international journal of wilderness, vol 2 no 3, december 1996

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

J OURNAL OF WILDERNESSDecember 1996 Volume 2, Number 3

FEATURES IN THE U.S. BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT

by Jeff JarvisTHE SUSTAINABILITY OF

U.S. WILDERNESS—Ecologically, Socially, and Politicallyby John C. Hendee, Managing Editor

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS

A Wilderness Ethic for the Age of Cyberspaceby Roderick Nash

MANAGING WILDERNESS INPERPETUITY AND IN DEMOCRACY

by Roger Kennedy

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

GRANDFATHER MOUNTAIN—A Private U.S. Wilderness Experimentby Randy Johnson

WILDERNESS RECREATION

IN THE UNITED STATES—Trends in Use, Users, and Impactsby David N. Cole

STATUS AND PROSPECTS FOR WILDERNESS

IN THE U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

by Wes Henry

IN THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE

by Jerry Stokes

IN THE U.S. NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE SYSTEM

by Peter Jerome

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

LEAVE NO TRACE (LNT)—Outdoor Skills and Ethics Programby Ralph Swain

WILDNESS AND WILDERNESS

IN THE NORTHEAST UNITED STATES—Challenge for the Coming Centuryby Lloyd C. Irland

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY—Advocating for Wilderness in Changing Timesby Greg Aplet and Jerry Greenberg

WILDERNESS @ INTERNET

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

REGENERATING THE

CALEDONIAN FOREST—Restoring Ecological Wilderness in Scotlandby Alan Watson Featherstone

WILDERNESS PROGRESS IN NAMIBIA

by Laurel Munson-Boyers

WILDERNESS DIGEST

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND

WILDERNESS CALENDAR

BOOK REVIEWS

by James R. Fazio, Book Review Editor

3

4

6

10

14

19

20

22

23

24

27

31

34

36

42

43

45Cover photograph of Indian Paintbrush at Maroon Bells,Colorado, copyright © 1994 by John Fielder. Insetphotograph by Educo Colorado.

2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDERNESS/Volume 2, Number 3, December 1996

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

Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation/ICEC, Ojai, Calif., USADavid Porter, Bureau of Land Management, Lakewood, Colo., USA

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

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

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

ASSOCIATE EDITORSHugh Barr, Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, Liz Close, U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Mont., Dave Cockrell, University ofSouthern Colorado, Pueblo, Colo., Dave Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., Don Duff, U.S. Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah,William Forgey, Medical Doctor, Crown Point, Ind., Nancy Green, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., Glen Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,Colo., Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg., Steve Hollenhorst, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.Va., Jon Jarvis, Wrangell-St.Elias National Park, Glennallen, Ark., Kris Kennett, British Columbia Parks, Williams Lake, B.C., Canada, Jamie Kirkpatrick, University of Tasmania,Hobart, TAS, Australia, Ruthann Knudson, National Park Service, Washington, D.C., Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, David Lime, Univer-sity of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn., Les Malloy, Department of Conservation, Wellington, NZ, Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt., JoeMazzoni, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, N.M., Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club, Washington, D.C., Richard Meganck, United NationsEnvironment Programme, Osaka, Japan, Jonathan Miller, Australian Heritage Commission, Australia, Chris Monz, National Outdoor Leadership School,Lander, Wy., Bob Muth, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass., Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Huson, Mont., RoderickNash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif., Max Oelschlaeger, University of North Texas, Corrales, N.M., Margaret Petersen, U.S. Forest Service,Portland, Oreg., Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal RSA, Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions andthe Wilderness Guides Council, Ross, Calif., Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va., Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University,Ft. Collins, Colo., Mitch Sakofs, Outward Bound, Garrison, N.Y., Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg., Tod Schimelpfenig, National OutdoorLeadership School, Lander, Wy., Alan Schmierer, National Park Service, San Francisco, Calif., Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea,Jerry Stokes, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., Ralph Swain, U.S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colo., Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco,Calif., Tom Zimmerman, National Park Service, Boise, Idaho, Franco Zunino, Wilderness Associazione Italiana, Villavallelonga, Italy

International Journal of Wilderness

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) will publish three issues in 1996(May, August, and December) and full-production of quarterly issues in1997 and thereafter (March, June, September, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication.

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

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

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

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness copyright ©1996 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation.Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to

make fair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519

Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide are solic-ited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, and alloca-tion strategies; wilderness education, including descriptions of key pro-grams using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and environmentaleducation; wilderness related science and research from all disciplines ad-dressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilderness; and interna-tional perspectives describing wilderness worldwide. Articles, commen-taries, letters to the editor, photos, book reviews, announcements, andinformation for the wilderness digest are encouraged. A complete list ofmanuscript submission guidelines is available from the managing editor.

Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are en-couraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signed bythe author.

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

Printed on recycled paper.

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

The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interested citizensworldwide 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/Volume 2, Number 3, December 1996 3

THE SUSTAINABILITYOF U.S. WILDERNESS—Ecologically, Socially, and Politically

BY JOHN C. HENDEE, MANAGING EDITOR

HE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATIONSystem in the United States is a crowning achieve-ment of our culture and also an important model for

to the ability of a wilderness to sustainhuman impacts, it is also true that thegreatest value of wilderness may lie inits ability to awaken the human spirit.There may be no stronger protection forwilderness than from people who haverekindled a spiritual flame from theirwilderness experience.

Limits are needed on wilderness useto protect its values of solitude, wild-ness, and untrammeled nature. Withincreasing population and wildernessuse, limitations are inevitable, but wil-

Tother countries seeking to preserve the best of their remain-ing wildlands. But even in the United States we must bevigilant over the ecological, social, and political sustainabilityof our wilderness.

Ecologically, the sustainability challenge is the preserva-tion, protection, and restoration of natural processes. Lettingfire, insects, disease, wind, and other natural processes runtheir course, without undue interference, has proven to be achallenge for wilderness stewards. In many cases true natu-ralness has had to be sacrificed for practical considerationsrelating to human safety, and to protect adjacent resourcesoutside the wilderness. Letting nature roll the dice in deter-mining ecological consequences—that is managing wilder-ness as guardians not gardeners—is not easy.

Socially, wilderness is characterized in part by increasinguse (see article by David Cole in this issue). Most of this useis by small, private groups of upper middle-class citizens onfoot; but, there is also a healthy outfitting and guiding indus-try taking boaters, floaters, and backpackers to wilderness ingrowing numbers. Some wilderness visitors use vacation timeto maintain trails or restore wilderness sites, while others go ontrips sponsored by educational, religious, conservation, or rec-reation for-profit organizations. A current study found 700wilderness experience programs operating nationwide for pur-poses of personal growth, therapy, education, and leadershipdevelopment (Friese 1996), with a companion study of wil-derness managers indicating overwhelming agreement thatuse by such programs is increasing (Gager 1996).

The economic benefits to local economies having adja-cent wilderness and the struggle to incorporate social inputto wilderness planning have been described in IJW (TomPowers, IJW Vol. 2, No. 1; McCoy et al., IJW Vol. 1, No. 2;Merigliano and Krumpe, IJW Vol. 2, No. 2). The legalrequirements to maintain naturalness and solitude in wil-derness and allow only primitive forms of recreation are atthe heart of the social sustainability of wilderness.

But managers must also address unanticipated (social)effects of limiting use. People that are not used to dealingwith bureaucracies, who are unable to pay for outfitted ser-vices, permits, or transportation, may be essentially denied awilderness opportunity. While it is true that there is a limit

derness stewards must also ensure that use limitations do notexclude any particular group of people.

Politically, sustainability of wilderness demands responseto social change in addition to skill and judgment in dealingwith ecological and social issues. For example, the shift ofpublic responsiveness from national to local influences isputting more decision power in local hands. We must re-spond. Even more serious in the long run may be the uppermiddle-class homogeneity of wilderness users and manag-ers that contrasts sharply with our increasingly multicultural,urban society. At the 1994 National Wilderness Conferencein Santa Fe, a virtually all-white and predominately maleaudience faced a few speakers who warned us of the dangersof white, upper middle-class homogeneity in wilderness man-agement and use in a democratic country destined to soonhave an urban, multicultural majority. The Wilderness andNatural Areas in the East conference at Gatlinburg in May1996 likewise had few minorities. However, there was one JobCorps center director from Atlanta who extolled the values ofthe experimental Wilderness Discovery backpacking programfor young black women at his center.

The political sustainability of wilderness will depend onmaking wilderness relevant to as broad a spectrum of peopleas possible. The current initiative to have a national wilder-ness leadership conference devoted to an urban, multiculturaltheme deserves support by everyone concerned about thepolitical sustainability of wilderness.*

The sustainability of wilderness is more than an ecologicalissue; it is about social and political considerations for wilder-ness too. They may be the most difficult elements of wildernessstewardship, but they also need our attention.

ReferencesGager, Dan. 1996. Federal land managers policies and managers perceptions onthe use of wilderness for personal growth. Unpublished masters thesis, Univer-sity of Idaho, Moscow.

Friese, Greg. 1996. A typology and survey of wilderness experience programsnationwide. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow.

*For information about this initiative, contact Margaret Petersen, Chair, Society of American Foresters Wilderness Working Group. Telephone: (503) 326-3644.

FEATURES

IJW

Article author and IJWmanaging editor John Hendee.


SOUL OF THE WILDERNESSA Wilderness Ethic for the Age of Cyberspace

BY RODERICK NASH

UST A FEW YEARS AGOan understandable measure-ment of the wildness of a

Jplace was its distance from thenearest telephone. But now,thanks to satellite-based com-munications technology, thephone has entered the forest.Moreover, battery-poweredminicomputers can link a wil-derness user to the World WideWeb (WWW). You literallycan’t get away from it all any-more. What are the implicationsof two-way communicationany place on the planet for thesoul of wilderness?

From one perspective wecan ask, what’s the big dealabout a little cellular phone

Article author Roderick Nash (left) standswith Magqubu Ntombela (center) and IanPlayer (right).

tucked into the side pocket of a backpack? What’s the prob-lem with saying goodnight to the kids before you climbinto your tent or checking on the Dow Jones average thenext morning? You still can’t get a pizza delivered in thewilderness. The person on the other end might listen to youas you become a pizza for a bear, but they can’t do muchabout it except to call the helicopter.

The starting point for determining if there is a problemhere is to realize that while instant two-way communica-tion with the outside does not damage the wilderness eco-system, it does impact heavily on the wilderness experience.A dilution of wildness occurs. Wilderness is not really a physi-cal place but a set of qualities associated by a visitor with aplace. It has to do with perception. Feelings matter.

So, for example, a pile of garbage alongside a trail or largenumbers of hikers using the trail can reduce the intensity ofwilderness and perhaps for some destroy it completely. Landmanagers have long recognized this fact. But even some-thing as seemingly innocuous as a trail sign can diminishwildness. I recall seeing one that stated “Lost Lake: 2.3 miles,”and thinking, well, it’s not lost anymore, and then under-standing that maybe it is important to have a few lakes thatare not fully known and where a person can still get lost—and, it may be, find themselves!

So delicate is the wilderness experience that it is vulner-able to seemingly insignificant disturbance. Just seeing a jetcontrail or hearing the sound of a distant freeway can tearthe delicate wilderness fabric apart for some visitors. I recallcamping with Ian Player and Magqubu Ntombela in South

Africa’s Umfolozi Game Reserve. By some criteria it was avery wild place. We had walked past wild rhinos and therewere hyenas crying, but I could also hear vehicles downshift-ing on a road grade three or four miles away. Those, I re-marked, were impalas of the Chevrolet kind. They were areminder of the outside civilized world, and they botheredme.

For just this reason, The Wilderness Act of 1964 madespecific reference to keeping designated lands free of thesights and sounds of civilization. Roads, mines, clearcuts, andcottages were the traditional enemies. But what if the sightsand sounds of civilization enter wilderness on your own pack?What if they descend a cyberspace stairway from the stars?

The starting point for addressing this issue is to recognizethat what makes wilderness valuable is its difference fromcivilization. To the extent that we close the gap, we diluteand ultimately destroy what is unique and valuable about awilderness experience. Sure the “outdoors” will remain, andit may be that our “wired” grandchildren will not miss theold, wild isolation at all. But before we let the wildness goout of wilderness, we had better think carefully about therole that uncontrolled, unknown, and mysterious places haveplayed in our physical and mental evolution. As WallaceStegner observed, something precious may go out of us as aspecies if we ever lose the opportunity for contact with realwilderness. Knowing too much about a place alters its es-sence. Bringing too much of civilization into wildernesschanges its character. Are we facing the death of discovery,of exploration? How should we regard the new communi-cation technologies?

I suggest starting by thinking about restraint and its rela-tion to wilderness preservation. The history of U.S. protec-tion of wild country began in the 1920s and 1930s with thedetermination by the U.S. Forest Service to keep roads outof designated environments. These so-called “roadless areas”later became the core of the 1964 National Wilderness Pres-ervation System. The point is that roads could have beenbuilt, but society opted to restrain itself in the interest ofprotecting the wilderness experience. In the 1960s it be-came increasingly apparent to managers that restraint wouldhave to be exercised also with regard to wilderness visitors.The concept of “carrying capacity” gained importance alongwith the realization that wilderness could be loved to death.The new management tool was the visitor quota (and theassociated wilderness permit), which were first applied toMt. Whitney in California and the Grand Canyon, both in1972. Filling out forms and going through waiting listsor lotteries, we learned another dimension of restraintwith regard to wilderness. Minimum-impact camping

FEATURES


procedures—part of a rising wilder-ness ethic—also indicated willingnessto accept restraint in the interest ofrespect for the wilderness experience.

The knowledge and communica-tions revolution as it concerned wil-derness began, in one sense, with themaking of maps. Classic wilderness wasterra incognita: the blank space on themap. For most of the 20th century therewere wild holes in the U.S. GeologicalSurvey’s effort to map the entire nationon its famous “topo” maps. I recall plan-ning one trip that was literally off thecharts. It was exciting to figure out theland for yourself; self-discovery is al-ways the sweetest. I sometimes told mystudents to leave the maps at home andignore the guidebooks and just go outand see what was around the bend. Thecompensation for the occasional navi-gational error was a heightened senseof wildness, and after all, aren’t risk, un-certainty, and self-reliance at the heartof the wilderness experience?

Around 1980 the last of the topo-graphic maps were released. If you hada big enough floor, you could lay outthe entire continent edge to edge. Itwas in one sense a great humanachievement, but something of the oldwild continent and of pioneering diedwith the filling in of those last blanks.And now we have satellite imagery that,as any reader of Tom Clancy novelsknows, can show a pack of cigarettesfrom outer space. You can obtain pho-tographs of every inch of the planet,

updated every few hours. Alaskan wil-derness defender Roger Kaye has notedthat computers, combined with remotesensing, allow prospective wildernessvisitors to order up and preview desti-nations, routes, and campsites. On theground, travelers can use a pocket-sizedGeographical Positioning System todetermine their exact latitude and lon-gitude, pinpointing a location withina few feet.

Still more invasive of the wildernessexperience, it seems to me, is two-waycommunication technology. Cellularphones work perfectly in many wil-derness areas today and are on the vergeof total planetary coverage. Computertechnology adds a new dimension.Using the WWW, adventure travelcompanies are actively marketingcyberspace “chats” between the bat-tery-powered laptop computers of ex-peditions in the field and living roomexplorers of virtual reality. You don’thave to go the wilderness anymore togo to the wilderness. But does whatyou find have anything to do with thewild?

Wilderness requires restraint: Theupshot of all this is that the potentialof communications technology to im-pact adversely on wilderness once againrequires the exercise of restraint. Mo-tor vehicles and airplanes have beenoutlawed, and it may be time to ex-tend the protective net. Possibly lan-guage should be added to The Wilder-ness Act, banning two-way communi-

cation technology along with mecha-nized transport. Alternatively we couldhope for voluntary cooperation—anew form of wilderness ethic. Mostpeople understand that a cellular phoneis inappropriate in a cathedral; howabout John Muir’s cathedral of the wil-derness? Outdoor educators, land man-agers, and wilderness guides can leadthe way here.

At Grand Canyon Dories, a wilder-ness-oriented outfitting company spe-cializing in river trips, we tell out gueststhat it’s different out here. Leave thecellular phone and the laptop at home.Conversely, if you want things to bejust as they are at home, stay at home.For at least two weeks respect the wil-derness and let the river be your infor-mation highway. Without this kind ofself-restraint we risk preserving wilder-ness that is no longer wild. IJW

RODERICK NASH is Professor Emeritus of historyand environmental studies at the University ofCalifornia–Santa Barbara. His book Wilderness andthe American Mind (third revised edition, 1982) isregarded as one of the foundations of the modernunderstanding and preservation of wilderness. Dr.Nash has also written The Rights of Nature: A His-tory of Environmental Ethics (1989), American Envi-ronmentalism (1989), and American Environmentalism(1990). He is a white-water river guide, with morethan 50 descents of the Colorado River throughthe Grand Canyon, and a founding partner of Offthe Beaten Track, a film company featuring thewilderness experience. He can be contacted at 4731Calle Reina, Santa Barbara, CA 93110, and P.O.Box 277, Crested Butte, CO 81224, USA.

The International Journal of Wilderness will have feature articles on a special country or region in each issue. Submis-sions are welcome to the managing editor for all related feature articles on international wilderness, or manuscriptsfor peer reviews on education, management, research, policy, and other topics. Future featured countries include:

Issue Need Submissions by Country

Volume Three, Issue One (10/96) AsiaMarch 1997

Volume Three, Issue Two (1/97) New ZealandJune 1997

Volume Three, Issue Three (4/97) AntarcticaSeptember 1997

Volume Three, Issue Four (7/97) South AmericaDecember 1997


MANAGING WILDERNESSIN PERPETUITY AND IN DEMOCRACY

BY ROGER KENNEDY

[Editor’s Note: During his tenure as head of the U.S. National Park Service, Director Kennedy has rekindledinterest and renewed the agency’s focus on wilderness. I JW is pleased to share some of Director Kennedy’sideas on this subject. —John C. Hendee]

ILDERNESSWRENCHEShumans out of

Article author and Director of the U.S. National ParkService Roger Kennedy. (Photo by Diana Walker.)

Wtheir habits and compla-cencies. The wildernessexperience is not one offinding a destination, but,instead, of being restoredfor a more effective return.Back from wilderness,Moses brought obliga-tions and rectifications ofbad habits; Jesus broughtback from wilderness astern repudiation of trib-alism and an assertion ofunity among all human-kind. From his wildernessvoyage, Darwin brought asense of the unity of expe-

rience among all species.We may go to wilderness in a state of inflation, but we

return in scale; very small, but very responsible. We are, ofcourse, responsible for ourselves, but, because we havememory and anticipation, we are also responsible for theconsequences of our actions upon other species.

The Best of the Very Best LandsAfter decades of priding itself on managing the best of thevery best of America’s public lands legacy, the National ParkService (NPS) was wrenched from its own sort of compla-cency by passage of The Wilderness Act in 1964. We hadbeen managing the best of the very best, as we thought andstill think, since 1864, or 1872, or 1916, depending on howyou account for such things. And then Congress announcedthat there was in fact a very best within the very best to bemanaged somehow differently. The NPS by no means leapedon the wilderness bandwagon, but from the first wildernessarea designation on national park lands in 1970 to passage ofthe California Desert Protection Act in 1994, designatedwilderness grew to become more than half of our NPS landbase. NPS management responsibility now extends to 40%of the entire National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS).We are not, nor can we afford to be, complacent about wil-derness management.

In 1964 when The Wilderness Act became law, the NPSwas still preoccupied with concluding Mission 66 and itsambitious program of rebuilding park infrastructures, afterthe serious budgetary neglect of park facilities during WorldWar II collided with the postwar surge in tourism. Wilder-ness stewardship was difficult then; it is likely to always be so.Today we face forces in the public arena that assert parks arenot worth the cost of maintaining them. These forces saythe places that we chose as our best places, these landscapesand shrines, places of wonder and reverence, these commongrounds of the common good are a needless expense. Theysay we cannot afford these places where we invite each otherto consider what it is about the United States in which wetake the greatest pride. We cannot afford, they say, placeswhere we consider what we are at our best.

And now as we move to become better stewards of ourwilderness areas, the NPS finds itself struggling to remindU.S. citizens and their representatives in Congress that theseplaces of wonder are also places of national pride. Land is asource of pride and passion in our culture. Yellowstone,Yosemite, and the Grand Canyon were established with thelanguage of patriotism. We live, so these acts of Congresscome true, in a land where such places exist, and we are apeople capable of reserving such places from exploitation.

Wilderness:Balancing Technology and ExploitationConcern for Yosemite and Yellowstone in 1864 and 1872was concern for wilderness, although it was not called thatthen. Protection for these areas reflected the U.S. citizens’concern for the best of their national public domain lands.We still care very deeply about this. Our concern is a reality,despite our apparent inclination to believe technology has alife of its own and develops without regard for our opinions.Few people speak against growth and expansion, yet a po-tent tide of environmental conservation has developed inthis century to slow the headlong rush of blind progress.This concern reflects not opposition to progress but rather adeep-seated uneasiness about how narrowly progress has beenconstrued. We care about some other things than making aliving. We have some values not governed by market forces.And this tension between U.S. citizens’ deep concern fortheir environment and the fatalistic rush to the myth ofprogress constitutes the dynamic in which wilderness stew-ardship takes place.

FEATURES


After the Civil War, railroads ex-panded western settlement and maderavenous eastern urban markets acces-sible to western natural and agricul-tural products. Federal public land lawsof this period encouraged the scandal-ous exploitation and abuse of the pub-lic domain. Approximately 50% of U.S.public forest lands passed into privateownership within a mere 15-year pe-riod, in a tremendous assault on thepublic good from 1863 to 1878. Thiswas truly a disgraceful era of land theftand resource exploitation, reflecting anextension of the political spoils systemto our public domain lands.

We can look back and see that theNational Park System and now theNWPS are, in part, reactions to exploi-tation and destruction of the publicdomain. Public uneasiness and disgustat the exploitation of natural resourceswas an important factor in PresidentTheodore Roosevelt’s progressive po-litical agenda that led to the establish-ment of national forests, wildlife ref-uges, national monuments, and otherprotected areas. However, it was thetravesty of invading Yosemite NationalPark in 1913 for a commercial hydro-electric power project that contributedto the establishment, by Congress, ofthe NPS in 1916. The NPS grew un-der the aggressive leadership of StephenMather, and later, his understudyHorace Albright, at a time when rec-reation and tourism development werebelieved to be entirely consistent withthe NPS Organic Act and unrecog-nized as impacts on wilderness. It wasonly with the legislation in the 1930sthat established Grand Teton and Ev-erglades National Park, and in the1940s, Kings Canyon National Park,that wilderness protection expresslymotivated national park establishment.

The tension between U.S. citizens’concern for its remnant public domainlands and acquiescence to the myth ofprogress changed even more signifi-cantly in the 1950s and 1960s. In themid-1950s, national park lands werethreatened by dam construction, justas with Hetch Hetchy in Yosemite, butthis time conservationists waged theirwar nationally. The plan to build the

Echo Park Dam within Dinosaur Na-tional Monument resulted in the firsttruly national campaign of conserva-tion groups working in close concert.In a coming of age for the U.S. con-servation movement, the dam proposalwas defeated, despite the powerfulcommercial, legislative, and bureau-cratic forces allied in favor of buildingit. Leading that conservation battlewere The Wilderness Society and theSierra Club. Rather than disband theircoalition and return to fighting isolatedconservation brush fires, the groupsopted in 1955 to redirect it to press forfederal legislation for wilderness pro-tection. As Roderick Nash has written,“the Echo Park victory gave promisethat statutory wilderness preservationmight be more than a dream.” Todaythere are more than 100 million acresof designated wilderness in the NWPS.This system lies at the heart of that deepand abiding concern of the U.S. publicto take care of those public lands towhom progress will show no mercy.

The NPS is in the heritage-keep-ing business. The heritage we keepembodies the entire gamut of humaninteractions with Earth, with so-callednature and culture, from wilderness atone end of the spectrum to intenseurbanism at the other. From Alaska’sGates of the Arctic that Bob Marshallso loved, to Philadelphia’s Indepen-dence Hall that symbolizes the heartof our great experiment in nationalself-government. The NPS is uniqueas a national entity for its mission topreserve the real places that exemplifythe whole of that treasured spectrumin perpetuity. We mean to do our bestwith our wilderness heritage too. Weknow and share with all other wilder-ness stewards the meaning and chal-lenge of a mission “in perpetuity.” Weare set for wilderness stewardship. Weare fully engaged with the interagencyArthur H. Carhart National WildernessLeadership Training Center and arerepresented on its staff. Our wildernesssteering committee is involved in mak-ing wilderness management part ofeveryday NPS business. This meansaddressing wilderness management asa training issue, funding issue, person-

nel management issue, social issue, and,therefore perhaps most importantly, aneducation issue. We are looking for thebest way to engage with the inter-agency Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute. We know the needfor wild areas and the recognition ofthat need most likely will grow, notdiminish.

We recognize that the story of wil-derness is the story of the United States,a story that serves as our link to thecommonalities of our many-storiednatural and cultural past. It is also a storythat will continue and evolve, so wemust not be complacent about thechallenges we face. Democratic gov-ernment is by its very nature always anexperiment “to be continued.”

The heart of our great experiment in national self-government.(Photo by Richard Frear, U.S. National Park Service.)

Land stewardship is notindependent from socialand political realities butentwined with our history,culture, politics, and faith.


WildernessFacing ChangeAs the United States’ democratic ex-periment changes and evolves, NationalPark Wilderness Stewardship will facethese changes:

1. Wilderness issues are shifting fromprimarily allocation (how many acresand where) to stewardship (seeing thewilderness condition perpetuate itself ).We will continue to press for park wil-derness designations, and we will con-tinue to manage all qualified lands aswilderness until such time as Congressacts on designation. We will also im-press our considerable land stewardshipexperience into the service of wilder-ness management. Land stewardship isnot independent from social and po-litical realities but entwined with ourhistory, culture, economy, politics, andfaith. Knowing this, we will reach outfor new partners to help educate U.S.citizens about both their legacy and thecontinuing need to steward the land.

2. Dramatic demographic changesin the West are and will influence wil-derness. The proportion of total U.S.

population living in the West has tripledsince 1950. Were the 20 counties in andadjacent to the Greater YellowstoneEcosystem a state, it would be thenation’s fastest growing state. We willapproach the stewardship of parklands,wilderness, and otherwise in ever morecollegial fashion. We want to lend ratherthan to insist on our expertise. Ratherthan play our cards close to our chests,we will try to give away all that weknow. And we recognize that manynew residents are now drawn to theWest more because of its wildlandscharacter than for its other, more tra-ditional economic possibilities.

3. The national population is aging,becoming more ethnically diverse, andgrowing in numbers. We will broad-cast the benefits of wilderness that ac-crue to people whether they visit wil-derness or not. We will seek out, learn,and carefully enfranchise the wildlandsconnections and heritage of ethnicgroups and hope to make them wil-derness partners and stakeholders. Wewill continuously examine our owncultural assumptions. We will aggres-sively impress upon wilderness usersthe “Leave No Trace” ethic (see articleby Ralph Swain in this issue) and othertypes of zero impact awareness. We willbecome apostles for sensitive, sustain-able environmental stewardship to allwho share park boundaries, live up-wind and upstream, or share the heri-tage vicariously through various me-dia. We can no longer merely wait forpeople to come to their parks beforewe press our case.

4. Public involvement in public landmanagement has increased greatly.When powerful opponents of wilder-ness at the 11th hour injected the re-view process into The Wilderness Act,they hoped to stymie the growth ofthe Wilderness System. Quite the op-posite happened. They motivated citi-zens to learn how to influence federaldecisionmaking and soon put an endto the old closed-committee mode ofthe Congress. The NPS appreciates thevoices of citizens as individuals andmembers of nonprofit organizations aswholesome expressions of the com-

mon good. Again, we will both shareour expertise with and work to edu-cate public involvement for wildernessallocation and management issues. Asproponents of biodiversity, we have noargument with a r ich mix at thegrassroots of politics.

5. The role of science is changing inthe United States, and this will affectwilderness stewardship. Since World WarII, scientists here began a half-centuryexpansion of their role in policy-making. Conservation biology and thenew forestry express this expansionismtoday, and limits-of-acceptable-change(LAC) management injects social sci-ence concepts into resource policy.Though increasing numbers of U.S.citizens now reject science and faith intechnology, and Congress is clearlyimpatient, we will continue to makeuse of the best available science to in-form our wilderness management de-cisions. And we will support responsiblescience in park wilderness.

These factors certainly will influ-ence NPS stewardship of wilderness aswell as its overall heritage-keepingmission. Indeed, the meaning and valueof that wilderness stewardship may wellbe challenged in the future just as weso recently witnessed challenges to thenational park idea itself. And to theextent that we let wilderness remainthe exclusive concern of a small cadreof professionals, aficionados, and today’swilderness user, we invite such chal-lenge. The same democracy that raisedthe wilderness system can also raze it!It is incumbent on the NPS then, asthe steward of 40% of the WildernessSystem, to reach out and make wilder-ness relevant to citizens in South Tuc-son, Miami’s Little Havana, St. Maries inIdaho, and East Harlem. Any steward-ship that asserts itself in perpetuity withinthe democratic framework, as The Wil-derness Act clearly mandates, must askand keep asking itself, “Who benefits?Who loses? Who has the power?” andperhaps most of all, “Who cares?”

In the NPS, I assure you, we posethat question as “Who else cares?” Forwe do care about wilderness. Had wenot cared, and deeply, about wilderness,

Toroweap Overlook in Grand Canyon National Park—estalishedwith the language of patriotism. (Photo courtesy U.S. NationalPark Service.)


we could not now be charged withmanaging so much wilderness land.

Wilderness wrenches us out of com-placency about constituents and part-ners. We are and we will reach out andforge partnerships with wilderness-re-lated industry, wilderness educators, andenvironmental nonprofit and nongov-ernmental organizations. We have manypotential allies, but we need better waysand many other places besides our parksto reach them. We must bring new re-cruits to the cause, beginning withmany of our fellow and sister citizenswho have, in their way, been part ofour alliance all along, but who have notheard much from us, to invite them tojoin us. Why should we do this? Whocares? Who are our caring allies? Andwho should be our caring allies? Thereality is that all around us are citizenswho should be with us in this greatventure.

We humans believe ourselves to beimportant but not all-important. Eventhe most secular of conservationistswould admit, I think, that they oftenfeel humbled in the presence of wil-derness. This feeling goes beyond aweto reverence. Humans, in the religioustradition, are not the only significantspecies on Earth. Our orchards, farms,and woodlots are not the only placesworthy of respect. All of the more-than-human world is worthy of respect. TheWilderness Act is the legislative expres-sion of that respectful idea, that outsideour cultural constructs there are formsof life deserving our due regard. This isthe heart of ecosystem management.

What better platform than wilder-ness, then, do we have for both thepractice and the preaching of ecosys-tem management? And in several in-stances now, designated wilderness innational parks lies at the innermostprotected core of Biosphere Reservesand World Heritage Sites. What betterplatform than such well situated wil-derness could we ourselves have devisedfor the practice and the preaching ofthe most far-reaching and all encom-passing passages of our holistic heri-tage-keeping gospel?

What does it mean that the U.S.public has considered it important toembed wilderness in national parks, and

national parks in biosphere reserves, andbiosphere reserves in World HeritageSites? And now to embed all these ex-pressions of our heritage within desig-nated ecosystems, the better to realizea maximum quality of life, and not justphysical life, but psychological, emo-tional, and spiritual too? I hope youshare with me the feeling that thismeans we the people are still gettingbetter at the pursuit of happiness.

The high moments of history havecome not when humans were mostconcerned with the comforts and dis-plays of the flesh but when their spiritwas moved to grow in grace. What weneed more of, perhaps, is an ethic andaesthetic under which humans, prac-ticing the qualities of prudence andmoderation, may indeed pass on toposterity a good earth, a diversity ofwilderness.

All of us can grow in grace fromthe wilderness, and we can practice

wilderness management with the pru-dence and moderation needed to passon our amazing wilderness posterityto our children and grandchildren. Thatis the burden and challenge of TheWilderness Act. George Perkins Marshput this in perspective, in talking abouthis own book, Man and Nature, publishedin 1864, the same year Abraham Lin-coln signed the Yosemite cession into law,the book that placed our culture on apath of environmental consciousness:“The whole force of Man and Naturelies in its assumption that the welfareof future generations matters more thanany immediate consideration.” TheNWPS exists in this same spirit, and itextends Marsh’s assumption to enfran-chise all creatures with whom we shareEarth. It is fully within the mission andculture of the NPS to promulgate thatspirit in perpetuity—in wilderness! IJWROGER KENNEDY is director of the National ParkService.

Grand Teton National Park—established for wilderness preservation. (Photo courtesy U.S. National Park Service.)

… this tension between U.S. citizens’ deep concernfor their environment and the fatalistic rush to the mythof progress constitutes the dynamic in which wildernessstewardship takes place.


GRANDFATHER MOUNTAIN—A Private U.S. Wilderness Experiment

BY RANDY JOHNSON

N 1978 THE LOFTIEST, MOST SPECTACULARpeak in the southern Appalachian range of the Blue RidgeMountains was on the verge of having restricted access to

A winter camper stands on a promontory rock outcropping on Grandfather Mountainin North Carolina. (Photo by Randy Johnson.)

Ithe growing hordes of hikers on the mountain’s summit ridge.“Carolina’s Top Scenic Attraction” boasted awesome viewsand eventually an “Environmental Habitat” exhibit of sub-tly enclosed black bears, cougars, deer, and once-woundedflightless eagles.

Like thousands of hikers lured to the woods by the 1960sand 1970s backpacking boom, I discovered GrandfatherMountain while searching the southern Appalachians forscenic grandeur. I drove up the summit road, but instead oftraversing the tourist bridge, I was lured across the alpinecrest of the peak on the Grandfather Trail, romanticallydubbed the “Trail of Thirteen Ladders” for the wooden rungsthat help hikers up sheer cliffs.

I returned often, inspired by the nearly vertical mile viewthat plummets down the greatest drop of the Blue Ridgeescarpment. The vista is so memorable that after a climb justover 200 years ago, legendary early Appalachian explorerAndre Michuax sang the Marseilles and proclaimed the peak“the highest mountain in all North America.”

The Public Becomes a ProblemThen on a visit in 1977, I encountered “No Trespassing”signs. On a trip south from New Hampshire, where I wasconducting wilderness management research with the U.S.Forest Service (USFS) and Appalachian Mountain Club, Istarted a hike up the mountain and met a security guard; ahiker had died of hypothermia. Since management was un-certain about how to ensure public safety on its rugged,volunteer-maintained trails, hiking was being discouraged.If you did hike, a fee had to be paid at the entrance gate tothe tourist area, a 12-mile round-trip away. I paid the fee,departed with a cash register receipt marked “hiking pass,”and headed up the eroding trail with the decided feelingthat I wasn’t welcome.

No wonder hikers required the presence of a securityguard to even consider paying the fee. The entire situationcontrasted starkly with my New England research site wherebackpackers gladly paid camping fees to stay at caretaker-maintained backcountry tent sites. I decided to do somethingabout it. My emerging professional orientation to the wilder-ness, and an awe-inspired sense of responsibility to this mar-velous mountain, was propelling me into involvement.

Six months later, I was back at Grandfather Mountain asan idealistic young trail steward, about to encounter the en-tire spectrum of issues that surround the unusual task ofmanaging a private wilderness. Not the least of those uniquequandaries was how to institute user fees. After a meetingwith owner Hugh Morton, I was hired to manage the wil-derness tract and specifically to implement a user fee pro-gram that I assured him would work. Ideally, we’d breakeven (which didn’t seem unlikely on my salary) and at thesame time, reclaim the mountain’s declining trail network.

Hiking Permits and FeesAn immediate face-lift was needed in the fee program tocreate a more positive impression and earn public support.Hikers, perhaps more than most people, bridle at the notionthat a private individual could own a mountain, much lessexploit its scenic beauty for profit. That was especially truegiven the mountain’s image as a “developed” tourist attrac-tion where humans and machine had obviously, it seemed,triumphed over preservation.



From the beginning, new trailheadsigning was installed to contrast themountain with nearby public lands.Hikers were told that the cost of theirhiking permit wasn’t an entrancecharge, but a use fee intended to de-fray the costs of new efforts to safelyand soundly accommodate public use.“Lacking public funds, isn’t it worth afew bucks to insure public access andpreservation of private land?” trailheadsigning asked.

Further, hidden environmental pro-tection benefits of the mountain’s man-agement were pointed out in literallythousands of personal conversationswith hikers. I often contrasted publicparks with the Grandfather Mountainexperiment in conversations with oc-casionally argumentative environmen-talists. I could point out that MountMitchell, a nearby state park cappingthe highest summit in eastern NorthAmerica, had a road all the way to alarge parking area to access a tower onthe summit. Yet on Grandfather, a pri-vate owner built a road only to the firstand lowest peak of the mountain, en-suring that the highest peaks and theheart of the mountain’s wilderness ispreserved. Such protection along withthe creation and maintenance of hik-ing trails open to the public were a keyto selling the hiking permit and feeprogram. Federal agencies sell trailmaps to popular areas for about theprice of a Grandfather Mountain hikingpermit, so hikers were given a highquality map free when they bought atrail pass.

Part of the support that was eventu-ally garnered for Grandfather’s new trailprogram was the fact the motivationbehind the improvements was obvi-ously based on the same “wildernist”values exhibited in the management ofpublic lands. Back- country campsiteswere designated with preservation andsolitude (party privacy) in mind, camp-fires were restricted at sensitive sites,new trails intelligently dispersed use,and aggressively high standards of trailmaintenance were evident everywhere.When a half century-old backpackingshelter was discovered, it was rebuilt anddedicated to the original Boy Scoutbuilders. Interpretive signing touted the

Hikers on the Grandfather Mountain Profile Trail(above). An old rotting D. Boone Scout Trail sign in thesnow in 1978 (right). (Photos by Randy Johnson.)

Scouts’ early volunteerism as a precur-sor of the ethic embodied by the hik-ing permit program. Other changeseased acceptance of the new fees. Thetrail pass became a safety registrationform instead of a cash register receipt.Permit outlets were moved adjacent totrailheads and made available at out-door shops that became allies in theeffort. Part-time help increased trailcoverage, and a volunteer program for-malized use of unfunded labor.

Research Lends a HandResearch activities became an integralpart of management. I was at first sur-prised that natural science researchers,like some hikers, somehow seemed tobelieve that private ownership taintedeither the mountain’s status as a natu-ral area or its suitability for study.Though reluctant at first, researchersof many kinds were eventually enticedto launch studies on the mountain. Thefirst of these deliberately informed rec-reation management decisions andhelped convince hikers that collectingfees didn’t preclude collecting data, es-pecially when the effort was intendedto provide information to protect theresource.

Eventually, hikers enthusiasticallycame to support the program. Hikerscouldn’t help but see that the hikingfees were paying for improvements tothe trails. That interpretation was bol-stered in 1985 with research conductedat Grandfather Mountain and thenearby Linville Gorge, a USFS man-aged federally designated wildernessarea. Findings by William Leuschner,Phillip S. Cook, Joseph W. Roggenbuck,and Richard G. Oderwald of VirginiaPolytechnic Institute strongly exempli-fied the notion that hikers would sup-port trail fees if the alternative was dete-rioration of the wilderness. The research,published in the influential Journal ofLeisure Research in 1987, noted that alarge number of the hikers sampled hadused both areas and that the similari-ties in ruggedness and wilderness char-acter argued strongly for their beingconsidered largely equivalent recreationsettings, despite the user fee at the pri-vate site. Furthermore, the studyshowed that users of both areas dis-played the kind of socioeconomic char-acteristics that the literature suggests


typify wilderness users. Though feesfound more support among those whohad paid to use Grandfather Moun-tain, both groups of hikers strongly sup-ported fees if paying them would pre-vent the deterioration of the area.

Obviously, dedicating the fees col-lected to support the wilderness pro-gram was the critical factor leading toa surprisingly high level of support forthe program just seven years after it wasimplemented. No wonder that todaythe ability to dedicate fees to the parkwhere they’re generated is regarded asa key element in any plan to imple-ment recreation fees. At Grandfatherjust such a program sparked a 98% feecompliance rate during the time thestudy was taking place.

Research on the mountain beganto approach the kind of studies usuallyonly conducted in the most notewor-thy public parks. A wealth of studiesled to discoveries of endangered spe-cies of bats and squirrels on Grandfa-ther. Later, the cave was gated and atrail was closed to protect the bats. Thesouthern Appalachians’ first reintroduc-tion of the peregrine falcon took placeon the peak, a project that succeededin part due to the commitment of themountain and its staff. Over the years,thousands of hours of labor by Grand-father Mountain employees have aidedacademic and applied researchers in avariety of fields.

The Hiking ProgramMeets the ParkwayHikers continued to see the mountain’senvironmental image improve. In 1987,the wilderness program at Grandfatheralso benefited from another decisionthat protected the mountaintop. Afterdecades of controversy with the Na-tional Park Service concerning wherethe final uncompleted portion of theBlue Ridge Parkway would cross theflank of Grandfather Mountain, theroad was finally completed on a lowerroute that was encouraged by HughMorton. Certainly the lower locationprotected the appeal of his “Mile-HighSwinging Bridge” attraction, as somecynics noted, but it also further pro-tected the mountain’s backcountry—a fact that ecominded hikers could onlyapplaud. For his amicable settlement ofthe controversy, Hugh Morton receiveda National Park Service award.

The delay created by the contro-versy led directly to the availability ofbridging technology that itself greatlyminimized the impact of the road. In-stead of requiring a huge road cut acrossthe fragile Black Rock Cliffs, wherethe road was proposed and where agated cave protected endangered bats,a lower road location was negotiated.The road soared out away from therocks on the S-shaped curve of theLinn Cove Viaduct, an innovative, com-puter-designed span.

Helping toFocus the FutureIn the early years of the permit system,Hugh Morton worried that makingtoo much of the hiking opportunitiesat Grandfather might deter the moresedentary. He felt the mass of visitors,now about a quarter million a year,needed to be assured that their entrancefees would guarantee an effortless strollover the Swinging Bridge. Less thantwo decades later, it is the aura of wildand preserved wilderness, not to men-tion the lure of trails, that inspires evenless active travelers. In essence, the suc-cess of private land wilderness preserva-tion at Grandfather Mountain was duepartly to the convergence of tourismand environmentalism that has recentlybecome so visible. At Grandfather, thetrend was being born years before thecoining of the term “ecotourism.”

Support ofWilderness User FeesBaby boomers throughout the worldhave become travelers who are morethan willing to pay for play, especiallywhen it’s in the outdoors and even inwilderness. That has made a success outof fee systems on public and privateland. Fee-based alpine and backcountryhostels welcome hikers in Europe, NewHampshire’s White Mountains, and onMount LeConte in the Great Smokies.In Colorado, skiers, hikers, and moun-tain bikers have fed the growth of hutsystems in the Vail and Aspen areas. Pri-vate conservation organizations havealso adopted fees for use, such as theNational Audubon Society and theNature Conservancy, where they stew-ard land resources and charges are ap-propriate and needed. They’ve adoptedtrail fees when public access createsadded costs. In fact, to ensure the pres-ervation of the Grandfather Mountainbackcountry, the Nature Conservancywas granted preservation easements tothe bulk of the mountain in the early1990s. Hawk Mountain Sanctuary inPennsylvania and the Mowhonk Pre-serve in New York are other privateland parcels where fees support pres-ervation and recreation programs.

A car on the Blue Ridge Parkway viaduct on Grandfather Mountain. (Photo by Randy Johnson.)


To many proponents though, thetrend to fees seems hopelessly miredbecause politicians seem reticent toexplore new trail and entrance fees.Even within North Carolina, whereper capita taxpayer expenditure for stateparks ranks near the bottom in the na-tion, proponents of the state’s sparselydeveloped park system have vehe-mently fought fees. Just MountMitchell State Park, atop the East’shighest peak (at nearly 7,000 feet), is asingle access area where even a smallauto entrance fee could defray parkcosts and send hundreds of thousandsof dollars on to other parks. But theGrandfather Mountain experience isn’tan argument for selling wilderness ar-eas to private concerns. Nevertheless,it is evidence that the sense of respon-sibility created by economic involve-

ment can indeed be tapped for the pres-ervation of wildlands.

The user fee dynamic has implica-tions in both directions, for visitors andmanagers. As a direct source of revenue,hikers become customers. At Grand-father, most seem to appreciate that sta-tus, as well as the higher standard oftrail maintenance and constructionmade possible by their fees. No onewould support ending governmentfunding for parks and leaving parks atthe mercy of the fees they can collect.But a fee component in a park’s fund-ing certainly won’t hurt the awarenessof government employees that the pub-lic is paying the bills, a connection notalways easy to keep in mind when theexperience is “free.”

Fee systems might still seem unsa-vory to some wilderness preservation-

ists or be considered an unknown tosome managers and politicians. Nev-ertheless, years of experience at Grand-father Mountain show that when wil-derness protection and managementare balanced against the acceptabilityof user fees, hikers indeed can see theforest through the trees. IJW

RANDY JOHNSON was backcountry manager atGrandfather Mountain from 1978 to 1990 whenhe left to focus on a career as a freelance photo-journalist. Today, he divides his time betweenGreensboro, North Carolina, where he is senioreditor at United Airlines award-winning magazineHemispheres, and his home at the base of Grandfa-ther Mountain in Banner Elk. He writes widelyabout the outdoors: His new book is Hiking NorthCarolina (Falcon Press, 1996). Contact Randy at1301 Carolina Street, Greensboro, NC 27401, USA.Telephone: (910) 378-6065; e-mail: [email protected].

ReferencesGould Jr., Ernest M, and R. Johnson. 1995. Facingoff over wilderness user fees. Appalachia, The Bulle-tin of the Appalachian Mountain Club, 51 (2): 8–10.

Johnson, Randy. 1988. The Grandfather experiment.American Forests Magazine, 89 (10): 22–27, 54–55.

.1996. Hiking North Carolina. Helena,Mont.: Falcon Press, 69–90.

.1995. The other side of the mountain. TheState Magazine, 53 (4): 10–12, 37.

. 1991. Pay to play: A rationale for user fees.American Forests Magazine, 97 (3 and 4): 52–55, 72,73.

Leuschner, William A., Philip S. Cook, Joseph W.Roggenbuck, and Richard G. Olderwald. 1987. A

comparative analysis for wilderness user fee policy.Journal of Leisure Research, 19 (2): 101–114.

Tipton, Ron, and Randy Johnson. 1994. Back-packer forum: price hikes/you get what you payfor. Backpacker Magazine, 12 (4): 36–42.

Wilderness Lectureships Available Now

For a short history, current critique, and future vision for wilderness in the four federal land management agencies, thefollowing Wilderness Resource Distinguished Lectures are available for $4.00 each. Write to the University of IdahoWilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho 83844-1144:

1. William A. Worf. Wilderness Watch: A Vision for Wilderness in the National Forests. April 1992.

2. Roger Contor. A Vision for Wilderness in the National Parks. December 1992.

3. Bill Reffalt. A Vision for Wilderness in the National Wildlife Refuge System. March 1994.

4. Jon Roush. A Vision for Wilderness in the Nation. February 1995.

5. Michael Dombeck. Wilderness Management of Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management:Past, Present, and Future. February 1995.


WILDERNESS RECREATIONIN THE UNITED STATES—

Trends in Use, Users, and Impacts

BY DAVID N. COLE

Abstract: Recreation use of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) has increased sixfoldsince passage of The Wilderness Act in 1964. Use is currently increasing in most designated wildernessareas. However, the wilderness visitors of today, the trips they take, and their management preferences arenot very different from those of a decade or two ago. Some of the impacts of recreation use are stable, whileothers are worsening. Impacts to a maintained wilderness trail system were found to be relatively stable overan 11-year period. Conditions on long-established campsites only deteriorated slightly over 5- to 11-yearperiods. However, aggregate campsite impact has increased greatly due to dramatic increases in thenumber of campsites (53 to 123% increases in the wilderness areas studied). These findings suggest thatproblems with wilderness recreation are pronounced and increasing. More investment by management andcommitment to dealing with problems is needed to meet wilderness recreation management goals.

T HAS BEEN MORE THAN 30 YEARS SINCEcreation of the NWPS in the United States. That sys-tem, originally comprising 54 wilderness areas and 9

Imillion acres, has changed substantially. Both the number ofwilderness areas and acreage of wilderness have increasedmore than elevenfold. The diversity of areas designated aswilderness has also increased. The largest wilderness,Wrangell-Saint Elias in Alaska, is almost as large as the entireoriginal wilderness system. The smallest wilderness, OregonIslands, at 5 acres, is more than 1,000 times smaller than thesmallest wilderness initially included in the NWPS. Wilder-ness is no longer so highly concentrated in the West and inthe high mountains. Designated wilderness is found in allbut six states and contains about 60% of the basic ecosystemtypes found in the United States (Davis 1989).

Although these changes in the size and extent of the wil-derness system can be readily described, relatively little in-formation is available about change in the use, users, andcondition of designated wilderness areas. Recreation use, inparticular, has been a prominent use in many wildernessareas for more than half a century. We need a better under-standing about trends in recreation use, recreation users, andthe physical impacts they cause. This information would al-low managers to grapple more effectively with current man-agement issues and plan for the future.

Over the past seven years a coordinated series of studieshas been conducted, designed to increase understanding ofwilderness recreation trends. Wilderness recreation use datawas analyzed over a period from 1965 through 1994 (Cole1996). Utilizing case studies in four wilderness areas and anational park, trends in campsite conditions (Cole and Hall1992; Cole 1993) and trail conditions (Cole 1991) were as-sessed over periods of 5 to 16 years. Finally, using case stud-ies from three wilderness areas, trends in wilderness visitorcharacteristics over periods of 12 to 22 years (Cole et al.1995) were assessed.

Together these studies provide the most complete pic-ture to date of recreation trends in wilderness since creationof the NWPS. The purpose of this article is to review andintegrate the findings of these studies.

Trends in Amount of Wilderness UseVisitor-use data available from the four agencies that man-age wilderness (U.S. Forest Service [USFS], National ParkService [NPS], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], andBureau of Land Management [BLM]), vary in quality, unitsof measure, and length and frequency of record. Using datafrom a variety of sources, as well as conversion factors de-fined in Cole (1996), estimates suggest that recreation use ofwilderness has increased about sixfold since passage of TheWilderness Act, from about 3 million recreation visitor-days(RVDs) in 1965 to about 17 million RVDs in 1994 (seeTable 1). Most of this increase in use is the result of addi-tional acreage of wilderness being designated. Recreationuse of the original 54 wilderness areas increased 86% be-tween 1965 and 1994 (from about 3 million RVDs to about5.5 million RVDs). The remaining 11.5 million RVDs ofwilderness use in 1994 come from wilderness areas desig-nated since 1964.

The questions of most relevance to wilderness managersare whether recreation use of individual wilderness areashas increased in the past and is likely to increase in the fu-ture. The answer to both questions appears to be “yes.” Visi-tor-use data clearly indicate that (1) use increased almosteverywhere during the 1960s and early 1970s, (2) use hasbeen increasing substantially during the 1990s in most wil-derness areas, and (3) virtually without exception, use ofindividual wilderness areas is greater now than it was in 1964.In many wilderness areas, however, use levels were stable ordeclining during the late 1970s and 1980s (Lucas 1989).

These trends are most clear when presented for the 54



USFS wildernesses designated in 1964and the 58 NPS wilderness areas andmajor parks likely to be designated wil-derness (see Table 1). In these 112“core” areas, annual increases in usetypically exceeded 10% in the 1960sand early 1970s. In the NPS areas, an-nual increases in use have exceeded10% dur ing the 1990s as well.Throughout the rest of the NWPS, usehas been increasing during the 1990sbut more slowly than in the nationalparks. The anomaly is the period ofstable or declining use of the 112 coreareas during the late 1970s and 1980s,originally reported by Lucas (1989).Was this a widespread trend? Did itoccur in the hundreds of other wil-derness areas designated since 1964?And should we expect similar cyclesof declining use in the future?

None of these questions can be an-swered definitively. However, it appearsthat relatively few individual wilder-ness areas experienced substantial de-clines in use—even during the late1970s and 1980s. Over 80% of the de-cline in use between 1976 and 1989 inthe 112 core areas occurred in just fiveextremely popular national parks:Yosemite, Sequoia-Kings Canyon,Olympic, Great Smoky Mountains, andShenandoah. Many core areas did notexperience declining use during thisperiod. For the entire NWPS, only 11%of wilderness areas experienced peakuse prior to the 1980s.

Overall, these data suggest that rec-reation use of wilderness has increasedgreatly since 1964 and that use of manywilderness areas has accelerated dur-ing the 1990s. Use trends vary dramati-cally from area to area. Certain wilder-ness areas, particularly some of the mostheavily used wilderness areas, experi-ence pronounced cycles of growth anddecline in recreation use, while slowand steady growth appears character-istic of the vast majority of areas.

Trends in WildernessVisitors and VisitsEarly surveys of wilderness visitors tothe Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wil-derness, Minnesota; the Shining RockWilderness, North Carolina; and the

Desolation Wilderness, California, werereplicated in 1990 and 1991. The de-tails and results of these studies are de-scribed in Cole and others (1995) andsummarized by Cook and Borrie(1995) in an earlier article on trendspublished in this journal. Prior to thiswork, the only detailed longitudinalstudy of wilderness visitors was con-ducted by Lucas (1985) in the BobMarshall Wilderness, Montana.

The principal finding of these stud-ies is that most variables have notchanged dramatically over time, and formost of those variables that havechanged, trends are not consistentamong different wilderness areas. Only5 of 63 variables changed substantiallyand consistently across areas. Three ofthese strong consistent trends aresociodemographic variables. The typi-cal wilderness visitor of today is older(35 to 40) and more highly educated(40 to 50% with some graduate study)than the typical visitor of the past. Theproportion of female visitors also in-

creased to 20 to 34% in 1990. The pro-portion of visitors who had visitedwilderness areas other than the onethey were currently visiting also in-creased, and visitor assessments of theseverity of litter problems declined.

Much speculation about wildernessvisitor trends has focused on charac-teristics of the wilderness visit, such aslength of stay and group size (e.g.,Roggenbuck and Watson 1988), but nowilderness visit characteristics changedsubstantially and consistently. However,there is some evidence of subtlechanges: more solo visitors and fewerorganized groups, slightly smallergroups, and shorter stays. Trend studieswill be needed in more areas if we areto decide whether these are real, con-sistent trends. Nevertheless, studies sug-gest that these changes—even if theyare real—are not dramatic. In contrastto Lucas’s (1985) optimistic conclusionsbased on his study in the Bob MarshallWilderness, we found no evidence thatthe impact potential of users has

Table 1: Recreational use of the USFS wilderness and primitive areas inhuman-days (prior to 1965) and of the NWPS in RVDs (since 1965).

Year Recreation Use Average Annual ChangeThousands Percent

1946 406 —1955 1,175 12.51964 2,872 10.41965 2,952 —1972 5,246 8.61979 8,843 7.81989 14,801 5.41994 16,988 2.8

Eagle Cap Bob Marshall Grand Canyon1979 1990 1981 1990 1984 1989

Campsite Area (ft2) 2077 2217 2831 3391 549 538Damaged Trees (#) 11 10 18 17 — —Vegetation Cover (%) 15 19 33 42 1 7Mineral Soil Cover (%) 33 44 14 11 94 84

Table 2: Changes in mean conditions on campsites in Eagle Cap Wilder-ness, Bob Marshall Wilderness, and Grand Canyon National Park.


declined or that use has shifted frommore consumptive activities to morecontemplative activities.

Visitor evaluations of wildernessconditions and their management pref-erences have been highly stable overtime. The vast majority of visitors areextremely satisfied with their wilder-ness visits and rate trip quality as verygood. There is no clear evidence thattoday’s wilderness visitor is any moreor less tolerant of encounters withother groups than their predecessors.

Of the management preferences thatwere assessed, the clearest trend was adecline in purist attitudes regardingtrails. Support for high-standard trails,for building bridges over creeks (wherebridges are needed only to keep feetfrom getting wet), and for administra-tive use of chain saws to clear trails in-creased, while support for low-standard

they take, and their management pref-erences are not much different fromthose of a decade or two ago. This sug-gests that if managers can understandtheir visitors and develop effective rec-reation management strategies, thisknowledge and these programs can beused for substantial periods of time.Unfortunately, wilderness visitor stud-ies have been conducted in only a smallproportion of wilderness areas(Roggenbuck and Lucas 1987), andrecreation management programs aremore likely to be reactive than proac-tive or interactive (Cole 1990).

Trends in the Conditionof Wilderness TrailsEven if visitor characteristics remainrelatively unchanged, if visitors arecoming in greater numbers, we mightexpect their ecological impacts to in-crease. It is also possible that impactlevels could increase or decrease as aresult of changes in per capita impact,changes in use distribution, the cumu-lative effects of use over time, orchanges in management.

The condition of three trail systemsin the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness,Montana, were assessed in 1978 andagain in 1989 to determine change(Cole 1991). Mean cross-sectional areaof the trails (an indicator of erosion)did not change significantly over thisper iod. Individual trail locationschanged, and some eroded while oth-ers experienced deposition, but therewas no net change. This corroboratesthe finding of the only other study ofchange to a trail system, a study con-ducted in Guadalupe Mountains Na-tional Park, Texas (Fish et al. 1981).

Although impact levels on the trailsystem as a whole did not change, manytrail segments deteriorated markedly.This suggests that managers should fo-cus on specific problem segments ratherthan on trails or trail systems. Of thefactors that determine the probabilitythat a trail will deteriorate, there isabundant evidence that use character-istics are least important (Helgath 1975;Summer 1986).

The factors that most influence trailconditions are trail location and design.

The condition of highly impacted, long-established campsites typically changes little over time. (Photo by Leopold Institute.)

Visitor evaluations of wilderness conditions and theirmanagement preferences have been highly stableover time. The vast majority of visitors are extremelysatisfied with their wilderness visits and rate trip qualityas very good.

trails and leaving a few trees blowndown across the trail decreased.

Trends in attitudes about the desir-ability of actions that enhance the natu-ralness of wilderness ecosystems variedamong ecosystem attributes. In visitorsurveys conducted in the late 1960s andearly 1970s, both lightning fires and anatural fishery (no stocking and notampering with barren lakes) were con-sidered undesirable by two- to three-times as many people as consideredthem desirable. By 1990, the vast ma-

jority of visitors still considered a natu-ral fishery to be undesirable while amajority supported natural fire. Thissuggests that visitors may only supportthe goal of preserving natural condi-tions if it does not disrupt their pre-ferred activities.

Overall, these studies indicate thatthe wilderness visitors of today, the trips


The principal solutions to trail prob-lems involve increasing the trail’s ca-pacity to withstand use (through im-proved design and engineering) orchanging the location of the trail to onethat is more capable of withstanding use(see Leung and Marion 1996 for review).Both of these are common practices. Thissuggests that wilderness managers knowhow to manage trails, they just lack thefunds and other resources to deal withthe many trail problems that exist.

Trends in the Conditionof Wilderness CampsitesLevels of campsite impact can changeas a result of either changes in the con-dition of established sites or changesin the number and distribution of sites.To evaluate the first of these compo-nents of change, a sample of establishedcampsites was studied in the Eagle CapWilderness, Oregon (over an 11-yearperiod), the Bob Marshall Wilderness,Montana (9-year period), and GrandCanyon National Park, Arizona (5-yearperiod). To evaluate the second com-ponent of change, inventories of allcampsites within portions of the LeeMetcalf Wilderness, Montana (over a16-year period), the Eagle Cap Wilder-ness, Oregon (15-year period), and theSelway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Montana(12-year period), were conducted.

In the assessment of individualcampsites, we found tremendous varia-tion in amount of change, both be-tween and within campsites (Cole andHall 1992). Certain campsites improved,while others deteriorated, and otherswere relatively unchanged. In many cases,one type of impact increased on an in-dividual site, while another type of im-pact decreased on the same site. Overall,the mean response was one of slight de-terioration (see Table 2).

This finding suggests that there islittle reason to be overly optimistic orpessimistic about the future conditionof long-established campsites. Contin-ued use of these sites may cause someadditional damage, but the amount ofadditional deterioration is likely to below in comparison to the deteriora-tion that has already occurred. On theother hand, there is little evidence that

human attempts to mitigate campsiteimpact have been very effective.

Changes in the number of campsiteswere much more pronounced and sug-gest the need for management action.In three studied wilderness areas thenumber of campsites increased markedly:53% in the Selway-Bitterroot, 84% inthe Lee Metcalf, and 123% in the EagleCap (Cole 1993). If these areas are typi-cal of wilderness, they suggest that camp-site impact has increased greatly over thepast decade or two, primarily from thecreation of new campsites rather thanthe deterioration of existing sites.

Many factors may have contributedto the dramatic proliferation of camp-site impact. However, I believe thatproliferation is primarily a result of (1)an increase in site-pioneering behav-ior by visitors, in many cases with theencouragement of managers, and (2)management programs that do little toattempt to decrease the number of camp-sites. Management programs explicitlyencourage site-pioneering when theypromote use dispersal; they implicitlyencourage site-pioneering with manylow-impact camping suggestions. Theyare passive when they do little to en-courage use of existing sites and do notattempt to naturalize campsites that arein the early stages of development.

Conclusionsand ImplicationsGiven the substantial changes that haveoccurred in the NWPS, it is somewhatsurprising that there have not beenmore profound changes in the natureand amount of recreation use and itsimpact on the wilderness environment.Nevertheless, although wilderness visi-tors themselves are little changed,amount of use continues to increase.There is every reason to think that useintensity will continue to increase inmost wilderness areas in the future. Thepopulation of the United States con-tinues to grow, as does the migrationof people to the portions of the UnitedStates with the most wilderness. Thenature of recreation management prob-lems is unlikely to change greatly inthe short-term, but in the absence ofmore effective management strategiesor the allocation of more resources toexisting management programs, theseverity of traditional problems is likelyto continue to increase.

Of the problems I assessed, camp-site proliferation is the one that hasintensified the most. Trail impacts areprobably not as severe as they mightbe because substantial sums of moneyare regularly spent on trail maintenance.

Among the primary causes of increasing impact problems are increases in visitation to remote places and increases in site-pioneering behavior. (Photo by Leopold Institute.)


Similarly, wilderness rangers often giveconsiderable attention to contacting visi-tors and cleaning up after them on es-tablished campsites. While these manage-ment efforts need to be continued, moreattention needs to be directed toward theproblem of campsite proliferation.

The primary tools for combatingproliferation are site designation, siterestoration, visitor education and, insome places, use limitation. In popularplaces, management needs (1) to dis-courage campers from developing newsites, either by allowing camping onlyon designated sites or by encouraginguse of established sites, and 2) to reha-bilitate “excess” campsites and sites thathave never been heavily impacted. Inheavily used wilderness areas, use lim-its will increase the likelihood that theseefforts will succeed, because fewercampsites will be needed. In remoteportions of wilderness, managementneeds to encourage campers to “leaveno trace” (Hampton and Cole 1995)(see also article by Swain in this issueof IJW ) and to use sites that have notbeen used before. Here as well, use lim-its may increase the likelihood of suc-cess, because individual sites will be lessfrequently used. Again, restoration of allsites in these places must be a key com-

ponent of the management program.Crowding problems are also likely

to intensify if use of wilderness con-tinues to increase and visitors’ toleranceof encounters remains stable. Becauseattempts to disperse use more widely—one of the proposed solutions tocrowding (Hendee et al. 1990)—aggra-vate impact proliferation problems, thealternative of use limitation may beimplemented in more wilderness areasin the future.

Two shortcomings of wildernessmanagement are highlighted in theresults of these studies. First is the lackof good baseline and monitoring data.Reliable use data, the most fundamen-tal piece of information needed bymanagers, is only collected in a smallproportion of wilderness areas. Theslow and steady growth in use reportedby most wilderness areas may simplyreflect the fact that most managers areguessing how much use their areas re-ceive. Even fewer areas have reliabledata on visitor characteristics and re-source impacts.

Second, wilderness managers havebeen too reluctant to attack problemsdirectly, with use restrictions if necessary.Two oft-cited wilderness managementprinciples, that indirect management

techniques are best and that use limitsshould be a last resort, have become soentrenched in the wilderness commu-nity that they have paralyzed manymanagement programs (Cole 1995).Once unacceptable management prob-lems are identified, they should be at-tacked using techniques capable of suc-ceeding in the short term, before thesituation gets any worse.

Wilderness recreation problems arepronounced; they have increased overthe past three decades and are likely tointensify, so wilderness managers mustbecome more proactive in the future.More resources need to be expendedon collection of baseline and monitor-ing data. Managers need to be morewilling to enact restrictive managementprograms if unacceptable conditions arewidespread. And finally, to avoid theproliferation of problems, managementstrategies need to be developed at thescale of entire wilderness areas (or larger)so that attempts to solve one problem inone place do not cause other problemsin other places. IJW

DAVID N. COLE is a research biologist with theAldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O.Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807, USA. Telephone:(406) 542-4199; e-mail: [email protected].

References

Cole, David N. 1990. Wilderness management: hasit come of age? Journal of Soil and Water Manage-ment, 45:360–364.

. 1991. Changes on trails in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Montana, 1978–1989. USDAForest Service Research Paper INT-450.

. 1993. Campsites in three western wilder-nesses: Proliferation and changes in condition over12 to 16 years. USDA Forest Service Research PaperINT-463.

. 1995. Wilderness management principles:Science, logical thinking or personal opinion? Trends32(1):6–9.

. 1996. Wilderness recreation use trends,1965 through 1994. USDA Forest Service ResearchPaper INT-RP-488.

Cole, David N, and Troy E. Hall. 1992. Trends incampsite condition: Eagle Cap Wilderness, BobMarshall Wilderness, and Grand Canyon NationalPark. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-453.

Cole, David N., Alan E. Watson, and Joseph W.Roggenbuck. 1995. Trends in wilderness visitorsand visits: Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Shining

Rock, and Desolation Wildernesses. USDA ForestService Research Paper INT-RP-483.

Cook, Barbara, and William Borrie. 1995. Trendsin recreation use and management of wilderness.International Journal of Wilderness, 1(2):30–34.

Davis, George D. 1989. Preservation of natural di-versity: The role of ecosystem representation withinwilderness. In Helen R. Freilich, ed. WildernessBenchmark 1988: Proc. of the National WildernessColloquium, USDA Forest Service General TechnicalReport SE-51:76–82.

Fish, Ernest B., Gene L. Brothers, and Roger B.Lewis. 1981. Erosional impacts of trails inGuadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. Land-scape Planning, 8:387–398.

Hampton, Bruce, and David Cole. 1995. Soft Paths,second edition. Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books.

Helgath, Sheila F. 1975. Trail deterioration in theSelway-Bitterroot Wilderness. USDA Forest ServiceResearch Note INT-193.

Hendee, John C., George H. Stankey, and RobertC. Lucas. 1990. Wilderness Management, second edi-tion. Golden, Colo.: North American Press.

Leung, Yu-Fai, and Jeffrey L. Marion. 1996. Traildegradation as influenced by environmental fac-tors: A state-of-the-knowledge review. Journal of Soiland Water Conservation, 51:130–136.

Lucas, Robert C. 1989. A look at wilderness useand users in transition. Natural Resources Journal,29:41–55.

. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, and usepatterns in the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex, 1970–1982. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-345.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W., and Robert C. Lucas. 1987.Wilderness use and user characteristics: a state-of-knowledge review. In Robert C. Lucas, ed. Proc. ofthe National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues,State-of-knowledge, Future Directions, USDA ForestService General Technical Report INT-220:204–245.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W., and Alan E. Watson. 1988.Wilderness recreation use: The current situation. In:Alan E. Watson, ed. Outdoor Recreation Benchmark 1988:Proc. of the National Outdoor Recreation Forum, USDAForest Service General Technical Report SE-52:345–356.

Summer, Rebecca M. 1986. Impact of horse trafficon trails in Rocky Mountain National Park. Jour-nal of Soil and Water Conservation, 41:126–128.


[Editor’s Note: This issue of the IJW celebrates the U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System. Fourfederal agencies have responsibility for stewardship of wilderness areas designated by Congress withintheir broader jurisdiction: the Forest Service for wilderness in the National Forests; the Park Service forwilderness in the National Parks; the Fish and Wildlife Service for wilderness in National Wildlife Refuges;and the Bureau of Land Management for wilderness on public lands under their jurisdiction. The followingfour articles summarize the “Status and Prospects for Wilderness” in each of these federal agency jurisdic-tions, by the national program leader for wilderness in each agency. —John C. Hendee]

IN THE U.S. NATIONAL PARK SERVICEBY WES HENRY

HE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM HAS 44 UNITSwith designated wilderness. The 43,149,825 acres des-ignated as such make up 51.56% of the National Park

composed of superintendents and staff that work in con-junction with a national wilderness coordinator to addresscritical servicewide needs. The steering committee is cur-rently focusing on how to improve wilderness leadership,form wilderness preservation partnerships, train NPS em-ployees in wilderness management, and improve wildernessplanning.


TService (NPS) land base. Although The 1964 Wilderness Actlargely originated out of a national concern over trends af-fecting roadless areas in national forests, it also applied tolands in the National Park System arising from concernsabout the erosion of roadless areas. Twenty-five units(2,977,614 acres) entered the National Wilderness Preser-vation System (NWPS) in the 1970s as a result of passage ofThe Wilderness Act. The Alaska National Interest LandsConservation Act brought eight new units and 32,979,370acres into the wilderness system. Additional units added inthe 1980s included Rocky Mountain National Park, FireIsland National Seashore, Cumberland Island National Sea-shore, Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, and YosemiteNational Park. The Washington wilderness bill added1,739,771 in Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olym-pic National Parks. And finally, the 1994 California DesertProtection Act added 3,985,018 acres of wilderness in DeathValley National Park, Joshua Tree National Park, and MojaveNational Preserve.

It should, however, be noted that the idea of establishingparks to maintain wilderness character far precedes passageof The Wilderness Act or individual park wilderness legisla-tion. Due to competition with the U.S. Forest Service andanxieties of outdoor groups and dude ranchers, in the 1930sInterior Secretary Ickes worked to ensure that many newparks established then would be permanently managed, forthe most part, as wilderness. Those new “wilderness” parksincluded Everglades, Kings Canyon, Olympic, and IsleRoyale.

Wilderness Program DescriptionWilderness management is an integral part of the manage-ment of the 44 units containing designated wilderness, not aseparate program. This reflects the fact that superintendents,rangers, interpreters, natural and cultural resource specialists,trail crews, and many others need to be involved to makesuccessful wilderness management a reality. However, theNPS does have a national wilderness steering committee

Harper’s Corner view at Dinosaur National Park. (Photo courtesy U.S. National Park Service.)

Current Management IssuesProviding access to training and the development of wil-derness and backcountry management guidelines are thecurrent top two priorities being addressed by the steeringcommittee. Additional issues to be addressed next yearinclude those arising between wilderness and culturalresource management.

Current Allocation IssuesPresident Clinton’s “Parks for Tomorrow” initiative has re-quested Congress to address wilderness designation in 17national parks that cover over 5 million acres. Recommen-dations for their designation were made to Presidents Nixon,

Please see HENRY on page 47


IN THE U.S. FOREST SERVICEBY JERRY STOKES

HE U.S. FOREST SER-VICE (USFS), MAN-AGES the approximately

Article author Jerry Stokes.

by the public, and in 1964 The Wilderness Act was passed togive wilderness protection the security of Federal law. WhenThe Wilderness Act passed, 54 National Forest areas totalingalmost 10 million acres were designated as components ofthe NWPS.

In addition to designating “instant wilderness,” The Wil-derness Act established general criteria for adding areas tothe NWPS system, provided general guidelines for manag-ing wilderness, and reserved to Congress the authority toclassify new wilderness into the NWPS. Since the passage ofThe Wilderness Act, Congress has passed 72 additional leg-islative acts designating 345 more units of wilderness, in-cluding over 24 million acres of National Forest lands in theNWPS. There are approximately 54 million acres of unde-veloped, roadless areas in the National Forest System subjectto evaluation for wilderness. Of these undeveloped lands, 40areas totaling over 4 million acres have been specifically iden-tified by Congress to be studied (and protected in the interim)for their wilderness potential. Of those, 19 areas consisting of2.5 million acres have been recommended by the USFS toCongress for wilderness designation. In addition, another2.1 million acres have been recommended for wildernessdesignation by the USFS through its forest planning process.

Wilderness PoliticsDesignation of National Forest lands as wilderness is a highlypolitical process in which, in most cases, prodevelopmentinterests are pitted against environmental interests seekingto protect these areas from development. The most contro-versial areas remaining in the United States to be “allocated”to either wilderness or other multiple uses are in the statesof Idaho and Montana, where approximately 15 million acresare at stake. As wilderness allocations conclude in the nextcentury, perhaps as many as another 10 to 12 million acresof National Forest System lands will be added to the NWPS.

CurrentManagement Issues1. Regional air pollution has adversely affected flora, fauna,water quality, and visibility in wilderness.

2. Fire suppression over the last several decades has alterednatural fire regimes and inhibited fire as a natural process,thereby altering truly natural conditions in wilderness eco-systems.

3. Military and tourism overhead flights by fixed wing andhelicopter aircraft have compromised the “outstanding op-portunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined typesof recreation” required by The Wilderness Act.

Limiting types of access will be a major key inpreserving wilderness for the future. (Photo byJerry Stokes.)

T

the NWPS located in the lower 48 states and range in sizefrom the 2.3 million-acre Frank Church—River of No Re-turn Wilderness in Idaho to the 994-acre Leaf Wildernessin Mississippi.


190-million acre NationalForest System for multiple usesincluding, where appropriate,timber harvest, grazing, min-ing, hunting, fishing, outdoorrecreation, water production,and wilderness. Of the 190million acres, about 35 millionacres, or almost 18%, has beendesignated as components ofthe National Wilderness Pres-ervation System (NWPS). TheUSFS manages 399 wildernessareas in 38 states. These wil-derness areas comprise 34% ofthe entire NWPS and 63% of

Designation ofWilderness AreasThe Wilderness Act of 1964established the NWPS to in-clude “areas of undevelopedfederal land retaining its pri-meval character and influence,without permanent or humanhabitation, which are to beprotected and managed so asto preserve its natural condi-tions.” The USFS has a longhistory of involvement in theevolution of the wildernessidea and the establishment ofwilderness areas. Throughoutthe first half of this centuryUSFS employees ArthurCarhart, Aldo Leopold, andBob Marshall championed the

idea of setting aside wilderness areas, beginning with Leopoldas early as 1913. In 1929, the USFS began administrativelyestablishing “primitive areas” protected from developmentthat would compromise their “wilderness character.” By 1939,14 million acres had been designated as “primitive.” How-ever, this administrative protection was not deemed sufficient


4. Recreation use impacts and conflictshave arisen between different types ofusers such as hikers and horse users.

5. Management of uses such as live-stock grazing, mining rights, and aerialaccess that existed prior to designationof some wilderness areas and for whichCongress made exceptions in The Wil-derness Act have become controversial.

6. Population growth and developmenton private lands near or adjacent towilderness have created impacts fromadditional recreation, air pollution, fire,and have disrupted wildlife habitat andmigration travel corridors.

7. Lack of any comprehensive systemfor monitoring social and biophysicalchange in the NWPS as a whole andin its individual units has been prob-lematic.

8. It has become increasingly difficultto make and sustain management deci-sions to protect the various componentsof the wilderness resource, includingwilderness experiences. As recreation useincreases in popular locations, that usemay exceed the limits of what is ac-ceptable in terms of biophysical andsocial impacts. Increasingly, as decisionsare made to assure that wilderness val-ues are maintained, those who objectseek reversal of management decisionsthrough the USFS administrative ap-

Cattle mill along the banks of a once “wet” creek in a wilderness in the Southwest United States. (Photo by Jerry Stokes.)

peals process, suits filed in federal courts,and congressional intervention.

The FutureMy vision for the future of wildernessmanaged by the USFS is positive. I seethe enduring resource of wildernessprotected, nurtured, and sustained byincreasingly competent and commit-

ted managers, supported by expandedscientific knowledge and growing po-litical support from a public that in-creasingly appreciates and understandswilderness. IJWJERRY STOKES is national wilderness program leaderfor the USFS in Washington, D.C. He holds B.S.and M.S. degrees in forestry from the Universityof Georgia and a Ph.D. in recreation resources fromColorado State University.

Literature Review of Native Americans and Recreation:Cultural Beliefs and Outdoor Recreation Behavior

McDonald and McAvoy (1995) have re-viewed 111 studies pertaining to outdoorrecreation and Native Americans. Theyprovide a useful introduction to relevantliterature about Native American’s par-ticipation, cultural conceptions, and atti-tudes and beliefs toward outdoor recre-ation.

McDonald and McAvoy found thatleisure research has given little attentionto Native American communities. There-fore, they use literature from the relatedconcepts of cultural values; environmen-tal attitudes and land ethics; indigenousland management; sacred sites and theircontinued use; parks, protected areas, and

native peoples; views of leisure; and the an-thropological focus on play. The examinationof literature is linked to proposed general traitsshared by Native Americans. Those traits in-clude a pervasive sacredness for all life, humansare inseparable from nature, a heightened senseof place or connection to a particular envi-ronment, belief in the cyclical nature of life,and the importance of verbal communica-tion.

The authors also identify studies that giverecommendations for conducting research onNative American people and their commu-nities. In summary, research should meet anexpressed community need and should be re-viewed and approved by tribal leadership.

Establishing relationships is of paramountimportance, and qualitative methodologieshave had the most success because of theirconcordance with general shared traits.They recommend that additional outdoorrecreation studies of Native Americans beconducted.

For more information see McDonald,D., & McAvoy, L.M. 1995. A LiteratureReview of Native Americans and Recreation:Cultural Beliefs & Outdoor Recreation Be-havior. Minneapolis, MN: University ofMinnesota Department of Kinesiologyand Leisure Studies.

(This review was submitted by GregFriese.)


IN THE U.S. NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEMBY PETER JEROME

HE U.S. FISH ANDWILDLIFE SER-VICE (USFS) is re-

and biological values, the management of social values, theadministrative policy and interagency coordination, and thetraining of agency personnel.

Current Management IssuesBecause of the diversity of refuge wilderness areas, issuesrelated to management are wide ranging. Because nationalwildlife refuges enjoy a high degree of protection, wilder-ness management has generally been compatible with long-term refuge goals and objectives. More recently, however,increasing pressures threaten not only wilderness values butalso refuge resources as well.

Managing increasing public use in areas such as WhiteHeron National Wildlife Refuge, determining the effects ofproposed oil and gas development activities on wilderness val-ues in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and restoring natural

lection of lands and waters established principally for thatpurpose. Congressionally designated wilderness areas are asignificant component of this land base.

The Refuge System has 75 designated wilderness areason 63 refuges. They total over 20 million acres, with over90% occurring in Alaska. With its vast and varied land andwater resources, wilderness designation on refuge lands af-fords protection for the most biologically diverse collectionof federal lands. These lands encompass habitats ranging fromdwarf tundra vegetation in Alaska to subtropical mangrovekeys in Florida.

Wilderness Program DescriptionWilderness areas on refuge lands are managed to preservethe interaction of natural processes with the land using theminimum tools necessary to safely accomplish the Service’smission. Management activities are based on sound ecologi-cal principles and apply to Service lands where wildernesshas been designated or recommended for inclusion in theNational Wilderness Preservation System.

Wilderness coordination duties are integrated into ref-uge programs at the national, regional, and field levels withappropriate staff assigned to accomplish specific refuge man-agement goals and objectives. Like the National Park Ser-vice, wilderness management is not a separate program onrefuges but rather an integral component to accomplish spe-cific refuge purposes. The Wilderness Act specifies that itspurposes are held to be “within and supplemental to” theprimary refuge purposes. Three refuges have been specifi-cally established under the authority of the Wilderness Act:Chasshowitzka and Lake Woodruff refuges in Florida andMonomoy in Massachusetts. All other wilderness areas havebeen designated within existing refuges.

Management direction on refuges will focus on imple-mentation of the Interagency Wilderness Strategic Plan pre-pared in 1995, which emphasizes the preservation of natural

Pete Jerome, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NationalWilderness Coordinator.

sponsible for managementof 510 national wildlife ref-uges on over 92 millionacres of lands and waters inall 50 states and 5 territo-ries of the United States.Although other publiclands provide fish andwildlife habitat, the Na-tional Wildlife Refuge Sys-tem is the only federal col-

T


Two adult male caribou, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Photo courtesy ArthurCarhart National Wilderness Training Center.)

Please see JEROME on page 47


T

IN THE U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENTBY JEFF JARVIS

HE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)in the U.S. Department of Interior is responsible formore public land than any other agency—270 million

acres. The BLM was excluded from The Wilderness Act of1964, an omission caused in part because the issue of whetherthe BLM would be responsible for the long-term retentionand management of public lands had not been resolved. In1976 the issue of long-term retention and wilderness wasresolved with passage of the Federal Land Policy and Man-agement Act (FLPMA). In the FLPMA, the BLM’s organicact, Section 103 directed that, in most cases, public landswould be retained in federal ownership. Section 603 of theFLPMA directed the BLM to review the public lands undertheir jurisdiction for wilderness characteristics and to makerecommendations as to suitability or nonsuitability of wil-derness designation for each area.

Program DescriptionIn response to the passage of the FLPMA, the BLM com-pleted an inventory of public lands and designated 27.5 mil-lion acres in 865 areas in the lower 48 states as WildernessStudy Areas (WSAs). Study of these areas was completed in1991 and recommendations were made to the President andthen to Congress for designation of certain areas as wilder-ness. As a result of these recommendations, Congress passedwilderness legislation for Arizona (1984 and 1990), south-ern California (1994), and numerous smaller bills that des-ignated a small number of wilderness areas in other states. Atthis time, the BLM manages 136 wilderness areas totaling5.2 million acres in 10 western states. Wyoming and Alaskaare the only western states without BLM managed wilder-ness. Yet today 622 WSAs totaling 17 million acres in all thewestern states still await congressional action.

Current Management IssuesThe BLM wilderness program’s first priority is managementof their 136 designated wilderness areas. Immediately afterdesignation, priority is given to completing boundary mapsand legal descriptions, locating and signing boundaries, notify-ing the many people directly affected by the designation, trainingemployees to understand their new wilderness managementresponsibilities, and ongoing patroling and monitoring. Overtime, management emphasis shifts to developing long-termapproaches to staffing, field patrols, monitoring, and compli-ance with use authorizations. Special projects include con-ducting validity examinations for potential mineral operations,reclaiming past disturbances, educating the public, completingland exchanges with state and private inholders, and respond-ing to various proposed uses of wilderness areas.

The second priority for the wilderness program is man-agement of WSAs that are pending legislative action byCongress. In Section 603 of FLPMA, the BLM is required

to manage WSAs “so as not to impair the suitability of suchareas for preservation as wilderness … .” This management,known as “interim management,” is designed to insure thatwilderness values remain intact until Congress determinesif each specific area should be designated as wilderness orreleased for nonwilderness uses.

Current Allocation IssuesThe 104th Congress actively considered wilderness desig-nations in several states. Of these, Utah was most controver-sial with issues related to the amount of wilderness to bedesignated, special language that would allow unprecedentedmotorized access within wilderness, controversial exchangeprovisions, and hard release (no further consideration forwilderness for nondesignated areas). Other bills under con-sideration included (1) expansion and linkage of the Bistiand De-na-zin wildernesses in New Mexico; (2) designa-tion of the Gunnison Gorge in Colorado; (3) designation ofthe King Range in California; and (4) designation of theOregon Islands.

In addition to specific wilderness bills, the last Congressconsidered several bills that would affect the BLM’s wilder-ness program, including public lands divestiture, Mining LawReform, and amending the Alaska National Interest LandsConservation Act. Only the Bisti/De-na-zin Bill and theOregon Islands Bill passed.

Prospects for WildernessIn this 50th anniversary year of the creation of the BLM, itis a full and equal partner to the other wilderness managingagencies. Congress is increasingly interested in BLM wil-derness issues and will continue to designate wilderness ar-eas under BLM jurisdiction. Depending on the future ac-tions of Congress, the BLM could ultimately manage 20million acres of wilderness in the lower 48 states.

Perhaps more important than the acreage managed aswilderness is the contributions these wilderness areas maketo diversity in the National Wilderness Preservation System.These include (1) the opportunity to expand the diversityof ecosystems preserved as wilderness; (2) the linkages cre-ated between other agency wilderness and in some cases theopportunity to “complete” a mountain wilderness with theprotection of the surrounding lower elevation lands; (3) theexpansion of nontypical wilderness areas in some of the morearid lower elevations in all western states; and (4) the expan-sion of wilderness-dependent recreation opportunities withthe long-term protection of numerous accessible areasthroughout the West. IJWJeff Jarvis is the national wilderness program leader for the BLM. Jeff hasworked in the BLM’s wilderness program in Arizona, California, Idaho, andNew Mexico. In addition, he has worked for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceand the National Park Service.



LEAVE NO TRACE (LNT)—Outdoor Skills and Ethics Program

BY RALPH SWAIN

“LNT is the most simple and honorable concept growing in the outdoor movement today. LNT is a programthat everybody can be part of, take part in, and make a contribution to. Good for LNT, long may it live!”

—Royal Robbins, Owner, U.S. Outdoor Apparel Wholesaler

EAVE NO TRACE, INC. (LNT) IS AN OUTDOOReducation program gaining national and international rec-ognition. The program, developed by the U.S. Forest Ser-

Lvice (USFS), is endorsed by several federal land managementagencies including the U.S. Bureau of Land Management(BLM), U.S. National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service (USFWS). It is also embraced by a broadrange of outdoor user groups including hikers, backpackers,boaters, and other recreationists. In addition, it is gainingsupport from the recreation industry (both retailers andmanufacturers). Recently, LNT was formally organized as anonprofit organization. The evolution of LNT reflects the con-tributions of many individuals and organizations.

History of LNTLNT began in the 1970s when recreational use on publiclands soared—specifically in designated wilderness. Withincreased use, it became apparent that outdoor educationfor users of the outdoors was imperative. Initially, federalland management agencies developed wilderness educationprograms to teach local backcountry users how to camp inparticularly fragile areas like alpine lake basins and meadows.

For example, in the late 1970s one USFS educationaleffort that others emulated was the Eagle Cap Wilderness

(Oregon) low-impact education program developed by JimBradley and his staff. Called a “Human Approach,” the pro-gram taught backcountry skills and ethics to wilderness visi-tors (Bradley 1979). During this same period, USFS manag-ers in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest (Utah) developeda certification program for Boy Scouts to learn “Leave NoTrace Wilderness Skills” and earn a wilderness skills certifi-cation card and patch. Other outdoor skills and ethics pro-grams were developed by BLM and NPS managers to edu-cate backcountry users about resource degradation risksunique to specific areas.

Simultaneously, outdoor education schools such as theNational Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), OutwardBound (OB), and the Wilderness Education Association(WEA) were teaching backcountry safety, orienteering, andminimum-impact skills to their students. All of these pro-grams presented some form of low- or minimum-impacteducation, but consistent terminology, educational messages,and techniques had not yet evolved. Research was still lack-ing to guide managers and educators in dealing with thecumulative effects of concentrated use in popular backcoun-try areas. Most of the information offered in the 1970s andearly 1980s was based on field observations and intuitiveknowledge of how to reduce recreation resource degrada-tion. Few of the educational programs were based on recre-ation impact studies or sound research.

In 1988, Bruce Hampton of NOLS joined with DavidCole, wilderness scientist for the USFS to coauthor Soft Paths(1988, revised and updated 1995). This book addressed thelow-impact or no-trace camping skills that reduce tram-pling, campsite soil compaction, campfire scars, litter, andother physical impacts. It also addressed the social impactsrelated to trail etiquette and consideration of other usersseeking silence and solitude in a backcountry setting. SoftPaths became a primary reference book for recreational us-ers, outdoor educators, and federal land managers searchingfor the latest state-of-the-art low-impact practices.

In 1990, the USFS and BLM expanded the program bypartnering with NOLS to develop a backcountry trainingprogram (based on Soft Paths) to train federal land managersabout techniques and skills of LNT. In the fall of 1991, 10USFS and BLM managers pilot-tested the five-day LNT“Master” course. Upon graduation, the federal managers re-turned home as “LNT Masters” to share their LNT knowl-edge by conducting “Trainer” courses for other managers


A “train the trainer” LNT workshop in action. (Photo by Bill Dunkelberger.)


and the general public. This “train-the-trainers” format has been very suc-cessful in expanding the cadre ofknowledgeable LNT teachers through-out the United States.

Beginning in 1991, LNT Mastercourses were taught in the RockyMountains, Southwest Desert, and Pa-cific Northwest. Other region-specificand user-specific courses (such asbackcountry horse use) were added in1993. As of March 1996, 300 peoplehad graduated from LNT Mastercourses (see Figure 1). In 1997, 12Master courses will be offered acrossthe United States, addressing region-specific techniques appropriate for hik-ing and backpacking, canoe and raft-ing, sea kayaking, and backcountryhorse use. The 1997 Master coursedates are included in Table 1.

LNT, Inc.The success of the Master course grewrapidly beyond the needs for trainingfederal land managers and other out-door educators. Clearly what wasneeded was a national organization andheadquarters to lead expansion to theprivate sector and champion the com-bined efforts of all the partners workingtogether to promote the LNT program.In 1994, an official Memorandum ofUnderstanding was signed by theUSFS, BLM, NPS, and the USFWS inconjunction with NOLS to develop anLNT nonprofit educational organiza-tion. In 1995, LNT, Inc., was formallyestablished as a 501 (c)(3) nonprofitorganization. LNT, Inc., collaborates itseducational efforts with Tread Lightly,a nonprofit primarily targeting its edu-cational messages to motorized usersof public lands. Today, these two orga-nizations combine their educationalefforts to serve all motorized andnonmotorized user groups.

The LNT, Inc., nonprofit is basedin Boulder, Colorado, and guided by aboard of directors representing theoutdoor recreation industry, conserva-tion organizations, outdoor educationschools, and the research community.The board of directors provides over-all leadership to carry out the LNTmission in cooperation with the fed-eral land management agencies.

Mission StatementThe LNT mission is to develop a na-tionally recognized minimum-impacteducation system to educate federalland managers and the general publicthrough training, publications, video,and electronic webs. LNT addresses thephysical and social impacts of non-motor ized use on public lands. Theeducational campaign is preventiverather than restorative. Although theprogram is aimed at educating recre-ational users of public lands, the skillsand ethics presented are also applicableto all: backcountry, front country,schoolyard, and backyard. The LNTchallenge is to leave little or no evi-dence of human use or abuse and toinstill a land stewardship ethic that rec-ognizes individual responsibility.

LNT PrinciplesSix principles, listed in a logical order,comprise the LNT outdoor skills andethics. These principles are not hard andfast rules, but guidelines to follow:

• plan ahead and prepare;• camp and travel on durable surfaces;• pack it in, pack it out;• properly dispose of what you can’tpack out;• leave what you find; and• minimize use and impact of fires.

Obviously, the manner in which thesesix principles are applied will vary fromregion to region depending on theunique environment and local consid-erations. For example, applying theappropriate skills to dispose of humanwaste is much different in a desert en-vironment than in a tundra ecosystem.However, the principle—properly dis-pose of what you can’t pack out—re-mains the same.

Target RegionsApplying the appropriate outdoor skillsto a certain region dictated the needto develop LNT materials that wouldaddress regional environments and spe-cific user groups. Fourteen target re-gions and/or user groups have beenidentified. As of 1996, 11 of the 14 havecompleted curricula and 3 are inprogress.

Target Regions and User Groupswith Completed Curricula:

1. North American2. Rocky Mountains3. Southeastern States4. Temperate Coastal Zones5. Western River Corridors6. Desert and Canyon Country7. Pacific Northwest8. Backcountry Horse Use

Figure 1—LNT Masters* by Organiztion as of March 1996

*A master is a graduate of a five-day field training course.


9. Rock Climbing10. Alaskan Tundra11. Northeast Mountains and Forests12. Snow Camping (in progress)13. Caves (in progress)14. Sea Kayaking (in progress)

LNT Educational MaterialsAn array of LNT educational publica-tions complement the LNT Mastercourses and curricula listed above. Aprice list of all available LNT publica-tions, posters, videos, t-shirts, andpatches can be obtained by callingLNT, Inc., at (303) 442-8222; fax: (303)444-3284; e-mail: http://www.lnt.org.

welcomed at all levels, from corporatesponsorship to individual membership.Many outdoor recreation retailers andmanufacturers have joined the LNTprogram and are encouraging othersin their industry to support the pro-gram. To recognize and support thesponsors, LNT, Inc., has established anational partnership annual award to amanufacturer and retailer. The first re-cipient was Trails Illustrated (manufac-turer of outdoor maps) and was pre-sented its award at the Winter OutdoorRetailers Show (January 1996) inReno, Nevada. Backpacker magazinewas awarded the national partnership

The LNT, Inc., nonprofit is … guided by a board …representing the outdoor recreation industry, conser-vation organizations, outdoor education schools, andthe research community.

Table 1: Leave No Trace 1997 Course Dates(tentative dates)

Northeast Hiking, Bethel, ME: September 22–26

Northeast Canoe, Ely, MN: September 15–19

Tundra Hiking, Anchorage, AK: May 19–23

Western River Corridors Rafting, Vernal, UT: September 8–12

Backcountry Horse, Huson, MT: May 12–16; and TBA, CA: May 19–23

Western Hiking, Conway, WA: September 15–19

Southwest Hiking, Zion National Park, UT: April 21–25

Southeast Hiking, Shenandoah National Park, VA, May (TBA)

Rocky Mountain Hiking, Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada:June 9–13

International EffortsThe LNT program is also spreadinginternationally. During the past threeyears, an LNT Master course has beenincorporated into a Belize study abroadprogram offered by Colorado StateUniversity in cooperation with theUSFS. During the Belize LNT course,students from U.S. universities join withBelizean conservation officers andUSFS/LNT Master instructors to learnhow LNT principles are applied in thetropical forests of southern Belize. LNThas also been integrated into the NOLSoutdoor educators courses in Mexico,Chile, and Kenya. Similarly, OB andWEA have integrated the six LNTprinciples into their U.S. and interna-tional courses.

SummaryWhat makes the LNT program so ap-pealing was quoted at the outset: “LNTis a program that everybody can be apart of, take part in, and make a con-tribution to. Good for LNT, long mayit live!” IJW

RALPH SWAIN has an M.S. degree in recreationresources (with an emphasis in wilderness man-agement) from Colorado State University. He hasbeen the USFS, LNT national coordinator since1993. Ralph is presently a wilderness training spe-cialist at the Arthur Carhart Wilderness TrainingCenter in Huson, Montana. He is also the pro-gram manager for the interagency WildernessManagement Distance Education correspondenceprogram. Contact him at Arthur Carhart NationalWilderness Training Center, 20325 RemountRoad, Huson, MT 59846, USA. Telephone: (406)626-5208; fax: (406) 626-5395; e-mail: http://www.nols.edu/LNT/LNTHome.

To learn more about LNT, contact Dana Watts,LNT, Inc., P.O. Box 997, Boulder, CO 80306, USA.Telephone: (303) 442-8222; fax: (303) 444-3284;e-mail: [email protected].

ReferencesBradley, J. 1979. A human approach to reducingwildland impacts. In R. Ittner, et al., eds. RecreationImpact on Wildlands. R-6-001-1979. Portland, Oreg.:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Pacific Northwest Region: 222–226.

Hampton, B., and D. Cole. 1995 (revised and up-dated). Soft Paths: How to Enjoy the Wilderness With-out Harming It. Harrisburg, Penn.: Stackpole Books.

Sponsorshipand MembershipLNT, Inc., is organized so corporations,organizations, and private citizens canactively participate in the national pro-gram. Membership is encouraged and

award for retailers at the Summer Out-door Retailers Show (August 1996).Also, nonprofit environmental organi-zations are taking an active role in spon-soring and endorsing LNT. Throughthe combined effort of many partners,the LNT message is spreading.


WILDNESS AND WILDERNESS IN THENORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES—

Challenge for the Coming Century

BY LLOYD C. IRLAND


[Editor’s Note: Wilderness policymakers and environmentalists have struggled over wilderness designationin the East for several decades. While lands in the East generally have been impacted by settlement anddevelopment, many are in advanced stages of recovery on a path toward naturalness. Whether such landsultimately could fit in the wilderness system, or could be better protected under some other designation, willbe an important issue for debate.

In this article Lloyd Irland presents data on wilderness and natural area opportunities in the East with aproposal about how the protection of wilderness values might be extended. IJW looks forward to readercomments on his proposals about this timely issue. —John C. Hendee]

Abstract: In the northeast part of the United States (New England plus New York,New Jersey, and Pennsylvania), centuries of cutting, farming, and developmenthave virtually eliminated virgin landscapes from the region. Of the region’s 100million acres, 15% of the rural land is being farmed. Only 12% of the forest land ispublicly owned, so wider efforts to retain wildness and protect biodiversity facesevere challenges. While there is little true wilderness, about five million acres (5%of the land) would fit in a more loosely defined “wild forest.” I propose a long-termprogram of cooperative Landscape Management Areas (LMAs) that can retainimportant wildness and biodiversity values with lower cost and less political po-larization than large acquisition programs. This program would augment a 50%increase in publicly owned wild forest, including some true wilderness. Managingmotorized recreation poses a major social challenge to the region’s wildernesscommunity, because motorized uses are well established in most existing andpotential wild forest units. Article author Lloyd C. Irland.

INCE THE DAYS OF THOREAU, NORTHEAST-ERNERS have appreciated wild forest landscapes. Theypushed for state forests and parks as early as the 1880s

Swith the citizen-led effort to create the Adirondack Park(Nash 1982; Graham 1978). Local citizens pressed for fed-eral acquisition of land in the White Mountain NationalForest. Maine contains a splendid example of a privatelycreated wilderness: Baxter State Park. The few remainingscraps of virgin forest are mostly outside the region’s large,formally designated wilderness areas (see Table 1). Support-ive as they have been of public land systems, Northeastern-ers have not seen fit, outside of the Adirondacks, to allocatelarge areas of public land to wilderness preservation. This ispartly because motorized river and trail uses are well estab-lished and vigorously defended almost everywhere. Today,about 12% of the region’s forest land is publicly owned.

The forest has regrown so completely that few hikersrealize that many a trail side vista was once farmed, abu-sively cut, or burned. Regionwide, 17 million acres of clearedland returned to forest from 1909 to 1992—an area equal toMaine’s present forest area. Spreading forests and successfulpublic programs have led to rebounding populations of eagle,

fish, bear, and other animals traditionally associated with wildcountry. Deer, once virtually eradicated in many parts of theNortheast, are now so abundant that they are suppressingnatural regeneration and injuring habitat for other wildlifein some areas. The region currently rates low on lists of en-dangerment “hotspots” (Noss and Peters 1995).

The Wild Five PercentThe boundaries of the wild forest are difficult to define. Thewild forest includes a range of forest lands in public andconservation ownership, whose primary objective is themaintenance of natural conditions. Defining the wild forestin strictly ecological terms as vestiges of truly undisturbedforest, important in its own right, does not define the wildforest (Crow 1990; Davis 1996). Large acreages of the wildforest are devoted to such uses as watershed protection. Per-haps a half-million acres of such lands are found in the re-gion, and these lands may be available for limited timbercutting. But because they form large green blocks in themidst of cities and suburbs, they fill most of the functions ofthe wild forest. Likewise, the tiny parcels owned as green


space or preserves by towns and non-profit groups (USDA Econ. Res. Serv.1995) are also part of the wild forest.

A listing of major wild forest unitscan be made, however (see Table 2).State parks and game lands are not in-cluded, though many would qualify. Wecould add more than a million back-country acres on the national forests,fish and game lands, state parks, andprivate nonprofit reservations that will

A group of hikers in the Adirondack high country. (Photo by Gary Randorf, The Adirondack Council.)

retain a generally unmanaged charac-ter. This total of, say, 5 million acrescomes to about 5% of the region’s landarea. Of this, only a fraction is true des-ignated wilderness. This is well belowthe Brundtland Commission’s sugges-tion for 12% and compares to an esti-mate that true primary forest covers0.4% of the Northeast (including Dela-ware, Maryland, and WestVirginia) (Davis 1996).

Services and Valuesof the Wild ForestLarge portions of the wild forest werecreated for utilitarian purposes to pre-

George Perkins Marsh advocated amajor reserve.

It is desirable that some large andeasily accessible region of Ameri-can soil should remain, as far aspossible, in its primitive condition,at once a museum for the instruc-tion of the student, a garden forthe recreation of the lover of na-ture, and an asylum where indig-enous tree, and humble plant thatloves the shade, and fish and fowland four-footed beast, may dwelland perpetuate their kind … .

The collateral advantages ofthe preservation of these forestswould be far greater. Naturethrew up those mountains andclothed them with lofty woods,that they might serve as a reser-voir to supply with perennialwaters the thousand rivers andrills that are fed by the rains andsnows of the Adirondacks … .(Marsh 1964)

As early as 1872, a state commis-sion was set up to look into establish-ing a park. In 1880, remaining virgingrowth in the Adirondacks coveredabout 1.6 million acres (Sargent 1884).In 1885, a forest commission was cre-ated to administer the park and acquirelands. The “Forever Wild” character ofstate-owned lands, and the “Blue Line”surrounding the entire park were madea part of the State Constitution by pub-lic referendum. Currently, the “ForeverWild” encompasses about 2.7 millionacres of designated wilderness, and alarger area of forever wildlands.

Baxter State ParkA major wilderness is Baxter State Parkin northern Maine, which protectsMount Katahdin, the northern termi-nus of the Appalachian Trail (see Fig-ure 1). (A proposal to extend this trailto Quebec’s Gaspe Peninsula is underdevelopment.) The park was purchasedover a period of years by the late Gov-ernor Percival P. Baxter and donatedto the state (Hakola 1981).

Governor Baxter specified that thepark be managed in its natural state, asa “sanctuary for birds and beasts.” He

… I would attempt to increase the acreage in the publiclyowned wild forest by 50% by the year 2020—from5 to 7.5 million acres.

serve game, fish, and clean water sup-plies, or to conserve channel storageand prevent floodplain encroachment(see Table 3). Protecting water supplieswas a major argument for federal ac-quisition of the White Mountain Na-tional Forest and for creating theAdirondack Park. Recreation, birdwatching, tourism, and open-space val-ues have been high on the list of ob-jectives in virtually every instance. The

pure “preservation” motive, best ex-pressed in Baxter State Park, is also seenin dozens of the tiny parcels of woodsand marsh held by the Nature Con-servancy, other pr ivate nonprofitgroups, and some private owners.

Pioneering inConservation Policy:Forever Wild in theAdirondacksIn 1827, Governor DeWitt Clintontold the New York legislature that fu-ture generations would regret thesquandering of the forests. In 1864,


modified this mandate in one cornerwhere hunting was permitted, and inanother where “scientific forestry” wasto be practiced (Baxter Park Authority1978). Baxter State Park remains NewEngland’s largest dedicated wilderness.Adjacent to the park are several majorstate land units and the put-in-point forthe Allagash Wilderness Waterway.

Federal WildernessThe best-known elements of theregion’s wild forest are the federal wil-derness areas, which totaled about200,000 acres in 1994. These owe theirorigin to the establishment of nationalforests and wildlife refuges earlier inthis century, largely by purchase. In late1994, only 183,000 of the 1.6 millionacres of national forest land in theNortheast were dedicated wilderness,though road building and logging onmuch of the remaining area will be lim-ited. Small wilderness patches exist onother federal lands.

State and LocalWild AreasState and local governments managethousands of acres of forest that wouldqualify for inclusion in the wild forest,as noted in Table 2. The largest exampleis the 2.7 million acre New York StateForest Preserve in the Adirondacks andthe Catskills. Others range from the14,000 acres of natural areas managedby Vermont’s Department of Forestsand Parks to the 170,000 acres of des-ignated wildlands on Pennsylvania’sstate lands, and the preserve lands inNew Jersey’s Pinelands. They could in-clude Maine’s Bigelow Preserve, al-though timber will be harvested there.Future land use planning on state andmunicipal lands may result in more ar-eas being formally designated for wild-ness or wilderness.

Motors: Challengeto WildnessOutside of the Adirondacks, restrictivecategories of wilderness are relativelynew to the Northeast. Much of the 5million-acre wild forest is open to mo-

torized canoes, RVs, andsnowmobiles. Wildernesslakes are reached by air-craft in summer and win-ter. As elsewhere, motor-ized woods users haveenormous political clout;their organized oppositionaccounts in large part forthe minimal acreage ofpublic land designated aswilderness here. Consid-ering the impacts of mo-tors on visitor perceptionsof wildness, true wilder-ness in the region will re-main a chimera unlesssome way of managing theimpacts of motorization isfound. Whether this iseven possible is uncertain.Additional designations of“wilderness” will not beable to provide visitorswith solitude unless thisissue can be confronted.

A Programfor WildnessI believe that a sensible conservationprogram for the region has two parts:land acquisition and cooperative land-scape management on private land.First, I would attempt to increase theacreage in the publicly owned wild for-est by 50% by the year 2020—from 5to 7.5 million acres. A significant partof this increase should be allocated towilderness. This would still be only7.5% of the region’s land. The effortshould focus on bolstering existinglarge and remote publicly owned ar-eas, especially those with key wildlifevalues but would also involve privategroups acquiring small, key parcels. Anenlarged wild forest would be a prizebequest for this generation to pass tothe future. While there are advocatesof single large reserves, I think a casecan be made for a more dispersed ap-proach that would represent a greaterdiversity of ecosystems (see, for ex-ample, Maine Audubon Society 1996).

But public wildlands will not beenough. There are innovative ways toserve long-term land protection goals

that fit economic, social, and biologi-cal realities of this diverse region. I pro-pose establishing designated LMAswithin which targeted public supportwould be provided for private land-owners voluntarily implementing longtimber rotations, using related new for-estry practices, expanding stream andtrail protection, and giving up devel-opment rights. At the core of eachLMA might be an area of true wilder-ness or some suitable public land unit.The design details do not concern ushere. The idea builds on an earlier pro-posal by Foster (1992) for “legacy for-ests.” The goal is not merely to obtaindevelopment rights on narrow bufferzones adjacent to public land units.Rather, it is to secure habitat and wil-derness values over naturally meaning-ful areas, perhaps quite large in size.Private lands in the LMAs are not in-cluded in my 7.5 million-acre proposedtotal for the wild forest.

Adding acres to the region’s publicestate will not be the best solution inevery area. Also, acquisition may notbe cost-effective or politically feasible.For the 1990s at least, it is difficult toforesee any significant state or federalacquisition funding. States will be inthe lead in this region, but the fiscal

Figure 1—Proposed Maine WoodsNational Park


Table 1: Acreages of True VirginForest, Selected Northeastern States

Acres

Maine 36,000Massachusetts* 300New Hampshire 15,000New York 262,000Pennsylvania 27,000_______________________*Berkshires only

Source: Davis, 1996, p. 21; P. W. Dunwiddie, Surveyof old growth forest in Massachusetts, Nantucket:Mass. Aud. Soc., 1993, processed. See also, MaineState Planning Office, 1986, uncut timber standsand unique alpine areas on state lands, Augusta: Ex-ecutive Dept.; D. J. Leopold, C. Reschke, and D. S.Smith, 1988, old growth forests of Adirondack Park,New York, Nat. Areas J., 8(3): 166–187, 1988; and T.L. Smith, 1989, an overview of old growth forestsin Pennsylvania, Nat. Areas J., 9(1): 40–44. Theseearlier sources give data for particular land systemsor portions of states. Just how pr istine thepresettlement forest actually was has been debated:Denevan, 1992. Natural area inventory efforts arewell-developed in the region, e.g., McMahon 1993;Thorne 1995.

Table 2: Examples of DesignatedWild Areas, Northeast, Early 1990sMaine White Mountain NF*—12,000

Baxter Park—203,000Allagash WW—100,600Bureau of Parks and Lands—44,000National Wildlife Refuge—7,392

New Hampshire White Mountain NF—102,932

Vermont Green Mountain NF—59,598Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge—

2,420New York Adirondack Preserve—2,310,000

Catskill Preserve—275,000

Other States:

Pennsylvania Delaware WaterGap NRA—70,000

State Forests, etc.—169,000Allegheny NF—8,938

New Jersey National Wildlife Refuge—10,341

TOTAL 3,375,221

*On the National Forests, additional research natural ar-eas are part of the wild forest.Sources: Agency reports and documents of various vin-tage.

Table 3: Wilderness Values1. Scientific

a. Preserving key ecosystems to en-sure biotic diversity.

b. Conserving gene pools and po-tentially useful organisms.

c. Providing natural areas for researchand monitoring ecosystems.

2. Economica. Providing backcountry recreation.b. Conserving wildlife and fish.c. Protecting watersheds and water

quality.d. Conserving scenic resources to

benefit tourism.e. Enhancing nearby real estate val-

ues.f. Avoiding costs of development

(services, pollution, congestion).g. Promoting a balanced land use

pattern.

3. Culturala. Conserving a cultural heritage.b. Preserving aesthetic values.c. Providing educational opportu-

nities.

4. Ethicala. Providing for biodiversity and

preservation of natural processes(existence value).

b. Providing scope for individualfreedom.

c. Providing for social value of ex-ercising restraint.

d. Providing opportunities for be-queathing wilderness to the fu-ture.

and political climate do not appear fa-vorable for large-scale land acquisition.In New York, a large bond proposal thatincluded major acquisitions in theAdirondacks was voted down. Maine’sgovernor has stated his opposition toRestore North’s park proposal. Further,Maine’s timber inventory situationleaves little, if any, room for trade-offsat present. It would seem wise to con-sider new approaches. A much richerand more wide-ranging program ofpolicy design, public education, and ad-vocacy will be needed on the part ofthe wilderness community.

Major proposals for expanding theregion’s wild forest include proposedadditions of some 600,000 acres to theAdirondacks’ Forever Wild Lands. Pro-

posals for a 3.2 million-acre MaineWoods National Park, and a 5 million-acre Thoreau National Reserve have alsobeen offered (Kellett 1989; NationalAudubon Society 1994; Mckibben1995). Also, a coalition of groups hasidentified 10 major wildland areasregionwide for conservation efforts (Na-tional Audubon Society 1994).

Needed: A Longer ViewThoughtful scientists and citizens re-alize that the region’s heritage of wild-ness, its wildlife habitat and biodiversityvalues, and its traditions of public rec-reational uses cannot be preserved bydesignated public wilderness areasalone. For this reason, wilderness mustbe seen as an essential element in abroader effort designed to retain wild-ness, biodiversity, and public access overlarger landscapes. This process could bepromoted through designated LMAs.More sensitive landscape managementof large public forest units and indus-trial properties can provide many val-ues of the wild forest over a muchwider area (see, for example, MaineCouncil on Sustainable Forest Man-agement 1996). We need to developmore innovative ways to secure theprotection of wildlands for the future.This generation’s bequest of wildnessto the future is being shaped now.

A longer view is needed. The exist-ing National Wilderness PreservationSystem wasn’t built in a day. Along-term program focused on pro-tecting wildness, instead of immediatedesignations of huge wilderness areas,will be unsatisfying to many wilder-ness activists. But the perfect can bethe enemy of the good. I believe thisproposal builds on regional traditions,recognizes financial and political reali-ties, and would deliver major benefits.I think it deserves the support of theregion’s wilderness community. IJWLLOYD C. IRLAND is president of The Irland Group,a Maine forestry consulting firm. He is author ofWilderness Economics and Policy (1979) and a workin progress, The Northeast’s Changing Forests. Por-tions of this article are adapted from that work. HisLand, Timber, and Recreation in Maine’s Northwoodswas recently published by the Maine AgriculturalExperiment Station. Contact Lloyd at RR#2, Box9200, Winthrop, ME 04364, USA. Telephone: (207)395-2185; e-mail: [email protected].

Please see IRLANDon page 48



THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY—Advocating for Wilderness in Changing Times

BY GREG APLET AND JERRY GREENBERG

“All we desire to save from invasion is that extremely minor fraction of outdoor America which yet remainsfree from mechanical sights and sounds and smells.”

HEN THE FOUNDERS OF THE WILDERNESSSociety inked this phrase for the founding platformof their new organization in 1935, they could not

Whave imagined what the wilderness movement would some-day become. From an initial group of eight, The WildernessSociety has grown to an organization of over 300,000 mem-bers, and as the popularity of wilderness preservation hasgrown, so have other organizations pledged to protectingAmerica’s wild places. From humble beginnings early in the20th century, the wilderness movement and The WildernessSociety have endured significant change and are now poisedto convey the momentum of the past into the next millen-nium.

The Early YearsThe story is now familiar to wilderness advocates aroundthe world. In October 1934, on their way to a Civilian Con-servation Corps camp in Tennessee, four men began arguingover Robert Marshall’s handwritten draft of a constitutionfor a new conservation group. As the discussion heated up,they pulled off the road and gathered around Marshall, thechief of recreation and lands for the U.S. Forest Service(USFS), and went over Marshall’s draft line by line. Theyended the roadside session with a definite intent to form anew organization, whatever its name might be.

Three months later, in January 1935, the group met atthe Cosmos Club in Washington, D.C. Participants includedRobert Sterling Yard, publicist for the National Park Ser-vice (NPS) and former president of the National Parks As-sociation (from which perch he criticized the NPS for notkeeping the parks suitably primitive), and Benton MacKaye,a planner for the Tennessee Valley Authority and even thenrecognized as the “Father of the Appalachian Trail.” Aftertwo days of rancorous debate, they adopted a platform. For aname, they settled on The Wilderness Society.

The group soon added four more carefully selected co-sponsors including Aldo Leopold, a leading wilderness ad-vocate and author of the classic work, A Sand County Alma-nac. “We want no straddlers,” Marshall said. During the 1930s,the small but energetic Wilderness Society was busy. RobertMarshall continued to burrow from within the USFS, nudg-ing the agency to expand upon its designation of primitiveareas until his death in 1939 at the age of 38. So it was thatThe Wilderness Society joined in the effort with other con-servation organizations to establish Kings Canyon and Olym-pic National Parks with the stipulation that each was to be

Wilderness in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Photo courtesy of Arthur CarhartWilderness Training Center.)

managed as wilderness. Similar language was inserted intothe management directives of Everglades National Park.

World War II and the infatuation with growth that char-acterized the boom years of the postwar period soon stalledthe successful start. The USFS responded by dramaticallyincreasing timber production from the national forests. TheBureau of Land Management accelerated grazing and min-ing programs throughout the 300 million acres of publiclands under its control. Managers of units in the NationalWildlife Refuge System were encouraged to allow farming,oil drilling, and other activities having nothing to do withthe preservation of wildlife. Even the NPS became infatu-ated with growth, launching a program it called “Mission66” and vowing to expand roads and tourist facilities in theparks to spectacular new levels by 1966. Almost no one ingovernment was talking about wilderness. The movementfoundered.

Then in 1950 the Bureau of Reclamation (BR)decidedto build enormous dams on the Colorado–Utah border inDinosaur National Monument. Like any national park unit,Dinosaur was by law to be kept inviolate, “unimpaired forthe enjoyment of future generations.” The BR turned toCongress for permission to violate the inviolable, and theconservation community, such as it was, found a cause aroundwhich it could organize.

And organize it did, led by Howard Zahniser, executivesecretary of The Wilderness Society, and David Brower, themilitant young head of the Sierra Club. Zahniser and Brower


joined with several other conservationleaders to form a coalition devotedexclusively to defeating the Dinosaurdams. When the smoke cleared fromthe congressional battlefield in 1956,the final legislation for completion ofthe Colorado River Project containedno dams in Dinosaur.

The Wilderness ActDespite the victory, Zahniser realized“that all our lands are destined to beput to some human use. If any of it isto be preserved in its natural condi-tion it must be as the result of a deli-berate setting aside of it for human useof it in a natural condition.” With thatconviction in mind, he produced awilderness bill that in 1957 was intro-duced in Congress. The bill enabledCongress to set aside selected federallands as areas to be kept permanentlyunchanged by human enterprise—noroads, no development for economicpurposes, no structures, no vehicles, nosignificant impacts of any kind.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 statesthat, “A wilderness, in contrast withthose areas where man and his ownworks dominate the landscape, ishereby recognized as an area where theearth and its community of life areuntrammeled by man, where man him-self is a visitor who does not remain.”

These wilderness areas would formthe National Wilderness PreservationSystem (NWPS). Zahniser rewrote theWilderness Bill 66 times and testifiedor had testimony presented before nofewer than 18 public hearings in 10states as three separate Congresses tookit up for consideration between 1956and 1964. He testified for the last timeon April 27, 1964. A week later he died,and only his memory was present inthe Rose Garden of the White Houseon September 3, 1964, when PresidentLyndon B. Johnson took pen in fist andsigned the final version of the longdream into law.

Protecting the WildernessAlthough truly a remarkable victory,passage of The Wilderness Act was onlya beginning. At its inception, the act

designated some 9 million acres as wil-derness. The hard work of identifyingand designating additional wildernessstill lay ahead. Through 30 years of slow,steady, state-by-state accumulation,punctuated by historic events like theAlaska National Interest Lands andConservation Act of 1980, which des-ignated 56 million acres of spectacularbeauty, and the 8-million acre Califor-nia Desert Protection Act of 1994, theNWPS has grown to 104 million acres.

At the same time that the nation wascultivating a wilderness preservationsystem, Congress was busy creating aframework of environmental laws gov-erning management of all federal lands,wilderness and nonwilderness alike.Among the most important of theseinspired laws was the National ForestManagement Act of 1976 (NFMA).NFMA established a process for iden-tifying the appropriate uses of the na-tional forests through public participa-tion in land management planning.Thus, a wholly new tool had been cre-ated for the protection of wildland:input from the growing number ofAmericans calling for more wilderness.

The battles over wilderness desig-nation and forest planning defined TheWilderness Society through the 1970sand 1980s. The organization grew froma staff of 28 in 1980 to 134 in 1991,establishing offices in 15 states. State-wide wilderness bills were passed forall states containing suitable nationalforest wilderness except for Idaho andMontana. Forest plans were approvedfor most national forests, identifyingover two-thirds of the land base as un-suitable for timber production. A num-ber of forest plans were appealed andrevised to protect wild places and wild-life. The Wilderness Society led the wayin professionalizing the conservationmovement, countering prodevelop-ment claims with credible, technicalanalyses of timber sale economics, re-gional economic trends, and old-growth forest inventories. Guidesauthored by Wilderness Society staffexplained the intricacies of wildernessand national forest management to anarmy of dedicated forest activists whofought to protect special places fromcoast to coast.

By the early 1990s, the protectorsof wilderness had chalked up an im-pressive record. To some, it looked likethe work of The Wilderness Societywas largely over. But even as Congresswas busy protecting special places, pro-found change was overtaking the con-servation movement.

The Next Era ofWilderness ProtectionThe handwriting had been on the wallfor decades. The works of GeorgePerkins Marsh, Aldo Leopold, RachelCarson, and others had caught the at-tention of the public many times. Butby the 1980s, the growing evidence ofenvironmental degradation—risingcarbon dioxide levels, tropical defores-tation, an exploding endangered specieslist—forced the entire world to face thequestion: Can we go on living like this?

In 1987, the World Commission onEnvironment and Development issuedits landmark report Our Common Future,offering an answer to that question. Itrecognized the relationship betweenhealthy ecosystems and the ability tomeet the needs of current and futuresocieties and concluded that saving spe-cies and their ecosystems is “an indis-pensable prerequisite for sustainability.”In this context, land allocation deci-sions were no longer about aestheticversus commercial preferences; theyhad long-lasting implications for thesustainability of our life-giving ecosys-tems. Wilderness protection suddenlytook on new importance as a vital toolto sustain ecosystems for future genera-tions. Protected natural areas could nolonger be regarded as islands in a hostilesea; they had to be seen instead as thecornerstones of sustainable ecosystems.

Even as it continued in its traditionalrole of wilderness advocate, The Wil-derness Society began to championsustainability principles in public landmanagement. From its advocacy ofpublic lands as reservoirs of biologicaldiversity to its role in defining sustain-able forestry, The Wilderness Societybegan to call for management thatwould not simply protect wilderness,but sustain it as well. It began to focuson building a sustainable nationwide


network of wildlands. Its goals evolvedfrom wilderness protection to creatingthe conditions necessary to sustain wil-derness, including protecting land andchanging the socially accepted normssuch as laws, economic systems, andinstitutions that govern land manage-ment decisions.

It has become a cliché that sustain-able management is ecologically sound,economically viable, and socially ac-ceptable. Nevertheless, this notionserves as the foundation of The Wil-derness Society’s approach to wilder-ness protection for the future. Ecologi-cally sound management sustains thecomplexity and dynamics of ecosys-tems while meeting human needs. Itprotects biological diversity and theproductive potential of ecosystems, in-cluding soil productivity, air and waterquality, and opportunities for spiritualrenewal at multiple scales. It weavesprotected areas, intensively developedareas, and lands managed for both natu-ral values and other uses into an inte-grated, sustainable whole. Under thisapproach, wilderness is not apart fromthe managed landscape, it is a part ofthe managed landscape—managed forwildness. The Wilderness Society willcontinue to advocate for wildernessdesignation and management ofenough land to sustain wildness, but itmust also advocate management re-forms across the landscape necessary tosustain a functional wildland ecosystem.

As important as ecological planningis, wildlands will not be sustained if theyare at odds with economically rationalallocation of resources. Historically, re-source allocation has been determinedby short-term market economics. Out-puts for which there were markets (e.g.,timber, forage, minerals, hunting, andfishing) were favored over nonmarketvalues such as aesthetics and backcoun-try access. However, this bias is break-ing down as traditionally nonmarketvalues have been shown to contributegreatly to local economies. The beautyof natural settings and access to out-door recreation are highly valued con-tributions to the quality of life in ruralcommunities. They serve to draw newbusiness into the community and tohold onto residents who might other-

wise be tempted to leave. A recentanalysis by the USFS shows that na-tional forest recreation contributes 30times the commerce to the nationaleconomy as does national forest tim-ber. The Wilderness Society has beenat the leading edge of this unfoldingstory, contributing landmark studies ofrural economies throughout the nation.At the same time, growth stimulatedby natural beauty is creating new prob-lems for rural towns, including loss ofopen space and a widening incomegap—problems with difficult solutions.Nevertheless, recognition of wildernessas an economic asset instead of a li-ability means people are more likelyto want it as part of their sustainablefuture.

Finally, ecologically sound, eco-nomically viable management can bestymied by social forces. A switch tosustainable management means change,and change does not always come eas-ily. If we are to build a sustainable sys-tem of wildlands, it must be done withthe support of people across the spec-trum of interests. Conservationists mustreach out to new constituencies andcultivate a love for wild places. In ur-ban settings, this will require introduc-ing people to the beauty and magic ofthe wilderness; for rural audiences, it willrequire cultivating an innate love of wildplaces into a powerful political force.

Around the country—in Alaska, inthe magnificent forests of the PacificNorthwest, the Columbia River basinand northern Rockies, the Sierra Ne-vada, the Colorado Plateau, the south-ern Appalachians, and the northernforest of New England—The Wilder-ness Society has worked with landmanagers to allocate lands appropriatelyand to manage them well. Research hasdemonstrated the economic benefits ofsustainable management, and The Wil-derness Society has worked to developnew constituencies and to find thecommon ground with rural residentsto ensure that our ecosystems will besustained in the future. Indeed, at theclose of the first century of U.S. con-servation, the work of The WildernessSociety and other organizations has notwaned, it has only increased in magni-tude and importance.

Epilogue: Two StepsForward, One Step BackThe events of the last two years dem-onstrate just how fragile progress cansometimes be. Soon after helping tolead the charge for the most impor-tant environmental victory of 1994,passage of the California Desert Pro-tection Act, The Wilderness Society, likethe entire conservation community,found itself confronting an extremelyhostile Congress. Bills to sell off, giveaway, or privatize America’s public landsbegan appearing like a bad flu epidemic.Legislation to open the Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge to oil drilling, to gutthe Endangered Species Act, and to trans-fer all 270 million acres managed by theBureau of Land Management to thestates are among the worst examples.Perhaps most disturbing have been thenumerous attempts to undermine TheWilderness Act itself. Various attemptsto pass precedent-setting legislationhave been made, including bills thatwould allow motorized vehicles and in-dustrial development in designatedwilderness areas. Among the targets aresouthern Utah’s red rock canyons andMinnesota’s Boundary Waters CanoeArea Wilderness. Combining forceswith other conservation groups, TheWilderness Society largely stymied theantiwilderness forces in the 104th Con-gress, though future assaults seem cer-tain.

Ironically, the last two years mayhave laid the foundation for additionalwilderness designation. The outrageousactions of the 104th Congress haveshaken millions of U.S. citizens whohad grown complacent about the fu-ture of the natural world. Just as thefight to save Dinosaur and the assaultsof former Interior Secretary James Wattenergized wilderness protection, somay the initiatives of the 104th Con-gress set the stage for renewed atten-tion to the United States’ dwindlingwildland resource. IJW

GREG APLET is forest ecologist and JERRY

GREENBERG is assistant director of communicationsfor The Wilderness Society, 900 Seventeenth StreetNW, Washington, D.C. 20006, USA.


WILDERNESS @ INTERNETWeb Page Sets the StandardWhile the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness(BWCAW) may be out of the way for most people, it is oneof the most unique and heavily used units within the Na-tional Wilderness Preservation System. The BWCAW offersa metaphor for many wilderness issues, including the strugglesbetween motorized and nonmotorized use, rationing, andallocation of recreational use, as well as the ability of a frag-ile ecosystem to sustain recreation and turbulent politics.

The BWCAW is now adding to the metaphor in anotherway: the internet. Through a cooperative effort between theSuperior National Forest, the Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources (MDNR), and the University of Min-nesota (UM) an extensive BWCAW information resourcehas been developed for the internet (www.gis.umn.edu/bwcaw/). The information offered on this page stems fromthe integration of research results, fisheries surveys, GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), personal essays, and managerial andvisitor-oriented information.

The BWCAW internet page is developed around fourtopical areas. “Project Information” describes how the pagewas developed; “About the BWCAW” provides backgroundinformation about the location and use of the area and apicture gallery and background information on some of thearea’s wildlife; “Trip Planning Resources” offers current newson forest fires and weather, information about the rules ofBWCAW use, safety, fire, and an interactive mapping ser-vice. Links to a series of “Internet Resources” related to theBWCAW compose the fourth section.

Pages are generally kept to one page, encouraging visi-tors to remain active and reducing user fatigue. There arehigh quality graphics (pictures, maps, drawings) throughoutthe pages. These are kept to a small enough size for easydownloading. Interactiveness is encouraged in several ways.The visitor is invited to offer information and suggestionsto the “webmaster” (person who administers the page) fromthe footer of nearly each page. Discussions with thewebmaster indicate that this tool is used, and that commentsare received on a regular basis.

Site visitors also can provide easily compiled demographicand experience level information on a simple-to-use form.This form, however, is currently buried within the projectinformation page and may not be noticed by many of thevisitors. Finally, the mapping service allows each visitor todevelop custom maps of the wilderness as large in scale as1:10,000 (see Figure 1).

GIS ApplicationsThe use of GIS demonstrates a form of the internet’s realpotential. Housed on a server at the UM College of NaturalResources, the presence of features such as portages, camp-sites, and access areas are available to people throughout theworld. Site visitors are oriented to the map server capabili-ties and instructions for its use. The server works in two

modes: browse or query. In browse mode, visitors can createviews of any place in the wilderness they desire. Up to fivelayers of information, in addition to lakes and streams, canbe included in each view. Users can zoom in or out onparticular areas, with the level of information increasing withthe scale of view. For example, when the scale moves below1:55,000 the length of each portage will be displayed. Asecondary map is produced for each view that illustrates thelocation within the wilderness it represents. Views can beprinted or saved to disk as graphics files.

In query mode, detailed map coordinates or other infor-mation can be obtained for specific features within a view.For example, by clicking on Sawbill Lake in Figure 1, onecan find out its ownership, description, size, depth, and clar-ity. This information is provided by an MDNR Section ofFisheries “Lake Information Report.” Also on that reportare the statistics of the number of fish by species per net in a1993 survey, the number of fish stocked in the past five years,and a fisheries status report for the lake. Viewers are finallydirected to resources for further information from theMDNR and maps.

While this page is admittedly a work in progress that willcontinue to improve in depth and functionality, it is cur-rently setting the standard as an internet-based informationresource for a specific area and is well worth a visit. TheBWCAW internet page demonstrates the World Wide Web’s(WWW) advantage in compiling a variety of public infor-mation sources into a central, easy-to-use resource. This pagealso demonstrates the use of emerging technology (e.g., formsand GIS) that will become pervasive in making the interneta truly interactive tool. Although most page developers will


Figure 1—BWCAW Interactive Mapping Serviceon the Internet


not have access to the wealth of infor-mation available for the BWCAW, theformat of this page has something tooffer everyone. Interactiveness isstressed, graphics are purposeful and notoverdone, the page provides a true net-work of interests and perspectives, andthe depth and currency of the infor-mation will continue to provide valuefor repeat visitors to the site.

The Wilderness Informa-tion Resource NetworkThe expansion of wilderness informa-tion on the internet is quickly growing.My most recent Lycos internet searchon the word “wilderness” returned59,945,140 unique Uniform ResourceLocators (URLs) and 16,239 documentscontaining the word “wilderness.” Ofcourse not all of these web sites con-sider wilderness in the way many IJWreaders may, but these overwhelming fig-ures represent the growth of the internetand its level of use by people with sometype of wilderness interest.

We have all encountered frustrationwhen the information we desired wassitting on our desks, but we still couldn’tfind it. The internet has the potentialto broaden this frustration greatly. Whatdo people do when they desire a spe-cific piece of information from over16,000 documents? When in a library,we can always ask for the help of a da-tabase expert or a clever reference li-brarian. The search engines being de-veloped for the internet are filling thoseroles to the degree they can, but I of-ten lack confidence that I found whatI was looking for, either because mysearch engine didn’t find it, or I misseda link somewhere.

In the May 1996 issue of IJW (Vol.2, No. 1) Freimund and Queen pro-posed the development of a frameworkin which wilderness information onthe Internet might become organized.We proposed that a structure couldimprove success in finding the infor-mation we wanted and encouraged thedevelopment of two-way communica-tion and improved dialog. Examples ofthis type of organization are emergingon the internet (see http://150.131.101.6:80/people/borrie/wil-

derness/). Additionally, a program hasbeen developed to advance this orga-nization of resources further.

The “Wilderness Net”The University of Montana WildernessInstitute, the Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute, the Arthur CarhartNational Wilderness Training Center,and the U.S. Forest Service-Forests ofFlorida have entered into an agreementto conceptualize and develop a Wil-derness Information Resource Net-work. The purpose of “WildernessNet” is to provide access to state-of-the-art information about wildernessand promote and enhance a global dia-log of wilderness issues. This networkwill generally follow the model pro-posed by Freimund and Queen in theMay 1996 issue of IJW.

Recognizing that no facility willprovide an exhaustive archive of wil-derness information, early efforts willfocus on identifying which types ofinformation the wilderness communitywould most desire if they had access toit. The project will begin with the de-velopment of a needs assessment ofpeople interested in the scientific, edu-cational, or managerial products offeredby the centers involved. Those docu-ments then will be put onto a series ofweb pages for downloading to personalcomputers around the world. Work willalso begin on the development ofshared databases and GIS. It is antici-pated that these resources will beginto come on-line in 1997.

Networking capability is among thetrue powers of the internet. A secondfunction of Wilderness Net will be todevelop and maintain a series of linksto sites with critical wilderness infor-mation such as Bill Borrie’s above-mentioned site. These sites may includephilosophical, educational, legal, andmanagerial information or access thesite-specific information that is alreadybeing posted for the visitors of manywilderness areas.

The third function of WildernessNet relates to the improvement of dia-log. A bulletin board will be developedin which wilderness issues can be dis-cussed by people of broad interests anddiverse geography. Much like IJW, this

Dear Editor:

I recently read an IJW article entitled“Wilderness @ Internet.” It’s about howthe internet can be used to educate,inform, share research data and find-ings, management policies, etc. Theinternet is the biggest bang for our buckavailable for getting information out tothe public. However, we walk a fine linebetween educating the public abouttheir wilderness areas so that they willwant to protect them, and the risk ofcontributing to overuse. One answermay be to highlight underutilized ar-eas that could be controlled if overusewere to occur.

Information available for the publicon registration and permits is valuable,and if an area is under quota, it maynot be in danger of overuse. Internetusers are a close match for wildernessusers from a demographic standpoint,and this communication resourceshould be utilized. Any thoughts?

Marian HellingPublic Affairs Specialist

Siskiyou National ForestP.O. Box 440Grant’s Pass, OR 97526, USA.

forum will entertain a discussion ofwilderness that is broad in its ideas andgeography.

To access the Wilderness Informa-tion Resource Network and partici-pate in the needs assessment, visitwww.wilderness.net. You will be askedto offer your opinions on which in-formation would be most useful to youor your staff. If you are not currentlyon the WWW, please send your com-ments to Laurie Yung, The Universityof Montana, Wilderness Institute,Missoula, MT 59812, USA; call her at(406) 243-5184 or e-mail [email protected]. Your thoughtswill be appreciated. IJW

(These reviews were provided by WayneFreimund, director, University of Montana Wil-derness Institute; e-mail: [email protected].)


REGENERATING THE CALEDONIAN FOREST—Restoring Ecological Wilderness in Scotland

BY ALAN WATSON FEATHERSTONE


T

A lone Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) stands in Glen Affrig Celedonian ForestReserve, Scotland (above). Article author Alan Watson Featherstone with anaturally regenerated birch in an area fenced in Glen Affrig by Trees for Lifein 1990. (Photo taken in 1995 after 5 years of protection from overgrazingby deer,left.) The logo of Trees for Life (below right). (Photos by A.W.Featherstone.)

HE CALEDONIAN FOREST originally coveredmuch of the Highlands of Scotland and takes its namefrom the Romans, who called Scotland “Caledonia,”

meaning “wooded height.” This forest is mainly associatedtoday with the country’s native Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris)and formed the westernmost outpost of the boreal forestecosystem in Europe. These pinewoods are estimated to haveoriginally covered 1.5 million hectares (see Figure 1) as avast primeval wilderness of Scots pines, birch (Betula spp.),rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), aspen (Populus tremula), juniper(Juniperus communis), and other trees. However, in the lower-lying areas of the Highlands the Caledonian Forest was com-posed primarily of broad-leaved trees, such as oak (Quercusspp.), ash (Fraxinus excelsior), and hazel (Corylus avellana). Onthe west coast, oak and birch trees dominated a temperate

rainforest ecosystem rich inferns, mosses, and lichens. In to-tal, forest is estimated to havecovered 70 to 80% of the Scot-land Highlands prior to its clear-ance by humans.

Scots pine is one of the mostwidely distributed conifers inthe world, with a natural rangestretching from Scotland andSpain through central Europe,from Russia to Siberia, and fromnorth of the Arctic Circle to theMediterranean (Steven andCarlisle 1959). Despite this vastdistribution of the species, thepinewoods in Scotland areunique due to the absence of anyother conifers, whereas else-where Scots pine is found in as-sociation with other trees suchas Norway spruce (Picea abies)(Rodwell and Cooper 1995).The Scottish pinewoods, there-fore, have significance on an in-ternational level as a distinctivecomponent of the boreal forest

biome, now recognized by their designation as a priorityhabitat for conservation by the European Community in itsHabitat Directive (European Community Council Direc-tive 1992).


Many species of wildlife have flour-ished in the Caledonian Forest, includ-ing large mammals such as the beaver(Castor fiber), wild boar (Sus scrofa), lynx(Felis lynx), red deer (Cervus elaphus),moose (Alces alces), brown bear (Ursusarctos), and wolf (Canis lupus). In addi-tion, several notable species of birds havelived here, including the capercaillie(Tetrao urogallus), the crested tit (Paruscristatus), and the endemic Scottish cross-bill (Loxia scotica), which occurs only inthe pinewoods.

Deforestation of ScotlandHowever, there has been a long his-tory of deforestation in Scotland, withclearance of the land beginning inNeolithic times. Trees were cut for fueland timber, boats and huts, and to con-vert the land to agriculture. Over cen-turies the forest shrank as the humanpopulation grew. It also sufferedthrough deliberate destruction, such aswhen the Vikings attacked Scotland andset fire to villages, farms, and forests.Other areas were burned during cam-paigns to exterminate “vermin” suchas the wolf, which was flushed out ofthe forest by the flames. Timber ex-traction in the 17th and 18th centu-ries, after the forests of England wereexhausted, led to further deforestationin the Highlands, compounded by the

A red deer stag grazes beneath Scots pines in GlenAffrig. (Photo by A.W. Featherstone.)

notorious Highland Clearances of thelate 18th and early 19th centuries,when landowners evicted many of thesmallscale peasant crofters from theirholdings to make way for extensivesheep grazing. The subsequent rise of“sporting” estates in the Highlands—used by their owners for shooting tro-phy animals—led to a substantial in-crease in the red deer population and aresultant decline in natural regenera-tion of the forest. Finally, some of thebest remaining areas of natural foresthave been lost or seriously degradedin the 20th century by underplantingwith commercial crops of exotic trees,such as North American sitka spruce(Picea sitchensis) and lodgepole pine(Pinus contorta).

Today, between 1 and 2% of theoriginal forests survive, and the nativepinewoods have been reduced to a fewdozen isolated remnants, totaling16,000 ha (Forestry Authority 1994).Gone with the trees are all the largemammals (with the exception of the reddeer), the last to disappear being the wolfin the 17th century. Of the species thatsurvive, most have been drastically re-duced in numbers and range, such as thered squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) and pinemarten (Martes martes), while the effecton plants, fungi, and invertebrates canonly be assumed to be similar.

A WildernessRestoration VisionIt is therefore too late for wildernessprotection in Scotland, as the terres-trial ecosystems (which are mainly forest)are so severely reduced in area andimpoverished in diversity of constitu-ent species. The fragments of forest thatremain are now described as seminatural,reflecting their disturbed and degradedcondition. The surviving remnants of

Figure 1—Original range ofNative Pinewoods in Scotland

Figure 2—Existing remnants of Native Pinewoodsin Scotland and the forest regeneration area

envisioned by Trees for Life.


the native pinewoods are links with thepast; they are the last vestiges ofScotland’s original forest as it was fromafter the last Ice Age until about 2,000years ago. However, those remnants arerunning out of time, as most of themconsist only of old trees. About 150years ago the forest reached a criticalpoint of no return, with too few treesand so many deer and sheep eatingthem that no young trees became es-

tablished. Although today the trees pro-duce viable seed, and seedlings do ger-minate, intense grazing continuouslyeats them back to the level of the sur-rounding vegetation (mainly heathers—Calluna vulgaris and Erica spp.), and theystay at that height until they die. As aresult of this human-created imbalancein the ecosystem, the remnants havebecome “geriatric” forests composed ofold trees reaching the end of theirlifespans with no young trees to taketheir place. Thus, the human generationalive today is the last one with the op-portunity to save the Caledonian For-est and regenerate it for the future.

Volunteers planting Scots pines, Glen Affrig, May 1994(right). A heavily grazed pine seedling, Strathfarrar(below). A Trees for Life volunteer planting a Scotspine seedling in a deforested part of Glen Affrig (be-low left). (Photos by A.W. Featherstone.)

Meaningful conservation measureshave been slow to be adopted in Scot-land, and the country has the dubiousdistinction of being one of the veryfew in the world with no nationalparks. In England and Wales, nationalparks were established in the 1950s,but similar proposals for Scotland wereblocked then and again in 1988 bylandowning interests and politicalconcerns. Similarly, the Cairngormsarea, which contains some of the bestremaining remnants of the native pin-ewoods, has been proposed for desig-nation as a UNESCO World HeritageSite since at least 1983, but this hasalso been prevented by economic andpolitical interests. Wilderness designa-tion has not been given any seriousconsideration and would not be verymeaningful at present, given the im-poverished condition of the country’secosystems.

The future of wilderness in Scot-land therefore depends on ecologicalrestoration, and in the last 30 years ofwork have begun to protect and re-generate some of the remnants of theCaledonian Forest. Organizations asdiverse as Scottish Natural Heritage(the UK government’s conservationagency in Scotland), Forest Enterprise(the state-owned body charged withtimber production for the nation), theRoyal Society for the Protection ofBirds (RSPB—the largest conservationcharity in Britain), and some private


landowners have initiated programs toregenerate the native pinewoods in par-ticular. These efforts mainly have takenthe form of erecting fences to keep deerand other grazing animals out of theremnants of the original forest so thatthey can regenerate successfully. How-ever, these initiatives cover only a smallpart of the original forest area and havebeen largely uncoordinated.

To re-establish a true wilderness inthe Highlands—and indeed a substan-tial forest—rather than just small pock-ets of woodland scattered in an other-wise denuded landscape, requires alarger vision. This is the need that theconservation charity Trees for Life(TFL) has responded to through its goalof linking up some of the isolated for-est remnants and thereby restoring thenatural tree cover to a large contigu-ous area of about 600 square miles inthe north-west Highlands. This remotearea (see Figure 2) provides one of thebest opportunities for re-creating a truewilderness in Britain, as it has almostno people living in it, there are nothrough roads, very few economic ac-tivities take place there (except for deerstalking), and it contains three of themain remnants of the native pinewoods.The area is mountainous and containsseveral large lochs (lakes), while it isalso large enough to contain smallpopulations of the extirpated largemammals, which we aim to have rein-troduced when there is suitable habi-tat for them. Despite its size, however,this area alone would not be adequateto support genetically sustainablepopulations of the largest of the miss-ing mammals, as species such as wolvesand bears require a large range in whichto live. Thus, we envision linking thearea outlined above to other sites of re-stored forest in the Highlands by creat-ing corridors of natural habitat.

EcologicalRestoration StrategyWe have a threefold strategy for thereturn of the forest. First is to facilitatethe natural regeneration of the trees byfencing the deer out of areas on theperiphery of the existing remnants,which will permit seedlings to grow

naturally to maturity again withoutbeing overgrazed. This is the simplestand best method of regenerating theforest, as it involves the minimum ofintervention and allows nature to domost of the work—one of the basicprinciples of ecological restoration (seeTable 1). However, this approach onlyworks in locations where there is anexisting seed source nearby, which isnot the case in the treeless expanses thatmake up most of the Highlands today.The second part of our strategy appliesin these situations, to areas where therearen’t nearby seed sources: native treesare planted in barren areas where theforest has disappeared completely. Todo this, we collect seed from the near-est surviving trees to maintain the lo-

cal genetic variation in the forest. Theresulting seedlings are then planted ina random pattern inside fenced enclo-sures, replicating the natural distribu-tion of the trees. We work with all ofthe native trees from the forest, and payparticular attention to the pioneer spe-cies, such as birch, rowan, and aspen, asthey have an important role to play inthe succession of the forest as it getsre-established.

The third part of our strategy involvesthe felling of nonnative trees, which insome areas have been planted as a com-mercial crop amongst the old trees ofthe Caledonian Forest remnants,thereby preventing their regeneration.These felled exotics are not extractedbut are left to decompose in situ so that

Scots pines (Pinus sylvestris) and silver birches (Betula pendula) in autumn, overlooking Loch Benevean, Glen Affrig CaledonianForest Reserve, Scotland. (Photo by A.W. Featherstone.)


Propagation of aspen from root sections. (Photo by A.W. Featherstone.)

the nutrients they contain are retainedwithin the forest ecosystem instead ofbeing exported and not replaced.

With this threefold strategy, it is ourintention is to reestablish “islands” ofhealthy young forest scattered through-out the barren, deforested glens. Asthese new trees reach seed-bearing agethey will form the nuclei for expandednatural regeneration in the surround-ing area. While the trees in these “is-lands” are growing, it will be impor-tant to reduce the numbers of deer sothat the forest restoration process canbecome self-sustaining, without theneed for further fences. At that stage,we expect that the existing fences canalso be dismantled so that the humanintrusion into the landscape can beminimized, enhancing the quality ofthe restored wilderness. As the treesgrow, some of the other woodland spe-cies will return by themselves. Stillother species will need to be physicallyreintroduced to the regenerating for-est when the habitat can support them.

PracticalApplicationsPractical work on our project beganin 1989 after several years of prepara-tion, when TFL volunteers protectednaturally occurring Scots pine seedlingswith plastic tubes in two forest rem-nants in Glen Cannich. Safe from graz-ing deer, these seedlings grew until alarger area around them could befenced, and this has been done sinceby the landowners of those areas. Fromthat small beginning, our work ex-

panded in 1990 when wefunded the fencing of anarea of 50 hectares on theperiphery of the forestremnants in Glen Affrig,where we operate in part-nership with Forest Enter-prise, which has its ownprogram for regenerationof the Caledonian Forest.

The first area that wefenced was the subject of ascientific study by a studentfrom Edinburgh Universityin 1990, just before thefence was erected. His data

showed that in the area enclosed by thefence there are approximately 100,000pine seedlings, which are on average9.9 years old (Blanchflower 1990).Some of the seedlings were up to 27years old but only 8.5 centimeters (3.3inches) high, demonstrating how seri-ous the grazing damage has been!Ninety-five percent of the seedlingshad sustained grazing damage, and ofthe remaining 5%, the majority wereone-year-old seedlings that were toosmall to be seen by the deer amongstthe surrounding heather (Blanchflower1990). By excluding deer from thatarea, seedlings inside the fence are freeto grow to maturity for the first timein over 150 years. In 1996 we are do-ing a follow-up study to evaluate theeffects of six years’ protection from graz-ing.

Since 1990, we have funded thefencing of an additional four areas inGlen Affrig, totaling 109 hectares, withanother two scheduled for the springof 1996. Some of these are purely fornatural regeneration of the trees thatare already there, while the others havecombined natural regeneration withplanting. To date our staff and volun-teers have planted over 100,000 trees,mainly Scots pines, but also birch, aspen,hazel, and goat willow (Salix caprea).

Aspen is a species that we are pay-ing particular attention to, as it nowrarely reproduces by seed in Scotland.This is mainly due to the fact that itsrange has been drastically reduced, andit survives as isolated clumps of single-sexed clones, all grown from a singleparent tree. For these clumps, often

many kilometers apart, sexual repro-duction is virtually impossible, and theintense grazing pressure prevents thespread of aspen by ramets (root suck-ers). For several years now we have beenmapping out the sites where aspengrows in Glen Affrig, and each springsince 1991 we have been collectingroot sections from the trees in some ofthese sites. In a greenhouse we propa-gate new plants from these roots, andafter a year we plant the resultant sap-lings inside fenced enclosures in theglen. Seeking to mimic nature as closelyas possible, we choose planting sites forthem where the conditions correspondto those of the mature aspens in theglen—drier south-facing areas, prefer-ably amongst some exposed rocks.

We plant them out in mixed clumpsof five or six trees, with each tree inthe clump coming from a differentparent stand of aspen. In doing this, weseek to ensure that there is at least onemale and one female in each clump, sothat sexual reproduction will becomea possibility again when they reach ma-turity. We are also facilitating the re-generation of the other rare trees inthe pinewoods of Glen Affrig, includ-ing oak (Quercus robur), juniper, hazel,holly, and willows (Salix caprea, S. aurita).The willows are being propagated frombranch cuttings, while we’ve been pro-tecting individual naturally regenerat-ing oak seedlings with tubes to pre-vent them from being grazed by deer.We also have begun a mapping pro-gram for these species so that we canchart their distribution using Geo-graphic Information Systems softwareon our computers.

A major element of our work is ourvolunteer program, in which individu-als take part in week-long work campsout in the forest. These efforts providethe participants with a meaningful ex-perience of working with others onpositive action to help restore Scotland’sforest heritage, thereby addressing theglobal problem of deforestationthrough the healing of Earth. Hundredsof people, ranging from teenagers to70 year olds, have taken part in theseweek-long volunteer efforts since 1991,discovering that they can make a posi-tive contribution, with many receiving


a powerful transformative experience.In the 10 years since our work be-

gan, there has been a greatly increasedawareness of Scotland’s native pin-ewoods and an upsurge of initiativesto regenerate them. Our work both onthe ground and in publicizing theplight of the forest remnants has con-tributed to this shift, but few of thoseprojects are considering anything otherthan the trees, particularly the Scotspine. Our interest lies in the whole for-est ecosystem and in the restoration of

serve by Forest Enterprise in 1994, andthe area attracts increasing numbers ofvisitors each year because of its wild andscenic qualities. Visitor numbers bringtheir own set of problems, but these canbe managed. The Highlands of Scotland,with their low human population den-sity, offer one of the best opportunities inall of Europe to re-create a wild forestlandscape covering a substantial area.Through the work of TFL and other or-ganizations, I expect that in 250 years thepresent impoverished and degraded state

Please see Featherstone on page 47

foreigners, including an Arab prince,Dutch and Danish businessmen, and amysterious Malaysian or Indonesian ty-coon whose identity is kept secret.These people often have no interest inor incentive to regenerate the forestand, as long as large tracts of land arein their hands, many parts of the High-lands will remain in a bleak, impover-ished and treeless state. In early 1995TFL placed a bid to purchase the10,000-acre Wester Guisachan Estatein Glen Affrig, having received grant

Table 1: Principles of Ecological RestorationUsed by Trees for Life

1. Mimic nature wherever possible.2. Work outward from areas of strength, where

the ecosystem is closest to its natural condi-tion.

3. Pay particular attention to “keystone” spe-cies—those that are key components of theecosystem, and on which many other speciesdepend.

4. Utilize pioneer species and natural successionto facilitate the restoration process.

5. Re-create ecological niches where they’vebeen lost.

6. Re-establish ecological linkages—reconnectthe threads in the web of life.

7. Control and/or remove introduced species.8. Remove or mitigate the limiting factors that

prevent restoration from taking place natu-rally.

9. Let nature do most of the work.10. Love nurtures the life force and spirit of all

beings, and is a significant factor in helpingto heal Earth.

a wild forest, rather than onethat will be used by humans foreconomic extraction, even ona sustainable basis. Thus we arenow seeking to move the dis-cussion in Scotland, and indeedthe practical action on theground, forward through ouradvocacy for the reintroductionof extirpated fauna. There aresigns of progress here too, asScottish Natural Heritage iscurrently carrying out a full-scale feasibility study, based onWorld Conservation Unionguidelines, into the possible re-introduction of the beaver toScotland. TFL is a partner in theHighland Wolf Fund, which israising money to carry out asimilar study into the possiblereturn of the wolf, a subject thathas gained considerable interestrecently among students inconservation-related courses atBritish universities, and in theUK national media. For the firsttime, we are witnessing discus-sion about the possible returnof true wilderness to Scotland.

Critical problems remain, however,not the least of which is Scotland’s feu-dal-like system of landownership,which is one of the main reasons whythe forest has continued to decline inthis century. The Highlands are like athird-world country in that there hasnever been any type of land reformhere, and a very small number of peopleown the vast majority of land in hugeestates. Most of these owners live ei-ther in the south of England or abroad,and individual holdings of 10,000 acresare common. Many of the owners are

offers to meet the asking price of£450,000. However, the estate was soldto a businessman from Holland whomade a higher offer, and another pieceof prime land for forest restoration inScotland passed into foreign ownership.Though in this case it seems as thoughthe new owners will carry out someforest regeneration work on the estate.

However, the importance and valueof wilderness is being recognized bymore and more people in Scotland andthroughout the United Kingdom. Forexample, 9,000 hectares of Glen Affrigwere declared a Caledonian Forest Re-

of the Highlands, and the reduc-tion of the Caledonian Forestto 1% of its former area, willsoon be seen as a brief and mis-guided episode in the continu-ous evolution of wilderness inScotland. Further, the ecologi-cal restoration efforts of TFLwill be one of many worldwideseeking to heal Earth.

This global perspectiveforms the larger contextwithin which our efforts takeplace. With deforestation andother forms of ecological deg-radation now worldwidephenomena, we believe thatecological restoration—thehealing of Earth—will becomean international priority in thenext century. For wilderness tobe a meaningful reality for fu-ture generations, it is notenough to just protect theshrinking areas of pristine na-ture that still survive on theplanet. To provide a habitat forthe millions of species withwhich we share the planet, we

also need to reverse the environmentaldestruction that already has taken placein ecosystems all over the world. To dothis successfully in the decades to come,we need pilot projects right now in thevarious climate zones and ecosystemtypes on the planet, to elucidate anddemonstrate the techniques by whichecological restoration can be effective.Thus, we see our work as relevant notonly in Scotland and the United King-dom (TFL was declared the UK Con-servation Project of the Year in 1991)


WILDERNESS PROGRESS IN NAMIBIABY LAUREL MUNSON-BOYERS


N JUNE 1996, A REMARKABLE SYMPOSIUM con-vened in the Republic of Namibia, in southwest Africa.The symposium was historic, as it was the first profes-

Isional gathering focused on wilderness designation andmanagement on the African continent, outside of SouthAfrica. Up to 100 participants, mostly Namibian but alsoincluding representatives from seven other countries, pro-vided current perspectives and advice to Namibians on wil-derness designation and management. The symposium oc-curred largely through the concerted and persistent effortsof Trygve Cooper, chief warden, Waterburg Plateau Park,the site of the symposium approximately 150 miles (250km) north of the capital city of Windhoek. Financial sup-port from USAID mission in Namibia, the Rossing Foun-dation, and 20 additional sponsors made the symposiumpossible.

In addition to being historic, the event was also remark-able in that it occurred in a developing country already strug-gling with 35 to 40% unemployment, 30 to 40% illiteracy,and a slowing economy overdependent on mining revenue.Therefore, the issues facing Nambian wilderness designa-

tion are complex. Principle among these are economic, po-litical, and cultural issues. As always, the economic issue wasparamount at the symposium. Kulani Mkhize (Natal KwazuluDepartment of Conservation, South Africa) summarized theconsensus succinctly by saying, “A depressed economy al-most guarantees a degraded environment.”

The symposium received good political attention. StatePresident Dr. Sam Nujoma sent an encouraging message, asdid U.S. Vice President Al Gore. Namibian’s Deputy Minis-ter of Housing (now ambassador to London), Ben Uulenga,attended the entire symposium as did the regional governor.While acknowledging the importance of designating andmaintaining areas as wilderness, political figures present con-firmed that politicians in general were too concerned withbasic issues of education, economics, and water to give muchpriority to wilderness.

The cultural challenge is perhaps the greatest and camefrom two sectors. Wilderness designation and nature con-servation are seen primarily as concepts of the white mi-nority in a land that is 86% black. This is changing, withsome notable projects of community-based nature conser-vation in several areas. The principle emphasis from Namibiaand other Southern African countries is the importance oflocal people receiving sustainable economic benefits fromtourism or wildlife utilization so that they can take the wil-derness concept seriously. In addition, a cultural barrier ex-ists to some degree within the ranks of professional conser-vationists, stemming from ingrained habits of four-wheeldrive access to remote areas.

As a result of this symposium, a series of recommenda-tions are being presented to the Ministry of Environmentand Tourism as hopeful steps toward legal designation ofwilderness. Areas in existing parks will be the priority, butpark wardens will be asked to provide inventories of othersuitable or potential areas outside of parks in coordinationwith local communities. Simultaneously, the Namibian Na-ture Foundation will follow several promising leads fromprivate landowners who are interested in the concept. Fi-nally, education and training for conservation professionalswas deemed a high priority. Namibia’s first wilderness man-agement training seminar convened for five days immedi-ately following the symposium. Paul Winegart (U.S. ForestService, retired, and associate of The WILD Foundation) ledthe training with Drummond Densham of the Natal ParksBoard (South Africa).

This symposium was a first and most important step tolong-term protection for the spectacular and silent expanseof Namibian wildlands, for the benefit of all Namibians. IJW

LAUREL MUNSON-BOYERS represented Yosemite National Park (where she iswilderness unit manager) at the Namibian symposium.

Waterberg Plateau Park(above). (Photo by Vance G.Martin.) Trygve Cooper,chief warden, WaterbergPlateau Park; Vance Martin,Executive Director WILD/ICEC; Ian Player, WildernessFoundation, RSA; BenUulengha, Namibian Ambas-sador to the United King-dom. (left to right)


ANNOUNCEMENTSAND WILDERNESS CALENDAR

• HELICOPTER LANDINGS PROPOSED IN TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST WILDERNESS AREAS

• YELLOWSTONE CUTTHROAT IN PERIL

• WILDERNESS WATCH FORMS SEVEN LOCAL CHAPTERS

• WILDERNESS THERAPY

• RUSSIAN CONSERVATION NEWS BULLETIN NOW AVAILABLE

• ITALIAN WILDERNESS SOCIETY NEWS

• STUDENT ECOJOURNAL

• WILDERNESS WATCH FACILITATES PRIVATE MANAGEMENT

• BULLETIN BOARD EFFECTIVENESS ANALYZED

• MOLLIE BEATTIE WILDERNESS AREA ACT OF 1996

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Helicopter LandingsProposed in TongassNational Forest Wilderness AreasThe U.S. Forest Service (USFS) proposes to allow 1,265helicopter landings per year in designated wilderness areason the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, USA. This is anunprecedented assault on the integrity of the whole Na-tional Wilderness Preservation System, The Wilderness Act,the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act(ANILCA), and the Tongass Timber Reform Act. In theHelicopter Landings in Wilderness, Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement (DEIS), the USFS has proposed a pre-ferred alternative 3B that would allow up to 1,265 helicop-ter landings per year at 129 sites in 12 of the 19 designatedwilderness areas on the Tongass National Forest.

Neither The Wilderness Act nor ANILCA allow suchuse of helicopters for private or commercial public tour land-ings in designated wilderness areas on the Tongass NationalForest or anywhere else. This action would set a precedentthat could open all wilderness to motorized access. TheUSFS’s own DEIS shows that there will be significant nega-tive impacts from helicopters on wilderness and its wildlifeand cultural values. Helicopters are not “traditional” in wil-derness! For more information contact The Wilderness So-ciety at (907) 272-9453.

Yellowstone Cutthroat in PerilThe cutthroat trout is in serious danger from the illegal in-troduction of lake trout into Yellowstone Lake, USA. Laketrout are voracious predators of the cutthroat; their entryinto Yellowstone Lake was prohibited for exactly that rea-son. Scientists have found the fish at various ages and loca-tions, leading them to believe there are thousands breedingin the lake. Cutthroat are a source of food for the park’s

grizzly bears, osprey, pelicans, and otters and support a mul-timillion dollar industry in sport fishery in and around thelake. The possibility of completely eliminating the lake troutseems slim; at best, scientists hope to keep numbers in checkby establishing an intensive gill netting program and en-couraging fishermen to seek and kill lake trout. (Excerptedfrom Taproot, a publication of The Coalition for Educationin the Outdoors, 1996.)

Wilderness WatchForms Seven Local ChaptersWilderness Watch (WW), USA, recognized long ago that itwould be virtually impossible for their small staff in Missoula,Montana, to adequately monitor every designated wildernessand Wild and Scenic River in the United States. They have,therefore, set a long-term goal to have local chapters watchingover each and every wilderness and wild and scenic river.

According to Executive Director Janet Rose, “WWstrongly believes that chapters are critical to the success ofWilderness Watch. They are our eyes and ears at the locallevel where most ‘wilderness watching’ must occur, and theyprovide a means for WW members to stay abreast of actionsaffecting wildernesses and wild rivers.”

WW currently has seven local chapters working for wil-derness and wild rivers around the United States. Some chap-ters monitor a single wilderness, while others cover a muchlarger geographic area. These chapters include (1) CentralSierra, Twain Harte, California (Emigrant, Carson-IcebergMokelumne, Hoover, N. Yosemite); (2) Eastern Sierra,Crowley Lake, California (Ansel Adams, John Muir, Sequoia-Kings Canyon, Golden Trout, South Sierra); (3) Cloud Peak,Sheridan, Wyoming (Cloud Peak); (4) Southern Wildlandsand Rivers, Pasadena, Texas (Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma,Louisiana, Mississippi); (5) North Cascades, Woodinville,Washington (Pasayten, Lake Chelan-Sawtooth, Boulder


River, Glacier Peak, Mt. Baker, Noisy-Diobsud, Alpine Lakes, Henry M. Jack-son, Stephen Mather); (6) Hellgate,Missoula, Montana (Selway-Bitterroot,Anaconda-Pintler, Welcome Creek,Rattlesnake, Cabinet Mts., BobMarshall Complex, Lee Metcalf, Gatesof the Mountains, Absaroka-Beartooth,Red Rock Lakes); and (7) Friends ofthe Missions, Condon, Montana (Mis-sion Mountains).

Affiliation with a local WW chap-ter is free. You’ll receive timely alertsand notice of chapter events, work-shops, field trips, and social gatheringsas well as newsletters and other impor-tant information from our nationalheadquarters. If you would like to be-come a member of one of these chap-ters, contact Wilderness Watch, Box9175, Missoula, MT 59807, USA. Tele-phone: (406) 542-2048; e-mail: [email protected].

Wilderness TherapyDr. Jennifer Davis-Berman and Dr.Dene S. Berman offer a thorough ex-amination of the use of wilderness as atherapy tool in their book WildernessTherapy: Foundations, Theory and Re-search. This text is unmatched in thefield for providing a step-by-step out-line for understanding the history, use,and development of wilderness therapy,including current research, methods forprogramming, and suggestions for in-teracting with schools, mental healthorganizations, and the courts. Offeredby the American Camping Associa-tion, 5000 State Road 67 North,Martinsville, IN 46151-7902, USA.Telephone: (317) 342-8456. (Excerptedfrom Taproot, a publication of The Coa-lition for Education in the Outdoors,1996.)

Russian ConservationNews BulletinNow AvailableRussian Conservation News is a quarterlyinformational bulletin featuring cur-rent articles by leading conservationbiologists, policy makers, and environ-

mentalists from the former SovietUnion. Each issue (16 to 30 pages) ispacked with maps, diagrams, photo-graphs, and news about protected ar-eas, parks, and nature reserves; conser-vation legislation and management;urgent issues facing the environmentin the former Soviet Union and gen-eral problems and organizations work-ing to solve them; conservation finance,funding priorities, and achievements;and endangered species and ecosys-tems.

One year subscription prices (U.S.$):Student $20, Individual $25, Organi-zation $35. To subscribe write, Rus-sian Conservation News, PEEC/RCN,R.R. 2 Box 1010, Dingmans Ferry, PA18328, USA.

Italian WildernessSociety NewsThe Italian Wilderness Society has anew center. Please note the new ad-dress: Via Augusto Bonetti n^42 -17010 Murialdo (SV), Italy. Telephone/Fax: 0863-949322.

Student EcojournalStudents at the Paul Revere MiddleSchool in Houston are going nation-wide with the production and distri-bution of their environmental sciencejournal Earth Focus. Submissions areencouraged and the journal will payfor those reports and articles it is ableto publish. Subscriptions are $9 for twoissues/year from: Earth Focus, PaulRevere Middle School, 10502 BriarForest, Houston, TX 77402, USA. (Ex-cerpted from Taproot, a publication ofThe Coalition for Education in theOutdoors, 1996.)

Wilderness Watch Facili-tates Private ManagementWilderness Watch (WW), a nationalnonprofit citizen organization head-quartered in Missoula, Montana,planned a cost-share agreement withthe U.S. Forest Service (FS) to helpkeep two rangers in the Mission

Mountains Wilderness throughout the1996 season.

According to Janet Rose, executivedirector of WW, “Friends of the Mis-sion Wilderness Watch Chapter raised$12,000 to match FS funding to con-tinue patrols, trail maintenance, andother management in the MissionMountains Wilderness.”

IJW applauds this help by WW intimes of downsizing and cutbacks thatare severely impacting wilderness man-agement.

Bulletin BoardEffectiveness AnalyzedDavid Cole at the Aldo Leopold Wil-derness Research Institute, USA, re-ports results from experimenting withmeans of increasing the effectivenessof bulletin boards as a low-impact com-munication medium in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Findings include:(1) hikers’ knowledge of recommendedpractices was increased by posting mes-sages; (2) horse users seldom gave anyattention to messages on bulletinboards; (3) two messages were aboutall that hikers could absorb; and (4)including a banner that said “please takethe time to read these messages”doubled the amount of time visitorsspent looking at the messages. For moreinformation contact e-mail: [email protected].

Mollie Beattie WildernessArea Act of 1996On June 27, 1996, Mollie Beattie, di-rector of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, died after a year-long battle withbrain cancer. As a deserving tribute toMollie, President Clinton signed intolaw S.1899, the Mollie Beattie Wilder-ness Area Act on July 26. Under thislegislation, Mollie Beattie’s name willbe forever associated with one of themost wild and beautiful places on thisplanet—the Brooks Range of Alaska’sArctic National Wildlife Refuge.Mollie was an advocate and ardentsupporter of our nation’s wildernessheritage.


BOOK REVIEWSBY JAMES R. FAZIO, BOOK REVIEW EDITOR

Wilderness Ethics—Preserving the Spirit of Wilderness by Laura and Guy Waterman. 1993. The Country-man Press, Woodstock, Vermont. 239 pp., $14.00 (paperback).

[Editor’s Note: We violate I JW policy in this review by including a book not published within the past twoyears. We make the exception because this is a book that is so central to the wilderness theme that webelieve all our readers should know about it. —J.R.F.]

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Wilderness Ethics is not a book about low-impact campingtechniques. That topic was covered in an earlier book, Back-woods Ethics (1979), by the same husband and wife authors.Wilderness Ethics goes far beyond techniques, instead pen-etrating to the very soul of wilderness. This book revolvesaround three key questions. What are we trying to preserve?What are the threats to the wildness in wilderness? Whatcan we do about it? The Watermans offer answers to thesecompelling questions, but more importantly is that they placethe questions before us and put them into perspective withwell-chosen case studies.

The authors are not academics or scientists. Rather, theydraw on a lifetime of hiking, climbing, and observing wil-derness in all seasons of the year. Their land is primarily thehigh, wind-battered mountains of New England. In one way,this is the book’s only weakness, as it results in the omissionof important western issues such as fixed wing aircraft, horseuse, and hunting methods, and international issues such asthe dilemma of ecotourism. But most of the concepts dis-cussed in Wilderness Ethics can easily be applied to any wildarea in the world.

To the Watermans, the soul of wilderness is not place asmuch as it is experience. Their thesis is that both personalbehavior and management in wilderness should be gearedto protecting the freedom to discover; to risk; to experiencemystery, confusion, and difficulty of access; and to be free ofthe machines and electronic devices of other places. Theauthors implore us to clearly define wilderness values, thento use these to guide decisions that range from the use ofradios and telephones to the easy availability of rescue.

Be warned. You are likely to find your sacred cow in thisbook. For example, researchers are called to task for puttingwilderness “users” (the authors’ quote marks) under the mi-croscope of social science. Nor do they see the zeal for sci-ence as an excuse for shattering the solitude of wildernesswith the roar of helicopters, or decorating remote forests

with plastic ribbons, drivingsteel pegs in tundra areas, oreven pursuing and druggingfree-roaming bears.

Researchers and managersare seen as “the new exploit-ers” of wilderness when theyfail to base their actions on thetrue spirit of wilderness. Social“do-gooders” are branded withthe same iron. The authors citeexamples ranging from “super-vised gangs from the inner city”to “military elite units,” thenconclude: “the point is not somuch whether there is value inthese programs as whether, onthe scale they are currently on

Book review editor James R. Fazio.

and the scale to which they appear to be headed, thebackcountry can endure their presence without jeopardy toother values.” In even more daring questioning, theWatermans build an argument that “the rights of the physi-cally hardy should be defended just as vigorously as the rightsof the physically limited.”

Wilderness Ethics is an outstanding piece of literature, asartistically crafted as it is thought-provoking and practical.Points are presented not with the citation of dull scientificdata or obfuscated philosophy. Instead, concepts are clearlypresented, logically argued, and illustrated with personalexperience, much of it in the vein of high drama. This rarecombination results in a book that could supplement textsin formal courses on wilderness management as easily as itmight serve as an excellent gift for any outdoor enthusiast.In fact, if IJW were to recommend a basic library for anyoneinterested in wilderness, Wilderness Ethics would be my can-didate for the list.


Landscape Approaches in Mammalian Ecology edited by William Z. Lidicker Jr. 1995. University of Minne-sota Press, Minneapolis. 215 pp., $35.00 (hardcover).*

tion. There is a valuable representationof literature from across the continents,which adds value and depth to the dis-cussions. A number of subjects, includ-ing corridors between habitat patches,patch sizes, and configuration are dis-cussed throughout the book. The fieldapproaches deal with the Australiantropical rainforest, agricultural and ur-ban landscapes, ecology of martens, andNorway’s predator-prey relationships.The model systems include discussionson use of experimental and simulatedlandscapes in ecology, and old-fieldhabitats.

This book deals primarily with thesmaller mammals and concepts appli-cable to their ecology at different lev-els up to the landscape level. It is not acomprehensive review of literature thatis applicable to understanding land-scape-level ecology of mammals. Forinstance, the extensive literature oncaribou movements and habitat usecould be reviewed for what retentionof landscape-level integrity is neededfor this far-ranging species. The griz-

zly bear, a habitat generalist with largehome-range size that typically includesmany plant communities, must be man-aged at the landscape level and has spe-cial needs relative to security from hu-mans that are important.

In the wilderness context, this bookprovides information useful in assess-ing the suitability of areas to supportpopulations of different species andsizes, how populations may respond todifferent levels of habitats, and for as-sessing their suitability for retention orre-establishment of intact systems.Many of the concepts and theoreticalconsiderations have definite implica-tions for wilderness management, andthus the book serves those interestedin wilderness by providing ecologicalinsights. Although this collection of pa-pers is primarily intended for the mam-malian ecologist, it can definitely makea contribution beyond that niche ofscience by enhancing our understand-ing of wilderness values. IJW*Reviewed by James M. Peek, professor of wildliferesources at the University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

A wilderness may be considered a land-scape, a series of ecological systemscontaining more than one community.Landscapes incorporate both terrestrialand aquatic components in spite of thename, and might more easily be de-fined and identified than the morenebulous ecosystem. At the very least,we are beginning to discuss units ofland in an ecological context at levelsbeyond the plant community, and thisbroader-scale level is important as weseek to understand the values of wil-derness and other wild areas.

This book stems from a symposiumat the Sixth International TheriologicalCongress of 1993 in Sydney, Australia.Seventeen authors provide discussionson the context, field approaches, and“experimental model systems” relatedto landscape ecological situations deal-ing with mammals. The chapters gen-erally have conservation applications,and three present views of the evolu-tion of the landscape concept, whichmight be of most interest to those read-ing this for wilderness-related informa-

New National Monument Created in the United States

U.S. President Clinton used his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 last September to create the GrandStaircase–Escalante National Monument in Utah. The area includes 1.7 million acres of federal public land in south-ern Utah. It is the first national monument administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

The Grand Staircase-Escalante is a high, rugged, and remote region that was the last place in the continentalUnited States to be mapped. It is a valuable geologic area for scientific study and includes the wild canyon country ofthe upper Paria Canyon system, major components of the White and Vermillion Cliffs, the spectacular Circle Cliffs,and remaining unprotected parts of the Waterpocket Fold.

The monument includes world-class paleontological sites, such as the Circle Cliffs, which contain remarkablespecimens of large, unbroken petrified logs exceeding 30 feet in length. It is a haven for archeologists studying ancientNative American cultures, and it contains hundreds of recorded archeological treasures, including art panels, occupa-tion sites, campsites, and granaries. Scientists say that there are many more undocumented sites in the area still to bestudied.

The monument spans five life zones from low desert to coniferous forest and harbors numerous wild species thatlive in those habitats. Significant populations of mountain lion and desert bighorn sheep share the area with morethan 200 species of birds, including bald eagles and peregrine falcons. Lots of wildlife, including neotropical birds,concentrate around the Paria and Escalante Rivers and other riparian corridors within the monument.

National monument status will not affect recreational use of the area but will prevent coal mining, which is a threatto some of the antiquities.

(Excerpted from Outdoor News Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 9, September 1996.)


Ford, and Carter and have never beenacted upon. They include such well-known places as Yellowstone, Glacier,Grand Teton, Great Smoky Mountains,Zion, Bryce Canyon, and CanyonlandsNational Parks, among others. CurrentNPS policy is to “take no action thatwould diminish the wilderness suitabil-ity of an area recommended for wil-derness study or for wilderness desig-nation until the legislative process hasbeen completed. Until that process hasbeen completed, management deci-sions pertaining to recommended wil-

derness and wilderness study areas willbe made in expectation of eventualwilderness designation.”

Prospects for WildernessWilderness is the highest form of stew-ardship the NPS can offer. Wildernessdesignation represents a national affir-mation of the importance of the wil-derness values of these lands—that theyare the very best of the very best. TheNPS will work to be a leader in theNWPS. The agency is in many waysalready oriented in this direction. Wil-derness evokes connections with a large

and powerful literature that can excitethe imagination of users. This positiveassociation between parks and wilder-ness can be used to build stronger tieswith groups that support the NationalPark System. And seeing wilderness inparks as partner of a larger wildernesssystem should encourage cooperationwith other land management agenciesadministering adjacent wilderness ar-eas. IJW

WES HENRY, the national wilderness coordinatorfor the NPS, works in the Ranger Activities Divi-sion in NPS Headquarters. In addition to his wil-derness expertise, he is an authority on overflightand noise issues as well as on tourism managementin East African wildlife parks.

HENRY continued from page 19

ecosystems in support of endangeredspecies’ recovery efforts all representsignificant challenges for wildernessmanagers.

Current Allocation IssuesTwo million acres on 24 refuges in thelower 48 states and 8.6 million acreson Alaskan refuges have been recom-mended for wilderness designation bythe USFS. Consistent with USFSpolicy, these areas will be managed toprotect their wilderness values untilsuch time as Congress takes action. Ad-ditional lands that may be suitable forwilderness designation will be reviewedin conjunction with the preparation ofcomprehensive management plans.

Prospects for WildernessThe long-term preservation of wilder-ness values can only be accomplishedin the context of an ecosystem ap-proach with participation from all af-fected agencies and public interests.Protection of watersheds and mainte-nance of natural processes that extendbeyond wilderness boundaries but af-fect wilderness resources will requireinnovative strategies and a spirit of co-operation. IJWPETER JEROME is the national wilderness coordi-nator for the Fish and Wildlife Service and hasworked on national wildlife refuge issues in thefield, region, and Washington, D.C., offices.

ReferencesReffalt, Bill. March 1994. A vision for wildernessin the National Wildlife Refuge System. Univer-sity of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Distin-guished Lectureship Series.

JEROME continued from page 22

Shorebirds on tidal flat at Monomy Island National WildlifeRefuge Wilderness. (Photo courtesy Arthur Carhart NationalWilderness Training Center.)

but also internationally. Therefore, we aredocumenting and publicizing what weare learning. Table 1 shows our mainprinciples of ecological restoration forthe pinewoods in Scotland, not a de-finitive statement for ecological resto-ration, but a “work in progress” throughwhich we and others involved in thiswork are learning as we proceed. Na-ture still has much to teach us. IJW

ALAN WATSON FEATHERSTONE is the executive di-rector of Trees for Life and publishes the Trees forLife Calendar and Engagement Diary each year.He lives with his wife and young son at theFindhorn Foundation in northern Scotland. Forfurther information about Trees for Life, pleasewrite to: Trees for Life, The Park, Findhorn Bay,Forres IV36 OTZ, Scotland.

ReferencesBlanchflower, P. 1990. A survey of regenerationwithin a native pinewood, Coille Ruigh naCuileige, with particular reference to ground veg-etation. Unpublished honours thesis. University ofEdinburgh.

European Community Council Directive. May 21,1992. 92/43, Annex 1, item 42.51. Brussels, Bel-gium.

Forestry Authority, 1994. Caledonian Pinewood In-ventory. HMSO: Glasgow, Scotland.

Rodwell, J. S., and E. A. Cooper. 1995. Scottishpinewoods in a European context. In J. R. Aldhous,ed. Our Pinewood Heritage. Forestry Commission:Famham, United Kingdom: 4–22.

Steven, H. M., and A. Carlisle. 1959. The Native Pin-ewoods of Scotland. Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh,Scotland.

FEATHERSTONE continued frompage 41


ReferencesBaxter Park Authority. 1978. Management plan.Millinocket, Maine. See also the agency’s annualreports.

Crow, T. R. 1990. Old growth and biological di-versity: a basis for sustainable forestry. In Anon., ed.Old Growth Forests: What Are They? How Do TheyWork?, Proc. of the Conference on Old Growth Forests.Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholar’s Press: pp. 49–62.

Davis, M. B., ed. 1996. Eastern Old Growth Forests:Prospects for Rediscovery and Recovery. Covelo, Calif.:Island Press.

Denevan, W. M. 1992. The pristine myth: The land-scape of the Americas in 1492. Annals of the Associa-tion of American Geographers, 82(3):369–385.

Foster, Charles H. W. 1992. Of vert and vision:Ensuring the legacy of the northern forest. Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Kennedy Schoolof Government, Center for Science and Interna-tional Affairs. Paper 92-13. December.

Graham, F. 1978. The Adirondack Park. New York:Knopf.

Hakola, J. 1981. Legacy of a Lifetime: The Story ofBaxter State Park. Woolwich, Maine: TBW Books.

Kellett, M. 1989. A New Maine Woods Reserve: Op-tions for Protecting Maine’s Northern Wildlands. TheWilderness Society, Boston, Mass.

Land trusts protected 14 million acres as of 1994.1995. AREI Updates: Land Trusts No. 13. USDA Econ.Res. Serv.

Maine Audubon Society. 1996. Solutions for the Fu-ture of Maine Woods, Waters, Wildlife, and Hard-Work-ing Forest Communities. Falmouth, Maine.

Maine Council on Sustainable Forest Management.1996. Criteria, goals, and benchmarks for sustain-able forest management. Augusta: Maine Dept. ofConservation. Draft for public comment. Processed.

Marsh, G. P. 1964 (reprint of 1864 edition). Manand Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modifiedby Human Action. Ed. by D. Lowenthal. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press. pp. 203–204.

Mckibben, B. April 1995. An explosion of green.Atlantic Monthly.

McMahon, J. 1993. An ecological reserves systemfor Maine: benchmarks in a changing landscape.Augusta: Maine State Planning Office, NaturalResources Policy Division.

Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind,third edition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale UniversityPress.

National Audubon Society. 1994. The Great North-ern Forest. New York.

Noss, R. F., and R. L. Peters. 1995. Endangered Eco-systems: A Status Report on America’s Vanishing Habi-tat and Wildlife. Washington, D.C.: Defenders ofWildlife.

Sargent, C. S. 1884. Forests of the U.S. Census Office.Washington, D.C.

Thorne, S. G. 1995. A Heritage for the 21st Century:Conserving Pennsylvania’s Native Biological Diversity.Harrisburg, Penn.: Pennsylvania Fish and BoatCommission.

USDA Economic Research Service. 1995. Landtrusts protected 14 million acres as of 1994. AREIUpdates. No. 13.

IRLAND continued from page 30

INDIA

Bombay

Calcutta

New DelhiNEPAL

BUTAN

BANGLADESH

6 T H W O R L DW I L D E R N E S SC O N G R E S S

Bangalore, IndiaOctober 1997

The World Wilderness Congress will convene in Asiafor the first time, in the beautiful city of Bangalore, in southernIndia, in October 1997. In the tradition of the WWC, the 6th Con-gress is a public forum in which key politicians, scientists, business-men, religious leaders, indigenous people, artists and entertainers,educators, and many others act upon issues critical to the Asian envi-ronment and wildlands in a global context.

FOR INFORMATION AND REGISTRATION

North and South AmericaThe WILD FoundationInternational Center for Earth Concerns2162 Baldwin RoadOjai, CA 93023 USAFax: (805) 649-1757

SRI LANKA

Europe, Asia, Africa, Pacific“Hamsini”12th CrossRajmahalBangalore 560 080 IndiaFax: 91/080-334-1674

international journal of wilderness, vol 2 no 3, december 1996

Documents

colorado state university

university of tasmania

university of vermont

university ofsouthern

wildernessa wilderness

west virginia university

elias national park

educo colorado