International Journal of Wilderness, Vol 03 No 4, December 1997

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

J O U R N A L OF W IL D E R N E S SDecember 1997 Volume 3, Number 4

FEATURES

3 WHAT ARE WE HERE FOR?by Alan W Ewert, Acting Managing Editor

4 SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS

Recreation Management Priorities AreMisplaced—Allocate More Resources toLow-Use Wildernessby David N. Cole

STEWARDSHIP

9 NATIONAL SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS AGENCY

TRAINING NEEDS IN THE UNITED STATES

by Richard Conrad

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

13 HENRY DAVID THOREAU

A Lecture and a Wilderness Legacyby Charles O. Mortensen

17 WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT TRAINING

FOR LATIN AMERICAN MANAGERS

by George Wallace and Jim Wurz

19 SEPARATION ANXIETY

by Leslie A. King

21 WILDERNESS @ INTERNET

Wilderness in the 21 st Century—Are There Technical Solutions toOur Technical Problems?by Wayne Freimund and Bill Borrie

SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

24 HIGH ELEVATION MEADOWS AND GRAZING

Common Past Effects and Future Improvementsby Michael P Murray

29 CONDITION INDICATORS

FOR DISTINCT WILDERNESS

Is There Uniformity?by Michael A. Tarrant and C Scott Shajer

34 WILDERNESS-DEPENDENT WILDLIFE

The Large and the Carnivorousby David Mattson

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

39 WILDERNESS AND RECREATION

IN NEW ZEALAND

by Gordon R. Cessford and Paul R. Dingwall

WILDERNESS DIGEST

44 ANNOUNCEMENTS AND

WILDERNESS CALENDAR

by Woody Hesselbarth, Wilderness Digest Editor

47 BOOK REVIEW

by John Shultis, Guest Book Review Editor

Front cover photo of fall colors in Glen Affric Wilderness,Scotland, and inset photo of “Caledonia” copyright © 1997by Alan Watson/Forest Light.

2 THE IN TERNA TIONAL JOU RNAL OF WILDERNESS Volume 3, Number 4

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

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

Margaret Petersen, USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oreg. USAWayne Freimund, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA

ACTING MANAGING EDITORAlan W. Ewert, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George B.C., Canada

MANAGING EDITOR (ON SABBATICAL)John C. Hendee, Director, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho

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

ASSOCIATE EDITORSGreg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo., Hugh Barr, Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, Liz Close, U.S. Forest Service,Missoula, Mont., Dave Cockrell, University of Southern Colorado, Pueblo, Colo., Dave Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.,Don Duff, U.S. Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah, William Forgey, Medical Doctor, Crown Point, Ind., Nancy Green, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.,Glen Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo., Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg., Steve Hollenhorst, West VirginiaUniversity, Morgantown, W. Va., Jon Jarvis, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, Glennallen, Ark., Kris Kennett, British Columbia Parks, Williams Lake, B.C.,Canada, Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, David Lime, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn., Les Malloy, Department of Conservation,Wellington, NZ, Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt., Joe Mazzoni, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, N. Mex., Michael McCloskey,Sierra Club, Washington, D.C., Richard Meganck, United Nations Environment Programme, Osaka, Japan, Jonathan Miller, Environment Australia, ChrisMonz, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo., Bob Muth, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass., Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilder-ness Training Center, Huson, Mont., Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif., Max Oelschlaeger, University of North Texas, Corrales,N. Mex., Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal RSA, Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions and theWilderness Guides Council, Ross, Calif., Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va., Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft.Collins, Colo., Ron Rutledge, U.S. Forest Service, Fort St. John, B.C., Canada, Mitch Sakofs, Outward Bound, Garrison, N.Y., Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service,Portland, Oreg., Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo., Alan Schmierer, National Park Service, San Francisco, Calif., WonSop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea, Jerry Stokes, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., Ralph Swain, U.S. Forest Service, Golden, Colo.,Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif., Pamela Wright, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada, Tom Zimmerman, National ParkService, Boise, Idaho, Franco Zunino, Wilderness Associazione Italiana, Villavallelonga, Italy

International Journal of Wilderness

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) published three issues in 1996(May, August, and December) and quarterly issues in 1997 (March, June,September, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication.

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

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

Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are inU.S. dollars only—$30 for individuals and $50 for organizations/librar-ies. 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 ©1997 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation. In-dividuals, 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 descrip-tions of key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy,and environmental education; wilderness-related science and researchfrom all disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects ofwilderness; and international perspectives describing wilderness world-wide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book reviews,announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are encour-aged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is availablefrom the editors.

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

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

Printed on recycled paper.

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

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.

THE IN TERNA TIONAL JOU RNAL OF WILDERNESS Volume 3, Number 4 3

FEA TU RE

THIS PAST SEPTEMBER marked the 33rd anniversary ofthe passage of The 1964 Wilderness Act in the UnitedStates (PL. 88-577). While wilderness areas were in ex-

istence well before 1964, the act codified a concept held dearby many citizens in numerous countries. Moreover, this con-cept of protecting specific areas for the natural continuation ofecological processes or primitive recreation use has gained sub-stantial purchase in a number of other countries includingCanada, New Zealand, Australia, Russia, Finland, SouthAfrica, and Latin America.

While much has changed since 1964, the concept ofwilderness endures. That is, there is a value that many soci-eties have placed on setting aside certain lands from humanintrusion, development, and other “improvements.” Promot-ing that idea is what we are here for! Form follows function,and without an underlying philosophical belief in the valueof undisturbed lands, any designation is prone to politicalwhimsy and change.

This does not imply that all wildernesses are one and thesame. Rather, under the broad rubric of wilderness there can,and does, exist a wide spectrum of landscapes with varyingdegrees of human presence and natural processes. Some are,for the most part, completely lacking a human element whileothers are inhabited by indigenous peoples practicing their re-lationship with the land just as their ancestors have done forthousands of years. Wilderness is a big idea and one that canaccommodate a range of situations and settings.

What it cannot tolerate, however, is the lack of a concep-tual and philosophical base. Doubtless, there is a multitude of

other, more economically orienteduses for many wilderness areas.What ultimately defends these areasfrom exploitation is a generalizedbelief that undisturbed lands are asocial good and of great value thattranscends even economic worth.What are we here for? Certainly notjust to encourage wilderness desig-nation for certain lands. What weare really here for is to promote wil-derness as a concept of great valueto our people and our natural eco-systems. As a resource that is alreadyscarce and increasingly threatenedfrom a variety of venues. As a placewhere good things happen whenpeople and wilderness meet, orwhere people aren’t even part of the picture. If we get these thingsright, designation will surely follow. Perhaps Leopold had it rightwhen he insinuated that good resource management was lessabout the resource and more about the human mind.

As you will see in this issue of the IJW, wilderness providesvalue in a number of ways and for a number of entities, bothhuman and nonhuman. See for example Charles O. Mortensen’sarticle on Henry David Thoreau and David Mattson’s manu-script on wilderness-dependent wildlife. Once again, the IJWreflects the diversity and multidimensional nature of wilder-ness and its many attendent values. IJW

WHAT ARE WE HERE FOR?BY ALAN W. EWERT, ACTING MANAGING EDITOR

IJW acting manging editor Alan W. Ewert.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L W IL D E R N E S S — 1 9 9 8 !

Watch for three spectacular issues of the International Journal of Wilderness in 1998. These will be published in April,July, and December. Special feature highlights for these issues will include: April—Southern Africa; July-Latin America,including Cuba; and December—Water Wilderness Areas.

We have made this change in issues per year in order to better serve our subscribers and uphold our reputation forproducing a high-quality publication at a reasonable price. We look forward to delivering three excellent products toyou in 1998.

Thank You!


EVERY YEAR, millionsof people enjoythe benefits of the

outstanding recreational op-portunities that the UnitedStates’ wilderness systemprovides. Wilderness recre-ation use and, presumably,resultant benefits have in-creased greatly since estab-lishment of the NationalWilderness PreservationSystem in 1964 (Cole 1996).However, recreation use in-evitably degrades naturalconditions intended forpreservation and can alsodegrade the quality of thewilderness experience. Al-though there are some suc-cess stories—places whereimpact problems have de-

clined—trend studies provide strong evidence that ecologicalimpact problems are worsening, probably in most, if not all,wildernesses (Cole 1993). Similar studies provide little evidencethat the quality of wilderness experiences is declining (Cole, etal. 1995), but declining quality may be difficult to detect ifdisplacement and succession of users has occurred (Clark, etal. 1971). In most wildernesses, use density is increasing, con-flict potential is increasing (because the diversity of users isincreasing), and ecological impacts are increasing. This sug-gests the potential for declining quality, although the ultimateresponse is largely dependent on visitors’ tolerance of and abil-ity to cope with changing conditions.

Managers have responded to both the social and ecologicalimpacts of recreation by employing a variety of management

FEA TU RE

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESSRecreation Management Priorities Are Misplaced—

Allocate More Resources to Low-Use Wilderness

BY DAVID N. COLE

(Peer Reviewed)

Abstract: Wildernesses and places within wilderness that receive heavy recreation use typically are allocated themost wilderness management resources. I argue that more resources should be allocated to lightly used wildernessareas because these are the places that are most precious, most vulnerable, and most responsive to management.These resources should be used to monitor conditions and implement management actions where needed to keep theseplaces from degrading.

strategies and tactics (Cole, et al. 1987; Hendee, et al. 1990).They monitor conditions, identify problems, isolate specificcauses of those problems, and select management tactics thatattack those causes. When appropriate management actionsare selected and adequately implemented, they can be highlyeffective in protecting wilderness quality. However, this requiresresources—people, time, information, and money. These re-sources are not distributed equally. More resources are avail-able for recreation management in some wildernesses than inothers. Within individual wildernesses, more resources are ex-pended in some places than in others.

In this article I would like to address three questions. First,how are priorities currently set for expenditures on wildernessrecreation in the United States? Second, what should be the pri-orities for allocating resources? And third, how might these pri-orities be changed to increase management effectiveness? Mycomments are directed only at recreation management withinwilderness and the allocation of resources to recreation manage-ment. My conclusions would be quite different if I were attempt-ing to address the entire suite of threats to wilderness values.

Current PrioritiesOne criterion—amount of recreation use—explains most ofthe variation in expenditures on wilderness recreation man-agement. This is particularly true for resource allocation withinindividual wildernesses. Aside from trail construction andmaintenance, most field-level recreation management expen-ditures are on wilderness rangers. Wilderness rangers spendthe vast majority of their time on the trail system and particu-larly on the most heavily used trails and in the most frequenteddestination areas. They seldom visit the majority of wildernessacreage, which is trail-less and lightly used. This seems to makesense. After all, most of the people and most of the severe prob-lems are on popular trails and in popular destinations. If thejob of the ranger is to work with visitors and to deal with theproblems they have created, then this is where they should be.

Article author David N. Cole.


Resources are also allocated betweenwildernesses largely in relation to howmuch recreation use they receive. In theU.S. Forest Service (USFS), for example,the funds appropriated to each region forwilderness management in 1994 variedfrom $5.2 million for the Pacific South-west region (California) to $1.2 millionfor the Alaska region. The funding allo-cation given to each region was highlycorrelated with the wilderness visitationeach region receives (r=0.83) and verypoorly correlated with wilderness acre-age (r=0.13). The Pacific Southwest re-gion, with 11% of the nations wildernessacreage and 18% of the nations wilder-ness use, received 20% of USFS wilder-ness management funds. The Easternregion, with 4% of the acreage and 13%of wilderness use, received 11% of funds.The Alaska region, with 16% of the acre-age but only 6% of wilderness use, re-ceived 5% of the wilderness funds. TheNorthern region (Montana and northernIdaho), with 14% of the acreage and 7%of wilderness use, received 9% of funds.A current proposal would allocate USFSwilderness resources largely on the basisof amount of recreation use and totalpopulation within the region.

Priorities forAllocating ScarceResourcesIs it appropriate to allocate recreationmanagement resources primarily on thebasis of amount of recreation use? Clearly,the answer to this question is dependenton one’s beliefs about how recreation man-agement programs should operate. Iwould argue that wilderness managersshould be proactive more than reactive.The first priority should be establishing amanagement regime that minimizes fur-ther degradation of wilderness. Only whenthis regime is in place should the focusshift to restoring the qualities of places thatare already highly degraded. The rationalebehind my argument is that it is more cost-effective to prevent problems than to fixthem, and, therefore, more of the wilder-ness can be protected with a proactivemanagement stance. Moreover, a proac-tive approach adheres to one of severalproposed principles of wilderness man-agement—nondegrada-tion—the objec-

tive of which is “to prevent degradation ofcurrent naturalness and solitude in eachwilderness ... rather than letting all areas... deteriorate to a minimum standard”(Hendee, et al. 1990, p. 183).

Further, I suggest that to be pro-active, resources should be allocatedprimarily on the basis of three criteria—preciousness, vulnerability, and respon-siveness to management. In short, weshould allocate more resources to thoseplaces in wilderness that are most pre-cious, most vulnerable to degradation, andmost likely to respond positively to “good”management. When resources are scarce,fewer resources should be allocated toplaces that are less precious, less likely todegrade further, and less likely to respondpositively to good management.

PreciousnessWhich wildernesses and places withinwilderness meet these criteria? Precious-ness is a subjective quality that could le-gitimately be evaluated in many ways.Nevertheless, I argue that in wilderness,the most precious places are those thatare closest to the wilderness ideal, as ex-pressed in The Wilderness Act of 1964,and those that offer the most contrastwith other recreational landscapes. Onboth of these bases, the most preciouswildernesses and locations within wilder-ness are those that are most undisturbedand undeveloped. These places approach

the ideal of being “untrammeled by man.”They are among the last places that differdramatically from the highly modifiedlandscapes that cover most of the UnitedStates. In contrast, trailed areas, heavilyused wilderness destinations, and heavilyused wildernesses are much less unique.

Frequent encounters, abundant im-pact, and facilities, such as trails, makethese places more similar to developed,wildland recreation areas such as stateparks. While highly valuable—particu-larly in terms of the quantity of recreationbenefits they provide—these places aremuch further from the wilderness ideal.

VulnerabilityScientific research can assist in identify-ing those wildernesses most vulnerableto further degradation. Numerous stud-ies of ecological impact show that mostimpacts occur rapidly and that even lightuse causes near-maximum levels of im-pact (see Figures 2a and 2b; Marion andCole 1996). The clear implication is thatrecreation sites that have been used for along time or that are heavily used are notlikely to experience further deterioration.This prediction has been verified in trendstudies (Cole and Hall 1992). In contrast,places that have not been visited beforeor places that are lightly used are highlyvulnerable to deterioration. Even slightincreases in use of these places can resultin substantial increases in impact.

Most of the resources allocated to wilderness recreation management are focused on heavilyused places in wilderness. Photo by David N. Cole.


Research on the relationship be-tween number of encounters and thequality of visitor experiences suggests asimilar principle. Lightly used wilder-nesses and wilderness locations are alsoprobably more vulnerable to degrada-tion of experience quality than heavilyused wildernesses and locations. Inter-pretations are less clear-cut, however,due to various theoretical and method-ological problems (Manning 1986). Thedata in Figure 2b are from a questionovernight visitors to Desolation Wilder-ness were asked in 1972 and 1990 abouthow they would feel if they encounteredvarious numbers of average-size back-packing groups on a three-day trip. Bothin 1972 and in 1990, the reduction insatisfaction caused by an incrementalincrease in number of encounters isgreatest between 3 and 15 groups (be-tween 1 and 5 encounters per day). Thereduction in satisfaction resulting frommeeting 10 groups per day instead of 5is minor in comparison. This makes intui-tive sense. Isn’t the difference between aday in which no other groups are encoun-tered and a day in which 3 other groupsare encountered much greater than thedifference between a 7-encounter dayand a 10-encounter day? The implica-tion is that slight increases in use andencounter rates are most likely to causea meaningful loss of solitude in lightlyused places.

Responsiveness toManagementWhich places are most likely to deterio-rate dramatically if neglected by manage-ment or not to deteriorate or evenimprove if given management attention?Again, I conclude that the less-used wil-dernesses and places within wildernessshould be most responsive to manage-ment. This follows largely from the im-plications of the research discussed underthe vulnerability criterion. In a lightlyused place, subtle increases in use orshifting use patterns often occur withoutdetection by management. The result isa loss of solitude where outstanding op-portunities existed before, disturbance ofanimal populations that had been undis-turbed, creation of user trails in trail-lessareas, and proliferating evidence of hu-


man use (e.g., campsites, litter). All of thiscould be avoided with a modest level ofmanagement activity—monitoring of useand impact and implementation of a fewrestrictions where needed. In lightly usedplaces, relatively minor decreases in useintensity or per capita impact can havesubstantial positive effects.

In contrast, what has been accom-plished by the substantial managementattention given to the heavily used placesin wilderness? Most of these places stilldo not offer outstanding opportunities forsolitude; recreation impacts are evidentwherever visitors go; and animal popula-tions have either disappeared or becomehabituated to human presence. The sadfact is that it is impossible—aside fromvirtually closing these places to all recre-ation use—for management to make sub-stantial progress in moving these placestoward the wilderness ideal. While weclearly need to manage heavily used placesto keep them from getting worse (and thismanagement will require substantial in-vestments), both the opportunities formeaningful improvement in conditions asa result of active management and the like-lihood of substantial further deteriorationin the absence of active management arerelatively meager here.

Short of enacting draconian mea-sures, high-use places are simply not veryresponsive to management. Given mea-ger management resources and substan-tial management needs, shouldn’t mostavailable resources be allocated to placeswhere they are likely to have substantialpositive effects?

Conclusions andSuggestionsMy fundamental conclusion is that cur-rent priorities in allocating recreationmanagement resources are misplaced.The places most in need of managementattention are the wildernesses and placeswithin wilderness that currently receivethe least attention. Current priorities re-flect a reactive management stance. Theplaces that have already been highly de-graded are the places that receive mostresources, while less disturbed places getvery little attention. If we want to protectthe most precious and vulnerable wilder-ness places—if we are serious about the

principle of nondegradation—then wemust change these priorities. We mustallocate a much larger proportion of avail-able resources to lightly used wilder-nesses and to lightly used places withinwilderness.

I am not advocating a complete re-versal of priorities. Highly used wilder-nesses are precious because they providebenefits to many visitors. Substantial re-sources must be devoted to maintainingthese places in as wild a state as possible,to seeking to reduce conflict betweenrecreationists, and to providing visitorswith information—both to protect thewilderness environment and to enhancevisitor experiences. What I am advocat-ing is the elevation of acreage and vul-nerability as criteria in allocatingresources and a de-emphasis of currentuse levels. This would shift some re-sources to lightly used wildernesses andplaces within wilderness where resourcesare sorely needed.

tion, use limits are virtually a necessityas use levels continue to rise. If some fur-ther degradation is to be tolerated, limitsof acceptable change (Stankey et al. 1985)that limit the extent of further deteriora-tion should be defined.

A second activity is condition moni-toring in lightly used places. Monitoringof trails, campsites, encounter rates, anduse levels are most common in the moreheavily used wildernesses. Moreover,within individual wildernesses, the bestdata are available for the most heavilyused places. More lightly used placesmust also be covered by monitoring pro-grams if they are to be protected.

Finally, there may be more need foruse restrictions in lightly used places thanelsewhere. This is precisely the reverseof the most common situation, in whichuse limits and other restrictions areimplemented first in the places where useis greatest and impacts are most pro-found. As noted before, however, even

Recreation use inevitably degrades naturalconditions intended for preservation and canalso degrade the quality of the wildernessexperience.

What should be done with increasedresources in these lightly used wilder-nesses? Three activities are clearly needed.First, it must be decided whether or notthe principle of nondegradation is to beadhered to. If this principle is to guidemanagement, plans will need to be de-veloped for lightly used wildernesses orportions of wildernesses that stress main-taining the outstanding opportunities forsolitude and low levels of impact thatcurrently exist there. This can be accom-plished by developing standards that tol-erate no further loss of solitude orincrease in ecological impact. Some pro-ponents of strict adherence to the con-cept of nondegradation fail to understandits implications. There is little evidencethat we can substantially reduce the percapita impact of wilderness visitors.Therefore, to allow no further degrada-

dramatic changes in amount of use mayhave relatively little positive effect in high-use places. In a study of six high-use wil-derness destinations, Cole, et al. (1997)conclude that the benefit-cost ratio of lim-iting use declines as amount of use in-creases. On summer weekends at SnowLake (Alpine Lakes Wilderness, Washing-ton), for example, other visitor groups areencountered every three minutes on av-erage. Even a 50% reduction in use wouldnot provide a meaningful increase in soli-tude; other groups would still be encoun-tered every six minutes. Environmentalimpact levels would also not be likely todecline meaningfully.

Contrast this with the effect of a 50%use reduction in a wilderness where trailsand campsites are just beginning to ap-pear and groups typically encounter oneother group per day. This reduction might


lower trampling levels to the point wherelong-term impact does not occur. It mightpermit recovery of impacts that are justdeveloping, because resilience is still highduring the early stages of the impact pro-cess (Willard and Marr 1971). Finally, itshould greatly increase the frequency ofdays in which no other visitors are encoun-tered. The need for visitor education maybe more significant in lightly used places.Low-impact materials stress the “specialresponsibility” (Hampton and Cole 1995,p. 15) that must be accepted to visit off-trail areas. The need for behavioral restric-tions (e.g., length of stay limits) andprohibitions on particular types of use(e.g., pack stock or large groups) are alsogreater in more lightly used places.

In conclusion, most wilderness rec-reation management resources are allo-cated to heavily used places. These arealso the places that are most likely to limituse and have restrictive management pro-grams. This prioritization of resources re-flects a reactive management stance inwhich it is implicitly assumed that mostattention should be given to fixing themost obvious problems. It would bewiser, I believe, to adopt a proactive stanceand to shift these priorities dramatically.This shift in priorities should involve re-allocation of a substantial proportion offunds to those wildernesses and portionsof wildernesses that are most precious,most vulnerable to degradation, and mostresponsive to management—those that

are relatively lightly used. These resourcesshould be used to establish standards forconditions, to monitor conditions, andto implement use restrictions where theyare needed to meet standards. Manage-ment programs should be established thatwill protect the vast majority of wilder-ness that still approximates the wilder-ness ideal before attempting to restoreconditions in those relatively few wilder-ness locations where conditions are farfrom this ideal. IJW

DAVID N. COLE is a research biologist with theAldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O.Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807, USA.Telephone: (406) 542-1999. E-mail:[email protected].

REFERENCESClark, R. N., J. C. Hendee, and F. L. Campbell.

1971. Values, behavior, and conflict inmodern camping culture. Journal of LeisureResearch, 3: 143–159.

Cole, D. N. 1993. Campsites in three westernwildernesses: proliferation and changes incondition over 12 to 16 years. USDAForest Service Research Paper INT-463.

————-. 1996. Wilderness recreation in theUnited States—trends in use, users, andimpacts. IJW, 2(3): 14–18.

Cole, D. N., A. E. Watson, I. E. Hall, and D. R.Spildie. 1997. High-use destinations inthree wildernesses: visitors, conditions, andmanagement options. USDA Forest ServiceResearch Paper INT-R.P.-496.

Cole, D. N., A. E. Watson, and J. W.Roggenbuck. 1995. Trends in wildernessvisitors and visits: Boundary Waters Canoe

Area, Shining Rock, and DesolationWildernesses. USDA Forest ServiceResearch Paper INT-483.

Cole, D. N., and T. E. Hall. 1992. Trends incampsite condition: Eagle CapWilderness, Bob Marshall Wilderness,and Grand Canyon National Park. USDAForest Service Research Paper INT-453.

Cole, D. N., M. E. Petersen, and R. C. Lucas.1987. Managing wilderness recreationuse: common problems and potentialsolutions. USDA Forest Service GeneralTechnical Report INT-230.

Hampton, B., and D. Cole. 1995. Soft Paths,second edition. Mechanicsburg, Pa.:Stackpole Books.

Hendee, J. C, G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas. 1990.Wilderness Management, second edition.Golden, Colo.: North American Press.

Manning, R. E. 1986. Studies in outdoorrecreation: a review and synthesis of thesocial science literature in outdoorrecreation. Corvallis, Oreg.: Oregon StateUniversity Press.

Marion, J. L., and D. N. Cole. 1996. Spatialand temporal variation in soil andvegetation impacts on campsites.Ecological Applications, 6: 520–530.

Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R. C. Lucas, M. E.Petersen, and S. S. Frissell. 1985. Thelimits of acceptable change (LAC) systemfor wilderness planning. USDA ForestService General Technical Report INT-176.

Willard, B. E., and J. W. Marr. 1971. Recoveryof alpine tundra under protection afterdamage by human activities in the RockyMountains of Colorado. BiologicalConservation, 3: 181–190.


SINCE PASSAGE OF THE WILDERNESS ACT in 1964,the NWPS in the United States has grown from approxi-mately 9 million acres to over 103 million acres. With

this growth has come a corresponding increase in the chal-lenges involved in managing these irreplaceable wildlands. Inorder to assist wilderness managers in meeting these challengesthe IACNWTC conducted a Wilderness Education and TrainingNeeds Assessment Survey.

Two GoalsFirst, identify the issues that confront wilderness managers inthe four federal wilderness managing agencies—Forest Service(FS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Man-agement (BLM), and National Park Service (NPS). Second, iden-tify the education and training needed to prepare managersand staffs to successfully respond to these wilderness issues.

Needs Assessment SurveyEarly in 1996 a total of 1,704 Wilderness Education and TrainingNeeds Assessment surveys were sent to the 893 offices of the fouragencies that manage wilderness or wilderness study areas. Twosurveys were mailed to each office—one to the manager and oneto the staff person most responsible for wilderness management.

Response: Eight hundred forty surveys were returned, from 575(64%) of the 893 offices surveyed (see Figure 1). The surveyresults included more responses from the FS than from thethree other agencies combined. This is simply due to the factthat there are more wilderness units and personnel in the FSthan in the other agencies.

Current Issues: Each response was first categorized into a broadgeneral category and then into a more specific category. Recre-ation (including specific issues such as overuse, trails, outfitters,

S TEWARDSHIP

NATIONAL SURVEY HIGHLIGHTSAGENCY TRAINING NEEDS

IN THE UNITED STATESBY RICHARD CONRAD

Abstract: What education and training do wilderness managers need to meet current and future challenges? This isthe question the Interagency Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center (IACNWTC) examined by surveyingthe four federal agencies that manage the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) in the United States. Themajor finding was that while there are many similarities in management issues, internal training needs, and externaleducational outreach, there are also some differences. These differences will require specialized training targeted tosatisfy unique situations.


pack stock, human waste, etc.) was thenumber-one general issue for the fouragencies combined (see Figure 2). Whenthe four agencies were examined sepa-rately, recreation was the number-onegeneral issue for all the agencies exceptthe BLM, whose number-one general is-sue was administration (see Table 1).

The number-one specific issue forthe four agencies combined was Recre-ation Overuse (see Figure 3). When ex-amined separately, Recreation Overusewas the number-one issue for the FS andFWS. Illegal Vehicle Use was number-onefor the BLM. Planning was the number-one issue for the NPS, followed closelyby Overuse (see Table 2).

Anticipated Issues: Forty-two percent ofthe respondents anticipated a change inissues over the next five years (see Fig-ure 4). Recreation Overuse was antici-pated to be the number-one new issueover the next five years for the four agen-cies combined.

Training Needs: The number-one trainingneed for the four agencies combined wasPlan Preparation/Implementation, fol-lowed by Leave No Trace/WildernessEthic, and Public Education/WildernessValues (see Figure 5). When examinedindividually, Plan Preparation/Implemen-tation was identified by the BLM and NPSas being the number-one training need.The FS ranked Leave No Trace/Wilder-

ness Ethic highest while Agency Policyand Regulations training was most im-portant to the FWS (see Table 3).

Internal Audience: For the four agenciescombined, managers were identified asthe number-one internal audience thatwould benefit most from training, fol-lowed by nonwilderness staff, wildernessstaff, and receptionists.

Delivery Method: Videos, courses taughtlocally, and three-ring binders, in thatorder, were the preferred delivery meth-ods for the four agencies combined.

Educational Public Outreach: The wilder-ness education materials and programs

THE IN TERNA TIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDERNESS Volume 3, Number 4 11

most needed to reach the public for thefour agencies combined was Public Edu-cation/Wilderness Values followed byLeave No Trace/Wilderness Ethic.

External Audiences: For the four agenciescombined, the number-one external au-dience that would benefit most from wil-derness education was the GeneralPublic, followed by Hunters/Fishers.While each agency, except for the BLM,identified General Public as number-one,there was considerable difference in theranking of the other audiences. BLMidentified Special Provisions Users as theirnumber-one audience (see Table 4).

ImplicationsInternational: Individual wilderness areasin the United States are unique, and eachfederal wilderness management agencyhas a different overall mission. There arestill, however, many shared similaritiesin issues and training needs. This mayalso be evident on an international level.Other countries, which have very differ-ent protected area systems and manage-ment entities, may also have similar issuesand training needs common to all andshared universally.

U.S. National Wilderness Preservation Sys-tem: The similarities in the survey resultsfrom the different agencies clearly sup-port the concept of “one” NWPS—notfour different systems—each managed by

a different agency with different issuesand training needs. Responses pointedout the need for consistent applicationof wilderness principles, concepts, andregulations among the four agencies inorder to solve similar issues. One of thebest ways to achieve this consistent ap-proach is through interagency training.

Providing educational materials/programs and training is a challenge dueto the differences between agencies. Asan example, the response to “audiencesthat would benefit most from wildernesseducation outreach” shows some veryunique differences between agencies.Hunters are not a priority audience forthe NPS since national parks usually donot allow hunting, but they are veryimportant to theFWS in managementof their refuges.Backpackers are veryimportant to theNPS, but of little im-portance to the FWSas most of their ref-uges are for day-useonly. Special Provi-sion Users and RuralResidents are veryimportant to theBLM because theyare prominent usersof the public landson a consistent dailybasis. Outfitters and

Stock Users are important to the USFSbecause in certain regions they representone of the dominant uses in their wil-derness areas.

To address these differences and toaddress localized situations, educationand training needs should be consideredby region or by state. This would helpaddress the unique needs and specializedsituations of Alaska versus the continen-tal United States, the eastern versus thewestern United States, the arid desertSouthwest versus the Pacific Northwest,etc. However, this will still not addressall of the differences and peculiaritiesamong agencies and individual wildernessareas. Equal interest and participationfrom all the agencies or wilderness


managers in the education and trainingprovided cannot be expected.

Perceived Issues: Thirty-one percent of therespondents feel that Overuse is now aproblem, and another 45% think it will bea problem in the future. That means wecan expect Overuse to be an issue for 76%of our wilderness areas in the next five years.The BLM was the only agency that did nothave Recreation and Overuse as a currenthigh-priority issue. However, the BLM an-ticipates that Overuse will be the number-one issue in the future. Many BLM areashave not yet been discovered by the publicto the degree parks, refuges, and nationalforests have been. As more BLM areas aredesignated wilderness they will become

better known and ex-perience increased use.

The obvious impli-cation is that thoseareas that are nowbeing overused mustbe dealt with to pre-vent further degrada-tion. In addition, theun-crowded areas andnewly designated ar-eas must be plannedfor before they startreceiving increaseduse. Wilderness man-agers need informa-tion and training onhow to manage in-

creasing use and how to reduce crowdedconditions and the impacts they cause.

Information and Training Needs: Planning,Leave No Trace, and Public Educationwere identified as the top training needs.To address those issues the respondentsfelt they needed training on how to: (1)develop good management plans thatprovide clear wilderness managementobjectives and direction for the protec-tion and management of wilderness ar-eas; (2) develop a minimum impactland-use ethic that managers can use toreduce impacts from increasing use, suchas the Leave No Trace program; and (3)educate the public about this land-useethic and about wilderness values, prin-ciples, and management.

Internal Audiences: The only agency thatdid not identify Managers as the num-ber-one internal audience that wouldbenefit most from wilderness informationand training was the USFS. This may bea result of more USFS managers havingreceived wilderness training than thosein other agencies. An emphasis shouldbe placed on training the decision mak-ers from the other three agencies.

There also needs to be a concurrentfocus on training wilderness staff andother multidisciplinary staff (e.g., fire,wildlife, and range staffs). Front line field-going personnel, both permanent andseasonal, need to be well trained. Thesefolks are critical to the success or failureachieved in addressing wilderness man-agement issues. They are normally the

first to come in contact with wildernessvisitors and the first (and sometimes theonly ones) to deal firsthand with themany complex issues that arise.

Delivery Method: Traditional methods suchas videos, courses taught locally, and three-ring binders were the most popular deliv-ery methods. Obviously, high technologymethods utilizing interactive satellite links,the internet, CD-ROM, and other com-puter-delivered methods have not beenfully embraced by the respondents. Cor-respondence courses are not fully utilizedeither. These alternative delivery methodsare perceived to have limitations (e.g., theability to interact with others face-to-face)when compared to the more traditionallytaught courses. However, these alternativedelivery methods can provide less expen-sive avenues to reach large numbers oftrainees and may, out of necessity, replacethe more traditional methods.

Public Outreach: Responses indicate thatwilderness awareness, an appreciation ofwilderness values, and a wilderness useethic seem to be missing in large segmentsof our society. Respondents felt that a widevariety of user groups do not understandwilderness or how to properly use it withminimum impact. These are basic entry-level, foundation-forming concepts. Theypoint out that we have a long way to go inpublic wilderness education.

ConclusionIn order to meet current and future wil-derness management challenges, a signifi-cant investment must be made in ourwilderness managers and staffs. They mustbe instilled with enthusiasm by preparingthem with the very best knowledge, skills,information, education materials, andtraining that is available. The IACNWTCis currently processing the responses fromthe “Needs Assessment” survey in orderto plan and prepare future training coursesand workshops. IJW

For more information contact RICHARD CONRAD,Bureau of Land Management TrainingRepresentative at the Interagency Arthur CarhartNational Wilderness Training Center, 20325Remount Road, Huson, Montana 59846, USA.Telephone: (406) 626-5208. E-mail:[email protected].

Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center director Connie Myersand article author Richard Conrad.

The Interagency Arthur CarhartNational Wilderness Training Center

Location: Historic Ninemile Ranger Stationnear Huson, Montana.

Mission: “Foster interagency excellence inwilderness stewardship by cultivating knowl-edgeable, skilled, and capable wildernessmanagers and by improving public under-standing of wilderness philosophy, values,and processes.”

Staff: Interagency team of training special-ists from the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Man-agement, and U.S. National Park Service.

worldwide website:www. wi Iderness. net/carhart


BY 1850 THE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATEShad reached 23 million, and in the Northeast a onceverdant landscape had been radically transformed. The

forest had given way to farms, expansive meadows, cities, andtowns. Many wildlife species were either not compatible withthe new cultural landscape or had their habitat severely restrictedwith a concomitant lowering of numbers. In mid-century NewEngland, with the exception of Maine, the bear, moose, deer,wolf, cougar, lynx, wolverine, and other fauna were largelyabsent from what were once viable populations. Thus the stagewas set for a remarkable individual, who for more than a decadehad been critically thinking, writing, and lecturing on the dimi-nution of “nature” in his beloved landscape.

From a historian’s hindsight it appears to be all but inevi-table that in April 1851 Henry David Thoreau, then 34 yearsold, a Harvard University graduate, a published poet and essay-ist, and a somewhat failed book author, would stride to the lec-ture podium of the Concord Lyceum and begin with an “idea”that eventually would be heard and valued throughout the world.“I wish to speak a word for Nature, for absolute freedom andwildness, as contrasted with a freedom and culture merely—toregard man as an inhabitant, or a part and parcel of Nature,rather than a member of society. I wish to make an extreme state-ment, if so I may make an emphatic one, for there are enoughchampions of civilization. ...” (Anderson 1973 and subsequentlecture/essay quotes).

This lecture titled “The Wild,” which was later publishedposthumously as an essay entitled “Walking” by the Atlantic Monthly(1862) is, perhaps, the beginning point or foundation of our re-cent intellectual thoughts about wilderness. That is, wildernesshas inherent value for its best expression of the vitality and conti-nuity of natural systems and a mythical/spiritual entity to be per-sonally and collectively valued outside of its physical extractiveresource values. As Oelschlaeger (1991) elucidates in The Idea ofWilderness, humans have expressed variants of this theme fromPaleolithic time forward. Thoreau, however, was setting his sailsagainst the prevailing modernist philosophy of nature, as havingvalue primarily to the extent that it could be transformed into anindustrialized society. Russell Train, in an article titled “To Con-serve and To Create,” cites Benjamin Franklin biographer CatherineBowen’s description of the landscape he viewed, on a journey upthe Hudson River in 1754, as an example of then current atti-tudes. “Westward stretched the forest, endless, primeval, reachingon and on. No one in the sloop would have ventured to call the

HENRY DAVID THOREAUA Lecture and a Wilderness Legacy

BY CHARLES O. MORTENSEN

(Peer Reviewed)

Wisker Lake Wilderness Area, Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin. Photo byCharles O. Mortensen.

Article author Charles O. Mortensen.

forest beautiful. Rather it wassolemn, interminable, bar-baric, harsh; one meets theadjectives often. Trees wereman’s enemy and must befelled.” (Train 1976).

Now in 1851, Thoreauwas attacking that seeminglyuniversal view in a public gath-ering. He was quite literally“standing for nature.” Hiscounterpoints continue tomove to the theme of walkingor sauntering in the naturallandscape. For it is one way, ifnot the most important way,man can learn from and draw“sustenance” from wild areas.Thoreau extols these physical/psychic values when he states,“I think that I cannot preserve my health and spirits, unless I spendfour hours a day at least... sauntering through the woods ... abso-lutely free from all worldly engagements.” However, in typicalThoreau fashion, he adds, “Of course, it is of no use to direct oursteps to the woods, if they do not carry us thither.”

EDUCA TION AND COMMUNICA TION


Thoreau goes on to ask rhetorically,which is the better person to deal with,one who knows nothing of a subject andknows that, or one who knows somethingabout a subject, but thinks that he knowsall? Thus, his famous mid-lecture state-ment, “In wildness is the preservation ofthe earth.” One can assume that whatThoreau meant was that all learning (sincein his time philosophy included naturalhistory) was, in part, the study of nature,natural events, and so on. In that respect,then, we would place collective self-inter-est below protection of a physi-cal/bioticwholeness for portions of the Earth, for indoing so we not only pass on an inherit-ance for which we do not yet know all the

uses to the world, but the continuing op-portunity for the unborn to draw emo-tional aesthetic, spiritual, and other values,each interpreted in their own way. Addi-tionally, as Roderick Nash (1990) states,much of classic wilderness is unknown,and the unknown is a primary stimulantfor discovery, perhaps again what Thoreaumay have meant in his “In wildness is thepreservation” statement.

As an example of its far-reaching ef-fect and foundation for contemporarythought, Thoreau’s theme, stating howwilderness has given rise and nourish-ment to civilization, was alluded to a cen-tury later when ecologist Aldo Leopold(1949) stated, “Wilderness is the rawmaterial out of which man has hammeredthe artifact called civilization.” Leopold’scomment that “wilderness is a resourcewhich can shrink but not grow” and “...the creation of a new wilderness in thefull sense of the world is impossible” isclosely related to Thoreau’s much-quotedjournal entry a few years after his lecture:“1 take infinite pains to know all the phe-nomena of spring for instance, thinking

or as a replacement for organized formalreligion (Dreiser 1958)? Or did he equatewilderness to the Holy Land’s religiouscontext of enlightenment and thus a pro-visioner for an enlightened attitude towardnature? We will never know, of course, butthis “depth” is what makes his writing sobrilliant, stimulating, and lasting.

Foundation of aWilderness AdvocacyWhat were the life experiences that ledThoreau to the wilderness philosophy hestated so eloquently in 1851? Thoreau’sbackground was exceedingly rich; he hadaccess to nature surrounding Concord, auniversity education concentrating onclassical literature including such worksas Homer’s Iliad and Pliny’s Natural His-tory, and he exhibited a dedicated anddriven self-study by a powerful and ac-complished mind. He read extensively, ifnot voraciously, on natural history andIndians, recording nearly 3,000 pages ofnotes between 1847 and 1861. Undoubt-edly though, it was his 1846 Maine ex-cursion that would have a most singularand profound affect on his developingwilderness advocacy or philosophy.

He left Concord on the last day of Au-gust so as to avoid the worst of summer in-sects and with the goal of ascendingKatahdin, which would be in wildness andbeyond the reach of logging. He reportedthat in 1837 alone, 250 mills on thePenobscot River and its tributaries aboveBangor sawed 200 million board feet. In theopening pages of The Maine Woods, whichwas published posthumously in 1864,Thoreau points out the immediacy of hisneed to get to and observe the deep forestthat was beyond the present altered land-scape where “The mission of men there seemto be, like so many busy demons, to drivethe forest all out of the country, from everysolitary beaver swamp and mountainside,as soon as possible” (Thoreau 1985; also theremaining Maine quotations). Traveling bybateau (canoelike boat), the party navigatedrivers and lakes to reach a camping area alonga stream emanating from Mt. Katahdin, adozen miles away.

“There stood Ktaadn [Katahdin] withdistinct and cloudless outline in themoonlight, and the rippling of the

Porcupine Lake Wilderness Area, Chequamegon NationalForest, Wisconsin. Photo by Charles O. Mortensen.

“I think that I cannot preserve my health andspirits, unless I spend four hours a day at least... sauntering through the woods ... absolutelyfree from all worldly engagements.”

—Henry David Thoreau

that I have here the entire poem, and thento my chagrin, I hear that it is but animperfect copy that 1 possess and haveread, that my ancestors have torn outmany of the first leaves and grandest pas-sages ...” (Thoreau 1984b).

Finally, in the lecture’s closing hestates: “So we saunter toward the HolyLand, till one day the sun shall shine morebright than he ever has done, shall perchance shine into our hearts, and lightup our whole lives with great awakeninglight, as warm and serene and golden asa bank side in autumn.”

So, in the richness of Thoreau’s meta-phor is wilderness to be equated with theHoly Land, as in seek and you shall find,


rapids was the only sound to breakthe stillness. Standing on the shore, Ionce more cast line into the stream,and found the dream to be real andthe fable true. The speckled trout andsilvery roach, like flying fish, spedswiftly through the moonlight air

That morning the long ascent to thesummit began by pushing up the Aboljack-nagesic stream leaving the bateau tied to atree. Moving to the stream’s north side, theypassed through “burnt” lands partially over-grown with young aspen. Soon the partywas on a ridge with a view of the peak,which surprised Thoreau with the amountof naked rock unlike any mountain he hadpreviously seen. Shortly, they were requiredto take a compass bearing and plunge intothe woods or as Thoreau put it, “We weresoon buried in the woods.” By noon a mem-ber of the party climbed a tree to view thesummit, and they were relieved “when itappeared that we had not swerved from aright line, the compass down below stillranging with his arm.”

By four o’clock the weary party de-cided to camp, and Thoreau with whatlittle daylight was left attempted to climbthe mountain alone. Working his way upa water-filled ravine covered with impen-etrable thickets of scraggly birches andspruce, he soon cleared the larger trees andcould look back over the falling water stillfar from its headwaters. As he continuedthe arduous task of moving upward, hehit the krumholtz “scrambling on all foursover the tops of ancient black spruce trees(Abies nigra), old as the flood, from ten ortwelve feet in height. ...” He continued onor, as he stated, “slumped, scrambled,rolled, bounced and walked” until he hitonly rock, and the words now are less ex-alting, but penetrating with realism: “...rocks, gray, silent rocks, were the flocksand herds that pastured, chewing a rockycud at sunset. They looked at me with hardgray eyes, without a bleat or low.” Withtime running out and the ascent uncom-pleted, he returned to his companions.

The next morning the party made aneffort to reach the summit, but soonThoreau left his companions behind ashe climbed alone over the rocks. Thepeak was now concealed by mist, and histhoughts moved to realities at his feet:“The mountain seemed a vast aggrega-

tion of loose rocks ... the raw materialsof a planet dropped from an unseenquarry which the vast chemistry of na-ture would anon work up, or work down,into the smiling and verdant plains andvalleys of earth.” Now the juxtapositionof the mile-high Katahdin, the mostabrupt granite mountain in New England,to the gentle ridges and valleys of east-ern Massachusetts, was exacting an un-foreseen toll: “It was vast, Titanic, andsuch as man never inhabits ... . He is morealone than you can imagine .... Naturehas got him at disadvantage, caught himalone, and pilfers him of some of his di-vine faculty .... I have never made thissoil for thy feet, this air for thy breath-ing, these rocks for thy neighbors.”

Thoreau thought about the fact thatIndians rarely went to the summits ofmountains because they are sacred andmysterious tracts are never visited.“Pomola is always angry with those whoclimb to the summit of Ktaadn.” Inter-estingly, Indians on the West Coast. 3,000miles away had a similar sentiment. In1870 Sluiskin, a Yakima hunter, hadguided the first successfully documentedclimbers to reach the peak to the base ofMt. Rainier and warned them not to gofurther:”... should you escape these per-ils and reach the great snowy dome, thena bitterly cold and furious tempest willsweep you off into space like a witheredleaf ...” (National Park Service 1978).

Thoreau definitely was awed by stark-ness of granite outcrops, the vast and darknature of the coniferous forest. He describedthe Maine wilderness as primeval, vast, ti-tanic, but also the freedom it portended isprecisely why he valued it so, and stated:“Here prevail no forest laws, but those ofnature,” and “It was the fresh and naturalsurface of planet Earth, as it was made for-ever and ever.” It was also the most formi-dable landscape he would ever experienceand he knew it immediately: “What is thisTitan that has possession of me? Talk ofmysteries! Think of our life in nature—dailyto be shown matter, to come in contact withit—rocks, trees, wind on our cheeks! Thesolid earth! The actual/world! The commonsense! Contact! Contact! Who are we?Where are we?”

Now wilderness, like all mountain-eers know, was bipolar. Gone was thesweet pine-scented air surrounding Con-cord to be replaced by high-altitude harshwind on the cheeks. Yet the wild land-scape had the liberating effect of newknowledge—the Earth held a vastnesspreviously unknown to him. Perhaps forThoreau this liberation and the accom-panying intellectual freedom to view na-ture in a totally new context was one ofthe germinating seeds that later producedhis lecture statement “In wildness is thepreservation of the earth.”

Knowing that clouds could concealthe peak until days end, if not for days,

Rainbow Lake Wilderness Area. Chequamegon National Forest, Wisconsin. Photo by Charles O. Mortensen


and that his companions would be anx-ious to return to their river camp spot,Thoreau was compelled to descend themountain without reaching the summit.As he came down, the wind would pro-vide an opening in the mist”... throughwhich I could see the country eastward,boundless forests, and lakes, andstreams, gleaming in the sun .... Nowand then some small bird of the spar-row family would flit away before me ....” A vista of mountains, which for themost part had names known only to theIndians, Lake Millinochet with its hun-dred islands, and 100 without names.He recalled that a previous visitor to thiselevation had compared it to “a mirrorbroken into a thousand fragments andwildly scattered over the grass, reflect-ing the full blaze of the sun.”

With reference to this biome,Thoreau ‘s wild, then, is as encompass-ing of the total environment as ours istoday, mountaintop to valley floor. It isthe total organic wholeness that is para-mount, as he states in his wild lecturefive years after this 1846 experience: “Ienter a swamp as a sacred place, a sanc-tum sanctorum. There is the strength, themarrow, of Nature.” His last trip to Mainein 1857 was a voyage on the Allegash andEast Branch of the Penobscot Rivers docu-menting details of river travel, camping,watershed vegetation, and wildlife.

Thoreau went on to state that wilder-ness sounds give voice to its wildness.Sigurd Olson, a key figure in the movementfor U.S. and world wilderness preservation,echoed those thoughts in his inspirationalbook The Singing Wilderness: “We sataround until long after dark and listened,but instead of becoming quiet as the moonwent high, the calling increased and thereagain was the wild harmony, the music thatcomes only once a year, when it is springon Lac la Croix” (Olson 1970).

A Life That Will Never EndWhen Thoreau died of tuberculosis near-ing the end of his 44th year in 1862, hislast spoken words were “moose” and “In-dian.” No one will know why this washis last intelligible communication tothose around him, but he wrote often ofboth as symbols for the last vestige ofwilderness in his native New England.Thus, the survival of each, was partialinsurance that wilderness would survive.

It is the lot of those who exhibit truegenius that death does not dim their bril-liance. And so it has been with Thoreauand his unyielding and passionate advo-cacy for nature and wilderness. When theaxe rippled through the forests surround-ing Concord during the same year of hiswild lecture, Thoreau noted in his journalthat he wanted the town bell to sound aknell for a fallen pine that had lived two

centuries as it did to honor those individu-als who had lived and died in the village(Thoreau 1984a), and in another contexthe would exclaim, “Thank God, they can-not cut down the clouds!” (Harding 1965).

Ralph Waldo Emerson, in the lastwords of Thoreau’s funeral eulogy, made acomment that has met the test of time: “...wherever there is knowledge, whereverthere is virtue, wherever there is beauty, hewill find a home” (Harding 1965). Like oth-ers of brilliance before him and those yetto come, Thoreau made a wilderness trail,the blazes of which will never fade. For allwho love wilderness, who cherish rivulet,wave, tree, rock, bird, and translucentmorning light, indeed all of nature’s myriadforms, he walks with us as we travel to ourown Katahdin or Walden shores: “My great-est skill has been to want but little. For JoyI could embrace the earth. 1 shall delightto be buried in it. And then I think of thoseamong [us], who will know that 1 lovethem, though I tell them not” (Thoreau inChanning 1966). IJW

CHARLES O. MORTENSEN has taught a wildernessperception and management class for universitystudents for more than twenty years. He is chairof the Department of Natural Resources andEnvironment Management at Ball StateUniversity, Muncie, Indiana 47306-0495, USA.Telephone: (765) 285-5780. E-mail:[email protected].

REFERENCESAnderson, C. 1973. Thoreau’s Vision: The

Major Essays. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice-Hall.

Channing, W. 1966. Thoreau: The Poet-Naturalist. New York: Biblo and Tannen.

Dreiser, 1958. Theodore Dreiser Presents theLiving Thoughts of Thoreau. New York:Fawcett World Library.

Harding, W. 1965. Thoreau: A Century ofCriticism. Dallas: Southern MethodistUniversity Press.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac.New York: Oxford University Press.

Nash, R. 1990. American Environmentalism,third edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

National Park Service. 1978. Mount Rainiermap and interpretive information, GPO-261-212/118.

Oelschlaeger, M. 1991. The Idea ofWilderness. New Haven, Conn.: YaleUniversity Press.

Olson, S. 1970. The Singing Wilderness. NewYork: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Richardson, R. 1986. Henry Thoreau: A Life ofthe Mind. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Thoreau, H. 1985. A Week on the Concordand Merrimack Rivers, Walden or Life inthe Woods, the Maine Woods, Cape Cod.New York: Literary Classics of the UnitedStates.

Thoreau, H. 1984a. The Journal of Henry DavidThoreau, vol. III. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M.Smith.

Thoreau, H. 1984b. The Journal of Henry DavidThoreau, vol. VIII. Salt Lake City: GibbsM. Smith.

Train, R. 1976. To conserve and to create.American Forests, 82(1): 12–13, 59–61.


EACH YEAR, the Management of Wildlands and ProtectedAreas short course at Colorado State University trains21 Latin America managers. An important part of this

training is conducted in U.S. wilderness areas.The field-based short course, now in its ninth year, is

designed to pack a lot of experiences into a month of intenseactivity. The course, conducted in Spanish, is taught by Drs.George Wallace and Craig MacFarland, along with guest in-structors from the USDI Bureau of Land Management, the USDA Forest Service, and the USDI National Park Service. Overthe course of a month, managers are exposed to a range ofprotected areas, the purposes for which they are managed, andtheir problems and successes, with an emphasis on integratedresource management and interagency cooperation. For most,it is their first exposure to the U.S. concept of wilderness.

Management topics that run throughout the course includebiodiversity conservation and planning at the national, ecosys-tem, and unit levels; wildland values; building international,national, and local constituencies; managing personnel, visi-tors, concessions, and nonconforming uses; integrating wild-land protection with social and rural development; controllingimpacts to soil, vegetation, water, and wildlife; infrastructurelayout, construction, and maintenance; conflict resolution; andfinancing strategies.

The final field experience is a five-day wilderness trip in-tegrating most of the concepts discussed during the precedingweeks. This is a working pack trip with daily classes in which

students encounter a range of issues related to wilderness man-agement such as zoning, visitor management, patrolling, emer-gency procedures, selection and maintenance of trails and usersites, resource inventory and monitoring, and personal wilder-ness skills and leadership.

To set the example of minimizing impacts, the class is di-vided into four groups that travel by different routes and campin sites one to two miles apart. One group leads horses, an-other llamas, and the last two carry backpacks. Midway throughthe trip participants change camps so that those who enteredwith pack stock leave carrying backpacks and vice versa. Par-ticipants are contacted by local wilderness rangers/specialistswho inspect the camps and talk about their training, equip-ment, responsibilities, and challenges. Participants are enthu-siastic about the coordinated program of ranger patrols,monitoring, and record keeping, as well as the dedication ofthe forest rangers they meet.

Rapid growth in Latin America’s national protected areasystems means that the best and brightest natural resource pro-fessionals often haveascended quickly topositions of authoritywith limited field expe-rience. Many of thoseskills, such as landnavigation, search andrescue techniques, visi-tor contacts, site andresource monitoring,handling of pack stock,and field equipmentuse, are eagerly sought.The minimum impactpractices utilizedthroughout the trip arealso new for most LatinAmericans. Many LatinAmerican protected ar-eas exclude visitorsfrom backcountry bothdue to fear of naturalresource impacts andinability to managepeople in those areas.

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT TRAININGFOR LATIN AMERICAN MANAGERS

BY GEORGE WALLACE AND JIM WURZ


Participants learn backpacking, llama packing, and horse packing skills,as well as the relative impacts and advantages of each travel mode.

Course field trips include lectures as well as physicalactivities.


The wilderness trip intends to showmanagers they can slowly begin to allowpeople to experience the unique values ofwilderness and build a constituency ofthose who have intimately experienced thearea without sacrificing resource protec-tion. The trip also illustrates the relativeadvantages and disadvantages of back-packing, llama packing, and horse pack-ing; the type of work that can be done;associated impacts; and the necessarymanagement techniques for each. Forsome participants, the wilderness compo-nent of the course provides them with oneof the most challenging experiences of theirlives. Many leave with a sense of accom-plishment, confidence, and inspiration thatstays with them in their work. Courseinstructors know this because the past par-ticipants with whom they meet, work, orcorrespond in later years invariably remi-nisce about the wilderness trips. IJW

GEORGE WALLACE is a professor in the Collegeof Natural Resources at Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA.Telephone: (970) 491-5165. E-mail:[email protected].

JIM WURZ is a consultant in protected areastraining and management. He has been aninstructor for Colorado State University’s summercourse for international protected areamanagers for the past six years.

The course covers management issues in wild and scenic river corridors.

Many Latin American protected areas excludevisitors from backcountry both due to fear ofnatural resource impacts and inability tomanage people in those areas.


AS AN URBAN NORTH AMERICAN, wilderness has al-ways meant to me the natural world—but the naturalworld in a very special state—untouched by humans. I

sought wilderness experiences far from where I lived andworked. I joined campaigns and inspired my students to workto set aside wilderness areas and representative ecosystemsthat could be kept from the destruction and degradation ofhumans and their artifacts. Then I met a raven ....

I had lived for two years on the edge of a deep and beautifullake in northern British Columbia. Like many lakes in this wildregion, the lake was named, in the Carrier language, for fish.Fish are the reason why this lake has always been sacred andsustaining for First Nations people in the region. Every fall theycame, and come still, to the lake to fish and dry their harvest forwinter use. Before the snow flies they depart for winter traplines,leaving a sense of spirit and mystery in their wake for newcom-ers like me to ponder on evening walks. When winter deepensthe lake returns to the few creatures that can survive: chicka-dees, whiskey-jacks, and just before ice up, trumpeter swans.Primary among them is the raven—revered, deified, and gentlymocked by the people of the region. The raven is teacher, trick-ster, and powerful clan symbol. The raven’s hoarse “crock” wasoften the only living sound I heard in the winter, although insummer the loon’s cry and the whistle of the eagles raising theiryoung in the nest above my roof often outcompeted the raven’sconversation. Raven has always been here, from before the be-ginning. Not far from here, on the coast, raven’s insatiable curi-osity led him to open a clamshell and release humans to scrambleout onto the earth, and left all of creation to rue the day. Ravenhas been atoning for this faux pas ever since by trying to catchour attention, to teach us about the world.

Not long before I had to leave the lake, and when I neededit the most, I encountered raven—twice. A full grown raven, ofawesome proportions, walked into my house. I was working,and my attention was caught by crashes from the kitchen. I ranin and without thinking of the consequences of massive beakand claws, picked up the raven, put him down again without astruggle to improve my grip, walked outside with him, and asI released my grip, he turned his great head to look back at mewith what I imagined was a somewhat wry expression of thanks.Then, about a week later, I was driving with a friend on theroad through the forest above the lake. “Stop! Raven!” I cried.I leaped from the car to find a young raven, probably fallenfrom a nest. I picked it up and placed it gently on a fallen treeand left. Since it was only about a mile from my house, I walkedback a*bout two hours later. The raven was in the same place.I left it, hoping the parents would find it. Next morning it was

in the same place with no sign of parents. I examined it anddiscovered injuries, not serious but probably needing atten-tion. This was a difficult call—take it home and assume re-sponsibility, or leave it to parents and fate. This raven left meno choice. I took him home. While resisting naming him, hebecame at times Lucifer, at times just ndegi (I am, after all, ahuman and a scientist). I fed him, stuffing tidbits down hisopen throat (cat food, fruit, and boneless, skinless chicken breastleft by a nonvegetarian guest), cleaned his wounds, weighedhim, made him an imitation raven nest and gave him the runof the house. Next morning I made an inspired decision—ravenday care. I took the raven back into the forest, gave an imita-tion “crock” and waited. Within minutes two ravens flew over-head, doubled back and swooped into the towering Douglasfirs above Lucifer, who squawked his indignant demands. I leftand returned a few times during the day, often leaving peaceofferings for the parent ravens—an apple, a decaying fish fromthe beach.

From that day, I had to learn to think like a raven. I decidedit was too dangerous to leave Lucifer in the forest at night sincehe could not fly, and so the pattern was set. I left him with hisparents during the day and picked him up at night, fed him,enjoyed watching him, and attended to his wounds. The onlyproblem was I had to find him in the forest. I had to imaginewhere he could be. I had to stay silent and feel where he was. Inthe midst of a dense magnificent Douglas fir forest, I always foundhim. He would squawk, his parents would object to my pres-ence, or I would simply stand silently, clearing my mind andwill, in one spot, and there he would be. An effective systemevolved. When I left him in the morning he would squawk afterme, thereby alerting his parents to his presence and remindingthem it was their shift. In the evening the parents would shriekat me, thereby giving away the babe’s location. Into the raven/catcarrier and home for the night. He discovered music. He seemedparticularly fond of Mozart, Gregorian chants, operatic sopra-nos, and Joni Mitchell, cocking his head and staring at the CDplayer with his improbable blue eyes. Was he pretending to sharemy taste? He was not polite. He was proud, vociferous, and evenwhen begging for food, not humble. He was not good for house-keeping, but, as he strengthened, very amusing. I set out to en-sure that he did not become attached to me, before I realizedthat it was not his heart that was endangered.

A week later, it became more and more difficult to findLucifer in the evening because he was beginning to fly. Aftertwo nights of climbing trees to retrieve him, I questioned whoseneeds I was now serving. The next evening, after searching forsome time, I discovered Lucifer at the top of an aspen on the

SEPARATION ANXIETYBY LESLIE A. KING



edge of the lake. The parents and siblingsswooped overhead, and then all disap-peared. I sank into the wild roses, clover,bunch berries, and Indian paintbrush,watching the dying light touch the goldentops of the Douglas firs, a beaver swim-ming along the edge of the lake, and fishjumping at flies. As night descended theraven family again swept low over myhead and then high into the dusk. I onlyrecognized Lucifer by the demonic tuftof feathers above one eye. “Fare theewell,” I murmured and walked back tomy cabin, sadly, but at the same time alertto feelings of joy in renewed intimacywith the whole that was my lake. An ex-change of worlds ... but ours is the sameworld. It was all a trick, a raven gift.

Musing on this experience, I thoughtabout the ways in which humans craveconnection with the wild, the wild crea-tures, and the wild that is in ourselves.For centuries, we have attempted to sepa-rate ourselves from the wild with increasingdesperation—asserting that we are the

only creature to possess a soul, to be madein God’s image, to communicate, to makeand use tools, to feel pain, to plan, to lie,“to look before and after and pine for whatis not.” As science has challenged each ofthese attempts at distinction, humans havecome to realize how desperately we needto feel a part of the natural world, to re-connect with our natural history and ourwild neighbors. The tremendous growthin wilderness recreation speaks to thisneed. Yet my life as an environmentalistand the environmental movement ofwhich I have been a part, have in manyways contributed to that separation ofhumans and wilderness, which in turn hasled to the disrespect for and heedless deg-radation of the natural world decried byenvironmentalists. By setting aside wilder-ness areas, parks, and wildlife as “outthere,” places where one goes only onvacation or to get away from the real worldof cities, human technology, and institu-tions, we have tacitly condoned the trashingof our own backyards. Perhaps as part of

my penance, I have worked for some yearsin Africa, helping villagers reintegrate wild-life into their daily lives, economically andspiritually, through such programs asZimbabwe’s Communal Area ManagementProgram for Indigenous Resources. Herein Canada, I have learned much from FirstNations people about the sustainable andspiritual uses of wildlife and other re-sources as part of a vision of humans asan integral part of the natural world. Asenvironmentalists, I believe our great chal-lenge is reintegrating the natural world,wilderness, and wild creatures into ourdaily lives and consciousness, here in ourown backyards. This is part of the lessonthat raven taught me! IJW

LESLIE A. KING is chair of environmental studiesand professor of natural resources andenvironmental studies at the University ofNorthern British Columbia, 3333 UniversityWay, Prince George, British Columbia V2N4Z9, Canada. Telephone: (604) 960-5836.E-mail: [email protected].

Wilderness Information Network MakesWilderness Research Documents Available on the Web

The Wilderness Institute at the University of Montana has begun a project to make wilderness research docu-ments available for free downloading through their Wilderness Information Network website (http://www.wilderness.net). The first phase of this project will be to collect, scan, and convert the nearly 300publications of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. To date, this is the best collection of wilderness-related research publications available anywhere. Eventually the database of publications will be expanded.Document inclusion will be decided by committee.

Creation of this resource has been spurred by a shared notion among researchers, educators, and stu-dents that wilderness-related research can be very difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. Traditionally, in orderto locate wilderness research publications, students in a natural resource related field would need to searchthrough journals, library resources, and inevitably order publications through interlibrary loan. Due to thetechnology available today, and especially because of the proliferation of the World Wide Web, this nolonger has to be the case. Today, receiving documents can be as easy as clicking on an interesting title,downloading the document, and printing it! The document library is scheduled to be online in early 1998. Formore information contact Chuck Burgess at (406) 243-6933 or by e-mail at [email protected].


IS THE PLANET SHRINKING as a result of technologicaladvancement, or are we simply affirming how small it hasalways been? Is a society that is plugged in to computers

being rendered incapable of escape from day-to-day responsi-bility, or are we gaining a newfound freedom to reintegrate thevarious components of our lives? When considering thesequestions, the importance of wild places is heightened, but,equally, their roles may need to be reassessed in both socialand ecological terms. In the absence of this reassessment theremay be a potentially paralyzing confusion of how to manageand maintain wilderness in a rapidly changing and increas-ingly information-based society.

The purpose of this article is to begin to formally organizea set of discussions about the role of information and commu-nication technology within and about wilderness. We also hopeto offer a broad perspective and a series of questions throughwhich clarity may begin to emerge. Captured within this essayare comments and thoughts shared in numerous discussions,formal and informal, including sessions at this year’s GeorgeWright Society Meeting held in Albuquerque, New Mexico,and the first annual Wilderness Watch Conference held inMissoula, Montana, in July 1997. We thank all of those whohelped stimulate these thoughts.

The Continued Genesis of ProgressAs the United States approaches the turn of the century, theAmerican conservation movement is moving toward its 100thyear (Udall 1997). During this first 100 years the United Stateshas seen a laudable shift from the utilitarian-agrarian economyand industrial revolution, to an era in which environmental sym-pathy is often a political prerequisite, and environmental educa-tion is a cause championed by students and teachers alike. Thechallenge remains to continue to make relevant the protectiveand preservationist policies and interests of the past century.

Within a milieu of vastly changing economies and societalattitudes, the National Wilderness Preservation System emergedas a symbol of what has been lost to progress. The almost unani-mous passage of The Wilderness Act (TWA) in 1964 was atestament of rejection for the unbridled cost of progress. Per-haps most telling was the prohibition of the internal combus-tion engine, the mechanical device that perhaps mostsymbolized progress and technical advancement at the time.There is little doubt that the language of TWA reflects an inten-tion to construct a sanctuary from the products of the industrial

revolution: for the sake of the environment, and as a means ofescape from what society had become. The need for such es-cape and contrast to technological society can only be expectedto increase in the future. It is clear that wilderness, or somesimilar construct, will continue to be relevant to modern soci-ety.

The next 100 years of conservation will most certainly takeplace in a post-industrial and information-based economyWithin that context, advocates of wilderness are beginning torecognize the myriad challenges this social context poses forwilderness (e.g., the appropriateness of cell phones, Global Po-sitioning Systems, digital cameras, laptop computers, satellitelinks, seismic instruments, and large databases about wilder-ness available via the Internet). Since information and com-munication are foundational to the society we are nowconstructing, it can be assumed that there are effects of thatprogress that wilderness will most suitably balance. Unfortu-nately, there is a lack of clear direction about how to manageinformation and communication in or about wilderness. Thislack of direction is apparent in the confusion and occasionalblaming that the authors have observed in numerous profes-sional gatherings this year. However, we believe that the rolesof technology for wilderness will be among the most criticalissues of the next 10 years. At the base of the confusion is thefact that social change is happening so quickly that it is verydifficult to anticipate the next challenge to arise.

Can we be certain of the true intentions of the founders ofTWA, relative to the information-based society of today? Hadit been passed on the brink of the industrial revolution, wouldit have adequately protected us from the internal combustionengine? Would it be sufficient now to develop preservesexempt from two-way communication, places where there isno satellite-fed information, and places where we do not usesophisticated technology to study and further learn about ournatural environment? Even 30 years after TWAs passage, arethe regulations limiting technology to electric shavers, Geigercounters, and so on, relevant today?

How than can TWA and its provisions be expected to copewith the technological developments of the future? If we were topass a wilderness act today, would we be comfortable that wewere making informed decisions about the appropriateness ofToffler’s fourth wave artifacts (the combination of computing andgenetic technology)? While it may seem absurd to be ponderingwhether genetically cloned, impact-reduced llamas should be


WILDERNESS @ INTERNETWilderness in the 21st Century—

Are There Technical Solutions to Our Technical Problems?

BY WAYNE FREIMUND AND BILL BORRIE


permitted, or whether solar powered ge-netic monitoring systems should be al-lowed, these are only among theimaginable products that may be on anear horizon. Are we prepared to rule outthis type of wilderness use?

What Questions ShouldWe Be Asking AboutEmerging Technology?In essence, our crystal ball is becomingincreasingly cloudy. Therefore, howshould we assess the relative appropri-ateness of varied technologies in andabout wilderness? How can we determinewhat is good technology and what is bad

debate and opinion increasingly competi-tive. Marketing firms are already awareof the difficulty in reaching selected au-diences, when there are now scores of TVchannels instead of three; when theInternet can distribute information withfar less expense than the glossy magazinesor newspapers. We have gone from massbroadcasting, to market segmentation, toniche marketing, to the annoying phonecalls that are a function of personal mar-keting campaigns. A heightened aware-ness of wilderness values will have to becreated within this information overloadand communication framework. Thequestion remains as to who will own andprovide knowledge about wilderness.

about a wilderness area may increase useof selected places, but failure to provideinformation through dominant mediumsmay reduce critical awareness and con-stituency for the wilderness ideal.

An even more immediate but less-dis-cussed artifact of a plugged-in society liesin the increased freedom to work fromremote locations. As we increase our abil-ity to combine the components of work,family, and leisure, more people will moveto what are now relatively remote placesto be closer to the amenities of wildness.Many are now successfully doing this andincreasing their ability to experience wildplaces through long day trips and ex-tended weekends. This is often viewed asa negative change in the use of a wild place,especially if impacts associated with rec-reational use are evident. But perhaps thisphenomenon is indirectly facilitating re-assembled work, family, and spiritual re-alities. Is it possible that people arereintegrating their lives? Thus, increasedability to communicate and access to in-formation might determine future aware-ness of and demand for wilderness. Thequestions can then be raised of who thisconstituency for wilderness will be, andwhat expectations will they have? Whatwill be the impacts of these new demandsand expectations?

3.) How will the wilderness experiencechange as a result of increased technol-ogy? The most apparent challenge may bein securing opportunities to escape andexplore. Will there be a place in 20 years’time where one can completely escapefrom industrialized society? Will we beable to feel assured that the next personcoming down the trail won’t have a cellphone stashed away in their pack and beable to contact the outside world if anemergency arises? Will people still electnot to bring their cell phones along? Willsociety, through its normative pressures forresponsible behavior allow or condone thevery experiences that wilderness has theopportunity to provide? Will people beheld accountable for the absence of a cellphone if an emergency arises?

How will our need for nature-basedfrontier experiences evolve? Will we stillseek and need the illusion that we were thefirst person to cross a pass, see a particularfeature, or to chart a canyon 100 years from

Will the Imax theaters and virtual wilderness oftomorrow reduce our desire for self-sufficiency,or will we have targeted a new way to meetsuch a need?

for wilderness? Perhaps broader discus-sion of the following set of questions willprovide a partial basis for the clarityneeded for leadership to emerge.

1.) Are we at a crossroads? Yes. The per-vasive influence of information technol-ogy on the formative years of the nextgeneration cannot be underestimated. Asacademics, we can attest that competi-tive success in the academic environmentwill soon be as dependent on computingproficiency as on the use of books andnotepads. The current trend suggests thatcomputers will soon outweigh paper inthe archive and distribution of informa-tion. More information from myriadsources will be available to greater num-bers of people. The challenge will be tobecome adept at efficient and timely ac-cess to that information.

The amount of information becom-ing available to people is also increasingat an exponential rate. And as Baudrillardhas stated: “We are living in a society withmore and more information and less andless meaning.” Reaction to this phenom-ena will make access to a share of public

How will wilderness information com-pete in the glutted market of informationand make it through the necessary filterspeople will be forced to construct in asea of meaningless terabytes?

2.) Who is benefiting from new technol-ogy? There is a profound freedom asso-ciated with the ability to communicate.Although a society plugged in to com-puters may find it difficult to escape fromprofessional responsibilities to recreate(even in wilderness), there is also a senseof empowerment associated with inte-grating the compartmentalized aspects ofour current social structure. Taking a classfrom home may remove you from thecollege environment but unite you withyour family. Bringing a cell phone intothe wilderness may change the intensityof your experience but enable you to goon a trip that you otherwise wouldn’t beable to experience at all. Down-linkingfrom a wilderness area to a grade schoolclassroom may reduce your sense of es-cape but stimulate awareness and curi-osity about wilderness in the minds offuture advocates. Providing information


now? For the third generation of peoplewho have had access to interpersonal con-tact from any point on Earth and who havegrown up with the ability to monitor fromhome global respiration and photosynthe-sis rates in a real time, will there be enoughrelevance to our current frontier illusion tosustain it as a strong motivation for a wil-derness experience? Would it be a good orbad thing if it were? Would we want tomaintain a primitive vignette of the fron-tier that existed in the 19th-century Ameri-can West now? If not the nostalgia of thefrontier, then are the conditions of 1964any more attractive or relevant?

What will become of our publicopinion of what a wilderness experienceshould be? How will it be tamed as westrive to tame and civilize ourselves? Willthe Imax theaters and virtual wildernessof tomorrow reduce our desire for self-sufficiency, or will we have targeted a newway to meet such a need? Or, will ourincreased artificial awareness of the en-vironment focus even further the needfor real and unmediated experiences inwild areas. Will we even be able to dis-tinguish the real and unmediated fromthe produced and constructed? Or, willour expectations of what wildernessshould be become irreversibly modifiedby our mediated images of it? As Eric Katz(1992) suggests, technology has the po-tential to create an artifactual reality farremoved from the “wildness” of nature.

ConclusionIt is undeniable that the social context inwhich wilderness exists is on the brink ofepochal changes. Within this experience,it is necessary to develop a meaningful dia-logue of the role wilderness should have inthe upcoming era of technological advance-

ment and scientific management. In the ab-sence of thoughtful discussion, the fear ofchange will continue to confuse the issueinviting additional technological responsesto the situation. In fact, through the use ofsome technologies, many wild places areimpacted less by people now than they werein 1964. For example, it is no longer ac-ceptable to cut tent poles or build cookingfires in fragile areas. And much of the in-formation or communication technology oftoday could easily be refined to reduce so-cial impacts. Would cell phones be accept-able if they were no larger than aconventional hearing aid? Would motorizedcanoes be appropriate if they were totallysilent and nonpolluting? Would infiniteinformation about wilderness areas be ac-ceptable if it were only available to a cho-sen few, or if each individual could beassured it would be blacked out from theirmodem if they so chose?

It is the concept of wilderness that ismost vulnerable to the changes on the ho-rizon. It is our hope, therefore, that by be-ginning the discussion at a philosophicallevel, the tendency to secure further tech-nical resolutions may be minimized. Tech-nical solutions to technical problems oftensidetrack the underlying philosophical orpolitical questions. For every technical so-lution there will inevitably be a new tech-nological problem. They are insteadsymptoms of our underlying unwillingnessto question the soundness of the provisionsof TWA. Without a discussion of what wil-derness is most fundamentally, and henceshould undeniably be protected, the con-cept will slowly wither under the assault ofmore and more technological challenges.At the heart of the discussion should bethe notions of freedom, of what is accept-able, and of what is natural.

We are currently limited in our guid-ance of how to decide what is good andbad technology for wilderness. There islittle in the way of an information policyor specific guidelines on how to constrainthe airwaves of wilderness. It seems thatdrawing lines of appropriateness will beimpractical in the absence of this guid-ance. Why is the discussion postponedeven as we face accelerated technologi-cal developments?

Recognizing that we are constrainedby our contemporary assumptions of howthe world should or could change, wemust accept that the discussion abouttechnology is more one of values than oftechnical devices. In essence, there areno technical solutions to our current di-lemma. We have little choice but to con-front the role of technology from ethicaland policy perspectives argued frommultiple perspectives. As Rothenburgsuggests, “Technology never simply doeswhat we tell it to, but modifies our no-tions of what is possible and desirable.”Technology can help the human condi-tion, but is limited in its ability to pro-vide or reconstruct the “wild.” We face achallenge of not turning the wild natureof wilderness into yet another artifact ofthe human world. IJW

WAYNE FREIMUND is assistant professor anddirector of the University of Montana WildernessInstitute and can be reached at (406) 243-5184, or by e-mail [email protected].

BILL BORRIE is assistant professor of recreationmanagement at the University of Montana Schoolof Forestry and can be reached at (406) 243-4286, or by e-mail at [email protected] authors contributed equally to this article.

REFERENCESBaudrillard, J. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation,

trans, by S. F. Glover. Ann Arbor: TheUniversity of Michigan Press. Originalwork published in 1981.

Katz, E. 1992. The call of the wild: the struggleagainst domination and the technological fixof nature. Environmental Ethics, 14: 265–273.

Rothenberg, D. 1993. Hand’s End: Technologyand the Limits of Nature. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Toffler, A. 1990. Powershift: Knowledge,Wealth, and Violence at the Edge ofthe 21st Century. New York: BantamBooks.

Udall, S. 1997. Protecting what we spent morethan three decades creating. Keynoteaddress at The Wilderness Conference:Protecting What We Have. The FirstAnnual Wilderness Watch Conference.Missoula, Montana. July 18–20.


GRAZING OF CATTLE AND SHEEP is a legal activityin wilderness administered by the USFS and BLM andoccurs in about one-third of the USWS (Reed, et al.

1989). But, while grazing is a legal and important use in thewilderness system, impacts and management schemes tocontrol livestock are not well understood by many wildernessinterests. High elevation meadow vegetation where grazingoften occurs in wilderness is subject to extremes in tempera-ture, wind, moisture, and sunlight. These influences can varygreatly across time and space, creating a very rich and diverseassemblage of plant communities. High elevation meadowsinclude extensive grass, sedge, and herbaceous plant commu-nity types. This article summarizes general effects of grazingon species composition and soil properties of these meadows,and some management approaches that would help minimizenegative impacts of grazing on them.

High Elevation Grass MeadowsUpper timberline plant communities in the Rocky Mountainsand the Inland Northwest are extensively dominated by grass-lands. These meadows occur on ridgetops and south-facingslopes, which are relatively dry and free of snow early in summer.There, abundant grasses, such as fescue (Festucaspp.), blue-grass(Poa spp.), timothy (Phleum spp.), and alpine hairgrass(Deschampsia caespitosa), are important forage plants for live-stock. Heavy grazing is believed responsible for replacinghistorically natural fescue-dominated meadows with communitiescharacterized by Columbia stipa (Stipa columbiana), Californiabrome (Bromus carinatus), and black heads (Rudbeckiaoccidentalis), or other forbs (Franklin and Dyrness 1977; Hickman

1976; Johnson 1991; Pickford and Reid 1938, 1942). Grazingmay redistribute native species as well such as alpine timothy (Palpinum) and alpine bluegrass (P. alpina) (Bonham 1972).

In general, drier meadows supporting good cover of grassesor sedges exhibit greater resistance (ability to withstand graz-ing-induced change) but lower resilience (speed of recovery topregrazing conditions) than wetter meadows. Greater resistancecan be attributed to the extensive tightly interwoven mat ofroots that resists penetration. However, when intensive graz-ing causes damage, drier conditions hamper productivity, whichcan cause the rate of recovery to be extremely slow. Rundeland others (1990) noted apparent impacts 50 years after re-moval of sheep from a dry shorthair sedge (Calamagrostisbreweri) meadow in the Sierra Nevada where Crane (1950) hadearlier observed pedastelled bunchgrasses, indicating rill andgully erosion in the Sierras.

High Elevation Herbaceous MeadowsHerbaceous meadows are sometimes pure assemblages ofnongrasses (forbs) but are most often associated with at leastsome grass and/or sedge cover. Distribution of herbaceous com-munities does not conform as strictly to the soil moisture ex-tremes as other meadow types. They are usually found on sitesof intermediate moisture but sometimes occur on dry and wetsoils. Important high elevation forbs include lupine (Lupinusspp.), valerian (Valeriana spp.), corn-lily (Veratrum spp.), andknotweed (Polygonum spp.).

Grazing can decrease fescue and mountain bromegrass(Bromus marginatus) and common forbs such as groundsel (Sene-cio spp.) and loveroot (Ligusticum spp.) (Branson and Payne 1958;


HIGH ELEVATION MEADOWSAND GRAZING

Common Past Effects and Future Improvements

BY MICHAEL P. MURRAY

(Peer Reviewed)

Abstract: High elevation grazing of cattle and sheep is a legal activity in wilderness areas administered by the U.S.Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and occurs in about one-third of the U.S. WildernessSystem (USWS). General effects of grazing on species composition and soil properties are described based onreported findings for three extensive types of high elevation meadows—grass, herbaceous, and moist sedge. Thechallenge for wilderness managers is to keep grazing within limits that protect the naturalness of meadow ecosystems.In general, where excessive grazing occurs, shifts in species composition from preferred livestock forage to lessdesirable, nonpalatable, and exotic species is observed. Soils of each meadow type respond differently to grazingpressure, and careful management should reflect these differences. Suggestions are offered for careful control oflivestock distribution, timing, and stock numbers in order to protect naturalness of high elevation wilderness meadows.


Willard 1991). In turn, plants which in-crease in abundance include sage (Arte-misia spp.), rubber rabbitbrush(Chrysothamnus nauseosus), and exoticssuch as timothy (Phleum pratense) andKentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis)(Bennett 1965; Branson and Payne 1958;Ellison 1954; Vogl and Miller 1968).Grazing can lead to tree invasion. Thepotential proliferation of trees in herba-ceous meadows may be greater than othermeadow types due to intermediate soilmoisture availability. With intensive in-vasion, associated meadow forbs, grasses,sedges, and other plant life forms wouldbe replaced by forest understory plant as-sociations, which could threaten the fu-ture existence of individual meadows(Franklin 1966) and have important im-plications for overall biodiversity in sub-alpine regions. Such transformations havebeen linked to climate change (Brink1959; Franklin 1966; Franklin, et al.1971; Jacobs and Romme 1993; Taylor1995; Woodward, et al. 1995); however,improper grazing by livestock are prob-ably an important contributing factor.

For example, livestock disturb plantcover, often cutting through the roots andexposing bare mineral soil, which is con-ducive for the establishment of tree seed-lings. Franklin and others (1971)suggested a three-year period of cattlepresence initiated invasion of a bunch-grass/lupine (Festuca viridula/Lupinuslatijolius) meadow in the Goat Rocks Wil-derness USA. Livestock were thought byEllison (1954) to cause invasion of rub-ber rabbitbrush/stipa meadow communi-ties in the Wasatch Range USA. Vale (1981)surmised that fire suppression and climatechange were not as important as the pres-ence of sheep in causing invasion of Cas-cade Meadows. Interestingly, tree invasionscan be most pronounced under low tomoderate levels of livestock use or soonafter livestock are removed (Dunwiddie1977; Taylor 1990; Vale 1981), possiblybecause under heavy use, livestock tendto trample or eat invading tree seedlings.

High ElevationMoist Sedge MeadowsSedge meadows are typically dominated bygrasslike plants, such as rushes (Juncus spp.)and sedges (Carex spp.), which commonly

A grass meadow that receives verylittle grazing pressure. Proposed WestBig Hole Wilderness, Montana. Photoby Michael P. Murray, (left)

Heavily grazed meadow with loss ofvegetation and erosion. Exposure ofsoil is conducive to establishment ofyoung invading trees. This meadowwas probably once dominated byIdaho fescue but is now dominatedby buckwheat, with invading Shastared fir. Russian Peaks Wilderness,California. Photo by Michael P.Murray, (below)

Herbaceous meadows can betterwithstand grazing pressure than othertypes due to their naturally abundantplant cover and intermediate soilmoisture. Marble Mountain Wilderness,California. Photo by Michael P. Murray,(left)

Even herbaceous meadows can beimpacted when heavy grazing removesplant cover. Because high elevationmeadows are subject to extremes intemperature, wind, moisture, andsunlight, thresholds of acute livestock-induced change, may occur more quicklythan at lower elevations. Near McCall,Idaho. Photo by Department of RangeResources, University of Idaho, (below)

form a dense cover resembling ashort green leafy mat at moistsites such as small basins andlake margins. Associated soils areacidic, oxygen-poor, and highlyorganic. These soft mucky sitesoffer little physical resistance tohooves and can be easily dis-turbed if not for the mantle ofplant material that providessome protection.

Initially, grazing can causechanges in species abundance.

Experiments conducted byPond (1961) indicated thatmoderate season-long grazingcan severely reduce or elimi-nate sedges (Carex festivella andC. rostrata). Less desirable orunpalatable plants can replacesedges. For example, lupine(Lupinus spp.), penstemon(Penstemon spp.), and buttercup(Ranunculus spp.) were foundto be abundant in heavilygrazed sedge meadows of theSierras (Crane 1950).


When grazing removes or tramplessignificant plant cover, negative impactscan become more apparent. Trampledand denuded trails, for example, can per-sist for at least two years after removal ofstock in these meadows (Ratliff 1985).Where grazing pressure is heavy enough,dramatic far-reaching impacts may occur.Bennett (1965) describes such an in-stance in Sequoia-Kings Canyon NationalPark: “Lacking the ability to form a toughsod, sphagnum areas are severely cut upby hoofed [domestic] animals, exposingthe soft muck soil beneath to erosionduring the spring snow melt or by sum-mer showers. This muck erodes very rap-idly and the deep channels cause thewater table to lower and drain themeadow. As water drains out of the soilthe air, which is admitted quickly, oxi-dizes and thereby destroys the finely or-ganic soils.”

Consequently, lodgepole pine (Pinuscontorta) seedlings were invading this for-merly wet meadow (Bennett 1965), prob-ably due to the lowered water table. Theprogression from extensive sedge andmoss-covered wet meadow to a dry, al-most barren site with tree encroachment,emphasizes the potential far-reaching ef-fects of inappropriate livestock grazing.

Range ManagementPrinciples for High ElevationWilderness MeadowsGrazing of high elevation wildernessmeadows need not be accompanied bydramatic damage to resources, and shouldnot because The Wilderness Act of 1964mandates that naturalness be maintained.Fortunately, today most livestock produc-ers are aware that such damage reducesforage sustainability and reflects badly onthem, threatening long-term continuationof wilderness grazing. From past mistakes,combined with our developing knowledgeof the ecological dynamics of meadows,we can better manage livestock to ensurethat the goals of wilderness naturalness aremore closely realized. These include thefollowing items.

1.) Tailor Use by Meadow Type: In general,meadows that are least likely to be dam-aged by livestock have moderate to highplant cover, soils of intermediate moisture,

and gentle slopes less than 40%. Herba-ceous meadows often exhibit these char-acteristics in addition to supporting ahigh variety of preferred forage species.Livestock grazing in wet meadows re-quires close monitoring because of thehigh susceptibility of succulent plants totrampling and soil compaction. Ex-tremely dry meadows usually supportlow plant cover and shallow soils, whichsubject them to erosion.

Certain sites within herbaceousmeadows should not be grazed. Theseinclude locations of high gopher use, asevidenced by many tailings mounds fromtunnels. These areas are highly suscep-tible to erosion when sheltering plants areremoved. Sites in the vicinity of snow-banks should be avoided due to wet con-ditions and newly emerging plant, whichmay not recover from excessive earlygrazing. The banks of alpine watercoursescan be easily damaged by trampling. Ex-posed ridges with high potential for ero-sion should also be avoided.

2.) Time Use to Avoid Wet Conditions: Allmeadow types exhibit very moist soils inlate spring and early summer. Entranceof livestock before a majority of the snowmelts causes risk of damage to soils. Con-versely, late-season grazing causes risk ofautumn snowfall and heavy utilization ofshrubs. A commonly used time-windowin the western United States occurs be-tween July 1 and October 15, but thegrazing period should be tailored accord-ing to the site and regional weather forthe year (Allen and Clayton 1994).

3.) Stagger Use to Reduce Impacts and Al-low Recovery: The same meadow shouldbe grazed at different times every year andallowed to be livestock-free at differenttimes annually. The goal is to avoid graz-ing plants at the same stage of develop-ment (e.g., seeding) every year, thuslimiting consistent interference in impor-tant plant processes that are responsiblefor survival (carbohydrate reserves) andreproduction (flowering, seeding). The“rest-rotation” system is one method in-corporating this concern and is particu-larly well-suited to high elevationwilderness where fencing is discouragedand terrain is mountainous (Holecheck,et al. 1995). Continuous season-long

A moist sedge meadow. Very light grazing can causechanges in the relative abundance of different specieswithout erosion. These subtle changes can go unnoticedby the untrained eye. Russian Peaks Wilderness. Photoby Michael P. Murray, (above)

Extremely moist soils offer little physical resistance to hoovesand can be easily disturbed. Erosion can be evident bypedasteiled sedge plants. Central Idaho. Photo by Departmentof Range Resources, University of Idaho, (below)


grazing at even moderate stocking ratescan lead to severe damage, especially withcattle. Livestock tend to congregate neartheir preferred sites for long periods oftime. These sites are usually where wa-ter, shade, and forage are near each othersuch as in wet fragile meadows.

4.) Avoid Overstocking: Low forage pro-ductivity, naturally unstable soils, andlong recovery periods justify conserva-tive stocking rates at high elevations.Naturally occurring wildlife, such as big-horn sheep and mountain goats, tend tooccur in low population densities limitedby snow-free winter forage (Noss andCooperrider 1994), unlike high numbersof feed-supplemented cattle and sheep.

5.) Monitor and Set Aside Some Meadows asBenchmarks of Naturalness: Selectedmeadow sites should remain off-limits todomestic grazing as a comparison of rela-tive naturalness. The tradition of settingup exclosures of several square meters insize for each meadow can be useful tomonitor the amount of forage consumed;however, these small exclosures may notadequately buffer against livestock effectson hydrology, seed availability, pollinators,soil organisms, and other ecosystem com-ponents. Using plant communities in theirspatial entirety can better ensure a baselineof naturalness. Matches for comparisonneed to be made carefully because site fac-tors and species composition can be highlyvariable. An additional challenge in find-ing sites is that few meadows were nevergrazed by domestic stock whose impactscan last decades. New introductions oflivestock to ungrazed meadows should bediscouraged due to their value as baselinesof naturalness.

6.) Rehabilitate Impacted Sites: Exoticplants and invading trees should be con-trolled or removed using methods con-sistent with wilderness such as prescribedburning and hand-removal. Efforts tohamper erosion include placing smallcheck-dams and dissipaters of, preferably,natural materials (stones, tree trunks,

posts) into gullies. Seeds of native spe-cies collected as close as possible to thesite should be carefully applied.

7.) Monitor and Manage Tree Invasion andOther Species: It can be difficult to deter-mine whether tree invasion is caused bylivestock, climate, or fire suppression.Good records of livestock use, fire his-tory, and climatic trends can be helpful.Tree rings of invaders should be exam-ined for chronological patterns of trendsthat may help determine possible causes(e.g., climate change, fire, or overgraz-ing). If livestock and/or fire suppressionare causes, managing for naturalnesswould support tree removal in order tomaintain meadow’communities and/orallow their recovery. Removing trees ismuch easier than identifying why theyhave invaded.

8.) Support Research: We are just begin-ning to understand the effects of grazingon individual plants in high elevationmeadows. We also know very little aboutgrazing inter-relationships with otherhigh elevation ecosystem componentssuch as pollinators, soil fauna and flora,and plant populations and ecosystems ata landscape level. Additional research isneeded on both rehabilitation techniquesand the ecology of ungrazed meadows,both of which are essential in maintain-ing or measuring progress toward goalsof wilderness naturalness.

ConclusionExcessive grazing generally causes a shiftin species composition from preferredforage to less desirable, nonpalatable, orexotic species. Tree invasion may accom-pany grazing, especially in herbaceousmeadows. Drier meadows seem to be oflow resilience to heavy grazing. Moistermeadows generally exhibit low resistancedue to high susceptibility of soil to ero-sion and compaction. When vegetationand soil disturbance is significant, theability of a site to retain water is compro-mised, and a subsequent shift to dryland-associated plant species may be expected.

High elevation meadows present man-agers with unique challenges in protectingwilderness naturalness. The short growingseason, cold temperatures, and shallow soilslimit the productivity and recovery of veg-etation. Thresholds of acute livestock-in-duced change, such as shifts to drierconditions, may occur more quickly thanin similar meadow types at low elevations.Furthermore, inherent differences amongdiverse meadow types, often occurringwithin a single grazing allotment, requirecarefully managed livestock. Range man-agement in wilderness to maintain a sem-blance of naturalness of high elevationmeadows is possible and is mandated byThe Wilderness Act. The foregoing has de-scribed ecological changes that can occurfrom improper grazing of three types of highelevation meadows and the managementprinciples to help avoid them. IJW

MICHAEL P. MURRAY studied meadows in theMarble Mountain Wilderness, California, forhis M.S. He recently earned his Ph.D. in fireecology of high elevation forests. Currently, heis a landscape ecologist (GIS) at Wrangell-St.Elias National Park, P.O. Box 439, CopperCenter, Alaska, USA. Telephone: (907) 822-7253. E-mail: [email protected].

Article author Michael P. Murray.


Allen, D. R., and B. M. Clayton. 1994. Shootpopulation dynamics of beaked sedgefollowing cattle grazing. Journal of RangeManagement, 47: 64–69.

Benett, P. S. 1965. An investigation of impactof grazing on ten meadows in the Sequoiaand Kings Canyon National Parks.Dissertation. San Jose, Calif.: San JoseState College.

Bonham, C. D. 1972. Vegetation analysis ofgrazed and ungrazed alpine hairgrassmeadows. Journal of Range Management,25: 276–279.

Branson, F. A., and G. F. Payne. 1958. Effectsof sheep and gophers on meadows of theBridger Mountains of Montana. Journal ofRange Management, 11: 165–169.

Brink, V. C. 1959. A directional change in thesubalpine forest-heath ecotone inGaribaldi Park, British Columbia. Ecology,40: 10–16.

Crane, B. K. 1950. Condition and grazingcapacity of wet meadows on the east slopeof the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Journalof Range Management, 3: 303–307.

Dunwiddie, P. W. 1977. Recent tree invasionof subalpine meadows in the Wind RiverMountains, Wyoming. Arctic and AlpineResearch, 9: 393–399.

Ellison, L. 1954. Subalpine vegetation of theWasatch Plateau, Utah. EcologicalMonographs, 24: 89–184.

Franklin, J. F. 1966. Invasion of subalpinemeadows by Abies lasiocarpa in theMount Rainier area. Northwest Science,40: 38.

Franklin, J. F, W. H. Moir, G. W. Douglas, andC. Wiberg. 1971. Invasion of subalpinemeadows by trees in the Cascade Range,Washington and Oregon. Arctic andAlpine Research, 3: 215–224.

Franklin, J. F., and C. Dyrness. 1977. NaturalVegetation of Oregon and Washington.Corvallis, Oreg.: Oregon State UniversityPress.

Hickman, J. C. 1976. Nonforest vegetation ofthe central western Cascade Mountains of

Oregon. Northwest Science, 50: 145–155.

Holecheck, J. L, R. D. Pieper, and C. H. Herbel.1995. Range Management: Principles andPractices. Upper Saddle River, N. J.:Prentice-Hall.

Jakubus, B., and W. H. Romme. 1993. Invasionof subalpine meadows by lodge-pole pinein Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.Arctic and Alpine Research, 25: 382–390.

Johnson, C. G., Jr. 1991. Response ofvegetation to livestock impacts on greenfescue sites in the whitebark pineecosystem. In Proc. of the symposium onwhitebark pine ecosystems: ecology andmanagement of a high-mountain resource,W. C. Schmidt, and K. J. McDonald,comp., March 29-31, 1989, Bozeman,Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270.Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, IntermountainResearch Station.

Noss, R. F., and A. Y. Cooperrider. 1994.Managing rangelands. In Saving Nature’sLegacy: Protecting and RestoringBiodiversity. Covelo, Calif.: Island Press.

Pickford, G. D., and E. H. Reid. 1942. Basisfor judging subalpine grassland ranges ofOregon and Washington. Circulation655. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture.

Pickford, G. D., and E. H. Reid. 1938. Rangeresearch progress report (1937–1938).Portland, Oreg.: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Forest and Range ExperimentStation.

Pond, F. W. 1961. Effect of three intensities ofclipping on the density and production ofmeadow vegetation. Journal of RangeManagement, 14: 34–38.

Ratliff, R. D. 1985. Meadows in the SierraNevada of California: state of knowledge.Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-84. Berkeley, Calif.:U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Forest andRange Experiment Station.

Reed, P., G. Haas, F. Beum, and L. Sherrick.1989. Nonrecreational uses of theNational Wilderness Preservation System:a 1988 telephone survey. In Proc. of thenational wilderness colloquium, H. Freilich,comp., wilderness benchmark 1988: Gen.Tech. Rep. SE-51. Asheville, N.C.: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Rundel, P. W., D. T, Gordon, and D. J. Parsons.1990. Montane and subalpine vegetationof the Sierra Nevada and CascadeRanges. In Terrestrial Vegetation ofCalifornia, M. G. Barbour, and J. Major,eds. New York: Wiley.

Tayor, A. H. 1990. Tree invasion in meadowsof Lassen Volcanic National Park,California. Professional Geographer, 42:457–470.

————-. 1995. Forest expansion and climatechange in the mountain hemlock (Tsugamertensiana) zone, Lassen VolcanicNational Park, California. Arctic andAlpine Research, 27: 207–216.

Vale, T. R. 1981. Tree invasion of montanemeadows in Oregon. American MidlandNaturalist, 105: 61–69.

Vogl, R. J., and B. C. Miller. 1968. Thevegetational composition of the south slopeof Mt. Pinos, California. Madrono, 19:225–288.

Willard, E. E. 1991. Use and impact of domesticlivestock in whitebark pine forests. In Proc.of the symposium on whitebark pineecosystems: ecology and management ofa high-mountain resource, W. C. Schmidt,and K. J. McDonald, comp., March 29–31,1989, Bozeman, Montana. Gen. Tech.Rep. INT-270. Ogden, Utah: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station.

Woodward, A., E. G. Schreiner, and D. G.Silsbee. 1995. Climate, geography, andtree establishment in subalpine meadowsof the Olympic Mountains, Washington.Arctic and Alpine Research, 27: 217–225.

REFERENCES


WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT TOOLS, such as theLimits of Acceptable Change (LAC) (Stankey, Cole,Lucas, Petersen, and Frissell 1985) and the Visitor

Impact Management (VIM) (Graefe, Kuss, and Vaske 1990)frameworks, rely on measurable indicators and objective stan-dards to assess the magnitude and acceptability of impacts towilderness areas. Recently, researchers and managers have ques-tioned whether uniformity among indicators and/or standardsshould be developed. The argument for uniformity recognizesthat all wilderness areas form part of a system (the NWPS)and, therefore, should be maintained to a minimum standardof social, physical, and managerial conditions in order to pro-vide a similar quality of wilderness recreation experience(Higgins 1990). The argument against uniformity is that con-ditions (perceived, actual, and/or preferred) within the NWPSare so diverse that standards would not be comparable acrosswilderness areas (Mitchell 1990). To address the issue of uni-formity, a first critical step is to identify if key indicators ofphysical, social, and managerial conditions exist across wilder-ness areas in the NWPS and to determine if these conditionsappear to exist in a similar state of existence.

From its origins in 1964, the NWPS has become increasinglydiverse (Cole 1990). This diversity is apparent in the geographicaldistribution of wilderness areas and may be largely attributed totwo acts of Congress. The original Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL.88-577) and the so-called Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975 (PL.93-205) used somewhat different criteria to guide the designationof areas into the NWPS. Research, however, suggests that onlyminor differences in user experience and setting preferences across

geographically distinct wilderness areas in the NWPS exist.Roggenbuck (1980), for example, reported that visitors to seven(three western and four eastern) wilderness areas ranked manyexperience items (including scenery, escape, and nature), physicalconditions (wildlife, water, and scenic views), and preferences formanagement actions in the same order of importance to their wil-derness recreation trip. More recently, Roggenbuck and others(1993) found that eastern and western wilderness visitors placedsimilar levels of importance on the effect of site indicators on thewilderness recreation experience, concluding that any differencesbetween individual wilderness areas may be more attributable tothe type and level of use an area receives than of regional location(e.g., East versus West).

We extend the work of Roggenbuck and others by explor-ing the extent to which visitor concern for, and perceptions of,social, physical, and managerial conditions are similar across threedistinct wilderness areas (a relatively high-use mountainous areain the East, a moderate-use mountainous area in the West, and alow-use swamp area in the East). Key indicators were identifiedby measuring visitor concern and perceptions of wilderness con-ditions. To examine the potential for uniformity, the discrepancybetween the two measures was calculated.

Study AreasThree wilderness areas were selected: the Cohutta in southernTennessee and northern Georgia, the Comanche Peak in north-ern Colorado, and the Okeefenokee in southern Georgia. TheCohutta, an area of 37,043 acres, ranges in elevation from 950feet to 4,200 feet above sea level and consists of densely mixed


CONDITION INDICATORS FORDISTINCT WILDERNESS

Is There Uniformity?

BY MICHAEL A. TARRANT AND C. SCOTT SHAFER

Abstract: By measuring the discrepancy between visitor concern and perceptions of social, managerial, and physicalconditions across three distinct wilderness areas, we explore the potential for uniformity of indicators in the NationalWilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Although overnight campers to the Cohutta (Georgia and Tennessee),Comanche Peak (Colorado), and Okeefenokee (Georgia) wilderness areas ranked conditions in a similar order ofconcern, there were considerable differences in (1) the level of concern for the conditions and (2) how they perceivedconditions to exist. In contrast to previous studies, concern for wilderness conditions appeared dependent upon regional(i.e., East versus West) location. The question of uniformity versus variety in selecting condition indicators for the NWPSmay be dependent upon the type of condition. For example, indicators of physical conditions (especially litter, resourcedamage, wildlife viewing opportunities) may be suitable for diverse wilderness areas. In contrast, indicators representingsocial and managerial conditions may be more unique to specific areas, or types of areas, in the NWPS.

(Peer Reviewed)


hardwoods and conifers that are typicalof the Appalachian mountains. It is ad-ministered by the USDA Forest Service(USFS) and is within a two-hour drive ofthree major metropolitan cities: Atlanta,Georgia; Chattanooga, Tennessee; andKnoxville, Tennessee. In 1986 visitor-daysin the Cohutta were 77,300, which aver-ages at 2.09 visitor-days per acre (Hendee,Stankey and Lucas 1990). Elevations inthe Comanche Peak, an area of 66,901acres in the Rocky Mountain range, arefrom 7,800 feet to 12,700 feet with eco-logical community types ranging fromponderosa pine to alpine tundra. The wil-derness is also administered by the USFSand is within a two-hour drive of Denver,Colorado, and a one-hour drive of FortCollins, Colorado. Total visitor-days in1986 for Comanche Peak were 20,100,an average of .30 visitor-days per acre. TheOkeefenokee, administered by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, is 353,981 acresand part of the larger Okeefenokee swampsystem, which is characterized by flat wetterrain supporting cypress forests and largeopen prairies of grass and peat. Annualovernight visitation is approximately4,000 users (visitor-days are not recordedat the Okeefenokee) and is composed ofonly nonmotorized canoers. Unlike in theCohutta and Comanche Peak, permits arerequired for overnight travel in theOkeefenokee.

SamplingVisitors to the Cohutta and ComanchePeak areas were contacted at the trailheadand asked to complete an off-site, post-age-paid, mail-back survey A stratifiedrandom procedure was used to selectdays and times for contacting visitors. Allvisitors exiting or entering the wildernessduring the selected time period wereasked to participate in the study. Subjectswere asked to complete the survey at theconclusion of their trip and mail it backby a requested date. Okeefenokee userswere randomly selected from a list of thenames and addresses of permitees. Forall three user-groups, a modified Dillmanprocedure (1978) was used: after the ini-tial on-site contact (for Cohutta andComanche Peak) or mailing (forOkeefenokee), one reminder postcardand one follow-up survey were mailed at10- to 14-day intervals, respectively.


The following response rates wereobtained: 66% (n = 361) for the Cohutta,68% (n = 343) for the Comanche Peak,and 68% (n = 232) for the Okeefenokee.However, since the Okeefenokee samplewas composed entirely of overnight us-ers, and in order to reduce variationacross users of the different areas, day-hikers were excluded from the analysis.This resulted in the following samplesizes: Cohutta (n = 192), Comanche Peak(n = 91), and Okeefenokee (n = 232).

Measurement of VariablesVisitor concern for conditions was mea-sured by asking respondents to rate howconcerned they were generally withphysical setting conditions in wildernesson a six-point polar scale from “uncon-cerned” to “extremely concerned.” A to-tal of 33 condition items representingsocial (8 items), physical (14 items), andmanagerial (11 items) domains were used(see Table 1). Perceptions of setting con-ditions were assessed by asking visitorsto indicate how they found the same 33conditions to exist at the particular wil-derness area they visited (see Table 2).Items were rated on a 6-point polar scalefrom “very poor” to “excellent.” Differ-ences among the three wilderness areaswere made using the AN OVA procedurein SPSS/PC+Version 2.1 (Norusis 1991).

Concern forWilderness ConditionsThe results will be presented and dis-cussed in terms of rankings of items andmean values of items. Rankings representrelative values while means indicate ab-solute levels of concern and perceptions.Table 1 shows that rankings of concernfor wilderness conditions were generallysimilar across the three areas. Consistentwith findings of Roggenbuck and others(1993), litter (along the trail and in camp-sites), vegetation/tree damage, and noisewere among the top five concerns of allthree user groups. Management activities(amount of ranger contact, number ofrangers seen, number of signs and trailmarkers) were among the conditions ofleast concern for users of all three areas.There were, however, some exceptions tothe similarity in rankings: two social is-sues (“amount of noise heard from out-

side the wilderness” and “number ofgroups that pass within sight of thecamp”) ranked a much lower level of con-cern with eastern visitors who, on theother hand, ranked “the amount of ma-ture forest” a much higher level of con-cern than did visitors to Comanche Peak.

Looking at absolute rather than rela-tive differences among concern levels,significant differences in mean concernscores occurred for 23 of the 33 items.This suggests that visitors to the three

areas differed in the amount of concernthey held for conditions in wildernessgenerally Overall, Okeefenokee visitorsindicated the highest concern whileComanche users expressed the lowestconcern. For example, Comanche Peakvisitors were significantly less concernedthan Okeefenokee visitors on 78% (18)of the significant difference items and lessconcerned than Cohutta visitors on 48%(11) of these items. Cohutta visitors fellin the middle, being less concerned with


39% (9) of the significant difference itemsthan Okeefenokee users.

The same pattern of concern, basedon rankings, was evident when items werereduced into wilderness condition domainsof a social, physical, and managerial nature.Table 3 indicates that visitors to each of thethree wildernesses ranked physical condi-tions of highest concern followed by socialand then managerial conditions. Meanscores show that Okeefenokee (and to someextent Cohutta) visitors expressed signifi-cantly greater concern about these condi-tion domains in wilderness than ComanchePeak users.

Perceptions ofWilderness ConditionsConsiderable differences in user percep-tions of the way in which conditions ex-isted across the three wilderness areas wereevident (see Table 2). Cohutta visitorsranked several social and physical condi-tions much lower than Okeefenokee orComanche Peak visitors, including solitude,litter (trail and campsites), visitor noise,number of groups that passed the camp-site, and amount of trees and vegetationdamaged. There were also large differencesin the mean level of perceived conditionsacross the three wilderness areas for all 33items. Overall, the Okeefenokee was ratedin significantly better condition than theComanche Peak on 94% (31) of the 33conditions and the Cohutta 64% (21) ofthe 33 conditions. The Comanche Peak wasperceived to be in better condition than theCohutta on 36% of the conditions and simi-lar on 51% of them.

Rankings of the condition domains(see Table 3) were different for theCohutta than the remaining areas. Inter-estingly, managerial conditions wereranked highest in the Cohutta and low-est in the Okeefenokee and/or ComanchePeak while physical conditions wereranked lowest in the Cohutta; socialconditions were ranked highest in theComanche Peak and Okeefenokee. Dif-ferences in mean scores for the domainswere also found. Notably, the Cohuttawas perceived in significantly lower so-cial and physical condition than theComanche Peak, and lower social, physi-cal, and managerial condition than theOkeefenokee.

The Discrepancy BetweenConcern and PerceptionDiscrepancies between visitor concernand perceptions of wilderness conditionswere used to determine if there were somekey indicator conditions (see Table 4).Conditions for which the discrepancybetween concern and perception is nega-tive may be considered as especially goodindicators of visitors’ experiences in aspecific wilderness. These conditionsshould be those considered most closelyby management for immediate attention.The extent to which these concern-per-ception discrepancies are similar acrossdiverse wilderness areas suggests the po-tential for uniformity among indicators.

The first trend that is apparent is thatvisitors to each of the wilderness areasseem to differ in the way they felt aboutconditions there. Okeefenokee visitorsappear to have felt best about the condi-tions they encountered, scoring 85% ofthe condition items as existing at a higherlevel (positive) than their level of generalconcern for those conditions. ComanchePeak visitors scored 75% of conditionsin a positive way while the scores ofCohutta visitors indicated a 50% posi-tive orientation. Second, looking acrossareas, litter and damaged vegetation wereconsistently perceived to exist in a statethat was lower than visitor concern forthose conditions. The largest discrepancyappeared in the Cohutta where visitorswere “very” to “extremely concerned”with these two conditions and perceivedthem to exist in a “poor” to “fair” wayThe overall trend suggests that in eachof these three wilderness areas improve-ments in the condition of litter and dam-age to vegetation are needed. Wildlifeconditions in the Comanche andCohutta rated less than visitors’ concern,whereas the Okeefenokee visitors wouldappear to rate the conditions more inline with their level of concern. Finally,there appeared to be several conditionsthat were perceived by visitors in eacharea as existing in a positive way rela-tive to concern. These included: lightseen coming from outside the wilder-ness; distances of campsites fromtrailheads and trailheads from busyroads; signs in the wilderness; and rang-ers in the wilderness.

Conclusions and DiscussionAlthough visitors to all three areasranked conditions in the same order ofconcern, there were considerable differ-ences in (1) the level of concern for theconditions and (2) how they perceivedconditions to exist in the respective wil-derness areas. In contrast to findings byRoggenbuck and others (Roggenbuck1980; Roggenbuck, and others. 1993),concern for wilderness conditions werefound to be somewhat dependent uponregional location (i.e., visitors to the twoeastern wilderness areas typically ex-pressed more concern about wildernessconditions than their western counter-parts).

Clearly, visitors to the three wilder-ness areas perceived conditions to be dra-matically different. Social, physical, andmanagerial conditions were generallyhighest in the wilderness with the great-est restrictions on use level (i.e.,Okeefenokee). The Cohutta, an area withrelatively high use, was perceived to bein the poorest condition of the three wil-derness areas studied.

To identify potential key indicatorswe examined the differences betweenvisitor concern for, and perceptions of,wilderness setting conditions. Findingssuggest there may be support for a lim-ited number of uniform indicators acrosswildernesses. For example, opportuni-ties to view wildlife, evidence of vegeta-tion and tree damage, and litter wereconditions that would appear to havenegatively influenced visitors across allthree wilderness areas. Conditions forwhich this influence seemed to varyacross all three wilderness areas includedcamping restrictions, number of groupsand vehicles seen, level of solitude, num-ber of permanent structures, distancebetween campsites, and noise. Overall,uniformity was evident for the three con-ditions that were of the highest concernfor visitors to all three wilderness areas(e.g., litter and vegetation damage).

The question of uniformity versusvariety in selecting condition indicatorsfor the NWPS may be dependent uponthe type of condition. For example, in-dicators of physical conditions (espe-cially litter, resource damage, andwildlife viewing opportunities) may besuitable for diverse wilderness areas. In


contrast, indicators representing socialand managerial conditions may be moreunique to specific areas, or types of ar-eas, in the NWPS. IJW

MICHAEL A. TARRANT is a faculty member at theUniversity of Georgia. He can be reached atthe Department of Recreation and Leisure Studiesand Warnell School of Forest Resources, 353Ramsey Center, University of Georgia, Athens,Georgia 30602-3655, USA. Telephone: (706)542-5064. E-mail: [email protected].

C. SCOTT SHAFER is on the faculty at Texas A&MUniversity. He can be reached at the Departmentof Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences, TexasA&M University, College Station, Texas 77843,USA. Telephone: (409) 845-0446.

REFERENCESCole, D. N. 1990. Wilderness management:

has it come of age? Journal of Soil andWater Conservation, May-June: 361–364.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and TelephoneSurveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Graefe, A. R., F. R. Kuss, and J. J. Vaske. 1990.Visitor Impact Management: The PlanningFramework, vol. 2. Washington, D.C.:National Parks and ConservationAssociation.

Hendee, J. C, G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas.1990. Wilderness Management. Golden,Colo.: North American Press.

Higgins, J. F. 1990. A case for national standardsfor wilderness management. In Defining

Wilderness Quality: The Role of Standardsin Wilderness Management—A WorkshopProceedings, B. Shelby, G. Stankey, andB. Schindler, eds., USDA Forest ServiceTechnical Report PNW-GTR, 305: 76–78.

Mitchell, J. M. 1990. Do we really wantwilderness management standards to beuniform? In Defining Wilderness Quality:The Role of Standards in WildernessManagement—A Workshop Proceedings,B. Shelby, G. Stankey, and B. Schindler,eds., USDA Forest Service Technical ReportPNW-GTR, 305: 79–83.

Norusis, M. J. 1991. SPSS/PC+ Version 4.01.Chicago, III.: SPSS.

Roggenbuck, J. W. 1980. Wilderness userpreferences: eastern and western areas.In Proc. of the Wilderness ManagementSymposium. The University of Tennessee,Tenn.: USDA Forest Service, 103–146.

Roggenbuck, J. W., D. R. Williams, and A. E.Watson. 1993. Defining acceptableconditions in wilderness. EnvironmentalManagement, 17(2): 187–197.

Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, C. Lucas, M. E.Petersen, and S. S. Frissell. 1985. TheLimits of Acceptable Change (LAC) systemfor wilderness planning. USDA ForestService General Technical Report INT-176.


HENDEE AND SCHOENFELD (1978) introduced theconcept of wilderness-dependent wildlife more thantwenty years ago. Wilderness-dependent species are

those “... vulnerable to human influence, whose continued exist-ence is dependent on and reflective of ... wild, extensive, undis-turbed habitat. ...” Historically, this concept has not been widelyused to help organize our thinking about conservation. However,it promises to serve an important role in conservation becausewilderness-dependence encompasses issues of fundamental im-portance to how we relate, not just to wildlife, but to each other.Suffice to say, it is vitally important for those interested in conser-vation to identify species dependent on wilderness for their sur-vival, because in these cases, short of relegating the animal to zoos,active intervention has limited long-term prospects.

A Definition ofWilderness for WildlifeWilderness serves a functionally different purpose for wildlifeconservation than for human recreation. Survival rather thanintangibles is paramount. Although the psychological well-be-ing of individual animals is of concern to some people, thisissue is of far greater consequence to the management of wil-derness for humans than it is for the conservation of wildlifepopulations at risk of extirpation. Wilderness can also serve topreserve natural behavior and processes that naturally regulatewildlife populations. However, the worldwide decline of nu-merous species in the last several decades emphasizes the para-mountcy of simple physical persistence. Persistence ofpopulations depends on birth rates exceeding death rates.Humans can affect birth rates of wild animals by changing veg-etation structure and, along with it, food abundance. How-ever, humans have had their most dramatic impacts on wildlifeas predators.

Thus, for purposes of conservation, wilderness primarilybetokens an environment with few humans where, as a conse-quence, animals vulnerable to direct contact with humans canfind refuge. Species associated with habitats subject to wide-spread destruction by humans may also benefit from a relativeabsence of humans. Indeed, there is often a positive associa-tion between few humans and habitat structure perpetuatedby intact ecosystem processes. However, as with the northernspotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in North America, it ismore often the case that species sensitive to habitat structurewill respond to changes in vegetation management without re-quiring seclusion from humans. The most salient feature of awilderness-dependent species is the need for seclusion as ameans of directly enhancing survival.

WILDERNESS-DEPENDENT WILDLIFEThe Large and the Carnivorous

BY DAVID MATTSON

Abstract: Wilderness is vital to the conservation of wildlife species that are prone to conflict with humans andvulnerable to human-caused mortality. These species tend to be large and are often carnivorous. Such animals aretypically problematic for humans because they kill livestock and, occasionally, humans, and cause inordinate damageto crops. The vulnerability of large herbivores and carnivores to humans is exacerbated by vigorous markets for wildmeat and other body parts, widespread human poverty, and human societies prone to the breakdown of civil order.The survival of wilderness-dependent wildlife is thus not only linked to the preservation of extensive wilderness but isalso affected by the health of human societies. Because overt intervention has limited uses in the preservation ofwilderness-dependent wildlife, these animals pose a special problem for humanity. Their survival requires that we forgodomination of a substantial portion of the remaining wildlands on Earth.

Siberian tigers. Photo courtesy of Hornocker Wildlife Institute.

(Peer Reviewed)



Why Are Some SpeciesWilderness-Dependent?Some characteristics of wilderness-depen-dent wildlife are predictable. Given thatwilderness-dependence derives from con-flict with humans and from vulnerabilityto human-caused mortality, these charac-teristics are both human and wildlife re-lated. Even so, some features are moreclosely identified with the animal whileothers are more closely identified with hu-mans. Some factors are also more ame-nable to change. Most of these happen tobe identified with the culture and behav-ior of humans rather than the behavior ormorphology of wildlife. In defining thesalient features of wilderness-dependentwildlife I have, therefore, acknowledged

affinities with the biological and anthro-pological realms, and have highlightedfeatures, aside from the area of wilderness,that are potentially subject to intentionalchange (see Figure 1).

Biological FactorsWilderness-dependent animals tend to belarge. There are several important reasonsfor this. First, large animals tend to beless resilient to human-caused mortality.This is a consequence of predictable de-clines in fecundity and potential popula-tion growth rate as average body size of aspecies increases. This underlies the re-lated tendency for large animals to existat low densities. Large animals also tendto exhibit density-dependent responsesin survival and reproduction only at den-

sities near carrying capacity, and so havea limited ability to compensate for in-creases in mortality when they are alreadyexploited. Thus, all else equal, popula-tions of large animals are more vulner-able to extirpation than populations ofsmall animals. If humans are the primaryagent of death, then large animals requirea correspondingly greater level of protec-tion from contact with humans. This hasbeen clearly demonstrated for ungulatesand primates subject to subsistence andmarket hunting in impoverished devel-oping countries. Larger-bodied specieshave often been severely depleted whilesmaller-bodied species have survived oreven flourished.

Second, large mammals are more likelyto be killed because they more often pose


a physical threat to humans or cause moreper capita damage to crops. Rhinos(Rhinocerotidae) and elephants (Loxodontaafricanus and Elaphus maximus) are no-torious in this regard. Elephants havekilled a surprising number of people.Even though populations of these pachy-derms have dramatically declined, hu-man victims still receive considerableattention and provide a sometimes legiti-mate rationale for continued lethal reso-lution of conflicts in the relatively fewplaces where crop damage still occurs. Inaddition to these better-known species,many larger ungulates and, in places,bears (Ursidae), are implicated in dam-aging crops that are sometimes critical tothe survival of individual subsistencefarmers or owned by wealthy and politi-cally powerful individuals.

Third, large animals also tend to bepreferred by meat hunters, whether forsubsistence or market. Although this pref-erence is modified by cultural and mar-ket considerations, large animals tend tobe selected by hunters, who focus theirattention on small prey only after deplet-ing the large. These impacts of meat hunt-ing are not trivial. In many areas of Africaand South America, as well as remainingwild areas of Asia, meat from wildlife is amajor source of dietary protein for hu-

mans. The current market for wild meatis economically potent, partly because ofa seemingly irreducible cross-cultural hu-man preference for protein and fat thatdrives demand until all wild game is ex-tirpated or alternate sources of proteinare found.

Wildlife behavior is another “biologi-cal” factor related to wilderness-depen-dence. The inherent aggressiveness of aspecies can make it a threat to humansafety, thus precipitating retaliatory orpreventive killing by humans. The im-portance of this factor is highlighted bydifferences in aggressiveness betweenNorth American black and brown bears(Ursus americanus and U. arctos, respec-tively), related human responses, and thegreater ability of the less aggressive blackbear to coexist with humans. Given thatmany megaherbivores also tend to be ag-gressive in their defense of space, young,or access to food (e.g., rhinos, elephants,buffalo [Synceros coffer], and bison [Bosbison]), lethal human responses to thisaggression compound the body-size re-lated vulnerability of these animals tohuman-caused mortality.

Predaciousness is perhaps of greaterimportance than aggressiveness per se indetermining whether a species can abidecontact with humans. Wherever carni-

vores come into contact with domesticlivestock there is some level of depreda-tion. The almost universal human re-sponse has been and continues to beeradication of the offending carnivores.Ironically, in almost all instances humanshave exacerbated this conflict by reduc-ing or eliminating native prey, therebyleaving domestic livestock as the onlyprey available to the remaining predators.Again, it is the largest predators that aremost vulnerable, not only because of lowreproductive rates, but also because theirpreferred prey is among the first to beeliminated with agricultural expansion.The largest predators, such as lions andtigers, are also more likely to resort topredation on humans. These predatorsare typically inexperienced or debilitatedby age, disease, or injury. This scenarioof prey reduction, human retaliation fordepredations on livestock, and eventualextirpation has been and continues to beplayed out worldwide.

Finally, of the biological factors, wil-derness-dependence is potentially af-fected by whether wildlife are vectors fordiseases detrimental to human economicinterests, or whether in turn the wild spe-cies is vulnerable to diseases propagatedby domesticated animals. The former is-sue is well illustrated by the case of bi-son in North America, where there aregrave concerns among livestock ownersabout the transmission of brucellosis frombison to domestic cattle. The latter issueis exemplified by the fates of canids (i.e.,wild dogs [Lycaon pictus] and Ethiopianwolves [Cams simensis]) affected by ca-nine distemper and rabies transmittedprimarily by dogs, and by the history oflarge antelope infected by the rinderpestvirus in East Africa.

Human FactorsHumans kill wild animals for many reasons.These reasons can include primal needs forcritical nutrients such as protein and en-ergy (as discussed above), fear of death orinjury, the desire to eliminate competitionfor economic resources, the desire forwealth and related power, or spiritualincentives. Some of these motives arerooted, in the most fundamental sense,in our own imperatives to survive andreproduce. The first three reasons fall inthis category. Manifestations of the other

Grizzly bear. Photo courtesy of Schleyer/lnteragency Grizzly Bear Study Team.


motives are substantially influenced byculture, and thus potentially subject tolong-term change or considerable varia-tion among societies and nations.

Some animals are destined to be wil-derness-dependent, at least in the nearterm, because they have high commodityvalues and are not amenable to beingranched. I have discussed the importanceof meat marketing above—but the focushere is on culturally idiosyncratic traits thatengender markets for body parts. This isexemplified by the penchant of Yemenimen for dagger handles made of rhinohorns and by the medicinal uses of tigerbones, rhino horns, and bear parts in Asia.Similarly, the worldwide lust for pelts ofexotic predators such as the snow leopard(Panthera uncid) and for elephant ivory hasbeen fed not by basic need, but by a senseof esthetics and the quest for status.

The power of these motives is illus-trated by the fact that, as much as rhinos,elephants, and tigers have been reducedin numbers for other reasons, the single-most important cause of declines has beena culturally defined demand for their bodyparts. Prior to the last few years, there wasmuch fanfare about the extent to whichinternational prohibitions and educationhad been able to curb this demand. How-ever, the strength of cultural traits, exac-erbated by rising affluence in Asia and theopening of formerly closed markets inChina and Russia, has been reflected inrecent upsurges in poaching of elephants,tigers, rhinos, and bears.

Finally, of the human-related factors,the extent to which wildlife depends onwilderness for survival is influenced bylong-term disparities in wealth among hu-mans, the prevalence of poverty, and therelated stability of human societies. Numer-ous studies have shown that positive atti-tudes toward otherwise problematic wildlifeare positively associated with affluence andeducation. Similarly, extinction risks formammals and rates of environmental deg-radation are negatively related to per capitagross national product. Aside from engen-dering chronic conflict with vulnerable,wilderness-dependent wildlife, poverty andinequity also inevitably lead to conflictamong humans. When this happens, wild-life that were previously thought to be se-cure in some well-protected reserve can beslaughtered, and in some instances, elimi-

nated altogether. Thus, even in places suchas Chitwan National Park in Nepal, whererhinos and tigers were thought to be safebecause of local incentives and high levelsof protection, the collapse of a governmentcould lead to rapid endangerment ofmegaherbivores and large carnivores. Putanother way, the extent to which survivalof vulnerable species depends upon remotehabitat, little used by humans, will likelyvary with the long-term health of humansocieties.

The Limits of InterventionHumans have successfully used technol-ogy to appropriate much of the Earth’sresources and thereby increase carryingcapacity for our species. We have con-currently used scientific insight to ma-nipulate animals and their habitats toachieve this usurpation without losing

wildernesslike settings.Much has been written about the

prospects for captive breeding. Yet, ifthere is no native habitat where theseanimals can survive on their own, wehave surely lost the “wildness” of thiswildlife. Focus on this technique has alsocontributed to lost opportunities for moreproductive conservation measures, espe-cially for species such as the Sumatranrhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis) that havenot responded to captive breeding efforts.

The importance of using conven-tional incentives to recruit local supportfor and investment in conservation of wil-derness-dependent wildlife is widelyknown. While this is indisputably impor-tant, it is nonetheless premised on the ex-istence of wildernesslike reserves. It isviewed primarily as a means of reducingpoaching and recruiting local political

Legal protection from human-caused mortalityis indisputably important to the survival ofwilderness-dependent wildlife.

more species than might have otherwisebeen the case. Even so, some species posea dilemma—that is, their preservationposes a problem that is unresolvable un-less we redefine the problem. Amongthese species are those that I call “wilder-ness-dependent.”

Several techniques exist for conserv-ing wilderness-dependent wildlife, asidefrom preserving wilderness for their use.For example, electric fencing has beentouted as a means of diverting elephantsand rhinos from agricultural lands. Yetthis merely serves to ameliorate someimmediate difficulties and exacerbateslong-term problems by eliminating ad-ditional habitat while sometimes encour-aging the fatal (to pachyderms) continuedexpansion of humans and agriculture. Asmuch as trade in body parts has reducedpachyderm populations, their distribu-tions are sharply curtailed by humansettlement. Where humans are most nu-merous in Africa and Asia, large herbi-vores are becoming almost whollyrestricted to reserves and other

support for the continued existence andpossible expansion of such reserves.However, these measures can be renderedtotally ineffectual in a very short periodof time with the collapse of civil order.Given the level of social turmoil in mostof the world, it seems a very uncertainlong-term tactic to rely on human kind-ness, in a proximal sense, for the survivalof wilderness-dependent wildlife. Thereare limits to which people can be enticedto accept animals that kill livestock, dam-age crops, and pose a potential hazard tohuman safety In the absence of funda-mental changes in human cultures, thesurvival of these species rests on the avail-ability of habitat that is remote from hu-mans and the vagaries of human societyand politics.

Legal protection from human-causedmortality is indisputably important to thesurvival of wilderness-dependent wild-life. Yet the nature of conflict betweenthese species and humans engenderswhat I call an irreducible level of mortal-ity. This is strikingly revealed by animals


such as grizzly bears and wolves (Canislupus) in an affluent country such as theUnited States of America. Here, despiterigorous protection by federal laws, com-pensation programs for livestock lossesand other control of inherently problem-atic situations, virtually all grizzly bearsand wolves that die are still killed by hu-mans. Despite this, increased lethal reso-lution of conflicts has been espoused asa management tactic, as a means of pro-moting local support. For both of thesespecies, survival remains fundamentallytied to wilderness.

Having outlined the limits of inter-vention in the preservation of wilderness-dependent species, conservation of theseanimals is often confounded by a doublebind. Wilderness conditions are rapidlydisappearing from the Earth. Survival ofwilderness-dependent animals is thuslikely to depend on the willingness ofhumans to protect much of the wilder-ness that is left. For these species, thiswilderness cannot be defined in termssuitable to some psychological needs ofhumans. Small parcels of officially desig-nated wilderness surrounded by urban-ized or agricultural landscapes will notwork. Even with legal protections, thereis surprising unanimity among felid bi-ologists that wildernesslike reserves needto be more than 2,000 square kilometers.The same has been suggested for Africanelephants. For grizzly bears and wolves,reserve sizes may need to be even larger.Even so, it is arguable that the size of areserve will need to vary with the lethal-ity of local humans (i.e., where humansare less tolerant and otherwise moreprone to kill wilderness-dependent spe-cies, these animals will require evengreater protection by virtue of remote-ness—even greater expanses of intactwilderness). Yet it is precisely in coun-tries where humans are antagonistic to-ward wilderness-dependent wildlife thatthere are probably fewer chances of

reserving the requisite greater amountsof wilderness. It is in these areas that wehave probably either lost or stand thegreatest chances of losing wilderness-dependent wildlife.

The Value of Wilderness-Dependent WildlifeIt is intriguing that survival of wilderness-dependent wildlife is probably linked tothe affluence and education of humans,and to the stability of human societies.Few would disagree that the well-beingof humans is also linked to the allevia-tion of poverty, increases in education,and the achievement of equitable andstable societies. Thus, in many places, thestatus of wilderness-dependent wildlifeis a mirror for the plight of humanity.

Perhaps the most important impli-cation of wilderness-dependent wildlifeis that there are limits on the extent towhich humans can occupy and dominatethe Earth. The full complement of Earth’sbiodiversity is at least partly dependenton the existence of well-distributed andextensive wilderness conditions. Implic-itly, there are limits to the extent that hu-manity can use the Earth’s resources andsimultaneously meet conservation aimsby technological fixes. Wilderness-dependent wildlife require that we forgoprerogative to the entire Earth if we wantthem to survive. In this way, these spe-cies have the potential to play a radicallytransforming role in the evolution ofhuman worldviews and spirituality. IJW

DAVID MATTSON has studied grizzly bears in theYellowstone National Park ecosystem for the last 18years, specializing in habitat relations and human-bear interactions. He is currently research wildlifebiologist at the Forest and Rangeland EcosystemScience Center and Department of Fish and WildlifeResources, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho83844-1136, USA. Telephone: (208) 885-3589.E-mail: matt7281 @novell.uidaho.edu.

REFERENCESHendee, J. C, and C. Schoenfeld. 1978.

Wildlife in wilderness. In WildernessManagement. J. C. Hendee, G. H.

Stankey, and R. C. Lucas, eds. USDA, ForestService, Miscellaneous Publication 1365,Washington, D.C.: 215–247.


CONSERVATION LANDS COVER ALMOST 30% of NewZealand (see Figure 1), a country with a total area of103,500 square miles (270,500 square kilometers), or approx-

imately two-thirds the size of the State of California. Subject totheir primary biodiversity protection roles, these conservationlands are also the principal settings for backcountry recreationand the predominantly nature-based tourism of New Zealand.Formally designated “Wilderness Areas” occupy a very smallproportion of these lands (see Molloy, IJW, vol. 3, no. 2, forwilderness management policy).

Most conservation lands are located in challenging mountain-ous terrain remote from the major population centers. Until the 1970s,this was an adequate buffer against increasing recreational pressures.However, in what became locally termed a “backcountry boom” (Ma-son 1974), recreational use levels began to grow more rapidly, reach-ing as much as 300% in some key areas between 1970–1985 (Davison1986). Initially most of this growth resulted from greater interest inoutdoor recreation among New Zealanders, made possible by increas-ing affluence, mobility, improved access, information and leisure time.But since the early 1980s, outdoor recreation growth has becomedominated by overseas tourists, whose numbers have increased ten-fold since 1970 to around 1.5 million per year.

More than half of these tourists make visits to conservationlands, where traditionally their activities have been concentratedon sightseeing and short scenic walks at a few key sites along adistinct tourist circuit. However, data from the New Zealand In-ternational Visitor Survey (New Zealand Tourism Board 1996)show that in recent years the scope of tourist activities and vari-ety of sites visited in New Zealand have broadened rapidly, andnow encompass a wider range of conservation lands. Apart fromraising concerns about the spread of environmental impacts, thesechanges in recreation and tourism patterns present a threat tothe quality of recreation experiences available both in Wilder-ness Areas and in other conservation lands.

Recreation Experiences in Wilderness AreasThe recreational experiences provided in New Zealand WildernessAreas are represented by the “Wilderness” opportunity class in the

New Zealand Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (see Figure 2).While this class is essentially equivalent to the “Primitive” opportu-nity classes usually defined in U.S. ROS systems, it is more extremeas absolutely no recreation facilities or services are allowed.

WILDERNESS AND RECREATIONIN NEW ZEALAND

BY GORDON R. CESSFORD AND PAUL R. DINGWALL

Abstract: New Zealand has a rigorously defined approach to management of wilderness within an extensive systemof conservation lands. A major challenge confronting conservation managers is how to maintain and enhance wildernessqualities in the face of changing recreation demands, accentuated by significant tourism growth. While the formaldesignation of wilderness areas will remain fundamentally important, the integration of wilderness qualities and recreationneeds will also need to be addressed in other backcountry areas.

IN TERNA TIONAL PERSPEC TIVES


The physical setting requires a natu-ral landscape with no apparent modifi-cation and no huts, tracks (trails),bridges, signs or other facilities. No mo-torized access is allowed, and at least halfa day’s walk by foot is generally requiredfrom any motorized access point (road,air, or water). Once in the WildernessArea, foot access is dependent upon theprevailing environmental conditions, andthe resources, experience, and skills ofthe individual to cope with them. Thequickly changing weather patterns andnagged terrain in New Zealand requirethat wilderness parties be prepared forany weather conditions and to sit tightfor many days if necessary when trappedby flooded rivers and storms.

The management setting requiresthat there be no discernible managementpresence, and any exceptions for specificenvironmental management tasks or forsearch-and-rescue operations must be

temporary and unobtrusive. The seriousthreats to the survival of the natural in-digenous flora and fauna of New Zealandconservation lands from foreign animalpests, such as deer, stoats, cats, andbrush-tail possums, require that aircraftare often used in control operations, andthat basic staff facilities may also be tem-porarily located inside Wilderness Areas.For safety, many wilderness parties nowcarry radios to receive weather forecastsor to alert authorities, should assistancebe required, although parties are expectedto be self-sufficient unless in extremeemergency.

The social setting emphasizes smallparty sizes (the minimum recommendedfor safety is four) and minimal likelihoodof any interaction with other groups. Wil-derness visits are likely to be of severaldays duration and physically strenuousdue to rugged terrain and the need tocarry all necessary clothing and equip-

ment. Under these conditions the activi-ties most often possible are thebackcountry extremes of tramping (hik-ing), mountaineering, hunting, fishing,canoeing, rafting, and some specializednature tours. In most cases, overseas tour-ists do not have adequate local knowl-edge, equipment, experience, time, orbackcountry skills in camping, route find-ing, alpine travel, and river-crossing toundertake such wilderness recreationopportunities unassisted.

The consequent visit experience in-cludes an extremely high probability ofisolation from the sights, sounds, andactivities of other people, and little like-lihood of interaction with other visitorgroups. Visitors must apply their outdoorskills and fitness, and it is likely that therewould be a high degree of closeness tonature with a sense of discovery, solitude,and freedom. This visit experience is whatcould be considered the New Zealandversion of the “purist wilderness experi-ence.” Only the “Remoteness Seekers”from the range of visitor groups to con-servation lands (see Table 1) aspire tothese experiences. The New Zealand Wil-derness Areas fulfill these purist expec-tations, and the extremes of weather,terrain, river conditions, and remotenessthey encompass have ensured that, apartfrom the notable exception of overflightsby aircraft, the growth of tourism has notyet significantly intruded on these expe-riences. However, such intrusions areprogressively more evident in other con-servation lands.

Recreation Experiences inNonwilderness BackcountryOutside designated Wilderness Areas lieextensive areas of conservation lands withfew human settlements, little reading, andbroad tracts of landscape free of obvioushuman alteration. Recreational access tothese areas is primarily by foot trails.While often very similar to wildernessareas, many of these “Remote” and“Backcountry Walk-in” areas do not suf-ficiently meet the rigorous wildernesscriteria to be formally designated as wil-derness areas, although the distinctionsis often not apparent. In the U.S. system,such areas would likely be categorizedunder the generic “wilderness” label.

Users of New Zealand Wilderness Areas must be fit, experienced, and completely self-sufficient in difficultconditions. Photo by Gordon Cessford.


Over a long period, an extensive net-work of walking trails (10,000 kilometers)and backcountry huts (almost 1,000) hasdeveloped in many of these areas. Trailtypes include the highly developed andmaintained walks, the marked and formedtracks, and the often unmarked and un-formed routes. Huts vary from small andbasic shelters to large huts with gas cook-ing, heating and lighting, mattresses, run-ning water, flush toilets, and supervisionby wardens. Camping is largely unre-stricted, except along the more popularand developed tracks, where it is some-times confined to specified sites. Thesetracks and facilities support the bulk ofthe backcountry recreation currently oc-curring in New Zealand.

Most backcountry activity involvestramping, concentrated particularly onthe eight “Great Walks,” the busiest ofwhich receive up to 10,000 walkers overthe six-month “summer” walking season.These are the premier backcountry walksin New Zealand, managed to a high levelof development due to their high use lev-els and importance for the tourism in-dustry. These tracks provide the settingsused primarily by the “Backcountry Com-fort-Seeker” visitor group. By contrast, thetraditional tramping trip of New Zealand-ers has usually been based on widely dis-persed use of less developed backcountrytracks and facilities. These tracks providethe settings used primarily by the“Backcountry Adventurers” and some“Remoteness Seekers.”

While growth in the numbers of NewZealanders using these backcountry areasappears to have recently stabilized, over-seas visitor numbers have continued toincrease in key settings such as the GreatWalks. Numbers on the morebackcountry-oriented tracks are lower,usually numbering in the hundreds, butthere are clear indications that visitor useis diffusing from the main tracks as over-seas visitors exchange “word-of-mouth”information about new places where “thereare not so many people.” Once this infor-mation makes its way into the populartravel guidebooks and the new areas are“discovered” by the more adventuroustourists, change in use levels may be rapid.

In some cases it is apparent thatthis localized increase in overseas visi-tors, and their progressive dispersion


to less-used backcountry areas has af-fected how New Zealanders feel abouttheir backcountry experiences. Whileno specific research has been under-taken, observations by managementstaff over time and anecdotal accountsfrom backcountry enthusiasts provide

attitudes of New Zealanders who havetraditionally valued freedom of the out-doors as one of their defining cultural at-tributes. The imposition of suchregulations, along with the effects of over-seas visitor diffusion, are the main con-cerns for maintaining high-quality

zone commonly termed the front coun-try. In practical terms this includes anyareas directly accessible from formedtracks within 1-2 hours walk of majorroads. The vast bulk of New Zealand andoverseas visitors confine their activitiesto the front country, and this use is pro-jected to continue increasing with over-seas tourism growth and a progressivelyaging New Zealand population. Thesevisitors are the Short Stop Travelers, DayVisitors, Thrill Seekers and Overnightersdescribed in Table 1, each contributingto the greater diversity of recreation inthe front country. One of the challengesfacing management is to maintain thoseaspects of visitor satisfaction which arederived from these peoples’ perceptionsof natural quality, or keeping some of the“wilderness” in their recreation.

Keeping the “Wilderness”in RecreationKeeping the wilderness in recreation forRemoteness Seekers in wilderness areas isnot difficult, unless management condi-tions are altered and intrusions are allowedfor inappropriate recreation activities.However, when considering the other visi-tor groups outside the Wilderness Areas,this management challenge involves iden-tifying those elements central to their per-ceptions of “wilderness qualities,” andapplying management for protection andenhancement of such qualities.

Identifying key elements of wilder-ness experiences among different visitorgroups is a considerable managementchallenge. As described in the WildernessPolicy (See Malloy IJW, vol. 3, no. 2), theidea of wilderness is very personal andembodies perception of remoteness anddiscovery, challenge, solitude, freedom,and romance. A wilderness experience isnot completely determined by the char-acteristics of the physical setting, but howthe setting and the visit to it are perceivedby the visitor. For example, the Green-stone Valley near Queenstown is largelymanaged as a setting for backcountrytramping experiences suitable for“Backcountry Comfort-Seekers,” but it isalso a renowned trout fishery and amongonly six rivers classified as a “wildernessfishery of national importance”(Richardson, et al. 1985). Rivers classified

Backcountry ski-mountaineering in a setting where air access, sightseeing overflights, and a few alpine hutsprevent any designation as a Wilderness Area. Photo by Gordon Cessford.

The vast bulk of New Zealand and overseasvisitors confine their activities to the frontcountry, and this use is projected to continueincreasing with overseas tourism growth and aprogressively aging New Zealand population.

numerous examples of displacement. Un-til recently the Milford Track was uniqueamong tracks in New Zealand in havinga limit imposed on visitor numbers andrequiring reservations. However, a simi-lar reservation system has recently beenapplied to address crowding issues on thepopular Routeburn Track, where it wasnot uncommon for the 40-bunk huts toaccommodate up to twice their capacityduring the peak tourism periods. Suchregulation further conflicts with the

backcountry recreation experiences. Formany observers, these backcountry areasare where wilderness experiences are be-ing most compromised, while the true wil-derness areas remain largely unaffected.

DistinguishingFront Country RecreationOn the margins of backcountry areasand alongside road corridors throughconservation lands lies an undefined


as such were characterized by a combina-tion of remoteness, foot access, good catchrates, dry-fly only, large fish, extensive fish-able water, scenic beauty, and solitude. Inthis case anglers demonstrated their ownarray of setting and activity qualities thatcomprised their “wilderness experiences,”but which did not fulfil the requirementsfor a wilderness area.

While recognizing such activity-spe-cific aspects, maximizing the generalqualities of “wilderness in recreation”outside the wilderness areas will requiremanagement that reinforces visitor per-ceptions of: (1) unaltered natural settings;(2) low-impact and experience-sensitivefacilities and services; (3) unobtrusiveregulatory presence; and (4) minimalapparent visitor numbers.

Recreation planning and manage-ment should promote these four principleswherever possible. Wilderness Areas com-pletely fulfill these elements, but manag-ers face more difficulties in other areas.For example, while the Milford Track isnot in a designated Wilderness Area, ittraverses remote and spectacular moun-tainous terrain of high wilderness quality,and fulfills the “wilderness” expectationsof many visitors. A well-formed track,good huts, and limited visitor numberscombine to promote “wilderness experi-ences” among track walkers who repre-sent the “Backcountry Comfort-Seeker”visitor group (see Table 1). Yet current im-

pact research (Cessford 1997) highlightsaircraft noise as a negative impact on al-most 70% of these visitors. Moreover, al-though Milford Track numbers arecontrolled to minimize crowding, percep-tions of congestion are created by a bottle-neck at an alpine pass, where congregationof walkers at an extensive scenic attrac-tion is accentuated by the daily walkingpattern between huts. While visitor satis-faction remains apparently high, such afinding suggests the quality of the antici-pated wilderness experience is being com-promised. In this case, changes promotingalternatives for both flight paths and dailywalking patterns may provide a means toenhance the “wilderness components” oftheir visitor experiences.

As a further example, in the case ofa roadside site managed primarily for“Short-Stop Visitors,” management tomaximize the “wilderness components”of their visitor experiences may requireemphasis on design and layout of facili-ties, maintaining highly natural appear-ance, and finding means to minimize theapparent visitor numbers (e.g., visual lay-outs). It may not be a true wildernessexperience, but even in this roadside con-text there are means by which “wilder-ness qualities” can be promoted. Suchspecific management of particular visitorcomponents may be the main answer toproviding the “wilderness in the recre-ation” outside the Wilderness Areas.

ConclusionIn the face of growing recreation pres-sure, the greatest threat to maintainingreal wilderness experiences does not liein the Wilderness Areas themselves, butin the related backcountry areas. Particu-lar attention is needed for those tracks inbackcountry that are being progressively“discovered” by overseas tourists. Gen-erally though, the pressures for substan-tial development are on the areas mostpopular for tourism, mainly on the GreatWalks and other more developed tracks,on the front country areas near key tour-ism attractions, and along tourism high-ways. Overall, while there are somerecreational and tourism pressures onwilderness experiences, biological con-servation issues remain far more critical.The underlying conservation values ofwilderness and other natural areas con-tinue to be seriously eroded every day bythe ongoing pressures from invading ani-mal and plant pests. This deteriorationof fundamental wilderness quality is aphenomenon only the most aware wil-derness users would notice. IJW

GORDON R. CESSFORD and PAUL R. DINGWALL arescientists in the New Zealand Department ofConservation, P.O. Box 10420, Wellington, NewZealand. Telephone: (64) (4) 471 0726; fax (64)(4) 471-3279. E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

REFERENCESCessford, G. R. 1997. Visitor Satisfactions,

impact perceptions and attitudes towardmanagement options on the Milford Track.Science for Conservation (in press),Department of Conservation, Wellington,New Zealand.

Davison, J. J. 1986. Policy implications of trendsin supply and demand for natural areasfor protection and recreation 1970–2000.Unpublished thesis. Centre for ResourceManagement, Lincoln College andUniversity of Canterbury, Christchurch,New Zealand.

Department of Conservation. 1996. Visitorstrategy. Head Office, Department ofConservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for protected areamanagement categories. IUCNCommission on National Parks andProtected Areas/ World ConservationMonitoring Centre, IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.

Mason, B. J. 1974. Backcountry boom.Department of Lands and Survey for theNational Parks Authority, Wellington, NewZealand (now Department of Conservation).

New Zealand Tourism Board. 1996. NewZealand international visitors survey1995–1996. New Zealand TourismBoard, Wellington, New Zealand.

Richardson, J., L. D. Tierney, and M. J. Unwin.1985. The relative value of southern lakeswildlife conservancy rivers to NewZealand anglers. Fisheries EnvironmentalReport No. 72. Fisheries ResearchDivision, Ministry of Agriculture andFisheries, Wellington, New Zealand.

Taylor, P. C, ed. 1993. The New Zealandrecreation opportunity spectrum: guidelinesfor users. Department of Conservation andthe Hillary Commission for Sport, Fitnessand Leisure, Wellington, New Zealand.


Fees for Wilderness Tested inDemonstration ProgramIn a nationwide demonstration program the U.S. Forest Ser-vice has been authorized to test collection of user fees at 100demonstration areas, with 80% of the fees kept for manage-ment of the collection site. Fifty sites have been identified forparticipation in the test, including the Desolation Wildernessin California where the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research In-stitute is evaluating results. Look for their report next year onthis potential important innovation that could help fund man-agement of heavily used wilderness areas.

U.S. Forest Service Issues Outfitter-GuideAdministration GuidebookThis 200-page document, issued February 1997, provides“guidance” to agency permit administrators and outfitter guides.The compilation, principally authored by Ron Erickson, SteveMorton, and Ed Stellmach in the Missoula, Montana, regional

offices, provides valuable interpretation and explanation of U.S.Forest Service policy as outlined in the agency manual andhandbook. With use of wilderness increasing, and with com-petition between public and privately outfitted use also increas-ing, this “guidebook” will be valuable because it provides clearexplanations and examples in a complex area of policy.

Washed Out Cabin Creek Airstrip toBe Repaired in Frank Church-River ofNo Return WildernessThe Cabin Creek airstrip in the heart of the Frank Church-Riverof No Return Wilderness in Idaho was washed out during flood-ing in 1996. It will soon be repaired using horse-drawn equip-ment (fresnos, slips, graders, rollers, and wagons), which weredetermined in the environmental analysis to be the minimumnecessary tools to complete the job. The project will requiremoving and compaction of 1,200-1,500 cubic yards of materialfrom designated areas adjacent to the airstrip. A majority of this

WILDERNESS DIGEST

ANNOUNCEMENTS ANDWILDERNESS CALENDAR

BY WOODY HESSELBARTH, WILDERNESS DIGEST EDITOR

• Fees for Wilderness Tested in Demonstration Program• U.S. Forest Service Issues Outfitter-Guide Administration Guidebook• Washed Out Cabin Creek Airstrip to Be Repaired in Frank Church-River of

No Return Wilderness• Videos on Sustainability• What Is the Central and Southern Sierra Wilderness Education Project?• Recreation Students Go Wild• An Army of Wilderness Teachers ... YETI Takes the First Steps• USA Interagency Wilderness Strategic Plan Released• Snowmobiles in Wilderness• Silva Forest Foundation Offers Unique Workshops• Trouble for BLM Wilderness?• Upcoming Conferences• Letter to the Editor


material will come from a 350-foot dis-turbed stretch of Cow Creek, which willthen be rehabilitated and stabilized usingplantings of native vegetation. Repair ofthe airstrip will restore aircraft access tothe central Big Creek drainage in the wil-derness, while improving water qualityand fish habitat. Contact the KrasselRanger District at (208) 634-0600 formore information.

Videos on SustainabililyGriesinger Films has released a set of fourvideos that portray the new “ecologicaleconomics,” challenging current nationalaccounting systems. Existing economicmodels typically value “undeveloped re-sources” for their extractive potential andview the preservation of wilderness as“forgone” economic opportunity. Ecologi-cal economics views a more complex pic-ture that finds sustainability of naturalsystems critical to the human enterprise.Although observers such as Jack Turner(“The Abstract Wild”) may find such cal-culations horrifying, the ecological com-munity and natural resource managers inparticular increasingly frame the preser-vation of wilderness in economic terms.Conservation easements, land acquisi-tion, and management budget requestsare promoted for their nonconsumptivenatural resource benefits.

“An Introduction to Ecological Eco-nomics,” “Investing in Natural Capital,”“Conversation for a Sustainable Society,”and “Costa Rica Counts the Future” allpaint portions of this collage of new eco-nomic ideas. Three of the four videoscome with a study guide to the conceptspresented. For more information contactGriesinger Films, 7300 Old Mill Road,Gates Mills, Ohio 44040, USA. Telephoneand fax (216) 423-1601; e-mail:prgfilms@ix. netcom. com.

What Is the Central andSouthern Sierra WildernessEducation Project?The USA Wilderness Education Project(WEP) is an interagency partnership be-tween the Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, Inyo,and Toiyabe National Forests; Sequoia-Kings Canyon and Yosemite National Parks;and the Ridgecrest, Bishop, and CalienteResources Areas of the Bureau of Land Man-

agement. These collaborators created theproject in 1990 based on their belief thatone key to successful wilderness manage-ment is education. Through the WEP’s edu-cation programs, agencies and privatepartners work together to assure an endur-ing wilderness resource. (Excerpted fromCentral and Southern Sierra WildernessEducation Project, summer 1997.)

Recreation Students Go WildFor the second consecutive year, studentsin the Recreation Administration Program,Natural Resources Management Depart-ment, Cal-Poly at San Luis Obispo, Cali-fornia, USA, have been teaching lessonsfrom the kindergarten-eighth-grade Wil-derness and Land Ethics Curriculum toSan Luis Obispo and Santa BarbaraCounty school children. Approximately400 kindergarten-eighth-grade studentshave benefitted from this partnershipbetween the interagency central andsouthern Sierras Wilderness EducationProject, and Cal-Poly University. For moreinformation about this project contact BillHendricks at (805) 756-1246; e-mail:[email protected]. (Ex-cerpted from Central and Southern Si-erra Wilderness Education Project,summer 1997.)

An Army of WildernessTeachers ... YETI Takes theFirst StepsThe Yosemite Institute, USA, Yosemite Na-tional Park’s Education Branch, and the Wil-derness Education Program (WEP) tookstrides toward realizing the vision of an armyof park and wilderness ambassadors withits four-day back-to-back Yosemite Environ-mental Teachers Institute (YETI) trainings.Two trainings were held this past July, onetargeting kindergarten-fourth-grade teachersand the other targeting fifth-eighth-gradeeducators. The sessions were a rousing suc-cess! Teachers left the training with an ap-preciation for park and wildernessmanagement and the lessons to be found(and taught) in these wild natural places.Many promised to send their peers to nextyear’s sessions. For more information aboutYETI contact Pete Devine at the YosemiteInstitute: (209) 379-9511. (Excerpted fromCentral and Southern Sierra Wilderness Edu-cation Project, summer 1997.)

USA Interagency WildernessStrategic Plan ReleasedThe USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureauof Land Management, National Park Ser-vice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, andNational Biological Service have releasedtheir Interagency Wilderness StrategicPlan. A major focus of the 1994 NationalWilderness Conference, the WildernessStrategic Plan is the result of several yearsof effort by an interagency group thatpolled the wilderness community aboutfederal wilderness management priorities.They identified 33 distinct areas of man-agement action, grouped into five broadtopic areas. The necessary actions arelisted in priority for each topic beginningwith the call for Preservation of Naturaland Biological Values and followed byManagement of Social Values, Adminis-trative Policy and Interagency Coordina-tion, Training of Agency Personnel, andPublic Awareness and Understanding.

The plan provides federal wildernessmanagers with an outline for focused man-agement planning and action to fulfill theintent of The 1964 Wilderness Act—to se-cure the benefits of wilderness “... for thepermanent good of the whole people. ...” Italso provides the greater community a clearmeasure to hold the agencies up against. Asthe introduction states: “While some of theseactions are more general than others, andthey all may not be equally important to eachof our agencies, our commitment to progressin every one of these areas is unequivocal—America’s ‘enduring resource of wilderness’is too important for anything less.”

Copies of this plan may be obtainedby contacting Ralph Swain at the ArthurCarhart Wilderness Training Center,20325 Remount Road, Huson, Montana59846, USA. Telephone: (406) 626-5208.

Snowmobiles in WildernessAn interagency group convened lastspring to look at the issue of snowmo-biles operating in classified wilderness.Growing numbers of snowmobilers andimprovements in snowmobile capabili-ties have resulted in an increase in thereported amount of snowmobile trespass.This issue became front-page news lastwinter when Bobby Unser was cited forriding a number of miles into the SouthSan Juan Wilderness in Colorado.


A wide range of concerns have beenidentified. Managers of wilderness areasnear Yellowstone are concerned that po-tential use restrictions inside the park maylead to large numbers of snowmobilersbeing displaced to adjacent areas, some ofwhich contain wilderness. Other manag-ers report major difficulties in identifica-tion of wilderness boundaries; pressurefrom adjacent groomed snowmobileroutes; riders seeking previously inacces-sible terrain to engage in “highmarking”;and lack of resources for patrol, bound-ary identification, and enforcement.

For more information on the meet-ing or on the issues raised, contact LindaMerigliano, Bridger-Teton National For-est, PO. Box 1888, Jackson, Wyoming83001, USA. Telephone: (307) 739-5010; e-mail: /s=l.merigliano/[email protected].

Silva Forest FoundationOffers Unique WorkshopsThe Silva Forest Foundation of British Co-lumbia is now completing its fourth yearof operation sponsoring and organizing avariety of unique workshops in ecologicallyresponsible forest use. Ideas and methodspresented in all workshops are based onmaintaining ecosystem integrity—focusingon what to leave, rather than on what totake. Some workshops are designed for thegeneral public, other workshops are spe-cifically designed for those who work inresource management, or who have a solidunderstanding of the technical conceptsused in resource management.

Silva’s workshops provide practicaltraining in ecosystem restoration and

conservation. The ideas of ecologically re-sponsible forest use are still very new tothe world of resource management, butthese ideas and methods are importantfor those seeking to use forest resources,while at the same time protecting thewhole ecosystem. The Silva school is lo-cated on a 1,600-acre forest reserve nearSalmo, in southeastern British Columbia.For more information about Silva andtheir 1998 workshop schedule, contactSusan Hammond at (250) 226-7222; ore-mail: [email protected]. Visit theirwebsite at http://www.silvafor.org.

Trouble for BLMWilderness?The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)has proposed new regulations that don’tbode well for wilderness.

The proposed regulations allow in-creased use of motorized vehicles andmechanical equipment for both admin-istrative purposes and private use. Theyallow greatly expanded use of permanentstructures and installations. They alsoallow for expanded use of technology(cellular phones, global positioning sys-tems [GPS] units, etc.)—the steady creepof growing mechanization that The Wil-derness Act sought to avoid.

Two of the most significant changesproposed by the BLM would allow the useof rock bolts and other permanent “fixedanchors” for climbing and caving, and addcellular phones, GPS, and other electronicequipment to the list of mechanical equip-ment allowed in wilderness. Other pro-posed changes would make managementmore permissive for increasing livestock

grazing and related use of vehicles andstructures, and for using motor vehicleswhile conducting research. IJW views theseproposed BLM regulations with great con-cern because they further dilute the wild-ness of wilderness.

Upcoming ConferencesFORESEA (Forest SectorAnalysis)International symposium on global con-cerns for forest resource utilization, sustain-able use, and management. To be heldOctober 5-9, 1998, in Miyazaki, SEA-GAIA,Japan. Official conference language is En-glish. For more information contact AtsushiYoshimoto, Department of Agricultural andForest Economics, Miyazaki University,Miyazaki 889-21, Japan. Telephone: +81-985-58-2811; fax: +81-985-58-2884.E-mail: a0a2 05u@cc. miyazaki-u .ac.jp;website: hyperlink http://www.miyazaki-u. ac.jp/FORESEA.

Rivers ConferenceThe purpose of Rivers Conference (May3–5, 1998, Richmond, British Columbia,Canada) is to get researchers and activ-ists talking—” The whole is greater thanthe sum of the parts” will be aptly dem-onstrated when researchers, river stew-ards, and activists brainstorm solutionsto river problems and share stories onwhat works and where help is needed.

For more information contact theOutoor Recreation Council of British Colum-bia, #334-1367 West Broadway, Vancouver,B.C. V6H 2A9, Canada. Telephone: (604)737-3058; e-mail: [email protected].

Letter to the EditorDear Editor:

I am in the process of establishing a website for the New Zealand Wilderness Foundation, part of which will include adirectory of active wilderness researchers. I am receiving interest from various New Zealand researchers and wouldwelcome any names from overseas to facilitate contact between researchers with common interests. All I ask for isname, affiliation (contact details), wilderness research interests, and current research. Forward your information toJames Higham, Centre for Tourism, Commerce Division, University of Otago, PO. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.Telephone: 64-3-4798500; fax: 64-3-4799034; website: http://divcom.otago.ac.nz:800/tourism/.

Submit items for the Wilderness Digest via e-mail to Woody Hesselbarth: [email protected].


THE PROVISION OF DESIGNATED WILDERNESSareas in the United States has never been without its op-ponents. The sizable list ranges from companies and

special interest groups representing extractive industries(primarily in forestry, mining, and grazing), to federal landmanagement agencies who are often concerned with what theyconsider to be the erosion of their traditional land base andphilosophical foundations.

Over the last two or three decades, the battle over desig-nation and use of wilderness areas has gained focus in theAmerican West. In hindsight, this is hardly surprising. Outsideof Alaska, which contains approximately 60% of U.S. wilder-ness, the majority of designated wilderness areas is found inthe West. Also, the sometimes self-imposed stereotype of theWest as a haven for rugged individualism has exacerbated thebattle for extractive activities in wilderness. Moreover, the west-ern economy and way of life continues to be reliant on theextraction of natural resources. Finally, migration into the Westhas recently increased, further fanning the flames of conflictsover the “proper” use of these public lands.

Gundars Rudzitis brings together these and related strandsin his overview of wilderness management policies and prac-tices in the American West. Several basic themes are touchedupon repeatedly in this book. After setting the stage and pro-viding a brief history of the wilderness concept, Rudzitis touchesupon the “geography of place” in the West, its unique blend ofnatural and social landscapes, the continued abuse of this richmosaic by the corporate world, its promoters in federal agen-cies, and their use of flawed economic principles and prac-tices. It is evident, states Rudzitis, that “Much of what makesthe West unique and gives it a sense of place is the physicalenvironment and its elements of the wild. It is this sense ofplace that is important to the social and economic well-beingof people and their places, not whether they continue to workin extractive industries. Indeed, it is these very industries, intheir ‘using up’ of the landscape, that contribute to the de-struction of the Western sense of place.”

As intimated by the above quotation, this book providesa pro-preservationist view of the complex issue of the preser-vation-versus-extraction dilemma facing the West and manyother regions throughout the world. Rather, Rudzitis attemptsto provide a “call to arms” for all those who wish see thefailed policies and management practices ended. He rightly

The Sagebrush Rebellion and Environmental Politics remain thebest books on wilderness and the Sagebrush Rebellion andWise Use movement.

To be fair, Rudzitis’s expressed purpose was to write a book“that reached out to the general public as well as to traditionalacademic and public policy audiences,” which explains thesometimes frustrating lack of detail on these and other issues.Rudzitis has succeeded in his objective of providing a well-written overview of westerners’ reactions to the designation oflarge tracts of public land as wilderness. This book is an excel-lent place to start for readers relatively unfamiliar with theseissues and would be well suited as a case study for a first- orsecond-year college/university-level course.

One of the strengths of this book is the discussion of mi-gration patterns within the West, and the reasons behind manyimmigrants’ decisions to relocate in the West. Rudzitis pro-vides evidence that, contrary to contemporary economic theory,many people moved west not to increase their economic earn-ing power (incomes often decreased) but for the amenities andquality of life that the region provided. Rudzitis further arguesthat the presence of the wilderness and other protected areas isa primary attraction for these new residents. Indeed, migrationinto regions surrounding protected areas is higher than for thoseareas that do not border protected areas.

Another strength of the book is Rudzitis’s use of pub-lic surveys of western residents, which indicate that con-trary to popular sentiment, they overwhelmingly support

WILDERNESS DIGEST

BOOK REVIEWBY JOHN SHULTIS, GUEST BOOK REVIEW EDITOR

Wilderness and the Changing American West by Gundars Rudzitis. 1996.John Wiley and Sons, New York. 220 pp., $34.95 (paperback).

emphasizes the importance ofconsidering Native Americanviews, as well as addressing theperspective of the Wise Usemovement and the SagebrushRebellion that have recentlycome to symbolize the Ameri-can West. However, if you arelooking for a detailed analysisof these movements, Wildernessand the Changing American Westis not the place to begin. Will-iam Graf’s Wilderness Preserva-tion and the Sagebrush Rebellionsand R. McGreggor Cawley’sFederal Land, Western Anger:

Guest book review editor John Shultis.


the provision of wilderness areas andquestion the sustainability of the re-source management policies and prac-tices by both private and public sectoragencies. These studies, although frus-tratingly few in number, are often over-looked in discussions on howAmerican public lands should be man-aged. Normally, “public” input is ac-tually input from stakeholders andspecial interest groups, each of whichhas its own agenda and philosophicalviewpoint; it is rare to directly assess

a representative, random sample of thepublic for their views on these criticalissues.

The lack of photographs in thisbook is disappointing, as they wouldhave helped illustrate the issues dis-cussed, including the ecological and so-cial effects of natural resource extraction,the aesthetic attraction of the West’s wil-derness areas, the boom-and-bust cycleand its affect on western communities,or the potential role of tourism in creat-ing a service-based economy.

While Wilderness and the ChangingAmerican West will change few of theentrenched attitudes toward the issues itaddresses, it succeeds in providing aninteresting overview of the conflict overwilderness and resource extraction in theAmerican West. IJW

JOHN SHULTIS is an assistant professor in theResource Recreation and Tourism Program,University of Northern British Columbia, 3333University Way, Prince George, B.C. V2N 4Z9,Canada. Telephone: (250) 960-5640. E-mail:[email protected].

The IJW acknowledges with sincere appreciation a generous financial contribution fromRobert and Charlotte Baron of Denver, Colorado, USA. Their support, through The WILDFoundation, has helped the IJW continue its high-quality service to many of those overseaswilderness professionals and activists who could otherwise not afford a full-price subscription.

International Journal of Wilderness, Vol 03 No 4, December 1997

Documents

Transcript of International Journal of Wilderness, Vol 03 No 4, December 1997