international journal of wilderness, vol 12 no 2, august 2006

Caves as WildernessWilderness and Persons with DisabilitiesWriters and WildernessMexico, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan

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

Journal of WildernessAUGUST 2006 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2

On the Cover

FRONT: Phul man (semi-nomadic pastoralist tribe) walks across the Sahel,central Mali, West Africa. Photo © Carlton Ward Jr/LINC.

INSET: Desert Elephants of Gourma Elephant Reserve, Mali, West Africa.Photo © Carlton Ward Jr/LINC.

FEATURESEDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES

3 Different Voices in Wilderness Advocacyand ManagementBY CHAD P. DAWSON

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS4 A Perspective on Wilderness, the

Forest Service, and Taking the Long ViewBY REBECCA ORESKES

STEWARDSHIP8 Defining the Concept of Cave Wilderness and Its

Designation ValuesBY PATRICIA E. SEISER and MICHAEL A. SCHUETT

17 Managing Caves as Wilderness at Sequoia andKings Canyon National Parks, CaliforniaBY JOEL DESPAIN

SCIENCE AND RESEARCHPERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDER-NESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

22 Revisiting Wilderness Science PrioritiesBY DAVID J. PARSONS

23 Wilderness and Persons with DisabilitiesTransferring the Benefits to Everyday LifeBY LEO McAVOY, TOM HOLMAN,MARNI GOLDENBERG, and DAVID KLENOSKY

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION32 Writers and Wilderness

How to Recapture the Momentum in Saving WildernessBY ROBERT C. BARON

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES36 El Carmen

The First Wilderness Designation in Latin AmericaBY PATRICIO ROBLES GIL

41 A Proposal for a Pamir International Peace ParkBY GEORGE B. SCHALLER

45 The Global Wilderness Seminarfor Government AgenciesA Meeting at the Crossroads ofWildlands StewardshipBY NANCY ROEPER, PETER LANDRES, and DON FISHER

WILDERNESS DIGEST47 Announcements and Wilderness Calendar

Book Reviews50 Transboundary Conservation: A New Vision

for Protected AreasBy Russell Mittermeier, Cyril Kormos, CristinaMittermeier, Patricio Robles Gil, Trevor Sandwith,and Charles BesançonREVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS

50 Recommendations and Guidelines for ManagingCaves on Protected LandsEdited by W. K. Jones et al.REVIEWED BY PATRICIA E. SEISER

51 The Multiple Values of WildernessBy H. Ken Cordell, John C. Bergstrom andJ. M. BowkerREVIEWED BY CHAD P. DAWSON

DisclaimerThe Soul of the Wilderness column and all invited and featuredarticles in IJW, are a forum for controversial, inspiring, or especiallyinformative articles to renew thinking and dialogue among our readers.The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors. IJWneither endorses nor rejects them, but invites comments from ourreaders. —John C. Hendee, IJW Editor-in-Chief

2 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2

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 Hendee, 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 AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 3

FEATURES

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

Different Voices in WildernessAdvocacy and Management

BY CHAD P. DAWSON

Multiple voices are crying out about wildernesspreservation, and some may even have conflict-ing visions about what we are saving and for

whom. Do we have tolerance for those other voices? Canwe recognize the beliefs and practices of others as legiti-mate expressions of a wilderness ethic? Do we have thecapacity to respect the point of view of others who believethat the wilderness movement needs to take this or thataction or make a statement?

We all hold to our favorite and most moving quotes fromwilderness visionaries of past and present. Those quotesand sayings have become our individual credo or mantra.Each of us has our own inspiration about wilderness andhow to save it. Such mental, psychological, and spiritualimagery is a powerful reminder of the difficult and chal-lenging task before us to ensure that present and futuregenerations have wilderness to enjoy, cherish, and preserve.

One factor is clear—we will all strive to save what wevalue, and we all hold different values and value sets: so-cial, economic, ethical, and ecological. If you want toexplore the complexity of wilderness values and benefits,find and read through a new book called The Multiple Valuesof Wilderness edited and compiled by H. Ken Cordell,J. C. Bergstrom, and J. M. Bowker (Venture Publishing,2005). See the book review in this issue of IJW for moredetails. You may come away with a different perspectiveon the complex and conflicting or complementary valuesheld by different people.

Too often, we have let ourselves become divided aboutwhich values and whose benefits we are trying to maintainor maximize. Maybe it is time to see our collective valuesheld in common as a starting point so that we may evolveback into more of a shared vision about wilderness preser-vation. This is not some idealist notion of unity and onevoice, but rather of practical alliances, tolerance for differ-ences, and a shared passion for protecting and preservingwhat we value in common—wilderness as a place and ourexperiences there.

In this issue, Rebecca Oreskes talks about taking the longview within the U.S. Forest Service to see the value of wil-derness stewardship activities over time. Patricio Robles Giltells the story of his groundbreaking work to designate thefirst wilderness area in Latin America. Articles by Seiser andSchuett and by Despain explore the potential for the desig-nation of caves areas and environments as subsurfacewilderness areas. Persons with disabilities using wildernessand the immediate and long-term benefits they receive arediscussed by McAvoy and coauthors. Robert Baron relatessome of the writing workshops and involvement by well-known wilderness authors from the 8th World WildernessCongress. George Schaller presents a proposal for an inter-national peace park to protect Marco Polo sheep in the PamirMountains. IJW

CHAD P. DAWSON is managing editor of IJW.


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

FEATURES

My first “wilderness” experience probably beganin Central Park when as a child I would takelong walks with my father, looking at squirrels

and picking mulberries—an activity that particularly hor-rified people who thought that any food product not boughtin a supermarket must be inherently unsafe. My childhoodimagination served as an endless wilderness landscape inwhich New York City slush would morph into first expeditionsto Antarctica. In those days, I wasn’t informed enough to

realize that make-believeexpeditions involving Scottwere not the best side to be on.

Later I realized there wasa world and a landscape out-side of city parks; that theremight be places where onecould hear nothing but birdsand wind and water; whereone could see a night skyfilled with stars; places wherepeople didn’t occupy everycorner or put their mark onevery creature. And, of

course, as I grew up I read Thoreau and cherished the idea—without fully understanding it—that “in wildness is thepreservation of the world.”

In adult years, I headed north and eventually found myway to a job with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Naturally,there was a little cultural readjustment that had to take place—but, nevertheless, after a few years I was getting paid to be awilderness ranger. Of course, it didn’t take long for the ro-mance of the title and the reality of the job to meet in a violent

A Perspective on Wilderness,the Forest Service, and Taking

the Long ViewBY REBECCA ORESKES

clash. It’s hard to be thinking of Thoreau, or Muir, or Abbey, orof anyone except a vengeful god when you’re moving illegalcampers, burying human waste, or doing any number of theother highly unglamorous tasks of a wilderness ranger.

As happened to many of us, my introduction to wilder-ness was a confusing jumble of wilderness versusnonwilderness policy; a wilderness plan that didn’t makeperfect sense to me; lots of people; a bad upper-level boss;and a general sense that I was hacking at the branches andnot the roots of the management issues. I did all of this forlowly USFS GS-4 level wages and a seasonal appointmentthat began and ended with very little notice. I stuck with itbecause I loved the land.

Over the past 20 years I came in and out of wildernesswork. I did other USFS jobs, gave up on the seasonal em-ployment, and was very lucky to land a permanent jobthat now allows wilderness to be part of my responsibilities.

So what changes have I seen in 20 or so years? Of course,a lot has changed: We have more wilderness; we are moreaware of broad-based ecological dilemmas and questions,if not their solutions. Examples of such include: what to doabout invasive species, global climate change, and the roleof people in nature? We have population and technologypressing in on and threatening our designated wildernessareas. The very foundation of the wilderness ideal of “hu-man restraint” is tested not just by our insatiable appetitesfor using resources, but the spirit of wildness is often di-aled and digitized away by technology such as cell phonesand personal locator beacons. We have allowed ourselvesto poke and prod and collar so much wildlife in the nameof science that one wonders if animals—human or non-human—can ever be truly self-willed.

Rebecca Oreskes hiking in Crows Pass in theChugach National Forest of Alaska. Photo by ChadDawson.


People Do MatterTwo years ago, I was at a conferencein Big Sky, Montana, on science, tech-nology, and public policy. I think I wasthe only person there who worked fora living in land management and stew-ardship, and I was more than a littleout of my element. We ate all of ourmeals together, and I sat at a medium-sized table at lunch. One day I was inthe middle of the table and trying tofigure out whether to join the conver-sation to my left or my right. I hadbeen listening on my right when Iheard the word wilderness to my leftand quickly swiveled my head to catchthe conversation.

A very nice, thoughtful biologistfrom South Africa, with whom I’dstruck up some conversation earlier inthe week, was talking about wilder-ness in South Africa. He was talkingabout the role that people had playedon the land for thousands of years,particularly in the context of fire, con-cluding his words with thepronouncement: “People have been anintegral part of the landscape for tenthousand years—the idea of ‘pristine’wilderness is a ridiculous idea.”

As the words exited his mouth, hecaught my eyes and quickly added,“No offense.” Nodding with what Ihoped was a thoughtful expression, Iresponded honestly: “No offensetaken.” But I went on to add, “I don’tthink the idea of wilderness is ridicu-lous. I do think that countries andpeople around the world need to fig-ure out what wilderness is forthem—and not, without thinking,apply the American model.”

My point here is I believe peopledo matter. They mattered when theWilderness Act was written, they mat-ter now, and they will matter in thefuture. This is not easy for me to say—when I told you about expeditions inCentral Park I didn’t tell you that in

those days my greatest goal in life wasto be a hermit. I’m a lot like 90% ofUSFS employees, except that I’ve comearound to realize that people aren’treally so bad. Misguided, misin-formed, and incomprehensible attimes, but other than that—not reallyso bad. Maybe most of all, I’ve cometo realize that whatever one’s personalopinion on our human species—itdoesn’t matter. For better or worse,we’re in charge and we’re stuck witheach other, so let’s make the best of it.

In the past 20 years with the USFS,what’s the same? Difficult and some-times conflicting mandates; employeeswho have trouble making the bridgebetween multiple use and wildernessstewardship; too many people wantingtoo many things from the land; too fewdollars; money that seems to evaporatebefore it hits the ground. Also, peoplein and outside of the agency who carefrom the depths of their being aboutwilderness and wild places.

What do I think has changed? I’veseen what seems to me from my verylimited historical perspective to be ever-increasing polarization in our ideas.There is no doubt a gap between manyof us in wilderness management, and agap between us and many wildernessadvocates throughout the country. Wemay never agree on the role of humansin nature, or even on the smaller day-to-day management challenges we face,but I desperately hope we’ll keep talk-ing with one another.

I think we have outstanding peopleworking in wilderness throughout theUSFS and that they’re commitment andtheir values are strong. I don’t mean tosay our employees have gotten better—but I do think that collectively we aremore focused in our wilderness stew-ardship and on the task at hand.

In the last two years, perhaps thegreatest organizational change is thatthe USFS now has a director of wil-

derness. As far as I can tell, this changewas recommended by at least threeWilderness Advisory Groups (WAGs).There were lots of reasons not to makethe change—fear of increasing Wash-ington bureaucracy, fear that thiswould create a domino effect of in-creasing bureaucracy at regional andforest levels, fear of making wildernessstand out as a political target, and onand on. There were many compellingreasons to create the position. But thesingle most compelling reason that Iheard and the one that most shapedmy own thinking, was that USFS wil-derness rangers and managers acrossthe United States said they wanted it;they thought it was worth the risk andworth the money. To me it was a des-perate cry for leadership—a cry thatwas eventually heard and a cry towhich I have great faith that the USFSdirector of wilderness will respond, nomatter who he or she is.

The Long ViewIn their book Wilderness Ethics, Guyand Laura Waterman (1993) wroteabout the future of wilderness:

We tend to a guarded optimism.Certainly we have overloaded theenvironment with our arroganttechnologies. But nature is tooresilient an antagonist to be easilyvanquished. The natural worldstill has power, immensity, com-plexity, beauty beyond humanity’spower either to create or tomanipulate. What various kindsof wilderness have in common,whether mountain or ocean orpolar ice or desert sands, is a vividsense of both the overpoweringstrength and the delicate intricacyof nature. (page 34)

Despite everything, I too am guard-edly optimistic about the future. Ifnothing else, optimism makes it mucheasier to get out of bed in the morning.Many of the problems we face today


related to wilderness are the same prob-lems we have faced for 40 years; someof them have shifted or reformed, somehave compounded, some have im-proved, but few are unique. They werehere in varying degrees 40 years ago,and they will be here, in varying de-grees, 40 years from now.

It’s certainly not easy to imagine arosy picture 40 years from now. Thereare lots of people everywhere, moreand more of us clamoring for placesto “get away from it all”; there’s neverenough money and there’s neverenough public support. Although

where that restraint begins orends—does wilderness restorationmake any sense? How can we asstewards find the collective will torestrain our love of technologyeven when that technology is for agood cause such as monitoringwilderness conditions?

We all know that wildernessis not an island unto itself,unaffected by political or environ-mental actions outside itsborders—that the ultimate healthof wilderness depends on thehealth of the world around it. Can

How do we protect the spirit of wild-ness in a world where instantcommunication is taken for granted,where cell phones and personal loca-tor beacons and technologies stillunknown change how we communi-cate? Who among us would havethought 15 years ago that today we’dbe confronting the issues of instantcommunications, Internet cell phones,satellite phones, and personal radiobeacons when considering what itmeans to experience wildness? In somecases, we’ve done an admirable job ofphysically protecting land, but we mayhave forgotten to ask what it means torespect the land’s wild character. Howdo we honor the sprit of wildness whenour lust for knowledge—but not nec-essarily wisdom—drives us to poke andprod every corner of the Earth for data?

Twenty years ago I didn’t hear muchconversation about this within the For-est Service. But now, thanks to a lot ofhard work by a lot of dedicated people,we’re trying to figure out how to incor-porate the idea of maintaining the spiritof wildness in our wilderness monitor-ing. What an exciting change!

• New Visions. Can we be open tonew visions? Can we define newoptions, new ways of thinking thatare not “either/or,” that are notbased on the premise that “you’reeither with us or against us?” Don’tthink that I’m asking for adeconstructed or neoreconstructedor a neodeconstructed view of wil-derness—I’m not. I am asking usto be able to talk with my SouthAfrican friend who said wildernesswas a ridiculous idea. I’m askingus to figure out ways to keep theintegrity of wild places withoutexcluding entire human historiesfrom the picture. Can we acceptthat people are not automaticallythe enemy of wild places? I think

Restraint, protecting the spirit of wildness, openness—

that’s what I think it will take to be able to sit together in

celebration at the 80th anniversary of the Wilderness

Act. I think it’s possible, though not easy to get there.

some days it’s discouraging to thinkwe keep playing out the same issuesover and over again, I take great com-fort in knowing that many better menand women than I have wrestled withthese issues. Collectively, we havestruggled with criticisms and questionsover the value or place of wilderness,and these struggles will continue. Ithink that’s healthy—for the worstenemy of all is complacency.

I think the future of wilderness inthe USFS and beyond continues to reston three main ideas: restraint, protect-ing the spirit of wildness, and beingopen to new visions.

• Restraint. Can we find the disci-pline of restraint? Can we ever evenagree on what it means? All of uscan understand the general idea ofrestraint as it applies to wilder-ness—the belief that “self-willed”land is a valid and noble idea. But,we don’t necessarily agree on

we find the collective will torestrain ourselves outside of wil-derness to keep the ecosystemsfrom collapsing in on one another?I can’t think of too many thingsmore tragic than a country dividedinto suburbs and wilderness, yetmore and more that seems a pathwe might travel.

• The spirit of the land. Guy andLaura Waterman (1993) noted that

“preserving the spirit of wildnessrequires action on at least twoentirely distinguishable fronts. Inthe first place, the more obviousforms of destruction—industrial-ization, whether by miners or therecreation industry or second-home developers—must be fendedoff from significant blocs of naturallands. But after that, we mustdecide what we’re preserving theland for: the preserved land mustbe treated with respect for its wildcharacter, its internal integrity, thespirit of the land.” (27)


the future depends on it. I thinkin the next 40 years there will benew models for wilderness outsideof America, and that’s a good thing.

The FutureRestraint, protecting the spirit ofwildness, openness—that’s what I thinkit will take to be able to sit together incelebration at the 80th anniversary ofthe Wilderness Act. I think it’s possible,though not easy to get there.

Wherever you are in your life, thefuture has a nasty way of sneaking upon you. When I was chair of theWilderness Advisory Group, I had thepleasure of getting to know JerryStokes, the former USFS assistantdirector for wilderness. I didn’t knowJerry very well, but I knew him wellenough to know he was a visionaryand he was passionate aboutwilderness. Shortly after I joined theWAG, Jerry announced his retirement.

He called me to tell me the news. I feltcrushed and disappointed. Jerry toldme that he looked to me—and a listof other folks that he believed in—tocarry on, to fight for good wildernessstewardship. I hung up the phone aftertalking with Jerry, honestly thinkingthat he was nuts. That, at least in mycase, I wasn’t ready for any torch-passing to come my way; that I wasill-prepared, uninformed, and, if thatwasn’t enough, pretty much a nobodyin the organizational food chain.

I realize now that Jerry was right.The future of wilderness stewardshipin the USFS was and still is in my handsand in the hands of all USFS employees.More often than not the progress isslow. There always will be people whotell you what you want is impossible,or that what you’re advocating isimpractical and too idealistic. Thosepeople can make an awful lot of noise,but we can’t let them stop us.

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

Whether you’ve worked for the USFSor for a nongovernmental organizationfor 20 years, for three years, or 40 years,you may not always feel ready for thetask; there will be good days and baddays, optimistic times and timeseverything we do feels hopeless. Therewill usually be many more small victoriesthan big victories. The point is to do ourbest. To quote what I think may be fromthe Talmud, “We’re not expected tofinish our work, but neither are weexcused from it.” IJW

REFERENCESWaterman, Guy and Laura. 1993. Wilderness

Ethics, The Countryman Press, Woodstock,VT.

REBECCA ORESKES is an IJW editor and astaff officer on the White MountainNational Forest, 719 North Main Street,Laconia, NH 03246, USA. Telephone:603-528-8757; email: [email protected].

From MANAGING CAVES AS WILDERNESS on page 20

buried resources. SAR events must in-clude ongoing efforts to minimizeimpact to the cave and preserve wil-derness values.

REFERENCESD’Agostino, Jean. 1992. Defining underground

wilderness: A proposed management plan forLechuguilla Cave. Unpublished bachelor’s the-sis, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Despain, Joel D. 2004. Hidden Beneath the Moun-

tains, Caves of Sequoia and Kings CanyonNational Parks. Dayton, OH: Cave Books.

Krejca, Jean K. 2006. Draft inventory of karstfauna in Sequoia, Kings Canyon, andYosemite National Parks. Buda, TX: ZaraEnvironmental.

National Park Service. 2001. National ParkService Management Policies. Sections 6.3.1and 6.3.11.2.Washington, DC: Departmentof the Interior.

Stock, Greg, Robert S. Anderson, and RobertC. Finkel. 2004. Pace of landscape evolu-

tion in the Sierra Nevada, California, re-vealed by cosmogenic dating of cave sedi-ments. Geology 32(3): 193–96.

Tinsley, John C. 1999. New karst connection inMineral King Valley. California Caver 210: 22.

JOEL DESPAIN is a cave specialist forSequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks,47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers,CA 93271, USA. Email:[email protected].


STEWARDSHIP

IntroductionFor some, caves are one of the last remaining frontiers for ad-venture, wilderness, and exploration in America. Inacknowledgment of these qualities, a few have sought nationalrecognition for caves in the form of a wilderness designation.However, their efforts have not resulted in any cave or portionthereof receiving congressional recognition as wilderness.

During the years that the Wilderness Act was under con-gressional consideration, numerous hearings were conducted.A report, submitted by de Saussure (1962), entitled “CaveResources,” as well as testimony by representatives of the Na-tional Speleological Society, was taken under review duringpreparation of the final draft of the Wilderness Act (Stitt 1982).

The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission(ORRRC), in its 1962 Study Report No. 3 noted the poten-tial wilderness value of caves:

Rivers and caves are considered in the report asimportant potential wilderness resources, and we haveattempted a limited inventory of wilderness rivers anddiscussion of cave preservation in appendixes to the full

report. It is apparent that special study is needed todevelop suitable definitions for these recreationresources, which can be applied in survey and manage-ment efforts. (ORRRC, 1962, p. 4)

In the end, the Wilderness Act of 1964 made no referenceto caves. However, cave conservationists felt that Congresswas aware of caves’ potential as wilderness and had intendedto include them, just as other natural features were includedwithout specific reference (Stitt 1982).

Attempts were made to designate caves or portions of cavesas wilderness (Stitt 1991). Yet no federally designated wil-derness has been established based on the wilderness qualitiesinherent to the caves found there. Nor has the presence ofcaves been an important criterion in the determination ofany wilderness designation (Seiser 2003). This lack of desig-nation suggests that cave wilderness is not an intuitiveconcept, at least not in the context of the Wilderness Act.

The lack of understanding, by the general public andpolicy makers, of caves’ ecological importance and associ-ated wilderness values may play a role in the lack of adesignation. Congressional testimony and other recordsindicate that values were a critical focal point in the pas-sage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Cordell et al. 2003).Developing an understanding of values associated with cavesmay lead to better understanding of cave wilderness andthe need for a congressionally legislated designation.

Justifications for wilderness preservation arise from val-ues ascribed to wilderness. McCloskey (1990) defines thesevalues as reasons, based in philosophy and culture, for want-ing wilderness. These tangible and intangible values areattributed to the benefits experienced by individuals, soci-ety, or nature. Various wilderness- and protected areas–relatedvalue typologies have been developed. Two specific typologies

Defining the Concept ofCave Wilderness and

Its Designation ValuesBY PATRICIA E. SEISER and MICHAEL A. SCHUETT

Article co-authors Patricia E. Seiser and Michael A. Schuett.


address American and worldwide per-spectives. A 13-item Wilderness ValuesScale (WVS) has been used, as part ofthe American National Survey on Recre-ation and the Environment, see table 3Cordell et al. 2003; Cordell et al. 1998).The World Commission on ProtectedAreas (WCPA), a voluntary technicalbody of the IUCN, developed a typol-ogy of intangible values mostcommonly associated with protectedareas, see table 1 (Putney 2003). Thesetypologies have contributed to the un-derstanding of the diverse valuesassociated with protected areas, bothnationally and internationally. Thework of Cordell et al. (2003) highlightsthe change, over time, in the relativeimportance of specific values associatedwith wilderness in the United States.

In a 1961 Cave Research FoundationReport, Smith (1981) wrote, “The ap-plication of wilderness philosophy tocaverns is neither a well defined nor awidely thought about concept. It is notan easy concept to develop for speleo-logical wilderness values are alien tomuch of the human experience.” Otherauthors have discussed values associatedwith both caves and wilderness (Gamble1981; Huppert and Wheeler 1992;Watson and Smith 1971). The intrinsicvalues of caves make it evident that manycaves do meet the criteria for a wilder-ness site (Huppert and Wheeler 1992).However, there has been little to no re-search identifying which values areassociated with the creation of a desig-nation such as cave wilderness.

Much of the research on cave wil-derness was confined to the legaldefinition of wilderness (Seiser 2003).Several definitions for cave wildernesshave been proposed, most aregrounded in the Wilderness Act, andnone has gained wide acceptance (seetable 1). The lack of a federally desig-nated cave wilderness may lie in thelack of a clear definition for cave wil-

derness, defining both intent and pur-pose of such a designation, as well aspredication of the definition of cavewilderness on the 1964 Wilderness Act.

The purpose of this study was toexplore values and meanings associatedwith cave wilderness from the perspec-tive of stakeholders who perceive theirlives to be affected by caves and/or acave wilderness designation. The studyexamined stakeholder expectations ofand concerns regarding a special cavedesignation, such as cave wilderness.In establishing the foundations ofmeaning for a phenomenon, it becomespossible to construct sound scientificand political theories, managementpractices, and policy. The defining of aconcept, such as cave wilderness, is away to enhance the knowledge base forthe discipline of cave resources stew-ardship (Parse 1997).

Study DesignCave regions of central Kentucky andsoutheast New Mexico were selectedas study sites for a phenomenologicalinvestigation of cave-related stake-holders, using a focus group format.

Focus group dynamics can stimulatediscussions and encourage in-deptharticulation of concerns, attitudes, andperceptions, thus providing insightsinto the research topic (Fleitas 1998).Discussion topics covered meaningsand values associated with cave wil-derness, need for a congressionalwilderness designation, and perceivedbenefits and risks associated with acave wilderness designation.

Table 1. Cave Wilderness Definitions

Author Year Definition

Watson 1971 Underground wilderness consists of cave systems that generally appear& Smith to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint

of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.

Stitt 1972 Underground wilderness is that portion of a cave or karst area, lying& Bishop below the surface of the earth, which meets the requirements of the

Wilderness Act regarding value and impact on the observer.

Gamble 1981 Areas from which Man can derive the wilderness experience exists inthe remote areas of cavern systems, where the impact of Man’s activitiesis largely unnoticeable. Any cave or portion thereof, which has notbeen markedly disturbed by tourism or other exploitive activities,therefore includes substantial tracts of wilderness.

Wood 1983 [Cave] Wilderness is an area that can provide people with wildernessexperience. The primary purpose of wilderness is recreational andcultural with ecological values important but secondary. Wildernessexperience consists of feelings of freedom, beauty, empathy with wildnature, and remoteness from the ordinary works of man.

Millar 1994 Cave wilderness is a function of the difficulty of ingress/egress, travelwithin the cave and/or the feeling of remoteness from the surface.

Figure 1. Hazel Barton crossing a “pit” in a cave while on belay.Photo by Patricia E. Seiser.


Both study sites contain a national“cave” park: Mammoth Cave andCarlsbad Caverns National Parks. At-tempts to establish cave wildernesshave occurred at both parks.

These cave regions differ culturally,historically, and economically, and interms of regional population, land own-ership, and designated wilderness. Theydiffer in mechanism of cavern develop-ment, nature of the caves, and in howtheir relation to the surface landscapemay affect individual awareness of caves.These distinctly different regions pro-vided a wide range of experiences andvalues from which stakeholders drewupon in discussing their perspectives ofcaves and a special cave designation,such as cave wilderness.

Participants were recruited based onmembership in selected target popula-tions—stakeholders who may effect orbe affected by cave stewardship policiesand legislation. Cave-related stakehold-ers fell into one of two, potentiallyoverlapping, communities—the com-munity of interest and the communityof place (see table 2).

Nine focus groups were conducted,involving 60 participants. Four focus

groups were held during a nationalcaving event (39 participants hadcaved in one or both study regions).Five focus groups were held within thespecific study sites (21 participants),three in Kentucky, and two in NewMexico. Effective focus groups com-prise six to eight participants (Krueger1995). In this study focus group sizesranged from two to 12. Variations ingroup numbers resulted from partici-pants failing to attend or the inclusionof individuals invited by participants.

In addition to focus group partici-pation, stakeholders were asked tocomplete a questionnaire with ques-tions about demographics, cavingexperiences, and wilderness visitation.

Focus group sessions were tapedusing video and audio recorders. Tran-scripts of recordings were first codedby the researcher to identify themes,reviewed by the research assistant, andthen evaluated by two independent,noncaver reviewers. Identified themesand concepts that appear to link sub-stantial portions of the data togetherserved as a basis for a developing nar-rative (Winter, Palucki, and Burkhardt1999; Fleitas 1998).

Findings and DiscussionIt is beyond the scope of this article toreport on all findings of this research.The intent of this article is to identifyvalues associated with the establish-ment of a special designation such ascave wilderness based on themes iden-tified from focus groups discussions.The article also presents goals and ob-jectives of a cave wilderness designationas derived from focus group discus-sions. The research revealed a need fora clearly delineated definition of cavewilderness, and a purposed definitionis developed, based on special desig-nation values, goals, and objectives,resulting from focus group discussions.

The sociodemographic profile of fo-cus group participants was as follows:predominately white (98%), male(78%), between the ages of 40 and 69(77%), had a bachelor’s degree orhigher (74%), had an annual incomeof US$40,000 or higher (72%), hadvisited a wilderness site (90%), andidentified themselves as a caver (76%).Caving experience levels ranged fromnovice to very experienced to retired.They also indicated wide-ranging spe-cializations (explorer, photographer,cave diver, etc.) (Seiser 2003).

Designation ValuesSeven value-related themes were identi-fied regarding a special cave designation,such as cave wilderness: (1) research andmonitoring, (2) experiential, (3) resourceprotection, (4) educational, (5) future, (6)significance, and (7) existence. Themesoften overlapped. All groups discussedthe first four themes to varying degrees.Seven groups directly or indirectly ad-dressed educational and future valuethemes. Only two groups discussed ex-istence value.

• Research and Monitoring: Dis-cussions on the intent of a specialdesignation centered on protecting

Table 2. Community of Interest and Community of Place Stakeholders

Defining Stakeholders by Community of Interest and Community of Place

Community of Interest(Those who use and/or participate in the stewardship of caves and karst.)

1. Individuals who utilize caves for recreation, exploration, and/or research.

2. Individuals who own or manage wild or developed caves (regardless of ownership orcommercial use).

3. State and federal government officials responsible for decisions impacting caves or cavemanagement.

4. Special interest organizations that have an interest in cave and karst environments.

Community of Place(Those who work, reside on, or own land in cave and karst regions.)

1. Local individuals who earn a living via a nonresource extraction business.

2. Local individuals who earn a living via a natural resource extraction industry.

3. Local government officials who may have an impact on cave stewardship activities.

4. Local residents


physical and social scientific val-ues and resources. This includedestablishment of baseline data formonitoring purposes. The preser-vation of future discoveries was animportant component of scientificresearch. The value of research andmonitoring is illustrated in thisstakeholder comment:

Who cares that they’re the lastunexplored frontier, because of thatwe don’t know enough about them.This is an opportunity to go into anenvironment that we have notimpacted on our planet and studyecosystems that are undamaged.We’ve never really had an opportu-nity to do that before and now wehave the tools to do it, and we aregetting so much information fromthose environments… So, thescientific potential is vast for theseareas, what we can learn. For mostpeople, if you say the cave needs tobe protected, it’s very delicate, wehave these formations, we havethese complex ecosystems, they’renot going to get that, but when yousay it’s this incredible scientificresource, which it really is, thenthey’re like oh science well that’simportant please do that.

• Experiential: Preservation of the ex-periential aspect of wilderness wasanother important component of aspecial designation. Such an experi-ence offers the perceptions ofsolitude, remoteness, and self-suffi-ciency. This value is aptly discussedby this stakeholder comment:

If I’m in Fairy Cave and I’mway back in the most miserablepart of Fairy Cave, which is stilllike an hour from the entrance, Idon’t feel like I am in the wilder-ness; I am in a wild cave there,but I’m not in wilderness. WhenI’m in Lech and I’m like four orfive hours from the entrance, andwe’re camping down there, Iabsolutely do feel like we’re in thewilderness. I think, for me, it’show far am I from the infrastruc-

ture of “somebody else can takecare of me,” when I feel like I’mgetting away from, that is when Ifeel like I’m in the wilderness.Maybe it’s the same for Joe Blowpublic, at what point does hecross the boundary where it’s like,oh my goodness I’m taking care ofmyself now? This is wilderness.

• Resource Protection: Resourceprotection discussions ranged frombroad statements, such as “goodfor the health of the planet,” tomore specific benefits, includingprotection of water quality andprotection of fauna. Protection in-cluded the physical aspects of acave—preservation of the cave’snatural state and its original re-sources, and recognition ofresource fragility. The followingstakeholder comment discussesthe value of resource protection:

You know if you get a pass togo into what I would deem as acave wilderness area, it just takesone person to go in there and takewhat he wants and that piece isnonrenewable. … But, there ismore chance of renewability onthe surface, … because in cavesthere’s virtually no chance.

• Educational: Focus groups dis-cussed the importance of a specialdesignation in generating publicawareness of the significance ofcaves. Specially designated cavescan serve as educational resourcesfor land managers and the public(with or without visitation). Theeducational value is best illustratedby this stakeholder comment:

If we go through the process oftrying to pursue some kind ofdesignation, it should be for thepurpose of creating broadercommunity outreach and abroader forum for education aboutcaves and karst, obviously for theprotection of caves and karst. Butin order to protect you’ve got to

educate. So, the education aspectof any kind of designation wouldjust be paramount.

• Future: Discussions focused on theneed to protect caves based on notonly today’s knowledge and values,but also on the preservation of caveresources for future generations’needs and values. Preservationwould also protect the potential forfuture discoveries, as noted in thefollowing stakeholder comment:

Why do you want to preservethis, is it for current scientific study,is it for future scientific study? Let’snot exhaust all of the resources.With science, we may discover in ahundred years, we may find thatscience in 2002 was just in itsinfancy. Let’s do what we need to doto learn to as much as we can aboutwhat’s beneath us and leave it insuch a way so that two generationshence they won’t say, oh you’vewiped out the footprints.

• Significance: Discussions touchedupon the need for the designationto be based on the overall qualityof the resource to be protected, asopposed to one or two resource at-tributes (including scientific,aesthetic, and other intangible at-tributes). The following stakeholdercomment discusses significance:

There has to be some valuecriteria in there too. It’s got to bean outstanding example of

Figure 2. Pat Kambesis recording research notes while exploringa cave. Photo by Patricia E. Seiser.


something. Outstandingresources, outstanding geologicalspeleothems, hydrology for thelocal area, whatever it is, you can’tjust take any little feature… it’sgot be of great value, significance.

• Existence: Two groups mentionedthe value of knowing that wilder-ness existed even without actualvisitation, as illustrated by the fol-lowing comment: “There’s a lot ofwilderness areas that I don’t get anyselfish thing from personally, but Ifeel good knowing that there areplaces out there that humans aren’t[messing] up.”

Designation ValuesDiscussionWith one exception, focus group valuesassociated with a special designationsuch as cave wilderness were similar tothose of the WCPA Intangible ValuesTypology (Putney 2003) and the

Wilderness Values Scale (Cordell et al.2003; Cordell et al. 1998) (see table 3),indicating that these values are notdissimilar from those associated withother types of protected areas. The oneexception was experiential value. TheWCPA typology covers a wide varietyof protected areas, and it isunderstandable that experiential valuewould not be a primary value of all sites.Perhaps it is not included in the WVStypology because the perceptions ofsolitude, remoteness, and self-sufficiency are integral components ofwilderness.

Focus groups indicated difficultywith use of the phrase cave wilderness.Two primary reasons were (1) negativeexperiences associated with wildernesshearings and establishment ofwilderness, and (2) the concern thatsuch a designation would serve as anattractant, resulting in the destructionof the resources intended to be

protected. Such concerns may be whyemphasis was placed on theexperiential value by all focus groups.If a special designation did not use theterm wilderness, it was still to protectthe experience of wilderness.

Scientific research was a primarycomponent of focus group discussions,indicating the importance of researchand monitoring values to a special cavedesignation. This runs contrary torecent research indicating that scientificvalue was not a significant aspect ofwilderness (Brown and Alessa 2005;Cordell et al 2003). In the case of thisstudy, scientific value is significant tothe establishment of cave wilderness.

Five of the nine focus groupsdiscussed recreation, specifically notingthat cave wilderness should not beestablished for recreational purposes,as illustrated by the followingstakeholder comment: “It’s not forrecreational use; it’s for exploratory anddocumenting.” Although it can beargued that cave explorers arerecreating while they are mapping andinventorying a cave, they are producingscientific documents. It is questionableif cave visitors, whose primary interestin caves is for sport/adventure, wouldfeel the same way about a nonrecreationbased wilderness designation.

Values not identified in focus groupdiscussions on cave wilderness, yet listedin the two the WCPA and WVStypologies, should not be considered asunimportant to focus group participants.Rather, these values are not significantin the establishment of a special cavedesignation. As noted by Harmon, 2003,“No single protected area can cover thespectrum of intangible values” (p. 20).It is highly likely that additional valueswill be associated with cave wildernessonce a designation is established.Understanding the values associatedwith a special designation begins to laythe foundation of cave wilderness. Such

Table 3. Protected Areas Value Typologies

Value Typologies

Cave Wilderness WCPA (2003) NSRE (2000)Designation Values Intangible Values of Wilderness Values Scale3

(2003)1 Protected Areas2

ExperientialResearch & Monitoring Research & Monitoring Scientific StudyExistence Existence Knowing It ExistsEducational EducationalFuture Option for Future GenerationsResource ProtectionProtecting Water Quality Protecting Water QualityProtecting Air Quality Protecting Air QualityProtecting Wildlife Habitat Protecting Wildlife HabitatPreserving Unique Wild Plants & Animals Preserving Unique Wild Plants &AnimalsProtecting Rare & Endangered Species Protecting Rare & Endangered Species

Recreational Recreation OpportunitiesAesthetic Scenic BeautySpiritual Spiritual InspirationCulturalTherapeuticIdentityArtisticPeace

Tourism IncomeOption for Personal Use

1 As Identified in this article.2 See Putney (2003).3 See Cordell et al. (2003).


knowledge will aid in answering thequestion; “What is cave wilderness?”

Are we talking about people? Arewe talking about places? And ifwe’re talking about preservingcaves, are we talking aboutpreserving them for their ownsakes or preserving them becausethey are of value to humanity?

Designation Goals andObjectivesAs noted previously, cave wildernessis not an intuitive concept. Under-standing the values associated with aspecial cave designation is critical tounderstanding cave wilderness. So toois an understanding of what the in-tentions are in such a designation.Understanding the purposes a cavewilderness designation would serve isan important aspect of defining whatcave wilderness is to be.

Research findings suggest the follow-ing goals are important in defining theintent of a special designation such ascave wilderness: (1) protection of caveresources and associated scientific val-ues that occur within a wildernesssetting for present and future researchopportunities, and (2) protection of thewilderness experience. The sense of iso-lation, as defined by solitude andremoteness, and the sense of self-suffi-ciency are important elements in a cavewilderness experience.

Based on these goals, it was pos-sible to develop objectives of a specialcave designation. These objectives in-cluded: (1) intent, (2) visionaryimpact, (3) scientific values, (4) expe-riential values, (5) access issues, (6)resource protection, and (7) educa-tional values (see table 4). As oneparticipant noted:

…research to understand ourresources and how they interactwith other resources, from takingthat information and data andusing that to educate not just thepublic, but to educate our land

managers. … I think research is animportant part of the wholeprotection, because if you don’ttruly understand how somethingworks then how are you going tocome up with the most effectiveways to help protect, and preserve,and manage those resources?

The objectives delineate cave wil-derness stewardship goals withoutplacing specific restrictions or require-ments on how they are to be achieved,thus allowing each designated site tobe managed as appropriate to protect

the values and resources for which itwas designated.

Defining Cave WildernessIn developing the definition of cavewilderness, a combination of two ap-proaches was used. The traditionalapproach was used to identify valuesand meanings associated with the con-cept via focus groups. The secondapproach, concept inventing, resultsfrom the interpretation of literaturefrom various disciplines, personal ex-perience, and other sources in order

Table 4. Criteria Important in Defining the Idea of Cave Wilderness.

Criteria Important in Defining the Idea of Wilderness as Established by Focus Groups

IntentIs the designation for resource protection or recreation andknowledge? It is necessary to define what is being protected andfrom what activities or events. Cave wilderness should not beestablished primarily for recreational purposes.

Visionary ImpactDesignation must protect caves based on today’s knowledge andvalues and preserve caves and cave resources for futuregenerations’ needs and values.

Scientific ValuesDesignation must provide protection of the cave’s scientific valuesand resources, for study now and in the future, includingpreservation of future discovery opportunities.

Experiential ValuesDesignation must provide for the protection of individuals’ ability tohave a wilderness experience that offers the perceptions of solitude,remoteness, and self-sufficiency.

Access

Access restrictions should occur for the protection of the caveresources, but should not result in permanent closure of the cave.Rationales for limiting access include the existence of other cavesopen for recreational purposes and the ability to provide alternativeways to experience the cave via the use of photographic andvideographic imagery.

Resource Protection

Designation will need to provide protection for physical, biological,and other components of a cave, preservation of the cave’s naturalstate, its original resources, and recognition of resource fragility.The designation will address surface as well as subsurface activitiesthat may impact upon the cave resources. It will also need toprovide protection for the human dimension aspect of a cave—protection of physical and social sciences’ values, aesthetic values,wilderness values, and other values.

EducationSpecially designated caves can serve as educational resources(with or without requiring physical visitation), generating publicawareness of the significance of caves.

ManagementDesignation must recognize that each cave is different. It would benecessary to tailor management practices to meet specific caveneeds. Specific management should evolve from cave resources(physical and social sciences) and skill requirements.


to discover associated meanings. Thescholar selects which meanings to usein the definition and distinguishes theconcept via a logical combination ofthese chosen meanings (Parse 1997).In the first approach, the structure ofthe concept is generated from the re-search participants. In the secondapproach, the ideas arise from mul-tiple sources (Bournes 2000).

In defining cave wilderness, the re-search findings were complementedwith the researcher’s personal experi-ences, reflections on wilderness andcave wilderness literature, and fromexisting U.S. federal legislation: theWilderness Act of 1964, the Wild andScenic Rivers Act of 1968, the FederalCave Resources Protection Act of 1988,and the Lechuguilla Cave ResourcesProtection Act of 1993. Thus, valuesand meanings of the concept of cavewilderness developed from researchparticipant inputs, as well as emanat-ing from a synthesis of multiple sources.

The proposed definition of cavewilderness is also guided by an addedcomponent—the idea of explorationand discovery. Kerbo and Roth (1989)note that caves not only emphasizewilderness qualities and benefits, theyalso allow individuals to experiencethe spirit of exploration and adven-ture. Although alluded to indiscussions regarding exploration andmapping and other scientific activities,explicit expression of this idea byresearch participants as a specific valueof cave wilderness did not occur. Theidea that exploration and discovery be

part of the wilderness experience is nota new one. Believing that the urge toexplore was basic to human nature,Aldo Leopold felt that designated wil-derness would provide opportunitiesto safeguard the romance of explora-tion (Sutter 2002). “And now,speaking geographically, the end of theunknown is at hand. … Is it to be ex-pected that it shall be lost from humanexperience without something like-wise being lost from humancharacter?” (Leopold 1991, p. 124). Incombining the possibility of adventureand wilderness preservation, Leopoldenvisioned the potential to prevent theloss of the idea of exploration from theaverage person’s life.

In defining cave wilderness, con-sideration is given to the physicalresources of the cave, its wildernessqualities, and stewardship goals. Adefinition should recognize that hu-mans have a past, present, and futurehistory with caves, and recognize thatscientific ventures can be intertwinedwith a wilderness experience.

The following preamble and defi-nition of cave wilderness are proposedherein:

Caves are valuable, nonrenewableresources. Wilderness caves andother significant wild caves existand are protected to preserve theirrecreational and educationalvalues for the perpetual use,enjoyment, and benefit of allpeople. There exist some cavesand cave passages that arerepositories of scientific andcultural resources of extraordinary

value, known and unknown.These same caves and cavepassages exhibit high degrees ofwildness and naturalness (thephysical reality of wilderness) andthe intangible essence of wilder-ness (solitude, self-sufficiency, andsense of remoteness) such thatvisitation evokes a wildernessexperience. In order to protectthese scientific and culturalresources, wilderness qualities,and opportunities for discovery, itis proposed that the designationof cave wilderness be established.In recognition of the spirit ofexploration and discovery, cavewilderness shall be open to thosewho desire to meet the cave on itsown terms, to explore, discover,and report, thereby contributingto the world’s knowledge ofspeleology and other sciences. Itis the hope that use of suchknowledge will be for education,resource stewardship, and otheradditional beneficial purposes forall of humankind.

Cave wilderness is defined asthose caves and cave passagesexhibiting exceptional scientific andcultural resources, and wildernessqualities. These sites display a highdegree of wildness, in which thephysical structure and ecologicalsystems are largely unimpacted byhumans and in which there is asense of remoteness from theordinary activities and works ofhumankind. Cave wilderness is tomean those caves and cave passagesin which stewardship shall protectthe cave resources, its wildernessvalues, and future discoveries.Stewardship goals include: sanctionof exploration and other scientificresearch activities, while seeking tolimit the impact of these activitiesand other visitation; protection ofthe sense of solitude, remoteness,and self-sufficiency as well as othercharacteristics of a wildernessexperience; recognition of thehistoric connection of humans andcaves, such that evidence of historichuman visitation and usage that

The lack of understanding, by the general public andpolicy makers, of caves’ ecological importance and

associated wilderness values may play a rolein the lack of a designation.


does not detract from the cave’swildness or wilderness experienceis acceptable; and management ofsurface activities to protect the caveresources and wilderness qualities.

The preceding preamble anddefinition is based on themes identifiedfrom discussion groups conducted intwo cave regions of the United States.The following two questions arise: (1)Would the same themes be identifiedfrom focus groups conducted in otherregions of the United States? and (2)Are there issues and concerns notaddressed by the focus groups in ourstudy? Additional research would aidin determining the nation’s level ofinterest in a cave wildernessdesignation. It would also provide anopportunity to evaluate the level ofunderstanding and interest in cavestewardship, as well as determiningcave-related educational needs.

ConclusionsThis study identified values associatedwith the establishment of a specialdesignation such as cave wilderness.Hendee and Dawson (2001) notedthat in the future, wilderness mayrepresent remnants of ecosystems,wild conditions, and opportunities forwilderness experiences, and isreflective of our stewardship of today.Threats to existing wilderness sites aresimilar to those faced in thestewardship of caves. The identifiedvalues associated with cave wildernesscan guide today’s stewardshippractices to protect thesenonrenewable environments. Theycan also be used to help identify caveson federal lands that deserve specialdesignation (be it called wilderness orby another name) and the protectionassociated with such a designation.

Research and education were iden-tified as integral components of cavewilderness stewardship. Although this

provides opportunities for researchersto pursue cave and karst investigations,there still exists the obligation of pro-tecting the cave resources andwilderness experiences while manag-ing research activities. Publiceducation may require the expansionof current educational programs andthe development of new programs.

For some, the word wilderness istroubling. Nevertheless, whether aspecial cave designation goes by aconvoluted title such as “site ofextraordinary interest for speleologicalexploration and research” or otherverbiage, the heart of the designationis still to protect the wilderness of cavesand their associated values.

A special cave designation shouldrequire both surface and subsurfacelands be considered, as well as associ-ated activities, to address themultidimensional aspect of caveboundaries. It does not require that thesurface lands meet wilderness qualifi-cations, only that activities occurringon the surface do not adversely affectthe subsurface cave wilderness.

Whereas this research needs to be ex-panded to other cave and noncaveregions of the United States for further

validation, it is a beginning for layingthe foundation for cave wilderness.There is also a need to understand thepublic’s knowledge of and perceptionsregarding caves and caving activities, in-cluding exploration.

An understanding of the valuesassociated with a special cavedesignation, as well as a clear definitionof cave wilderness, may aid inlegislators’ and the public’s appreciationfor the need of a congressionallylegislated special cave designation.

This study emphasizes the need toexpand the concept of wilderness to in-clude nontraditional wildernesses suchas caves, and the idea that wildernesscan be managed with an emphasis onscience, education, and exploration, in-stead of recreation. This study lays thefoundation for cave wilderness steward-ship and aids in expanding the conceptof wilderness. The proposed definitionof cave wilderness provides a frameworkupon which to base cave ecosystemmanagement practices and policies.

In 2005 U.S. Senate Bill 1170 wasintroduced to Congress proposing toestablish the Fort Stanton-Snowy RiverNational Cave Conservation Area, locatedon Bureau of Land Management land near

Figure 3. Reviewing research notes at the end of a day of exploring and surveying. Photo by Patricia E. Seiser.


Capitan, New Mexico, “to secure, protect,and conserve subterranean natural andunique features and environs forscientific, educational, and otherappropriate public uses” (S.1170, June6, 2005). The nature of Fort Stanton caveand its long history of recreationalvisitation do not lend much of thecurrently known cave to wildernessconsideration. Of the eight criteriadefining the idea of cave wilderness, thebill specifically addressed six, lacking thecriteria of “visionary impact” and“experiential values.” Although the billseeks to establish protected status for aspecific cave and does not specificallyestablish a federal land managementcategory, it does not preclude that use.

The significance of the bill lies in thepotential establishment of a designationfor the protection of scientifically notablecaves, regardless of their wildernessvalues. This could be the first steptoward the establishment of a cavewilderness–based designation. IJW

REFERENCESBrown, G. C., and L. Alessa. 2005. A GIS-based

inductive study of wilderness values. IJW11(1): 14–18.

Bournes, D. A. 2000. Concept inventing: Aprocess for creating a unitary definition ofhaving courage. Nursing Science Quarterly13: 143–49.

Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, and G. T. Green.2003. Is the public viewpoint of wildernessshifting? IJW 9(2): 27–32.

Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, B. L. McDonald,and J. C. Bergstrom. 1998. How the publicviews wilderness: More results from theU.S.A. survey on recreation and theenvironment. IJW 4(3): 28–31.

de Saussure, Raymond, 1962. Cave resources.In Wilderness and Recreation: A Report onResources, Values, and Problems. ORRRCReport No. 3. Appendix B (pp. 322–24).Washington, D.C.: Outdoor RecreationResources Review Commission.

Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988.Public Law 88-691, 16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.;102 Stat. 4546.

Fleitas, J. 1998. Spinning tales from the worldwide web: Qualitative research in anelectronic environment. Qualitative HealthResearch 8: 283–92.

Fort Stanton-Snowy River National CaveConservation Area. Senate Bill S. 1170.June 6, 2005.

Gamble, F. M. 1981. Disturbance ofunderground wilderness in karst caves.International Journal of EnvironmentalStudies 18 33–39.

Harmon, D. 2003. The source and significanceof values in protected areas. In The Full Valueof Parks. From Economics to the Intangible,ed. D. Harmon and A. D. Putney (pp. 13–25). Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hendee, J. C., and C. P. Dawson. 2001.Stewardship to address the threats to wildernessresources and Values. IJW 7(3): 4–9.

Huppert, G. N. and B. J. Wheeler. 1992. The casefor underground wilderness. In Proceedings ofthe Symposium on Designation andManagement of Park and Wilderness Reserves,ed. E. E. Krumpe and P. D. Weingart. 4th WorldWilderness Congress. Boise: InternationalWilderness Leadership Foundation and theDepartment of Resource Recreation andTourism, College of Forestry, Wildlife and RangeSciences, University of Idaho.

Kerbo, R., and J. Roth. 1989. Lechuguilla Caveon the edge of wilderness. In 1987 CaveManagement Symposium, ed. G. N. Huppertand D. R. McClurg (pp. 56–62). Huntsville,AL: National Speleological Society.

Krueger, R. A. 1995. The future of focus groups.Qualitative Health Research 5: 524–30.

Lechuguilla Cave Protection Act of 1993. PublicLaw 103-169, 103rd Congress, S. 1,December 2, 1993.

Leopold, A. 1991. The river of the Mother ofGod. In The River of the Mother of God andOther Essays by Aldo Leopold, ed. S. Fladerand J. B. Callicott (pp. 123–27). Madison:University of Wisconsin Press.

McCloskey, M. 1990. Evolving perspectives onwilderness values: Putting wilderness values inorder. In P. C. Reed (comp.), Preparing tomanage wilderness in the 21st century:Proceedings of the conference (pp. 13-18; GTR-SE-66). Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service,Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Millar, I. R. 1994. Aurora Cave and Mount LuxmoreCaves: Cave management issues. Unpublishedreport to Te Anau Field Center. Nelson, NewZealand: Department of Conservation.

Outdoor Recreation Resources ReviewCommission. 1962. Study Report No. 3,Wilderness and Recreation—A Report onResources, Values, and Problems. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Parse, R. R. 1997. Concept inventing: Unitarycreations. Nursing Science Quarterly 10:63–64.

Putney, A. D. 2003. Introduction: Perspectives onthe values of protected areas. In The Full Valueof Parks: From Economics to the Intangible,

ed. D. Harmon and A. D. Putney (pp. 3–11).Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield.

Seiser, P. E. 2003. Dark wilderness: Aphenomenological exploration of the ideaof cave wilderness. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, West Virginia University,Morgantown, WV.

Smith, P. M. 1981. The Flint Ridge Cave System:A wilderness opportunity. A Cave ResearchFoundation Report (May 1961). In The CaveResearch Foundation Origins and the FirstTwelve years 1957–1968, ed. R. A. Watson(pp. 157–69). Mammoth Cave, KY: TheCave Research Foundation.

Stitt, R. R. 1982. Underground wilderness. In NationalCave Management Symposia Proceedings, ed.R. C. Wilson and J. J. Lewis (pp. 201–3). OregonCity, OR: Pygmy Dwarf Press.

———. 1991. Underground wilderness and theNSS. NSS News 49: 26.

———. 1993. Legal brief. In National CaveManagement Symposium Proceedings, ed. D.L. Foster, D. G. Foster, M. M. Snow, and R. K.Snow (pp.275–88). Horse Cave, KY: TheAmerican Cave Conservation Association.

Stitt, R. R., and W. P. Bishop. 1972. Undergroundwilderness in the Guadalupe Escarpment: Aconcept applied. Bulletin of the NationalSpeleological Society 34: 77–88.

Sutter, Paul S. 2002. Driven Wild: How the Fightagainst Automobiles Launched the ModernWilderness Movement. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Watson, R. A., and P. M. Smith. 1971.Underground wilderness: A point of view.International Journal of EnvironmentalStudies 2: 217–20.

Wilderness Act of 1964. Public Law 88-577, 78Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1121 (note, 1131-36).

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Public Law90-542, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287.

Winter, P. L., L. Palucki, and R. L. Burkhardt.(1999). Anticipated responses to a feeprogram: The key is trust. Journal of Leisure31: 207–26.

Wood, M. 1983. Cave wilderness: The recon-ciliation of conservation and use. Unpub-lished bachelor’s thesis, Lincoln College, NewZealand.

PATRICIA E. SEISER is an adjunct professor,Department of Humanities, New MexicoTech, and cave research specialist,National Cave and Karst Research Institute,Carlsbad, NM 88220, USA. Email:[email protected].

MICHAEL A. SCHUETT is an associateprofessor, Recreation Park & Tourism Sciences,Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A & MUniversity, College Station, TX 77843, USA.


STEWARDSHIP

Managing Caves as Wildernessat Sequoia and Kings Canyon

National Parks, CaliforniaBY JOEL DESPAIN

IntroductionWilderness has become one of the most popular ideas inthe U.S. conservation movement. More than 100 millionacres (over 40 million ha) have been designated wilder-ness, and since the Wilderness Act’s inception in 1964 everyU.S. president has signed a wilderness bill. Yet caves-as-wilderness is a concept that has not caught on, and nosubterranean areas have been specifically declared wilder-ness within the United States (Seiser and Schuett, in thisissue of IJW). Caves contain values supported by the Wil-derness Act, such as solitude for the visitor, untrammelednatural features and wildlife, and the existence of areaswhere people are clearly visitors.

More than 60 U.S. National Park Service (NPS) unitshave caves, including such notable areas as Carlsbad Cav-erns, New Mexico, and Mammoth Cave, Kentucky—theworld’s longest cave. However, many of the long and fa-mous caves of the U.S. national parks do not underliewilderness, such as Carlsbad, Mammoth, and Wind andJewel (South Dakota). One important exception isLechuguilla Cave within Carlsbad Caverns National Park,which is known for its great length, exceptional and beau-tiful mineral deposits, and unique microbes. NPS policiesrequire that caves under wilderness areas also be managedas wilderness. In addition, NPS policies also require thatareas recommended as wilderness, but not approved bythe U.S. Congress, be managed as wilderness (NPS Man-agement Policies 2001). Yet the specifics of wildernessmanagement for caves have been left to individual parks,few of which have considered caves in their wilderness plan-ning or as wilderness in their cave management planning.

In Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in Califor-nia, more than 230 caves have been documented. Thisincludes the longest cave in California and half of the 10

longest caves in the state, al-though many of the 230 aresmall and remote (Despain2004). The two parks contain722,715 acres (292,598 ha) ofwilderness and 106,580 acres(43,151 ha) of recommendedwilderness, or combined 96%of the park land area. Most ofthese lands are the alpine highmountains of the Sierra crest.Park caves are generally lo-cated along the western slopeof the Sierra Nevada at lowerelevations compared to most park lands, and in some areasthat were previously prospected for minerals. Therefore,many areas containing park caves are not in declared orrecommended wilderness.

Many of the park’s longer and more significant caves dohappen to fall within wilderness and proposed wildernessboundaries. Of the 50 longest caves in the parks, 62% (31)are protected within areas managed as wilderness. It is theselarger caves that are of concern to park managers. Smallercaves in wilderness are seldom visited, do not contain anyinfrastructure associated with cave visitors, and are notmanaged in ways that may conflict with wilderness values.Three of these larger caves, Lilburn, Soldiers, and Hurri-cane Crawl, will be considered in this article.

Larger caves are frequently visited by recreational caversand cave researchers under park permit systems (see figure 1).This visitation creates opportunities for damage to featuresand resources of concern and, thus, the need for ongoingmanagement. Although limited in extent and impact, thelarger caves contain metal and concrete cave gates, metal

Joel Despain in Hurricane CrawlCave. Photo by Dave Bunnell.


ladders, research equipment, surveystations and entrances marked withfixed metal tags, surveyors flaggingtape to delineate travel routes, fixedropes, and metal rope anchors. Thisinfrastructure, which protects caveresources or makes visitation to parkcaves safer, may be incompatible withwilderness values. The overuse ofcaves and the resulting damage to cavewildlife and ecosystems is an addi-tional concern. Caver traffic maycompact soils, trample small cave-adapted animals or their habitat, andmove sediments from muddy areas toareas of bedrock or secondary calcite,marring their appearance and limitingtheir use as habitat.

Management policies derived fromthe park Cave Management Plan arereviewed in this article in light of wil-derness management and include caverestoration, excavation for exploration,cave research, and cave search andrescue operations (SAR). The currentCave Management Plan, completed in1996, all but ignores the implicationsof managing caves as wilderness. Init, park caves are assigned to catego-

ries of management that range fromopen to any and all visitation, to re-quiring a park-approved trip leader,to closed for almost all purposes dueto specific hazards or particularly sen-sitive resources. The plan doesincorporate the use of permits for mostpark caves, including the ones in wil-derness. Currently the park isundertaking a major revision of theCave Management Plan. An increasedawareness of wilderness values and thewilderness significance of the twoparks, combined with GIS technologythat accurately delineates which cavesare protected by surface area wilder-ness designation or recommendationmake this issue a key component ofthe new planning effort.

The Considerationof WildernessTwo things can act as guides in cavewilderness planning—the act itselfand the management of surface landsas wilderness. The Wilderness Act of1964 creates four primary criteria forwilderness: (1) That an area “gener-ally appears to have been affected

primarily by the forces of nature, withthe imprint of man’s work substantiallyunnoticeable.” (2) Wilderness “hasoutstanding opportunities for solitudeor a primitive and unconfined type ofrecreation.” (3) A wilderness shouldhave “at least five thousand acres ofland or is of sufficient size as to makepracticable its preservation and use inan unimpaired condition.” (4) Wilder-ness “may contain ecological,geological, or other features of scien-tific, educational, scenic, or historicalvalue.” In addition the Act defineswilderness as “in contrast with thoseareas where man and his own worksdominate the landscape, is hereby rec-ognized as an area where the earth andits community of life are untrammeledby man, where man himself is a visi-tor who does not remain.”

The imprint of humans’ work in theform of gates, ladders, and other struc-tures is obvious in some locations inpark caves. But, in general, these ar-eas are limited in extent. Solitudecomes easily in a cave where absolutedarkness is the norm and sounds arerare. Caves, although generally smallerin floor area than 5,000 acres (2,024ha), are practical for preservation be-cause they include small entranceconnections to the surface. Park cavescontain features of scientific, educa-tional, scenic, and historical values.The biology and hydrology of parkcaves are the focus of many scientificpapers (Krejca 2006; Tinsley 1999;Stock et al. 2004; Despain 2004). Parkcaves are the focus of many educa-tional efforts, including educationaltours at Crystal Cave and a park out-reach program for area schools. Parkcaves are scenic—speleothems and thebanded marble of park caves are verypopular with visitors to Crystal Cave andwith recreational cavers (see figure 2).Park caves also contain Native Ameri-can artifacts of historical value. Park

Figure 1—A caver in the largest room in Hurricane Crawl Cave and one of many found on lands managed aswilderness in Sequoia National Park, California. Photo by Dick La Forge.


caves in wilderness, although contain-ing a few infrastructure components,are untrammeled and are not subjectto controls that hamper natural forces(D’Agostino 1992). Finally, overnightstays are not currently allowed in anypark cave in wilderness.

NPS wilderness management allowsfor Minimum Requirement Analysis, bywhich the minimum tool necessary formanaging a wilderness area can assessed.Criteria for minimum requirementanalysis within the NPS are: (1) Is it anemergency threatening human life? (2)Does the action conflict with the law?(3) Can the action be accomplished withless intrusive means? (4) Can the actionbe done outside of wilderness? NPSdocuments go on to ask, Is the actionnecessary? What would happen if theaction did not go forward? Does the ac-tion benefit the resource? Havewilderness values been considered overconvenience, comfort, politics, and eco-nomics?

The vast majority of park wildernessareas are wild, and the surface landmanagement of wilderness allows de-fined trails and campsites in certainareas. Bear boxes in many areas attemptto keep these animals from human foodand to keep them wild. Historic cabinsand seasonal ranger stations exist atnumerous sites. Overnight visitation topark wilderness requires a permit, andgroup party size is limited. In general,nothing in the current management ofpark caves in wilderness appears to bein conflict with the management of sur-face wilderness areas in the parks.

The three primary caves in this study(Lilburn, Hurricane Crawl, and Soldiers)are managed for different purposes. Allthree have or will have their ownsubplan attached to the greater parkCave Management Plan as an appendix.Lilburn Cave is a research site used pri-marily by the Cave Research Foundation(CRF). Within the cave, CRF maintains

dataloggers and associated electrodesand probes, phone lines for transmittingdata, and sediment samplers to assistwith their research on the cave system.In addition, the cave contains three lad-ders at short vertical drop-offs, fixed boltanchors at several sites where deeper pitsexist, and surveyors flagging tape at ap-proximately 10 sites to protectspeleothems from trampling and dam-age (see figure 3), and nearly 100 fixedsurvey stations allowing spatial referenc-ing of the research work in the cave. Thecave has two entrances, both of whichinclude cave gates. These features arescattered across 21 miles (34 km) ofknown cave passage.

Hurricane Crawl Cave is generallyclosed. The cave was recently discov-ered, contains many rare and very sceniccave speleothems, and endemic caveanimals. Four trips per year maximumare allowed to enter the cave, and eachmust be accompanied by a park staffperson. The cave contains no ladders,fixed bolts, or research equipment, butdoes contain two fixed ropes and nu-merous areas with surveyors flaggingtape defining travel routes. The cave hastwo entrances, both of which are barredby cave gates. The cave has been sur-veyed, but no fixed survey stations havebeen created. The cave is approximately2.5 miles (4 km) long.

Soldiers Cave is open for recreationalcaving with a park-approved trip leader.A maximum of 20 trips per year mayenter the cave. It contains numerousfixed bolts for rigging ropes, and mostof these predate wilderness designation.One ladder is in the cave to protectadjacent speleothems, and several ar-eas of flagging are present to protectother formation areas. The cave has oneentrance with a cave gate. The cave hasbeen surveyed, but no fixed survey sta-tions have been created. This cave alsohas endemic wildlife. Soldiers Cave isapproximately 1.8 miles (3 km) long.

Figure 2—Redwood Creek deep inside the banded marble passagesof Lilburn Cave contained within lands managed as wilderness bythe U.S. National Park Service. Photo by Dave Bunnell.

Figure 3—An extremely delicate helicitite speleothem composed ofcalcite in Hurricane Crawl Cave, one of many cave features protectedwithin the Redwood Canyon and North Fork recommendedwilderness in Sequoia National Park. Photo by Mark Fritzke.

Conflicts with WildernessValues MatrixTable 1 summarizes the potential con-flicts in these three caves and includesthe necessity for each potential actionor infrastructure, the likely outcome of


minimum tool analysis, and the poten-tial conflict with wilderness values.First, there are a number of visuallyintrusive components in park caves.These include fixed bolts, anchors, andaffixed survey station tags that are po-tentially in conflict with the WildernessAct because they permanently scar cavewalls, must be replaced, which createsmore scars, and may not be necessaryas minimum tools. Ladders, flaggingtape, and rope are also visually intru-sive, but when not permanent, do notscar or mark cave surfaces.

Cave gates are likely the most sig-nificant impact on wilderness valuesand policies. But, clearly for Soldiersand Hurricane Crawl caves, which areprone to vandalism and are particu-larly delicate respectively, gates are aminimum tool for securing and pro-tecting cave features. The case forminimum tool for Lilburn may beharder to make due to the cave’s re-mote location and extremely mazynature, which limits the ability ofrecreationists to find many of the cave’spassages. The same complex passagejunctions, multiple parallel passages,and few landmarks that “hide” the cavealso make it dangerous because itis very easy to become lost. Thesefeatures, combined with low tempera-tures inside this cave and manyhazards, including loose rock, drop-offs, and pits, may mean that a gateon this cave is the minimum tool nec-essary for public safety.

Cave research and restoration seemto pose little conflict with the Wilder-

ness Act. Such activities are specificallysupported by the law. Restoration ac-tivities return areas to a closeapproximation of their original appear-ance and character. Researchequipment, although visually intrusive,is temporary and removable. Cave SARoperations and excavation for explora-tion are more problematic. SARoperations can impact cave speleo-thems and features, but would beallowed due to the emergency natureof SAR operations under minimum toolanalysis. Cave excavations are useful forresearch because they allow access forresearch and study, but they can con-flict with wilderness values due tounsightly spoil piles, potential impactto habitat due to climate change withina cave after excavation, and possibledamage to scientific materials containedin soils. Excavations deep in caves arefar less likely to damage habitat throughclimate change and to disturb scientificmaterials, such as archaeological orpaleontological materials, compared tosurface excavations at new potentialcave entrances.

The current use of park caves and theexistence of closed areas help to limitthe effects of trampling and disturbanceon park cave wildlife. Low numbers andtravel restrictions are important for lim-iting this impact in the future.

ConclusionCave management in a national parksetting is already focused on conserva-tion and research. Thus, many potentialissues that could conflict with wilder-

ness values and the Wilderness Act donot arise, such as the existing ban oncamping in park caves. In a national parksetting, smaller, remote caves that are notthe focus of ongoing recreation and re-search are not likely to be threatenedwith respect to their wilderness re-sources and values. Wilderness valuesand management requirements can bestbe incorporated in the management oflarger caves through the creation of spe-cific plans for those specific caves.Wilderness and management issues willvary from cave to cave depending on thelevel of use, type of use, nature of re-sources to be protected, and otherfactors.

Visually intrusive infrastructure canimpact wilderness values and shouldbe limited in extent and visibility, tem-porary, and removable. Fixed anchorsand survey stations should be avoidedin wilderness caves due to the perma-nent damage they create on cave walls.When such anchors are used theyshould be justified with minimum toolanalysis for that particular site. Exist-ing anchors should be replaced in sucha manner that no new scars are cre-ated on cave walls. Survey stationsmay be denoted using unfixed mark-ers and the careful use of cave mapcross sections to reveal the exact loca-tion of the point in question.

Overuse, trampling, cave gates, caveexcavation, and cave SAR all have thepotential for significant impact withrespect to wilderness values. Carefuland ongoing management of these is-sues is needed to ensure that they donot. Cave gates should only be imple-mented with a thorough minimum toolanalysis; carefully managing the num-ber of visitors to park wilderness cavesshould be an ongoing managementgoal; and cave excavations must notproceed without concern for potentially

Caves contain values supported by the WildernessAct, such as solitude for the visitor, untrammelednatural features and wildlife, and the existence of

areas where people are clearly visitors.Continued on page 7


PotentialWilderness Conflict

Rationale

Table 1—Potential Conflicts with Wilderness Values–Based Research in Three Caves:

Lilburn, Hurricane Crawl, and SoldiersInfrastructureComponent orManagement

Issue

PurposeLikely to Meet

MinimumRequirements

Cave gates Security Protects research equipment, cavespeleothems, and promotes safety in adangerous cave

Yes; due to the extremelyfragile nature of this cave,gates are needed.

Visually noticeable humanmadefeatures; permanent in nature; alsovisible from the surface wilderness

Dataloggers,electrodes,phone line,samplers

Research Necessary for research Yes Visually noticeable humanmadefeatures

Permanentlytagged surveystation

Research;survey &documen-tation of thecave

Necessary for research; permanentaffixing to cave walls is questionable

No; do not have to befixed

Visually noticeable humanmadefeatures; permanent scarring of thecave walls during tag placement

Cave gates Security Protects research equipment, cavespeleothems, and promotes safety in adangerous cave

Uncertain; are gatesneeded on this cave?

Visually noticeable humanmadefeatures; permanent in nature; alsovisible from the surface wilderness

Fixed ropeanchors

Safety Very useful for anchoring ropes to cavewalls, including in areas with no naturalanchor points

No; do not have to befixed

Visually noticeable humanmadefeatures; permanent scarring of thecave walls during bolt placement; boltlife span is 20 years

Ladders Ease oftravel;safety

Could be replaced with belay lines orfixed lines for single-rope-technique

No; other means could beused; do not have to befixed

Visually noticeable manmade features;Often affixed to the wall leading to boltholes and permanent scarring of thecave walls

Flagging ofdelicate areas

Protectspeleothems

Needed to protect delicate features Yes Visually noticeable humanmadefeatures; not permanent

Flagging to assistwith routefinding

Safety Cave is very complicated and potentiallydangerous.

Uncertain; necessary, oris training in route-findingbetter?

Visually noticeable humanmadefeatures; not permanent

Overuse andtrampling

Caveresearchertravel

Necessary for people to visit the cave;the lower 150 feet of the cave floods ondecadal cycles; most travel is in a fewprimary routes; cave sees approximately35 parties of 3 to 4 people per year.

Yes; recreation andresearch are supported bythe Wilderness Act; closeareas with little travel toreduce trampling?

Greatest potential for wildlife is inupper levels where there are foodsources; these areas do not flood;essentially all areas of the cave haveseen some disturbance during surveywork.

Cave restoration Restoration Restores habitat and adds to the cave’saesthetic appeal

Yes; habitat andwilderness enhancementis supported by theMinimum Requirementprocess.

Little

Cave excavation Discovermore cavepassages

Adds to understanding of the park cavesystems; allows documentation of parkcaves; usually effects very small areasdeep in the cave

Uncertain; supports thediscovery andmanagement ofpreviously unknown parkresources; is it necessary?

Disturbance to soils, but limited inextent

Cave research Betterunderstand-ing of thecave and itsprocesses

Helps with cave management and with agreater ecological understanding of parkgeomorphic processes

Yes; research is supportedby the Wilderness Act.

Little, generally supported by theWilderness Act

Cave SAR Safety Needed to protect researchers Rescue routes are marked byflagging; generally easy to protectcave features during a SAR operationin Lilburn


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

SCIENCE and RESEARCH

The Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute re-cently completed an extensive effort to address itsrole in meeting the future needs for science to sup-

port wilderness stewardship. Carried out in collaboration withwilderness managers and scientists from its partner agencies(Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Fish and Wild-life Service, National Park Service, and U.S. GeologicalSurvey) as well as universities, NGOs, and international part-ners, this effort resulted in a new Program Charter that isexpected to provide guidance to the institute’s research, ap-plication, and service programs over the next decade.Approved in late 2005, the Program Charter identifies a pro-gram of work that aims to provide scientific leadership inbringing diverse groups of scientists and managers togetherin developing and using the knowledge needed to sustainwilderness ecosystems and values.

Building on a vision of being the premier institution forwilderness stewardship research, the Leopold Institute’s Pro-gram Charter identifies important roles in the conduct, support,and facilitation of scientifically rigorous research; the deliveryand application of research findings; and in fostering collabo-ration and partnerships with a wide variety of individuals andorganizations. Much of the charter focuses on identifying aprogram of work that is built around five priority areas. Theseemphasize the importance of multidisciplinary approaches tochallenging issues that face wilderness managers. The five prob-lem areas identified in the charter are:1. Recreation experiences and the impacts of recreation. This

includes such topics as understanding the basic dimen-sions of human experiences in wilderness and influenceson those experiences, biophysical impacts of recreationactivities, guidelines for restoration of impacted sites, andan understanding of visitor distribution and flow patternsneeded to guide planning and management decisions.

2. Relationships between people and lands protected for

their wilderness values, including how these relation-ships affect and are affected by management policiesand actions. This includes improved understandingof contrasting values of different stakeholders, con-flicts between differing demands and interests, and theattitudes people hold toward public lands.

3. Stewardship of fire as a natural process. This includes animproved understanding of natural fire regimes, options andconsequences of strategies for restoring fire as a natural pro-cess, and how social and institutional factors influence theevaluation of trade-offs by managers and the public.

4. Wilderness in the context of larger ecological and socialsystems. This includes such topics as the introduction,spread, and effects of nonnative species; global changeand its effects on wildlife and other wilderness values;protection of water quality and quantity; and develop-ment of indicators and monitoring protocols to assesstrends in ecological and social conditions.

5. The delivery and application of scientific knowledge andtools. This focuses on facilitating access to and improv-ing awareness of scientific knowledge and tools, as wellas investigating influences on and developing improved

RevisitingWilderness Science Priorities

BY DAVID J. PARSONS

Continued on page 35


SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Wilderness and Personswith Disabilities

Transferring the Benefits to Everyday Life

BY LEO McAVOY, TOM HOLMAN, MARNI GOLDENBERG,and DAVID KLENOSKY

Abstract: Persons with disabilities are using the National Wilderness Preservation System, and they arereceiving a range of benefits from such wilderness use. The means-end theoretical and analysis perspectivewas used to explore the outcomes and related meanings associated with participating in a wilderness experi-ence program for people with disabilities as well as those without disabilities. Data were collected through aquestionnaire completed by 193 trip participants (74 with disabilities and 119 without disabilities) immedi-ately after their wilderness experience, and a telephone interview with 29 of those same participants con-ducted six months later. The wilderness visitors with disabilities are able to transfer the outcomes gained on thewilderness trip into parts of their lives when they return home—parts of their lives such as family, work, andtheir general perspective on life. The results show that participation in these inclusive wilderness trips results ina higher appreciation of nature and the wilderness for persons with disabilities. In fact, the wilderness environ-ment is an integral component that generates these benefits.

BackgroundThe personal benefits that people in general gain from wil-derness and wilderness activities have been documented ina number of studies. Extensive reviews of this literature areavailable in papers published by Easley, Passineau, and Driver(1990); Ewert and McAvoy (2000); Hattie, Marsh, Neill, and

Richards (1997); and Roggenbuck and Driver (2000). Hav-ing a disability does not preclude persons from visitingwilderness, and persons with disabilities are using wilder-ness and other primitive environments (Lais, McAvoy, andFrederickson 1992; McCormick 2001). The goal of the studyreported here was to develop a better understanding of the

PEER REVIEWED

Article co-authors from left: Leo McAvoy, Tom Holman, Marni Goldenberg, and David Klenosky.


outcomes that persons with disabilitiesassociate with participation in a wilder-ness experience (see figure 1).

Research on Persons withDisabilities and WildernessPersons with disabilities are participatingin outdoor recreation activities typicallyassociated with wilderness. A large na-tional survey, the National Survey onRecreation and the Environment (NSRE),included 1,252 persons with disabilities(Cordell 1999). Those with disabilitiesindicated they participate in a wide rangeof outdoor recreation activities, includ-ing: walking, family activities, sightseeing,picnicking, fishing, bird-watching, camp-ing, hiking, boating, and hunting (seefigure 2). McCormick (2001) further ana-lyzed the Cordell study data for those with

disabilities, and found that their levels ofparticipation in outdoor recreation activi-ties were equal to and in some instancesgreater than participation rates for thosewithout disabilities. As an example, per-sons with disabilities who were under age65 participated in primitive camping at ahigher rate than did those without dis-abilities. Studies by Anderson, Schleien,McAvoy, Lais, and Seligmann (1997);McAvoy, Schatz, Stutz, Schleien, and Lais(1989); and Robb and Ewert (1987) allhave indicated that persons with disabili-ties participate in even the mostchallenging outdoor activities, includingwilderness activities.

Person with disabilities go to wilder-ness for a variety of reasons. Lais et al.(1992) questioned a sample of 80 per-sons with disabilities from across thecountry who had visited units of theNational Wilderness Preservation Sys-tem about their motivations for goingto wilderness. Their responses werevery similar to responses obtained frompersons without disabilities in a num-ber of larger studies (Roggenbuck andDriver 2000). Those motivations were(1) to experience scenery/naturalbeauty, (2) to experience nature on itsown terms, and (3) to experience a per-sonal challenge (see figure 3).

The value of wilderness participa-tion for persons with disabilities is best

expressed by those for whom wilder-ness is a very important part of theirlives. Janet Zeller (1992), a personwith quadriplegia who uses a wheel-chair, commented on her experienceon a wilderness canoe trip in Maine:

I was back to feeling the quiet ofthe lake, listening to the loons atnight as the sun goes down, thesounds of the night, living withthe land—it was something that Ihad sadly missed. It was thatplace in my soul that needed to berefilled. And it was. At the end ofthat week I could say that I feltless disabled than I usually do.And it certainly was not becausethere were fewer barriers. It wasthe wilderness, that peace youcan’t get anywhere else. (p. 45)

In general, most persons with dis-abilities do not want the wildernessenvironment altered in order to makeit more accessible. In the Lais et al.study (1992), 76% of those with dis-abilities did not believe the restrictionson mechanized use diminished theirability to use the wilderness. The largerMcCormick (2001) study found thatthose with disabilities favored preser-vation of the wilderness environmentover accessibility, even though somein the study favored increased accessfor those with disabilities.

Figure 1a and b—Recreationist transferring from wheelchair into a canoe in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Photo by L. McAvoy-Wilderness Inquiry.

Figure 2—Lake and mountain view in Yellowstone NationalPark. Photo by K. Beckman-Wilderness Inquiry.


Anderson et al. (1997), studyingpersons with disabilities who go to wil-derness areas, found that the wildernessenvironment itself was a major contrib-uting factor to persons with disabilitiesrealizing some of the major benefits ofwilderness. Study participants indi-cated that the wilderness environmentintensified their individual efforts, pro-ducing a dramatic positive impact ongroup development. Research byBrown, Kaplan, and Quaderer (1999)

studied the preferences for natural set-tings for person with and withoutdisabilities. They found that personswith disabilities had the same prefer-ence for undeveloped natural settingsas did those without disabilities. Per-sons with disabilities valued theundeveloped, wild elements of wilder-ness, as did persons without disabilities(see figure 4). Indeed, research byCordell, Tarrant, and Green (2003) in-dicated that a large majority of

Americans value the wild aspects ofwilderness, and favor protecting thelands within the wilderness systemfrom development and exploitation.

Mike Passo, wilderness user and ad-vocate, injured his spinal cord and nowuses a wheelchair. He expressed his viewof the need to keep wilderness wild:

Wilderness is the great equalizer,it takes everyone down a notchbecause everyone is leaving theircomfort zone. That leaveseveryone on a wilderness trip atabout the same level. It letseveryone see people for what theyreally are rather than how they getaround. (personal communica-tion, October 23, 2002)

Persons with disabilities also real-ize a full range of benefits fromwilderness and from participating inwilderness activities. A number ofstudies have documented that personswith disabilities who participate inwilderness trips experience positivechanges as a result of their wildernessexperience, changes such as increasedself confidence, increased likelihoodof pursuing new challenges, and in-creased appreciation of diversity.Studies by Anderson et al. (1997),McAvoy et al. (1989), Scholl, McAvoy,Rynders, and Smith (2003), andStringer and McAvoy (1992) showthese benefits to include: increasedself-efficacy, increased leisure skills,increased social adjustment, enhancedrelationships, increased self-under-standing and awareness of capabilities,increased self-directed activity, in-creased family satisfaction, increasedappreciation for nature and the wil-derness, and spiritual benefits.

Theoretical FrameworkThe theoretical frame for this study wasprovided by means-end theory, whichwas developed by marketing/advertis-ing researchers (Gutman 1982;

Figure 3—Kayak trip on Lake Powell. Photo by B. Moritz-Wilderness Inquiry.

Figure 4—Teaming up on the trail. Photo by G. Lais-Wilderness Inquiry.


Reynolds and Gutman 1988) to betterunderstand consumer decision-makingbehavior. Means-end theory has beenapplied to examine decision making ina variety of traditional product and ser-vice settings. Recently the approach hasbeen used to examine the outcomesassociated with outdoor recreation ac-tivities, including participating in aropes/adventure course program(Goldenberg, Klenosky, O’Leary, andTemplin 2000) and an Outward Boundprogram (Goldenberg, McAvoy, andKlenosky 2005).

Means-end theory posits that peoplethink about the products and servicesthey purchase, consume, and experiencein terms of three key types of productmeanings: (1) attributes, (2) conse-quences, and (3) personal values(Gutman 1982; Reynolds and Gutman1988). Attributes refer to the characteris-tics or features of the product or servicein question. In the context of a wilder-ness trip, relevant attributes wouldinclude a wilderness setting, the type ofactivities experienced while on the trip,and the other people on a group wilder-ness trip. Consequences refer to outcomesor benefits that are desired from the prod-uct or service experience, as well asundesirable outcomes or costs/risks to beavoided. Examples of consequences fora wilderness trip would include the ben-

efits of experiencing nature, developingskills and abilities, and reflecting on one’slife or situation, as well as potential costs/risks such as wasting time and money,feeling embarrassed, or risking physicalinjury. Personal values refer to enduringbeliefs about desired or undesired modesof conduct or end states of being, in short,what a person wants in life or in livingtheir life (Klenosky, Gengler, and Mulvey1993). Values relevant to a wilderness ex-perience might include a sense ofaccomplishment, self-awareness, andwarm relationships with others.

Means-end theory links these three dif-ferent meanings together in a singleconceptual framework, known as a means-end chain (Gutman 1982). The attributesof a product/service are viewed as the“means” by which consumers/resourceusers obtain desired consequences/benefits(as well as avoid undesired consequences/costs), and achieve or reinforce importantpersonal values or “ends” (Gutman 1982).An example of a means-end chain for awilderness trip might link the attribute“wilderness environment” to the conse-quence of “appreciate nature,” and this islinked to the value of feeling a “personalor spiritual connection to nature.”

TransferenceOutcomes and benefits of wildernesshave been studied, but there has been

little research documenting how wilder-ness visitors have been able to transferinto their daily lives benefits gainedthrough wilderness experiences (Ewertand McAvoy 2000). This is especiallytrue regarding persons with disabilities.Transference is the application of prin-ciples and attitudes learned from anexperience into future experiences. Wil-derness programs have the potential tocreate transference opportunities regard-ing principles and attitudes (Gass 1999).

The purpose of this study was to de-velop a better understanding of theoutcomes that persons with disabilitiesassociate with participation in a wilder-ness experience program (see figure 5).In addition, the study sought to betterunderstand if and how participants whohave a disability are able to transfer out-comes gained on a wilderness trip backinto their everyday life after a programexperience. The study focused on an in-tegrated wilderness experience programwhere persons with and without disabili-ties participated in wilderness tripstogether. The wilderness outcomes ofthose without disabilities were includedin the study to see if there were notice-able differences from the outcomes ofpersons with disabilities (see figure 6).

MethodsThis study focused on persons who hadparticipated in trips to wilderness areasor wildernesslike areas in Minnesota,Wisconsin, Montana, Maine, Florida,Alaska, British Columbia, and Ontario.The trips were taken with WildernessInquiry, Inc. (WI), a not-for-profit wilder-ness outfitter that provides wilderness tripexperiences for persons with and with-out disabilities. Since water travel is moreaccessible for those with mobility impair-ments, most WI trips are water related(i.e., involve the use of canoes, kayaks).

WI’s integrated trips combine par-ticipants with disabilities together withthose without disabilities.

Figure 5—Kayak camp in Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. Photo by L. McAvoy-Wilderness Inquiry.


WI trips of at least four days inlength during the summer season of2002 were selected for this study. Allparticipants (272) on these trips overthe age of 18 were asked to participatein the study. Post-trip questionnaireswere distributed to study participantson-site directly following the comple-tion of their wilderness trip.

In the open-ended questionnaire,respondents were instructed to thinkabout the three most important out-comes resulting from their wildernesstrip experience (“think about the thingsyou learned and the outcomes you re-ceived from participating in this trip”),and to write these outcomes in spacesprovided on the questionnaire. Thenthey were asked to indicate in an adja-cent space, for each outcome listed,why that outcome was important tothem. They were then instructed toexplain in another adjacent space onthe questionnaire why that responsewas important (“and this is importantto you because…”). Finally, they wereasked to list the attribute or part of thetrip that led them to each identifiedoutcome. The process of having par-ticipants link a particular tripcomponent (attribute) to one or moreoutcomes (consequences), and theseoutcomes to one or more personal val-ues, formed a means-end chain or“ladder” of related meanings.

The concepts generated on the post-trip questionnaires indicatingparticipants’ attributes, consequences,and values, and how they are linkedtogether, were entered into a computerdata analysis program called LadderMap (Gengler and Reynolds 1995).This analysis procedure groups con-cepts from the data into categorieswithin each of the three means-endcomponents (attributes, consequences,and values). The researchers then cre-ated codes corresponding to theconcepts grouped in each category. The

data were then analyzed again by theLadder Map program to further sort allconcepts into the coded areas. An in-dependent coder analyzed a portion ofthe data to verify the accuracy and ap-propriateness of the codes created. TheLadder Map program summarizes thenumber of times each concept was as-sociated with the other conceptsincluded in respondents’ ladders. Theselinks were then used as the basis forconstructing a Hierarchical Value Map(HVM; for an example, see figure 7),which graphically summarizes the im-portant concepts and associationsreported by the respondents.

An HVM depicts the attributes,consequences/outcomes, and values.Each concept in the HVM is repre-sented as a circle. Attributes arerepresented using white circles (and alllowercase letters), consequences/out-comes using gray circles (and a mix oflower- and uppercase letters), and val-ues using black circles (and alluppercase letters). The larger the circlethe more frequently that concept wasmentioned in participants’ ladders, andthe thicker the lines connecting con-cepts, the more frequently thoseconcepts were linked together in the

ladders. The HVM allows the researcherto see which concepts (i.e., attributes,outcomes, and values) were mentionedmost frequently; and also see the chainof meanings that help explain how andwhy those concepts were important tothe study respondents.

The questionnaire also asked partici-pants if they were willing to be contactedby phone to further discuss their tripexperience. Of the 111 participants whoindicated they were willing to be inter-viewed, 30 subjects were selected in astratified random sample to be con-tacted by phone for an interview sixmonths after their wilderness trip. Thephone interview consisted of ques-tions related to the possibletransference of outcomes into aperson’s life after the trip experience.Twenty-nine interviews were com-pleted (14 with persons withdisabilities and 15 with persons with-out disabilities), audiotaped, and thentranscribed. The interview data wereanalyzed through qualitative tech-niques (Glaser and Strauss 1967),including reading all responses, estab-lishing themes, coding narrative datato develop patterns, summarizingtheme areas, and using respondent

Figure 6—The serenity of islands and the sea. Photo by L. McAvoy-Wilderness Inquiry.


statements to illustrate themes. Codingreliability was achieved by having a sec-ond coder analyze 25% of the interviewdata, and agreement was reached oncoding themes and categories.

Results and DiscussionA total of 193 questionnaires were re-turned (71% response rate). Of the 193respondents, 74 had at least one of anumber of different disabilities, includ-ing cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury,

CONSEQUENCES MENTIONEDRelationships with others 190 98.4Awareness 164 85.0Personal Growth/challenges 135 69.9Nature appreciation 117 60.6New opportunities 78 40.4New/improved skills 57 29.5Rest/relaxation 41 21.2Reflection 40 20.7Physical fitness 31 16.1Awareness of abilities 30 15.5Family relationships strengthened 27 14.0Knowledge 18 9.3Achievement 16 8.3Appreciation 16 8.3

Table 1. Number of Times Concepts Mentioned in Respondents’ Ladders

Number ofRespondents

Mentioning Conceptat Least Once

Percent of RespondentsMentioning Concept at

Least Once

ATTRIBUTES MENTIONEDInteractions 134 69.4Trip overall 119 61.7Wilderness experience 96 49.7Canoeing 54 28.0Program staff 38 19.7New experiences 31 16.1Kayaking 28 14.5Camping 22 11.4Hiking/horsepacking 6 3.1

VALUES MENTIONEDTransference 175 90.7Self-awareness/improvement/ fulfillment 91 47.2Personal goal 78 40.4Value (personal/spiritual) 66 34.2Warm relationships with others 64 33.2Fun and enjoyment of life 31 16.1A sense of accomplishment 25 13.0Self-confidence 15 7.8

Note. n=193

multiple sclerosis, head injury, blindness,deafness, amputation, developmentaldisabilities, diabetes, and stroke. Re-spondents did not include anyone witha severe cognitive disability.

Consequences, Values,and AttributesThirty-one content categories weregenerated from the questionnaire data:nine referred to attributes, 14 to con-sequences, and eight to values (see

table 1). Two Hierarchical Value Mapswere generated from the contentcodes: one for people with disabilities(n=74), and one for people withoutdisabilities (n=119). There were fewdifferences between those with andthose without disabilities, and thesedifferences will be explained.

The HVM generated from theresponses of those with disabilitiesappears in figure 7. The consequencesmentioned most frequently by personswith disabilities included: Awareness(increased awareness of things in theirlives and understanding of themselves),Relationships with Others (developingpersonal relationships with others),Personal Growth/Challenge (growing asa person and succeeding at a personalchallenge), Nature Appreciation(increased awareness and appreciationfor nature and wilderness), and NewOpportunities (experiencing somethingnew or different). The primary valuesassociated with these outcomesincluded: Transference (a sense that theoutcomes of the trip would transformor enhance aspects of daily life or lifeback home), Self-Awareness/Improve-ment/Fulfillment (feelings of beingmore aware, improved, or fulfilled inone’s life), Value Personal/Spiritual(feeling or valuing a personal andspiritual connection to people andnature), Warm Relationships withOthers (developing warm relationshipswith others on the trip), and PersonalGoal (achieving one or more personalgoals). The attributes or wilderness tripcomponents that contributed most tothe outcomes were Interactions(interactions with other participantsduring the trip), Trip Overall (theoverall experience of taking the trip),and Wilderness Experience (being in awilderness environment/setting).

There were several links worth notingamong the attributes, outcomes, andvalues on the HVM for persons with


disabilities. The attributes WildernessExperience and Canoeing linked to theoutcomes Nature Appreciation andAwareness (suggesting that being in thewilderness and appreciating natureallowed participants to become moreaware of and reflect on their lives), whichlinked to Personal Growth/Challenge,which then linked to thoughts aboutTransference (i.e., transferring theoutcomes of the wilderness trip backhome into their everyday lives). Theattribute Interactions (interactions withothers on the trip) linked to outcomesassociated with better relationships withothers and with family members(Relationships with Others and FamilyRelationships Strengthened), and to thevalue Warm Relationships with Others.The trip component of Wildernesslinked to the outcome of Rest andRelaxation and then to the value ofTransference, indicating that the rest andrelaxation found on a wilderness trip canbe transferred back home.

The HVM for the persons withoutdisabilities (see figure 8) appears to bevery similar to the HVM for those withdisabilities, but there are somedifferences. Some persons withdisabilities identified the outcome ofAwareness of Abilities, and this did notappear on the HVM of persons withoutdisabilities. This is not unexpected.Some persons with disabilities had littlehistory of outdoor recreation orwilderness experience before their tripand may have thought that wildernessexperiences were beyond theircapabilities.

In the values category, persons withdisabilities named the value of WarmRelations with Others and the value ofSense of Accomplishment, and these didnot show up in the HVM for personswithout disabilities. Persons withdisabilities saw the wilderness trip asgiving them incentive to move forwardin developing warm relations with others

Figure 7. Hierarchical Value Map for Wilderness Inquiry participants with a disability (n=74)

trip ov eral l

n= 31

interactions

n= 34n= 32

canoei ng

n= 18

program staf f

n= 12

kay ak ing

n= 11

R elationships with O thers

n= 39

Personal G rowth/C hallenge

n= 37

A wareness

n= 40

N ature A ppreci ation

n= 29

N ew O pportuniti es

n= 21

A w areness of A bil i ties

n= 12

N ew/I mproved S ki l ls

n= 14

R est/R elax ation

n= 13

R eflecti on

n= 10

Phy sical F itness

n= 11

F amily R elationships Strengthened

n= 8

T R A N S FE R E N C E

n= 33

S E L F -A WA R E N E S S /I M PR O V E M E N T /F U L F I L L M E N T

n= 27

VA L U E PE R S O N A L /S PI R I T U A L

n= 25

WA R M R E L AT I O N S H I PS W I T H O T H E R S

n= 21

PE R S O N A L G O A L

n= 18

A S E N S E O F A C C O M PL I S H M E N T

n= 11

w ilderness ex perience

A Sense ofAccomplishment

n=11

n=33

n=25

n=37

n=10

n=40

Transference

Personal Growth/Challenge

ValuePersonalSpiritual

Reflection

Awareness

Self-Awareness/Improvement/Fulfillment

n=27

Personal Goal

n=18

New/Improved Skills

n=14

Awareness of Abilities

n=12

n=21

NewOpportunities

Warm Relationshipswith Others

n=21

Rest/Relaxationn=13

Nature Appreciation

n=29

Relationshipswith Others

n-39

n=11

Physical Fitness

Family RelationshipsStrengthened

Kayaking

n=11

Program Staff

n=12 n=8

Interactions

n=34Trip Overall

n=31

Canoeing

n=18WildernessExperience

n=32

Value

Consequence

Attribute

Figure 8. Hierarchical Value Map for Wilderness Inquiry Participants without a disability (n=119)

Self-Awareness/Improvement/Fulfillment

Warm Relataionshipswith Family

n=35 n=49Fun and Enjoyment

of Lifen=18

Personal Goal

n=41

Transference

n=73

Value(Personal/Spiritual)

n=31

Reflection

n=21

n=36

New/ImprovedSkills

NatureAppreciation

n=53

Personal Growth/Challenge

n=45

Awareness

n=69

Rest/Relaxation

n=23New

Opportunities

n=41

Physical Fitness

n=16

New Experiences

n=21

Relationshipswith Others

n=71

Family RelationshipsStrengthened

n=18

Kayaking

n=14

Program Staff

n=20

Interactions

n=74

Trip Overall

n=45

WildernessExperience

n=51

Canoeing

n=30

Value

Consequence

Attribute


during and after the trip. They also sawthe wilderness trip as an experience thatbrought them feelings of personalgrowth and facing challengessuccessfully, which linked to their overallsense of accomplishment in life.

Transference to Everyday LifeWhen asked on the questionnaires at theend of their wilderness trips the valuesof the outcomes gained on those trips,persons with disabilities and thosewithout disabilities named Transferencemost often as a value. The codeTransference represented responseswhere participants indicated theybelieved they could integrate orincorporate the outcomes gained in thewilderness back into their everyday livesat home. In an effort to develop a betterunderstanding of this value, and to seeif transference actually occurred onceparticipants were back in their everydaylives, we selected a group of participantsto interview six months after thewilderness trip experience. Fourteen ofthose interviewed were persons withdisabilities. Caution is needed ingeneralizing from 14 interviews, but thein-depth responses (each interview wasover an hour in length) help us to betterunderstand how people with disabilitiescan transfer outcomes from a wildernessexperience back into their everyday lives.

All of the 14 persons with disabilitieswho were interviewed were able totransfer outcomes from the wildernesstrip back into their everyday lives.Results of the interviews suggest thatparticipants with disabilities were able

to transfer wilderness trip outcomes totheir work, to outdoor skills, to theirfamily lives, and to everyday stressfuland challenging situations. Manyparticipants also indicated overall higherlevels of motivation and increased self-confidence in their regular life abilitiesas a result of their wilderness experience.The outcomes transferred to workincluded using communication skills,group interactions, teamwork, and trustat work. The transference to outdoorskills meant that participants acquiredskills in lifetime outdoor recreationactivities as a result of their wildernesstrip experience. They learned how tocamp, to canoe, to kayak, and they havecontinued those activities after thewilderness trip. These activities are nowcontributing to feelings of relaxation,peacefulness, connection to nature, andconnections to other people.

Some study participants went ontheir wilderness trip with familymembers. They have been able totransfer outcomes including increasedawareness of important aspects of theirlife and developing relationships withothers into a deeper understanding offamily members. They also havetransferred better communicationamong family members and aconfidence that the family can now goon outdoor trips as a group. The latteroutcome is very important for familiesthat include a person with a disability.Often these families are hesitant to goon an outdoor or wilderness-orientedouting because of the logistical concernswith access, safety, and comfort. One of

the results of the wilderness experiencein this study was the increasedconfidence that such a family feelsregarding their ability to now take anoutdoor-oriented trip as a family.

The participants with disabilities inthis study came away with higher levelsof self-confidence and motivation, andthese outcomes were still present sixmonths after the experience. Interviewparticipants often referred to having anew outlook on what they couldaccomplish after their wilderness trip.An often-heard comment in theinterviews was that having successfullyaccomplished difficult tasks on theirwilderness trip, participants are nowbetter able to accomplish other difficulttasks in their everyday life. Thewilderness experience provided themwith a fresh perspective on the issuesof their lives. They expressed havingmore motivation to do more activitiesin daily life, including more challengingdaily tasks. During an interview, oneparticipant who was blind spoke of thewilderness trip as follows:

It was probably one of the bestthings I’ve ever done in regards tobuilding my confidence and reallystepping out on a personal ledgefor me. … And I think it hasgiven me a lot more confidence totake on some of those really out-on-the-edge things; and just kindof say I did this so it makes methink that I can probably doanything I put my mind to.

Having been immersed in a wilder-ness environment during their trip,participants came away with a new orrenewed appreciation for wildernessenvironments and wildlife. Some ofthose interviewed expressed havingdiscovered a new wilderness area andvaluing that discovery. Others notedseeing wildlife that the participant hadnever seen before and having an

The research reported here indicates that personswith disabilities use and receive a range of benefits

from wilderness, and the outcomes from thatwilderness use have a lasting effect.


increased understanding of wildlife.These outcomes transferred into theparticipants having a deeper apprecia-tion for the beauty and diversity ofwilderness and a deeper commitmentto preserve these wilderness areas andwildlife resources.

Recommendations forManagersThe research reported here indicatesthat persons with disabilities use andreceive a range of benefits from wil-derness, and the outcomes from thatwilderness use have a lasting effect.These wilderness visitors are able totransfer the outcomes gained on a wil-derness trip into parts of their liveswhen they return home, parts of theirlives such as family, work, and theirgeneral perspective on life. This studyalso indicates that for persons withdisabilities, participation in wildernesstrips results in a higher appreciationof nature and the wilderness.

Wilderness managers are chargedwith the difficult task of balancing thecurrent use and enjoyment of wilder-ness with the need to preserve thequality of wilderness so it is unimpairedfor future use and enjoyment. Previousresearch has indicated that people withdisabilities want wilderness to be ev-ery bit as challenging and pristine asdo those without disabilities. The re-search reported here indicates thatpersons with disabilities are receivingbenefits from wilderness in its unde-veloped, primitive state. The wildernessenvironment seems to be an excellentsetting to receive those benefits.

Wilderness is not intended to be adeveloped recreation facility. The re-moteness and physical challenge ofaccess are part of what makes wilder-ness what it is. Managers are notexpected to solve accessibility problemsfor person with disabilities. On theother hand, managers can provide in-

formation about the levels of accessavailable in wilderness areas. They canprovide prospective wilderness visitorswith information about outfitters andprograms that provide wilderness op-portunities for persons with disabilities.Managers can also enter into coopera-tive agreements with such outfitters andprograms to provide wilderness accessfor a broad range of people.

As the country’s demographics andwilderness use patterns continue tochange, wilderness management agen-cies will have to continually payattention to various constituencygroups to maintain the ideal of wilder-ness and the existence of wilderness.Persons with disabilities care aboutwilderness, and receive benefits fromthe existence of wilderness. There arecurrently 43 million Americans with adisability, and that number is increas-ing. Wilderness agencies are going tohave to continue to understand andcommunicate with this importantstakeholder group because wildernessis important to persons with disabili-ties. Barry Corbet (1992), amountaineer, editor, and person withparaplegia appropriately expressed theimportance of wilderness to personswith disabilities: “We especially, withall our motor and sensory constraints,need activities which focus on the lim-itless, not the limitations. We needbeauty to counteract the grit in ourlives. We need novelty and discovery.We need wilderness” (p. 30). IJW

REFERENCESAnderson, L., S. J. Schleien, L. McAvoy, G. Lais,

and D. Seligmann,1997. Creating positivechange through an integrated outdooradventure program. Therapeutic RecreationJournal 21(4): 214–29.

Brown, T., R. Kaplan, and G. Quaderer. 1999.Beyond accessibility: Preference for naturalareas. Therapeutic Recreation Journal33(3): 209–21.

Corbet, B. 1992. Going wild: Your guide tooutdoor adventure. Spinal Network EXTRA(Spring) 30(31): 44–49.

Cordell, K., ed. 1999. Outdoor Recreation inAmerican Life: A National Assessment of De-mand and Supply. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Cordell, K., M. Tarrant, and G. Green. 2003. Isthe public viewpoint of wilderness shifting?IJW 9(2): 27–32.

Easley, A. T., J. F. Passineau, and B. L. Driver, comps.1990. The Use of Wilderness for PersonalGrowth, Therapy, and Education. Gen. Tech.Rep. RM-193. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Moun-tain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Ewert, A., and L. McAvoy. 2000. The effects ofwilderness settings on organized groups: Astate-of-knowledge paper. In WildernessScience in a Time of Change Conference.Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scien-tific Inquiry, comp. S. McCool, D. Cole, W.Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin (pp. 13–26). Pro-ceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol 3. Ogden, UT: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Gass, M. 1999. Transfer of learning in adventureprogramming. In Adventure Programming, ed.J. C. Miles and S. Priest (pp. 227–34). StateCollege, PA: Venture Publishing.

Gengler, C. E., and T. J. Reynolds. 1995. Laddermap. Camden, NJ: Means-End Software.

Glaser, B. G. and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discov-ery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for quali-tative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press.

Goldenberg, M.A., L. McAvoy, and D. B. Klenosky.2005. Outcomes from the components ofan Outward Bound experience. Journal ofExperiential Education 28(2): 123–46.

Goldenberg, M. A., D. B. Klenosky, J. T. O’Leary,and T. J. Templin. 2000. A means-end in-vestigation of ropes course experiences.Journal of Leisure Research 32(2): 208–24.

Gutman, J. 1982. A means-end chain modelbased on consumer categorization pro-cesses. Journal of Marketing 46: 60–72.

Hattie, J., H. W. Marsh, J. T. Neill, and G. E.Richards. 1997. Adventure education and

Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences thatmake a lasting difference. Review of Educa-tional Research 67(1): 43–87.

Klenosky, D. B., C. Gengler, and M. Mulvey. 1993.Understanding the factors influencing ski desti-nation choice: A means-end analytic approach.Journal of Leisure Research 25(4): 362–79.

Lais, G., L. McAvoy, and L. Frederickson. 1992.WildernessAccessibility for People withDisabilities: A Report to the President andthe Congress of the United States on Section507 (a) of the Americans with DisabilitiesAct. Washington, DC: National Council onDisability.

McAvoy, L., E. Schatz, M. Stutz, S. J. Schleien,and G. Lais. 1989. Integrated



Writers and WildernessHow to Recapture the Momentum

in Saving Wilderness

BY ROBERT C. BARON

Many of us were introduced to nature at a youngage. In most cases, our education was started bya parent or grandparent, a teacher or friend,

someone our age or many years older. But we were led out-side and taught how to see, what to look for, and ourquestions of what and why were answered.

But there are a few people who are able to broaden theiraudience. These artists, photographers, filmmakers, lectur-ers, and writers reach out to many, in some cases to thousandsor even millions. And by their work they influence the world.Think of John Muir and his writings that helped develop ournational parks, or Rachel Carson who wrote about DDT andpesticides and helped bring the bald eagle back from thebrink of extinction, or Ansel Adams whose photographycaused many people to see nature in a new way.

The theme for the 8th World Wilderness Congress (8thWWC) in Alaska in 2005 was Wilderness, Wildlands andPeople: A Partnership for the Planet. The conference ad-dressed the importance and benefits of wilderness tocontemporary and traditional human societies, using the latestinformation to make the strongest case possible for balanc-ing wilderness protection and human needs. Among thehighest of human needs is the spiritual value of wilderness.

At the 8th WWC, special attention was paid to thosephotographers and writers who have guided our relation-ship with nature. The International League of ConservationPhotographers was established by 40 of the world’s finestconservation photographers. And during the congress weheard from and paid tribute to writers, both from the pastand the present.

Writers have strongly influenced our views on natureand wilderness. For three days, established and new writ-ers from around the world shared their experiences andfuture plans.

What I sought in books was imagination. It was depth,depth of thought and feeling; some sort of extreme ofsubject matter; some nearness to death; some call tocourage. I myself was getting wild; I wanted wildness,originality, genius, rapture, hope. I wanted strength, nottea parties. What I sought in books was a world whosesurfaces, whose people and events and days lived,

EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

John Hendee and Bob Baron sharing field observations while on a trip in Alaska following the8th World Wilderness Congress in 2005. Photo by Chad Dawson.

Sometimes the first introductions to nature are very spe-cific—the name of a bird or a flower, what the formation ofthe clouds signify, what that bright light in the night skymeans and why its position in the sky changes with theseasons, why birds fly north in the spring. Some of us, as aresult of this early start, have become naturalists, botanists,ecologists, teachers, and other professionals. Almost all ofus prefer being outdoors to being in an office, and to spendour weekends continuing the explorations of our youth.

This personal introduction to nature is often a one-on-one experience. One parent teaches one child how toappreciate and love the world in which we live.


actually matched the exaltation ofthe interior life. There you couldlive. (Annie Dillard in Gilbar1989, p. 118)

Some writers describe what they seein nature, and how wondrous it is. Inthis they are similar to a nature pho-tographer who takes pretty pictures.But some writers have an underlyingmessage; something important they aretrying to convey to the reader. The bestof the environmental writers, such asHenry David Thoreau, John Muir,Rachel Carson, Sigurd Olson, and AldoLeopold, communicated to inform andinfluence as well as to provide feelingsabout nature. Perhaps that is why theirbooks still affect readers today.

Most nature writing is local, whethera small pond in Massachusetts, a re-mote cabin in Alaska, a small woodlotin Wisconsin, a beach in Maine, amountain vista in the Catskills, a val-ley in Yosemite. A few writers are ableto take a small wild place and make itsstory universal and personal. And, inthe writing, change us forever.

Modern-dayWilderness AuthorsIn a preliminary session on writing andadvocacy at the 8th WWC, establishedwriters talked about their work andits meaning, where they were, whatthey were thinking and feeling, andwhat they were trying to communi-cate. These writers, Dave Foreman(Rewiring North America: A Vision forConservation in the 21st Century), JayGriffiths (A Sideways Look at Time),John Haines (The Stars, the Snow andthe Fire), Patty Limerick (The Legacyof Conquest), David Quammen (Songof the Dodo), and Marianne Wallace(America’s Ecosystems series), areamong the leading authors today.

This session was followed by a trib-ute to five deceased people who

through their writing affected our vi-sion of the natural world and helpedto preserve wilderness. Thesepeople—Henry David Thoreau, JohnMuir, Rachel Carson, Edward Abbey,and David Brower—had major influ-ence on conservation and love of theland. A short biography of each per-son was given and then selections fromtheir work were read.

Another session dealt with writersand Alaska. Alaska had been pur-chased from Russia in 1867. It becamea territory in 1912, and a state on Janu-ary 3, 1959. Today, almost a centuryafter becoming a territory and a half-century after statehood, Alaskaremains the last American frontier.

Alaska is a place where people cometo live out their personal dreams. In apanel, Children of Dreamers, contribu-tors to a new book called The AlaskaReader: Voices from the North, discussedwhat it meant to live in the shadow ofothers’ dreams of Alaska. In anotherpanel, Alaska as a Parable for the Fu-ture, contributors to the anthologydiscussed why Alaska is a canary in themine for so many issues of national andglobal significance. These sessions wereled by the editors of the anthology:Carolyn Kremers and Anne Hanley. Tenmajor Alaskan writers participated.

Another session dealt with NativeWritings from North America. MarilouAwaikta and Daniel Wildcat talkedabout writing and its importance totheir culture, their environment, andtheir world. They paid tribute to someof the major Native writers.

Finally, in a session called Passingthe Torch, writers met and talked abouttheir work, and received advice andencouragement from other writers, pro-ducers, editors, and publishers. Theseconversations continued well into theevening.

At the Congress, The WILD Wilder-ness Writing Award was announced for

the best newspaper article, magazinearticle, essay, book, or body of workpublished relating to meaningful andsignificant writing on wild nature, theenvironment, or the land. Submissionsin English anywhere in the world areeligible. The first annual WILD Wilder-ness Writing Award was presented toJohn Haines of Alaska. Through hispoetry and essays, John has contributedgreatly to our appreciation of this worldwe share.

Most Influential AuthorsAt the congress, a questionnaire wasdistributed asking participants whichwriter(s) influenced them the most.There were 100 writers listed on thesurvey, and participants added severalother names. Participants identified 91writers, with most people mentioningseveral writers who have had greatinfluence on them.

Five of these writers were honoredat the congress. Sixteen others receivednumerous votes for their influence onattendees. These writers are WendellBerry, Annie Dillard, Loren Eisley, AldoLeopold, Barry Lopez, PeterMatthiessen, John McPhee, MargaretMurie, Roderick Nash, Sigurd Olson,Roger Tory Peterson, David Quammen,Gary Snyder, Wallace Stegner, TerryTempest Williams, and Laurens van derPost. Several of them will be honoredat the 9th World Wilderness Congress.

Being a writer can be a very lonelyoccupation. Yet a writer and a bookcan reach out across the centuries andthe miles, touching the hearts andminds of other human beings. Writ-ers who received mention were bornas early as 1739 and as late as 1963.Yet their words and ideas are knownand treasured by people from aroundthe world in 2005.

As people working for the preserva-tion of wilderness, it is essential to readthe best writings and understand the


intellectual grounding of the move-ment. In this way, we can build on theideas of the past and move strongly to-ward the future. For the same reasonthat every citizen should know aboutthe Declaration of Independence, theAmerican Revolution and Civil War,Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, soeveryone who works to preserve theplanet and the creatures we share it withshould know our history.

What should be read by everyone?The list of classic books is long butwould certainly include: Walden by

open space as a paved parking lot foranother Wal-Mart or strip mall.

But there have always been somewho have fought to preserve theplanet, its land, and the plants andanimals who inhabit it. At the congresswe honored the writers and photog-raphers who have led the battle.

“There is just one hope for repuls-ing the tyrannical ambition ofcivilization to conquer every niche ofthe whole earth. That hope is the or-ganization of spirited people who will

enforcing the Clean Air and WaterActs, and much more.

Recapture the Momentumin Saving WildernessAs a species, we believe in our technol-ogy, our power, our money, our egos.But Mother Nature can show us who isreally in charge—in the recent hurri-canes hitting the Gulf Coast, in globalwarming, arctic ice meltdown, earth-quakes, tsunamis, and in countlessother ways.

But nature can also be a teacher. Wecan learn in a quiet walk through wil-derness. We are part of nature and natureis part of us. No matter what a few mis-guided people say about evolution, ourancestors have been on this planet formillions of years, and we should not cutoff that portion of our heritage.

Wilderness is under attack in Af-rica, in Latin America, in Siberia, andaround the globe. Species dependenton wilderness are in danger. We mustfight for endangered species, the chim-panzee, gorilla, panda, tiger, bluewhale, northern spotted owl, Asianelephant, white rhino. But more thanthat, we must fight for wilderness, fornature, for undeveloped space, and forthe creatures and plants with whomwe share the planet.

The writers’ sessions at the 8th WWCwere titled Writing and Advocacy. Weneed to convince the silent majority tobecome the vocal majority, to get peopleto fight for wilderness, wild places, spe-cies, clean air and water. Some did it inthe 1960s when major legislation waspassed with strong bipartisan support,and we have benefited. We need to con-tinue and escalate the fight. We owe itto our grandchildren and to futuregenerations.

We have let some politicians bewrong on Middle East oil, on taxpolicy for the rich, on balancing thebudget, on domestic policies, and most

A few writers are able to take a small wild placeand make its story universal and personal. And,

in the writing, change us forever.

fight for the freedom of the wilderness”(Bob Marshall, 1930).

The battle is hard and relentless. Awriter may not know who he or sheinfluenced or how long is his or hershadow. Henry David Thoreau cham-pioned the human spirit againstmaterialism and conformity. Duringhis lifetime, fewer than 2,000 copiesof his books were sold. But his voiceand words are with us now. John Muirfought hard and not always success-fully. But what he built and stood forhas changed the environmental move-ment. Rachel Carson, sick with cancer,gave us Silent Spring, and today theeagles and the osprey are back fromthe edge of extinction.

My favorite philosopher, Lucy fromthe Peanuts cartoon strip, said, “Thereis no problem so big or so complicatedthat it can’t be run away from.” Andour elected leaders in Washington andother places have for decades followedthis advice—on formulation of a na-tional energy policy, acting on globalwarming, funding our national parks,

Henry David Thoreau, John Muir’s TheMountains of California, Aldo Leopold’sSand County Almanac, Henry Beston’sOutermost House, Annie Dillard’s Pil-grim at Tinker Creek, Edward Abbey’sDesert Solitaire, Sally Carrighar’s OneDay at Teton Marsh, Sigurd Olson’sReflections from the North Country, andRachel Carson’s A Sense of Wonder. Thelist could be extended significantly, butthis is a good start.

All of us who were at the congressknow the value of wilderness, preserva-tion, and the importance of people,animals, and places. We need to widenour constituency. Some of us must reachout to additional thousands of peopleand tell why it is essential to conserveparts of the world. Those of us who arewriters, photographers, teachers, film-makers, speakers, and publishers haveto let our voices be heard.

There is no shortage of people whowish to drill, dig, and pave over theplanet anywhere, anytime. To them,the only value of a tree is as lumber,an animal as a trophy or as food, an


importantly on the environment. It istime to fight strongly for the truth, tonot let noise be confused with wisdomor sound bites for thought, to have ourmessage be heard, and to leave theworld a better place.

Preservation of our wilderness andexpansion of our national parks has tra-ditionally been a Republican issue. Yetwe have in Washington today a groupfrom the radical right that wishes todestroy what has been preserved forcenturies. It is time for moderate Repub-licans, Democrats, and Independents tofight for the land, to speak out for wildnature, to acknowledge the intrinsicvalue of all life-forms.

A shift of 1% or 2% of the voteswould have changed the last severalelections. If a politician, any politician,does not care about the future that weleave to our grandchildren or about theenvironment, and will not address theissues, he or she should be defeated. Itis time for us to speak out. It is time forus to take back our country.

Finally, there are excellent youngwriters, some of whom were at the 8thWWC, born in the 1970s and 1980s,who will someday be considered in thesame class as those named previously.There are also great writers from Africa,Latin America, Asia, and elsewhere, un-known to those in North America and

Europe. It is our jobs as readers, as edi-tors, and as publishers to find them, toencourage them, and to read their books.

The fight for wilderness and thenatural world continues. We are grate-ful to those who write about ourrelationship to wilderness. IJW

REFERENCESGilbar, Steven, ed. 1989. The Open Door:

When Writers First Learned to Read. Bos-ton: David R. Godine.

Marshall, Bob. 1930. The problem of the wilder-ness. The Scientific Monthly (Feb.): 43–52.

ROBERT C. BARON is chairman of TheWILD Foundation and president of FulcrumPublishing. Email: [email protected].

From REVISITING WILDERNESS SCIENCE PRIORITIES on page 22

approaches for effective science de-livery and application.

In addition to these priorities, the Pro-gram Charter outlines a renewedcommitment to collaboration and part-nerships. To fulfill its science leadershipvision the Leopold Institute must workclosely with the science and manage-ment staffs of the federal wildernessagencies to identify information needsand priorities and apply research find-

ings to management and policy issues.Scientific collaboration with the manyother scientists that conduct researchimportant to wilderness management orthat use wilderness as study sites is par-ticularly important. In an effort to furtherstrengthen its collaborative activities, theLeopold Institute has recently formalizeda Visiting Expert and Exchange Programin which scientists, managers, students,and other specialists with expertise inareas relevant to wilderness science or

management can be hosted at the insti-tute for varying periods of time.

The Leopold Institute’s 2005Program Charter, as well as additionalinformation on its wide variety ofresearch and science delivery andapplication programs, can be found athttp://leopold.wilderness.net.

DAVID J. PARSONS is director of the AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institute inMissoula, Montana, USA; email:[email protected].

wilderness adventure: Effects on personal andlifestyle traits of persons with and without dis-abilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal23(3): 51–64.

McCormick, B. P. 2001. People with Disabili-ties: National Survey of Recreation and theEnvironment. Retrieved December 2, 2004,from Indiana University, National Center onAccessibility website: http:www.ncaonline.org/research/nsre.htm.

Reynolds, T. J., and J. Gutman. 1988.Laddering theory, method, analysis, andinterpretation. Journal of Advertising Re-search 28(1): 11–31.

Robb, G. M., and A. Ewert. 1987. Risk recre-ation and persons with disabilities. Thera-

peutic Recreation Journal 21(1): 58–69.Roggenbuck, J. W., and B. L. Driver. 2000. Ben-

efits of nonfacilitated uses of wilderness. InWilderness Science in a Time of ChangeConference. Volume 3: Wilderness as a Placefor Scientific Inquiry, comp. S. McCool, D.Cole, W. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin (pp. 33–49). Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol 3. Ogden,UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Scholl, K., L. McAvoy, J. Rynders, and J. Smith.2003. The influence of an inclusive outdoorrecreation experience on families that havea child with a disability. Therapeutic Recre-ation Journal 37(1): 38–57.

Stringer, L. A., and L. McAvoy. 1992. The need

for something different: Spirituality and wil-derness adventure. Journal of ExperientialEducation 15(1): 13–20.

Zeller, J. 1992. Is there wilderness after quad-riplegia? Spinal Network EXTRA (Spring): 32.

LEO MCAVOY is a professor in the School ofKinesiology at the University of Minnesota,1900 University Avenue SE, 224 Cooke Hall,Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA; email:[email protected].

TOM HOLMAN, Southeast Missouri StateUniversity; MARNI GOLDENBERG,California Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo;and DAVID KLENOSKY, Purdue University.

From WILDERNESS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES on page 31


El CarmenThe First Wilderness Designation in Latin America

BY PATRICIO ROBLES GIL

Wilderness conservation is a series of stories, as much about personal vision and commitment as it isabout science, law, and policy. To the stories of Ian Player in South Africa; Bob Marshall, Sigurd Olson,Aldo Leopold, and Howard Zahniser in the United States; and other pioneers, we can now add that ofPatricio Robles Gil in Mexico. At the 8th World Wilderness Congress in Alaska, October 2005, themultinational cement company CEMEX announced the designation of a 75,000-hectare (185,250-acres)wilderness on their corporate landholdings in northern Mexico, and the government of Mexico announcednew wilderness legislation to address wilderness protection on these private lands and several other landownership regimes. In this article, Patricio tells his personal story of this conservation accomplishment,and the people who worked with him to make it happen.

—Vance Martin International IJW Editor

The process of experiencing wilderness, and thenadvocating for its protection and sustainability, cancreate a collage of distinct, often varying episodes

that forms a fascinating and unforgettable personal pictureof one’s own life. Each element of the collage—from thewilderness, a meeting, or a conversation—is often sodifferent that they rest in my mind as unique encounterswith nature and people, the sum total of which produceswithin me a sense of dynamic peace.

I’ll try to explain—in English!—this process, which for mehas been a challenge, a passion, and a commitment. It has

been an evolution of thought,concept and action, changingand growing with each personI’ve tried to convince about thevalue of wild open spaces.

For 16 years I’ve beeninvolved in the conservationof nature through AgrupacionSierra Madre, the nongovern-mental organization (NGO)that I founded in Mexico.This country gave me the op-portunity to understand thechallenges of conservation. Itruly believe that if we want

to establish a conservation movement and create an envi-ronmental culture, our society must understand theimportance of wildness, and the threats that imperil wil-derness. Thus, a large portion of my time has been focusedon these two primary issues.

In some cases I have been involved in the field with ranch-ers, campesinos, ethnic groups, scientists, and researchers. Theseexperiences taught me a great deal, primarily that communi-cation is essential in order to “sell nature to society.” Thisrealization caused me to coin the term “conservation market-ing,” and for it to be the central organizing principle of my work.

As conservationists we also need to create successful,practical, and replicable conservation models. I considermyself a promoter of these models and techniques, with afocus on species management, biodiversity conservation,and the protection of wild, open space without an indus-trial human footprint. This last concept is where my heartlies, so when the president of The WILD Foundation, VanceMartin, suggested that Mexico could embrace wilderness, Isaw the opportunity to build on this concept a more inti-mate relationship between the modern Mexican people andits natural wild places, or tierras silvestres.

Conservation Movement in MexicoThis process of helping Mexico to protect large areas ofwild land has become one of the most interesting debates

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Article author Patricio Robles Gil.


in which I have been involved. To helpyou understand this, I’ll briefly sum-marize the conservation movement inMexico.

First of all, Mexico’s southern partis in the Neotropics region, and tropi-cal rain forest habitats are dominant.The northern area is Nearctic, withprimarily arid habitats, except thepine-oak forest of the high mountains.The interaction of these different eco-systems results in enormousbiodiversity, placing Mexico amongthe top-five megadiversity countriesworldwide. This natural wealth pro-duced some of the most remarkablecultures on the planet—Mayas, Aztecs,and Olmecs—that used these re-sources to create great empires.Therefore, all over Mexico, wetlandsand forests were heavily used, and theimpact of the human footprint spreadalmost everywhere. Only the deepcanyons and remote deserts of thenorthernmost system remained rea-sonably unaltered.

Second, Mexico’s system of landtenure is a significant factor for thestatus of our protected natural areas.There is a saying that Mexican landhas been given “several times” to itspeople. After the agrarian reform, ahigh percentage of the land was heldunder communal private property, orejidos. This means that there is virtu-ally no public land, so the governmentcannot unilaterally set any aside pro-tected areas. Integrated, complexefforts are required. This makes con-servation of wilderness andbiodiversity a singular and interestingchallenge, because the general publichas almost no access to wild openspaces. In all the other countries thathave wilderness legislation, the expe-rience of wild nature by the public hasbeen instrumental in creating themovement and subsequent legislation.Mexico essentially lacks a popular cul-

ture, or relationship, with nature, andour language has not even a word thatconveys the meaning of wilderness.

El CarmenI could only conceive of protectingMexican wilderness by first identify-ing a place that everyone wouldconsider wilderness: El Carmen—asky island—is in northern Coahuila onthe border with Texas’s Big Bend Na-tional Park. For special reasons, thisplace is the cradle of my involvement

with wild nature and my commitmentto its conservation. The mountainrange has been declared a Flora andFauna Protected Area (FFPA), one ofthe least strict categories of the Mexi-can protected areas system. Itsmanagement plan allows people andcattle to live inside the protected area,and Mexican legislation allows envi-ronmentally aggressive activities suchas mining inside the perimeter.

El Carmen is a keystone in a hugecomplex of transboundary protected

Sierra del Carmen, Coahuila, Mexico, the location of the first designated wilderness in Latin America. Photo byPatricio Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion Sierra Madre.


areas that comprise one of the biggesthigh-biodiversity megacorridors inNorth America. In the last yearAgrupacion Sierra Madre has focusedits efforts on the promotion of ElCarmen-Big Bend Conservation Corri-dor Initiative, a conservation initiativethat holds one of the most diverse ar-rays of conservation models in theworld, ranging from government pro-tected areas to a private protected areamanaged by a corporation. If we onlyfocus on the government’s protectedareas we can see that four differentmodels coexist in this area. Maderas delCarmen (520,000 acres; 210,526 ha)and Cañón de Santa Elena (693,000acres; 280,566 ha) are both FFPAsmanaged by the Mexican centralgovernment’s National Commission forProtected Areas (CONANP). Ocampois a new FFPA of 680,000 acres(275,300 ha) that will be declared be-tween them. On the U.S. side, Big BendNational Park (800,000 acres; 323,886ha) has on its eastern flank the BlackGap Wildlife Management Area(119,000 acres; 48,178 ha) and on thewest, Big Bend Ranch State Park(300,000 acres; 121,457 ha), bothmanaged by the Texas Parks and Wild-life Department. Together, all thesereserves protect a surface of more than3 million acres (1.2 million ha).

In addition to these governmentalmodels of land protection, a group ofranchers in the heart of Serranías delBurro in Mexico committed severalyears ago to the private conservationof its ranches. They formed CONECO(for its acronym in Spanish)—a non-profit organization—which helpedthem to address severe environmentalthreats to their lands. These 17 ranchesencompass almost 500,000 acres(202,429 ha) and comprise a conser-vation success story in and of itself. Forexample, thanks to the effort of theseranchers the black bear in Mexico has

maintained a healthy population andeven expanded to its former territoriesacross the border into Big Bend Na-tional Park, from which it had beenpreviously exterminated.

Finally, one of the most importantstakeholders of the region is CEMEX,the third largest cement producer inthe world. This corporation presenteda great opportunity to Agrupacion Si-erra Madre when they asked us to helpthem strengthen their commitment tothe natural world. In 1995 we pre-sented to them the importance of ElCarmen. Today the company owns

El Jardin escarpment of Sierra del Carmen, a “sky island” in the Chihuahuan desert. Photo by Patricio Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion Sierra Madre.

The Rio Grande (US)/El Bravo (MX) River cutting through a canyon on the Texas/Mexico border. Photo byPatricio Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion Sierra Madre.


almost 195,000 acres (78,947 ha) in-side and outside the FFPA (Maderasdel Carmen), and through conserva-tion partnerships manages another62,500 acres (25,303 ha). Its conser-vation activities include the rewildingof this sky island through intensivehabitat restoration programs, the re-moval of all fences and cattle, and thereestablishment of big mammals suchas the desert bighorn sheep—a flag-ship species that represents the truehistoric wilderness. The northern endof this mountain range, bordered bythe Rio Grande River and Big BendNational Park, is remote and withouthuman disturbance. Big Bend hasstruggled to be declared a wildernessarea since 1978, when the park staff(concerned by the increasing numberof visitors) proposed 79% of the park’ssurface as a wilderness area. Some lo-cal residents opposed the initiative,fearing it would limit tourism oppor-tunities. A strong debate ensued, butthe U.S. Congress didn’t pass the pro-posal. However, since then, parkadministrators have been managingmost of Big Bend’s area as a de facto

wilderness. Years later, the biggest at-traction for tourists in Big Bend is itswilderness qualities.

With this northern neighbor andthe conditions of isolation and lack ofhuman presence, the northern portionof Sierra del Carmen seemed the per-fect place to be designated aswilderness. Hence, we worked withCEMEX’s field team and presented theproposal to the CEO for approval. Hisvision and commitment were tested inthis endeavor. But, finally, after con-sultations with staff and neighbors, theowners made a long-term commit-ment to wilderness, and approved thelaunch of the initiative at The WILDFoundation’s 8th World WildernessCongress in Alaska (see IJW, Decem-ber 2005), becoming the firstwilderness designation in LatinAmerica. In light of the political situa-tion between Mexico and the UnitedStates, this wilderness designation rep-resents an opportunity to strengthenrelationships, and, for Big Bend Na-tional Park, it supports their dream ofdeclaring a big portion of the park asa wilderness. If so, it would be a

transboundary wilderness area ofenormous significance for NorthAmerica.

We had the commitment of land—we now needed the government. Weknew there was the opportunity for theMexican government to embrace thewilderness concept because of the truepassion of Ernesto Enkerlin, presidentof the CONANP, with whom I had along dialogue about wilderness. Heasked me to collaborate with JuanBezaury, a CONANP advisor and di-rector of environmental policy of TheNature Conservancy-Mexico. Juanexplained that if we wanted the initia-tive to move forward, it should bethrough an existing scheme of privateand social land system certificationthrough which CONANP recognizeslandowners’ voluntary efforts to pro-tect their lands. His idea was to raisethe level of protection for wildernessby creating an official certification ordesignation.

Under Mexican law, private own-ers accept certain limits of control overtheir land that can be imposed by thegovernment or other actors (e.g., roadbuilding, mining, fishing in lakes andrivers, water extraction, etc.). Underexisting certification, CONANP pro-tects the landowner againstgovernment imposition, except min-

Rock formations in Big Bend National Park, Texas. Photo by Patricio Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion SierraMadre.

Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), reintroduced to ElCarmen area as part of the re-wilding process. Photo by PatricioRobles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion Sierra Madre.


ing and water extraction. The next stepJuan envisioned was to have a newcertification, one that would be muchstronger and would be given by a coa-lition of NGOs, both national andinternational, such as Unidos para laConservación, Pronatura, Conserva-tion International, and The NatureConservancy, among others, and sci-entific institutions such as the NationalInstitute of Ecology of Mexico (INE)and the Mexican Commission for theKnowledge and Use of Biodiversity(CONABIO). These would provideboth a scientific and ethical compo-nent to the wilderness argument thatwould fight even mining and waterextraction.

Therefore, private owners wouldhave three possibilities: (1) the certifi-cation of Wilderness Zones by theCONANP, which would give legal pro-tection from certain governmentagencies and common use by people;

(2) the Wilderness Land certificationby the NGO coalition for those whodon’t want any government interven-tion, but who want to fight to maintainthe highest ecological integrity; and (3)both certifications, Wilderness Zoneand Wilderness Land, such as in thecase of CEMEX’s great commitment forthe El Carmen

One of the interesting parts of thisprocess is the different perceptionsshared by the actors involved in thediscussions. First, many of them con-sider the core areas as de factowilderness without a special name tohighlight them. Others think that thisscenario could be easily implementedin the north of Mexico where there isdesert, and not so easily in the tropi-cal forest communal lands of thesoutheast, and this became a strongargument of opposition. The fear wasalso expressed that this new certifi-cation would not include importantareas of high biodiversity becausethey were too small, or because theycontained existing human distur-bance. As a result of the discussions,an additional approach was proposedto address cultural, tribal, and sacredareas. Sharing these different con-cerns enriched the debate andenlarged the concept, out of whichemerged four different certificationswithin the framework of theCONANP:1. Natural sacred places: areas with

importance for the conservation ofbiodiversity, which tribal groups

have used as a spiritual, magicritual place.

2. Places with cultural biodiversitylandscape: where habitats, bioticcommunities, and species of floraand fauna have been managed bycommunities under traditionalpractices with the understandingof a component of conservation ofthe native species and exotics thathave historical land uses for thesustenance/nourishment of thosesocieties.

3. Places dedicated to long-term sci-entific research.

4. Areas of almost-intact habitats andbiotic communities, where thehuman footprint or industrial civi-lization is not present, wherehuman activities are developedwithout leaving evidence of theirpresence and that are large enoughto enable the reconciliation of hu-mans as a species, with nature.

The steps taken in the promotionof this wilderness initiative in Mexicoare parts of a collage. Each piecedoesn’t make great sense by itself, butwhen seen together they are much big-ger than the sum of the single parts.Many things remain to be done, butwe are on the right track. I’m optimis-tic for the future, one in whichMexicans will enjoy, respect, and feelthe awe of their wilderness areas. IJW

PATRICIO ROBLES GIL is president ofAgrupacion Sierra Madre and Unidos parala Conservation; he is also the seriesproducer for the CEMEX books on natureincluding Transboundary Conservation: ANew Vision for Protected Areas (R. A.Mittermeier, C. F. Kormos, C. G.Mittermeier, P. Robles Gil, T. Sandwith, andC. Besançon, CEMEX-Agrupacion SierraMadre-Conservation International, 2005,published in Mexico.)

Black bear (Ursus americana) are abundant in the El Carmenarea. Photo by Patricio Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion SierraMadre.

I’m optimistic for the future, one in which Mexicanswill enjoy, respect, and feel the awe of their

wilderness areas.


IntroductionFrom the Pamirs, with their wide valleys and mountainchains, radiate the Kunlun, Hindu Kush, Karakoram, andTian Shan, four of the highest and most rugged mountainranges on Earth. The Pamirs lie principally in Tajikistan atelevations of 3,500 to 5,000 meters (11,480 to 16,400 ft.)and more, but they also extend into Kyrgystan, China, Af-ghanistan, and barely south into Pakistan. The flagshipspecies, the icon, of these uplands is the Marco Polo sheep(Ovis ammon polii), first noted by Marco Polo in 1273 whenhe commented on the “great quantities of wild sheep ofhuge size” after he found their long, curving horns. Withtheir habitat harsh, remote, and difficult of access, MarcoPolo sheep had by the late 1800s become the most covetedof trophies by foreign hunters—and they still retain thisalmost mythical aura. However, the sheep has decreasedgreatly in recent decades, as has other wildlife in the re-gion, because of unsustainable hunting by local herdsmen,the military, and others, and there is great need to devisesome form of protection for the landscape. An internationalpeace park is one option.

Peace Park PlanningWhile conducting wildlife surveys in northern Pakistan dur-ing the early 1970s, I was told that Marco Polo sheep occuronly in two small areas around the Kilik and Khunjerab passesbordering China. Visiting the two sites in late 1974, I foundonly skulls; the animals, I was told, were now in China. Pa-kistan established the Khunjerab National Park (6150 km2;2,370 sq. mi.) the following year (Schaller 1977). China cre-ated the Taxkorgan Nature Reserve in 1984 along the Pakistanborder, in effect establishing a transboundary reserve, a des-ignation that was formalized between China and Pakistan in2000. I checked on the status of wildlife in the TaxkorganReserve during the summers of 1985 and 1986. We saw

A Proposal for a PamirInternational Peace Park

BY GEORGE B. SCHALLER

Marco Polo sheep females and young but no males, and wewere informed that at this season many animals are now inAfghanistan and Tajikistan. Realizing that the species couldonly be adequately protected and managed throughtransboundary cooperation and joint conservation initiatives,we urged “the creation of one large reserve” that encompassesthe four countries and preserves the integrity of the moun-tain landscape (Schaller et al. 1987).

At the time, Afghanistan was at war and Tajikistan wouldsoon be in turmoil, making it inadvisable to plan projectsthere. The idea of transboundary reserves was successfullyapplied in many parts of the world during the following years(Hamilton et al.1996; Sandwith et al. 2001). The purposesof such reserves include cooperation between countries formutual benefit, better management of joint resources, andencouragement of good neighborly relations through con-servation. After nearly two decades, I resumed surveys ofMarco Polo sheep, this time in Tajikistan (2003, 2005) andAfghanistan (2004). Having evaluated the situation in thesefour countries, I can now suggest potential borders for a PamirInternational Peace Park (see figure 1).


George Schaller on the Tibetan Plateau.


Different levels of protection wouldapply to different areas of the peacepark and include both ecological andcultural considerations: (1) strictlyprotected areas and other forms of re-serve, (2) hunting concessions to helpraise funds for conservation and thelocal communities, and (3) areas inwhich nomadic herders can maintain

their traditional lives. Each countrywould, of course, decide on the typeof zoning that would be most effec-tive and appropriate. Such a peacepark would benefit not just Marco Polosheep, ibex (Capra ibex), snow leop-ard (Uncia uncia), and others thattravel across frontiers, but all plantsand animals, as well as protect the

environment upon which local peopledepend for their livelihood.

The four countries already have ascattered network of protected areasalong their borders, and all of thesecould be incorporated into a peacepark. Pakistan has the CentralKarakoram National Park (9738 km2;

3,760 sq. mi.) bordering the KhunjerabNational Park, and both border China’sTaxkorgan Reserve. In addition, Paki-stan has made a major effort to provideeconomic incentives to communitiespromoting sustainable use of naturalresources, for example, by sharing en-trance fees to parks and trophy huntingfees. Pakistan and India might also be-come formal conservation partners ina peace park by adding a part of Ladakhadjoining the Line of Control (Raja2003). Marco Polo sheep do not occureast of Khunjerab National Park, butother mountain species, such as ibexand snow leopard, are found there.

The staff of China’s Taxkorgan Re-serve also protects some surroundingareas. A small trophy hunting site alongthe Tajikistan border has recently beenexpanded, and there are plans to createanother protected area in that region; Icollaborated in a survey there in 2005.

The Afghan Pamirs (see figure 2) re-main currently under the local controlof a commander. President HamidKarzai banned hunting in Afghanistanfor five years in March 2005 and estab-lished an Environment Department. TheBig Pamir Wildlife Reserve (679 km2;262 sq. mi.) was designated in the 1970sbut never legally established; it was pri-marily used for trophy hunting untilRussia entered the country in 1979. Our2004 survey found that the reserve stillhas viable wildlife populations, and wealso noted two other areas, totaling 550km2 (212 sq. mi.) that are only seldomused by Kirghiz herders and would ben-efit from reserve status. The rest of the2500 km2 (965 sq. mi.) or so of the

Figure 2—The Little Pamir, Afghanistan, looking south toward the Pakistan border and with our expedition yaksin the foreground (September 16, 2004). Photo by George Schaller.

Figure 1—The proposed Pamir International Peace Park along the borders of Pakistan, China, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan,showing existing and suggested protected areas and hunting concessions.


Afghan Pamirs would need a flexibleland use plan that recognizes the stew-ardship role of the local people.

Tajikistan has a strictly protectedarea, the Zorkul zapovednik (870 km2;336 sq mi), along the Afghan border,although actual protection is minimal.East of Zorkul is the Murgab Company,a hunting concession of about 2,200km2 (849 sq. mi.). It is the only areain the Tajik Pamirs that has an activeguard force, privately funded, and notcoincidentally the finest Marco Polosheep population in the country. Rus-sia built a border fence near theTajik-China border, several kilometerswithin Tajikistan (see figure 3), leav-ing a no-man’s-land in which MarcoPolo sheep persist and move back andforth into China and Afghanistan (seefigure 4). This strip of land requiresprotected status, especially from bor-der guards who hunt wildlife for food.

These various areas could readilybe linked to create a Pamir Interna-tional Peace Park (see figure 1) ofabout 50,000 km2 (19,300 sq. mi.).There is need for a cooperativeframework, established at an inter-national workshop, where each

country shares information, has apolicy dialogue, sets priorities,agrees on principles, and, most im-portant, decides on specific actions.These might include establishingrelevant legislation, conducting ba-sic research on wildlife andrangelands, developing joint pro-grams to raise funds fromdevelopment organizations, creatingjoint education and training pro-

grams, and developing compatiblegoals for trophy hunting and shar-ing the economic benefits withcommunities. My discussions withrelevant officials in Tajikistan, Af-ghanistan, and China elicitedpositive responses with respect tothe creation of a peace park; I havenot visited Pakistan so far. The presi-dent of Tajikistan, ImamaliRahmanov, has approved a peace parkas part of a larger plan for protectedareas submitted by the State Commit-tee on Environment and Forestry.

It should be noted that the TajikNational Park in the western Pamirs isnot included in the proposed peacepark. This large park (26,000 km2;10,038 sq. mi.), with a land area cov-ering 18% of Tajikistan, virtually lacksinfrastructure, knowledge of status ofwildlife, and various aspects of devel-opment essential to a functional reserve(see Hamilton et al. 1993). It deservesa major conservation effort in itself.

Marco Polo SheepNumbersManagement of any resource requiresadequate knowledge. Trophy hunters

Figure 3—The southern Pamirs in Tajikistan with a herd of male Marco Polo sheep (March 5, 2005). Photo byGeorge Schaller.

Figure 4—The Pamirs in China, near the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan with head of a male Marco Polosheep about nine years old at time of death (June 17, 1986). Photo by George Schaller.


pay about US$25,000 for killing aMarco Polo sheep in Tajikistan andChina, and perhaps Afghanistan atsome future date. The income derivedfrom such hunts could contribute sig-nificantly to conservation andcommunity development. However,the number of animals must be known,as must the number of trophy-sizedmales that can be sustainably shot in apopulation. Furthermore, given inter-mittent deep snows and droughts, bothof which may lead to malnutrition, andthe occasional impact of disease, sheeppopulations need to be monitored todetect major changes. Marco Polosheep have so far been little studied(Petocz 1978; Fedosenko 2000). Num-ber estimates that have been publishedare often outdated or of questionableaccuracy, and a principal task of a peacepark would be to census populationsand monitor them (see figure 5).

In the 1960s several hundred MarcoPolo sheep frequented Pakistan, butnumbers dropped then precipitouslydue to illegal hunting, especially dur-ing the construction of the KarakoramHighway, so that by the end of the1980s only occasional small herds vis-ited seasonally from China (Rasool1989). I was told that as many as 120animals are said to enter Pakistan atpresent. The October–November 2005survey in the Chinese Pamirs resultedin a count or 2,175 Marco Polo sheep,indicating a substantial increase duringthe past two decades of protection. In1986 Schaller et al. (1987) saw 89sheep and estimated 150 in the cornerof the Pamirs where the four countriesmeet.

Petocz (1978) censused Marco Polosheep in the Afghan Pamirs in 1973 andtallied 1,260 animals, but he estimated2,500 to include those he may haveoverlooked. Our survey in 2004 re-vealed that the range of the species hadcontracted since the 1970s due to un-

restricted hunting. We counted 624Marco Polo sheep, a minimum figurebecause we did not visit every valley,and, importantly, animals are knownto cross the frontier seasonally intoTajikistan and China.

Various counts have been made inTajikistan since the early 1990s, butthese weren’t comprehensive. It is be-lieved that a great decline in numbershas occurred since the 1960s. TheAction Plan on Conservation (2003)gives a total population figure of 3,000to 5,400 and Tajik Pamirs (2003)3,000 to 14,500. In June and July2003 we censused four blocks of ter-rain known to have substantial sheepnumbers at that season. In three blockstotaling 937 km2 (360 sq. mi.), sheepdensities varied from 0.3 to 0.5 ani-mals/km2 (0.7–1.3 sq. mi.). The fourthblock, comprising 800 km2 (308 sq.mi.) within the Murgab Companyhunting concession had a density of1.4 animals/km2 (3.62 sq. mi.). We re-visited that hunting concession inMarch 2005, at a time of year whenwildlife had concentrated low on hillsto avoid deep snow, and counted 2.7animals/km2 (7.0 sq. mi.), partly in thesame area we had censused in 2003.Incidentally, the concession prohibitsthe killing of snow leopards and brownbears, and two of the former were seenduring the 2005 census.

The number of Marco Polo sheep inKyrgystan is unknown. The distinctionand geographic separation, if any, be-tween the Marco Polo sheep and theso-called Tian Shan argali (O. a.karelina) farther north remains obscure.

ConclusionThere is considerable interest in pre-serving the ecological integrity of thePamirs and in promoting developmentprograms there. For example, WorldWildlife Fund-Pakistan promoted theidea of a Pamir International Conser-

vancy at a conference in 2003, the AgaKhan Foundation in Kabul proposeda program entitled Pamir Conserva-tion: Pamir Integrated Development in2004, and Fitzherbert et al. (2003)endorsed the peace park idea. My sur-veys in the four countries and personalcontacts contribute to these prelimi-nary ideas by providing a specific,immediate, and limited goal thatwould advance the conservation pro-cess in a critical area through thecreation of a Pamir International PeacePark. The area would also qualify as aBiosphere Reserve. The need now isto transform the concept into action.

Wildlife surveys in the Pamir Moun-tains of Pakistan, Afghanistan, China,and Tajikistan revealed that Marco Polosheep (Ovis ammon polii) roam back andforth across the frontiers of these coun-tries. There has been a considerabledecline of wildlife in recent years. Thecreation of an international peace parkwould offer the four countries one op-tion of cooperatively protecting andmanaging not only Marco Polo sheepand other species, but also the range-lands upon which the livelihood oflocal peoples depend.

AcknowledgmentsTravel was under the auspices of theWildlife Conservation Society and par-tially funded by the National GeographicSociety. World Wildlife Fund-Pakistanhosted the project in Pakistan; the Insti-tute of Zoology and Parasitology, theState Committee for Environment Con-servation and Forestry, and KhujandState University assisted in Tajikistan; theXinjiang Forestry Department cooper-ated closely in China; and MinisterAhmad Nuristani and CommanderYakub Khan permitted the project towork in Afghanistan. I would like to ex-press my gratitude to many people,



Two days before the 8th World Wilderness Congressbegan in Alaska, nearly 200 government wildlandsmanagers from 17 countries met to share ideas

about common challenges and to explore ways to improvewildland stewardship globally. The goal for this Global Wil-derness Seminar for Government Agencies was to lay thefoundation for an operating peer network of governmentprofessionals committed to fostering best management prac-tices in wilderness and other wildlands. The seminar, hostedby the Wilderness Policy Council (the group of U.S. federalgovernment policy level representatives from the wilder-ness management and research agencies) was designed toencourage discussion among the participants with a one-day field trip, presentations from a diversity of countriesover a range of topics, and small-group discussions aimedat developing ways to improve global communication aboutwildland stewardship (see figure 1).

On the first day, participants traveled by train and boatfrom Anchorage to Seward, and out into Resurrection Bay,to experience a representative sample of Alaska’s wildlands.Interpreters and local government agency resource manag-ers pointed out historic, cultural, and ecological highlights,and discussed current wildlands management issues, asparticipants passed through a mix of private lands, theChugach State Park, Chugach National Forest, ResurrectionBay State Park, and Kenai Fjords National Park. The manyhours of traveling gave everyone an outstanding opportu-nity to meet one-on-one and in small groups, talk in a relaxedsetting, share experiences, and enjoy the spectacular scen-ery. The high quality interactions on the field trip led JeffJarvis, group manager—Wilderness, Rivers, and NationalTrails with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, to remark,“This sets a new standard for the wilderness community.What a wonderful way to start the congress, a day with con-

The Global Wilderness Seminarfor Government Agencies

A Meeting at the Crossroads of Wildlands Stewardship

BY NANCY ROEPER, PETER LANDRES, and DON FISHER

servationists from around the world, meeting old friends andmaking new ones, surrounded by this beauty.”

The more formal sessions started the next morning witha deeply inspirational talk by Dr. Ian Player, founder ofThe WILD Foundation. Dr. Player shared stories about hisearly years as a game ranger in KwaZulu-Natal and spokemovingly about the importance of the human spirit and itsconnection to wilderness.

Several invited speakers, chosen to represent the diver-sity of our global community, next demonstrated thecommonality of wilderness stewardship concerns across glo-bal boundaries and cultures as they discussed some of theircountry’s most pressing wildland resource conservation chal-lenges and creative solutions. For example, discussing theirrespective wildland challenges, Adrian Stokes (Australia),Liisa Kajala (Finland), and Vicki Sanahatien (Canada) inde-pendently highlighted the need for, and the desirability of,working closely with aboriginal peoples. Their respectiveagencies have realized that as long as people remain con-nected with their aboriginal homeland, they will be strongproponents for their continued protection as wildlands.

Likewise, Freek Venter (South Africa) and Teresa Magro (Bra-zil) each addressed the challenges of balancing conservation and

The goal… was to lay the foundation foran operating peer network of

government professionals committed tofostering best management practicesin wilderness and other wildlands.



development needs. In both their coun-tries, for example, ecotourism associatedwith wildlands has provided economic,social, and ecosystem benefits, throughthe creation of employment opportuni-ties and incentives for wildlifeconservation. However, both acknowl-edged the potential negativeconsequences associated with growingecotourism, such as the loss of wildlandvalues resulting from the development oftourism infrastructure, and the impor-tance of thorough planning andcollaboration with all interested partiesto assure the sustainability of wildlands.

All of the speakers highlighted theneed for working with a broad arrayof partners. Steve Carver (United King-dom), for example, works closely withseveral nongovernmental organiza-tions that are attempting to rewildparts of the country. Lisa Eidson(United States) discussed the under-lying structure that makeswww.wilderness.net, itself a partner-ship, such an effective informationdelivery system. As the webmaster, sheensures that a diverse array of userscan easily locate the wilderness infor-mation they want and need.

In the afternoon, participants di-vided into relatively small, facilitated

groups to allow more focused discus-sion on specific wilderness stewardshiptopics. Those topics were: improvingglobal communication for wildernessstewardship, managing for ecologicalvalues, managing for social values,meeting the challenge of human usemanagement, protecting the wildernessresource, and partnerships.

Each group identified priority stew-ardship issues and critical stewardshipneeds within their focus topic. Not sur-prisingly, discussions of these broadtopics elicited many priority issues andneeds, such as:

• Maintaining the natural ecologicalintegrity of wildlands;

• Determining thresholds for wild-lands management action;

• Managing user conflicts;• Educating and informing the pub-

lic about the importance ofwilderness and appropriate waysto enjoy it;

• Bringing funding to the table togenerate partnerships; and

• Developing a website for sharinginformation.

All of the discussion groups indepen-dently identified the establishment of aweb-based clearinghouse for posting

information on wilderness stewardshipchallenges and solutions as a top prior-ity. Other significant recommendationswere to hold smaller or regional inter-national seminars for governmentagencies between World WildernessCongresses, maintain accessibility of theWorld Wilderness Congress to the in-ternational community, contributearticles to and subscribe to the Interna-tional Journal of Wilderness, and developnew exchange programs and expandexisting ones.

Of the many recommendations de-veloped in this seminar, two resultedin resolutions that were passed by theWorld Wilderness Congress delegates:(1) hold future Government Seminarsto further improve international coor-dination and cooperation on wildlandprotection, and (2) develop an umbrellaglobal network to foster internationalcommunication and learning aboutwilderness stewardship.

A list of participants, presentations,small discussion group results, and pho-tos are posted at www.wilderness.net.With support from the U.S. WildernessPolicy Council, the IUCN WildernessTask Force, and the people who volun-teered from these discussion groups tocontinue working together, we intendto move forward on several recommen-dations this year to improve ourcapacity and ability for global wilder-ness stewardship. IJW

NANCY ROEPER, U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Washington, DC, USA. Email:[email protected].

PETER LANDRES, U.S. Forest Service,Missoula, MT, USA. Email:[email protected].

DON FISHER, U.S. Forest Service,Washington, DC, USA. Email:[email protected].

Figure 1—Discussion during the Global Wilderness Seminar. Photo by Teresa Magro.


Announcementsand Wilderness Calendar

COMPILED BY GREG KROLL

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

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Greg Kroll—New IJWDigest EditorGreg joined IJW with this issue as di-gest editor. He currently works as aprivate contractor, providing wilder-ness management training programs innational parks around the UnitedStates. From 1996 through 1999 he wasthe National Park Service representa-tive at the Arthur Carhart NationalWilderness Training Center inMissoula, Montana, where he coordi-nated wilderness training for thewilderness units of the National ParkSystem. From 1985 to 1996, he servedas a park ranger at Yellowstone NationalPark, first as public affairs officer, thenas assistant chief naturalist. From 1981to 1985 he directed two outdoorschools and managed the SummerField Seminar Program at RedwoodNational Park, California. Prior to hisemployment by the National Park Ser-vice, he worked for the California StatePark System, the California Conserva-tion Corps, and the Annette IslandIndian Reservation in Metlakatla,Alaska. Greg is well traveled, havingspent time with the National Park Ser-vice in Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama,Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia, where hetaught ranger skills to park profession-als of those countries. He also served

as a Peace Corps volunteer in Colom-bia, South America. Greg is a native ofCalifornia and earned a B.S. in naturalresources conservation and park ad-ministration at Humboldt StateUniversity, California, and received amaster’s degree in social work from theUniversity of Washington, Seattle.GREG KROLLcan becontacted atP.O. Box 699,El Rito, NM87530, USA;telephone:(505) 581-4410;email:[email protected].

British Columbia ProtectsGreat Bear RainforestA wilderness of 4.4 million acres (1.8million ha) was protected in perpetu-ity by the provincial government ofBritish Columbia, Canada, on Febru-ary 7, 2006. Known as the Great BearRainforest, this remote and ruggedlandscape represents a quarter of theworld’s remaining coastal temperaterainforest, and is home to a healthypopulation of salmon, wolves, grizzly,and black bears. Under the provincialPark Act, these lands, twice the size of

Yellowstone National Park, will remainfree of logging and commercial devel-opment. An additional 10 millionacres (4.05 million ha) outside theprotected areas will be managed ac-cording to new practices called“ecosystem-based management” thatwill set limits on logging, mining, andother commercial activities. In whathas been described as “a crossroads inour relations,” a decade of talks andinternational boycott campaigns re-sulted in agreement among FirstNations representatives, environmen-tal groups, logging companies, andprovincial officials. Merran Smith, ofVancouver-based Forest Ethics, says,“This is a revolution. This rainforestagreement provides a real world ex-ample of how people and wildernesscan prosper together. And this is justthe beginning.” (Source: http://www.forestethics.org)

Requests Increase forHelicopter Intrusions intoWildernessThe U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is fac-ing multiple challenges regardinghelicopter landings in wilderness andwilderness study areas. The ForestService’s Alaska Region proposes tomake approximately 1,100 helicopter


landings in wilderness over a 10-yearperiod to inventory vegetation. Theywant to access 540 plots by helicop-ter (each plot requiring two landings)and 373 plots by day hiking. The plotsare located in 19 wilderness areas onthe Tongass National Forest, and oneWilderness Study Area on theChugach National Forest. The finalEnvironmental Impact Statement onthe proposal is due to be releasedSeptember 2006, at the earliest.(Source: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-1002.htm)

Idaho state fish and game directorSteve Huffaker proposes to use heli-copters to locate, dart, and radiocollar up to 16 wolves in the Selway-Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, and FrankChurch-River of No Return Wilder-nesses. “We need to know how theyuse a big habitat… so we can trapthem if we need to,” he was quotedas saying by the Idaho Statesman. For-est Service intermountain regionalforester Jack Troyer says his agencyproposes to help catch the wolveswithout the use of motorized vehicles,although he still intends to carry outan Environmental Assessment on thestate’s request. (Sources: http://www.wildernesswatch.org; and IdahoStatesman, February 14, 2006)

Finally, the Forest Service is beingchallenged in federal court over theissuance of a permit allowing in-creased helicopter skiing in thePalisades Wilderness Study Area(WSA) of the Caribou-Targhee andBridger-Teton National Forests. Asingle Jackson, Wyoming-based com-mercial heliskiing company wouldhave exclusive use of the WSA for upto 1,200 skier-days of service everywinter for the next decade.Earthjustice, on behalf of four envi-ronmental groups, seeks a court orderthat would limit the heliskiing to1984 levels. (Source: http://w w w. e a r t h j u s t i c e . o r g / n e w s /display.html?ID=1099)

Grizzlies, Bull Trout,Arsenic, and SinkholesOne of the largest proposed under-ground mines in North America is alsothe first to be permitted beneath a U.S.wilderness area. The Rock Creek cop-per and silver mine, located beneathMontana’s Cabinet Mountains Wilder-ness, was approved in June of 2003by state and federal agencies. Eventhough the only surface disturbancewould be outside the wildernessboundaries, the mine start-up hasbeen repeatedly blocked by court de-cisions. First, a U.S. district courtjudge ruled that federal wildlife offi-cials had put grizzly bears and bulltrout at risk by permitting the mine.Then a Montana district judge ruledthat the state water-quality permitwould allow too much arsenic to besent into the groundwater, violatingthe Montana Constitution’s guaranteeof a clean and healthful environment.Next, by March 2006, two large cave-ins collapsed portions of the nearbyTroy mine. In permitting the RockCreek mine, the U.S. Forest Servicestated that the Troy mine provided “anexcellent analogy for the proposed

Rock Creek mining method and risksof subsidence.” Now Kootenai forestsupervisor Bob Castaneda admits thetwo sinkholes will “raise more ques-tions by some people about how wellwe did the assessment for the RockCreek mine.” (Sources: http://www.c l a rk fo rk .o rg /programs /rock_creek.html, and the Missoulian,March 6 and 28, 2006)

New Utah WildernessStymies Nuclear OptionAs the result of an unprecedentedmeeting of the minds between theUtah congressional delegation andwilderness advocates, the new100,000-acre (40,485 ha) CedarMountain Wilderness was signed intolaw by President George W. Bush onJanuary 6, 2006 (P.L. 109-163). Thefirst new stand-alone wilderness des-ignation in Utah since 1984, it wasincluded in the Utah Test and Train-ing Range Protection Act, which wasattached to the large Defense Autho-rization Act. What does wildernesshave to do with national defense? Aprivate company seeks to create ahigh-level nuclear waste storage fa-cility at Skull Valley on the GoshuteIndian Reservation, near the TrainingRange. The protected military air-space above the Cedar Mountains isused by the U.S. Air Force, and themilitary was concerned that a nearbynuclear waste facility would curtailtraining operations for safety reasons.The Utah delegation was also uneasyabout siting the facility so close to SaltLake City. The Cedar Mountain Wil-derness now prevents the wastestorage company from building a railline to the Skull Valley site. Althoughwaste could still be trucked in, thatis a much less desirable option for thecompany. Less than an hour’s drivefrom Salt Lake City, the Cedar Moun-tain Wilderness will be a permanent

Get your copyof the IJW

Subscribe Today!

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

www.ijw.org


refuge for mule deer, pronghorn an-telope, coyotes, bobcats, goldeneagles, and mountain lions, as wellas the area’s burgeoning human popu-lation. (For more information, visithttp://www.wilderness.org; and theSalt Lake Tribune, December 19,2005.)

Wilderness on U.S.-Mexico Border TrashedThe Cabeza Prieta Wilderness(803,418 acres; 325,139 ha) is thelargest in Arizona. The adjacent Or-gan Pipe Cactus Wilderness contains312,600 acres (126,507 ha). Together,they have protected a broad expanseof Sonoran Desert, which has thegreatest diversity of plants and animalsof any North American desert. Theyalso form the U.S. border with Mexico,and there’s the rub. According to theLos Angeles Times, these two wildernessareas have suffered a “devastating toll”from the government’s ongoing battlewith cross-boundary smugglers andmigrants. Cabeza Prieta NationalWildlife Refuge manager Roger DiRosaclaims that 2.5 million pounds of gar-bage are abandoned in the refuge eachyear. Sections of Organ Pipe CactusNational Monument (managed by theNational Park Service) are so danger-ous they are closed to the public. Sincethe U.S. Department of HomelandSecurity has legal authority to ignoreenvironmental laws, the U.S. BorderPatrol has set up camps in the wilder-ness, replete with helicopter pads,trailers, fencing, generators and high-intensity lights. Organ Pipesuperintendent Kathy Billings isquoted by the L.A. Times as saying, “Ifwe lose Organ Pipe and it becomes amoonscape as a result of these impacts,

we lose our heritage.” (Source: LosAngeles Times, March 3, 2006; for spe-cific wilderness area information, visithttp://www.wilderness.net)

IUCN Review of ProtectedArea CategoriesThe World Commission on ProtectedAreas (WCPA) of the World Conser-vation Union (IUCN) has embarkedon a process of reviewing the catego-ries included in its Framework forProtected Areas. This could have im-plications for recognition ofwilderness. Wilderness is category 1b,and has been included only since thelast revision in 1992, largely as a re-sult of many years of work by theWorld Wilderness Congress and thetireless efforts of Mike McCloskey, EdWayburn, and others. The WildernessTask Force (WTF)—establishedwithin the WCPA in 2001 and co-chaired by Vance Martin (president,The WILD Foundation) and KhulaniMkhize (CEO, Ezemvelo KZN Wild-life, South Africa)—has been asked tosubmit updated findings on wilder-ness as a protected area category tojustify its continued inclusion withinthe framework. By the time this issueof the IJW is published, that report willbe submitted, and further issues of theIJW will keep you updated on progressin this regard. For further information,contact Cyril Kormos, WILD’s vicepresident for policy ([email protected]),or Harvey Locke (strategic advisor, Ca-nadian Parks and Wilderness Society,[email protected]).

IJW and WILD AwardsAwards were presented by IJW edi-tor-in-chief Dr. John Hendee onbehalf of the International Journal of Chad Dawson, Stephen McCool, Steve Bschor

John Hendee, Alan Watson, Chad Dawson

Wilderness and The WILD Founda-tion to Drs. Chad Dawson and AlanWatson for their leadership and workwith IJW and wilderness research andeducation for stewardship of wilder-ness resources. An award was alsopresented to Dr. Stephen McCool forhis lifetime of research and educa-tional contributions to wildernessplanning and the Limits of Accept-able Change Planning Process. Dr.McCool was the 2004 recipient of theIJW and U.S. Forest Service Chief’sAward for Excellence in WildernessStewardship Research (see IJW 11[2]:29). Steve Bschor (U.S. Forest Ser-vice) joined Dr. Dawson in makingthe presentation to Dr. McCool. Allthree awards were presented duringthe October 2005 World WildernessCongress in Alaska.


Book Reviews

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Transboundary Conservation:A New Vision for ProtectedAreasBy Russell Mittermeier, Cyril Kormos,Cristina Mittermeier, Patricio Robles Gil,Trevor Sandwith, and Charles Besançon.2005. CEMEX-Agrupacion SierraMadre-Conservation International,372 pp., $50.00 (cloth).

Officially released at the 8th WorldWilderness Congress in Anchorage,Alaska, Transboundary Conservation isanother magnificently detailed and il-lustrated book in the CEMEX Bookson Nature series. As in their previouspublications, Mittermeier et al. providea global review of the crème de lacrème of conservation areas, this timefocusing on transboundary conserva-tion areas (TBCA). The term conservationarea rather than protected area is usedin order to allow for the inclusion ofareas that may not fit the IUCN crite-ria for protected areas.

Twenty-eight existing TBCA (out ofa potential total of 188 global com-plexes identified) are reviewed in thisbook, with half of these TBCA locatedin the Americas. The introduction pro-vides a history and review of thisspecific type of conservation area andrelated areas such as peace parks. TheIUCN definition of a TBCA—“an areathat straddles one or more boundariesbetween regions or nations, is dedi-cated to the protection of biologicaldiversity, and is managed coopera-tively through legal or other effectivemeans”—is adopted in this book. Or-ganizations that deal with TBCA, theirbenefits, and best practices are alsoincluded in this section. Some draw-

backs and challenges are also noted,but this discussion is not as extensiveas the above topics.

Three “exemplary” case studies—the first TBCA of Waterton-GlacierInternational Peace Park, the LimpopoTransfrontier Park, and the El Carmen-Big Bend TBCA—are the focus of thenext chapter, although what makesthese three areas so exemplary is notexplicitly noted. The basic template ofthe remaining chapters, which eachdocument one TBCA, is introduced inthese case studies: Each TBCA is de-scribed by a different author or groupof authors, with a focus on listing themost important flora and fauna of eacharea. Threats to each TBCA are alsoidentified. The exquisite photographyprovided throughout each chapter onhigh quality paper must again benoted: These illustrations are worththe price of purchase alone. EachTBCA averages six to eight pages, withhalf of that being photographs.

Mittermeier et al. have again pro-vided an outstanding overview of acritical conservation issue, using ex-perts in each area to provide a briefbut substantive overview of eachTBCA. Despite the large number ofauthors, Mittermeier et al. have donean outstanding job in editing each sec-tion, and have once again collected anoutstanding series of photographs tohelp bring each region to life. Kudosmust also be given to the publishingtrifecta of CEMEX, Agrupacion SierraMadre, and Conservation Interna-tional, who have once again spared noexpense in creating this illustratedoverview of an important global con-

servation issue. This coffee table bookwould be an excellent gift for buddingor experienced conservationists, butincludes enough detailed informationto satisfy those wishing for more thanjust pretty pictures.

Reviewed by JOHN SHULTIS, who is thebook editor for IJW.

Recommendations andGuidelines for ManagingCaves on Protected LandsEdited by W. K. Jones et al. 2003.Karst Waters Institute (KWI). 95 pp.$16.00 (paper) PO Box 537, CharlesTown, WV 25414.

The goal of this publication was toprovide federal land managers withguidelines for the development ofcave-management plans and policiesbased on the Federal Cave ResourcesProtection Act (FCRPA). It is a helpfulintroduction to cave management(more appropriately, cave stewardship)in the United States, but is far fromthe definitive text on the subject.

The manual is divided into threeparts. Part 1 describes the features tobe protected and gives an overview ofthe science behind managementguidelines. Part 2 provides cave stew-ardship guidelines and describestypical problems in protecting cavesand karst. Part 3, the smallest section,outlines management tools and inves-tigative methods. These three sectionstotal 52 pages, 32 of which are devotedto Part 1, giving the impression thatcave science is more important thanmanagement. The manual concludeswith a two-page summary, references,


a glossary of terms, and six appendixestotaling 18 pages. While the NationalPark Service is well represented in theappendixes, no reference is made tothe other federal agencies involved incave stewardship.

Perhaps because it has multiple au-thors, Part 1 contains some lapses andcontradictions. Greater care in editingcould have addressed these problems.For example, it gives the impressionthat cave management deals only withbiophysical cave resources; human di-mensions of management are notdiscussed. It suggests that the FCRPAshould also be applied to other naturalgeologic features, including naturalbridges and arches, but this exceeds thescope of the FCRPA. Citations are lack-ing for much of the informationpresented in Part 1, a curious fact con-sidering the emphasis on scientificbacking for management plans.

As previously noted, Parts 2 and 3could have been extended. For ex-ample, the book would havebenefited from examples of cave man-agement plans. The preface indicatesthat such plans are included in anappendix, but none is provided. Al-though some of the best texts on cavestewardship are cited, justice is notdone to the full value they offer tocave stewards. It might have beenuseful to summarize guiding prin-ciples and concepts, and to providean annotated list of recommendedreadings for each subject category.The book does not mention the Na-tional Cave and Karst ManagementSymposia, a valuable resource in thisconstantly evolving field.

The intent of the publication hadbeen to complement the IUCN’sGuidelines for Cave and Karst Protec-tion, which took a human dimensionsapproach to cave and karst steward-ship. Unfortunately, this book fallsshort of this laudable goal. Perhaps this

derness values that were formally statedin the Act. The social and political his-tory of the legislature policy and NWPSset the context to understand the com-plex public values that led to protectionof these natural areas.

The wilderness values framework inchapter 4 is one of the most substantiveand important contributions of thisbook, providing a comprehensive over-view of how wilderness attributes andcharacteristics support wilderness func-tions and services and lead to wildernessvalues. The four main perspectives orcategories on wilderness values are out-lined as (1) social, (2) economic, (3)ecologic, and (4) ethical. These valuesflow from the attributes and character-istics of the lands within the NWPS thatare described in chapters 5 and 6.

The four categories of values are cov-ered in subsequent chapters: Socialvalues are based on concepts of humanuse and benefits and public perceptionsof those benefits as measured by publicopinion surveys, with differences ana-lyzed between different demographicand socioeconomic groups (chapters 7and 8); economic values are conceptu-ally discussed for active on-siterecreation and passive uses to measurenet economic values and economic im-pacts on local economies (chapters 9 and10); ecologic values of naturalness andwildness are described, and indicatormeasures for research applications arereviewed (chapter 11); and ethical andintrinsic values of wilderness are ex-plored from anthropocentric andnonanthropocentric theory (chapter 12).

The main authors conclude that “itis our view that the values Americancitizens broadly hold are most impor-tant in determining the future ofWilderness. It is the value-laden anddiverse voices of our country’s public,individually and collectively, that arefeatured in this book” (p. 270). Thisbook is intended for both the general

is, in part, due to KWI’s expertise inkarst research rather than actual stew-ardship.

Ideally, the publication should bemore in line with the model presentedby the IUCN’s Guidelines for Cave andKarst Protection. A second publicationshould be developed to cover karstand cave stewardship from a naturalresources management perspective.Such a text should cover the biophysi-cal, social, and economic aspects ofcaves and karst.

Nonetheless, this publication is stillan invaluable reference for those fed-eral land managers who know littleabout cave stewardship. I certainlyrecommend it as a useful introductionto the subject.

Reviewed by PATRICIA E. SEISER, NewMexico Tech Faculty Adjunct Humanities

Department, Socorro, NM. Cave steward-ship specialist, National Cave and Karst

Research Institute, 1400 Commerce Drive,Carlsbad, NM 88220, USA; email:

[email protected].

The Multiple Values ofWildernessEdited by H. Ken Cordell, John C.Bergstrom and J. M. Bowker. 2005.Venture Publishing, Inc., State College,PA. 297 pp. $49.95 (hardcover).

The three principal authors and edi-tors—Cordell, Bergstrom, andBowker—are joined by 20 other chap-ter authors and coauthors. The 13chapters of the book are presented byleading scholars and researchers on thefull range of values held by U.S. citi-zens toward wilderness and theNational Wilderness Preservation Sys-tem (NWPS).

Chapters 2 and 3 summarize theWilderness Act of 1964, subsequentwilderness designations, and the devel-opment of the NWPS. The formativeorigins of the wilderness concept wereinstrumental in evolving a set of wil-


public interested in wilderness as wellas those already involved in teaching,research, planning, and management.This comprehensive look at the val-ues that brought about the NWPS is

From PAMIR PEACE PARK on page 44

especially to Major S. Amanullah Khanand Pervez Khan (Pakistan); Talipu, LuHua, Li Hong, Shi Jun, and Zhu Fu De(China); Safraz Khan, MuhammadSidiq, Anthony Fitzherbert, ErinHannan, Trevor Monroe, ElizabethWald, and Scott Wallace (Afghanistan);and Abdusattor Saidov, TolibjonKhabilov, Otabek and AidibekBekmurodi, Eric Engel, Kokul Kasirov,and Neimatullo Safarov (Tajikistan).IJW

REFERENCESAnon. 2003. The Tajik Pamirs. Berne, Switzer-

land: University of Berne, Centre for Devel-opment and Environment. Fedosenko, A.2000. Argali Sheep in Russia and AdjacentTerritories. Moscow: Center for Hunting Con-trol (in Russian).

Fitzherbert, A., C. Mishra, and A. Khairzad.2003. UNDP and FAO: Afghanistan:Wakhan Mission Technical Report. UNDPand FAO. Hamilton, L., D. Bauer, H.Takeuchi. 1993. Parks, Peaks and People.Honolulu, HI: East-West Center.

Hamilton, L., J. Mackay, G. Worboys, R. Jones,and G. Manson. l996. Transborder ProtectedArea Cooperation. Canberra, Australia:Alps Liaison Committee.

Petocz, R. 1978. Management plan for the BigPamir Wildlife Reserve. Unpublished report.

Kabul, Afghanistan: UNDP, FAO, and Min-istry of Agriculture. Document No. 7.

Raja, P. 2003. Siachen, peace park or war zone.Mumbai, India: Sanctuary Asia 23(4): 24–25.

Rasool, G. 1989: Wildlife in the wilderness.WWF-Pakistan: Natura 8(1): 4–6.

Republic of Tajikistan. 2003. National Strategy andAction Plan on Conservation and SustainableUse of Biodiversity. Dushanbe, Tajikistan: Na-tional Biodiversity and Biosafety Center.

Sandwith, T, C. Shine,L. Hamilton, and D.Sheppard. 2001. Transboundary Protected

Areas for Peace and Co-operation. Gland,Switzerland: IUCN, Best Practice ProtectedArea Guidelines Series No. 7.

Schaller, G. 1977. Mountain Monarchs:WildSheep and Goats of the Himalaya. Chi-cago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 2006. A Proposal for a Pamir Interna-tional Peace Park. In Science and Steward-ship to Protect and Sustain WildernessValues: Eighth World Wilderness CongressSymposium, comp. Alan Watson, LieseDean, and Janet Sproull. September 30–Oc-tober 6, 2005; Anchorage, AK. Proceed-ings RMRS-P-(forthcoming). Fort Collins, CO:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser-vice, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Schaller, G.; H. Li, Talilpu, H. Lu, J. Ren, M. Qiu,and H. Wang.. 1987. Status of large mam-mals in the Taxkorgan Reserve, Xinjiang,China. Biological Conservation 42: 53–71.

GEORGE B. SCHALLER is a field biologistand vice president of internationalconservation, Wildlife ConservationSociety, Bronx Park, New York 10460,USA; e-mail: [email protected].

an important outline for newcomersto wilderness preservation and anoverview and reminder for those al-ready engaged. This book is a

must-read for U.S. and internationalwilderness professionals as well.

Reviewed by CHAD P. DAWSON, IJWmanaging editor.

Figure 5—Female Marco Polo sheep in molt with young (July 15, 2004). Photo by George Schaller.

The creation of an international peace park wouldoffer the four countries one option of cooperatively

protecting and managing not only Marco Polo sheepand other species, but also the rangelands upon

which the livelihood of local peoples depend.

international journal of wilderness, vol 12 no 2, august 2006

Documents

wilderness designation

parsons23 wilderness

wilderness column

concept of cave wilderness

university of montana

photo carlton ward jrlinc

west africa

ken cordell