Journal of Wilderness · 2018-05-03 · PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH...

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

Journal of WildernessAPRIL 2001 VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONThe BLM in Partnership with the StudentConservation Association: RestoringWilderness in the California DesertBY DAVE WASH and KATIE WASH

SCIENCE AND RESEARCHEconomic Values of the U.S. WildernessSystem: Research Evidence to Date andQuestions for the FutureBY JOHN B. LOOMIS and ROBERT RICHARDSON

Controlling Nature: Is Science to Blame?BY NAOMI ORESKES and REBECCA ORESKES

Whitewater Boaters in UtahImplications for Wild River PlanningBY DALE J. BLAHNA and DOUGLAS K. REITER

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLDWILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTEWilderness FireBY DAVID J. PARSONS

WILDERNESS DIGESTAnnouncements andWilderness Calendar

Book ReviewsThe Trade Off Myth: Fact and Fiction About Jobs

and the Environmentby Eban Goodstein • REVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS

Mighty River: A Portrait of the Fraserby Richard C. Bocking • REVIEWED BY JOAN CHESS

For the Health of the Landby Aldo Leopold. Edited by J. Baird Callicottand Eric T. Freyfogle • REVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS

3

4

10

FEATURESEDITORIAL PERSPECTIVESThe Wildness of RiversBY ALAN WATSON

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESSThe World Wilderness CongressBY VANCE G. MARTIN

STEWARDSHIPBob Marshall 1901-1939Wilderness PreservationistBY CHAD P. DAWSON

The New Forest ServiceWilderness Recreation StrategyPersonal Viewpoints from Diverse InterestsINTRODUCTION BY JOHN HENDEE, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Balancing Freedom and Protection inWilderness Recreation UseBY DAVID COLE

A New Wilderness Recreation Strategy forNational Forest WildernessBY GARRY OYE

The New Forest Service Wilderness RecreationStrategy Spells Doom for the NationalWilderness Preservation SystemBY BILL WORF

If We Lock People Out, Who Will Fight toSave Wilderness?BY IRA SPRING

Wild Rivers in AustraliaBY J. L. STEIN, J. A. STEIN, and H. A. NIX

Invasive Plant ManagementAlong Wild RiversAre We Stewards, Guardians, or Gardeners?BY BRUCE ANDERSON and KEN WOTRING

12

12

20

13

15

17

25

31

30

Front cover photo of kayaker shooting the rapids on the Middle Fork ofthe Salmon River, Frank Church–River of No Return Wilderness, Idaho,USA © 2001 by David Cole. Photo inset of Ounasjoki in Pallas–Ounastunturi National Park, Finland © 2001 the Aldo Leopold Institute.

35

39

44

47

45

2 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2001 • VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1

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

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

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

PRODUCTION EDITORKurt Caswell, Cascade School, Whitmore, Calif., USA

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

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/MANAGING EDITORJohn C. Hendee, Director, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho

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

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

International Journal of Wilderness

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

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

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

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

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright© 2001 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation.Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to makefair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide aresolicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management,and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptionsof key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, andenvironmental education; wilderness-related science and research fromall disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects ofwilderness; and international perspectives describing wildernessworldwide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, bookreviews, announcements, and information for the wilderness digest areencouraged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines isavailable from the editors.

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

World Wide Website: www.ijw.org.

Printed on recycled paper.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS• Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Indiana University, Department of Recreation and Park Administration • NationalOutdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outward Bound™ • The WILD® Foundation • The Wilderness Society • University of IdahoWilderness Research Center • University of Montana, School of Forestry and Wilderness Institute • USDA Forest Service • USDIBureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDI National Park Service • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa)• Wilderness Inquiry • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)

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

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

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2001 • VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1 3

portant topics. The wildness ofrivers is unique, and our ap-proaches to protecting thatwildness has to be unique.

I sincerely thank Dr. LunaLeopold for contributing hiswisdom about the value of fearassociated with wild places andhis reflections about rivers (IJW,December 2000). From Texas,Utah, Arizona, and Idaho toAustralia and along the BigMuddy, articles in these issuesspan many areas of concernabout restoration, protection,education, and recreational useof rivers today. Our apprecia-tion is gratefully extended to this group of scientists, planners,educators, and managers for helping us bring attention to the im-portance of the wildness we all experience when we float, hike,fish, paint, write, or simply sit and contemplate along the banks ofa wild river.

FEATURES

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

The Wildness of RiversBY ALAN WATSON

In 1983 I moved from the mountains of southwest Vir-ginia to the swamps of south Georgia. There I foundexcitement in the wildness of the lowland rivers and

streams. I described the Ogeechee River as “my mountain,”meaning that I had found my connection with wildness,like I did in the oak and hickory ridges and hollows ofAppalachia. In the rivers of Georgia I sensed mystery, ex-citement, and beauty, and a strong sense of wildness thatmade me feel at home.

In assembling this second issue of the IJW with specialemphasis on wild rivers, Co-guest Editor David Cole and Ihave learned a considerable amount about current issuesinvolved in defining, protecting, and even modeling thewildness of rivers. The articles here have influenced theway we think about rivers, and I hope they will influenceyour future relationship with rivers as well.

At the turn of the 21st century in the United States, wedon’t have a recognized center for river research as we didin the 1970s and 1980s. And we don’t have a recognizedmedium for communication about research, stewardship,and education related to protecting the wildness in thesewaterways. We hope that this series of articles in the IJWwill serve as a catalyst for additional papers on these im-

Guest editor Alan Watson. Photo by LeenaVilkka.


OverviewThe WWC is unique in international conservation becauseof its continuity, evolving structure, and diverse professionaland public participation. Here is a recap of the principlesaround which the Congress is organized every few years,where and when it has convened, and our perspective onits value and accomplishments. We hope this will encour-age your greater involvement in international wildernessissues—and maybe even bring you to the 7th WWC inNovember 2001.

The RootsThe WWC was conceived by noted South African and in-ternational conservationist Ian Player and his Zulu friend,mentor, and game scout Magqubu Ntombela. The idea grewfrom conversations while leading hundreds of small groupsinto the African wilderness, watching (and dodging) hippos,elephants, and lions, sitting under the African stars andaround the campfire on night watch. They both knew thatsome important action was needed for wilderness to beunderstood and to survive globally, and Ntombela suggestedthey call an Indaba—-in Zulu culture, a great gathering ofall factions and perspectives. Hence the WWC was bornout of an idea conceived in the wilderness and rooted inindigenous traditions.

The 1st WWC convened in South Africa in 1977 duringthe apartheid regime and just months after the tragedy of theSoweto riots. The first congress put blacks, whites, and Bush-men on the same stage (at the time not only was this uncon-ventional, but illegal) and featured such diverse participants

as business, banking, and cultural leaders meeting with thepublic. Such diverse interaction turned the conservation worldon its ear. Searching such new ways to protect and sustainwilderness was a radical idea then, and perhaps even unthink-able to most South Africans.

The WWC concept became the responsibility of the In-ternational Wilderness Leadership Foundation (now calledThe WILD Foundation), evolving into a forum conveningperiodically around the world (see figure 1). The diverseparticipation continued, creating an international agendafor wilderness, empowering local and regional action, andalways involving business, political, cultural, and environ-mental leaders in constructive dialogue. Proceedings ofcultural and technical symposia provided a continuingrecord of the issues, resolutions for action, and accomplish-ments of the gatherings.

FEATURES

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

The WorldWilderness Congress

BY VANCE G. MARTIN

The World Wilderness Congress (WWC) is the oldest continuing international public forum on wilderness andrelated conservation concerns. As preparation for the 7th WWC in South Africa, November 2 through 8,2001, IJW offers this perspective on the history, accomplishments, and vision of the Congress.

Article author Vance Martin.


Summary of Major WWCAccomplishmentsThe 1st WWC convened in Johan-nesburg, South Africa, in 1977,chaired by Ian Player, with 2,500 del-egates from 27 countries (Player1978). The accomplishments includedintroducing wilderness as an interna-tional issue of importance to develop-ing countries, not just to Western,developed cultures; integrating diversecultures and races in the nature conser-vation dialogue, along with economicsand banking, thus bringing many newperspectives for the first time into theenvironmental agenda; and hosting thelargest exhibition of conservation artassembled to date in Africa.

The 2nd WWC convened in June1980 in Cairns (Queensland), Aus-tralia, chaired by Australian farmerand conservationist Wally O’Grady,with 1,000 delegates from 25 coun-tries (Martin 1981). Beginning thepractice of using each congress tostimulate action, Prime MinisterMalcolm Fraser opened it and recom-

mended the Great Barrier Reef as aWorld Heritage Site. The premier ofQueensland then announced the pro-tection of additional areas of virginlowland rain forest as parks. BobBrown, president of the TasmanianWilderness Society, focused interna-tional attention to wilderness conser-vation in Tasmania, helping make thisissue a critical factor in the subsequentelection of a new labor governmentunder Prime Minister Bob Hawke. Thevalue of indigenous, aboriginal knowl-edge to nature conservation, and howto define wilderness as an internation-ally relevant concept, were prime top-ics of discussion again, establishingthem as continuing themes for futurecongresses.

The 3rd WWC convened in Oc-tober 1983 at Inverness andFindhorn, Scotland, chaired by Scot-tish forester and environmentalist,Finlay MacRae, with 600 delegatesfrom 25 countries (Martin and Inglis1984). British Prime MinisterThatcher’s government (through thesecretary of state for Scotland, George

Younger) announced for the first timetheir ratification of the World HeritageConvention (Younger 1984). BarryCohen, minister of environment inAustralia, reported on his govern-ment’s protection of southwest Tasma-nian wilderness (Cohen 1984). Italianenvironmentalist Franco Zunino wasempowered in his dream to form theWilderness Associazione Italiana,which has since led to the establish-ment of wilderness areas in Italy(Zunino 1984, 1995). The congressalso prompted establishment of theWilderness Action Group in SouthAfrica to advocate for wilderness train-ing and legislation (Hendee andDawson 2001, chptr. 3). Professor C.A. Meier of Switzerland, a leading psy-chologist, launched the continuingconcern of the congresses with wilder-ness psychology (Meier 1984). A ma-jor focus of this congress was definingwilderness as an international conceptand launching the successful cam-paign for inclusion of wilderness as aseparate and specific classificationunder the World Conservation Union

Figure 1—The World Wilderness Congress has convened in six different countries over the past 20 years.


(IUCN) Framework for Protected Ar-eas—more on this below.

The 4th WWC convened in Sep-tember 1987 in Denver and EstesPark, Colorado, USA, chaired byMaurice Strong (director general ofStockholm 1972 and The Earth Sum-mit 1992) and natural resource deanDr. Jay Hughes of Colorado State Uni-versity, with 2,000 delegates from 64nations (Martin 1988). It was openedby U.S. Secretary of the Treasury JamesBaker, who called for an integrationof economics and environmental con-cerns, adding weight to the congressproposal for a World ConservationBank, initiating the process leading toestablishment of the U.S. $1.3 billionGlobal Environmental Fund of theWorld Bank. Other accomplishmentsincluded presentation of the firstWorld Wilderness Inventory byMichael McCloskey (McCloskey andSpaulding 1988); and Gro HarlemBruntland, prime minister of Norwayand chair of the United Nations(Brundtland) Commission on Envi-ronment and Development, addressedthe congress and conducted the onlypublic hearings with her commission-ers in the United States (WCED 1987).

This congress was the first to featurea major science program, with severalplenary addresses, eight concurrenttechnical sessions meeting for four dayseach, plus poster sessions focusing sci-ence on international wilderness con-cerns. One of these sessions on marine

wilderness concerns, organized by theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration (USA), launched and em-powered the idea of marine wilderness,which is only now coming to fruition.The continuing congress focus on theuse of wilderness for personal growth,therapy, and education was expressedin both plenary events and technicalsymposia (Hendee 1987; Martin 1988).

The 5th WWC met in October1993 in Tromsø, Norway, chairedby Nobel Laureate and explorer ThorHeyerdahl and Judge Rakel Surlien,with 600 delegates from 25 countries(Martin and Tyler 1994). Under thetheme of Arctic Wilderness, the con-gress strengthened the wilderness con-cept in the circumpolar developmentdebate, advocating specific legislationto protect wilderness areas and valueswhile recognizing sustainable use byindigenous cultures. Environmentalguidelines were proposed for the Arc-tic economic development strategy ofthe Northern Forum, an association of20 regions and states in the circum-polar north. A strong science focuscontinued with plenary presentationsand concurrent technical symposia(Hendee and Martin 1994; Rothenberg1995). The first inventory of wild riv-ers of the north was presented by MikeMcCloskey of the Sierra Club(McCloskey 1994), and the conceptof sustainable living was introducedas an evolution of the sustainable de-velopment debate.

The 6th WWC met in October1998 in Bangalore, India, chairedby Mr. M. A. Partha Sarathy, conven-ing 700 delegates from 30 nations andthe first gathering in Asia focused onwilderness (Martin and Sarathy 2001).Here we joined the region’s environmen-tal leaders in formally introducing theconcept of designated, protected wilder-ness areas in Asia, with guidelines forpolicy to fit Asian conditions. MikeMcCloskey, building on his world in-ventory work, presented the first com-prehensive inventory of wild rivers ofthe world (McCloskey, Michael 2001),while his wife, Maxine McCloskey, pre-sented a summary analysis of underwa-ter wilderness and a proposal torecognize and better protect the uniquevalues of wilderness on the high seas(McCloskey, Maxine 2001). The nowfamiliar congress science program ofconcurrent technical symposia, postersessions, and proceedings (Watson et al.1998, 2000) were supplemented bydaily meetings of an Open Council fordelegates to share the personal chal-lenges of their wilderness conservationwork. This forum was especially appre-ciated by delegates from developingnations, for whom this “heart-space”was healing and empowering (Hendeeand Riley 1999).

An EvolvingFormat and InquiryAs the forgoing review demonstrates,each congress features host countryleadership and important discussionfocused on concerns in that country andworld region. At the same time, worldwilderness issues remain center stage.The evolving framework now featuresmultidisciplinary inquiry from diversesectors of human endeavor for example,business, culture, the arts, politics, andeducation; a rigorous scientific and tech-nical program in both the natural andsocial sciences; a cultural program; and

The agreed upon definition of wilderness is: “Largeareas of unmodified or slightly modified land and/orsea, retaining its natural character and influence,which is protected and managed so as to preserve itsnatural condition.”


an Open Council to address matters ofthe heart and spirit.

An underlying principle of the con-gress is that nonmaterial issues needto be recognized, respected, and in-cluded. Much nonmaterial wisdomand perception resides in the traditionsof indigenous people who are still re-siding in and/or dependent upon wild-land areas for practical and culturalsurvival. The WWC was one of the firstenvironmental forums to integrate theneeds and views of first peoples, na-tive peoples, indigenous peoples—andwe continue to do so. This will be es-pecially important at the upcoming7th WWC (see below) where the for-mat will emphasize visual presenta-tions, group dialogue, and OpenCouncil (Indaba) to involve Africansand their concerns, as they hold thekey to the future of wilderness in Af-rica. Accompanying this, of course,will be presentations by key leaders inpolitics, business, science, education,

and culture; technical symposia andposter sessions; plus field trips tonearby areas.

The WWC is many things, but onething it most certainly is not is an in-stitutional process. The key to WWCaccomplishments is its encouragementof leadership by individuals and orga-nizations to protect and sustain inter-national wilderness.

A WildernessDefinition for the WorldA central concern of the WWC hasbeen an internationally acceptabledefinition of wilderness. Over theyears results of WWC discussions andresolutions have been submitted tothe World Commission on ProtectedAreas of the IUCN for consideration,urging official recognition for wilder-ness as a protected area category. Fi-nally, in the Framework for ProtectedAreas (revised 1990), wilderness was

listed as an IUCN category 1 (b) area(out of five categories) with Strict Sci-entific Reserves as category 1 (a). Theagreed upon definition of wildernessis: “Large areas of unmodified orslightly modified land and/or sea, re-taining its natural character and in-fluence, which is protected andmanaged so as to preserve its naturalcondition” (IUCN 1998).

The simplified management objec-tives provide further clarification:• To ensure enjoyment by future

generations of areas largely undis-turbed by human action.

• To maintain essential natural at-tributes and qualities, long-term.

• To provide appropriate public ac-cess to best serve the physical andspiritual well-being of visitorswhile maintaining wilderness.

• To enable indigenous communitiesto continue living at low density,and in balance with available re-sources to maintain their lifestyle.

Figure 2—The classes of Wilderness Designation around the globe.

United States

FlatheadNation

Canada Finland

Italy

KenyaSri Lanka

Australia

PhilippineIslands

New Zealand

South Africa

Namibia Zimbabwe

Botswana

Sweden

Tanzania

Wilderness Designation

Class I — Statutory Protection Class II — Enhanced Zoning Class III — Special Recognition

T H E �

F O U N D A T I O N


Wilderness Designationaround the WorldSupported by an enhanced awarenessof wilderness possibilities, in part dueto the WWCs, and given legitimacy

by the IUCN’s definition, wildernesshas now been protected by law or ad-ministrative policy in numerous na-tions. The various types of wildernessrecognition and protection have beencategorized (Martin 1997) into three

classes based on the degree of protec-tion provided (see figure 2).

Class 1 WildernessStatutory or legally protected wildernessincludes areas protected by the highestlaw of the nation and/or jurisdiction inwhich the areas reside. Such protectioncan only be revoked through a legislativeprocess. Class 1 protection for wildernessis provided in the United States (The Wil-derness Act 1964,) Australia (legislationin numerous states), South Africa (Na-tional Forest Act, amended 1971),Canada (National Parks Act, revised 1988),Finland (Wilderness Act, 1991), the Flat-head Indian Reservation, Montana, USA,(Mission Mountains, Tribal WildernessOrdinance, 1982), and Sri Lanka (Na-tional Heritage and Wilderness Act, 1987).

The legislation virtually always man-dates a certain type of management byrelevant authorities in order to sustainwilderness values such as no mecha-nized transport, no permanent humanhabitation, and so forth.

Class 2 WildernessProtection of wilderness by zoning, usu-ally within some other protected juris-diction. This provides significantprotection, though less than for legis-lated areas. New Zealand (mandatedthrough actions of the minister of envi-ronment), Zimbabwe (Tribal AuthorityDeclaration in the Mavuradonha Wil-derness), and Italy (various municipalacts, 1990s). Generally implicit (thoughnot required) in these areas is a strongemphasis on management that sustainswilderness values.

Class 3 WildernessWilderness is protected by administra-tive designation as part of a conserva-tion or resource management programunder authority of a departmental man-aging authority or official. Included areNamibia, Waterberg Wilderness; the

The 7th World Wilderness Congressto Convene in South Africa

The 7th WWC will return to its roots and convene in

beautiful Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, South Africa,

from November 2 through November 8, 2001.

The theme is Wilderness and Human Communities:The Spirit of the 21st Century.

Major objectives include:

Wilderness on privately owned lands—models for private sectoraction and responsibility in designating, managing, and sustainingwilderness lands in perpetuity.

New public wilderness areas—initiatives and opportunities forsouthern Africa.

Expanded wilderness education—experience and trainingprograms, pan-Africa.

Science program—with posters and summary symposia forexpanded participation.

A new fund for African protected areas.

While presenting wilderness in a global context, the 7th WWC will empha-size wildlands in and for Africa and Africans. The congress will convene in aWilderness Summit for two days, followed by a day of field trips to localwilderness and wildlife areas, and then provide four days of Wilderness Work-ing Sessions—plenary, technical, poster, and training sessions, plus an OpenCouncil to share the heart-space of wilderness work.

For delegates’ pleasure, education, and relaxation, the 7th WWC will alsoinclude an extensive cultural program of contemporary and traditional musicand art, an international environmental film competition, outdoor events un-der the African skies, and ample opportunities for pre- and postcongresstours to African wildlands, communities, national parks, wilderness areas,and private reserves. In all congress activities the public will join a wide rangeof professionals from business, politics, science, education, the arts, and hu-manities. This is your invitation to be a delegate.

For more information and registration details go to www.worldwilderness.org.E-mail: [email protected].


Philippines, Palanan Wilderness;Suriname, Wilderness Nature Reserve;Zambia, Kafue; and more.

There are other areas and countriesin the world in which the word wilder-ness is used generically as the name of anatural area, but very few of these actu-ally have any management guidelinesto maintain wilderness values.

The WWC PerspectiveWhile wildlands conservation andsustainability have some success stories

Hence the WWC was born out of an idea conceivedin the wilderness and rooted in indigenous traditions.

that must be recounted, evaluated, andsteadily improved upon, the fact re-mains that they still amount to littlemore than triage in the face of unrelent-ing ecological trauma. Voices from ev-ery quarter offer solutions, criticisms,worries, and complaints; for example,“more scientific data,” “better economicvaluation,” “improved policy and moni-toring,” and more. All of these ideas andissues are important, but they are stillunmistakably only emergency room jar-gon and provide neither essential rem-

edies nor create environmental health.We need to get out of the emergencyroom and into a healing process forpeople and the planet. This is what theWWC is all about. We are a part ofnature, not apart from nature, and weneed to live our life in balance with thenatural world.

VANCE G. MARTIN is president of TheWILD Foundation, International Director ofthe WWC, and an executive editor of IJW.E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCESCohen, Barry, 1984. The Franklin Saga. In

Wilderness—The Way Ahead: Proceedingsof the 3rd World Wilderness Congress.Middleton, Wisconsin: Lorian Press.

Hendee, John C., ed. 1987. The highest use ofwilderness: the use of wilderness for personalgrowth, therapy and education. Proceedingsof a Special Symposium at the 4th WorldWilderness Congress. Moscow, Idaho: Uni-versity of Idaho Wilderness Research Center.

Hendee, John C., and Marilyn Riley. 1999. Theheart-space of wilderness. International Jour-nal of Wilderness 5 (1): p. 3.

Hendee, John C., and Chad Dawson. 2001.Wilderness Management: Stewardship andProtection of Resources and Values, 3rd ed.Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing. (In press.)

Hendee, John, and Vance Martin, eds. 1994.International wilderness allocation, manage-ment and research. 6th WWC TechnicalSymposia Proceedings. Ojai, Calif. TheWILD Foundation.

IUCN. 1998. United Nations list of parks andprotected areas. Gland, Switzerland, andCambridge, United Kingdom. www.iucn.org.

Martin, Vance, ed. 1981. Wilderness: Proceed-ings of the 2nd World Wilderness Congress.Findhorn, Scotland: Findhorn Press.

Martin, Vance, ed. 1988. For the Conservationof the Earth: Proceedings of the 4th WorldWilderness Congress. Golden, Colo.: Ful-crum Publishing.

Martin, Vance 1995. Wilderness Designation—A Global Trend, pp 8–19. In Arctic Wilder-ness: Proceedings of the 5th WorldWilderness Congress. Golden, Colo.: Ful-crum Publishing. Vance G. Martin andNicholas Tyler, eds.

Martin, Vance, and Mary Inglis, eds. 1984.Wilderness—The Way Ahead: Proceedingsof the 3rd World Wilderness Congress.Middleton, Wis.: Lorian Press.

Martin, Vance, and Nicholas Tyler, eds. 1994.Arctic Wilderness: Proceedings of the 5thWorld Wilderness Congress. Golden, Colo.:Fulcrum Publishing.

Martin, Vance and Partha Sarathy, eds. 2001.Wilderness and Humanity—The Global Issue:Proceedings of the 6th World WildernessCongress. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

McCloskey, Michael, 1994. Wild rivers of thenorth. In Arctic Wilderness: Proceedings ofthe 5th World Wilderness Congress, editedby Vance Martin and Nicholas Tyler. Golden,Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

McCloskey, Michael, and Heather Spalding.1988. A reconnaissance-level inventory of thewilderness remaining in the world. In For theConservation of Earth: Proceedings of the 4thWorld Wilderness Congress. Martin, Vanceed. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

McCloskey, Michael. 2001. Wild rivers of theworld. In Wilderness and Humanity—TheGlobal Issue: Proceedings of the 6th WorldWilderness Congress, edited by Vance Mar-tin and M. A. Partha Sarathy. Golden, Colo.:Fulcrum Publishing.

McCloskey, Maxine. 2001. Wilderness on thehigh seas. In Wilderness and Humanity—The Global Issue: Proceedings of the 6thWorld Wilderness Congress, edited byVance Martin and M. A. Partha Sarathy.Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

Meier, C. A. 1984.Wilderness psychology. InWilderness—The Way Ahead: Proceedingsof the 3rd World Wilderness Congress, ed-ited by Vance Martin and Mary Inglis.Middleton, Wis.: Lorian Press.

Player, Ian, ed. 1978. Voices of the Wilderness.Capetown, South Africa: Jonathan Ball.

Rothenberg, David, ed. 1995. Wild Ideas: Pro-ceedings of the 5th WWC, Philosophy Sym-posium. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press.

Watson, Alan, Greg Aplet, and John C. Hendee,comps. 1998. Personal, Societal and Eco-logical Values of Wilderness: Sixth WorldWilderness Congress Proceedings on Re-search Management, and Allocation, vol. I.Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, Utah: USDA For-est Service, Rocky Mt. Research Station.

Watson, Alan, Greg Aplet, and John C. Hendee,comps. 2000. Personal, Societal and Eco-logical Values of Wilderness: 6th WorldWilderness Congress Proceedings on Re-search, Management, and Allocation, vol.II. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, Utah: USDAForest Service, Rocky Mt. Research Station.

World Commission on Environment and Devel-opment (WCED). 1987. Our Common Fu-ture. London: Oxford University Press.

Younger, George 1984. A Message from theBritish Government. In Wilderness—TheWay Ahead: Proceedings for the 3rd WorldWilderness Congress. Martin and Inglis, ed.1984. Middleton, Wisconsin: Lorian Press

Zunino, Franco. 1984. A wilderness concept forEurope. In Wilderness–The Way Ahead:Proceedings of the 3rd World WildernessCongress, edited by Vance. Middleton, Wis.:Lorian Press.

Zunino, Franco. 1995. The wilderness move-ment in Italy. International Journal of Wil-derness, 1 (2): pp. 41–42.


Bob Marshall, 1901–1939Wilderness Preservationist

BY CHAD P. DAWSON

influence is still a force today. In historical narratives aboutwilderness preservation he emerges as a legendary figurevital to the environmental movement in the United States.This year marks the 100th anniversary of his birth.

One of the founding members of The Wilderness Soci-ety in 1935, Marshall championed popular campaigns forwilderness preservation at the state and national levels.“We simply must band together—wherever and when-ever wilderness is attacked,” Marshall said. “We mustmobilize all our resources, all of our energies, all of ourdevotion to wilderness” (Schaefer 1966). Marshall notedthe benefits that accrue from wilderness—physical,mental, and aesthetic—and issued a call to action: “Thereis just one hope of repulsing the tyrannical ambition ofcivilization to conquer every niche on the whole earth. Thathope is the organization of spirited people who will fightfor the freedom of the wilderness” (1930). He wrote andcampaigned tirelessly for the creation of wilderness areasin the United States.

Marshall grew more vocal about the need to preservewilderness after observing the enormous demand by theAmerican public for recreation and tourism opportunities,and he warned, “The world is full of conflicts between genu-ine values. Often these conflicts are resolved entirely fromthe standpoint of one of the competing values, and thuswhole categories of human enjoyment may be needlesslyswept away … the fate of unmodified Nature rests in theactivity of its friends” (1937).

Despite his seemingly boundless energy, Marshall diedat the young age of 38. The Bob Marshall Wilderness inMontana and Mount Marshall in the Adirondacks of NewYork were named in his honor. But perhaps Marshall’s great-est legacy is the leadership and perseverance he champi-oned in so many people who have taken up the challengeof ensuring that wilderness will be available for present andfuture generations.

STEWARDSHIP

Visionary, activist, advocate, author, and wildernessresource planner and manager are all words that de-scribe Robert “Bob” Marshall. He is best remembered

as a passionate advocate for wilderness preservation. The fireof activism burned so fiercely and brightly in him that his

Bob Marshall in the early 1930s. Illustration by Claude Freeman.


CHAD P. DAWSON is a professor at theSUNY College of Environmental Scienceand Forestry, 211 Marshall Hall, OneForestry Drive, Syracuse, New York13210-2787, USA. E-mail:[email protected].

REFERENCESDawson, Chad, and E. Zahniser. 2000. The in-

fluence of the Adirondacks on the wilder-ness preservation contributions of RobertMarshall and Howard Zahniser. In Proceed-ings: Wilderness Science in a Time ofChange—Vol. 2, edited by D. N. Cole, S.F.

Bob Marshall on a canoe trip in the Quetico-Superior country of southern Ontario and northern Minnesota.Illustration by Claude Freeman.

McCool, W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin.. Ogden,Utah: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Moun-tain Res. Station RMRS-P-15-VOL-2:45-48.

Glover, James M. 1986. A Wilderness Origi-nal: The Life of Bob Marshall. Seattle: TheMoutaineers.

Marshall, Robert. 1930. The problems of thewilderness. The Scientific Monthly 30: 141–148.

Marshall, Robert. 1937. The universe of thewilderness is vanishing. Nature Magazine29 (4): 235–240.

Schaefer, Paul. 1966. Bob Marshall, MountMarcy and the wilderness. The Living Wil-derness 30 (93): 6–10.

miles of closed roads—effectively stop-ping entry to more than 40 miles ofclosed roads inside BLM wildernessThey lived out in the desert for 30 daysand dealt with heat, rattlesnakes, andcactus. They came away really know-ing the Mojave Desert and loving it.

In 2000 we brought on our sec-ond crew and again they restored 14miles of closed routes, effectively clos-ing 50 miles. They started out slow,learning the restoration techniques,but by the end of two weeks every-one was up to speed and the pace ofwork picked up. Our wilderness rang-ers supported crew needs and workedalongside them. In just four years weobliterated 20% of all of our routesinside 16 wilderness areas.

Our students were part of a hugecadre of about 120 SCA crews nation-wide who participated in making U. S.lands better, saw some wild country,and grew in their appreciation of thenatural world and themselves. AsBLM employees, we thought wewould be glad just to get a job done,but we were surprised that this team-work effort changed our managementvision. We recently established aPrimitive Skills Team with SCA(funded for $215,000.00) and beganwilderness restoration in March allover the California desert. This onceinsurmountable restoration jobproved possible, and with it camenew friends, new capabilities, andnew dreams for us all.

DAVE and KATIE WASH work for the BLM,300 S. Richmond Road, Ridgecrest,California 93555, USA. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]. For more information on theSCA contact Student ConservationAssociations, P. O. Box 550, Charlestown,New Hampshire 03603, USA. Telephone:(603) 543-1700. Website: www.sca-inc.org.

From WASH on page 31


STEWARDSHIP

The New Forest ServiceWilderness Recreation Strategy

Personal Viewpoints from Diverse Interests

Introduction

Increasing wilderness recreation use is damaging re-sources and values in the U.S. National WildernessPreservation System. In response to this situation the

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has proposed a new WildernessRecreation Strategy. Elements of this proposed strategy arecontroversial, as the following four articles demonstrate.

To set the stage, Dr. David Cole, research biologist withthe Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, describeswilderness use trends and impacts and four possible strate-gies for responding to this situation. Then Garry Oye, act-ing national wilderness program leader for the USFS,explains the agency’s proposed new Wilderness Recreation

Strategy and why it is deemed necessary. Next, Bill Worf,president of Wilderness Watch and former member of aUSFS task force to develop policy to implement The Wil-derness Act, presents his views opposing elements of thenew strategy. Finally, Ira Spring, noted wilderness envi-ronmentalist, photographer, and author, presents his favor-able view of the new policy.

The IJW is pleased to serve as a neutral forum for the pre-sentation of the current wilderness recreation use situation,the proposed U.S. Forest Service strategy to deal with it, andtwo reactions to the new strategy by wilderness stakeholders.The views and interpretations of each author are their own.

—John C. Hendee, IJW Editor-in-Chief

Balancing Freedom and Protection inWilderness Recreation Use

BY DAVID COLE

A primary benefit of wilderness is the recreational op-portunities it provides. Unfortunately, recreation use

can also threaten wilderness conditions and values. In the1970s wilderness managers responded to rapidly increas-ing recreation use by restricting both numbers of visitorsand visitor behavior. In the 1980s and 1990s managementemphasis shifted to visitor education. Reports that wilder-ness use was no longer growing gave rise to hopes thatimpacts could be controlled by persuading visitors to “LeaveNo Trace.” Today, however, further restrictions—even on

the number of day-visitors—are being considered to com-bat excessive wilderness use and impact. Such restrictionsare highly controversial.

Several trends support the need for strengthened wilder-ness recreation management. Studies show that recreationaluse of wilderness is increasing, and as a result wilderness ar-eas are slowly degrading—particularly pristine sites offeringoutstanding opportunities for naturalness and solitude. Visi-tor education, although the highly favored approach, has notbeen capable of controlling recreational use and impacts.


ditions in wilderness, al-lowing high levels of visi-tation in some locationswhile aggressively pro-tecting most wildernesslands in their currentlow-use condition.

None of these optionsis ideal. But it is time toconsider the values a wil-derness system can pro-vide and develop arecreation managementstrategy to optimizethose values. This willnot be easy because thereare many views amongwilderness stakeholdersabout what should bedone and where itshould be done. Wilder-ness science over the last25 years has identifiedtrends in use and the im-pacts associated withthese trends. The im-plications are clear that without adeliberate strategy and action manywilderness values and resources willbe lost. The Forest Service has ad-dressed the situation with a newWilderness Recreation Strategy. Butnot everyone agrees with everythingabout the approach proposed, anddebate over the strategy’s merits andshortcomings will be essential to its

Ironically, one cause of degradation inlow-use wilderness is the well-inten-tioned attempt to reduce recreation im-pact in high-use locations. Thistechnique often displaces visitors to lo-cations without use limits, which areoften the more lightly used wildernesslocations. Lightly used locations arevulnerable even to small increases inuse, which can cause dramatic impactson naturalness and solitude. In addition,the wilderness system has expanded tre-mendously with the wilderness desig-nation of many heavily used areasadjacent to large urban areas.

Four Possible StrategiesFour broad wilderness managementstrategies are available to deal with in-creasing wilderness recreation use andexpanding impacts. One option is toreduce and limit use so that all wil-derness lands are kept in a near-pris-tine condition. A second option is toallow unlimited recreation use every-where, attempting to mitigate impactsthough visitor education, intensive sitemanagement, and behavioral restric-tions. In the third option, problemsin popular wilderness locations couldbe reduced by diverting use from high-use locations to low-use wilderness,creating a relatively homogeneous sys-tem of moderately used and impactedwilderness. The fourth option is tomaintain a broader spectrum of con-

refinement and application. Thismay be contentious and difficult,but it is much better than doingnothing at all.

DAVID COLE is a research biologist withthe Aldo Leopold Wilderness ResearchInstitute, Rocky Mountain Research Station,Forest Service, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula,Montana 59807, USA. Telephone: (406)542-4199. E-mail: [email protected].

The Lewis River trail in the Dark Divide roadless area, Washington State. Photo byIra Spring.

A New Wilderness Recreation Strategyfor National Forest Wilderness

BY GARRY OYE

The Forest Service’s WildernessAgenda, Thinking Like a Moun-

tain, was announced in June 1999 atthe 75th anniversary of the Gila Wil-derness and shared with IJW readers

in a December, 1999 article by MikeDombeck, chief of the U.S. Forest Ser-vice (USFS). This Wilderness Agendaproposes a three-part approach tomanaging recreation in wilderness.

USFS wilderness managers, basedon relevant research and their ownexperience and expertise, developedthis three-part approach to address thefollowing concerns:


• Attempts to improve conditions inheavily-used wilderness locationsconsume most of the available wil-derness management resources, re-sult in limited success, and maydisplace problems to adjacent pre-viously undisturbed locations.

• The majority of wilderness landsreceive light use and limited man-agement attention. Baseline inven-tories are essential to providinginformation on wilderness condi-tions and trends.

• The wilderness system has ex-panded from 9 to 106 million acresand now includes many urban-proximate, heavily-used recreationlands as wilderness. The wilder-ness system now includes back-yards and not just backcountry.

The USFS approach is to balance theinterests of the American people by pro-viding a broad spectrum of wilderness.Wilderness management preserves rela-tively undisturbed wilderness ecosys-tems and outstanding opportunities for

unique experiences. More resources arefocused on lightly used wilderness toensure that actions taken elsewhere donot inadvertently degrade these places.High levels of recreation use are allowedwithin designated areas to keep impactsto acceptable standards.

The New WildernessRecreation StrategyThe strategy consists of three proposedactions, each of which is critical.

Proposed Action #1Where possible, take advantage of op-portunities for high-quality wildland

recreation experienceson National Forestlands outside wilder-ness through the forestplanning process. Inpartnership with otherlocal agencies, state,county, and city parksdepartments, and localcommunity tourism of-fices, identify and high-light other outdoor rec-reation opportunities.Potential means ofimplementation in-clude: (1) completingan inventory of back-country opportunitiesoutside wilderness; (2)maintaining and en-hancing trail opportu-nities outside wilder-

ness; and (3) exploring ideas with part-ners for marketing backcountry oppor-tunities outside national forests.

Proposed Action #2Make it a priority to commit enoughresources and protection to low-usewilderness to ensure nondegradationof their outstanding opportunities forsolitude and near pristine conditions.Potential means of implementation in-clude: (1) developing standards wherethey don’t already exist; (2) establish-ing baseline inventory and trendsmonitoring, and (3) assuring protec-tion of lightly used areas before re-stricting use of high-use areas fromwhich use might be diverted.

Proposed Action #3Manage high-use destinations assources of inspiration and connectionwith wilderness, develop and imple-ment social standards with public in-put, and implement managementactions to ensure that impacts tophysical and biological resources arecontained within standards estab-lished in the forest plan. Potentialmeans of implementation include: (1)accepting current levels of visitationin some high-use destinations; (2)developing standards where they donot exist, and monitoring conditionsso that wilderness character and con-ditions are not unacceptably de-graded; (3) delineating high-usedestinations so they do not increasein number or size; (4) continuingThe Golden Horn in Washington State. Photo by Ira Spring.

HELP WANTEDYour local Forest Service wilderness managers need help withbackcountry visitor contacts (information and education), wilder-ness conditions monitoring, and native plant restoration. Visit:www.fs.fed.us/recreation or www.wilderness.net for a list of yourlocal wildernesses and ranger stations.


management activities and use limitswhere already established; (5) increas-ing stewardship presence to emphasizeinformation, education, inspiration,and connection with wilderness; (6)focusing intensive site managementon restoration of damaged sites andconfinement of impacts; and (7) pur-suing partnerships with organizationsto explore new approaches to manag-ing high-use areas and providing stew-ardship presence.

Commitment to GoalsUSFS wilderness managers remaincommitted to the goals of providingfor an enduring wilderness resource.To clarify our intent, we note that:• We will not implement one of

these actions without implement-ing all of them.

• We will not allow use to increaseindefinitely in high-use areas.

• We will continue to consider so-cial conditions and impacts on ex-periences.

• We will not attempt to keep en-counters at low levels at all timesin all places.

• We will not allow high-use areas

to spread and pro-liferate indiscrimi-nately.

• We will not neglectlow-use areas or al-low their quality tobe sacrificed in at-tempts to deal withproblems of heavyuse elsewhere.

Many special placeshave been preservedover the years. Earlywilderness designa-tions were successfulin limiting develop-ment and human in-fluence. Thousands ofvisitors have journeyedto these places and leftwith a sense of inspi-ration and connec-tion. We must now work togetherto address the increasing demand forthese special places.

GARRY OYE is the acting NationalWilderness Program leader for the U. S.Forest Service. He began his Forest Servicewilderness career in the Selway-Bitterroot

Upper Snowy Lake in the Golden Horn area, Washington State. Photo by Ira Spring.

Wilderness in 1978, and holds a mastersdegree in forestry from the University ofMontana. Oye received the first BobMarshall Award in 1991 for his efforts withthe National Wilderness Advisory Group.Telephone: (202) 205-0925. E-mail:[email protected].

The New Forest Service Wilderness RecreationStrategy Spells Doom for the National Wilderness

Preservation System

BY BILL WORF

Thirty-six years ago, Congress es-tablished the National Wilderness

Preservation System “to secure for theAmerican people of present and futuregenerations the benefits of an endur-ing resource of wilderness.” It was thefirst, and still only, time that Congresshas set aside large tracts of wildlands

to be preserved undiminished for futuregenerations and for the lands’ wildinhabitants. I believe that, rather thanlive up to the law’s ideals, the new U. S.Forest Service (USFS) Wilderness Rec-reation Strategy will instead providefor managed degradation, which willrob future generations of the benefits

of the resource of wilderness. It willlead to the piecemeal dismantling ofthe wilderness system.

The new strategy abandons thenondegradation mandate of The Wil-derness Act (TWA). I served on theUSFS’s six-person task force that met inSeptember 1964 to draft regulations and


policies for implementing TWA. Whileeach task force member brought to thetable strongly held views about howwilderness should be managed, no twomembers could agree on specific issues.To further complicate our task, the“quality” of the wilderness resource var-ied widely among the 54 units thatmade up the nucleus of the wildernesssystem. We knew the only policy thatcould survive special interest challengesand still meet the intent of Congress wasone based strictly on TWA itself. Ac-cordingly, we worked closely with USFSattorneys, members of Congress, andcitizen conservation leaders in a sen-tence-by-sentence analysis of TWA.

One sentence emerged as the most sig-nificant management direction in TWA.That is the first sentence in Section 4(b)which states, “Except as otherwise pro-vided in this Act, each agency adminis-tering any area designated as wildernessshall be responsible for preserving the wil-derness character of the area and shall soadminister such area for such other pur-poses for which it may have been es-tablished as also to preserve its wildernesscharacter” (emphasis added). We under-stood this sentence to mean that for eachwilderness:• Maintaining wilderness character

takes precedence over all otheruses or activities.

• Evidence of people’s works must notbe allowed to become more notice-able than at the time of designation.

• Primeval character and influencemust not be allowed to diminish.

• Future generations must be assuredopportunities for solitude as out-standing as at the time of designation.

• Even though some trammeling ofthe earth and its community of life mayhave occurred before designation,managers must prevent all futuretrammeling to the extent possible.

In summary, we read that sentenceas a clear and unambiguous mandatefor nondegradation of wilderness. Werecognized that preserving wildernesscharacter was the only way to protectwilderness against the proverbial“death from a thousand cuts,” each onein itself perhaps not significant, but cu-mulatively destructive to the system.

I certainly see some positive aspectsto the USFS’s new recreation strategy.The proposal to create more opportu-nities for high-quality wildlands rec-reation outside wilderness, and to givehigh priority to protecting less-usedwilderness, could serve wildernesswell. However, the third proposed ac-tion—to manage some designated wil-derness lands as less than realwilderness—more than negates anybenefit from the first two. It seems todirect National Forest wilderness man-agers to ignore the nondegradationmandate of TWA in order to accom-modate, within wilderness, the ever-increasing demand for nonmotorizedrecreation.

What will actually happen underthe new strategy? Each forest supervi-sor will delineate “high-use areas” aspart of the Forest Planing Process. Thearchitects of the strategy appropriatelywarn that “high-use areas” cannot beallowed to spread or proliferate. In aneffort to guarantee this, planners andmanagers will be cautioned to look

USFS Chief Dombeck must reaffirm the agency’s35-year commitment to the nondegradation mandateand reject the new Wilderness Recreation Strategy.

Wild mountain goats in the Golden Horn area, Washington State. Photo by Ira Spring.


into the future, evaluate present and fu-ture demand, and decide how much ofthe wilderness should be allocated to“high-use.” The strategy allows, and inplaces encourages, management to con-sider higher levels of use in carefully de-lineated and currently populardestinations. To deal with this use, theUSFS says,

“Intensive site management may benecessary in high-use areas. In or-der to keep the resource impacts ofheavy use to acceptable levels, high-use areas will have to be intensivelymanaged. Behavioral restriction andsite manipulation will be common-place here. Such actions are costly—both fiscally and in terms of losingthe aura of unconfinedness. Thesecosts are necessary to avoid unac-ceptable resource impacts or drasticreductions in access to high-use ar-eas. Those seeking less intensivemanagement can find it in low-usewilderness, although gaining accessmay become more difficult there, asuse limits are imposed to ensure nondegradation.” (see Recreation Strat-egy Controversies at www.fs.fed.us/recreation/wilderness/strategy).

To put all this in a nutshell, I be-lieve the new USFS Wilderness Rec-

reation Strategy will divide each Na-tional Forest unit of the wildernesssystem into two classes. The less popu-lar, lightly used land is one class. Itwill continue to be managed underprovisions TWA. The more attractiveareas that are now, or eventually maybecome, popular will be placed in thehigh-use class. This class will accom-modate ever-increasing use as long asvisitors remain happy. Permanent fa-cilities (toilets, fireplaces, tent pads,corrals, etc.) will be installed to pre-vent water and soil damage. Wilder-ness character in this high-use classwill degrade over time. The bound-aries between classes will be only aspermanent as a particular administra-tor desires.

The USFS is proposing to pilot testthe new strategy in the Mount HoodWilderness. Under its proposal, a hikerin parts of the wilderness could expectto meet 30 or more other parties alongthe trail each day. There will be no lim-its on this use, and it will grow. If theUSFS proclaims the “test” a grand suc-cess, managers of other wildernesseswill follow suit. The strategy could thenbe applied to impacted areas within re-

mote wilderness as well as more heavilyused areas near urban centers. Evenlarge areas such as the 1.3 million-acreSelway-Bitterroot Wilderness would beaffected if its more heavily used corri-dors and destination areas continue todegrade and fragment as this once largewilderness is zoned into 50 or more tinypieces. Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall,Arthur Carhart, and Howard Zahnisermust be rolling over in agony.

USFS Chief Dombeck must reaffirmthe agency’s 35-year commitment to thenondegradation mandate and reject thenew Wilderness Recreation Strategy.With his leadership, there are fine folksin the USFS who have the courage andwisdom to make it work. The wildnessin this magnificent system can, andmust, endure in perpetuity.

BILL WORF is a 32-year veteran of the U.S.Forest Service. As the “special areas specialist,”he led the agency’s wilderness program from1965 to 1969. He is currently president ofWilderness Watch, a national non-profitcitizens’ organization dedicated to protectingthe nation’s wilderness and wild riverssystem. Telephone: (406) 251-6210. E-mail:[email protected]. Visit Wilderness Watchat www.wildernesswatch.org.

If We Lock People Out,Who Will Fight to Save Wilderness?

BY IRA SPRING

When Congress passed The Wild-erness Act (TWA) of 1964 they

proclaimed that wilderness “has out-standing opportunities for solitudeOR a primitive and unconfined typeof recreation.” I’ve capitalized theword OR, for the interpretation ofthat single word is at the root of this

controversy. It has been at the riskof losing a constituency of “greenbonded” people who fought to savewilderness so they could use it thatthe U. S. Forest Service (USFS) in-terpreted OR to mean “AND,”thereby requiring solitude on everywilderness acre. Now with their new

Wilderness Recreation Strategy, theUSFS proposes a more user-friendlywilderness policy, one based on pro-viding “solitude OR primitive andunconfined recreation.” I think thisis good news for wilderness and themillions of avid hikers who want togo there.


Green Bondingfor a Green futureWhat is green bonding? Bonding is theterm for the development of ties of anyoffspring to its parent—a newbornbaby to its mother, a newborn fawnto its doe. Green bonding describes theemotional ties a person develops whilehiking wildland trails, enjoying theflowers, trees, wildlife, and views.Green bonding generated a green con-stituency that prompted millions ofpeople to support designation of 106million acres of wilderness and haskept roads out of millions of additionalacres of roadless areas.

People also bond to decent homes,good schools, adequate streets andhighways, convenient shopping malls,and pleasure domes for athletic con-tests. As the nation’s growth makes de-mands for more wood houses, morefactories, more vacation retreats ac-companied by helicopter pads in parksand wilderness, the result is a massive

degreening by money-bonded entrepreneurswho efficiently organizeand heavily fund an al-most religious crusade todespoil the public greenfor profit. The 1996 ses-sion of the U.S. Congressentertained serious pro-posals to decommission“surplus” park and wil-derness land and hand itover to the “private sec-tor.” Fortunately, therewere enough green-bonded people in thenation to halt the give-away. But further raidsmust be expected. Willthere be enough green-bonded people in theyear 2005 or 2010 toprotect our public lands?

The story in the Pacific Northwestis surely similar to other regions of thecountry. Prior to World War II, theWhite Chuck River country had manytrails but few hikers—too few to pre-vent a logging road up the valley nearlyto Kennedy Hot Springs, converting along backpacking trip of many daysto an afternoon stroll. Golden Hornwas a hiker’s paradise, but becausethere was no trail, few had been there,and no constituency existed that couldensure its inclusion in North CascadeNational Park. The Ragged Ridge,Eagle Rock, and Jackman Creekroadless area had no trails, so again itreceived little support for wildernessdesignation as part of the 1984 Wash-ington Wilderness Act. And sincethese areas still have no trails, they maylack enough green-bonded support forthe next go-round.

There were trails, but no hikers, onthe motor-infested Dark Divide, MadRiver, and Golden Lakes trails. Hikerstoo disgusted with the noise and speed

of motorcycles avoided these gems, sofew voices were raised to include themin the Washington Wilderness Act.

In the 1950s 800 people a year hikedthe trail to Snow Lake. The number nowis 20,000 a year! When I worked atMount Rainier in 1937, on a fine sum-mer Sunday perhaps as many as 300walkers passed over the flower trails ofParadise. Now the count is sometimes3,000. In the 1960s 300 climbers a yearreached the summit of Mount Rainier.Now it’s often 300 in one day. Thebackcountry was uncrowded then, butthere wasn’t enough public support(green bonding) to prevent loggingroads and motorcycle enthusiasts fromgobbling up thousands of miles of fa-vorite hiking trails.

Wilderness has many attributes:scenery, flowers, lakes, streams, virginforests, animals, primitive recreation,birds, solitude, silence, and a physicaland mental challenge, AND unconfinedrecreation. Your list may include more.

It is rare to find all these attributeson one hike. Most hikers are finding aquality wilderness experience on trailswith only two or three of the abovefeatures. For a family of four I met inNorth Cascade National Park on thePyramid Lake trail, it was an experi-ence of a lifetime. And that trail hasjust one of the above attributes. Lastyear in Mount Rainier National Parkcoming down the Rampart Ridge trail,I talked to a couple who told abouttheir wonderful experience. This trailhas only one of the attributes, and itis not solitude. Who was I to proclaimbefore these people that a true wilder-ness experience must include solitude?

Solitude Alone IsNo Basis for Limiting UseTWA is a great document, but solitudeis only mentioned once as an option.And USFS for years has taken “solitude”

A view of Mount Adams from the Sunrise Peak trail in the Dark Divide roadless area,Washington State. Photo by Ira Spring.


out of context by claiming that all wil-derness trails should have solitude,rather than limiting use on trails ac-cording to the amount of physical im-pact. Without objection from theenvironmental community, theywould have reduced weekend use inthe Alpine Lakes Wilderness by 64%.And despite objection, the GiffordPinchot National Forest reduced wil-derness use by 50% in the name ofsolitude, antagonizing the very green-bonded people we need to protect ourwild places. In Oregon the MountHood Wilderness management plancalled for an 80% reduction in hikersand climbers. The Forest Service esti-mated that 20,000 people would bedisplaced, with few alternative trailsto serve them. This ruling caused suchan outcry that it was withdrawn.

Make no mistake, human impacts area big problem and controlling use maybe necessary, but not in popular placesin the name of solitude. Thanks to im-proved wilderness ethics, trails andcampsites look better now than they didin the 1930s when there were only ahandful of people in the backcountry.

Solitude can be found somewherein almost every wilderness, even atMount Rainier National Park. The ParkService guesses that 3,000 people areoften on the paved trails above Para-dise Inn, but no one, almost no one,is ever seen on the well-signed Mo-raine Lake trail that leads to my favor-ite flower fields.

Demanding solitude on all trailsmakes no sense. Even in the AlpineLakes Wilderness there are maintainedtrails where solitude and beauty is al-most assured. Solitude is such a pre-cious commodity that one should bewilling to work a bit harder for it. Soli-tude should not be handed on a plat-ter to a lucky few at the cost ofdepriving thousands a quality wilder-ness experience.

The Juniper Ridge trail and Jumbo Mountain in the Dark Divide roadless area, Washington State. Photo by Ira Spring.

In western Washington solitude iseasy to find. Last summer, with the helpof a dozen volunteers, we researchedsome 90 abandoned logging roads. Ev-ery one of my volunteers commentedthat they did not see a soul all day.

The New USFS Strategy Isthe Right PathSo I applaud the new USFS Wilder-ness Recreation Strategy. It’s abouttime! Under the new policy people willhave “outstanding opportunities forsolitude” in the more pristine areas OR“a primitive and unconfined type of

recreation” for greater numbers inmore popular areas. And just as im-portant, the policy calls for more at-tention to roadless areas outside ofwilderness where quality experiencescan also be found.

Photographer IRA SPRING took his firstwilderness backpacking trip in 1929 withhis father and twin brother, Bob. AfterWorld War II Spring and his brother beganshooting photographs for a living. At leasta thousand of their photos have been soldfor calendars, books, and advertisements.His book, 100 Hikes, has sold half amillion copies. Telephone: (425) 778-4685.E-mail: [email protected].

I think this is good news for wilderness and the millions ofavid hikers who want to go there. … the USFS for yearshas taken “solitude” [as stated in The Wilderness Act] outof context by claiming that all wilderness trails shouldhave solitude, rather than limiting use on trails accordingto the amount of physical impact.


IntroductionExtensive development of water resources for agricultural,industrial and domestic uses, coupled with questionable landmanagement practices have had major impacts on Australianriver systems (State of the Environment Reporting 1996). Af-ter just 220 years of European settlement, undisturbed or wildrivers are now rare (CSIRO 1992). Such rivers are valuablefor (1) baseline or reference areas for the protection ofbiodiversity; (2) maintenance of downstream water qualityand flow; and (3) recreational and aesthetic experiences. Anumber of regional or statewide studies assessing river values(Kunert and Macmillan 1988; Macmillan et al. 1987; Olsenand Skitmore 1991) have been undertaken, but until nowthere had been no systematic national inventory.

In 1993 the Australian Heritage Commission launched theWild Rivers Project. This national program has three concur-

rent themes: (1) systematic identification of Australia’s wildrivers; (2) development of guidelines for the management ofwild rivers; and (3) communication and consultation to pro-mote awareness of the values of wild rivers. This article willfocus on the first of these projects. This project was guided bya committee representing government agencies (water resourcemanagement and nature conservation), farmers, conservationgroups, indigenous people, and the scientific community.Group meetings provided an important forum for discussionof the methodology employed and the data used.

Wild River DefinedThe definition of a wild river adopted for the projectemphasised the absence of alteration to the biological,hydrological, and geomorphological processes associatedwith river flow by modern or colonial society. Aborigi-nal land management certainly had some impact oncatchments and rivers; however, it is thought to be rela-tively minor compared with European influence. Notethat this definition considers only alterations to the naturalprocesses affecting river flow and not issues of remotenessor aesthetic naturalness. This contrasts with the con-cept of wilderness as embodied in Australia’s NationalWilderness Inventory (Lesslie and Maslen 1995) inwhich remoteness is an essential attribute of wilderness.Thus, a river flowing through areas with high wildernessvalue may have low wild-river value if its headwatersare significantly disturbed. Conversely, a river close to amajor settlement may have high wild-river values if itscatchment is intact.

Wild Rivers in Australia

BY J. L. STEIN, J. A. STEIN, and H. A. NIX

Abstract: Very few large rivers remain undisturbed in Australia. However, candidates for wild river designa-tion have recently been identified. Over 1.75 million stream sections, with a total length of over 3 millionkilometers, were examined for level of catchment disturbance (land-use activity, settlements and structures,infrastructure, extractive industries, and other point sources of pollution) and the extent of direct alterations tothe flow regime from impoundments, flow diversions or discharges, and levee banks. More than three-quartersof undisturbed streams have a catchment area of less than 10 square kilometers . Only 13% of undisturbedstreams occur within nature conservation reserves; over one-third were found on private land.

STEWARDSHIP

Article authors (left to right) J. A. Stein, J. L. Stein, and H. A. Nix. Photo by Lance Heath.


The Wild River MethodDirect measures of river condition,while preferable, are lacking or piece-meal for many Australian rivers(BIOSIS 1993). They are usually onlyavailable for more degraded rivers andmay be difficult to interpret due to thelack of baseline information from un-disturbed systems.

However, the intensity and extentof human activities within a catchmentand, where available, data that indi-cate changes to the flow regime, pro-vide surrogate measures of the extentto which natural river processes havebeen degraded. A GIS procedure,based on a drainage analysis of a 250-meter resolution DEM (a regular gridof elevation) (Stein, Stein, and Nix1998), was developed to rate the levelof disturbance for stream sections.This procedure uses derived indicatorsbased on four major sources of catch-ment disturbance with potential to sig-nificantly alter river processes: (1)land-use activity, (2) settlements and

structures, (3) infrastructure, and (4)extractive industries and other pointsources of pollution.

These indicators are combined withanother set of indicators based onalterations to the flow regime fromin-stream disturbances: (1) impound-ments, (2) flow diversions or dis-charges, and (3) levee banks. Thecomposite River Disturbance Index(RDI) provides an overall rating. Wildrivers are then defined within the con-text of such ratings for all Australianrivers along a continuum from nearpristine to highly degraded.

The ResultsRDI was derived for over 1.75 millionstream sections with a total length ofover 3 million kilometers from thedigital 1:250,000 scale map series(AUSLIG 1992). This index allowedrivers to be ranked from undisturbed(RDI = 0) to severely disturbed (RDIapproaching 1). By setting an appro-priate threshold, potential wild rivers

can be identified. In this case, a thresh-old of 0.01 was chosen, in consulta-tion with the Wild Rivers ProjectAdvisory Committee. Stream sectionswith RDI values less than 0.01 are es-sentially undisturbed or, at most, haveminimal disturbance in the catchment(for example, a minor trail some dis-tance from the stream or a history ofselective logging many decades ago ina small proportion of the catchment).Only 19%, or 591,332 kilometers, ofthe total stream length assessed satis-fied this criterion. Not surprisingly,these undisturbed rivers are foundwithin the less densely populated ar-eas of Australia and outside intensiveagricultural zones. More surprising,however, is the land tenure classifica-tion of these undisturbed rivers (seetable 1). Only 13% of the undisturbedstream length falls within existing na-ture conservation reserves, and withinthese reserves nearly half of the streamlength was disturbed to some extent.Although only 9% of the stream length

Table 1—Length of undisturbed streams (RDI value less than or equal to 0.01) by tenure category.


on private lands was undisturbed, thiscomprised 36% of the total length ofundisturbed sections.

Figure 1 summarizes the results bydrainage basins (AUSLIG 1997), whichprovide the framework for the collationof national hydrological data and waterresource planning. Only a few basinsare largely undisturbed (see table 2). Inmany basins, only small headwaterstreams remain undisturbed. If indi-vidual rivers are considered, more than13,000 were found to be essentiallyundisturbed for their entire length.

However, 75% of these are small streamswith a catchment area of less than 10square kilometers. Only six rivers witha catchment area greater than 10,000square kilometers were identified as po-tentially wild, and all of these are foundin northern Australia.

Analysis of the distribution of undis-turbed streams in relation to environ-mental domains highlights theunderrepresentation of potentially wildrivers in particular environments (seetable 3). Only 14% of the total lengthof streams in the arid/semi-arid domain

(covering more than 75% of the Aus-tralian land mass) were identified as un-disturbed. These generally short,ephemeral streams make up 42% of thetotal length of undisturbed streams inthe nation, however. Another 42% ofthe undisturbed streams were found inthe monsoonal tropical north of Aus-tralia where streams are characterizedby extremely high peak flows. In thesouthwest Tasmanian World HeritageArea (cool temperatures, high runoff),the majority of streams (74%) werefound to be undisturbed but only con-tributed 1% to the national total.

DiscussionA preliminary list of wild rivers was pro-duced from those river sections with anRDI value of less than or equal to 0.01.However, RDI values represent a con-tinuum of disturbance. In addition, theactual level of degradation to naturalstream processes may vary for the samevalue of RDI, depending on river typeand the environmental characteristics ofthe catchment. Thus, streams with RDIvalues just above the chosen thresholdmay also be candidates for inclusion.

A final list is being compiled in con-sultation with state agencies that havelegislative responsibility for rivers (En-vironment Australia, forthcoming) af-ter verification, which may includefield checking and reference to localinformation. Additional criteria, suchas minimum length or catchment size,may also be applied. For example, cur-rently in New South Wales a wild river

Figure 1—Australia’s river basins showing proportion of stream length that is undisturbed (RDI value less than orequal to 0.01).

Table 2—River Basins with greater than 80% of stream length undisturbed (RDI value less than or equal to 0.01).


has a minimum continuous segmentlength of at least 10 kilometers; in Tas-mania, wild rivers have a minimumcatchment area of 1,000 hectares.

A verification study was conductedfor the rivers in the Kimberley regionof western Australia (Williams andPenn 1995) where excessive grazingpressure is the major cause of riverinedegradation. Aerial inspection and on-ground truthing was used to assignrivers to one of five major categories,ranging from wild to degraded, basedprincipally on evidence of erosion andsediment deposition. Comparison ofresults found that the RDI values pro-vided a reasonably similar indicationof candidates for wild river designa-tion but highlighted limitations in thesupporting data related to grazing. Forexample, much of the catchment of theDrysdale River is within a nationalpark and therefore assumed to beungrazed. However, field inspection ofthis river, identified as potentially wildfrom its RDI ratings, showed somedegradation due to grazing by feralcattle in the unfenced national park.

Other limitations of this assessmentrelate both to the underlying assump-tions in the river disturbance modeland the supporting data used (Steinet al. 1998). For example, much in-formation of relevance to river condi-tion was simply unavailable. Thisincluded the condition of riparian veg-etation, changes in fire frequency andintensity, the presence of exotic spe-cies, the intensity of catchment graz-ing by feral animals, and the locationof river engineering works. Neverthe-less, the approach developed has anumber of advantages. It rates allstreams in a consistent and transpar-ent manner and offers considerableflexibility. The database can be readilyupdated and parameters easily modi-fied. Assessment of the impact of pro-

posed developments on wild-river val-ues is also accommodated.

For the first time, a national as-sessment of river disturbance wasproduced, providing a listing of po-tentially least-disturbed wild rivers.Only a few major rivers were foundto be undisturbed for their entirelength, but many important undis-turbed smaller streams and headwa-

ter tributaries were identified. Someof these may be the only undis-turbed examples of particular rivertypes. An assessment of the ad-equacy of the existing conservationreserve system would be an impor-tant sequel to this project. Naturalcatchment areas, identified by pre-vious statewide investigations, arealready offered legislative protection

The Salmond River in the Kimberley region in western Australia is one example of the 1.75 million stream sectionssurveyed to develop a relative disturbance index (RDI). Photo by J. A. Stein.

The first national assessment of Australian rivers will help protect rivers like the King George in the Kimberleyregion of western Australia. Photo by J. A. Stein.


(http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/wwr/anlr_0999/wild_riv/guide/index.html.)

Kunert, C., and L. Macmillan. 1988. Conserva-tion Value and Status of Victorian Rivers. PartIII. The Wimmera River and Its catchment.Melbourne, Australia: RMIT.

Lesslie, R., and M. Maslen. 1995. National Wil-derness Inventory Australia. Handbook ofProcedures, Content, and Usage. Canberra,Australian Heritage Commission. (http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/wwr/anlr_0999/nwi/handbook.htm)

Macmillan, L., C. Kunert, and M. Blakers. 1987.Nature Conservation Value and Status ofRivers in the South Western Region, Victoria.Melbourne. Australia: RMIT.

Olsen, G. and E. Skitmore. 1991. The State ofthe Rivers of the South-West Drainage Divi-sion. Australia: Western Australia Water andRivers Commission, Perth.

State of the Environment Reporting. 1996. Stateof the Environment Australia. Melbourne:CSIRO.

Stein, J. L., J. A. Stein, and H. A. Nix. 1998. TheIdentification of Wild Rivers: Methodology andDatabase Development. Canberra: Environ-ment Australia: p 73. (http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/wwr/anlr_0999/code/pub.htm.)

Williams, P. J., and L. J. Penn. 1995. Wild RiversProject Kimberley Region Pilot VerificationStudy. Report to the Australian Heritage Com-mission, Canberra.

in Victoria. Many of the least-dis-turbed streams in Australia are onprivate lands. To protect their wild-river values, planning and other mea-sures are needed, such as incentivesfor landholders to adopt the wild-rivermanagement guidelines (EnvironmentAustralia 1996).

AcknowledgmentsThis project was funded by the Aus-tralian Heritage Commission. Wethank the Project Advisory Commit-tee, the Wilderness and Wild RiversUnit, and State project officers fortheir considerable assistance andsupport.

J. L. STEIN, J. A. STEIN, and H. A. NIX arewith the Centre for Resource and Environ-mental Studies, Australian NationalUniversity, Canberra, ACT, 0200,Australia. Telephone: 61 2 6249 4669.E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCESAUSLIG. 1992. GEODATA TOPO-250K User

Guide. Canberra: Australian Survey andLand Information Group. (http://www.auslig.gov.au/products/digidat/v1_250k/usr_gide/cnts_pg.htm.)

AUSLIG. 1997. Australia’s River Basins Version1.0—1997. Canberra: Australian Surveyand Land Information Group.

BIOSIS. 1993. Australia’s near-pristine rivers—Methodology for a national study. Report tothe Australian Heritage Commission,Melbourne.

CSIRO. 1992. Towards Healthy Rivers Canberra:CSIRO Division of Water Resources.

Environment Australia. 1996. ConservationGuidelines for the Management of Wild RiverValues. Canberra: Environment Australia.

Many of the least disturbed streams in Australia areon private lands.

Table 3—Proportion of undisturbed stream length (RDI value less than or equal to 0.01) by environmental domains.


Potential Goals for InvasivePlant Management in WildernessAggressive, invasive weed species, particularly rushskeletonweed, are threatening to invade the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness (FCRNRW) in central Idaho.Weed infestations expanded by 25% from 1998 to 1999,with some of the largest concentrations occurring on pri-vate inholdings along the Main and Middle Forks of theSalmon River. A stewardship team set the task of managingthese invasives. Before deciding on specific tactics, the teamneeded to agree on the appropriate goals for managinginvasives in wilderness.

Patterson and Watson (1998) outlined four potentialenvironmental philosophy orientations to guide manage-ment of exotics in wilderness. Within the FCRNRW, theteam needed to decide which orientation fit best with TheWilderness Act (TWA), U. S. Forest Service (USFS) policy,and public sentiment. The team considered the followingbasic strategies: (1) conservationist (stewards of the land),a utilitarian view that emphasizes the wise use of materialresources for human benefit; (2) preservationist (guardiansof the land), emphasizing aesthetic and spiritual values ofnature and focusing on protection through noninterference;(3) biocentrist (guardians of rights), with an origin in the writ-ings of Muir and Leopold, emphasizing either rights assignedto individual organisms or right and wrong defined in terms

of the good of the entire biotic community; or (4)restorationist philosophy (gardeners on a planet in crisis),only recently emerged with the development of restorationecology and conservation biology, placing value onbiodiversity, minimum viable populations, and restorationof ecosystems.

Wilderness Act and Forest Service PolicyKey phrases in TWA guide managers toward a “communityof life … untrammeled by man, its primeval character … re-tained, and its natural conditions … preserved,” and “an areawhere the earth and its community of life are untrammeled

STEWARDSHIP

Invasive Plant ManagementAlong Wild Rivers

Are We Stewards, Guardians, or Gardeners?

BY BRUCE ANDERSON and KEN WOTRING

Abstract: Invasive exotic plants have the potential to transform plant communities into monocultures, alteringwildlife habitat, floral diversity, recreation, and soil stability. Nonforested river canyons and mountain grass-lands along the Main and Middle Forks of the Salmon River in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wildernessare at high risk of noxious weed domination. The long-term goals of healthy wilderness watersheds andfulfilled public expectations can only be achieved through rapid, effective management practices that areintegrated across all affected land within and adjacent to wilderness.

Article co-author Bruce Anderson.Photo courtesy of Bruce Anderson.

Article co-author Ken Wotring. Photocourtesy of Ken Wotring.


by man, where man himself is a visi-tor who does not remain.” USFS policyinterpretation further directs manag-ers to “maintain wilderness in such amanner that ecosystems are unaffectedby human manipulation and influ-ences so that plants and animals de-velop and respond to natural forces”(Forest Service Manual 2320.2). Thereare, however, two common interpre-tations of these official guidelines:1. Once plants, regardless of origin,

enter wilderness, they become partof the community of life, a naturalforce. If exotic plants displace na-tive flora and the associated faunaand/or disrupt ecological path-ways, it is acceptable. To interferewith this “natural” process couldonly be perceived as human ma-nipulation within wilderness.

2. Exotic plants were introduced toNorth American ecosystems delib-erately or by accident, but werenever part of the pre-Europeansettlement environment. Whenthese plants enter the wilderness,either in a hay bale, with a hiker,or in the hair of a mule deer, theyrepresent human manipulation ofnature. When a mountain meadowdominated by Scotch thistle pre-cludes camping or elk grazing, itis a modification brought about byhuman actions no different than ifthe meadow were paved.

A desirable philosophical approach toinvasive species is not clear in theWilderness Act or the Forest Ser-vice Manual. An analysis of publicsentiment was necessary in thesearch for further guidance.

Public ExpectationsThe team looked closely at public sen-timent specific to the FCRNRW. Fromresearch and public involvement, it is

clear that people like to hike, float,ride horses, hunt, observe nature, bechallenged, and experience solitudewithin the FCRNRW. They also liketo see natural conditions and/or pro-cesses operating in wilderness. Oneof the most important values to riverrecreationists is wildlife viewing(Hunger 1996), but big game hunt-ing is also popular within theFCRNRW. Noxious weed expansioncan affect all of these important hu-man values.

At the national level, society placeshigh value on wilderness for the pro-tection of threatened, endangered, andsensitive wildlife and plants (Cordellet al. 1998). Rare plants can be affecteddirectly by being displaced by inva-sive weed species, and protected wild-life, such as wolves, could be affectedindirectly as native plant communitiesthat prey species rely on are altered.Surprisingly, 82% of the public com-ments received on noxious weed man-agement in the FCRNRW supportaggressive weed treatment actions torestore ecosystems.

A Selected ApproachCheatgrass, orchard grass, Kentuckybluegrass, timothy, and fruit trees aresome of the many introduced speciesof plants in the FCRNRW. Some spe-cies have been brought in deliberately,while others have invaded. Some es-caped species are established but com-pete poorly and occur sporadically onthe landscape. Others are only mod-erately aggressive and will become wellestablished on localized areas such asold homestead fields. The ecologicalramifications of these species are notparticularly severe. On the other hand,aggressive species such as rushskeletonweed and spotted knapweedare capable of seriously and signifi-cantly affecting ecosystem conditionsand processes. The team felt the needto focus management on those exoticplant species, which are classified asnoxious weeds, highly invasive, not yetwidely established, and/or can signifi-cantly affect native ecosystems and theirrelated wildland resource values (seetable 1). From examination of relevantsources, the stewardship team decided

Surveying invasives in the Middle Fork of the Salmon River canyon. Photo by Andy Klimek.


that a restorative approach to invasiveweeds was the appropriate guidingphilosophy for the FCRNRW.

In January 1998 a FCRNRW DraftEnvironmental Impact Statement out-lining management for various re-sources, including invasive weeds, wasreleased to the public. Several pro-posed management actions were con-troversial. However, as previouslymentioned there was strong supportto implement an integrated weed man-agement program. The team recog-nized early that to be successful inmanaging invasive plants within theFCRNRW, we had to have continuouspublic support, and the only way toaccomplish this was through active en-gagement of wilderness users and in-terest groups. The team began tostrengthen existing partnerships andto forge new ones. Extensive interac-tion with various wilderness interestsoccurred to solicit input and identifyopportunities where partners couldwork with the USFS in implementinga weed management plan.

The final plan outlined an inte-grated weed management strategyspecifying treatments for approxi-mately 300 sites encompassing ap-proximately 2,000 acres of invasiveweeds. This strategy employs a vari-ety of techniques. Elements of the in-tegrated system include coordination,information/education, inventory/early detection, prevention, treatments(including physical, biological, cul-tural, and chemical), and monitoring.

The team incorporated the follow-ing management objectives: contain-ment, control, and eradication. Undercontainment, weed infestations are notallowed to increase beyond the exist-ing perimeter. The control objective re-duces the infestation through time,though some level of infestation maybe tolerated. Under eradication, thegoal is total elimination of the weed.

Treatments need to be focused wherethey have the greatest effect on prevent-ing or minimizing weed impacts onwilderness resources. Weed species tobe managed include state-listed noxiousweeds and nonstate-listed species. Thedelineation of plants with respect totreatment priorities is determined by:(1) a weed species’ ability to invade anddisplace native plants communities; (2)the potential rate of expansion; (3) thephysical nature of the weed (a tall andthorny species verses a small and un-obtrusive species); and (4) the extentand proximity of susceptible nativeplant communities.

Treatment priorities outlined in thedecision were to: (1) eradicate newpopulations of aggressive weed spe-cies, including potential invaders (spe-cies not yet found in the FCRNRW butthat occur nearby with high potentialto spread into the wilderness), newinvaders (species recently found in theFCRNRW with limited distribution

and density to make eradication fea-sible), and new starts from establishedweed populations; (2) control estab-lished aggressive weed species; (3)contain established aggressive species;(4) monitor; (5) restore; (6) eradicatenew populations of less aggressive spe-cies; (7) control less aggressive species,and (8) contain less aggressive species.

ImplementationOnce the plan was approved and up-held, the team focused on securing thenecessary resources to implement it.We needed approximately U.S.$300,000. USFS funding alone wouldbe insufficient, so we solicited part-ners to fund the rest of the program.

A two-day meeting in the FCRNRWat Mackay Bar along the Main SalmonRiver brought existing and potentialpartners together to collaborativelyimplement the weed program. Partici-pants included representatives fromthe Idaho Congressional Delegation,

Most Invasive*Species such as skeletonweed, and knapweeds

*Species such as Canada thistle and bull thistle*Aggressive established exotic species (cheatgrasses)

*Less aggressive established exotic species (domestic grasses)*Nonaggressive exotic species (planted fruit trees, etc.)

Least NativeInvasive Species

Least Impact Greatest ImpactResource Values (habitat, watershed, biodiversity, visuals)

Table 1—Potential impacts by different exotic species.

Surprisingly, 82% of the public comments received onnoxious weed management in the FCRNRW supportaggressive weed treatment actions to restore ecosystems.


a USDA undersecretary and his staff,the governor’s office, the Idaho StateDepartment of Agriculture, the Stu-dent Conservation Association, pri-vate industry, an Idaho countycommissioner, backcountry pilots, ajet boat association, the Rocky Moun-tain Elk Foundation, the Foundationfor North American Wild Sheep, pri-vate landowners, and USFS represen-tatives from the northern andintermountain regions. Groups andindividuals who were unable to attendincluded the Idaho Fish and GameDepartment, the Idaho Chapter of TheWilderness Society, the Idaho Envi-ronmental Council, the BackcountryHorsemen, and the Idaho Outfitterand Guides Association. This groupof interested partners raised over U.S.$400,000 in cash and in-kind com-mitments to implement invasive weedmanagement in the FCRNRW.

Within the FCRNRW, prioritieswere established at the wildernessscale and not by land ownership,district, forest, or region. Early eachspring wilderness and weed man-agement specialists from all of theUSFS units responsible for manag-ing the FCRNRW, as well as private

landowners and otherpartners, meet to pri-oritize wildernesswidemanagement actions.Schedules are devel-oped and people, sup-plies, and equipmentpooled to implementagreed upon tasks.

Where DoWe Gofrom Here?To ensure this project issuccessful, we intend tomove forward with thefollowing tasks:1. Maintain momen-

tum: Without continuous attention,few resource areas stand to lose asmuch invested time and money asmanagement of invasive weeds. Ifwe cease vigilance for even a year(or less), we will lose ground gainedduring previous efforts.

2. Shift program emphasis fromtreatments to restoration: Overtime, treatment unit costs will de-cline but not disappear. Hundredsof person-days may be necessaryinitially to treat large infestations,but will decline over time to onlyseveral person-days for mainte-nance activities. Even though somesort of treatment will always benecessary, the extent and degree offollow-up control will be reducedif the infestation site is restored tonative vegetation.

3. Maintain or strengthen relation-ships with our partners: Thisproject will only be as successfulas the relationship with our neigh-bors and partners. Without sup-port from these entities, thecurrent plan would never havebeen implemented.

4. Expand our education andawareness program: Workingwith partners such as the StudentConservation Association, we in-tend to expand outreach programsto wilderness interests (public andprivate) concerning the risks of in-vasive weed expansion to theFCRNRW, which is an interna-tional resource. Through ex-panded outreach we expect todevelop new partners.

5. Expand inventories and early de-tection of invasive weeds: It is es-sential to clearly understand theextent of the weed problem beforethe most effective treatment strat-egy can be implemented. Workingwith partners such as the Na-tional Outdoor LeadershipSchool, universities, and others,we intend to pursue the latest,yet least wilderness-intrusive, in-ventory technology.

6. Establish an FCRNRW Coordi-nated Weed Management Area(CWMA): The CWMA and ac-companying plan will outlinegoals, objectives, managementstrategies, priorities, and manage-ment actions. A recognizedCWMA will allow us to better ar-ticulate our strategies to all in-volved with management, broadenpartnerships, and compete forfunding.

7. Better coordination with weedmanagers outside wilderness:More emphasis will be placed oninterfacing with our neighbors.This will include cooperation withCWMAs adjacent to the wildernessand coordination of noxious weedprograms and priorities on USFSmanaged areas.

Removing invasive weeds in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. Photo byAndy Klimek.


Lacey, J., C. Marlow, and J. Lane. 1989. Influ-ence of spotted knapweed on surface runoffand sediment yield. Weed Technology 3:627–631.

Patterson, M., and A. E. Watson. 1998. Whatdoes the Wilderness Act mean for exotic spe-cies management. Proceedings, 7th InternationalSymposium, Society and Resource Manage-ment: Culture, Environment and Society. May27–31, Columbia: University of Missouri.

sional Delegation, and the Departmentof Agriculture has elevated this projectso that sufficient resources have beensecured to ensure its success.

Our restorative philosophy acknowl-edges that “a river runs through it.”Weed management needs to be framednot only in the context of watershedsbut of entire river systems. These riversare a conduit or highway for invasivespecies movements. The success or lackthereof in the FCRNRW can affect ex-tensive habitats within the entire SalmonRiver basin.

ConclusionThe team expects mandate and publicsupport to follow a restorative approachin managing exotics in the FCRNRW.This program may provide a nationalmodel for wilderness weed manage-ment, driven by watershed and resourceneeds, not an administrative or landownership approach. Expectations atthe FCRNRW from local, state, and na-tional interests are that the USFS willmove forward with an aggressive pro-gram. Recognition and assistance fromthe governor’s office, the Idaho Congres-

BRUCE ANDERSON is resource assistantfor Wild and Scenic Rivers, NoxiousWeeds, Range, and Outfitters and Guideson the Salmon River Ranger District, NezPerce National Forest, Idaho. He iscurrently on detail to northern Minnesota,working with the forest storm blowdownproject. E-mail: [email protected].

KEN WOTRING is the wilderness coordina-tor for the Frank Church-River of No ReturnWilderness, working out of the ForestSupervisor’s Office for the Salmon NationalForest in Salmon, Idaho. E-mail:[email protected].

REFERENCESAsher, J., and D. Harmon. 1995. Invasive ex-

otic plants are destroying the naturalness ofU.S. Wilderness Areas. International Jour-nal of Wilderness 1 (2): 35–37.

Bedunah, D. 1992. The complex ecology ofweeds, grazing, and wildlife. Western Wild-lands 18 (2): 6–11.

Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, B. L. McDonald,and J. C. Bergstrom. 1998. How the publicviews wilderness: more results from the USA

Survey on Recreation and the Environment.International Journal of Wilderness 4 (3):28–31.

Hunger, Donald Hancock. 1996. Defining Po-tential Human Experience Indicators andStandards on the Main Stem and MiddleFork of the Salmon River in Idaho. A thesissubmitted in partial fulfillment of the require-ments for the degree of Masters of Environ-mental Studies, The Evergreen State College.

Congressman Bruce F. Vento (D, Minnesota) died at his St. Paul home on October 10,2000, from lung cancer. He was 60 years old. Vento was the preeminent champion ofwilderness in Congress, and my good friend and mentor. He contracted malignantmesothelioma, cancer of the lungs caused by exposure to asbestos.

Vento chaired the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands for10 years. He became the leading wilderness expert in Congress and passed some 300laws during his 24-year career, many of them written to protect wilderness, parks,and public lands. He tirelessly prodded federal land management agencies to betterprotect and manage their wilderness areas.

Vento was strongly committed to the million-acre Boundary Waters Canoe Area(BWCA) Wilderness in his home state of Minnesota. He led the fight, with PhillipBurton (R) and Don Fraser (R), to pass the 1978 BWCA Wilderness Act, legislationthat brought vital protections to the area and its wild character. Bruce maintained hiscommitment to the BWCA Wilderness throughout his career in Congress.He will be sorely missed.

KEVIN PROESCHOLDT is the co-author of Troubled Waters: The Fight for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. He worked withBruce Vento for 24 years on wilderness policy. He recently left Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness after directing the organization for 16years. Telephone: (612) 724-6876. E-mail: [email protected].

Wilderness Champion, Congressman Bruce Vento, Will Be MissedBY KEVIN PROESCHOLDT

Congressman Bruce Vento


California Bureau of Land Management (BLM) desertlands, so visible and accessible, reveal the passageof time. These wild places afford the opportunity not

only to stand on the spot where ice ages and volcanoes changedthe land, but to actually feel the alkaline lakes and cindercones. Creosote rings more than 11,000 years old perch onhillsides beneath the clear skies through which the spaceshuttle passes. Still evident are the rock rings and world-re-nowned rock art of Native Americans summoning rain as welltheir trails of trade. Remnants of covered wagon tracks, rutsof stagecoaches traversing the desert by night, and railroadtrestles all crisscross this country. And even today ranchersand miners, like pieces of the past, still work this wild land.And the desert will continue to hold the past and the futurebecause the California Desert Protection Act recognized andhonored the underlying layer of 4 million acres of wilderness.

Managing desert wilderness is not easy. The BLM’s job is tohelp return the deserts of California to their natural state. Wedo a great deal of mapping of the historical and current stateof these lands. But with only two wilderness staffers, the be-ginnings of a wilderness ranger program, nearly 1 millionacres, and more than 500 miles of old internal routes, wecouldn’t find the time or expertise to conduct this massiverestoration project. But there is power in numbers.

Enter the Student Conservation Association (SCA). Thisnational organization specializes in wildland work, using stu-dents working on summer crews from all over the country.They provide extensive training for crew leaders in field skills,teamwork, and leadership. In 1997 we succeeded in bring-ing on our first crew in California at a cost of U.S. $13,600 bypartnering internally between the recreation and wildernessprograms. In one month six students and a leader restored 14

The BLM in Partnershipwith the Student Conservation

AssociationRestoring Wilderness in the California Desert

BY DAVE WASH and KATIE WASH

Before and after SCA’s wilderness restoration work in the California desert. Photo courtesy of BLM.

EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

Continued on page 11


IntroductionOf the 100 million acres of designated wilderness in the UnitedStates, about half is located in the lower 48 states. Most of theeconomic benefits provided by wilderness can be classifiedby where those benefits are realized: on-site versus off-site ordownstream (Loomis 1993). The most obvious on-site ben-efits provided by wilderness are recreation use and the pro-tection of fish and wildlife habitat. Off-site or downstreambenefits include protection of water quality for downstreamcities, biodiversity, and passive-use values such as existencevalues to people who may never visit wilderness, but whostill receive enjoyment and satisfaction from knowing it existsand is protected for them and future generations (Krutilla1967). We now turn to a summary of the eight categories ofbenefits (also see table 1), using standard economic methodsused by federal agencies in the United States.

Recreation BenefitsThe available visitor use data from the four federal land man-agement agencies that manage wilderness in the United States(Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, and Bureau of Land Management) suggest a conserva-tive estimate of 16 million recreation visits to designatedwilderness in the lower 48 states. The benefits to visitors isestimated by their willingness (and ability) to pay over andabove their current trip costs. This net willingness to pay(WTP) has been measured for wilderness recreation using

both of the federally approved valuation methods, the TravelCost Method (TCM) and Contingent Valuation Method(CVM). TCM uses variation in visitors’ travel costs and tripsto trace out a demand curve. From the demand curve, netWTP can be calculated. CVM uses surveys to simulate whatvisitors would pay if there were a market for access to wilder-ness for recreation. (See Loomis and Walsh 1997 for moredetails on the two methods.) The average economic value pervisitor-day from studies that used these methods is U.S. $40.

SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Economic Values ofthe U.S. Wilderness System

Research Evidence to Date and Questions for the Future

BY JOHN B. LOOMIS and ROBERT RICHARDSON

Abstract: Economic values from the protection of natural environments such as wilderness, can be groupedinto eight categories: recreation, community, passive use, scientific, biodiversity, off-site, ecological services,and education. This article reviews what is known about these values. While monetary values can be calcu-lated for only a few of the benefit categories and only some of the benefits within those categories, theestimated benefits amount to U.S. $3 to 4 billion dollars annually.

Article author John Loomis (left) with Robert Richardson. Photo by Michael Miller.


Thus, the 16 million visitor-days has anestimated total recreation value of $634million annually. The designation of anadditional 10,000-acre roadless area inthe West as wilderness would yieldabout 3,875 additional visitor-days peryear, providing a $153,500 recreationvalue to visitors each year in the west-ern U.S. The same 10,000 acres in theeastern United States is estimated toyield approximately 11,000 visitor-daysper year with an annual recreation valueto visitors of $435,700.

Community EffectsA review of the economic literatureindicates visitor expenditures per dayof wilderness use averages to $30. Tocalculate the direct and indirect eco-nomic impact of such spending, wemultiplied this value by the estimatedwilderness visitation of 16 million, andentered the product into an input-out-put model to correct for leakage whencalculating the multiplier effects of thevisitor spending on the U.S. economy.The resulting estimate suggests thelevel of total expenditures directly or

indirectly supports 26,820 jobs. Whiledevelopment is restricted within wil-derness, visitor spending on gasoline,hotels, restaurant meals, and so forthsupports economic development out-side wilderness. Designation of an ad-ditional 10,000 acres of wildernesstranslates into an additional U.S.$443,740 of personal income and 18jobs from wilderness visitor spendingin the eastern U.S. and $156,318 ofincome and 6 jobs in the western U.S.In addition, protection of wildernessmay promote economic developmentin the adjacent counties through at-traction of new residents and busi-nesses which value the amenitiesprotected by wilderness. Surveys in-dicate that in counties containing wil-derness, 45% of current residents and60% of recent migrants see wildernessas an important reason for living there.

Passive-Use ValuesExistence values (knowing wilder-ness exists and is protected), as wellas bequest values (providing this re-source for future generations), were

quantified using contingent valua-tion surveys. Generalizing passive-use values (e.g., existence andbequest values) for wilderness in thewestern United States, we estimateannual values at $6.72 per acre,yielding annual passive-use valuesof $287 million for 42.7 millionacres. For eastern wilderness, weestimate a passive use value of $4per acre, yielding annual passive usevalues of the 4.5 million easternacres to be $19 million. Thus, totalpassive-use values are estimated tobe $306 million. More studies ofpassive-use values, particularly inAlaska, are needed to improve ourrough empirical estimates.

Scientific ValuesWilderness provides a natural bench-mark or control area for judging the ef-fects of human development on naturalsystems and understanding of unfet-tered ecological processes. Wildernesshas also been the source of study formore than 400 scientific journal articlesin the natural and social sciences. There

Use Economic Value Economic Other(Millions) Impact Indicators

Recreation Value $634

Passive-Use Value $306(option, existence, bequest)

Ecological Services $2,000 to 3,400(carbon sequestration, etc).

Scientific $5 +400 journal articles

Biodiversity +1 million acres protected1/3 of U.S. Ecoregions

Community(recreation related) 26,822 Jobs

Off-Site(gain in local property values) 13%

Table 1—Summary of annual economic values of wilderness in the lower 48 states.


are several hundred agency researchpublications on wilderness as well. Jour-nal articles contribute to scientificprogress, which in turn often contrib-utes to productivity improvements andtherefore increased human well-being.Using a rough estimate of the annualvalue per journal article, these wilder-ness-based articles yield an estimatedeconomic benefit of $5 million annu-ally. The methodology for estimatingscientific benefits needs substantialimprovement before this estimate canbe considered as any more than a roughapproximation.

Biodiversity ValuesWilderness designation provides one ofthe strongest levels of protection ofbiodiversity available to policy makers.Using the Bailey-Kuchler ecosystemclassification system, we calculated thatmore than 10% of the land in the Ever-glades, American Desert Province andConiferous Forest-Alpine Meadowprovinces are protected by wilderness(Loomis and Echohawk 1999). Alto-gether, wilderness designation of a mil-lion acres or more protects aboutone-third of the 35 ecoregions of thecontinental United States. While CVMcould potentially be used to estimate ananthropocentric value of biodiversity,economic valuation methods do not al-low for the measurement of the intrin-sic value.

Off-Site BenefitsJust one of the off-site benefits of wil-derness, the increase in value of pri-vate property adjacent to wilderness,provides a gain of 13% in per acre val-ues in the Green Mountains of Ver-mont (Phillips 1999). With about 47million acres of wilderness nation-wide, there are probably hundreds ofmillions of dollars in property valueenhancement on private lands adja-cent to or nearby these areas.

Ecological ServicesEcological services provided by wilder-ness include watershed protection, car-bon storage, nutrient cycling, and fish/wildlife habitat. Wilderness watershedprotection yields a cost savings to sev-eral small towns’ water treatment plantsand highway departments from avoid-ing sedimentation associated with log-ging. This benefit is estimated to rangefrom at least $130,000 to as much as$260,000 annually from just one smallnational forest of 631,000 acres (Loomis1988). Given the 47 million acres ofwilderness, between $9 and $18 mil-lion in cost savings could be realized ifthis case study is generalized to wilder-ness throughout the United States. Interms of climate regulation, an acre offorest has an estimated value of $65 aton for storing carbon, and therebyhelps to moderate climate change(Morton 1999). An estimated 29.5 ofthe 44 million acres of wilderness areforested (Loomis and Echohawk 1999).A rough estimate of the value of carbonstored in wilderness forests is $2.4 bil-lion annually. Costanza et al., in theirarticle in Nature, estimated that benefitsof climate regulation from temperateforests could be valued at $35 per acreper year. This yields a value of about $1billion annually in climate regulationbenefits from wilderness forests.

These same authors indicated thattemperate forests also provide wastetreatment services by recovering mo-bile nutrients and cleansing the envi-ronment. The authors then estimatedanother $35 per acre from waste treat-

ment benefits of forests. Thus, wilder-ness forests would provide another $1billion in benefits per year from thisecosystem service. Therefore, the an-nual economic benefit from watershedprotection, carbon storage for climateregulation, and nutrient cycling forwaste treatment are estimated to be be-tween $2 billion and $3.5 billion. Thisestimate is conservative, as it does notaccount for numerous other ecologi-cal services provided by the protectionof wilderness.

Educational ValuesWilderness often provides a naturallaboratory for many high school andcollege courses. Wilderness has alsobeen used by various organizations tohelp teenagers and adults develop self-reliance, teamwork, and coping skillsthey can use in everyday life. There is agrowing health industry that uses wil-derness as an integral part of its treat-ment program. The potential economicvalue of these benefits is difficult tomeasure, but may be in the millions ofdollars, while the economic impact interms of employment may be evengreater.

ConclusionWilderness provides many values tohumans through on-site recreation useand fish and wildlife habitat, as well asoff-site benefits in terms of protectingwater quality, sequestering carbon, andproviding an environment for scientificresearch and the rehabilitation of the

Wilderness provides a natural benchmark or controlarea for judging the effects of human developmenton natural systems and understanding of unfetteredecological processes.


human condition. While economictechniques can currently estimate mon-etary values for some of these benefits,many of them, such as protection ofbiodiversity, will only be monetized inthe future. A concerted effort betweennatural, physical, and social scientistswill be necessary to more fully developmethods to accurately reflect the eco-nomic benefits society receives from wil-derness preservation. Additionalresearch is especially needed in Alaska,where a great deal of wilderness existsbut few benefits have been quantified.While economic benefits are not theprimary justification for wilderness pro-tection, they do provide a very impor-tant defense.

JOHN B. LOOMIS is a professor in theDepartment of Agricultural and ResourceEconomics, Colorado State University, FortCollins. He was an associate professor atUniversity of California–Davis and an

economist for the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and the U.S. Bureau of LandManagement. Loomis has publishednumerous articles on the economic value ofwilderness, endangered species, wetlands,wildlife, recreation, and free-flowing rivers.Telephone: (970) 491-2485. E-mail:[email protected].

ROBERT RICHARDSON is a doctoralstudent in the Department of Agriculturaland Resource Economics, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins. He completed hisgraduate course work at Oregon StateUniversity. Richardson earned an MBAdegree from New York University andworked several years for a large manage-ment consulting firm. E-mail:[email protected].

REFERENCESBailey, Robert. 1995. Description of Ecoregions

of the United States, 2nd Ed. MiscellaneousPublication #1391. Washington, D.C.:USDA Forest Service.

Costanza, Robert et al. 1997. The value of theworld’s ecosystem services and natural capi-tal. Nature 387 (May 15, 1997): 253–260.

Duffy-Deno. 1997. The effect of federal wilder-ness on county growth in the intermountainwestern United States. Journal of RegionalScience 38 (1): 109–136.

Krutilla, John. 1967. Conservation reconsidered.American Economic Review 57: 787–796.

Loomis, John. 1988. Economic Benefits of Pris-tine Watersheds. Denver, Colo.: AmericanWilderness Alliance.

Loomis, John. 1993. Integrated Public LandsManagement: Principles and Applications toNational Forests, Parks and Wildlife Refuges,and BLM Lands. New York: Columbia Uni-versity Press.

Loomis, J., and R. Walsh. 1997. Recreation Eco-nomic Decisions: Comparing Benefits andCosts, 2 Ed. State College, Pa.: Venture Press.

Loomis, John, and Chris Echohawk. 1999. Us-ing GIS to identify under-represented ecosys-tems in the National Wilderness PreservationSystem in the USA. Environmental Conser-vation 26 (1): 53–58.

Morton, Pete. 1999. The economic benefits ofwilderness: theory and practice. Denver LawReview 76 (2): 465–518.

Phillips, Spencer. 1999. Windfalls for Wilderness:Land Protection and Land Value in the GreenMountains. Common, Vt.: Ecology and Eco-nomic Research Group, Wilderness.

Wilderness Loses IconsDavid Brower and Bing Lucas

U.S. conservation legend David Brower has died. An accomplishedmountaineer, Brower made over 70 first ascents. He applied the samekind of courage and resolve he used in mountaineering to his workin conservation; he did what had never been done before. Browerlaunched new organizations (Friends of the Earth, the League of Con-servation Voters, and Earth Island Institute) and conservation cam-paigns (Glen Canyon, King’s Canyon, North Cascades, DinosaurMonument, the Redwoods) throughout his long career. His aversionto compromise was legendary. In the 1950s and 1960s he trans-formed the Sierra Club from a regional hiking group into a potentnational political force. He was later fired for taking unflinching,

extreme positions. He returned to serve on the Sierra Club’s board of directors many times, until leaving once more in the lastyear of his life over yet another disagreement of principle. Nonconforming to the end, he cast his vote for Ralph Nader the daybefore he died. David Brower blazed new paths for wilderness conservation. He was 88 years old.

Bing Lucas, New Zealand wilderness conservation icon, has also died. As famous for his cooperative spirit as Brower was forhis lack of compromise, Lucas literally died with his boots on, walking his beloved New Zealand mountains. As his country’sfirst director of parks and reserves, Lucas created one of the world’s most envied systems of walking trails, created new nationalparks, and crafted some of the best conservation policies in the world. Lucas retired as director general of lands in 1986. Hecontinued working with the World Conservation Union (IUCN). In 30 years of voluntary service with the IUCN, he led theParks Commission, was vice-chair for World Heritage, represented the IUCN at countless international meetings, including theWorld Wilderness Congress, and led many missions to study and protect wild and cultural heritage.

Go well, dear friends. You have made our work possible.

David Bower. Photo courtesy ofEarth Island Institute.

Bing Lucas. Photo courtesy of WrenGreen.


Controlling NatureWhy do we feel compelled to control nature? Why dowe think that land needs to be “managed?” Isn’t it in thevery definition of wilderness that it be wild? JamesGlover (IJW, April 2000) suggests that our urge to con-trol nature is rooted in the Western scientific ethos,which biases us in favor of action and dominance overnature. Like science historians Theodore Roszak (1973)and Carolyn Merchant (1980) before him, Glover urgesus to seek remedies by looking outside the scientific tra-dition. For Glover, this means Eastern philosophical tra-ditions such as Taoism.

Control Comes from More than ScienceWhile Eastern philosophies and religions have much to offerthe West, there are resources available closer to home, re-sources that need not place us at odds with our own intel-lectual traditions. To cast the challenges that face us as amatter of science versus nature or West versus East is un-necessarily polarizing. Within Western science there hasalways been a strong intellectual tradition of learning aboutnature without seeking to control it.

Western science is not the cause of all our woes. Otherfactors include: (1) How we use science in our decisionmaking; (2) our denial of human emotions in our decisionmaking, and our tendency to retreat to “objectivity” in oursearch for answers to difficult questions; (3) human greedand economic forces based on a belief that all decisions are,or should be, materially driven; and (4) land-management

agencies based in utilitarianism and/or a Protestant ethic ofaction over contemplation.

A Few Thoughts on ScienceIt’s naïve to believe we can talk about science as one unifiedtheory or way of being. The two men Glover cites, FrancisBacon and Rene Descartes, often cited as the first to linkknowledge of nature and power over it, had two funda-mentally different ways of approaching the world. Descarteswas a reductionist who believed in the power of ratiocina-tion (Descartes 1637). He had far less interest in humanencounters with nature than did Bacon, whose views aretherefore of greater relevance here.


Controlling NatureIs Science to Blame?

BY NAOMI ORESKES and REBECCA ORESKES

Abstract: Many authors, including James Glover (IJW, April 2000) believe that the modern compulsion tocontrol nature is rooted in Western science, and that Eastern philosophy can provide a better alternative. How-ever, science itself is complex and multifaceted with traditions that have emphasized understanding nature withoutattempting to control it. Further, wilderness preservation cannot be achieved without confronting utilitarianattitudes and economic and population pressures. Western science is a piece of this puzzle but certainly not thecause of all our woes—neither panacea nor plague.

Article author Naomi Oreskes. Photocourtesy of the University of California.

Article author Rebecca Oreskes. Photoby Brad Ray.


Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was abarrister, a member of the British Par-liament, and ultimately lord chancel-lor of England. An effectivepropagandist, Bacon sought to con-vince King James of the value of sup-porting the fledgling enterprise wenow call science. He proposed scienceas an alternative to medieval scholas-ticism, as a method of inquiring aboutnature that would prove more profit-able than recitations and disputationson the work of Aristotle. What was thepromised fruit of this new form of in-quiry? Knowledge of nature, and withit the ability to do new things (Bacon1620, 1627). As historian MarkkuPeltonen has put it, Bacon “wanted toreplace the Aristotelian image of sci-ence as a contemplation and organi-zation of eternal truths with aconception of science as a discoveryof the unknown” (Peltonen 1996).

The vision painted by Bacon is insome sense one of letting go: of releas-ing the received wisdom of Aristotle andposing new questions about nature. Sowhy do we think of science as charac-

terized by an ethos of control? In partbecause the process is one in which an-swers are sought and solutions to prob-lems may be found. It is a philosophyof action more than contemplation,which aligns it more easily with engi-neering than with poetry. But mostly, weassociate science with control of naturebecause modern science and techno-logical innovation grew hand in handwith capitalism and the industrializationand urbanization it fostered. The urgeto control nature has been driven bycommercial forces at least as much asby the scientific spirit of inquiry. Hu-man greed and materialism are as muchroot causes of our inability to leave na-ture alone as is Western science.

Science for DiscoveryThis is only part of the story becauseit describes only part of science. Thereis a long history in Western science ofinvestigation motivated by the desirefor explanation that had little or noth-ing to do with control. One exampleis astronomy. Well before Bacon, as-tronomers studied the motions of the

planets because they thought the plan-ets influenced us and we should there-fore try to understand them.Astronomers believed they could useknowledge of the planets to make bet-ter decisions in the world, but theynever thought they could control na-ture through their study of it. On thecontrary, they thought nature con-trolled us. Many of the great names inthe history of science were involvedin this work, including Copernicusand Kepler. The foundation of mod-ern astronomy was motivated by asearch for understanding without ex-pectation of control. The motivationfor astronomy and astrophysics re-mains much the same today. Scientistsdo not study the Big Bang because theythink we can undo or re-create it, theystudy it because they want to under-stand it (Hetherington 1993).

By the late 18th century two dis-tinct knowledge-seeking traditionscoexisted in Western science: naturalphilosophy and natural history. As itis today, natural philosophy (laterphysics and chemistry) became closelylinked with technological innovationand control during the industrial revo-lution. Natural history (later geologyand biology) was not about control (atleast not until extremely recently), butabout knowing the world and suggest-ing how it came to be this way. Thesignal contribution of 19th-centurygeology—the unraveling of earth his-tory—was an act of accounting and ex-planation. No one thought they couldcontrol the history of the earth!Charles Darwin, the greatest scientistof the 19th century, was trained as ageologist and understood his work asan attempt to explain and account forthe diversity of species and the won-drous forms of life on earth. Darwin’stheory of the origin of species by natu-ral selection is an account of how thingshave come to be. It is a description of

The Great Gulf Wilderness on the White Mountain National Forest, New Hampshire. Photo courtesy of White MountainNational Forest.


the world. It neither seeks nor prom-ises control (Oreskes 2000).

With this in mind, we can recast ourattitudes and questions about science.Rather than blame science for our woes,we can ask: “What intellectual resourcesdoes science offer us now?” Rather thandiscard science, we can try to use it incongenial ways. By recapturing the per-spectives of natural history—of under-standing the events and processes ofnature—we can make headway on theproblems Glover poses without nam-ing ourselves enemies of science, en-emies of modernity, or worse, enemiesof Western culture. With the perspec-tive of natural history, we can make in-formed choices about the world withoutexpecting or wanting to control it. Wecan enlist science as our ally, rather thanour foe.

In blaming science, Glover and oth-ers divert attention from another, morepressing issue: economics. It is difficultfor us to look at land without thinkingabout economic gain; we want to quan-tify land values as dollars returned toindividuals or a national treasury. His-torically, in agrarian communities, landwas wealth. Therefore, it is little surprisethat we have trouble accepting intrinsicvalue and areas set aside with no prom-ise of economic gain. For wilderness tosurvive, we must confront the economicforces and population pressures thatpush wilderness into smaller andsmaller areas.

Why Science AloneWill Fail Land ManagersGlover cites ecosystem restoration asone of the pivotal wilderness issuesdemanding inaction. We suggest a lesscategorical approach and also that weask at least three questions before weundertake large-scale restoration: (1)is it morally acceptable; (2) is it scien-tifically warranted; (3) and can weachieve our aims?

To answer whether wilderness res-toration is morally acceptable we needto have a discussion about our deepestcollective values. In this case sourcesfrom both Western and Eastern tradi-tions may help inform the conversation.If our objections to a particular courseof action are morally grounded, weshould not be afraid to say so.

As to whether a proposed restora-tion effort is scientifically warrantedand we can achieve our aims, in allecosystem management we face greatscientific uncertainties. This is notunique to ecosystem science; virtuallyall questions of public policy involv-ing natural systems entail enormousuncertainties (Oreskes et al. 1994;Oreskes 1998). We can’t be sure thatthe actions we take will give us thedesired outcomes. Our decisionsquickly become both a matter of sci-ence and of how we view our relation-ship with the land. How much risk weare willing to take in the face of scien-tific uncertainty is a reflection of ourvalues (cf. Cole 2000). A purely ob-jective decision-making process is sim-ply not possible when scientificuncertainties loom large.

The Roots ofLand ManagementTo jump to the conclusion that landmanagers who want to restore ecosys-tems do so out of the desire to controlnature doesn’t quite seem fair. If landmanagers have a bent for action, it maybe due to several reasons. Most wilder-

ness managers today are overwhelmedwith a series of seemingly intractableproblems: increasing use, air and wa-ter pollution, laws and regulationswith truck-size loopholes, and con-flicting political and social signals—to name only a few. When managerswant to “restore” the land, it’s often notout of a desire to control nature butout of a desire to control people. Formanagers, it is a way to right perceivedwrongs.

Moreover, the United States and itsland management agencies are firmlygrounded in a Protestant utilitarian-ism with action at its root. We believein deeds: “Don’t just stand there—dosomething!” Add to that a system thattends to reward action over thought,and the results are obvious. We needa new system of rewards and reviewfor land managers that is not basedsolely on quantifications (acresburned, acres restored, people visit-ing), but also on preservation and theprotection of unquantifiable goods (cf.Porter 1995).

When land managers and scientistsspeak of the value of wilderness, theyoften speak in abstract and technicalterms: biodiversity, acreage, sustain-ability. But when people are asked whythey go to wilderness, they speak in per-sonal and affective terms: because it isbeautiful, because they can rest there,or simply because they love nature (cf.Cordell et al. 1999). Wilderness man-agers talk of quantity, wilderness us-ers talk of quality. Missing from our

While Eastern philosophies and religions have muchto offer the West, there are resources available closerto home, resources that need not place us at oddswith our own intellectual traditions.


equations are the things that can’t beequated: beauty, tranquility, and love.This is not the fault of science, but thefault of all of us who are afraid to speakhonestly about how we feel.

Our society needs new ways tosolve problems. We must begin tocreate an environment in which wecan have reasonable discussionsabout action and nonaction. Wemust have the courage to speak inaffective terms. How we feel needsto count. Currently, our society hasfew satisfactory ways to have theconversation without degeneratinginto a polarized them versus us, east

versus west, rationality versus irra-tionality. Humans have heart andreason, intellect and emotions.When we speak about wildernessonly with reason and intellect, weare left with an incomplete pictureof why wilderness matters. If wedon’t also use heart and emotions inour decisions, land managers arebound to fail.

ConclusionAmerican society is compelled toact. But the reasons go well beyondscience. It is time for us to look moredeeply at the motivations behind our

compulsion, and at the long-held as-sumptions and values that pervade oursociety and our land managers. Onlythen can we can have honest and opendialogue that will help us makethoughtful choices about when to actand when to do nothing.

NAOMI ORESKES is a geologist andhistorian of science who worries about howscientists know the things they know. She isassociate professor of history at theUniversity of California, San Diego, andauthor of The Rejection of Continental Drift:Theory and Method in American EarthScience (Oxford, 1999). Telephone: (858)534-4695. E-mail: [email protected].

REBECCA ORESKES is the wilderness anddispersed recreation program leader forthe White Mountain National Forest inNew Hampshire and Maine. WhiteMountain National Forest, 300 Glen Road,Gorham, New Hampshire 03581, USA.Telephone: (603) 466-2713, ext. 212.E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCESBacon, Francis, 1620. 1994. The Great

Instauration and New Organon, editedand translated by Peter Urbach and JohnGibson. Chicago: Open Court.

Bacon, Francis, 1627. The New Atlantis andthe Great Instauration, edited by JerryWeinberger. Arlington Heights, Ill.: HarlanDavidson. 1989.

Cole, David N. 2000. Paradox of the Prime-val: Ecological Restoration in Wilderness18 (2): 77–86.

Cordell, Ken, Cater Betz, J. M. Bowker, DonaldEnglish, Shela Mou, John Bergstrom, R. JeffTeasley, Michael Tarrant, and John Loomis.1999. Outdoor Recreation in AmericanLife: A National Assessment of Demandand Supply Trends. Sagamore Publishing.

Descartes, Rene, 1637. 1993. Discourse onMethod and Meditations on First Philosophy.Translated by Donald A. Cress. Indianapo-lis, Inda.: Hackett Publishing.

Glover, James. 2000. Can we stop trying to con-trol nature? International Journal of Wilder-ness (6) 1: 4–8.

Hetherington, Norriss S. ed. 1993. Cosmology:Historical, Literary, Philosophical, Religious,and Scientific Perspectives. New York andLondon: Garland.

Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The Death of Na-ture: Women, Ecology, and the ScientificRevolution. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

Oreskes, Naomi. 1998. Evaluation (not valida-tion) of quantitative models. EnvironmentalHealth Perspectives 106, suppl. 6: 1453–1460.

Oreskes, Naomi. 2000. Why predict? historicalperspectives on prediction in earth science.In Prediction: Science, Decision-Making, andthe Future of Nature, edited by DanielSarewitz, Roger Pielke, Jr., and RadfordByerly, Jr. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Oreskes, Naomi, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, andKenneth Belitz. 1994. Verification, validation,and confirmation of numerical models in theearth sciences. Science 263: 641–646.

Peltonen, Markku, ed. 1996. The CambridgeCompanion to Bacon. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press: p. 14.

Porter, Theodore M. 1995. Trust in Numbers: ThePursuit of Objectivity in Science and PublicLife. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.

Roszak, Theodore. 1973. Where the WastelandEnds: Politics and Transcendence in Postin-dustrial Society. New York: Anchor Books.

The urge to control nature has been driven bycommercial forces at least as much as by the scientificspirit of inquiry.


With the emergence of ecosystem management,there is a mandate to look beyond single ad-ministrative units in planning efforts (Gilmore

1997). Although there is still debate over how ecosystemmanagement will be implemented, social and ecological sci-entists generally agree on the need to take a regional viewfor management policies and spatially explicit managementobjectives.

A Regional Perspective on CapacitiesThe importance of taking a regional perspective has beenrecognized in wild-river management since the 1970s(Stankey 1974; Lime 1977). One important benefit of re-gional planning is a diversity of recreation opportunities.Lime (1977) argued for greater emphasis on regional riverstudies to understand the mix of experiences desired bythe public. He advocated describing rivers based on physi-cal, cultural, and human perception attributes. Schreyer(1985) also argued that identifying river management ob-jectives, addressing recreation impacts and conflicts, andproviding a diversity of experience opportunities dependedon viewing river segments as part of a system of recreationalopportunities.

Use capacities are usually applied at the site level andbased on facility limitations or managers’ or visitors’ esti-mates of the user density that is appropriate (Williams etal. 1992; Hof and Lime 1997). The Park Service is oftenrequired by law to identify carrying capacities and, as a

result of increasing visitation, the perceived need for set-ting these capacities is escalating (Mitchell 1995, Hof andLime 1997). Use capacities commonly focus on high-useareas, and, while this seems intuitively appropriate, it maybe exactly the opposite of how recreational use capacitiesshould be applied (Cole 1997).

There is increasing criticism of the use of visitor capac-ity limits in the recreation literature. Recreation use-impactcurves tend to be curvilinear; that is, the incremental im-pact of each additional visitor in low-use areas tends to behigh, but in moderate and high-use areas the incrementalimpact of each additional visitor is very low and eventuallyit becomes negligible (Cole 1997). Thus, limiting use in ahigh-use area may increase aggregate impacts by shifting


Whitewater Boaters in UtahImplications for Wild River Planning

BY DALE J. BLAHNA and DOUGLAS K. REITER

Abstract: A survey on nine whitewater river segments in Utah indicates use limits may be appropriate on low-use river segments, but high-use segments could be managed for large numbers of boaters. This would main-tain a spectrum of experiences and reduce aggregate physical impacts, even if boater numbers increase. Thetraditional approach taken in many protected areas, where capacities are applied in individual, high-useareas, is questioned. Wildland managers should not consider areas in isolation, but as part of regionalsystems.

Running Skull Rapid in Westwater Canyon, Utah. Photo by Richard M. Schreyer.


use to lighter-used areas. Also, correct-ing existing impacts often requiresmajor reductions of, or even eliminat-ing, use. Use limitations may be mosteffective in areas with relatively littleuse (Cole et al. 1997).

From a regional perspective, the po-tential secondary effects of displacementdeserves attention. While there is evi-dence of displacement in certain areas(Manning 1999), there have been nostudies of where displaced recreationistsactually go. Thus the long-term regional

effect of setting social carrying capaci-ties could be a reduction in the diver-sity of available opportunities (Stankey1974; Borrie et al. 1998).

Another common theme in this de-bate is that management objectivesshould be based on factors besides usedensity, and that these objectives shouldprovide a diversity of opportunitieswithin a region (Stankey 1974, Borrieet al. 1998). High use at a particularplace may be a relatively minor concernto many visitors; the relative importance

of use density cannot really be under-stood unless in a regional context.

This study describes the diversityof demands for river trips from a re-gional perspective. Regional river-boater data allows us to describedifferent experience expectations fordifferent settings and to compare visi-tors’ response to use density in high-and low-use areas.

Study RiversThe Brown’s Park segment of theGreen River exits Flaming Gorge Damflowing east and is usually run in asingle day. The White River’s headwa-ters are in the northern ColoradoRockies, but the Utah stretch, or Bo-nanza segment, is essentially flat wa-ter, and canoeists take about three daysto run the river. Below the confluencewith the White River, the Green Riverflows through Desolation and UpperGrey Canyons as it cuts through oneof the most remote areas of the state,the Tavaputs Plateau. A popular des-tination, rafters generally spend threeor four days floating this segment. TheGreen River then flows through LowerGrey Canyon (Green Daily segment).This segment typically takes four to

Table 1—River users’ estimates of number of people seen, feelings about the number seen, and satisfaction with trip.

The Goosenecks on the San Juan River, Utah. Photo by Richard M. Schreyer.


six hours and, depending on flow rate,has seven or eight Class II to III rap-ids. Starting at Green River State Parkbelow the town of Green River, theGreen flows through Labyrinth Can-yon, a stretch that takes about four orfive days to float. This stretch is re-mote, flowing through the red rockcanyon country of southeastern Utah.

Westwater Canyon of the ColoradoRiver offers the steepest gradients andmost challenging rapids of the studysegments. Most river runners take afull day to run this stretch. The Colo-rado Daily segment of the ColoradoRiver takes about four hours, has mi-nor rapids, and attracts many touristsvisiting Moab, Utah.

The San Juan River in the south-eastern corner of the state is boundedby the Navajo Indian Reservation. Atcertain points, its flow has cut enor-mous meanders through thousands offeet of sandstone, creating spectacu-lar geologic features. Most boaters takea few days and float just the UpperSan Juan or the Lower San Juan seg-ments. Some boaters will float theupper segment in one day, and otherswill take several weeks and run bothsegments at a leisurely pace.

Study MethodsData were collected via intercept andmail surveys. The intercept survey wasconducted at 13 take-outs on the nineBLM whitewater river segments inUtah that have commercial river trips.Between May and September 1999interviewers asked river runners to fillout a short, two-page survey. The in-tercept survey contained questionsabout the trip that were most depen-dent on immediate recall. The mailsurvey extended to experience expec-tation (42 items) questions derivedfrom earlier studies conducted bySchreyer and Nielson (1978) on theWestwater and Desolation segments.

Of the 2,360 people contacted, 2,248completed the intercept survey for a95% response rate. About 62% (1,394)agreed to participate in the mail surveyand provided their correct names andaddresses. Surveys and two reminderswere mailed in the summer and fall. Wereceived 804 responses for a 58% re-sponse rate to the mail survey.

ResultsEncounters vary significantly, with themost encounters on the Brown’s Park,Colorado Daily, Green Daily, and

Westwater Canyon segments (see table1). Boaters on the Colorado Daily sawsix to nine times as many people as boat-ers on the Lower San Juan, Desolation,Labyrinth, and White River segments.

Despite the large differences in con-tact levels, relatively few boaters onany segment said they saw too manypeople, and satisfaction was uniformlyhigh. Boaters on the lower-use seg-ments (Lower San Juan, Desolation,Labyrinth), however, were more likelyto say they saw too many people. Theonly exception to this trend is Brown’sPark, where respondents saw an aver-age of 55 other boaters per trip and34% said they saw too many people.Most of these contacts occurred in onlyone location (near the dam), however,suggesting overall consistency with thepattern of higher perceived crowdingon the lower use segments.

There are many differences in boaterexpectations. For example, results areprovided for five expectation variablesthat best reflect Schreyer (1985) andLime’s (1977) criteria for classifying riverexperiences: “experience solitude,” “bewith family and friends,” “run rapids,”“learn about human history and culture,”and “catch a lot of fish” (see table 2).

Table 2—River users’ average importance ratings for five expectation variables.1


rapids experiences. Both stretches ofthe San Juan can provide excellent op-portunities for learning about humanhistory, but on the Lower San Juan thisshould be secondary to providing aremote, solitude experience. In gen-eral river management objectivesshould focus on relatively few experi-ence expectations, and lower-level ex-perience-based objectives shouldenhance, or at least be compatiblewith, higher-level objectives. As such,solitude and related social-contactstandards will be important on somesegments, and secondary or not at allimportant on others.

Boaters were more likely to say theysaw too many people on the lesser-usedsegments where solitude is more likelyto be expected. While this sounds intu-itively obvious, it directly contradicts thetypical focus of social carrying capacityin relatively high-use areas. Viewing thissystem of rivers as an example, somepotential problems of applying a usecapacity on heavy-use segments becomeclear. First, some currently satisfied cus-tomers will be turned away. The dis-placement of “surplus boaters” fromhigh- to low-use segments may havegreater aggregate social and ecologicalimpacts, and the diversity of river op-portunities would be reduced in thelong run. For example, limiting use onthe Colorado and Green River Daily seg-ments may increase use on a currentlylightly used, day-trip segment of theLabyrinth. This would likely: (1) in-crease perceptions of crowding on a soli-tude-oriented river; (2) not reducecrowding perceptions appreciably onthe heavy-use segments (where theexperience appears to be nondensity-de-pendent); (3) increase ecological impactsalong the Labyrinth segment at a fargreater rate than reduction on the Dailysegments; and (4) increase the difficultyand expense of correcting the more dis-persed ecological and social impacts.

Solitude is the most important ex-pectation for boaters on the Lower SanJuan, White, and Labyrinth segments.Being with family and friends was rela-tively important (first or second) onmost segments. There are many segmentdifferences related to expectations to runrapids. Westwater boaters indicatedhighest importance for rapids, withboaters on Desolation, the ColoradoDaily, and the Green Daily close behind.The importance of running rapids isvery low for Labyrinth boaters. Catch alot of fish is rated unusually high on theBrown’s Park segment. Learn about hu-man history and culture was rated asparticularly important on the San JuanRiver. Brown’s Park, Westwater, andboth Daily boaters rated learning expe-riences particularly low.

DiscussionThe results provide evidence that boat-ers seek multiple experiences, whichdiffer across river segments. The seg-ments can be loosely categorized basedon Schreyer’s (1985) typology as pro-viding “solitude” (Lower San Juan,White, Labyrinth, and possibly theDesolation segment of the Green River);“social interaction” (Colorado Daily,Green Daily, Brown’s Park, and the San

Juan segments); and “thrill-seeking”(Westwater). But fishing is the primaryexpectation on Brown’s Park, uniqueamong these BLM-managed rivers.

Experience expectations also reflectexisting biophysical (e.g., remoteness),cultural (e.g, cliff dwellings), and mana-gerial (e.g., use limits) characteristics ofthese rivers. Management objectives canbe identified that balance biophysical,cultural, and managerial characteristicswith social-psychological expectations;however, a broader, more multidis-ciplinary terminology than Schreyer rec-ommended may be needed to categorizeriver segments (e.g., “remote” or“backcountry” segments [rather thansolitude], “access” or “front-country”segments [rather than social], and “rap-ids” or “wild” [rather than thrill-seek-ing]). And combinations of expectationsshould be used to help develop man-agement strategies for all river segments.

On a regional scale typologies ofriver characteristics can be comparedto expectations to identify and priori-tize management strategies. For ex-ample, Desolation can provideopportunities for running rapids, butwithin the broad context of a solitudeexperience, while Westwater can pro-vide social experiences along with the

The take-out at Swayseys Rapid on the Green Daily, Utah. Photo by Richard M. Schreyer.


These findings suggest that socialcarrying capacity and related indicators(e.g., use levels, number of contacts,crowding) are most relevant on remote,backcountry rivers. On other riversother social, managerial, and biophysi-cal indicators may be more important.

Wildland managers rely too much onsocial carrying capacity and related“tools.” This is probably based on theassumption that increasing visitationmeans decreasing recreational quality orincreasing impacts. When viewed in aregional context, however, neither maybe the case. In a regional context, socialcarrying capacity limits in high-use areasmay, paradoxically, reduce the availabilityof solitude experiences. As a rule, plan-ners should not expand or encourageuse of lightly used areas (e.g., advertise orbuild new roads, trails, or facilities), orlimit use in an area without evidencethat: (1) experiences are density-depen-dent; (2) use of indirect visitor manage-ment methods have been attempted andfound to be ineffective; and (3) use dis-persal will not create more off-site impacts(social, ecological, and managerial) thanare currently occurring.

Using recreation concentration areasas a regional ecosystem management toolpotentially allows managers to accom-modate more visitors and control re-gional ecological impacts. Uselimitations and visitor dispersal allowneither. Either we argue for the long-term need to limit use in all wildlandlocations (a very questionable social andpolitical strategy), or recognize that car-rying capacity and use limitationsshould be rarely used, and that high-use zones can assist land protection onan ecoregional basis.

DALE J. BLAHNA is associate professor inForest Resources and a research scientistwith the Institute for Outdoor Recreationand Tourism, Utah State University, Logan,Utah 84341-5215, USA. Telephone: (435)797-2544. E-mail: [email protected].

DOUGLAS K. REITER is a researchassociate in Forest Resources and in theInstitute for Outdoor Recreation andTourism at Utah State University. E-mail:[email protected].

The authors thank the Utah State Office ofthe Bureau of Land Management and theUtah Agricultural Experiment Station(approved as paper no. 7369) for fundingthis project, and Russ Von Koch, SuzanneGarcia, Alan Watson, and David Cole forassistance and input; and the many researchtechnicians involved in the larger project.

REFERENCESBorrie, W. T., S. F. McCool, and G. H. Stankey.

1998. Protected area planning principles andstrategies. In Ecotourism: A Guide for Plan-ners and Managers, vol. 2., edited by K.Lindberg, M. E. Wood, and D. Engeldrum.North Bennington, Vt.: Ecotourism Society:pp. 133–154.

Cole D. N. 1997. Soul of the wilderness: Recreationmanagement priorities are misplaced-allocatemore resource to low-use wilderness. Inter-national Journal of Wilderness 3 (4): 4–8.

Cole, D. N., A. E Watson, T. E Hall, and D. R.Spildie. 1997. High-use destinations in wil-derness: social and biophysical impacts, visi-tor responses, and management options.USDA Forest Service, Research Paper INT-RP-496. Missoula, Mont.: USDA Forest Ser-vice, Intermountain Research Station.

Gilmore, D. W. 1997. Ecosystem management—a needs driven, resource-use philosophy. TheForestry Chronicle 73 (5): 560–564.

Hof, M. and D. W. Lime. 1997. Visitor experi-ence and resource protection framework inthe National Park System: rationale, current

status, and future direction. In Proceedings-Limits of Acceptable Change and RelatedPlanning Processes: Progress and Future Di-rections, compiled by S. F. McCool and D.N. Cole. USDA Forest Service General Tech-nical Report INT-GTR-371. Ogden, Utah:USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mt. ResearchStation: pp. 29–33.

Lime, D. W. 1977. Research for river recreationplanning and management. In Proceedings:River Recreation Management and ResearchSymposium, edited by J. S. Popadic, D. I.Butterfield, D. H. Anderson, and M. R.Popadic. USDA Forest Service, General Tech-nical Report NC-28. St. Paul, Minn.: NorthCentral Research Station: pp. 202–209.

Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Rec-reation: Search and Research for Satisfac-tion, 2nd ed. Corvallis, Oreg.: Oregon StateUniversity Press.

Mitchell, J. G. 1995. Our national parks. Na-tional Geographic 186 (4): 1–55.

Schreyer, R. 1985. Managing rivers in a regionalcontext: necessary concept or impracticalidea? Western Wildlands 11 (2): 11–16.

Schreyer R., and M. L. Nielson. 1978.Westwater and Desolation Canyons:Whitewater River Recreation Study. Logan,Utah: Utah State University, Institute for theStudy of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism.

Stankey, G. H. 1974. Criteria for the determina-tion of recreational carrying capacity in theColorado River Basin. In Environmental Man-agement in the Colorado River Basin, editedby A. B. Crawford and D. E. Peterson. Logan,Utah: Utah State University Press: 82–101.

Williams, D. R., J. W. Roggenbuck, M. E.Patterson, and A. E. Watson. 1992. Thevariability of user-based social impact stan-dards for wilderness management. ForestScience 38 (4): 738–756.

The Colorado Daily near Moab, Utah. Photo by L. Royer


ecosystems recognized in Federal Wildland Fire Policy re-ceived little attention.

If fire is to be restored to even a semblance of its preset-tlement role in wilderness, we need to make a concertedeffort to more fully evaluate the benefits and risks associ-ated with allowing natural fires to burn and options for theuse of prescribed fire to replace those natural fires that can’tbe permitted. Proposals for limited mechanical manipula-tion of unnatural fuels—the anathema to many wildernesspurists—may have to be considered in some cases wherefire cannot be permitted. A full spectrum of tools exists tomanage fire and fuels in wilderness. The challenge comesin evaluating the effects of alternative fire and fuels man-agement strategies on wilderness ecosystems and values.We need to overcome the social and bureaucratic obstaclesnecessary to provide incentives for fire and wilderness man-agers to work together to maximize benefits while mini-mizing risks. If we are unsuccessful, some of our most valuedwildlands may change in ways never anticipated.

DAVID J. PARSONS is director of the Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute, P. O. Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807,USA. Telephone: (406) 542-4190. E-mail: [email protected].

The restoration of fire as a natural ecological processposes immense challenges to wilderness managers.Twentieth-century fire suppression has altered species

compositions, vegetation patterns, and fuel accumulations,resulting in conflicts with goals of preserving natural con-ditions in wilderness affected primarily by the forces ofnature. Unnaturally heavy fuel loads now threaten not onlywilderness ecosystems, but adjacent human life and prop-erty. Despite policies advocating the restoration of fire towilderness, nearly 85% of all U.S. wilderness remains un-der a complete fire-suppression policy. Even the most pro-gressive wilderness fire management programs suppressmany ecologically significant fires occurring during extremefire conditions.

The National Park Service has been unable to reestab-lish the average number of fires, annual area burned, andaverage fire size achieved by natural ignitions prior to re-strictions imposed following the 1988 Yellowstone fires.The Bureau of Land Management and Fish and WildlifeService have yet to allow lightning ignitions to be managedas natural fires. Although the Department of Interior agen-cies make extensive use of prescribed fire to replace or simu-late the effects of natural fire, the Forest Service generallypermits the use of prescribed fire in wilderness only forfuel-hazard reduction. Recent analyses of fire programs inthe Selway-Bitterroot (Montana) and Sequoia and KingsCanyon (California) wildernesses conclude that even thosemodel programs have been unable to restore presettlementfire regimes.

The 2000 fire season directed attention to the problemsof managing fire and fuels in wildland ecosystems. Veryfew natural ignitions in wilderness were managed for theirresource benefits, as priorities were placed on protectinghuman life and property. Dialogue, funding, and policy di-rections in the months following focused primarily on in-creasing fire-fighting resources, fuels treatment, and restoringdamaged landscapes. The role of fire in maintaining healthy


Wilderness FireBY DAVID J. PARSONS

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

Article author David Parsons. Photo courtesy of the Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute.


Forest Service Chief CreatesWilderness/Wild RiverDirector PositionMike Dombeck, chief of the U. S. For-est Service, announced in a December29, 2000, letter to his regional forestersand deputies the creation of a new di-rector position for wilderness and wildrivers as the first of three important ac-tions to enhance wilderness and riverprotection. The other two importantactions are the creation of 100 new wil-derness steward positions with oversightresponsibilities for one or more wilder-ness areas and wild and scenic rivers,and a directive to the associate anddeputy chiefs to ensure that funding tothe field is sufficient “to maintain ourwilderness rangers in the wilderness andriver rangers on the rivers where theymay monitor conditions and contactvisitors.” Dombeck emphasized that thegoal of these actions is to increase thefocus and national visibility of wilder-ness and wild and scenic rivers in Wash-ington so as to develop additionalsupport and funding to increase thepresence of managers in the field. Pre-viously, wilderness and wild and scenicrivers were managed in a division ofrecreation, trails, wilderness, wild andscenic rivers, and heritage resources.Clearly, wilderness and wild and scenicrivers will be more prominent now intheir own division with their own di-rector. IJW salutes Chief Dombeck forhis support of our nation’s wildernessresources and values.

President Clinton DeclaresRoadless Lands Off-Limitsto Road Building andLoggingPresident Clinton, in his final days inoffice, moved to put almost a third ofthe country’s national forestland foreveroff-limits to road building and commer-cial logging. The rule to protect 58.5million acres of land would effectivelyprohibit oil and gas drilling as well, andcould go a long way toward limiting off-road vehicle access. The road-buildingban covers big pieces of the TongassNational Forest in Alaska that were ex-empted in a draft proposal of the rule.Alaska Republican Senators Ted Stevensand Frank Murkowski said they wouldfight the rule, and Idaho GovernorDirk Kempthorne (R) vowed to sueover the issue. Proponents of the rulesaid that the incoming Bush adminis-tration would have to conduct exten-sive public hearings and find a strongreason to reverse the rule before itcould do so. This action follows anearlier moratorium by PresidentClinton against road building in na-tional forest roadless areas subject toanalysis of potential impacts

Cell Phone and GPS UseOK on BLM LandsThe Clinton Administration rejectedbanning cell phones and global posi-tioning systems (GPS) on 5.5 millionacres of (Bureau of Land management)

wilderness in the agency’s new wilder-ness management regulations that tookeffect January 16, 2001. Some environ-mental advocates support the ban. Thenew rules still allow climbing without apermit but prohibit the use of powertools to fix climbing anchors. Theagency will address this contentious is-sue again at a later time. The rules didban wheeled carts to carry game, sail-boats, sailboards, parachutes, and othermechanical transportation. AmericanIndians lost their bid for a privacy pro-vision to keep people off BLM landsduring ceremonies.

Five Million New AcresProtected in B.C., CanadaFollowing eight years of negotiations,environmentalists, Native Americans,and mining and logging representa-tives in British Columbia (B. C.) haveapproved a plan to preserve 5 millionacres of land in northern B. C.,Canada. This new area, along with the11-million-acre Muskwa-Kechika pre-serve, is an important part of a wild-life corridor from Yellowstone to theYukon. The area is habitat for thegreatest concentration of large mam-mals in North America, including bi-son, wolves, moose, and grizzlies.

Nevada GetsNew WildernessA recent bill passed by Congress willprotect 757,000 acres of Nevada’s

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcementsand Wilderness Calendar


Black Rock Desert and High RockCanyon region as wilderness. Thisrugged area is home to pronghorn,various species of raptor, and moun-tain lion, and is also rich in histori-cal and archaeological sites. The billdoubles the amount of wilderness inNevada and is the largest wildernessbill passed by Congress since 1994.For more information visit: http://www.wi lde r ne s s .o rg / c cc /wsc /update_121500.htm#nv.

Stewart Brandborg EarnsThe Wilderness Society’sRobert Marshall AwardThe Wilderness Society namedStewart Brandborg the recipient ofits highest honor, the RobertMarshall Award. The 75-year-oldBrandborg is a conservationist, wild-life biologist, former governmentofficial, and environmental activist.In 1948 he earned his BS from theUniversity of Montana, and in 1951his MS in forestry from the Univer-sity of Idaho. In his early years heworked as the northern Idaho biggame for Idaho Fish and Game. Dur-ing the 1950s and 1960s Brandborgwas a leader in the National Wild-life Federation and Wilderness So-ciety (where he was appointedexecutive director in 1964), and heplayed a key role in passing The Wil-derness Act of 1964. In the 1970she led efforts to the National Wildand Scenic Rivers Act, and helpedexpand protection of public lands.Today his colleagues see him as avisionary and a champion of wilder-ness. With this award, he joins thecompany of such distinguished con-servationists as Aldo Leopold,Wallace Stegner, Sigurd Olson, andArnold Bolle.

ORVs GivenFavorable Trail AccessA recent Sierra Club report concludesthat despite hikers, backpackers, andhorse riders making up 83% of trailusers on national forests and grass-lands in Washington, Oregon, Idaho,Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, andNorth and South Dakota, motorizedvehicles have access to more trails.Dirtbike and ATV riders have accessto 135,000 miles of roads and 26,000miles of motorized trails among thesestates, while hikers and horse ridershave only 35,800 miles of quiet trails.The most heavily motorized trail sys-tems are in Idaho and Montana. Sev-enty-nine percent of trails on the BoiseNational Forest and 71% of trails onthe Gallatin National Forests are opento motorized vehicles.

To download report, go to: http://www.sierraclub.org/wilderness/orv.For more information, send e-mail to:[email protected].

Colorado Power PlantsHeed Wilderness Air QualityMonitoring AgreementThe Craig Power Plant in northwestColorado must install and operate90% sulfur dioxide controls and ad-ditional NOX controls to lessen im-pairment of visibility and aquaticecosystems in the Mount Zirkel Wil-derness. Snowpack monitoring in thewilderness shows evidence of the high-est levels of atmospheric deposition evermonitored in the West. The Haydenplant has already installed pollutioncontrol equipment at a cost of U.S. $130million. The Craig plant expects tospend U.S. $100 million. For more in-formation, contact Dennis Haddow.Telephone: (303) 275-5759.

Jerry Stokes Retires asForest Service AssistantDirector for WildernessJerry Stokes, who has served for thelast nine years in various wildernessand wild and scenic river programleadership roles in the Washington,D. C. headquarters of the U. S. For-est Service (USFS), retired in Sep-tember 2000. For the last four yearsStokes was the assistant director forwilderness on the agency’s recre-ation, trails, wilderness, wild andscenic rivers, and heritage resourcesstaff. Stokes served wilderness in theUSFS “from the boonies to thebeltway,” and his field expertise wasevident in his national policy lead-ership. He was a frequent contribu-tor to IJW (Cordell and Stokes 2000;Stokes 1999, 1996), pointing to thegrowing threats to wilderness in achanging political environment. Hisleadership challenges all of us toprotect wilderness for future genera-tions. Stokes is anticipating a “sec-ond career” in which he can expresshis interest in a wide range of con-servation challenges, including in-ternational conservation. We’ll missyou, Jerry.

Jerry Stokes. Photo courtesy of Jerry Stokes.


The Trade-Off Myth:Fact and Fiction About Jobsand the Environmentby Eban Goodstein. 1999. Island Press,Washington, D. C., and Covelo,California. 208 pp., $27.50 (hardcover).

As soon as proposals introducinghigher standards of environmentalprotection are announced, pro-devel-opment forces repeat their favoritemantra: Protecting the environmentwill bring about devastating job loss.Understandably, the argument carriesgreat weight with local residents whomay see the issue as a trade-off: op-pose environmental initiatives andkeep their jobs, or support environ-mental initiatives and lose their jobs.

Eban Goodstein, in his book TheTrade-Off Myth: Fact and Fiction AboutJobs and the Environment, offers bal-anced, compelling evidence that wecan have both a flourishing economyand higher environmental standards.His central thesis is that “employmentgains or losses from environmentalprotection are small, gradual, and tendto balance each other out” (p. 8).While he strongly argues that envi-ronmental regulations have not hadnegative impacts on employmentregionally or nationally, he also notesthat neither do these regulations cre-ate (as some environmental groupshave suggested) meaningful economicgrowth.

Goodstein targets three relatedmyths about environmental regula-tions: (1) they increase cyclical unem-ployment at the economy-wide level;(2) they lead to wide-scale plant shut-

downs and layoffs that increase unem-ployment rates; and (3) they encour-age manufacturing investment to fleeto countries with lax standards, thusdecreasing the number of jobs avail-able domestically (the so-called pol-lution haven hypothesis). Goodsteinsuggests that the real economy-wideimpacts are not on the number of jobs,but the type of jobs. He also notes that“environmentally related shutdownsare simply tiny compared to the realdownsizers: technology, trade and cor-porate restructuring” (p. 66). And fi-nally, Goodstein asserts that the costsof environmental regulations averageonly about 2% of total sales; these costsare normally an insignificant factor inplant location decisions.

Chapter four, “Coal Miners, Tim-ber Workers, and Slopers,” focuses onresource-based communities in theAmerican West. Goodstein examinesthe impact of issues such as the spot-ted owl plan and emission reductions,and attacks the “woeful inadequacy”of worker retraining schemes (p. 108).He suggests that amenity-basedgrowth will continue to become in-creasingly important in resource-basedcommunities.

The Trade-Off Myth is a readableeconomic treatise. It is gold mine ofideas and findings for those who wishto better understand the relationshipsbetween environmental protection (in-cluding wilderness designation) andits impacts on employment levels andpatterns.

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

Book Reviews

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Mighty River: A Portraitof the Fraserby Richard C. Bocking. 1997. Douglas &McIntyre, Vancouver. 294 pp., $29.95(hardcover).

This book gives the reader an inklingof what it might be like to travel thismassive 1,400-kilometer British Co-lumbia river: a long and exhaustingtrip demanding your attention at ev-ery turn. The author’s regard for andcommitment to the Fraser is obvious,and the book is well researched.

The author links the history ofthe early explorers, settlers, and na-tive people, who have lived in thebasin for thousands of years, to thepresent, while founding manypoints on strongly held environmen-tal values. Unfortunately, in somecases, these opinions do not agreewith other sources about the historyof the Fraser River.

The book challenges conventionalthinking about resource management,land use, and our modern way of life,but it pessimistically portrays theFraser situation as hopeless. Bockingfocuses on what historically wentwrong with the Fraser, while largelyignoring contemporary efforts to cor-rect past mistakes and find better waysof reconciling environmental, eco-nomic, and social needs. Examples ofhow to correct past mistakes are men-tioned briefly, but the author quicklyand discouragingly moves on to citemore problems. This is unfortunate,as the book might have inspired mil-lions of potential readers living in thebasin into corrective action.


For the Health of the Landby Aldo Leopold. Edited by J. BairdCallicott and Eric T. Freyfogle. 1999.Island Press/Shearwater Books,Washington, D. C., and Covelo,California. 242 pp., $22.95 (hardcover).

I approached Leopold’s For the Healthof the Land with a mixture of eagernessand trepidation. A Sand County Alma-nac is the most beloved and influentialbook in the whole genre of conserva-tion literature, and it seems almost pro-fane to publish another collection ofLeopold’s essays more than 50 yearslater. Often, previously unpublishedwriting remains so for good reason.

Happily, this book is a pleasure toread. The brief introductions to eachessay by editors J. Baird Callicott andEric Freyfogle are exceedingly helpfulin understanding the context in whichLeopold was writing. The foreword, in-troduction, and afterword remind thereader of the power and influence ofLeopold’s life and work.

The book is a plea to farmers to lookbeyond their traditional economic con-cerns to regain an emotional connec-tion with their farms “for the health ofthe land.” However, Leopold himselfdoes not escape the utilitarian bent ofhis era: many of the arguments and ra-tionale for changes to farm management

Mighty River is suitable for readerswith a keen interest in rivers from ahistorical perspective, and those whohold strong environmental values.

Reviewed by JOAN CHESS, regionalcoordinator, Upper Fraser Region, for theFraser Basin Council, a not-for-profit NGOwhose goal is social well-being in theFraser Basin supported by a vibranteconomy and sustained by a healthyenvironment. Chess can be reached care ofthe University of Northern British Columbia,Prince George, B. C., V2N 4Z9, Canada.E-mail: [email protected].

relate to the provision of food and coverfor wildlife, particularly game speciessuch as pheasant and rabbit. Likely,Leopold’s thesis stems from his own in-terest in hunting.

The six essays in part one of the bookcall farmers to “be their own emperor,”to take the initiative in managing farm-land for both human and nonhumaninhabitants. Leopold suggests that thefarm landscape reflects the moral char-acter of the farmer. Might not our wil-derness landscapes then reflect ournational moral character?

The 40 short essays in part two area combination of natural history se-lections (similar to the seasonal chap-ters found in A Sand County Almanac)and practical techniques to maximizegame animals on farmland.

The seven essays in part three focuson the idea of land health, whichLeopold defines as the “capacity for self-renewal in the biota” (p. 219). The final

essay, “The Land Health Concept andConservation” (written just months be-fore his death), is a powerful statementabout the need for conservation onfarmland, the damage to land healthcaused by government policies and thesocial values from which they spring,and the urgent need for both individualand collective action to preserve landhealth.

I was disappointed by the focus onrural landscapes and game managementin this book, but I was also awed by thelyricism and power of Leopold’s writing.Leopold challenges his readers to ques-tion the separation of the useful (farms)and the beautiful (wilderness). And indoing so, he reminds us that it is as im-portant for people to reconnect withmodified nature in rural areas as it is toreconnect with wilderness landscapes.

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

Journal of Wilderness · 2018-05-03 · PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH...

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Wilderness · 2018-05-03 · PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH...