceptions of how deserving manag-ers are of trust.

The contributors to trust are specificto each particular set of circumstances,involved parties, and their historieswith one another (Liljeblad 2005).Paired with the fact that fire and fuelmanagement is by its very nature com-plex, controversial, rife withuncertainty, and varies as social andbiological systems change (McCool etal. in press), it becomes impossible todefinitively and precisely know the re-quirements for trust for each set ofcircumstances. The seven most influ-ential contributors to trust in thislandscape-level fuel treatment project,however, can be illustrated using anexample from the 2005 fire season.

Under the 1998 Alaska InteragencyWildland Fire Management Plan, firesin limited suppression zones are low-est management priority and aregenerally not suppressed unless hu-man life is in danger. Areas aredesignated as limited suppressionbased on three possible criteria: (1)when the cost of suppression may ex-ceed the value of resources to beprotected, (2) the environmental ef-fects of suppression may have morenegative impacts than the fire, (3) orif excluding fire is detrimental to fire-dependent ecosystems.

In interior Alaska, a lightning-ignitedfire started in a remote, limited suppres-sion fire management zone. Eighteenrecreational cabins exist along the shoresof a nearby fly-in-only lake. As the fireapproached the cabins, landowners wereconcerned that the fire was not being

suppressed, especially since their cab-ins were threatened and they believedthere were idle fire crews available. Anattempt by one of the landowners topersuade suppression was not success-ful. Seeking to protect the structuresthemselves, landowners flew out to thelake with rudimentary firefightingequipment, with the hopes of protect-ing the structures (Dillon 2005a). Oncelandowners arrived at the lake, their liveswere considered to be in danger due totheir proximity to the fire, andsmokejumpers and air tankers were thendispatched to suppress the fire. Only onesmall cabin and a cache were destroyedby the fire (Dillon 2005b).

The example of this 2005 fire pre-sents a fitting lens through which toexamine each of the contributors totrust in fire and fuel management deci-sions. Agreement is simply the belief thatthe objectives and actions of managerscoincide with those of the public. Ac-cording to newspaper reports, cabinowners did not agree with the state’spolicy of not protecting recreationalstructures in limited suppression zones.In order to maintain trust, managerswould need minimally to acknowledgeand address these opinions of residentswhen making decisions.

Procedural justice refers to the fair-ness, equity, and legitimacy of the firemanagement process. Property own-ers wanted an exclusion from thepolicy of limited suppression and pro-tection of their recreational cabinssurrounding the lake, prompting ac-cusations of favoritism and inequityfrom the local media (A sound firepolicy 2005). Because other remoteproperty owners could most likely notreceive the same treatment, a suppres-sion decision would likely harm thegeneral public’s trust in fire decisions.

The public’s willingness to endorse man-aging agencies to act on their behalf refersto the extent to which people extend their

trust to agencies based on their percep-tions of how the agency will perform.That is, in order for the public to trustthe agency, the agency needs to fulfill thepublic’s expectations. For example, thecabin owners likely would not be willingto endorse the fire managers’ decisionsto not suppress fires to protect recreationalstructures in the limited suppressionzone. The public’s willingness to endorsemanaging agencies reflects trust’s volun-tary nature, which is inherentlycontingent on perceptions of what man-agers will or will not do.

Effectiveness is the ability of manag-ers to successfully accomplish theirmanagement decisions, or have theimpact they intend. It implies that man-agers are productive, not just active.Managers were working within the re-strictions of a limited suppression zone,which prevented the protection of rec-reational structures. However, oncepeople’s lives were put in danger, man-agers were obligated to do whateverpossible to protect them. Managerswere effective at adhering to both therestrictions of limited suppression, andthen the need to protect the public,likely strengthening public trust.

Confidence is the degree of faith,certainty, or assurance that the publichas in the actions of wildland fire man-agers (see figure 2). People expect acertain outcome or range of outcomeswhen managers make or implement a

Figure 2—Public confidence in the actions of wildlandfire managers is important to management. Photofrom U.S. Forest Service.


decision. In the example, landownerswere likely confident that if wildlandfirefighters were to respond to sup-press the fire, they could and wouldprotect the structures.

Reliability is a characteristic of man-agers themselves. It refers to the extentto which managers can be countedupon to perform a given function orbehave in certain predictable manners,and reflects consistency of acting. If,for example, fire managers had beenpermitted to suppress the fire soonafter it began, their swift response onthat fire, like on dozens of fires previ-ously, would be considered to bereliable because they had behaved ina consistent, predictable manner.

The last of the most influential con-tributors to trust is trustworthiness,which is the notion that fire managersconduct themselves in a manner de-serving of trust of others. Conceptually,trustworthiness intertwines with theother contributors, and is a reflectionof fire managers’ general reputation,implying managers deserve the trust thepublic offers, and is suggestive of fu-ture behavior. These managers showedthat they were worthy of the trust thecabin owners placed in them when theyresponded to suppress the fire to pro-tect the owners. It suggests that theylikely would respond in a similar man-ner were the situation to arise again.

It is possible for managers to fostersome of the attributes of trust and notall of them. In the preceding example,managers behaved in a manner thatlikely harmed the trust of the cabinowners while building the trust of thegeneral public, but also did things thatlikely harmed the trust of the generalpublic, but built trust among cabinowners. There are times when man-agers must abrogate the public’s trustin order to accomplish some higherlevel objective, such as conducting aback-burn through a prized recreation

area (normally associated with nega-tive social implications) in order toprotect a town (normally associatedwith positive social implications).

ConclusionThe contributors to trust presented hereare an important subset of factors iden-tified by Liljeblad (2005), and arebelieved to be the most critical to devel-oping and maintaining trust in fire andfuel management decisions. In order tobe effective stewards of wildland fire,managers need to be cognizant of thepotential effects of each and every oneof their actions. Resource managers havea public purpose mandate to considerthe ecological, economic, and social im-plications of all decisions. If they canincorporate these considerations intohow they manage fire, they are likely tobe able to increase the public’s trust intheir decisions and in so doing, improvetheir overall managerial effectiveness. Itis not a simple task, and requires man-agers to continually consider the effectsof each action. In a time where forestmanagement by lawsuit is becoming thenorm, greater public trust means thatlawsuits may be reduced, managers canbe more effective stewards of publiclands, and the benefits of fire can be as-sured on wilderness and nonwildernesslands alike. IJW

REFERENCESA sound fire policy. 2005. Editorial. June 25.

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.Black, A., C. Miller, and P. Landres P. 2004.

Wildland Fuels Management: Evaluatingand Planning Risks and Benefits. Final re-port to the Joint Fire Science Program: No.99-1-3-16. Missoula, MT: Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research Institute.

Borrie, W. T., N. Christensen, A. E. Watson, T.A. Miller, and D. W. McCollum. 2002. Pub-lic purpose marketing: A focus on the rela-tionships between the public and publiclands. Journal of Park and Recreation Ad-ministration 20(2): 49–68.

Brunson, M. W., and J. Evans. 2005. Badlyburned? Effects of an escaped prescribed burnon social acceptability of wildland fuels treat-

ments. Journal of Forestry 103(3): 134–38.Carroll, M. S., P. J. Cohn, D. N. Seesholtz, and

L. L. Higgins,. 2005. Fire as a galvanizingand fragmenting influence on communities:The Case of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire. Soci-ety and Natural Resources 18: 301–20.

Danks, C. 2001. Community-based wildfiremanagement: An opportunity to integratesocial and ecological objectives on federallands. InEnabling Policy Frameworks forSuccessful Community Based Resource Man-agement Objectives, ed. K. Suryanata, R.Dolcemascolo, J. Fisher, and J. Fox. Proceed-ings of the eighth workshop on communitymanagement of public lands. Honolulu, HI:East-West Center.

Dillon, R.A. 2005a. June 29. Remote fire posesa problem. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

Dillon, R.A. 2005b, June 30. Fire moves away fromarea homes. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: TheSocial Virtues andthe Creation of Prosperity. New York: TheFree Press.

Hardin, R. 1993. The street-level epistemologyof trust. Politics and Society 21: 505–29.

Kent, B., K. Gelbert, S. McCaffrey, W. Martin,D. Calkin, E. Schuster, et al. 2003. Socialand economic issues of the Hayman fire.InHayman Fire Case Study, tech. ed. R. T.Graham, 315–88. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Rocky MountainResearch Station.

Kneeshaw, K., J. J. Vaske, A. D. Bright, and J. D.Absher. 2004. Situational influences of ac-ceptable wildland fire management actions.Society and Natural Resources 17: 477–89.

Kramer, R. 1999. Trust and distrust in organi-zations: Emerging perspective, enduringquestions. Annual Review of Psychology 50:569–98.

Liljeblad, A. 2005. Towards a comprehensivedefinition of trust: Understanding the public’strust in natural resource management. Un-published Master’s Thesis. The University ofMontana, Missoula. Available from http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/558.pdf.

McCool, S. F., J. A. Burchfield, D. R. Williams,and M. S. Carroll. In press. An event-basedapproach for examining the effects of wild-land fire decisions on communities. Environ-mental Management.

Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Col-lapse and Revival of American Community.New York: Simon and Schuster.

Shindler, B. A., M. Brunson, and G. H. Stankey.2002. Social Acceptability of Forest Condi-tions and Management Practices: A ProblemAnalysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-537.Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Re-search Station.


Shindler, B. and E. Toman. 2003. Fuel reduc-tion strategies in forest communities: A lon-gitudinal analysis of public support. Journalof Forestry 101(6): 8–15.

Vogt, C., G. Winter, and J. Fried, 2002.Antecedants to attitudes toward prescribedburning, mechanical thinning, and defen-sible space fuel reduction techniques. InJakes, P.J. (comp), p. 74–83. Homeowners,communities, and wildfire: Science findingsfrom the National Fire Plan: Proceedings ofthe Ninth International Symposium on Soci-ety and Resource Management; 2002 June2-5; Bloomington, IN. General Technical Re-port NC-231. St. Paul, MN: North CentralResearch Station, Forest Service, U.S. De-partment of Agriculture.

Watson, A. E., and W. T. Borrie. 2003. Apply-ing public purpose marketing in the USA to

protect relationships with public land. InNature-basedTourism, Environment andLand Management, ed. R. Buckley, C.Pickering, and D. B. Weaver, 25–35. Oxon,UK and Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing

Winter, P.L. 2002. Californians’ opinions on themanagement of wildland and wilderness fires.Unpublished report. Riverside, CA: PacificSouthwest Research Station, Forest Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture. 42 p.

Winter, P.L.; Cvetkovich, G. 2003. The role of trust,knowledge, concern, and gender in the predic-tion of Californians’ reactions to fire manage-ment. In: Narog, M.G. (technical coordinator).Proceedings of the 2002 Fire Conference onManaging Fire and Fuels in the Remaining Wild-lands and Open Spaces of the SouthwesternUnited States; 2002 December 2-5; San Diego,CA. General Technical Report PSW-189. Albany,

CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, ForestService, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Winter, G., C. Vogt, and S. McCaffrey. 2004.Examining social trust in fuels managementstrategies. Journal of Forestry 102(6): 8–15.

ADAM LILJEBLAD is research associate atthe Aldo Leopold Wilderness ResearchInstitute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT59807, USA. Email: [email protected].

WILLIAM T. BORRIE is associate professorof Wildland Recreation Management in theUniversity of Montana’s College of Forestryand Conservation, 32 Campus Drive,Missoula, MT 59812, USA. Email:[email protected]

From ALDO LEOPOLD INSTITUTE on page 26

There are several studies at variousstages of completion in Glacier Na-tional Park investigating therelationship between wildfire, am-phibians, and their habitats. Most ofthese studies were instigated by wild-fires in 2001 and 2003 that burnedareas where the area has been moni-tored for the distribution of breedingpopulations since 1999, providing therare opportunity to document poten-tial changes using prewildfire data. Ageneral pattern that has emerged is thenumber of wetlands used for breed-ing by the western toad increases theyear after wildfire, sometimes in areaswhere we had found few adults andno breeding activity in years before thefires, followed by a decline towardprefire numbers over subsequentyears. The response of other widelydistributed pond amphibians in thepark, the long-toed salamander andColumbia spotted frog, seems minimal,with no apparent increases or de-creases in the proportion of wetlandsoccupied by breeding populations inburned areas. We have tried to deter-mine why toads rapidly increase theirnumbers in recently burned areas. We

found few changes to the wetland en-vironment (e.g., temperature,nutrients) that would explain the colo-nization and expansion, but radiotracking of adult toads and GIS mod-eling of vegetation gradients suggestthey may be responding to changes tothe terrestrial environment rather thanto the wetlands. Based on similar colo-nization events in other areas of theNorthwest, we suspect the westerntoad is a habitat generalist that re-sponds to a wide variety ofdisturbances. Exactly why disturbedhabitats are preferred and whether ornot the larger population of the areaactually benefits from the colonizationof new breeding sites is still uncertainand will be the focus of future research.

The 2003 wildfires in Glacier Na-tional Park burned half of a group ofstreams we had sampled in 2001 forRocky Mountain tailed frog larvae.Postfire reductions in relative abundanceand a shift in age structure of the popu-lations were consistent with a moderatefire effect. We do not think the fire rep-resents a long-term threat to thepopulations. Results from this study willbe an important counterpart to the larger

study of wildfire and stream amphibiansdescribed above. Wildfire studies arenever truly replicated, but similar resultsfrom different areas and fires increase ourconfidence that conclusions we maydraw are robust.

Scientists are in the early stages ofdetermining the relationship betweenwildfire and conservation of amphib-ians in the Northwest. It will not besurprising if we find that amphibiancommunities are healthier in areaswhere fire regimes more closely re-semble those prior to Europeansettlement, similar to the relationshipbetween wildfire and amphibians inthe Southeast. Also, because fire hasoften been managed differently in wil-derness and national parks during thelast 30 years or so, compared to ac-tively managed forests, protected landsmay be important to the conservationof many amphibians. IJW

BLAKE R. HOSSACK is a zoologist with theNorthern Rocky Mountain Science Center,U.S. Geological Survey, stationed at theAldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute,P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807, USA.Email: [email protected].


INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

The Challenge ofWilderness Fire Stewardship

in a Time of ChangeA South African Perspective

BY SONJA KRÜGER

In keeping with the South African definition of wilder-ness (National Environmental Management: ProtectedAreas Act No. 57 of 2003), the policy is to preserve

natural conditions by allowing natural ecological processesto operate without human interference. This policy presentsmanagers with a dilemma for wilderness fire stewardship:What is the natural or historical fire regime, and is wilder-ness fire stewardship possible without human interference?

Although our wilder-ness areas are consideredlarge enough for mostnatural processes to taketheir course, this does nothold true for fire. As a re-sult of the ecological,social, and policy environ-ments within whichwilderness stewards oper-ate, human interference is

essential. Active fire management is required to maintainecological processes, protect life and property, and to en-sure that burning takes place within the prescribed legalframework.

Human interference can be used to simulate the naturalor historical fire regime. However, in order to implementthe natural fire regime, we need to know: (1) what the natu-ral fire regime is, (2) whether it is still beneficial in ourcurrent context, and (3) whether it is even possible to imple-ment in a landscape that is vastly different from the historicalone. Lightning-caused ignitions are accepted as being theprimary source of natural ignitions, but on a continent

where fire has been used for centuries by indigenous people,these are often also considered natural ignitions (Hall 1984).As a result of these two sources of ignition, fire was prob-ably more heterogeneous (patchy) in the past. Theheterogeneity that used to occur at a regional level is, how-ever, no longer possible. Decisions regarding wilderness firestewardship can now only be implemented at a local leveland are based on objectives and conservation targets of theseareas and the social and political influences on them.

Fire Stewardship—Burning for Multiple ObjectivesSouthern Africa has a considerable body of fire research,which has been integrated into the management of naturalareas. Fire stewardship plans for the grassland biome of theDrakensberg Mountains have recently been reviewed, andforms the focus of this article, with particular emphasis onfire stewardship within the uKhahlamba Drakensberg ParkWorld Heritage Site (see figure 1).

The fire stewardship of the montane grassland biome wasreviewed by the scientific community; first to determine thesuccess of the existing fire management plan in meeting spe-cific management objectives, and second to incorporate theresults of recent fire research into a best-practice fire stew-ardship program (Uys et. al. in prep.). The review includedthe effects of fire on vegetation, vertebrates, invertebrates,water production, soil, wilderness values, and cultural heri-tage. The product of the partnership between scientists andmanagers is a practical fire stewardship program containinga set of defendable fire objectives and goals for nature con-servation accompanied by relevant management actions.

Sonja Krüger. Photo by Douglas van Zyl.


The aim of reviewing fire steward-ship programs is to constantly improvewilderness stewardship. An integralpart of these reviews is the transfer ofknowledge between regions and na-tions, which ensures improved decisionmaking by incorporating expert opin-ion, applying ecological principles, andmaking sensible extrapolations. Thisadaptive management approach to wil-derness fire stewardship is essential inan environment where changes in theecological, social, and policy environ-ments inform the fire stewardshipprogram and provide a framework forthe integrated management of the wil-derness resource.

Ecological EnvironmentIncreasing knowledge of the ecologi-cally important role of fire has resultedin radical changes in fire stewardshipprograms over the years. Large sectionsof the Drakensberg were excluded fromfire for several decades (Bainbridge1999). Since this exclusion in the mid-1930s, however, ecologists haverealized that the Drakensberg biomecontains many species that are ecologi-cally adapted to fire and that fire playsan important role in ecosystem func-tioning (Tainton 1981; Hall 1984).

The Drakensberg fire stewardship pro-gram recognizes that disturbance is a keyfeature of natural ecosystems essential tomaintain biodiversity. A range of distur-bances influence the environment, suchas fire, grazing, drought, or geologicalforces. Of these, fire has the greatest po-tential in conservation areas formanipulation by management where themain objective is to maintain biodiversityand ecosystem functioning. Other firestewardship objectives include maintain-ing the vigor of the grass layer, creating aheterogeneous mosaic of burned and un-burned patches, alien plant control,protection of forest wilderness, and vari-ous species-specific objectives. An

example of species-spe-cific burning in theDrakensberg is an au-tumn burn, whichprovides a green flushrequired to sustainsmall antelope, such asthe endangered oribi,Ourebia ourebi, throughthe winter period.

Fire regimes needto be managed in or-der to maintainhabitat heterogeneityand at least the exist-ing plant and animalcommunity composi-tion, structure, and distribution at thelocal level. In the Drakensberg, theseobjectives are achieved by manipulat-ing the fire frequency, fire intensity, theseason of burn, and the type of fire byburning either with or against the wind.The fire stewardship program of theuKhahlamba Drakensberg Park takesinto account the effects of fire on theglobally significant biological and cul-tural diversity of the park and itsimportance as a water catchment areain the development of a best-practicestrategy (Uys et. al. in prep.). This strat-egy is adopted in order to achieve theobjective of ensuring that those natu-ral processes responsible for generatingand maintaining biodiversity and lifesupport systems continue to functionat a local level.

Water and soil conservation is anecological challenge to wildernessstewards in the mountain catchmentareas. Management actions need toensure that a sustained yield of goodquality water is maintained. Resultsfrom long-term research in severalDrakensberg catchments indicate thatfire has little influence on water pro-duction and soil erosion (Everson1985). Fire, however, determinescanopy and basal cover of the grass

sward, which is responsible for main-taining water production (Tainton andMentis 1984). In a country that islargely semi-arid, water is likely tobecome the national priority as urbanand agricultural demands increase.Since the Maloti-Drakensberg Moun-tains produce approximately 25% ofsouthern Africa’s water, it is vitallyimportant that we maintain the long-term security of this resource throughproper fire management (see figure 2).

Cultural EnvironmentManaging cultural heritage risk pre-sents another fire stewardshipchallenge. Cultural heritage is ourlegacy and because of its irreplaceabil-ity, it has always been well protected

Figure 1—The montane grassland biome of the Drakensberg Mountains, which contain36% of the country’s proclaimed wilderness areas. Photo from Ezemvelo, KZN Wildlife.

Figure 2—The Drakensberg wilderness areas are situated in animportant water catchment area. Photo from Ezemvelo, KZN Wildlife.


by legislation in South Africa. Somecultural features, such as San rock artsites (painted shelters) and archaeologi-cal artifacts, can be damaged or alteredby fire and justify some managementintervention if they are to remain un-damaged. Fire may also be a concernfor some features of living heritage, forexample historically important treesand grave sites within protected areas.

Previously, the focus of fire manage-ment in the Drakensberg has beenwater production and biodiversityconservation (Bainbridge 1999). Theproclamation of the uKhahlambaDrakensberg Park as a World HeritageSite for its cultural values, however,has made reserve managers moreaware of the impacts of burning prac-tices on cultural resources. The impactof fire on cultural resources was thustaken into account as part of the re-view of the fire stewardship programof the park (Uys et. al. in prep.).

A provincial heritage agency is re-sponsible for cultural resourcemanagement, and the local communityis responsible for maintaining ancestralgraves and living heritage sites. Theconservation authority, however, as thecustodians of the land, need to takecultural resources into account in theirfire stewardship program and collabo-rate with the heritage agency and localcommunity to resolve responsibilitiesfor these resources and to prevent thedegradation or destruction of nonre-newable features of cultural heritage.

Social EnvironmentWildfire poses serious risks to life andproperty. For this reason, the extensive

fires of the past cannot be simulated inthe current landscape. Changes in thesocial environment have resulted in areduction in the extent and connectiv-ity of natural areas and an increase inthe number of developments near wil-derness areas, such as large-scale landtransformation and residential develop-ments. As a result, maintaining naturalprocesses such as fire is no longer pos-sible on a large scale. Controlled firemanagement is therefore necessary ata local scale to reduce the risk of disas-ter caused by unplanned fires.

Wilderness areas also face the threatof deliberately set arson fires and un-planned invasive fires from communitiesliving and grazing their stock along theboundary of protected areas. These firesimpact negatively on biodiversity, the se-curity of visitors, and on the wildernessuser’s experience. Similarly, prescribedburns in wilderness, such as the straight,parallel lines of firebreaks, form a sig-nificant visual intrusion. To counter this,wilderness stewards attempt to burnlarge blocks rather than rigid firebreaksto create a more “natural” appearance andavoid prescribed burns that result in ar-tificially shaped edges. These aestheticimpacts compromise the objective ofmaintaining the natural character of thewilderness areas.

Wilderness areas in South Africacontain numerous globally significantbiological and cultural resources, in-cluding environmental services. TheDrakensberg in particular contributessignificantly to effective mountaincatchment management, ensuring anoptimal flow of good quality water inone of the major water catchment ar-

eas of South Africa. Although peopledepend on these resources for their live-lihoods, current land-use practicesoutside protected areas are neither con-ducive to conservation ideals nor to thesustainable use of resources from theregion. This is particularly true for firemanagement. Increased commercializa-tion and human populations placepressure on natural resources, whichare limited as a result of the reductionin the number and size of protectedareas over the years.

The threats to wilderness from in-adequate fire management in the bufferzones can be attributed to a lack ofunderstanding of the impacts of fire andits correct use. Incorrect burning resultsin reduced grazing capacity and soilerosion. The misuse of fire is also a di-rect result of many communally ownedareas bordering protected areas that nolonger have a strong traditional leader-ship. Fire management at a communitylevel is therefore not being coordinated.

Wilderness stewards face the challengeof finding ways in which to preserve thewilderness resource while ensuring thatthe needs of the local population are metin a sustainable manner. A process ofknowledge transfer from conservationagencies to local communities will im-prove their understanding of the impactsof fire and the correct application of fire.In the long term, a focused environmen-tal awareness program will result inresponsible fire stewardship in commu-nally owned areas also.

Policy EnvironmentThe mitigation of the above-mentionedecological and social risks is overseenby a body of legislation aimed at regu-lating burning activities in South Africa.Of the various sets of legislation thatregulate fire management, the NationalVeld and Forest Fire Act No. 101 of1998 represents the most importantframework in which all fire activities

Although our wilderness areas are considered largeenough for most natural processes to take their

course, this does not hold true for fire.


must be conducted. The purpose of thisact is to prevent and combat veld(rangeland), forest, and mountain firesthroughout the Republic. The act pro-vides for the prevention of fires byrequiring citizens to heed a fire dangerrating system, burn firebreaks, acquireequipment, and have available person-nel to fight fires.

South Africa is fortunate in that thenational legislation has remained rela-tively constant over the years. Recentrevisions of fire-related legislation indi-cate a transition to a new legal order inveldfire (rangeland fire) management andcontrol in the country, proof that the gov-ernment considers fire management apriority. For example, the National Veldand Forest Fire Act of 1998 repeals cer-tain provisions of the Forest Act of 1984and reforms the law on veld and forestfires. The act also makes provision for theestablishment of Fire Protection Associa-tions (see below).

Past fire policies were dictated by theexotic plantation forestry industry andthe agricultural sector. The policies fo-cused on reducing the risk of fires totimber plantations, and maximizing theproduction potential of agriculturalland. Although the agricultural regimesgenerally did not favor biodiversity,conservation agencies could apply forexemption from burning restrictions inorder to achieve biodiversity objectivesin their fire stewardship program. Thenew Protected Areas Act No. 57 of 2003benefits wilderness stewards wherethere is a conflict between any local ornational legislation. The Protected Ar-eas Act prevails if the conflict concernsthe management or development ofprotected areas, which includes firemanagement.

The conflict between the objectivesof plantation forestry companies, theagricultural sector, and conservationagencies will be addressed by the FireProtection Associations. The associations

will deal with all aspects of veldfire pre-vention and firefighting, and are requiredto develop and apply a veldfire manage-ment strategy for a particular area. Thestrategy of the Fire Protection Associa-tions will be developed according to themanagement objectives of the represen-tatives of the association within its areaof responsibility. This forum ensurespublic participation in fire stewardshipdecisions and provides a platform forknowledge transfer at a local level be-tween conservation agencies and localcommunities.

A political challenge facing scientistsand managers is one of insufficient re-sources to maintain existing long-termburning trials and establish new ones.Four long-term burning trials existwithin the uKhahlamba DrakensbergPark, totaling more than 120 years offire-related research. These trials are themost important in the country, provid-ing invaluable information regarding fireimpacts on biodiversity. There are insuf-ficient of these long-term experimentswithin the country at present, represen-tative of the various biomes, and thosethat exist are poorly resourced. It is theseexperiments, together with the informa-tion obtained from monitoring the actualfire regime, that provide the informationrequired to better inform managementdecisions and formulate fire stewardshipobjectives when reviewing fire steward-ship programs.

ConclusionExamples from the Drakensberg indicatethat wilderness fire stewardship in SouthAfrica requires human intervention todevelop clear objectives and targets forapplication within the current ecological,social, and policy environments. The col-lation of existing information andknowledge ensures that a fire regime isimplemented that is appropriate in termsof the management constraints, legal con-straints, and risk-management factors.

Fire stewardship is a dynamic pro-cess requiring regular review in the faceof a dynamic environment. It is, how-ever, essential that knowledge transfertake place from the conservation agen-cies to the neighboring communities.These communities depend on variousnatural resources for their basic needs.These resources are negatively affectedby the burning practices employed bythe communities, who do not under-stand the impacts of their practices onsocial, ecological, cultural, and wilder-ness resources. South Africa could alsoadd value to, and benefit from, a knowl-edge transfer process through theexchange of wilderness fire stewardshipmodels on an international scale. IJW

REFERENCESBainbridge, W. R. 1999. A theoretical approach

to fire management in wilderness areas. InWilderness Concepts and Practice CourseBasic Level Reference Manual, ed. Wilder-ness Action Group. The Centre for Environ-ment and Development, University of Natal.

Everson, C. S. 1985. Ecological effects of firein the montane grasslands of Natal. Unpub-lished M.Sc. Thesis, University of Natal,Pietermaritzburg.

Hall, M. 1984. Man’s historical and traditionaluse of fire in South Africa. InEcological Ef-fects of Fire in South African Ecosystems, ed.P. de V. Booysen and N. M. Tainton, 2–17.New York: Springer-Verlag.

Tainton, N. M., ed.. 1981. Veld and PastureManagement in South Africa.Pietermaritzburg: Shuter and Shooter.

Tainton, N. M., and M. T. Mentis. 1984. Fire ingrassland. InEcological Effects of Fire inSouth African Ecosystems, ed. P. de V.Booysen and N. M. Tainton, 115–147. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Uys, R., R. Lechmere-Oertel, S. Krüger, M. Hamer,and C. Everson. In prep. A review of scientificbest practice for fire in the Maloti-Drakensbergmountains. uKhahlamba Drakensberg ParkWorld Heritage Site, South Africa.

SONJA KRÜGER is employed by EzemveloKwaZulu-Natal Wildlife as the ecologist forthe uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park WorldHeritage Site and surrounding area.Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, South Africa, P. O.Box 13053, Cascades, 3202. Email:[email protected].


Announcementsand Wilderness Calendar

COMPILED BY STEVE HOLLENHORST and CHAD DAWSON

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

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Kenton Miller Awardedthe Bruno H. SchubertEnvironment PrizeFormer World Conservation Uniondirector general Dr. Kenton Miller hasbeen awarded the Bruno H. SchubertEnvironment Prize, considered to beone of the most prestigious awardsof its kind in the world. Dr. Miller,an American national, was awardedthe prize for his lifetime achievementsin conservation, particularly his pio-neering work in protected areadevelopment and management. Dr.Miller has had a long and distin-guished career. He was directorgeneral of the World ConservationUnion (IUCN) from 1983 to 1988,served as chair of IUCN’s World Com-mission on Protected Areas from1976 to 1982 and again from 2000to 2004, and served on the IUCNCouncil during the same period. Hehas received numerous internationalawards for his role in shaping the in-ternational protected areas agenda.His career has taken him to activitiesthroughout Latin America, Africa,Asia, and briefly to Antarctica. He hasbeen a university professor, field re-searcher, and author and recentlyretired as vice president for conser-vation at the World Resource”linkssInstitute. Source: IUCN (http://www.iucn.org/).

Links between ProtectedAreas and TourismMany tourism companies include visitsto protected areas as part of their tourismexcursions. These visits could also ben-efit conservation and site protection, butthis requires forging links between pro-tected area managers and the tourismindustry. ”Links Between Protected Areasand Tourism” is based on interviews withtourism companies, provides practicalguidance on better ways of understand-ing the tourism industry and on effectivemethods of developing links with tour-ism. It details what can be realisticallyexpected from the tourism industry interms of support for conservation.

Developed as a contribution to theLinking Conservation of Biodiversityand Sustainable Tourism at World Heri-tage Sites project, funded by the UnitedNations Foundation and implementedin partnership with the United NationsEducational, Scientific and Cultural Or-ganization and United NationsEnvironment Programme, the manualbuilds on primary research on actualinteractions and linkages between tour-ism companies and protected areas.In-depth interviews were conductedwith 23 tourism companies, includinginternational tour operators, groundoperators, and hotel groups.

Online at http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/library/forging-links.htm.

H. Ken Cordell Named toIJW Editorial BoardDr. H. Ken Cordell is a research socialscientist and project leader for the Rec-reation, Wilderness, Urban Forest, andDemographic Trends Research Groupwith the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Dr.Cordell has accepted an appointment tothe IJW editorial board. He earned hisPh.D. from NorthCarolina State Uni-versity in 1975 andworked there forseveral years beforejoining the USFS.Dr. Cordell movedto Athens, Georgia, in 1997 to lead theUSFS research project there. The re-search unit has been variously namedover the last three decades with suchtitles as Urban Environmental Researchand Recreation and Wilderness Assess-ment until its current project name. Dr.Cordell is a prolific author and recentlyreleased a book entitled The MultipleValues of Wilderness, for which he wasprincipal coauthor with John Bergstromand J. M. Bowker (look for a book re-view in the August 2006 issue of IJW).Dr. Cordell can be reached at the U.S.Forest Service, Recreation, Wilderness,Urban Forest, and Demographic TrendsResearch Group, 320 Green Street, Ath-ens, GA 30602-2044, USA; or by emailat [email protected].


Troy Hall Namedto IJW Editorial BoardDr. Troy Hall, associate professor ofProtected Area Visitor Studies in theDepartment of Conservation SocialSciences at the University of Idaho(UI), has accepted an appointment tothe IJW editorial board. Dr. Hallearned her Ph.D. at Oregon State Uni-versity in 1996 and held facultypositions at Oregon State Universityand Virginia Tech before joining the

faculty at UI. Herresearch interestis in recreationplanning andmanagement to

develop creative ways to bring stake-holders together to solve challengescreated by increasing demand andsociocultural changes in the UnitedStates. Recent research includes studiesof displacement in wilderness and devel-oped sites; investigates about boaters andtheir experiences on the Colorado Riverin the Grand Canyon; wilderness camperperceptions and evaluations of campsiteconditions; and visitor knowledge atYosemite National Park. Dr. Hall has beena contributing author and associate edi-tor for IJW and the Journal of LeisureResearch. We look forward to her involve-ment with IJW in the coming years asboard member. Dr. Hall can be reachedat the University of Idaho, Departmentof Conservation Social Sciences, Collegeof Natural Resources, P.O. Box 441139,Moscow, ID 83844-1139, USA; or byemail at [email protected].

Steven HollenhorstLeaves IJW BoardDr. Steven J.Hollenhorst hasbeen the Digesteditor and a con-tributor to IJW formany years. He isleaving the IJW board to devote more

time to his work as a professor of Pro-tected Area Policy and head of theDepartment of Conservation SocialSciences at the University of Idaho(UI). Dr. Hollenhorst was recently ap-pointed as the co-editor-in-chief forthe Journal of Society and Natural Re-sources, published by the InternationalAssociation for Society and NaturalResources. He has been involved inIJW since 1996 as an associate editorand then editorial board member. Welook forward to Dr. Hollenhorst’s con-tinued involvement in protected areapolicy at UI and management issuesand wish him well in his new role withthe Journal of Society and Natural Re-sources. He can be reached at theUniversity of Idaho, Department ofConservation Social Sciences, Collegeof Natural Resources, P.O. Box 441139,Moscow, ID 83844-1139, USA; or byemail at: [email protected].

Wayne FreimundLeaves IJW BoardDr. Wayne A. Freimund, a longtime IJWboard member and contributor to web-based wildernessinformation andeducation issues, isleaving the IJWboard to devotemore time to his work as professor ofWildland Recreation and chairman ofthe Department of Society and Conser-vation at the University of Montana(UM). As author, educator, and scien-tist, Dr. Freimund has been director ofthe UM Wilderness Institute and is a co-operator in the Protected AreaManagement Program at the Universityof KwaZulu Natal in South Africa, acoleader of the UM International Semi-nar on Protected Area Management, andan executive committee member on theConsortium on Protected Area Manage-ment. We look forward to Dr.Freimund’s involvement in wilderness

and protected area management issuesin the United States and in other inter-national initiatives. He can be reachedat the University of Montana, Depart-ment of Society and Conservation,College of Forestry and Conservation,Missoula, MT 59812, USA; or by emailat [email protected]

Two New U.S. WildernessAreas Designated in 2005The U.S. lawmakers and presidentsigned into law two new wilderness ar-eas in 2005. The approximately10,000-acre (4,048-ha) El Toro Wilder-ness was designated (P.L. 109-118) inPuerto Rico’s Caribbean National For-est and protects numerous species ofunique native orchids and the PuertoRican parrot—considered to be one ofthe most endangered species in theworld. The 11,183-acre (4,527-ha)Ojito Wilderness was designated (P.L.109-94) in the Albuquerque District ofthe Bureau of Land Management inNew Mexico and includes certain landsbeing held in trust for the Pueblo ofZia, a Native American community.These two designations were madethrough bipartisan legislative efforts toadd significant new areas to the NationalWilderness Preservation System.

National LandscapeConservation SystemAssessmentAn effort by The Wilderness Societyto assess the condition and stew-ardship of the Bureau of LandManagement’s 26-million-acre (10.5-million-ha) National LandscapeConservation System (NLCS) spot-lighted the difficulty of stretchinglimited staff and funding to adequatelyprotect a diverse American treasure.To evaluate the system at the five-yearmark, The Wilderness Society exam-ined issues ranging from accountabilityand resource monitoring to cultural site


protection and visitor management.They reviewed the stewardship andcondition of 15 National Monuments,National Conservation Areas, andother special places or “units” in thesystem, and determined grades on thebasis of more than 35 indicators.Grades of C and D dominate the re-port (see full report at http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/StateOfTheNLCS-FinalReport.pdf), although some units ofthe NLCS scored very well in specificareas, such as leadership and empow-erment or visitor management.Overall, they found:

• Committed and passionate NLCSmanagers who are hobbled by alack of empowerment and inad-equate or unstable budgets to carryout their broad responsibilities.

• Road networks that fragment wild-life habitat and bring motorizedvehicles near cultural resources.

• Incomplete information gathering.Inadequate monitoring of species,water quality, and unique culturalresources, in turn, hinders assess-ment of ecosystem and cultural sitecondition in the NLCS.

• Satisfactory efforts to educate visi-tors who call for information, buta glaring lack of field staff to ad-dress illegal off-road vehicle use,vandalism, and other problemsthat accompany increasing publicaccess and recreational use.

• An absence of public reporting onNLCS management, condition,successes, and needs.

Despite underlining the need forimprovement in many areas, the as-sessment also offered someencouraging words. Nearly all units inArizona, California, Idaho, Montana,New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, andUtah offer some “best practice” ex-amples of stewardship that wehighlight.

With agency leadership to replicatebest practices across the NLCS, andto focus additional staff and fundingon the system’s needs, The WildernessSociety notes that perhaps at the 10-year mark the BLM can be proud ofits role in protecting America’s greatwestern landscapes, wilderness, andecosystems. Source: http://www.wilderness.org/library/documents/stateofthenlcs2005.cfm.

Ecosystem Services fromCanada’s Boreal ForestResearch by the Pembina Institute forthe Canadian Boreal Initiative puts thevalue of ecosystem services such aswater filtration and carbon storage atroughly 2.5 times greater than the netmarket value of forestry, hydro, min-ing, and oil and gas extraction inCanada’s boreal region. The report ar-gues that the degradation of naturalecosystems worldwide is at least inpart because natural capital valuesaren’t taken into account in land usedecisions around the globe, notingthese values aren’t part of the universalinternational wealth indicator—grossdomestic product.

“We are only just beginning to un-derstand the true value of theseservices, including flood control, wa-ter filtration, climate regulation, andeven pest control,” said CBI directorCathy Wilkinson. “We have the oppor-tunity to get it right in Canada’s boreal,sustaining its natural capital and eco-system services, while building otherforms of wealth and maintaining com-munity and cultural values.” Thereport estimates the value of the 67billion tons of carbon stored in thetrees and peatlands of Canada’s borealregion at $3.7 trillion, and the annualvalue of carbon sequestration by theregion at $1.85 billion. “It is indeedtime to broaden our understanding ofthe true ‘value’ of globally important

forests such as the boreal,” said Dr.David Schindler, professor of Ecologyat the University of Alberta. “Failureto do so not only ensures continuedecosystem degradation, but the accel-erating impoverishment of humansocieties, ours included.”

“An understanding of the Borealregion’s true value is essential to ad-dressing important questions abouthow this natural heritage asset cancontinue to contribute to national andinternational well-being for genera-tions to come,” said Mark Anielski,ecological economist and report coau-thor. “For Aborginal people, it hasalways been paramount that we takecare of the land that takes care of us—the land, the air and the resources onit. It has not always been easy to havepeople understand the true total valueof what it is that the land provides tous,” said Stephen Kakfwi, former pre-mier of the Northwest Territories.

“Perhaps now with this report,it will be easier for us to beginto understand and have discus-sions about why we have to beresponsible and not think onlyin terms of resource extractionand development but in termsof what damage and cost weinflict on ourselves and on theland’s resources in our quest forprogress and development.”

Source and a copy of the study areavailable at www.borealcanada.ca.

Get your copyof the IJW

Subscribe Today!

Student: $25/yearIndividual: $35/yearInstitution: $55/year

www.ijw.org


Book Reviews

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Collapse: How SocietiesChoose to Fail or Succeedby Jared Diamond. 2005. PenguinGroup, New York, NY. 578 pp., $29.95(hardcover).

At the heart of debates over wilder-ness preservation are a number ofextremely challenging questions. Forexample: What impact will increasedecological degradation have on con-temporary societies? How can wecontrol our propensity to destroy theEarth? What role do corporations andthe public have in changing currentenvironmental practices? And, will ourdestruction of the wilderness eventu-ally lead to our own demise?

Pulitzer prize–winning author JaredDiamond asks these and related ques-tions in his new book, Collapse: HowSocieties Decide to Fail or Succeed.Diamond reviews the historical,anthropological, and archaeologicalevidence from several failed and suc-cessful societies, including the EasterIslanders, Anasazi, and Mayans, in anattempt to answer the weighty ques-tion of why some societies fail and whysome succeed over time. He identifiesfive sets of factors that explain pastsocieties’ failures: environmental dam-age, climate change, hostile neighbors,lack of friendly trade partners, andsociety’s response (or lack thereof) toits environmental problems.

Diamond’s analysis can be discon-certing. For example, although heencouragingly believes that we willresolve our environmental problemswithin the lifetimes of our children,he also notes,

The only question is whetherthey will become resolved inpleasant ways of our ownchoice, or in unpleasant waysnot of our own choice, such aswarfare, genocide, starvation,disease epidemics, and col-lapses of societies. While all ofthose grim phenomena havebeen endemic to humanitythroughout our history, theirfrequency increases with envi-ronmental degradation, popu-lation pressure, and theresulting poverty and politicalinstability. (p. 498)

Although there is much sadness inDiamond’s analysis, there is hope aswell, for as the subtitle suggests, theauthor believes that societies can cre-ate the societal change necessary tosolve environmental issues. He pointsthe finger squarely at the public ratherthan at corporations directly respon-sible for environmental destruction,noting that political and economicchange will come only when the pub-lic demands it.

Diamond suggests there are twocritical choices we need to make if ourWestern society is to continue to exist.First, we need “the courage to prac-tice long-term thinking, and to makebold, courageous, anticipatory deci-sions at a time when problems havebecome perceptible but before theyhave reached crisis proportions” (p.522). Second, we need to makeequally difficult choices about our so-cieties’ values. Some of our dearly heldvalues can be maintained, but somemay need to be jettisoned if we are tosurvive.

This is a major scholarly work,extremely thought-provoking, at timesdepressing, at times hopeful. Evoca-tively written for a wide audience,some of the biggest, most difficultquestions faced by contemporarysociety are addressed in this mix ofhistorical and contemporary analysis.Diamond forces us to consider howthe continued degradation of ournatural environment might lead to ourown destruction, and challenges usto make the difficult but necessarysocietal changes needed to maintainWestern societies.

Reviewed by JOHN SHULTIS who is thebook editor for IJW

Rewilding North America:A Vision for Conservation inthe 21st Centuryby Dave Foreman. 2004. Island Press,Washington, DC. 297 pp., $25.00(paper).

The Earth needs another human on itlike I need a hole in the head. This isthe general feeling the sympatheticreader is left with after completingDave Foreman’s new book RewildingNorth America. The book has threedistinct yet interconnected sections.Section one consists of a history ofhow humans have wounded the Earth.Extensive lists of damaged ecologicalsystems along with the mechanismsthrough which humans are respon-sible for causing the wounds areprovided. The first section has two ob-jectives. The first is to drive the point


home that “mass extinction is our[humans’] legacy as a species so far.No other moral challenge is so greatas controlling our destructive powerover nature” (p. 60). The second isthat “if you do not know how thepresent came to be, you stand in anihilistic void and your words andactions lack coherence” (p. 6).

The second section presents a ra-tionalization for rewilding as a landmanagement practice. Forman usesconservation biology to explain howthe wounds discussed in the first sec-tion can be healed through rewilding.Rewilding is defined as the scientificargument for restoring big wildernessbased on the regulatory roles of large

predators. The three key points ofrewilding as a conservation strategy are(1) healthy ecosystems need large car-nivores, (2) large carnivores need big,wild roadless areas, and (3) mostroadless areas are small and thus needto be linked. A strategy and map areprovided that describe the four Con-tinental MegaLinkages needed toprovide secure core habitat for keypredators.

The third section of the text, aptlytitled “Taking Action,” describes “thereal work of selecting, designating,restoring, and protecting a NorthAmerican Wildlands Network” (p.177). A list of specific actions is pro-vided, along with a rationale of whyeach is necessary to effectively imple-ment a rewilding strategy.

This book is written as an instruc-tion manual for the rewilding advocateor those involved in land conservation.The first and second sections are anexcellent introduction for the aspiringconservationist who is unaware of themajor issues and history of conserva-tion. The third section provides ablueprint for action and a frameworkfor directing rewilding efforts at bothlarge and small scales. The book doessuffer from an overabundance and rep-etition of lists. The prolific lists mayhave two consequences: the reader maylose focus or gloss over what he/she isless interested in and key in on others.The format and objectives of the textare clear and the progression of logic iseasy to follow. Rewilding NorthAmerica should be required reading toget nongovernmental organizationnew-hires up to speed and may workas a supplementary text in a generalecology or conservation class.

Reviewed by RUDY M. SCHUSTER,assistant professor, Recreation Resource

Management, SUNY College of Environ-mental Science and Forestry, Syracuse,

New York. Email: [email protected].

The Action Not Taken

Denis DavisNational Park Service

August 2005

(With inspiration from Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken”)

The choices diverged in a pristine wood,And sorry I could not select bothAnd being one wilderness manager, long I stoodAnd pondered one as far as I couldImagining chainsaws and helicopters in the undergrowth.

Then took the other, being just as fair,And having perhaps the quieter claim,Because it didn’t need motors to tear;Though as for the project ending thereHad results that were really about the same.

And both that morning equally layIn documented pages white and black.Oh, I chose the first for another day!Decision leads on to decision along the way,I doubted I should ever need to hear the motors whack.

I shall be telling this from on peak highSomewhere along trails and trails hence:Two choices diverged in a pristine wood, and I—I made the decision with no motors or need to fly,And that has made the wilderness character difference.

international journal of wilderness, vol 12 no 1, april 2006

Documents

aplet14 wilderness

challenge of wilderness

lee obrien18 wilderness

university of alberta

liz dombrovskis

university of montana

research32 wildland

social influencessouth