Journal of Wilderness - IJWijw.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/08/Vol-06.No-2.Aug-00...director of the...

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

Journal of WildernessAUGUST 2000 VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2

Front cover photo of pink Lady Slipper orchids and inset photo of KahshahpiwiLake, Quetico, Ontario, Canada, both © 2000 by Kevin Proescholdt.

FEATURESEditorial PerspectivesIssues in the Quality of U.S. WildernessManagementBY PERRY BROWN, WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY

JOHN HENDEE, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Soul of the WildernessNatural, Wild, Uncrowded, or Free?BY DAVID N. COLE

SPECIAL SECTIONCOMPILED BY ALAN EWERT

Wilderness in the 21st Century:Visitors, Activities and Technology,and Future Roles

INTRODUCTION BY ALAN EWERT

VisitorsWilderness Visitors in the 21st CenturyDiversity, Day-Use, Perceptions, and PreferencesBY DEBORAH J. CHAVEZ

Wilderness Use in the Next 100 YearsBY WILLIAM E. HAMMITT AND RUDY M. SCHUSTER

Meanings of Wilderness Experiencesin the 21st CenturyBY JOSEPH W. ROGGENBUCK

Activities and TechnologyGearheads and Golems: Technology andWilderness Recreation in the 21st CenturyBY JOHN SHULTIS

Wilderness Activities in the 21st CenturyA CommentaryBY LES WADZINSKI

Technology and Wilderness in the 21st CenturyBY DOUG KNAPP

A More Pristine WildernessBY GLENN HAAS AND MARCELLA WELLS

Future RolesThe Social Value of WildernessA Forest Service PerspectiveBY KEN CORDELL AND JERRY STOKES

Of What Avail Are Forty Freedoms?The Significance of Wilderness in the 21st CenturyBY DANIEL L. DUSTIN AND LEO H. MCAVOY

STEWARDSHIPThe Eagle Cap Wilderness Permit SystemA Visitor Education ToolBY TOM CARLSON

SCIENCE AND RESEARCHEncounter Norms for Backcountry

Trout Anglers in New ZealandBY CARL WALROND

Perspectives from the Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research InstituteScience for Wilderness, Wilderness for ScienceBY DAVID J. PARSONS

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVEIssues Surrounding Entrance Fees as a

Suitable Mechanism forFinancing Natural Areas in AustraliaBY GAMINI HERATH

WILDERNESS DIGESTAnnouncements & Wilderness Calendar

Letters to the EditorBook Reviews

3

5

9

9

10

12

14

17

19

20

21

23

25

27

29

34

35

404446

2 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Journal of Wilderness

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

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

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

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

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright© 2000 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation.Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to makefair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

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

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

World Wide Website: www.ijw.org.

Printed on recycled paper.

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

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

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

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 3

FEATURES

Introduction

Few topics are of greater concern to the IJW than wilderness stewardship. U.S. wilderness managementagencies, their practices and policies, are under increasing scrutiny. Are our agencies willing and able tohandle the new millennium challenges of wilderness stewardship?

The wilderness agencies are struggling to respond to increased demand for access by commercial outfit-ters, private visitors, and not-for-profit and educational groups. At the same time, the ecological integrity ofwilderness is at risk from increasing use, trespass by ATVs, noxious weeds, global warming, and unnatural fuelbuildups from fire protection and the associated risk of conflagrations. Wilderness solitude and wildness arethreatened by a plethora of insidious impacts from civilization including global positioning systems, microcom-puters, and visitors who buffer their experiences with cell phones, thereby feeding demand for invasive satel-lites and repeater towers. Further complicating stewardship is an escalating battle over the designation ofadditional wilderness areas and a demand for weaker restrictions. The list could go on.

In response to these and other concerns, current U.S. wilderness management agencies are undergoingrigorous evaluation by a select committee of experts. This process is a precursor to hearing the concerns of allwilderness stakeholders and addressing possibilities for renewed efforts and/or policy changes. IJW will befollowing this process closely. In this issue we welcome comments by Dr. Perry Brown, chair of the Select Panel toEvaluate the Quality of U.S. Wilderness Management, on the initial efforts and processes of the committee’sinquiry.

—John Hendee, Editor-in-Chief

Wilderness Society; Joe Sax, professor of environmentalregulation at the Boalt Hall Law School of the University ofCalifornia–Berkeley; Norman Christiansen, dean of theNicholas School of the Environment at Duke University;Hanna Cortner, professor in the School of Renewable Natu-ral Resources of the University of Arizona; Deborah Will-iams, executive director of the Alaska ConservationFoundation; Stewart Udall, former U.S. secretary of interior;George Siehl, retired member of the Congressional ResearchService; William Reffalt, retired chief of refuges for the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service; and Thomas Kiernan, president ofthe National Parks and Conservation Association.

Building on the 1995 Wilderness Strategic Plan adoptedby all the wilderness managing agencies (see Barnes, IJW,March 1997), the purposes of the panel are to (1) assessthe management of the NWPS in contemporary society;

Editorial PerspectivesIssues in the Quality of U.S. Wilderness Management

BY PERRY BROWN

n November 1999 the Pinchot Institute for Conserva-tion (PIC) announced the formation of a select panelto examine the quality of management of the U.S. Na-I

tional Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). The panel,led by Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck, is developingbackground information that will help support a new stra-tegic agenda to “. . . strengthen and insure that proper wil-derness stewardship occurs . . .” and to “. . . bring togethergovernment and nongovernmental interests to strengthentrust among players and identify wilderness actions thatcan be successfully addressed through collaborative efforts”(see Dombeck, IJW, December 1999).

The Panel and Its ApproachI am honored to have been selected to lead this distinguishedpanel. Its members include: Bill Meadows, president of the


and (2) to make recommendations regarding the future ofwilderness management and the sustainability of the sys-tem. The panel has interpreted these purposes as under-standing how the system currently is managed and thenrecommending how it should be managed as we enter the21st century.

The panel first met in Albuquerque, New Mexico, inDecember 1999 to gather background information on thecurrent state of NWPS management and research from avariety of federal managers and researchers and selectedwilderness interests. The wilderness coordinators from thefour federal wilderness management agencies offered theirperspectives on the state of the system. Dr. David Parsons,director of the interagency Aldo Leopold Wilderness Re-search Institute, and Dr. Ken Cordell of the Southern For-est Experiment Station of the USDA Forest Service, reviewedwilderness statistics, public perceptions, and research needs.Historical perspectives on the wilderness system were of-fered by Bill Worf of Wilderness Watch, Dick Sellers of theNational Park Service, and Ted Zukoski of the Land andWater Fund of the Rockies. Wilderness specialists from allthe agencies also attended to provide additional support-ing information.

A second meeting of the panel is planned around theMay 17, 2000, National Wilderness Summit in Washington,D.C., convened by the PIC on behalf of the four federalwilderness managing agencies. The panel will use thesummit as a listening session to hear the issues and con-cerns of many of the voices interested in the future of thewilderness system.

Wilderness Management IssuesWe had wide-ranging discussions at out first meeting in searchof a few broad wilderness management concerns that mightimpact the quality of management. We wanted to identifythose concerns with high leverage that, if addressed, might

bring about important structural changes and thereforeimprovements in the quality of wilderness management.

We will make recommendations later; first we wantedto assess current management.

Some of the key issues emerging from our initial dis-cussions include1. The degree of importance of wilderness in the four

federal land management agencies—is wildernessbeing taken seriously enough?

2. The organizational location and level of wildernessmanagement in the agencies—is it properly positionedfor real strength?

3. The level of funding and staffing allocated to wilder-ness management—are enough resources being com-mitted to wilderness?

4. The degree of collaboration, cooperation, and consis-tency in wilderness management across the agencies—is everyone working together toward the same kind ofmanagement?

5. The kind and level of service being provided to wilder-ness users—are wilderness clients being well served?

6. The quality and topics of wilderness management train-ing and research being provided in support of wilder-ness management—can training of managers andwilderness research be improved and better focused?

Over the next several months the panel will consider anddebate these issues and others prior to making recommen-dations for future management of the NWPS. We will com-plete our work in early 2001. IJW readers with ideas,suggestions, or opinions for the panel to consider are in-vited to submit them to me (see below). IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

PERRY BROWN is chair of the Select Panel to Evaluate the Qualityof U.S. Wilderness Management and dean of the School of Forestryat the University of Montana, Missoula. FAX: 406-243-4845.E-mail: [email protected].


mages of wilderness are as diverse as the value systems ofthose who hold wilderness dear. Yet different people finddifferent attributes important in their ideal image of wil-

uncrowded, and free. However,changes in scientific understand-ing, societal values, and the wilder-ness system itself suggest that thesegoals have become contradictory.To keep wilderness from beingcrowded, some managers deny ac-cess to visitors and severely restrictbehaviors. Other managers, toavoid restrictions, have allowedwilderness to become quitecrowded. Should wilderness beuncrowded or should it be free?The need to make this tragic choice has been aggravated bycontinual increases in wilderness recreation use and by so-cietal decisions to designate lands popular withrecreationists (often near metropolitan areas) as wilderness.Recently designated wilderness, rather than being remote andconducive to the “two-week pack-trip” ideal of Aldo Leopoldand Bob Marshall, is primarily used for short day-trips byproximate urbanites with little free time. In such places, theconflict between uncrowded and free is pronounced.

We face a similar conflict between natural and wildwilderness. Several decades ago managers and policymakersassumed that natural conditions could be perpetuated by leav-ing nature alone. Today, this assumption is untenable. Con-temporary human activities and influences (fire suppression,climate change, and much more) are altering conditions in allwilderness areas. Some wilderness managers have adoptedrestoration programs to compensate for this loss. Yet restora-tion, despite its admirable intent, is a form of control overwilderness conditions. Other managers, to avoid this

Soul of the WildernessNatural, Wild, Uncrowded, or Free?

BY DAVID N. COLE

Abstract: The most important and desirable attributes of wilderness are that it is natural, wild, uncrowded, andfree. However, these attributes come into conflict with each other as society faces difficult decisions aboutwilderness management. This article discusses these attributes, ultimately suggesting that the value of wildernessmight be optimized by embracing a diverse wilderness system, a system in which wilderness values aremaximized or minimized in different areas.

FEATURES

derness. A wilderness landscape is natural, retaining its pri-meval character and influence. Wilderness is wild, a contrastto the rest of the world, and is not intentionally controlledand molded to human purposes. Wilderness is uncrowded, aplace where human presence and evidence is localized andsubtle. Finally, wilderness is free. People seeking appropriatekinds of wilderness experiences should ideally be free to visitwilderness, with a minimum of behavioral restriction.

Each of these four desirable attributes of wilderness iscodified in the language of The Wilderness Act (TWA). Theword “natural” is used several times, as in wilderness is tobe “managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” Natu-ral is usually taken to mean that the influence of post-Columbian peoples should be generally absent. The notionof wild is conveyed by the word “untrammeled,” frequentlymisinterpreted as meaning something similar to natural.Instead, untrammeled is synonymous with unfettered andunrestrained. It suggests freedom from human control ratherthan lack of human influence. The idea that wildernessshould be uncrowded is implicit in the definition of wil-derness as a place that “has outstanding opportunities forsolitude.” Finally, the desire for wilderness to be free is clearin statements that it should “be administered for the useand enjoyment of the American people,” and is a place foran “unconfined type of recreation.”

Wilderness Attributes in ConflictThere is little reason to think that the framers of TWA sawsubstantial conflict between wilderness as natural, wild,

Article author David Cole.

I


“trammeling” of wilderness, have es-chewed hands-on management, leavingwilderness wild and untamed but allow-ing human influence to expand andintensify.Again, choosing between natu-ral and wild wilderness is aggravated bydemands for more wilderness and forwilderness to serve more purposes. In-creasingly, societal voices are assertingthe need for a wilderness system thatincludes representative samples of allbiotic communities and is managed topreserve native species and processes.Such values differ from those that ledearly wilderness advocates to preservesublime landscapes. Many recently des-ignated wilderness areas are small, frag-mented, substantially altered, andsurrounded by threats to their integrity.In such places, the conflict between thenatural and the wild is pronounced.

Tragic ChoicesSince we cannot simultaneously maxi-mize naturalness and wildness, oruncrowdedness and freedom, we mustchoose between these attributes. Howshould we do this? One option is toemphasize one or the other. The obvi-ous drawback to this approach is thatsociety must forgo the other attribute.If we decide to emphasize uncrowd-edness and wildness, for example, so-ciety will lose important benefits thatcan only be obtained from a wilderness

experience as well as benefits thataccrue from preservation of naturalconditions and processes. This wouldbe a reasonable decision if these latterbenefits are relatively less important orcan be provided elsewhere. For each at-tribute, let’s examine benefits that mightbe lost and the potential for those ben-efits to be provided elsewhere.

Losing NaturalnessAt the time TWA was passed, few rec-ognized that naturalness would be lostif wilderness ecosystems were not in-tentionally manipulated. There wassurprisingly little discussion of the de-sirability of preserving representativeexamples of all ecosystems in wilder-ness or of the importance of preserv-ing biotic diversity. Today bioticconservation is widely considered tobe among the most important valuesof wilderness. Designated wildernessareas are the “building blocks” of re-serve networks that maintain viablepopulations of native species. Wide-spread and severe erosion of the natu-ralness in wilderness areas wouldreduce their scientific value. For somenative species and processes, small na-ture reserves will suffice, but for ani-mals that require large areas, there isno substitute for wilderness.

Losing WildnessWilderness represents “self-imposedrestraint in a society that generallyseeks to dominate and control all ofnature” (Noss 1991). TWA can be in-terpreted as an attempt to declare somelands to be off-limits to human engi-neering. Ironically, we are now think-ing about reversing our decision to beself-restrained and molding the lastunengineered lands into our image ofnaturalness. If we do so, the wildnessof wilderness will be diminished. Thescientific value of wilderness will becompromised, because there will no

longer be any unmanipulated land, no“controls” for assessing the success ofwilderness restorations. More impor-tant, humans will lose their ability toexperience life as part of a biologicalrealm that is self-willed and self-or-dered, rather than human controlled.It is hard to imagine lands beyond wil-derness where such selfrestraint willbe exercised.

Losing UncrowdednessUncrowdedness is not entirely satis-factory as a descriptor of the wildernesscondition that is conducive to solitude,contemplation, personal challenge,and communion with nature. Oppor-tunities to experience wilderness inthese ways diminish as more peoplevisit wilderness areas. Although manywilderness trails and popular destina-tions are already crowded, it is unlikelythat the most remote, inaccessibleplaces will ever be crowded. It isequally unlikely that all nonwildernessland, much of which is unattractiveto most recreationists, will becomecrowded. The problem with increasedcrowding, then, is that people lose theability to experience solitude inrecreationally attractive, relatively ac-cessible locations. Since most peopleseek out these opportunities, this rep-resents a significant loss.

Losing FreedomThe ability to benefit from wildernessexperiences when people need and de-sire them is among the foremost valuesof wilderness. Another value is the free-dom to behave spontaneously with fewof the shackles of daily life. Such free-doms are lost when access to wildernessis limited and behavioral restrictions areimplemented. Anyone wanting to floatthe Selway River through the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, for example,must apply for a permit with only a 3%chance of success (unless they go with

Wilderness in Alaska is relatively uncrowded and unaffected byhuman activities. Even here, however, choices must be madebetween naturalness and wildness, lack of crowding andfreedom. Photo courtesy of David N. Cole.


an outfitter). To spend a week hiking atrail in the Mount Rainier Wilderness,one must reserve a campsite each nightof the trip and camp adjacent to otherhikers. Again, it is unlikely that use lim-its and behavioral restrictions will benecessary in unattractive, inaccessibleplaces. But loss of freedom will dimin-ish benefits for wilderness visitors whoprefer more attractive and accessiblelocations.

Some argue that demand for recre-ation experiences should be providedon lands outside wilderness (Lucas1980). A “backcountry” land designa-tion could provide the benefits of freeaccess, making it possible to emphasizeuncrowdedness in designated wilder-ness. Proposals for such complementaryland designations, including one by BobMarshall (1933), have fallen on deafears. Consequently, there is no systemof nonwilderness lands capable of ac-commodating demand for wilderness-like recreation experiences. Instead, wehave a wilderness system that is twiceas large as the “outside maximum” of50 million acres mentioned by HowardZahniser, the principal architect of TWA(U.S. Congress, Senate 1961). For themost part, wildernesslike recreationalbenefits must be provided by designatedwilderness or not be provided at all.

Compromisebetween AttributesTo me, each of these four attributes isvitally important. I cannot imagine theloss of any of them, nor can I imaginehow they could be compensated foroutside wilderness. Some colleaguessuggest my all-or-nothing argumentsare too rigid. There is some truth totheir complaint. Indeed, none of theseattributes will be entirely lost, regard-less of what we do. Nor is it possible,in the pluralistic society we live in, toavoid compromise between compet-ing value systems. In fact, the most

likely outcome of the conflict betweenattributes will be a compromise inwhich each attribute is diminished, asystem in which most wilderness ar-eas are substantially altered, frequentlymanipulated, crowded in some places,and restricted in others.

We are already well down this path.Consider places where controlled burn-ing has been used to reduce fuel buildupand thin dense thickets of trees result-ing from fire suppression. Managementgoals may refer to restoring naturalness.However, fires typically are not ignitedwith the frequency or timing needed torestore natural conditions. Rather,enough fire is applied to reduce the fuelloadings and the risk of wildfire. Theresult is wilderness that is neither verynatural nor very wild.

Consider the places where manag-ers have dealt with heavy recreationdemand by limiting the use of popu-lar trails and destinations. One resultis that spontaneity and freedom of ac-cess are reduced. Often, use limits inpopular places have displaced visitorsto locations that had not been crowdedbefore. Unless limits are set at low lev-els, crowding problems grow withoutsignificant alleviation of crowding inthe most popular places. The result iswilderness that is neither very un-crowded nor very free.

Embracing DiversityHow might we preserve a diversity ofwilderness values? The alternative tocompromising every attribute every-where is to compromise different at-tributes in different places. We couldemphasize naturalness, using manipu-

lative restoration, in some wildernessbut not in others. Obvious candidatesfor emphasizing naturalness would besmall wildernesses surrounded by de-veloped lands, representative ex-amples of every ecosystem type, andplaces that harbor critical species orecosystems endangered or threatenedby human disturbance. Large remotewilderness areas would be good can-didates for emphasizing wildness. Wecould plan for a broad range of recre-ation use levels and allow heavy visi-tation in selected wilderness locations,while ensuring that use levels remainlow on most wilderness lands. Suchan approach would maintain most ofthe wilderness system in an un-crowded state, while being responsiveto increasing demand for wildernessexperiences.

ConclusionMuch has changed in the decadessince TWA was passed. The popula-tion of the United States has grown insize and diversity as has the wilder-ness system and the demands placedon that system. Now we must decidehow to respond to the conflicting

. . . choosing between natural and wild wilderness isaggravated by demands for more wilderness and forwilderness to serve more purposes.

Backpackers in Alaska, which has some of the most natural,wild, uncrowded, and free wilderness in North America. Photocourtesy of David N. Cole.


demands of conservation biologists,humanists, recreationists, educators,and therapists. If we continue with tra-ditional, site-specific, decentralizeddecisionmaking, the future wildernesssystem will be the result of countlessindependent decisions made overmany years by hundreds of differentindividuals—a classic example of “thetyranny of small decisions” (Kahn1966). The likely result is a relativelyhomogeneous system of wildernessthat is neither highly natural, wild, un-crowded, or free.

I suggest, instead, that we take aproactive, coordinated approach to

decisionmaking. Society should de-bate the pros and cons of different at-tributes and plan for a system thatoptimizes legitimate wilderness values.This might mean deciding on asystemwide emphasis on one or an-other of these opposing values. Alter-natively, it might mean allocatingseparate lands to each opposing valueand embracing diversity. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

DAVID N. COLE is a research biologist withthe Aldo Leopold Wilderness ResearchInstitute, Rocky Mountain Research Station,Missoula, Montana 59807, USA. Telephone:406-542-4199. Email: [email protected].

REFERENCESKahn, A. E. 1966. The tyranny of small deci-

sions: market failures, imperfections and thelimits of economics. Kyklos 19: 23–47.

Lucas, R. C. 1980. The “backcountry concept”:a positive viewpoint. Montana Outdoors11(6): 24–25.

Marshall, R. 1933. The forest for recreation. Sen-ate Doc. No. 12, Sep No. 6. Washington D.C.:United States Government Printing Office.

Noss, R. F. 1991. Sustainability and wilderness.Conservation Biology 5: 120–122.

U.S. Congress, Senate. 1961. A bill to estab-lish a National Wilderness Preservation Sys-tem for the permanent good of the wholepeople and for other purposes. Hearingsbefore the committee on interior and insularaffairs. 87th Congress, 1st session. Feb. 27,28, 1961. “Statement of Howard Zahniseron behalf of Trustees for Conservation.”

Blooming

If it weren’t for the wildflowers,I wonder if I’d begin life anew,find the strength to stretchlike a child upon waking,to extract the damp fingersthat cling, try to root me.

In this dazzle of petals and beesand sweet pungent floodI vision my reveries realized:me floating just above everythingmore heart-filled and moon-fedeach blooming.

Once I marked the passingof my dreams.Now my dreams mark me.Yarrow and tiger lilycloak my shoulders,the meadow rises from the center of a soulwhich whispers the lessonsit longs to livewith a passionresplendent, crazy, free,and here.Undeniably here.

—Sharon Brisolara


Visitors, Activities andTechnology, and Future Roles

COMPILED BY ALAN EWERT

The richest values of wildernesslie not in the days of Daniel Boone,

nor even in the present, but rather in the future.

—Aldo Leopold

Introductionby Alan Ewert

Most of us have heard the cliché that the only thing constant is change, and in some ways the concept ofwilderness epitomizes this idea. All ecologically based systems relatively uncontrolled by humans undergoboth periodic and random transformations, usually at micro and meso levels (e.g., changes in vegetativestructures), but also at macro levels (e.g., large-scale land transformations through fire, floods, etc.). But it isalso true that wilderness represents continuity and stability. For much of the public, the wilderness environmentis a place that remains unchanged and unaffected by human actions. Thus, it represents an antithesis to theurban setting, the place most of us live. Within that framework, wilderness becomes a place the individual candepend on. Whether wilderness is a place of change, continuity, or both, there are a number of major trendsand potential changes that will impact the wilderness resource in the 21st century.

This issue of theIJW brings together a broad spectrum of researchers, scholars, and wilderness managersto address the role of wilderness in the new century.

This special section has been divided into three parts: Visitors; Activities and Technology; and FutureRoles. In the first section, Debbie Chavez of the USDA Forest Service (USFS); Bill Hammitt and Rudy Schusterof Clemson University, and Joe Roggenbuck of Virginia Tech. comment on who wilderness visitors are and willbe, their perceptions and desires, and what values they hold regarding wilderness.

In the second section, John Shultis of the University of Northern British Columbia, Les Wadzinski, a recre-ation and wilderness program manager with the USDA Forest Service, Doug Knapp of Indiana University, andGlenn Haas and Marcella Wells from Colorado State University address the impact of technology on wilder-ness experiences and activities likely to engage 21st-century wilderness visitors. Another important question—how will these activities and technologies impact the wilderness and wilderness management?

In the final section, Ken Cordell and Jerry Stokes of the USFS, Dan Dustin of Florida International Univer-sity, and Leo McAvoy of the University of Minnesota look at the future roles of wilderness in society. Of primaryconsideration is how wilderness values will be integrated into the larger mosaic of our culture.

The authors were asked to comment on these issues from a personal point of view rather than strictly amanagement or scientific perspective. Not surprisingly, these commentaries may generate more questionsthan they answer. Readers may disagree with some of the opinions here, but this disagreement can be positiveif it helps open dialogue about the role of wilderness in the 21st century. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

SPECIAL SECTION

WILDERNESSIN THE 21ST CENTURY


VISITORS

Wilderness Visitors in the 21st CenturyDiversity, Day Use, Perceptions and Preferences

BY DEBORAH J. CHAVEZ

The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.—Eleanor Roosevelt

Two of the most important questionswilderness managers ask are: Has rec-reational use of individual wildernessareas increased in the past, and is it likelyto increase in the future? According toCole (1996), the answer to both ques-tions appears to be “yes.” Other ques-tions that managers should ask are: Whowill visit wilderness areas in the 21stcentury? What will their recreation pat-terns be? And will their perceptions andpreferences for wilderness be differentfrom current visitors?

DiversityDespite population growth in urbanareas and increasing diversity nation-wide, there appears to be little diver-sity among wilderness visitors in theUnited States. Frequent users are al-most exclusively white (Chavez1993a; Ewert 1998; Hendon 1991;Parker and Winter 1998), male(Chavez 1993a, 1993b; Ewert 1998),between 30 and 40 years of age onaverage (Chavez 1993a; Cole et al.1997; Ewert 1998), well educated(Chavez 1993a, 1993b; Hendon 1991;Parker and Winter 1998; Roggenbuckand Watson 1989), and from urbanareas (Roggenbuck and Watson 1989).According to Walker and Kiecolt(1995), the “semi-autonomous class”(educated white males) predominantlydefines the meaning of wilderness,works to obtain designated wilderness,

and uses wilderness. However, theysuggest that social class may not bethe sole or even primary determinantof wilderness use, that gender, life-cycle stage, and ethnicity may affectwilderness use even more.

We know very little about wilder-ness visitors outside this “semi-au-tonomous class.” To learn more weneed to examine what is known fromother studies about racial and ethnicgroups, people with disabilities, olderpeople, women, and at-risk youth andapply those findings to wilderness use.For example, Hispanics (one of thefastest growing groups in the U.S.)prefer the social aspects of recreation(Hutchison 1987), tend to travel withfamily and friends (Chavez 1993b;Parker and Winter 1998), and wish toparticipate in more outdoor recreationactivities (Chavez 1999), includingthose appropriate to wilderness suchas horseback riding, camera safaris,and natural history hiking. However,there is no indication of demand foruse of designated wilderness by peoplefrom diverse groups, thus use of wil-derness could decrease in the futureas demographics shift.

Day UseWhile backpacking is expected to grow155% by 2040 (Cordell et al. 1990), itis day-hiking that may define wildernessuse in the 21st century. Several studies

◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

noted a significant amount of day use(Chavez 1993b; Cole 1996; Cole et al.1997; Cordell and others 1990; Ewert1998; Roggenbuck and Watson 1989;Watson, Cole, and Roggenbuck 1995).But, will it continue? The literature sug-gests that time is a factor (Lucas andStankey 1988). People want recre-ational destinations that are accessibleand close to home (Chavez 1993b,1999; Cole et al. 1997; Ewert 1998),so it appears we can expect this day-use trend to continue.

Why is this important? Day users aremore likely to be repeat visitors thanovernight campers (Chavez 1993b; Coleet al. 1997). They typically have visitedmore wilderness areas in their life, spentmore days in wilderness during the past

Preparing to catch big northern pike in the BoundaryWaters Canoe Area Wilderness. Photo courtesy ofJohn Roggenbuck.


year, and make more wilderness visitsper year (Cole et al. 1997).

Perceptions and PreferencesStudies indicate that current wildernessvisitors go backpacking, observe wild-life (Chavez 1993a), day-hike, and gosightseeing (Chavez 1993b). They pre-fer pristine areas with beautiful scenery,want to be close to nature, and desirean absence of human-made objects(Chavez 1993a; Ewert 1998). Theywant to slow down the mind, escapethe routine, and have freedom fromrules (Ewert 1998). Will this continue?As Noah benShea notes, “People climbmountains because mountains are there.As long as there are mountains, folkswill want to climb them” (1999, p. 12).

Some visitors say they would liketo have more information aboutnearby areas and other recreation sites(Chavez 1993b). Where do people gettheir information? Some seek familyand friends, others may use second-ary sources, including malls and theInternet. People may use resources likethe American Wilderness Experience(located in the Ontario Mills Mall inOntario, California) where they can“hike the redwood forest, trek the highSierras, and come ‘whisker to whis-ker’ with native critters in the re-cre-ation of their natural ecosystems”(American Wilderness Experience bro-chure 1996), all within the mallboundaries. They may “travel” to anelectronic wilderness in cyberspace(Walker and Kiecolt 1995). However,“virtual reality may soon be a fact oflife and still have nothing to do withthe facts of life” (benShea 1999, p. 10).

We need to educate the country’sdiverse population about wilderness.Managers should provide staff train-ing on diversity (Henderson 1997) andinvolve diverse participants indecisionmaking. The future of wilder-ness depends on it. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

DEBORAH J. CHAVEZ is a researchscientist with the USDA Forest Servicebased in Riverside, California, USA.E-mail: dchavez/[email protected].

REFERENCESbenShea, Noah. 1999. Parks and recreation:

A role as old as it will be new. The Millen-nium Vision, a supplement to Parks and Rec-reation Magazine: 6–12.

Chavez, Deborah J. 1999. Demographic shifts:potential impacts for outdoor recreationmanagement. In Outdoor Recreation: AReader for Congress Prepared for the Com-mittee on Energy and Natural Resources,105th Congress, 2nd Sessio: 155–160.

Chavez, Deborah J. 1993a. Pilot study of chang-ing urban wilderness recreation use on theCleveland National Forest phase I: past wil-derness users. Unpublished draft availablefrom the author.

Chavez, Deborah J. 1993b. Pilot study of chang-ing urban wilderness recreation use on theCleveland National Forest phase II: on-sitewilderness users. Unpublished draft avail-able from the author.

Cole, David N. 1996. Wilderness recreation inthe United States: trends in use, users, andimpacts. IJW, 2(3): 14–18.

Cole, David N., Alan E. Watson, Troy E. Hall, andDavid R. Spildie. 1997. High-use destinationsin wilderness: social and biophysical impacts,visitor responses, and management options.Research Paper INT-RP-496. Ogden, Utah:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser-vice, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 30.

Cordell, H. Ken, John C. Bergstrom, LawrenceA. Hartmann, and Donald B.K. English.1990. An analysis of the outdoor recreationand wilderness situation in the United States:1989–2040. General Technical Report RM-189. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station: 113.

Ewert, Alan W. 1998. A comparison of urban-proximate and urban-distant wilderness us-ers on selected variables. EnvironmentalManagement 22(6): 927–935.

Henderson, Karla A. 1997. Diversity, differencesand leisure services. Parks and RecreationNovember: 24–35.

Hendon, William C. 1991. The wilderness as asource of recreation and renewal. Ameri-can Journal of Economics and Sociology50(1): 105–112.


Hutchison, R. 1987. Ethnicity and urban recre-ation: whites, blacks, and Hispanics inChicago’s public parks. Journal of LeisureResearch 19(3): 205–222.

Lucas, Robert C., and George H. Stankey. 1988.Shifting trends in wilderness recreation use.In Outdoor Recreation Benchmark1988:proceedings of the National Outdoor Rec-reation Forum, January 13–14, Tampa, FL,comp. By Alan E. Watson. General Techni-cal Report SE-52. Asheville, N.C.: U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Research Station: 357–367.

Parker, Julia D., and Patricia L. Winter. 1998. Acase study of communication with Anglo andHispanic wilderness visitors. Research brief,Journal of Interpretation Research 3(1): 55–56.

Roggenbuck, Joseph W., and Alan E. Watson.1989. Wilderness recreation use: the currentsituation. In Outdoor Recreation Bench-mark1988: proceedings of the NationalOutdoor Recreation Forum, January 13-14,Tampa, FL comp. By Alan E. Watson. Gen-eral Technical Report SE-52. Asheville, N.C.:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Southeastern Research Station: 346–356.

Walker, Gordon J., and K. Jill Kiecolt. 1995.Social class and wilderness use. Leisure Sci-ences 17: 295–308.

Watson, Alan E., David N. Cole, and JosephW. Roggenbuck. 1995. Trends in wildernessrecreation use characteristics. In proceed-ings of the Fourth International OutdoorRecreation & Tourism Trends Symposium,May 14–17, St. Paul, Minnesota, comp. byJerrilyn L. Thompson, David W. Lime, BillGartner, and Wayne M. Sames. St. Paul,Minn. University of Minnesota, College ofNatural Resources and Minnesota ExtensionService: 68–71.

We need to educate the country’s diverse populationabout wilderness.

Many people prefer to travel to nearby destinations with familyand friends. USDA Forest Service photo.


VISITORS

Wilderness Use in the Next 100 YearsBY WILLIAM E. HAMMITT and RUDY M. SCHUSTER

The density and diversity of wildernessuse will increase during the next 100years. However, these increases will notbe uniform throughout areas and activi-ties. The three primary influences willbe (1) a shift in the type of wildernessuser (2) diverse and efficient recreationuses, and (3) niche/experiential use.

Wilderness UsersWill ChangeDemographic shifts forecast that theU.S. population will double within thenext 100 years and that immigration willaccount for a large portion of it. Today,

ized activities. As a result of this pro-cess, day use will continue to increase,and more involved wilderness activities,such as overnight use and extendedtrips, will have a delayed increase.

Wilderness Use/IntensiveManagementThe perceptions and desires of wilder-ness users will change considerablyover the next 100 years. Users willdemand more efficient use of their lim-ited time when visiting wilderness andmore intensive management of re-sources to facilitate that use, resultingin easier accessibility and less effortand self-reliance.

Users will maximize leisure timethrough extensive trip-planning meth-ods, including computer/Internetsources (e.g., topographic maps on CD-ROM, National Park websites, BWCAtrip planning sites), guidebooks, videos,and a fast-expanding telecommunica-tions network of wilderness informa-tion. Wilderness trip planning, andactual trips, may take on the efficiencyof “pseudo AAA—planned for you” vis-its in the future. The decrease in leisuretime, increase in wilderness informa-tion, and accessibility will interact re-sulting in users opting for morestructured wilderness adventures.

Wilderness users will increasinglyrely on outfitters, guides, and outdooreducation services to facilitate eco-tourism and wilderness adventures.Facilitated wilderness adventures thatare “sold” using photographs, detailed


72% of the population is white; less than50% will be white in 100 years. Ameri-cans, Asians, Hispanics, and others whowere previously unaware of wilderness,as well as international recreationists,will account for a larger portion of wil-derness users. These new users willbring epistemologies that are incongru-ent with the “American WildernessEthic” that was originally used to foundthe Wilderness Preservation System. In-creased cultural pluralism will result inan expanded Wilderness Ethic. While“purists” will maintain the WildernessEthic, new users will adapt the ethic tobe congruent with their epistemologies.New user groups with varying demandswill attempt to (1) pressure administra-tors to ease wilderness regulations (2)de-list some existing wilderness areas,and (3) enact less rigorous regulationsin future areas added to the system.

The structure of the average workweek is changing in the United States.“Rising competitiveness … with low jobsecurity provides a powerful incentivefor workers to acquiesce to employers’demands for long hours … this resultsin less time for other pursuits” (Bell,1998, pp. 57–58). As a result of in-creased popularity of wilderness activi-ties and a decrease in time to pursueleisure activities, day use will accountfor the largest increase in wilderness useby volume. A certain portion of the newusers engaging in day use of wildernesswill be short-term participants andquickly replaced by other new users.Other new users will continue to par-ticipate and move toward more special-

Llamas and other pack stock may serve more and more visitorsin the wilderness of the 21st century. Photo by Alan Ewert.

Will the future wilderness visitor venture only as far as VideoAdventure? Photo by Alan Ewert.


accounts of what will be encountered,and other marketing techniques will bea significant factor altering the charac-ter of the traditional wilderness experi-ence. Senior citizens, day users, families,and organized groups will find theseaided, userfriendly wilderness trips de-sirable. These “wilderness clients” willfind it difficult to differentiate betweenexperiences provided by outfitters andguides and more traditional, self-reliantwilderness experiences. Users engagingin this type of wilderness recreation willhave high and specific expectations ofwhat they will receive for their money.In addition, the effort required to gainthe experience necessary to participatein specialized wilderness activities willdecrease as access to facilitated experi-ences increases. Traditional socializationmethods for novices to acquire knowl-edge and skill will continue, but in-creased outfitter and guide socializationand facilitated experiences will producea quantitatively and qualitatively differ-ent wilderness user.

Niche/Experiential UseMore wilderness users desire to en-hance the “wild” in wilderness by en-

gaging in high-adventure, high-riskactivities. These adrenaline related ac-tivities require certain niche resourcesin wilderness. They are valued by theirusers, may be genetically motivated,and will only increase in the future.High-adventure, high-risk experiencesin wilderness may be as dominant inthe next 100 years as backpackingsolitude is today.

In conclusion, the density and di-versity of wilderness use will changeduring the next 100 years. The chal-lenge for wilderness managers andpolicymakers will be to meet the needsof these new users, while ensuring thehealth and protection of wildlands.IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

WILLIAM E. HAMMITT and RUDY M.SCHUSTER work in the Parks, Recreationand Tourism Management and ForestResources Department at ClemsonUniversity. E-mail: [email protected].


High-adventure, high-risk experiences in wildernessmay be as dominant in the next 100 years as back-packing solitude is today.

Nothing beats the beauty and solitude of the wilderness. Photoby Alan Ewert.

Some of the finest solitude in the NWPS is now found in thedesert wilderness in the Southwest. Photo by Marilyn Riley.

Signs and posted regulations are increasingly common inwilderness areas. Photo by Alan Ewert.


The way in which Americans learnabout and relate to nature (especiallywild nature) is changing in the 21stcentury. Demographic trends, such asan aging population and increased eth-nic diversity, will affect the kinds ofpeople who visit wilderness, as wellas what they expect, what they bring,how they behave, and what experi-ences they have in wilderness. Ulti-mately, all these changes will alter themeaning of wilderness itself. Wilder-ness policymakers and managers havelittle control over these changes, buttheir actions in response to them willhelp redefine the National WildernessPreservation System in the 21st cen-tury. The wilderness community needsto talk about the most appropriate re-sponses to these forces of change.

The meaning of nature changes inall cultures, and the United States is noexception. The definition of wild naturein the United States is undergoing rapid

change, especially among its youth andyoung professionals. The change ap-pears to be less shaped by living on theland and science, and more by the vir-tual reality of television, the mall, Disney,and the web. More American homes to-day have TV sets than indoor plumb-ing (Price 1999). Television watching isthe number-one use of leisure time inAmerica (33% of our free time). Andnature sells on TV; its proliferation onTV in recent decades amounts to a greenrevolution (Price 1999). TV magnifiesand accelerates nature. It captivates usbefore we change channels. For ex-ample, lions on TV are shown tearingapart wildebeest after wildebeest, eventhough lions mostly sleep, sniff, andscratch.

Disney and megamalls have becomesymbols of the United States. Interna-tional tourists from Australia and Japanlist Disney as their number-one desti-nation. For many families in America, ajourney to Disneyland has become moreimportant than a trip to Yellowstone.Children (and parents) encounter a na-ture at Disney that is carefully“imagineered ” for leisure and aestheticconsumption (Archer 1996). Charis-matic fauna are lured by feeding, therisk of a stumble or bite is virtually elimi-nated, and the role of human manage-ment is hidden.

For many, shopping is now a domi-nant leisure activity, and consumerism

is a primary means to build, test, andaugment self-identity. For manypeople in America, the mall is morethan a place to shop, it’s a place tohang out and create identity. This isnot lost on the designers and entre-preneurs of the mall, nor is it lost onthe sellers of nature. For example, theMall of America in Minneapolis re-ceives more visitors than the GrandCanyon and Disneyland combined. Ithas a Nature Company store; a themepark with a Minnesota woodlandmotif; and a “wilderness hut” and arainforest café with live animals, awaterfall, fog, and even a “star-filled”sky. The mall has become a teacher ofnature, providing an opportunity topurchase a piece of it for home dis-play and worship.


VISITORS

Meanings of Wilderness Experiencesin the 21st Century

BY JOSEPH W. ROGGENBUCK

Dinnertime on Little Saganaga Lake in the BoundaryWaters Canoe Area. Photo courtesy of JohnRoggenbuck.

Nothing matches the solitude and freedom of paddling awilderness lake. Photo by Alan Ewert.


The New NatureBut what kind of nature does TV, theweb, the mall, and Disney teach, andhow will these entities shape wilder-ness visits and visitors in the future? Ibelieve that the new nature is pack-aged and convenient (above all else,Americans want their leisure and na-ture to be convenient), and divorcedfrom time and place. Free time for lei-sure and learning in America is avail-able in smaller and smaller chunks. Ifwe have no time to travel somewhere,we travel nowhere. We click throughTV channels or explore the ima-gineered nature of Disney or themegamalls.

The new nature of the masses isclean, comfortable, safe, and sanitized.It is not messy. It has no sting. Naturein the mall or at Disney doesn’t bite.There are no real mosquitoes or lions.Bears don’t rob us of our dinner in thenight. If we start to sweat, we can reston a convenient bench, or better yet,pop into the store behind the bench,buy some deodorant, and quench ourthirst with bottled water from a “natu-ral spring.”

Nature is increasingly vivid and ex-citing. The human designers of the

new nature control its flow. Hikingtrails are short, strategically sprinkledwith scenic vistas. Stores attract uswith the smell and music of nature.Arousal and attention are manipu-lated through vertigo, interpretivesigns, or mysterious, curving trails.The new nature has the proper levelof stimulation and arousal; the newnature is entertaining. But if bychance science and technology getit wrong, or the experience becomestoo crowded, too cold, or too bor-ing, we just click the mouse. Andthis is another descriptor of our newnature: We can leave it. Nature isseparate from humans.

Finally, nature and the nature ex-perience have become increasinglycommodified. A family today canspend thousands of dollars at DisneyWorld. We purchase TV nature athome for a monthly fee. At malls, wepurchase mementos of nature. Atbookstores, we find nature adventurestories and scenic calendars. Atsuperstores, “gearheads” purchase ex-pensive outdoor paraphernalia tosmooth the bumps, soothe the itches,and light the darkness of wild nature.All they ask is that these products orservices be convenient, comfortable,and exciting, and that the goods en-hance their identity as nature lovers.

Wilderness Usein the 21st CenturyHow will this redefinition of natureaffect wilderness use and users in the21st century? I’m guessing first of allthat the easy access to virtual naturewill only increase the demand for wil-derness protection. Second, I don’tbelieve it will cause a decline in ac-tual wilderness visits, at least not inthe foreseeable future. I’m guessingthat for every potential wildernessvisitor who gets lost and fulfilled in

the simulation of nature, another willbe provoked to try out the “real thing.”The wild is still deeply ingrained inthe American spirit.

But I do think future visitors willexpect and ask for quite different ex-periences in wilderness and make verydifferent demands on wilderness man-agers. To be sure, a few John Muirtypes will still go to the wildernessalone, with only a sleeping bag and abag of beans in a pack. But an increas-ing number will want to buy a “wil-derness experience package.” Touroperators in “somewhere” places suchas Los Angeles, Chicago, and Balti-more, or in “nowhere” places on theweb, will compete to meet the newmarket demand. Entrepreneurs willoffer wilderness experience packages,each tweaked at the edges for distinc-tion from its competitors.

But I’m guessing the prototypicalwilderness experience will likely beone that can be bought and sold atthe spur of the moment. It will be longon image and identity-formation po-tential, so the Bob Marshalls and theBoundary Waters will remain popu-lar. But repeat visits will likely dropdrastically, as the new wilderness cli-entele struggles with the slow rhythmsof nature and seeks ever more noveland adventurous experiences. Withfew returning visitors, wilderness willbecome less and less a place of attach-ment imbued with personal history.


Mountain biking is one of the relatively newtechnological threats to wilderness areas. Photo byAlan Ewert.

Getting ready for a trip into the wilderness. Photo by AlanEwert.



Expectations ofFuture Wilderness VisitorsIn part because the future wildernessvisitors will pay for nature, they willlikely demand greater service quality.And what will the new nature loversdemand? They probably will wantconvenient, fast, and efficient care.Gone will be the days when outfittersrummage through storage rooms toput together food packs, find back-packs or paddles, or blow up raftswhile customers wait. The outfitterwill provide menus and vacuum-packed food, conveniently packagedin individual meal bags, just like themall, and all before the visitor arrives.

New wilderness visitors will alsoexpect their tour operator, leisurecounselor, outfitter, or guide to medi-ate or interpret wild nature. Potentialclients will access this information onthe web, discovering when the fishbite, the flowers bloom, or the lionsmate. At base camps at the edge ofwilderness, outfitters and rangers willsuggest possible routes that avoid thescars of past fire and storms, that offerthe best views, and that permit the

quickest escape if boredom, danger,or disappointment strikes. Clients mayeven rent global positioning systemsso they know where they are, and per-haps even where the bears are.

The Role ofOutfitters and GuidesIn the 21st century, adventure programs,outfitters, and guides will likely lead agreater and greater percentage of wil-derness visitors through the experience.This permits visitors to find their de-sired experience most quickly. Visitorscoming from the mall, TV, and Disneywill want picturesque nature; they willhave little interest in ecological or evo-lutionary nature. So trip guides will leadthem to waterfalls, grizzly bears (at a safedistance), and sunsets, and lead themaway from nature’s wrath. The guideswill also mediate their clients’ adven-ture. They will assess their clients’ in-terests and abilities, match challengeswith their competencies, and lead thembeyond boredom and anxiety.

Finally, the nature experience ofwilderness in the 21st century will beclean, comfortable, and safe. In thename of Leave No Trace (LNT), out-fitters will put down carpets in wil-derness to catch crumbs during dinnerand protect feet from biting ants. Wil-derness visitors will minimize the sizeof campsites and remove fire ringsrather than “improve” the sites throughhuman ingenuity. The art of buildinga cook fire may be lost, giving way tothe ecological lessons of what critterslive in and under firewood, what woodburns best, and how ancestors and

pioneers lived in nature. Adventureschools will teach greater and greaternumbers of people to live comfortablyin the woods. Nature stores will sellfood containers so that bears and li-ons don’t rob people in the night. Theymight even sell bear-proof containersto sleep in so that visitors will be safe!

The power of the forces of changeare all but irresistible. People wantnature. It’s aesthetic. It’s healthy. It sells.The market will respond not only tomeet demand, but advertise, promote,and further redefine nature. The mar-ket will increasingly demand quick,convenient, intense, scenic, and sani-tized experiences in wilderness. Pub-lic land managers will tend to respondto the market by charging fees, pro-moting LNT, and cleaning up whennature or people leave a mess.

Should the MarketDefine Nature?But should management be guided bypolling? Should we allow the marketto decide the ideal or normative wildnature experience? Or should we re-sist the market trends and return to

The new nature of the masses is clean, comfortable,safe, and sanitized. It is not messy. It has no sting.Nature in the mall or at Disney doesn’t bite.

Paddlers load a canoe in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.Photo courtesy of John Roggenbuck.

Alan Ewert on the trail. Photo courtesy of Alan Ewert.


the romantic ideals of solitude andprimitivism advocated by Thoreau,Muir, and Olson? Should we advocatethe “living in the woods” skills advo-cated by Leopold and Marshall? Shouldwe slow down the wilderness experi-ence and encourage Muir’s meditationon the slow rhythms of a flower?

A new or revised wilderness idealmay be needed to serve as a guide forthe future management of wild natureexperiences. The wilderness commu-nity needs to actively engage in a dia-logue about its qualities. I have longvalued the ideals of solitude, primi-


tivism, and the sublime, but this viewof the wild nature ideal is coming un-der increasing criticism (e.g., seeCronon 1995; Callicott and Nelson1998). I agree with recent wildernesscritiques that any change or revisionin wilderness ideals should recognizeand promote nature as evolutionaryand ecological. Humans should im-merse themselves deeply in nature.How future recreational visitors de-velop deeper ecological and evolution-ary connections with nature inwilderness is a matter the professionmust discuss and debate. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

The IssueThe Golem is a mythological creaturein the Jewish faith/culture magicallycreated from clay and water to helphuman beings in their work and pro-tect them from enemies. In stories, theGolem becomes more powerful andclumsy every day, turning into “a lum-bering fool who knows neither its ownstrength nor the extent of its clumsi-ness and influence” (Collins and Pinch1998, p. 1), and ultimately threaten-ing to destroy the very creatures it wascreated to protect: human beings.

Society has long feared the possiblepower of technology to destroy hu-mankind or the Earth itself (e.g.,nuclear weaponry). This fear is a fa-vorite theme in science fiction. Para-doxically, humans have also embracedalmost every form of technological

innovation producing a classic love-hate relationship. An often forgottenparadox is that wilderness is embed-ded within a similarly ambiguous re-lationship with technology: Whilewilderness recreation is about living asimpler life unencumbered with thetrappings of “civilization,” we increas-ingly require technology to enjoy wil-derness. Further, the appearance of thecultural constructs of wilderness andparks are reliant upon the technologi-cal innovations.

Wilderness managers have beenrelatively silent on the impacts of rec-reation technology on (1) backcountryrecreationists (2) outdoor recreationactivities, (3) the wilderness setting,(4) wilderness experiences, and (5)wilderness management. Years ago,the automobile was briefly opposed in

national parks in North America. Butautomobile proponents won the day,arguing that automobiles facilitatedpark use and generated demand, pub-lic support, funding, and even newparks.

These old battle lines may soon bedrawn again. The rate of technologi-cal change in outdoor recreation isgrowing exponentially, and recreation

Entering the John Muir Wilderness. Photo by Alan Ewert.

JOSEPH W. ROGGENBUCK is professor ofnatural resource recreation, Department ofForestry, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg,Virginia 24061, USA. Telephone:540-231-7418. Email: [email protected].

REFERENCESArcher, K. 1996. A lighter shade of green: re-

producing nature in central Florida. TheFlorida Geographer 27: 4–21.

Callicott, J. B. and M. P. Nelson, eds. 1998.The New Great Wilderness Debate. Athens,Ga.: The University of Georgia Press: 697.

Cronon, W., ed. 1995. Uncommon Ground:Toward Reinventing Nature. New York:W.W. Norton & Company.

Price, J. 1999. Flight Maps: Adventures withNature in Modern America. New York: Ba-sic Books: 325.

ACTIVITIES AND TECHNOLOGY

Gearheads and GolemsTechnology and Wilderness Recreation in the 21st Century

BY JOHN SHULTIS


managers are becoming frustratedwith new technology. From the irre-sistible vantage point of the year 2000,it seems safe to assume that wilder-ness managers will be increasinglycalled upon to control and limit thegrowth of recreation technology. Tech-nology drives too many cumulativeimpacts on recreationists, the setting,wilderness experiences, and manage-ment practices for neutral decisionmaking.

However, the rate of technologicalchange makes controlling the use ofrecreation technology extremely diffi-cult. Perhaps the only solution is not

to identify the specific activities thatare allowable (too many new activi-ties will appear), but to further clarifythe range of experiences suitable forspecific settings. Yet technology mayhave already changed the very essenceof the wilderness experience and set-ting, so even this approach may notbe an appropriate long-term solution.

“No technology” or “low-technology”zones, such as the previously suggested“no rescue” zones (McAvoy and Dustin1981), do not yet appear to have wide-spread public or political support. Butas environmental and social impactsfrom recreation technology accumulatein wilderness, will support for thesetypes of zones be far behind? It is inter-esting that technology has become sopervasive in outdoor recreation that acounterculture of “low-tech” or “no-tech” recreationists is emerging. Onerecent example is Swedish climberGoran Kropp, who cycled unassistedfrom his home in Sweden to MountEverest, climbed the world’s highestpeak solo without oxygen, and thencycled back home.

What Is Needed?While a growing number of authorsare discussing the impacts of technol-ogy on wilderness recreation, moststudies use an intuitive approach be-cause little empirical information isavailable. Both quantitative and quali-tative approaches are needed to ex-pand knowledge on this subject. Forexample, we need to ask recreationiststo share their understanding of howthe use and nonuse of recreation tech-

nology affects their wilderness expe-rience and then identify optimalmanagement strategies.

Change is inevitable, and as thecomplexity and range of technologi-cal advances in recreation equipmentincreases, these new technologies willaffect the experiential and biophysi-cal attributes of wilderness and itsmanagement. Whether recreationtechnology becomes another Golem,destroying the wilderness it is de-signed for, or it helps create a new,more temporally and culturally rel-evant form of wilderness is not yetknown. It behooves us to work harderto understand technology’s past,present, and future impacts on wilder-ness and outdoor recreation. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

JOHN SHULTIS is an associate professor inthe Resource Recreation and TourismProgram at the University of NorthernBritish Columbia, Prince George, BritishColumbia, Canada V2N 4Z9. Telephone:250-960-5640. E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCESCollins, H., and T. Pinch. 1998. The Golem at

Large: What You Should Know about Tech-nology. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

McAvoy, L. H. and D. L. Dustin. 1981. The rightto risk in wilderness. Journal of Forestry79(3): 150–152.


Mining equipment operating in a wilderness area in BritishColumbia, Canada. Photo by Alan Ewert.

A wilderness sign vandalized by ungrateful visitors. Photo byAlan Ewert.

…wilderness managers will be increasingly calledupon to control and limit the growth of recreationtechnology.

Solitude can be found in wilderness. Photo by AlanEwert.



Wilderness Activities in the 21st CenturyA Commentary

BY LES WADZINSKI

What will people be doing in wilder-ness in the next century? Will wilder-ness activities stay the same as they aretoday because the wilderness conceptdoesn’t change, or will we see new ac-tivities because of a change in publicsentiment and perceptions aboutwilderness. Picture these two scenarios:

October 23, 2098: Bill hits thetrail in the long establishedCharles C. Deam Wildernesswith his new “wildernesscertified” magnetic compass.He thanks his lucky starsCongress recognized the valueof wilderness and finallyprohibited electronics and allother technology less than 100years old. Nothing like a quiethike among the trees to getclose to nature.

October 23, 2098: Bill hits thetrail in the recently designatedCentral Park Wilderness on hislaser board. He thanks hislucky stars that Congressfinally got with the 22ndcentury and lightened up onthose silly restrictions. Nothinglike an 80 mph glide betweenthe trees to get close to nature.

Ridiculous? Who knows. But it is pos-sible that future generations will in-terpret wilderness laws differently, orpublic sentiment could change the

laws altogether. A simple vote and sub-sequent stroke of the pen by an electedofficial could allow future forms ofmotorized travel in wilderness. Wehave already seen examples where spe-cial exemptions have been written intowilderness legislation for airstrips andoutboard motors.

On the other hand, as long as wil-derness laws remain intact in theUnited States, one could speculate thatactivities would not change drastically.After all, the wilderness laws basicallydictate what folks can and can’t do.My hope is that recreation activitieswill remain simple because facilitieswill be forever minimal and new tech-nology won’t be allowed. New activi-ties coming along, such as extremesports, often require some sort of gad-getry and infrastructure that I feelshould continue to be prohibited inwilderness.

If the wilderness concept and itslaws work, maybe wilderness protec-tion will outweigh new recreational


activities. I see the wilderness conceptas a way to not change wildlands, ex-cept for the way nature changes it, onemillenium at a time. Walking will stillbe walking 100 years from now, andhopefully it will still be possible inspecial places called wilderness. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

LES WADZINSKI is recreation programmanager with the USDA Forest Service,Hoosier National Forest, 811 ConstitutionAvenue, Bedford, Indiana 47421, USA.Telephone: 812-277-3595. Email:[email protected].

A paddler finds solitude on Crooked Lake in the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness. Photo courtesy of John Roggenbuck.

I see the wilderness concept as a way to not changewildlands, except for the way nature changes it, onemillenium at a time.


It was 3:00 A.M., and I had a couple ofinches of water in my tent. The light-ning had subsided and the storm hadpassed, but it would be a long whilebefore I dried out from the downpour.This was day three of my trek into thePintlar Wilderness in southwesternMontana. I was 21, poor, and this wasmy first solo backpacking trip. I boughtmy supplies at the Sears store in Dillon,Montana, including my $40.00 nylontent. I walked out of the wilderness thenext day, a bit worse for wear, but grate-ful for the experience.

Twenty years later I traveled to theBeartooths to wander through themyriad mountain lakes and streams. Iwas 41 and financially secure. It rainedthe entire last night of my trip, but Iwas dry and warm in my $300.00 Si-erra Designs ventilating mesh, swiftclipped, Meteor Light CD tent, and myMountain Hardware, Polarguard HVhigh void continuous filament sleep-ing bag.

Still, my fondest camping memoryis that fateful night 20 years ago andthe three steel tent poles that bent fromthe force of the rain. That damp expe-rience still gives me feelings of deepattachment to that place and time. Itis difficult to recall the events of mywarm and comfortable nights out inthe Beartooth. The truth is clear: Thecomforts of technology have deadenedmy experiences with the wilderness.

The notion of technology and wil-derness seems a paradox. The idea thatwe must exist in the most primitive ofenvironments with the most futuristtechnology demeans the experience.It seems to me an odd notion that weattempt to get away from it all by en-tering the wilderness wrapped in lay-ers of Polartec microfleece. As I growolder (and hopefully wiser), I havemore respect for the Paul Petzdolts ofthe world who will just as well climbthe Tetons in cowboy boots and aStetson hat. Foam gripped antishockstaff be damned!

As our Mountain Dew generationtakes to the trails, I sometimes thinkthat the wilderness was actually agrand scheme developed by the NorthFace company so people will buytransversely bored sleeping pads andABS polymer food containers (withstainless steel locks). This cynicismstems from the absurdity of these prod-ucts and the societal discrimination

they encourage. The newer the tech-nology, the higher the price.

We are cut off from our wildlandsby gadgets, gizmos, and outerwear.The Wilderness Act of 1964 enabledus to protect our natural treasures from“an increasing population, accompa-nied by expanding settlement, andgrowing mechanization.” I would addto this landmark legislation that wil-derness not be entered if accompaniedwith any piece of equipment that hasmore than three technology patents.

My perception of technology andwilderness in the 21st century are twoseparate ideas. As my colleague Les Wad-zinski suggests in his commentary, “Wil-derness Activities in the 21st Century,”the wilderness is not a place to changeor to be a witness to change. It is a placethat remains primitive, no matter whatunfolds in our high-speed society.

Stepping into wilderness requiresa new approach that sheds technol-ogy at the trailhead. So take back thatTaslan Gore-Tex gear and head for thenearest Army-Navy store to grab a can-vas bivouac. Disrobe the technologi-cal veil that protects us all from thetouch of the Earth. Forward trekkers!Go into the past! IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

DOUG KNAPP is an assistant professor inthe Department of Recreation and ParkAdministration at Indiana University, USA.Telephone: 812-855-3094. E-mail:[email protected].



Technology and Wildernessin the 21st Century

BY DOUG KNAPP

Signs and posted regulations are increasingly common inwilderness areas. Photo by Alan Ewert.


Our system of parks, wilderness, andprotected lands and waters in theUnited States will be different in the21st century. We speculate here aboutthree major forces that will bring abouta more pristine and highly prized wil-derness.

A Reorderingof Wilderness ValuesThe decline of the wilderness recre-ation patriarchy is underway. Thewilderness system, as with all landclassification systems, is a socio-political delineation of public values.Historically, most have equated wilder-ness solely with recreation. Yet re-search on the nonrecreational valuesof wilderness found that the publicrecognizes other values as more im-portant than recreation (e.g., oppor-tunities for future generations;protection of air, water, and wildlife;etc.). Furthermore, animal protectioninterests, biomedical discoveries, pre-serving biodiversity, and new conceptssuch as ecosystem management willelevate the scientific, educational, hu-man health and wellness, and intrin-sic values associated with wilderness.

The reordering of these values willbe propelled by a continuation of“Chernobyls.” Environmental disas-ters, both natural and human caused,will continue to raise the ire of human-ity toward environmental ignoranceand greed and will heighten the re-spect and value for wilderness.

The public reaction to these eventswill stir action by the “environmen-tally educated generation.” The envi-ronmental movement of the 1960s and1970s began a nationwide environ-mental education effort consisting ofthousands of curricula, teacher train-ing programs, wilderness courses, lit-erary works, television specials, naturecenters, friends groups, and projects.A large segment of our youth have hadenvironmental education exposureand will respond.

The major unknown in the reorder-ing of wilderness values will be ethnicparity by 2050 and the neutralizingof Euro-American domination. Whatvalues will Hispanics, Asian Ameri-cans, and African Americans bring tosupport wilderness? Will the “Puritanwork ethic” and Christianity’s “domin-ion over nature” be balanced by otherperspectives? Is the low visitation byethnic minorities to the outdoors a sig-nal of detachment and disinterest, oris there a latent demand that willemerge with ethnic parity?

Recreation SupplyIs Expanding,and Demand Will FollowPopular literature implies a static sup-ply of public outdoor recreation landsand waters in the United States. Thedata do not support this perspective.In 1998, some 200 public referendaacross the United States resulted in 7.5billion dollars of land acquisition and

easements. In Colorado, a state richwith federal lands, the Great OutdoorsColorado Trust allocates approxi-mately 40 million dollars annually toland acquisition and stewardship. Ur-ban and regional riverways, openspace networks, community and stateparks, natural areas, farms, ranches,restored landfills, and trails are ex-panding the supply of outdoor recre-ation opportunities within a shortdistance of urban America. These lo-cal experiences with nature will sat-isfy some of the wilderness demand.

In the future, we will increasinglyview the “real” wilderness experienceto be outside the continental UnitedStates. Today’s wilderness recreation-ists will be tomorrow’s adventure trav-elers and ecotourists. This globalindustry is exploding, and the abilityof Americans to experience the wild-ness of northern Ontario, Peru, China,Antarctica, Greenland, old Soviet Rus-sia, and many other locales will alsoreduce wilderness demand in the U.S.Advances in air transportation, low air



A More Pristine Wilderness

BY GLENN HAAS and MARCELLA WELLS

Wilderness solitude high in the mountains. Photo by DaveMennitt.


fares, Internet marketing, and the in-ternational tourism infrastructure willfurther propel this worldwide wilder-ness market.

There will be a new awakening forlands and waters we have forgotten, thelands we never viewed as recreation re-sources, and lands we exploited and canrestore. These lands include prairies,grasslands, deserts, caves, wetlands,underwater resources, wildlife refuges,tribal reservations, military lands, inter-coastal zones, and desecrated urban riv-ers, lakes, and harbors.

Finally, virtual reality and newtechnologies will expand the supply ofrecreation opportunities. Virtually ex-periencing wilderness will satisfy someenthusiasts. Likewise, new technologywill allow us to experience wildernessfrom the air, underground, under wa-ter, and galactic travel will open an en-tirely new wilderness frontier.

ment would restrain their recreationalliberties and rights. In 1905, five Penn-sylvania game wardens were killedbecause of the tension. Demand ex-ceeded supply, and values associatedwith wildlife clashed. The destiny ofwilderness recreation may be similar,yet hopefully more civil.

Public recreation planning andmanagement will move to a multi-jurisdictional and regional systemsapproach (e.g., southern Appalachia,Four Corners canyon country, greaterYellowstone). Local, state, and federalrecreation agencies will inventory,manage, and coordinate their supplyof recreational opportunities to betterhelp the public match their desiredexperiences with available opportuni-ties. Agencies will have measurablemanagement objectives that clearlydefine the recreation experience andarea, quality standards for biophysi-cal and sociocultural attributes, a pre-scribed carrying capacity, and acorresponding management program.Wilderness managers will clearly de-fine their recreation supply or marketniche and then manage with appro-priate restraints to assure quality ex-periences and resources.

In conclusion, three forces (an in-crease in biocentric values associatedwith wilderness, an expanding supplyof global and techno-wilderness expe-riences, and recreational capacity re-straints) favor a more pristine andhighly prized wilderness system by2050. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

GLENN HAAS and MARCELLA WELLS arefaculty members in the Department ofNatural Resource Recreation and Tourismat Colorado State University, USA.Telephone: 970-491-5126.

Restraint of WildernessFreedoms Will SustainWilderness ExperienceWithout restraints on recreation liber-ties, our national wilderness commonswill be lost. Restraints will help ensurea sustained supply of high-quality wil-derness experience. More recreationistsare visiting wilderness; more types ofrecreationists want to have their ownunique experience; more communitiesand private businesses are dependenton wilderness tourism; more non-recreational values and uses are increas-ingly important; more publics andprofessionals are concerned about theintegrity of wilderness.

Demand Is ExceedingSupply, without RestraintsWe Lose SupplyWilderness is moving into an era ofallocation. This is most apparent to-day among the commercial outfitters,guides, and educational permittees.More than 100 years ago, recreationalhunting managers began to determinehunter capacities, number of huntingdays, number of kills, type of equip-ment, how to hunt (no large gamedrives), when to hunt (no spring orSunday hunts), licensing and trainingcertification, fees, and so forth. Somepeople were outraged that the govern-


Though located near millions of people, this site gets littleovernight use. USDA Forest Service photo.

There will be a new awakening for lands and waterswe have forgotten, the lands we never viewed asrecreation resources, and lands we exploited and canrestore.


The 21st century is here. The humanpopulation of this country, and theworld, is exploding. For many of us,more people in more places makesthose few places yet protected as natu-ral preserves ever more valuable andspecial. As places for personal wilder-ness experiences and to appreciatenatural scenery, there is little doubtthat protected wilderness on our pub-lic lands is more and more appreci-ated by U.S. society.

Wilderness Is MoreThan a RecreationOpportunityWilderness is far more than a patch-work of places where one can go forbackcountry recreational experiences.It is more than majestic natural scen-ery to be viewed in the distance fromhigh mountain roads. The role of wil-derness in modern society increasinglyemphasizes clean air and water, havensfor threatened wildlife, and sanctuar-ies for undisturbed ecosystems fromwhich we can learn about natural pro-cesses. Increasingly wilderness pro-vides places to study the structure andfunction of natural systems and tomonitor changes occurring naturally,and indirectly as a result of the hu-man alteration of climate. In our ef-forts to better understand the legallymandated concept of sustainability innatural resources management, we arefinding those naturally functioning

ecosystems that define wilderness arepriceless in comparison to managedlandscapes, where human judgmentsubstitutes for the wisdom of nature.Wilderness will likely serve more andmore as a “laboratory” for learninghow to sustain natural systems in anincreasingly unnatural world.

Wilderness HasMultiple ValuesThe study of wilderness values helpsus better understand the importanceof wilderness in U.S. society. Researchcentering on the benefits humans de-rive from wilderness shows thatAmericans value our wild area protec-tion system. Among the multiple val-ues that wilderness provides, peopleput some above others in importance.

National ForestWildernessThe United States National WildernessPreservation System (NWPS) includes628 congressionally designated areas(about 105 million acres) on landsmanaged by the Forest Service (FS),the National Park Service, the Fish andWildlife Service, and the Bureau ofLand Management. The FS portion of

this system contains approximately 35million of the total acres, and 400 ofthe 628 individually designated areas.These 400 areas are scattered across39 states. Although the FS managesonly 33% of the total NWPS acreage,it manages 62% of the acreage in the48 contiguous states. Many of theseareas are near portions of the countrywhere high densities of populationexist, all of which are growing rapidly.Obviously, close proximity to popula-tion growth and land developmentputs strains on the natural systemswithin wilderness areas.

Importance inAir Quality MonitoringWhile offering recreational, aesthetic,existence, and ecological values, FS


FUTURE ROLES

The Social Value of WildernessA Forest Service Perspective

BY KEN CORDELL and JERRY STOKES

Backpacking into the snowy backcountry. Photo by Alan Ewert.

Clearly, Americans value wilderness more for itsnatural value than for its use value.


wilderness also offers enormous po-tential as a national system for moni-toring environmental health. Ofparticular significance is the role FSwilderness can play in the implemen-tation of the Clean Air Act (CAA).Amendments to the CAA passed in1977, designated 88 wilderness areasin the National Forest System as ClassI Areas for special protection for clearvisibility. Along with these speciallydesignated Class I Areas are all otherwilderness areas for air quality moni-toring. Reduced visibility is an excel-lent lead indicator of the existence ofparticulate and gaseous pollutants

amples where air quality deteriorationover and around wilderness is occur-ring. For example, the Alpine Lakesand Goat Rocks Wildernesses inWashington State, which are adverselyaffected by pollution from a coal-firedpower plant in Centralia. Other ex-amples are the San Gorgonio Wilder-ness near Los Angeles, affected by airparticulates from the surrounding ur-ban area; the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness inColorado, which is affected by a powerplant in Hayden; and the James RiverFace and St. Mary’s Wildernesses inVirginia, impacted by industrial pol-lutants from the Ohio Valley.

The Multiple Values ofWildernessWe asked a sample of Americans totell us how important each of 13 val-ues of wilderness are to them. Thesevalues were included in the NationalSurvey on Recreation and the Environ-ment (NSRE), the ongoing survey se-ries begun in 1960 to track Americans’use of the outdoors and their attitudesabout the environment. Of those 13

future, and just knowing we have pre-served some of our natural heritage asthe four next most highly rated val-ues. Least rated in importance were themore utilitarian values including usefor scientific study, recreation, placesfor spiritual inspiration, and attrac-tions for the tourism industry. Clearly,Americans value wilderness more forits natural value than for its use value.

The ranking our society has placedon wilderness values must play a veryprominent role in our agency’s deci-sions about management of this irre-placeable system of natural places.NSRE 2000, the most current of theongoing national surveys, is underwayand will sample 50,000 people. Wil-derness values, knowledge of theNWPS, attitudes toward land preser-vation, wilderness use, and publicfeedback on a number of other keywilderness issues are featured in thiscomprehensive survey. Combiningpeoples’ values and knowledge of wil-derness with lifestyle, demographic,and environmental attitudes, will en-able us to segment the American pub-lic relative to the role of wilderness intheir lives. This process will provideinformation for more effectively ex-tending opportunities for involvementin the future of the NWPS in theUnited States. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

KEN CORDELL is scientist and projectleader for recreation, wilderness anddemographics research with the SouthernResearch Station in Athens, Georgia, USA,USDA Forest Service.

JERRY STOKES is assistant director forwilderness management with the Recre-ation, Heritage and Wilderness Manage-ment Staff in the Washington Office, USDAForest Service. For more information aboutNSRE 2000, go to www.srs.fs.fed.us/trends.


Wilderness will likely serve more and more as a“laboratory” for learning how to sustain naturalsystems in an increasingly unnatural world.

The Charles C. Deam Wilderness on the Hoosier National Forest.Photo by Alan Ewert.

transported over long distances andimpacting vegetation, soil, and water.

Air pollution impacts can includeunnatural changes in plant commu-nities and associated micro and macrofauna. They can also include alter-ations of water chemistry, which inturn can severely impact dependentfish and wildlife populations, and evenspecies survival. There are many ex-

values, approximately 75% selectedprotection of water quality (the top-rated value), wildlife habitat, air qual-ity, and endangered species, along withprotecting wilderness so we can passit on to future generations, as the topfive values of wilderness. Between 50%and 75% selected preservation of natu-ral ecosystems, scenic beauty, havingthe option to visit wilderness in the


It has been almost 20 years since wefirst proposed the idea of no-rescuewilderness (McAvoy and Dustin1981). The impetus for our proposalcame from an article in the Sierra ClubBulletin by William Leitch entitled“Backpacking in 2078” (1978). Leitch’sstory read like science fiction. He en-visioned a future when heavy recre-ational use of the public lands coupledwith an “insurance mentality” wouldforce resource managers to employevery technological weapon in their ar-senal to protect the environment frompeople and people from the environ-ment. But to us, the prospect of BigBrother looming over outdoorrecreationists, however good the in-tentions, was horrifying. We wantedto create an alternative to Leitch’s sce-nario, a place where people would befree to interact with nature on its ownterms, a place where privacy and soli-tude would hold sway. Wilderness wasthe perfect place.

In retrospect, Leitch’s story nowreads less like science fiction than sci-ence fact, and our no-rescue wilder-ness proposal is more timely than ever.In the intervening years, the impactof advancing technology has pen-etrated our lives from home to work-place to recreation setting. By andlarge, there is no escaping it. From com-puters to cellular phones, from biome-chanics to bioengineering, our lives areincreasingly wired. For example, at the

recent Social Aspects and RecreationResearch (SARR) Symposium inTempe, Arizona, Alan Ewert demon-strated several new technological“breakthroughs” that have been de-signed to make outdoor recreation en-vironments more accessible andhospitable while, at the same time,making outdoor recreationists morecomfortable and safe. There are evencompact discs now that previewbackcountry trails so “adventurers”can see beforehand exactly what’s instore for them (Ewert, Shultis, andWebb 2000).

It’s hard to argue against comfortand convenience. To do so goes againstthe grain of most everything our cul-ture holds dear (Dustin 1999). It is alsohard to argue against providing in-creasing amounts of information torecreationists in advance of their out-door pursuits. Yet these are the exactarguments that must be made if weare to safeguard the idea of wilderness.We are a species intoxicated by ourown ability to change the nature ofthings, and, as Bill Mckibben lamentsin The End of Nature (1989), there

may no longer be anyplace left onEarth that is really free from the im-pact of human hands. Guided by theoverarching values of comfort, conve-nience, and economic efficiency, webusily go about insulating ourselvesfrom the very ground of our being. Leftunchecked, the application of thesevalues and their corresponding tech-nological manifestations to wildernessmay soon elevate Leitch’s cautionarytale to the level of prophecy.

To our way of thinking, it is moreimportant than ever that wildernessretain its aura of remoteness andunpredictability, that it stay a land-scape of question marks, that it be


FUTURE ROLES

Of What Avail Are Forty Freedoms?The Significance of Wilderness in the 21st Century

BY DANIEL L. DUSTIN and LEO H. MCAVOY

Wilderness must be seen as a sanctuary within whichwe take refuge from the relentless advance of ourown tools, from everything modern and mechanicalthat we have created in the name of progress.

The technology that takes us into nature can also separate usfrom it. Photo by Rob von Adrichem.


treated, in Aldo Leopold’s words, as a“blank spot” on the map. Wildernessmust be seen as a sanctuary withinwhich we take refuge from the relent-less advance of our own tools, fromeverything modern and mechanicalthat we have created in the name ofprogress. It must continue to be a re-spite from technology. Wildernessmust also remain that special place wevisit when we feel the need to remindourselves of our human frailty, a placeto which we return again and again togain a healthier perspective on ourlives. Historian T. K. Whipple said, “AllAmerica lies at the end of the wilder-ness road, and our past is not a deadpast but still lives in us … Our fore-bears had civilization inside themselves,the wild outside. We live in the civiliza-tion they created, but within us the wil-derness still lingers. What theydreamed, we live; and what they lived,

we dream” (Whipple 1930). Increas-ingly, wilderness will be called upon toserve as a mirror to ourselves. It will befor looking in as well as looking out.

In The Transparent Society (1998),David Brin predicts that advancingtechnology will soon force us tochoose between privacy and freedom.We cannot have it both ways, he says.Our lives will be increasingly open forothers to see, and if we value freedomwe must learn to welcome this open-ness. The best we can hope for, hesuggests, is a “reciprocal transparency”that allows us to look back at BigBrother even as Big Brother looks atus. If this future comes to pass, wil-derness will be one of the last domainswhere we can experience a sense ofprivacy and solitude that eludes us inthe rest of our lives. Wilderness willbe for thinking uninterruptedthoughts, for reflecting upon our place


Wilderness will be for thinking uninterruptedthoughts, for reflecting upon our place in, relationshipto, and responsibility for the larger living world.

in, relationship to, and responsibilityfor the larger living world. Indeed, forthis purpose, for this humbling, in-sightful purpose, wilderness remainsour last best hope. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

DANIEL DUSTIN works at FloridaInternational University, USA. E-mail:[email protected].

LEO MCAVOY works in the University ofMinnesota’s Division of Recreation, USA.E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCESBrin, D. 1998. The Transparent Society. Read-

ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Dustin, D. 1999. The Myth of Comfort. The Wil-

derness Within: Reflections on Leisure andLife, D. Dustin and Larry Beck. Champaign,Ill.: Sagamore Publishing: 15–18.

Ewert, A., J. Shultis, and C. Webb. 2000. Out-door recreation and technologies: a Janus-faced relationship. In Proceedings of theThird Symposium on Social Aspects andRecreation Research. Tempe, Ariz.: ArizonaState University.

Leitch, W. 1978. Backpacking in 2078. The Si-erra Club Bulletin, 3, (1): 25–27.

McAvoy, L., and D. Dustin. 1981. The right torisk in wilderness. Journal of Forestry 79 (3):150–152.

McKibben, W. 1989. The End of Nature. NewYork: Random House.

Whipple, T. 1930. Study Out the Land. Berke-ley: The University of California Press.


he Eagle Cap Wilderness on the Wallowa-WhitmanNational Forest in northeastern Oregon is the state’slargest wilderness at 365,000 acres. It attracts an

The permit was de-signed by Kevin Cannon ofthe Gifford Pinchot Na-tional Forest for the PacificNorthwest Region of theNational Forest System. Itconsists of a two-part car-bonless tag with an elasticloop for attaching to abackpack or saddle. Con-solidated ordering withother wilderness areaskeeps the cost down to$0.05 per permit. Othercosts include a trailhead information board with postersdescribing the permit system and a permit box providingblank permits and a depository. The boxes are serviced onceor twice per week, depending on use levels. Permit data iscoded and entered into a database at a cost of about $3,000per year.

The permit system worked well for three years (1994–1996). Managers used the data to determine where capac-ity and Limits of Acceptable Change standards were beingexceeded and to establish patterns of use, origin of visitors,

The Eagle Cap WildernessPermit SystemA Visitor Education Tool

BY TOM CARLSON

STEWARDSHIP

Article author Tom Carlson and Lou the llama. Photocourtesy of Tom Carlson.

The visitor permit system is one of thetools Eagle Cap Wilderness managersuse to help educate visitors aboutwilderness conduct and stewardship.

Taverage of 33,000 people annually, and yet it is one ofOregon’s most pristine landscapes with its long forestedvalleys, subalpine lakes, and spectacular peaks. The visitorpermit system is now one of the tools Eagle Cap Wildernessmanagers use to help educate visitors about wildernessconduct and stewardship.

Eagle Cap Permits for DataThe permit system was implemented in the Eagle Cap inthe late 1970s and early 1980s. The Forest Service requiredvisitors to obtain a free permit through an agency office orat trailhead entrance stations operated by volunteers. Thepermit did not limit use. It was a valuable visitor contactand educational method for wilderness managers and pro-vided valuable use data.

In 1983 the permit system was discontinued becausethe number of wilderness visitors had leveled off, or at leastthe rate of increase had slowed, while camping ethics andskills had improved (Hendee et al. 1990). Studies conductedin 1965 and 1993 indicate that knowledge and awarenessof impact minimizing techniques had improved in the EagleCap (Watson et al. 1995).

In 1993 the Wallowa-Whitman began work on a newmanagement plan for the Eagle Cap Wilderness. Accuratevisitor use data had not been collected since the permitsystem was discontinued, so the forest implemented a newmandatory permit system that requires one person fromeach party to obtain a self-issued, free permit at a trailhead.The permit does not restrict where and when visitors travelin the wilderness, but any party without one may be cited.


and group size information. Follow-ing completion of the Eagle Cap Wil-derness Stewardship Plan, somemanagers felt that the permit system hadserved its purpose and was no longerneeded. Others found the system a valu-able visitor education and informationtool to help implement the new plan.

The plan implemented 13 regula-tions designed to be as light-handed aspossible, while still protecting the re-source. Admittedly, it is challenging forvisitors to remember and comply withall these regulations. But since the freepermits have the regulations printed onthem with brief descriptions and man-

agement goals, as well as the words“Leave No Trace,” visitors are better in-formed and can help protect the wilder-ness from unnecessary impact. Wildernessrangers say that contact with visitors iseasier and more effective with the per-mit system because visitors have no ex-cuse for not knowing the regulations.

Eagle Cap Permits Nowfor EducationThe benefits of retaining the permitsystem far exceeded those of discon-tinuing it, so the system is still in op-eration in the Eagle Cap Wilderness.Today the system is mostly noncon-troversial because it is free, easy to use,and nonrestrictive. Average compli-ance rates over a three-year period(1995–1997) are 78% for hikers, and62% for visitors with recreation live-stock. Compliance with wildernessregulations has steadily improved de-spite reductions in management bud-gets and staff. The permit system willhelp educate visitors and protect theEagle Cap for years to come. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

TOM CARLSON is Eagle Cap Wildernessmanager on the Wallowa-WhitmanNational Forest in Enterprise, Oregon,USA. Telephone: 541-426-5536. E-mail:[email protected].

REFERENCESHendee, John C., George H. Stankey, and Rob-

ert C. Lucas. 1990. Wilderness Manage-ment. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

Watson, Alan, John C. Hendee, and HansZaglauer. 1996. Human values and codesof behavior: changes in Oregon’s Eagle CapWilderness visitors and their attitudes.National Areas Journal 16(2): 89–93.

The Eagle Cap Wilderness on the Wallowa-Whitman NationalForest in northeast Oregon. Photo by Tom Carlson.

A young backpacker issues himself a Wilderness Use Permitbefore entering the Eagle Cap. Photo courtesy of Tom Carlson.

The free Wilderness Use Permit (shown from thefront). Photo courtesy of Tom Carlson.

The back of the Wilderness Use Permit with printedregulations to help educate visitors. Photo courtesy ofTom Carlson.


IntroductionNew Zealand’s backcountry trout fisheries are world re-nowned, and demand for this recreational experiencehas increased over the past two decades. Potential over-crowding makes it important to develop sustainable tour-ist and fisheries management plans. Managers nowunderstand that angling is a multidimensional activitywith numerous factors (apart from catch) contributingto the quality of the experience (Driver and Knopf 1976;Martinson and Shelby 1992; Fedler and Ditton 1994;Hunt and Ditton 1997).

Research has shown that on low-density, low-impactwilderness rivers, encounters are particularly important touser satisfaction, and more so to anglers than to otherrecreationists (Shelby 1981; Shelby and Vaske 1991). Onfour rivers in Vermont, Manning (1979) found that troutanglers had lower tolerance for encounters than other riverusers such as boaters and swimmers. On the Brois BruleRiver in Wisconsin, Herbelein and Vaske (1977) also foundthat trout anglers were less tolerant of encounters with otherriver users (primarily canoeists and float tubers) than withother anglers. Based on research on New Zealand wilder-ness fisheries, user satisfaction is classified on the following

criteria: (1) remoteness, (2) lackof road access, (3) beauty andsolitude, and (4) low usage(Teirney et al. 1982).

Leisure researchers have longrecognized that encounters im-pact many recreational experi-ences, especially in backcountrysettings (Vaske et al 1986; Shelbyand Herbelein 1986). Thepresent study explores appropri-ate angler encounter levels forNew Zealand backcountry rivertrout fisheries by measuring ac-tual, tolerable, and preferablelevels of encounter on twobackcountry trout rivers, theGreenstone and Caples in Otago, New Zealand.

MethodsStudy AreasThe upper Greenstone River in Otago flows through a largeopen valley. Anglers must walk at least three hours from a

SCIENCE & RESEARCH

Encounter Norms forBackcountry Trout Anglers in

New Zealand

BY CARL WALROND

Abstract: Roving creel surveys on the Greenstone and Caples rivers in the New Zealand backcountrydocument tolerable encounter levels of three anglers per day and preference for one angler per day. Compari-sons with other studies suggest that encounters are more important to trout than salmon anglers. The studydocuments that low-density encounter levels are important to backcountry anglers on these rivers, suggestingthat such experiences may be important to backcountry management in New Zealand.

(PEER REVIEWED)

Article author Carl Walrond fishing in abackcountry river. Photo by Daniel Agar.


road to access the upper valley. TheCaples is the main tributary and canbe accessed in an easy half-hour walk.Some anglers also gain access by heli-copter. There is little sign of develop-ment in the valleys. Department ofConservation huts and track systemsfollow the valley floors. Angling pres-sure is highest for residents at the startof the season (November) whenpostspawning rainbow trout are mostabundant. Brown trout are alsopresent, although they typically makeup less than 10% of the population(Kroos 1997). Nonresident anglersdominate use in the summer months,January through March (Kroos 1997).Fishing occurs along the length of theupper Greenstone River with some 16kilometers (17.49 miles) of fishablewater, and 12 kilometers (13.12miles) in the Caples.

Martinson and Shelby’s (1992) re-search on the salmon rivers, the Klamathin northern California, and Rakaia (up-per and lower) and Waimakariri on theSouth Island of New Zealand, is pre-sented in this article to illustrate dif-ferences in encounter norms for troutand salmon anglers. Easy access on theKlamath River promotes a high level of

use when salmon are running. TheRakaia and Waimakariri also receivehigh levels of use during salmon runs.The upper Rakaia gorge is undevelopedand accessible by boat or walking.

Roving CreelSurvey MethodsAnglers were interviewed on the riverat the end of their angling day on theGreenstone (1994–1995) and Caples(1996–1997) valleys over the entireNovember 1 to May 30 fishing season.Roving creel surveys are rarely usedfor social surveys. Their main advan-tage is the high capture and responserates due to personal contact (Pollocket al. 1994).

Survey DesignThe questionnaires addressed actualencounters that occurred and normsfor tolerable and preferable levels ofencounters compared to actual encoun-ters. Up to eight questions explore an-gler demographics, motivations andexpectations, preferences, and toler-ances for encounters, based on ex-amples of similar research in NorthAmerica by Shelby and Herbelein(1986).

For reported encounters, anglerswere asked how many other peoplethey saw on the river during their fish-ing day. Tolerances for encounters, orencounter norms, were determined byasking anglers the number of encoun-ters they would tolerate before theirexperience was “significantly down-graded.” For preferred encounters,anglers were asked how many encoun-ters they would prefer compared to

their actual encounters. A “don’tknow” option was included.

Statistical methods developed inprevious studies (Shelby 1981; Vaskeet al. 1986; Martinson and Shelby1992) are used to present data in sev-eral ways. There is some debate in theliterature as to what measure of cen-tral tendency should be used to de-fine norms (or if measures of centraltendency can be used to define groupnorms). The median has been chosenhere as the mean can be skewed byoutliers and the mode only representsthe greatest consensus for one value(Shelby and Vaske 1991).

At the median, 50% of anglerswould tolerate that number or higherlevels of encounter, but 50% of anglerswould also not tolerate that numberor higher levels of encounter. It is dif-ficult to synthesize individual normsinto a group norm, as any measure ofcentral tendency will be reflective ofonly a portion of the samples. It isimportant to view the distributions.Encounter norms are represented hereas curves showing the cumulative per-centage of anglers that would tolerateeach encounter level. In Figure 1 (seepage 31) a median line is drawn at50%, and the points where this inter-cepts the cumulative percent curvesare median values.

Results and DiscussionWhen asked for a tolerable number ofencounters before their experience wassignificantly downgraded (see Table 1page 31, Figure 1), the majority of an-glers said more than zero encountersper day and tolerance dropped offquite steeply (see Figure 1). Reportedencounters on backcountry trout riv-ers are much lower than on the salmonrivers with medians of two and oneon the Greenstone and Caples, respec-tively (see Table 1). Tolerable limits arealso much lower, the median being

New Zealand’s backcountry trout fisheries are worldrenowned, and demand for this recreational experiencehas increased over the past two decades.

The quarry—wild brown trout. Photo by Carl Walrond.


three on both rivers, while preferredlevels are lower still at one for bothrivers.

Salmon anglers showed less agree-ment (flatter, wider distribution) onappropriate encounter norms thantrout anglers (see Figure 1), referredto as low norm crystallization(Martinson and Shelby 1992). Statis-tical testing between the Caples andGreenstone and Upper Rakaia andKlamath rivers was not possible dueto different methods of measuring en-counters.

Interestingly, preferences for en-counters were universally low (seeTable 1), indicating that anglers toler-ate much higher encounters than theyprefer, and that optimal angling den-sities are low for all the rivers. For thesalmon rivers actual encounters werehigher than preferred and toleratedlevels, while on the two backcountrytrout rivers actual encounters weresimilar to preferred levels.

DiscussionAngler Encounter TolerancesThe results suggest several conclusionsregarding encounter norms for trout

Figure 1—Tolerance encounter norms

Figure 1—Tolerance encounter norms for high-use density salmon anglers (Klamath, Lower Rakaia, Waimakariri), low-usedensity salmon anglers (Upper Rakaia) and low-use density backcountry trout anglers (Caples and Greenstone).

Species: Salmon Trout

Landscape: Developed Undeveloped Backcountry

Encounters Klamath Waimakariri Lower Upper Greenstone CaplesRakaia Rakaia

Reported 15.5 (51) 46.6 (119) 28 (68) (69) 2 (154) 1(178)

Tolerable (27) (73) (46) (45) 3 (146) 3 (171)

Preferred / 3.6 (86) 3.5 (43) 1 (56) 1 (153 1 (172)

Encounters on the Waimakariri and Lower Rakaia were measured as “anglers visible at one time.”

Table 1—Number of encounters with bank anglers that salmon and trout anglers considered tolerable or preferred. Numbers are medians, meaning that 50% of the anglersconsidered that number tolerable, or preferred fewer encounters per day. Numbers of angler responses for each category are in parentheses.

Table 1—Number of encounters considered tolerable or preferred.

anglers in backcountry settings. First,encounter norms for trout anglers ap-pear to be lower than for salmon an-glers. This confirms earlier studies thatindicate that for trout anglers, toler-able levels of encounter are less thanseven per day (Herbelein and Vaske1977; Manning 1979). For salmonanglers on the Waimakariri and lowerRakaia rivers, median-tolerable en-counter values were approximately 7

to 10 anglers at one time, and 13 perday for the Klamath River. For theGreenstone and Caples, the medianwas three per day, while the upperRakaia was three to four per day. In-terestingly there wasn’t a large differ-ence between salmon anglers in themore remote upper Rakaia River andtrout anglers on the Greenstone andCaples. This suggests that setting mayhave stronger influence on encounter


norms than species sought, althoughmany other factors such as difficultyof access, level of demand, stream size,harvest availability and catch ratecould also influence encounter norms.Martinson and Shelby (1992) proposethat the lower encounter tolerance inthe upper Rakaia gorge is due to therelatively remote, undeveloped settingand traditional low-use levels, condi-tions that fit New Zealand’sbackcountry trout fisheries.The latest research from NorthAmerica shows that not all back-country users can specify norms, orthere is not sufficient consensus re-garding appropriate encounter levels(Williams et al. 1992; Patterson et al.1990; Hamitt et al. 1991; Hamitt etal. 1995). However anglers in NewZealand have normative agreementsregarding appropriate encounter lev-els on less developed, more isolatedrivers. Use-densities in these studiesof backcountry users were medium tohigh. While consensus on the Green-

stone and Caples is not universal, thereis definite evidence of low tolerableencounter levels for backcountry troutanglers and even lower encounter pref-erence levels (see Table 1). Trout an-glers appear to be more sensitive toencounters than other recreational us-ers. Why is this so?

Differences in the TroutFishing Experience andConsequences of EncounterSocial norms define the boundaries ofacceptable encounter levels for an ac-tivity. This range is affected in part bythe consequences the encounter hason the group’s ability to achieve itsdesired goals. Encounters betweentrout anglers on New Zealandbackcountry rivers can greatly reducetheir ability to achieve their desiredgoals. For example, on a small wilder-ness river an encounter may totallydisplace fishing opportunities becauseangling activity disturbs the fish forarriving anglers. But if the river hasplenty of fishable water, anglers caninformally make room for each other.Compare this to an encounter on atrail, which usually lasts a few secondsas hikers pass by. Crowding conjuresimages of anglers standing shoulder toshoulder. This occurs on the lowerreaches of Canterbury salmon rivers(Rakaia and Waimakariri) and on theTongariro (a winter trout river). How-ever, as fly anglers on backcountry riv-ers move upstream, fish are eithercaught or spooked, thus affecting thewater behind them for several hours,or possibly even days (Hayes et al.1997). “Anglers also look ahead to thenext good fishing hole; someone dis-turbing that spot may also encroachon their activity” (Shelby andHerbelein 1986, p. 141). When an-glers meet, there is not only the psy-chological impact of another personin the wilderness, but also the fact that

other anglers are competition. In con-trast, salmon angling involves fishingturbid water with heavy spin fishingtackle. The high concentration of an-glers motivated by harvest is a highlysociable experience. Arguably, the con-sequences of encounters for trout an-glers are greater than for salmonanglers, hikers and other backcountryusers.

Conclusions andImplicationsThe lower preferences (medians of oneper day) for encounters when com-pared to actual encounters on theGreenstone and Caples illustrate thatoptimal preferred levels are well be-low tolerable levels. Current levels ofuse result in median encounter levelsequal to preferable levels of one perday on the Caples and above the me-dian of two per day on the Greenstone.This illustrates that these rivers arepossibly at optimal levels of use.

Backcountry trout angling is a wil-derness-dependent activity in that theresource and social conditions definethe experience as much as the activ-ity. That is, these experiences arelargely setting and solitude dependent.

Research such as this is useful as it(1) gives managers an understandingof use and encounter levels, (2) pro-vides insights into what factors makeup quality angling experiences, and (3)provides information for fisheries andtourist resource managers for use instrategic planning processes.

AcknowledgmentsResearch was supported by grantsfrom Fish and Game New Zealand. Ithank Dr. John Hayes of the CawthronInstitute and Alan Watson of the AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institutefor comments on earlier drafts of thismanuscript. IIIII JJJJJWWWWW

Helicopter access is one of the major issues facing backcountrytrout fisheries in New Zealand. Photo by Carl Walrond.

A helicopter is readied for flight. Photo by Carl Walrond.


CARL WALROND is a freshwater fisheriessocial scientist studying encounter normsfor backcountry trout anglers at CawthronInstitute, Nelson, New Zealand. E-mail:[email protected].

REFERENCESDriver, B. L., and R. C. Knopf. 1976. Tempo-

rary escape: one product of sport fisheriesmanagement. Fisheries 1(2): 21–29.

Fedler, A. J., and R. B. Ditton. 1994. Under-standing anglers’ motivations. FisheriesManagement 9(4): 6–13.

Hammitt, William E., and William M. Rutlin.1995. Use encounter standards and curvesfor achieved privacy in wilderness. In Lei-sure Sciences, ed. by Daniel R. Williams.Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis,17(4): 245–262.

Hammit t , Wil l iam E., and Michael E.Patterson. 1991. Coping behavior toavoid visitor encounters: its relationshipto wildland privacy. Journal of LeisureResearch 25(3): 225–237.

Hayes, J., N. Deans, and C. Walrond. 1997.Angling pressure on backcountry rivers. Fish& Game New Zealand, 16:32-39.

Herbelein, T., and J. Vaske. 1977. Crowding andvisitor conflict on the Bois Brule river. Techni-cal Report OWRTA-006-WAS. Madison:University of Wisconsin, Water ResourcesCenter.

Hunt, M., and R. Ditton. 1997. The social con-text of site selection for freshwater fishing.North American Journal of Fisheries Man-agement 17: 331–338.

Manning, R. E. 1979. Behavioral character-istics of fishermen and other recreationistson four Vermont rivers. Transactions ofthe American Fisheries Society 168: 536–541.

Martinson, K. S., and B. Shelby. 1992. Encoun-ters and proximity norms for salmon anglersin California and New Zealand. NorthAmerican Journal of Fisheries Management12: 539–567.

Patterson, Michael E., and William E. Hammitt.1990. Backcountry encounter norms, actualreported encounters, and their relationshipto wilderness solitude. Journal of LeisureResearch 22(3): 259–275.

Pollock, K., C. Jones, and T. Brown. 1994. An-glers survey methods and their applicationin fisheries management. American Fisher-ies Society Special Publication 25. Bethesda,Md.: American Fisheries Society.

Shelby, B. 1981. Encounter norms in backcountrysettings: studies of three rivers. Journal ofLeisure Research 13: 129–138.

Backcountry trout angling is a wilderness-dependentactivity in that the resource and social conditionsdefine the experience as much as the activity. That is,these experiences are largely setting and solitudedependent.

Shelby, B., and T. Herbelein. 1986. Carryingcapacity in recreational settings. Corvallis,Oregon. Oregon State University.

Shelby, B., and J. J. Vaske. 1991. Using nor-mative data to develop evaluative standardsfor resource management: a comment onthree recent papers. Journal of Leisure Re-search 23(2): 173–187.

Teirney, L., M. Unwin, D. Rowe, E. Graynoth, andR. McDowall. 1982. Submission on the draftinventory of wild and scenic rivers of nationalimportance. Fisheries Report No. 28. Christ-church, New Zealand: Fisheries ResearchDivision, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Vaske, J., A. Graefe, B. Shelby, and T. Herbelein.1986. Backcountry encounter norms: theory,method and empirical evidence. Journal ofLeisure Research 18: 137–153.

Williams, Daniel R., Joseph W. Roggenbuck,Michael E. Patterson, and Alan E.

Watson. 1992. The variability of user-basedsocial impact standards for wilderness man-agement. Forest Science 38(4): 738–756.


cience provides knowledge upon which to makeinformed decisions about the protection and manage-ment of wilderness. In addition, wilderness provides

elsewhere, a baseline for comparison with more human-altered ecosystems. The importance of wilderness to sci-ence was clearly recognized at the Sierra Club’s 1959 SixthBiennial Wilderness Conference, titled “The Meaning ofWilderness to Science.” Following a presentation by LunaLeopold (son of Aldo Leopold) on the value of the pro-posed wilderness system for hydrological research, HowardZahniser, chief architect of the Wilderness Act, cautionedthat the increased recreational use expected to follow wil-derness designation might “interfere with the establishmentof … installations for scientific purposes.” Zahniser clearlysees science as an important value of wilderness.

The 1964 Wilderness Act established “scientific use” asone purpose of wilderness. The 1994 California Desert Pro-tection Act reinforced this, stating that a primary purposeof wilderness is to “retain and enhance opportunities forscientific research in undisturbed ecosystems.” Recent stud-ies of the effects of global change have clearly benefitedfrom baseline information derived from wilderness, and wenow also realize that wilderness is a valuable laboratory forstudying human behavior. The value of wilderness to sci-ence will only increase as an expanding population infringeson our remaining natural areas.

DAVID J. PARSONS is director of the Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute, an interagency program providing leadership indeveloping scientific knowledge to sustain wilderness ecosystemsand values. He can be reached at the Institute, P.O. Box 8089,Missoula, Montana 59807, USA. Telephone: 406-542-4190.

PERSPECTIVESfrom the Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research Institute

Science for Wilderness, Wilderness for Science

SCIENCE & RESEARCH

Sopportunities for scientific understanding that is often notavailable in other, less protected areas. Thus, science isimportant to wilderness and wilderness is important toscience.

The protection of wilderness requires understanding ofwilderness ecosystems, the biological and social impactsof human activities on those ecosystems, and the effects ofdifferent policy and management alternatives. The valueof science in understanding wilderness is well documentedin the literature. Programs to restore fire to wilderness areguided by scientific understanding of fire history and plantsuccession coupled with the use of scientific models of firebehavior. The management of visitor access, use of wilder-ness for therapy and personal growth, restoration of dam-aged recreation sites, and the removal of exotic orreintroduction of extirpated species are other exampleswhere science provides the basis for wilderness manage-ment actions. The importance of science to wilderness man-agement decisions will only increase as our remainingnatural areas become increasingly influenced by humanactivities.

The relative lack of human disturbance and the protectedstatus of wilderness provide unique opportunities to learnabout the natural world. Wilderness provides a laboratoryfor understanding natural processes that have been disrupted

BY DAVID J. PARSONS


IntroductionUser fee systems, although controversial, have been adoptedby most nature conservation agencies in Australia. Fees arecharged for entry to protected areas, campgrounds, recreationalfacilities, use of interpretive services, and other facilities andservices. Opponents of fees argue that conservation of naturalresources is a community service obligation, and access tonatural areas should be available to all socioeconomic groupsat no cost. Proponents say that public agencies restrict accessand control visitor numbers to reduce environmental dam-age. Declining budgets require agencies to explore alternativesources of funding, and entry fees provide one such source(Driml and Common 1995; ANZECC 1998).

The objectives of this article are to (1) review the historyof development of natural areas in Australia, (2) review ex-isting Australian fee programs, and (3) evaluate the issuespertinent to entry fee controversies.

History of Protected Areas in AustraliaEuropeans first settled along the east coast of Australia about200 years ago. Economic progress was dependent solely

on the use of new land re-sources, and settlers clearedmuch of the virgin forest foragriculture. By 1920, exploi-tation, along with the intro-duction of exotic plant andanimal species changed thecomposition of the country’sflora and fauna (Common andNorton 1992).

The first national park inAustralia was south of Sydneyestablished in 1879. The earlymovement to create nationalparks was motivated by theneed to preserve native forests for forestry enterprises(Dargarvel 1987). Some areas were simply declared nationalparks because there was no competing land use. This wasknown as the “Worthless Lands” approach (Hall 1989).

Since the 1960s, Australia’s natural environment hasbecome a major tourist attraction (Hall 1994). In the year2000, 5.8 million international tourists are expected to visit

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Issues SurroundingEntrance Fees as a SuitableMechanism for FinancingNatural Areas in Australia

BY GAMINI HERATH

Abstract: Australia’s national parks, nature reserves, and wilderness areas protect biodiversity and otherecosystem values while offering opportunities for ecotourism and recreation. Tourism and recreation demandshave increased dramatically, while land managers struggle with inadequate staff and funds, thereby jeopar-dizing the economic and social value of these protected areas. The growing use of user fees in Australia hasincreased revenues and improved management, but it raises questions about distributive justice and commer-cialization of Australia’s natural areas.

(PEER REVIEWED)

Article author Gamini Herath. Photo courtesy ofGamini Herth.


Australia, and that number will rise tosome 8.8 million by the year 2006(Tourism Forecasting Council 1997).The number of Japanese visitors aloneincreased from 352,300 in 1988 to670,900 in 1993 (Bureau of TourismResearch 1994). More than 50% of allinternational tourists visit nationalparks and other natural areas (Blamey1995). Domestic demand for recre-ation and ecotourism grew rapidly inthe 1970s. A survey in 1988 and 1990in Tasmania shows that hiking hasrisen from 59.7% of the total recre-ational activities in 1988 to 75.8% in1990.

In the early history of Australia’sparks and reserves, little attention waspaid to the overall status of the eco-systems. By the 1950s progressive con-servation efforts led people to valuenature beyond commodity produc-tion, and by the 1970s preservationhad become a legitimate and valuableland allocation. Several conservationgroups, such as the Australian Con-

servation Foundation, the AustralianWilderness Society, and the VictorianNational Parks Association, pressuredthe government for better legislation.As a result, Australia’s nature reservesrose to about 30 million hectares, or4% of the country’s total land area. By1993, 10.6% of the total land area wasreserved under national parks. Dis-putes occurred where nature conser-vation objectives conflicted withalternative land uses. For example, inthe 1970s environmental groupsfiercely opposed a proposal by the Hy-droelectric Commission of Tasmaniato flood Lake Pedder. The environ-mentalists lost Lake Pedder, but theissue was a turning point for Tasma-nia and the conservation movement(Kellow 1989).

The Rationalebehind Entry Feesto Natural AreasThe rapid growth of Australia’s touristindustry coupled with fiscal conserva-tism has pressured management agen-cies to generate revenue. The desiredoutcomes of user-fee systems are cost-effectiveness, improved park manage-ment, better visitor facilities, and apositive attitude toward protected areasmanagement (ANZECC 1998).

Public opinion remains divided onuse fees. The arguments favoring feesare that they achieve efficiency in re-source allocation, alleviate congestion,and help recover costs and providerevenue for maintenance, therebymitigating adverse environmental ef-fects (Cullen 1985). Those against feesargue that they can create adverse dis-tributional consequences, and thatpublic resources should allow equalaccess for all. Use fees, opponents say,constitute double taxation.

Use fees are often determinedadministratively rather than by the

market. Table 1 (see page 37) showsthe diversity of use fees to nationalparks in Australia based on mode oftravel and their capacity. Visitors canbuy a daily pass, and in some casesannual passes are available. Differentfees are charged for adults and chil-dren, and concessions are made forcertain disadvantaged visitors. Table 2(see page 38) shows fees collectedfrom several World Heritage Areas inAustralia. In three of these sites, feescovered less than 5% of managementexpenditures. In Kakadu, fees coveredless than 10% of expenditures. Onlyin Uluru do use fees constitute upwardof 65% of the management budget(Driml and Common 1995). Neitherefficiency nor cost recovery is achievedin existing fee programs.

Demand/Supply Analysisfor Natural Areas inAustralia: The Status QuoQuantitative assessments of the supply-and-demand parameters for naturalareas are critically important toachieve optimal pricing schemes. Theestimation of demand for resourcessuch as national parks and wildernessareas is not direct since these goodsare not marketed. Economists havedeveloped several techniques, whichinclude the Travel Cost Method(TCM) and the Contingent ValuationMethod to estimate demand. Ulphand Reynolds (1981) used the TCMto estimate the recreation use value ofthe Warrumbungle National Park tobe around $100/ visitor day. Knapmanand Stanley (1991) measured the rec-reation value of Kakadu NationalParks. Beal (1995a) studied the de-mand for the Girraween National Parkin Queensland and estimated a chokeprice of $47.23. Beal (1995b) alsostudied the Carnarvon Gorge NationalPark in Queensland. These studies

Dorrigo National Park, Australia. Photo by Geff Bennett.


provide demand curves that can beused in determining optimal pricingin conjunction with the supply curve.The inadequacy of formal demandstudies is obvious here.

In Australia, demand studies aremore numerous than supply studies.For estimating supply functions, in-formation on variable costs such ascompliance checking, garbage collec-tion, implementing use fees, user-in-duced maintenance, and clean-up arerequired. Beal and Harrison (1997)estimated the supply function for theCarnarvon Gorge National Park inQueensland, which, in conjunctionwith the demand curve, yielded amarket clearing price of $3.17 for dayvisitors and $15.00 for camping visi-tors. They found the optimal pricesfor day and camping visits to be $1.13and $8.00 for the Girraween NationalPark in Queensland. In some cases thecost of collection could not be cov-ered by the use-fee program. The pau-

city of supply studies constrains a for-mal evaluation of existing pricingschemes.

Revenue ArgumentAnother argument for use fees is toenhance revenue. The total revenuecollected depends on the price elas-ticity of demand. If demand is priceinelastic, increasing the price will leadto higher revenues. Knapman andStoeckl (1995) estimated the priceelasticity of demand for Kakadu Na-tional Park and Hinchinbrook Island

National Park to be highly inelastic.In Australia, the demand elasticity var-ied between 0.033 and 0.041, with0.07 being the typical elasticity of de-mand. Beal (1995a) also found theelasticity for day visits and campingto be 0.055 and 0.087 respectively,both highly inelastic. Bennett (1996)estimated the demand elasticity forrecreation in the Dorrigo and GibraltarRange National Parks to be around0.0842 and 1.693 respectively. Over-all, Australian studies indicate thatdemand is generally inelastic, suggest-

Table 1—Magnitude of entry fees for selected parks in Australia (in Australian dollars).

STATE PARK BUS CAR MOTORCYCLE PERSON

NEW SOUTH WALES Kosciusco 4.00 (adult) 12.00 3.50 NA(daily) 2.00 (child)

Kosciusco NA NA(annual) 60.00 30.00

VICTORIA Selected parks 21–44 4.50–9.50 1.50–2.00 NA(daily) (30 seats

14–25 3.00(29 seats) 8.00 (adult)

Point Nepean NA NA NA 4.00 (child)(daily) 18.00 (family)

Mt. Buffalo 130.00 33.00 NA(annual) (30 seats)

Off-season 75.00(29 seats)

Source: Compiled by the author from data in ANZECC 1997.

Use fees raise unresolved equity concerns, but equityis a matter of personal and philosophical values.Economists can suggest ways of achieving efficiencyand describe equity considerations, but ultimatelywhat is fair must be determined by political process.


ing that higher prices would lead tohigher revenues. But empirically thequestion is whether pricing is too highor too low and whether any variationof price leads to an increase or de-crease in total revenue. Again, thepaucity of elasticity estimates for mostnatural areas in Australia constrainanswers to this question.

Table 2—Management budgets and revenue from user fees for selected locations in Australia, 1991–92

(in millions, Australian dollars).

World Heritage Area Total Management Total Fees Collected Fees as PercentExpenditures of Expenditure

Great Barrier Reef 18.1 0.79 4.0Wet Tropics 12.1 0.30 2.5Kakadu 10.8 1.02 9.4Uluru 2.9 1.85 63.8Tasmanian Wilderness 4.8 0.20 4.2Total 48.7 4.16 8.5

Source: Driml and Common 1995.

Equity ArgumentEquity is an important concern in Aus-tralian society. Economists often pay lipservice to equity in pursuing efficiencygoals. The main objection is that feesdiscriminate against low-incomegroups. Governments often attempt toredress equity issues through conces-sions to needy groups and familiesthrough fee structures that charge pervehicle or per campsite rather than perperson (ANZECC 1998). Recreationareas in Australia are highly subsidized,and only 30% of costs are recoveredthrough user fees. Further studies onequity will reveal its importance to thefinancing of natural areas. Recent em-phasis on sustainable development hasencouraged the need to recognizeintergenerational equity.

Concluding RemarksContinuous changes in managementstructure and reductions in budgetspresent difficulties for managers ofnatural areas in Australia. Among thesedifficulties are a reduction in resourceprotection and maintenance and anincrease in personnel workload. Thegovernment encourages use fees pri-marily to generate revenue, yet theycover a small percentage of manage-ment expenses. The fees are not de-

termined by application of marketmechanisms and bear no relationshipto either supply or demand.

Use fees raise unresolved equityconcerns, but equity is a matter ofpersonal and philosophical values.Economists can suggest ways ofachieving efficiency and describe eq-uity considerations, but ultimatelywhat is fair must be determined bypolitical process.

Concern about fees and commercial-ization of natural areas ignores the es-sential basis upon which a protectedarea system is established. Still, fund-ing issues are important and cannot beignored. If economists are to obtain amore receptive audience for their effi-ciency concerns, more work is neces-sary on equity and issues of socialjustice. The guidelines for 2000, whichset fees on a full cost recovery basis andintroduces the goods and services taxfrom July 1, 2000, will have significantimplications in Australia. Fees help raiserevenue that supports the protection ofnatural areas, but alone they are not suf-ficient to provide all the needed funding.

GAMINI HERATH is senior lecturer at theSchool of Business, La Trobe University,Albury/Wodonga Campus, WodongaVictoria, Australia. E-mail:[email protected].

Rock outcropping in Gibraltar Range National Park, Australia.Photo by Geff Bennett.


REFERENCESAustralian and New Zealand Environment and

Conservation Council. 1998. Report of theANZECC Working Group on National Parksand Protected Areas Management,Canberra.

Beal, D. J. 1995a. Estimating the elasticity ofdemand for camping visits to a national parkin south-east Queensland by the travel costmethod. Australian Leisure 7(3): 21–26.

Beal, D. J. 1995b. A travel cost analysis of thevalue of Carnarvon Gorge National Park forrecreational use. Review of Marketing andAgricultural Economics 63 (2): 292–303.

Beal, D. J., and S. R. Harrison. 1997. Efficientpricing of recreation in national parks inQueensland case study. Paper presented tothe Australian Agricultural and ResourceEconomics Conference, Gold Coast.

Bennett, J. 1996. Estimating the recreation usevalues of national parks. Paper presentedto the Annual Conference of the AustralianAgricultural and Resource Economics Soci-ety, Melbourne.

Blamey, R. 1995. The nature of ecotourism.Occasional Paper, No. 21. Canberra, Aus-tralia: Bureau of Tourism Research.

Bureau of Tourism Research. 1994. Australiantourism data card, Canberra, Australia: BTR.

Common, M. S., and T. W. Norton. 1992.Biodiversity: its conservation in Australia.Ambio 21(3): 258–265.

Cullen, R. 1985. Rationing recreation use ofpublic land. Journal of Environmental Man-

agement, 21(1 ): 213–224.Dargarvel, J. 1987. Problems in Australia’s

mixed forest economy. Journal of AustralianPolitical Economy 21: 36–48.

Driml, S., and M. Common. 1995. Economicand financial benefits of tourism in majorprotected areas. Australian Journal of Envi-ronmental Management 2(2): 19–29.

Hall, C. M. 1994. Ecotourism in Australia, NewZealand and the South Pacific, appropriatetourism or a new form of ecological imperi-alism? In Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option,ed. by E. Cater and G. Lowman. New York:John and Sons: 137–157.

Hall, C. M. 1989. The “Worthless Lands Hy-pothesis” and Australia’s National Parksand Reserves in Australia’s Ever Chang-ing Forests. Special Publication No. 1, ed.by K. J. Fawley and N. Semple. Depart-ment of Geography and Oceanography,Defence Force Academy, Campbell ACT:441–458.

The desired outcomes of user-fee systems are cost-effectiveness, improved park management, bettervisitor facilities, and a positive attitude towardprotected areas management.

Kellow, A. 1989. The dispute over the FranklinRiver and South West Wilderness Area inTasmania. Natural Resources Journal 29(1):129–146.

Knapman, B., and N. Stoeckl. 1995. Recreationuser fees: an Australian empirical investi-gation. Tourism Economics 1(1): 5–15.

Knapman, B., and O. Stanley. 1991. A travelcost analysis of the recreation use value ofKakadu National Park. Resource AssessmentCommission. Canberra, Australia: The Eco-nomics of Recreation and TourismConsultancy, Canberra.

Tourism Forecasting Council. 1997. The sixthreport of the Tourism Forecasting Council.Forecast 3: 1–5.

Ulph, A. M., and J. K. Reynolds. 1981. An eco-nomic evaluation of national parks. Centerfor Resource and Environmental StudiesMonograph 4. Canberra: Australian Na-tional University.


Environmentalists Sueto Stop Military OverflightsAnyone who has ever been buzzed in wilderness by a low-flying Air Force jet will tell you the experience was deafen-ing and intimidating. Environmentalists and ranchers fromnine western states teamed up in January to file suit againstthe Defense Department to end such low-level trainingflights until their environmental impact is determined. Thelawsuit states that in the West alone the Air Force conductstraining flights over more than one million square miles ofopen country, most of it public land, at speeds up to 645miles per hour and at altitudes as low as 100 feet. The suitcharges the Air Force with intentionally underestimatingthe environmental impact of such flights.

Panel Finds Canada’sNational Parks System Near CollapseThe Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s NationalParks recently reported that Canada’s national parks ser-vice must make radical changes if it is going to avoid a totalcollapse of the nation’s entire parks system. At least 22 ofCanada’s 39 national parks face severe environmental dan-gers. But the state of Canada’s parks is less about globalenvironmental problems and more about the failure of themanaging body. Panel Chairman Jacques Girin said thatthe situation is so serious that increasing budgets will dolittle or nothing for Canada’s protected areas until the orga-nization makes profound changes in the way it operates.

Failure to implement planning, poor organization andmanagement, and a lack of scientific knowledge were amongthe panel’s major criticisms. Out of 2,100 staff membersworking for Parks Canada, only 11 hold Ph.D.s and 40have masters degrees. The panel also found that park staffoften did not understand the definition of environmentalintegrity and commonly ignored the health of park ecosys-tems in decisionmaking. The panel strongly supports hir-ing more scientists and placing at least one in a position of

power. This is a critical time for Canada’s parks system andits role in the ecological integrity of the Earth.

Env. Groups Demand Reductionand Regulation of ORVs on Public LandsMore than 100 environmental groups called on federal agen-cies to dramatically reduce off-road vehicle use of nationalparks and forests. The coalition reported that “off-roading”is destroying and polluting those lands. Another 85-groupcoalition, led by The Wilderness Society, petitioned theUSDA Forest Service to end off-road vehicle use on thenational forests unless they implement a system for stricterregulation. And another 66 environmental groups askedthe National Park Service to ban off-road access to nationalparks all together.

Australia Ranks amongTop Five Land-Clearing NationsThe Australian Conservation Foundation reported thatAustralia is clearing its forests faster than any other indus-trialized nation. In three years alone it cleared about 2.5million acres of forested land. The country now ranks asthe fifth largest land-clearing nation in the world.

Roadless Areas on Lolo National ForestProtected from SnowmobilersMontana’s Lolo National Forest recently closed 400,000roadless acres to motorized access in response to the threatof a lawsuit by the Montana Wilderness Association if theforest did not enforce a 1986 management plan.

The Montana Snowmobile Association along with theBlue Ribbon Coalition (an Idaho motorized recreationgroup) and the town of Superior, Montana (which dependson snowmobiler dollars), challenged the closure chargingthat the Forest Service failed to hold public hearings beforeimplementing the ban. But Judge Donald Molloy ruled thatsnowmobilers attended public hearings during preparation

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcements& Wilderness Calendar


of the 1986 plan, and that the ForestService was overdue in enforcing theban. The decision means that, follow-ing public input, national forests mustenforce their land management plans.

Clinton Administration toPropose New Category ofProtected Lands—NationalLandscape MonumentsInterior Secretary Bruce Babbitt an-nounced that the Clinton Administra-tion plans to create a new category ofprotected public lands called a Na-tional Landscape Monument. Some 4million acres in the West are underconsideration, including Oregon’sSteens Mountains, parts of Montana’sMissouri River, and Colorado’s Can-yon of the Ancients. If Congress doesnot protect these areas, PresidentClinton could declare them NationalLandscape Monuments. The Bureau ofLand Management will manage thesenew protected areas.

Leave No Trace PrinciplesTake Root in GermanyAnne-Katrin Henkel is helping tobuild a national outdoor ethic in Ger-many. Last April, Henkel gatheredpublic relations specialists, preserverangers, and staff in Germany’s RhonBiosphere Reserve to discuss the LeaveNo Trace Program (LNT) in the UnitedStates. Some LNT principles werereadily accepted, such as “Pack It In,Pack It Out.” However, despite thehuman waste problem in many natu-ral areas in Germany, participantswould not discuss proper disposal andsanitation. Henkel said she was labeled“crazy” for packing out her toilet pa-per on backpacking trips in the States.Still, Henkel affirms, every initiativebegins with small steps. For more in-formation contact Barbara Miranda at:

[email protected]. Adaptedfrom Central and Southern Sierra Wil-derness Education Project’s winter 1999/2000 newsletter.

Africa Losing ForestsDue to a Combinationof FactorsThe U.N. Food and Agriculture Orga-nization reported that between 1980and 1995, Africa had an annual de-forestation rate of 0.3%, or twice theworld average, losing an estimated10.5% of forest land. Logging, over-grazing, clearing land for agriculture,and civil unrest have all contributed.The report found that in many coun-tries, forest management and nationalparks programs have been disruptedby political and military conflicts,while firewood needs are increasing insub-Saharan Africa due to the growthof both population and poverty.

Study Says SavingWorld’s Species Is Nota Losing BattleA British-American research team re-ported in the journal Nature that a thirdof the world’s plant and animal specieslive on only 1.4% of the Earth’s landmass. The team concluded that by fo-cusing on 25 “hot spots,” it is possibleto save a large portion of the world’sspecies from extinction. These “hotspots” include tropical rainforests inBrazil, Madagascar, the Andes, Borneo,Sumatra, the Caribbean, and otherSoutheast Asian islands. IJW—Couldwilderness be part of this strategy?

Oregon CampaignCalls for More WildernessThe Oregon Natural Resources Coun-cil is leading dozens of organizationsin the new “Oregon Wild” campaign,

which demands protection for another4.9 million acres of roadless areas inOregon’s national forests. The cam-paign is working on a proposal for thestate’s congressional delegation. Or-egon currently has 2.1 million acresof designated wilderness.

Great Grizzly SearchUnderway inSalmon-Selway-BitterrootEcosystemA group of scientists and conservation-ists have joined efforts to search forgrizzly bears in the Salmon-Selway-Bitterroot Ecosystem in Idaho andMontana. The group believes that griz-zlies do live in this vast area, and thatthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceshould document their numbers andhabits before proceeding with any griz-zly recovery plan. The group offers anobservation booklet to help the pub-lic identify grizzlies and documentsightings. For more information or toreport a sighting, write to Great Griz-zly Search, P.O. Box 8983, Missoula,Montana 59807, USA.

Albertan EnvironmentalistsDisappointed withChinchaga Protection PlanThe Alberta Wilderness Association(AWA) joined the Canadian Parks andWilderness Society to announce itsdisappointment with the province’sdecision to protect some 800 squarekilometers of a proposed 5,000 squarekilometer area in the Chinchaga wil-derness region of northeastern Alberta.Environmentalists argue that the areais too small and is mostly peatland andunproductive, burned-over deciduousforest. The area is home to importantnesting sites for trumpeter swans aswell as at-risk woodland caribou andgrizzly bears. The AWA denied reports


that it intends to “go radical” in its ef-forts to protect more of the Chinchaga.For more information or to voice youropinion, write to AWA, P.O. Box 6398,Station D, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2E1,Canada. E-mail: [email protected].

BLM Rangers Attackedin Algodones DunesBLM rangers were attacked by an “un-usually unruly” crowd in southernCalifornia’s Algodones Dunes during the1999 Thanksgiving weekend. Rangersobserved illegal off-road vehicle (ORV)activity in Areas of Critical Environmen-tal Concern (ACEC) and wilderness ar-eas in Imperial County. Reports of60,000 to 110,000 holiday campers andORV enthusiasts flooded AlgodonesDunes, and a local newspaper reporteddrunken driving, alcohol and drug vio-lations, riots, and attacks on law enforce-ment officers. Vehicles repeatedlyignored, removed or destroyed BLMsigns restricting motorized travel inACECs and “Limited Use Areas.”Adapted from Desert Survivors MonthlyDiscussion Group Report.

New Study Reports TwoTimes as Many Species inU.S., but One-ThirdImperiledA new study by the Nature Conser-vancy (touted as the most comprehen-sive study of biodiversity everundertaken in the United States) re-ports that the country is home to morethan 200,000 native species of livingthings, double the number previouslythought. To temper that figure, thestudy says that at least a third of allthese species are imperiled. In re-sponse to this crisis, the Nature Con-servancy will launch a 1 billion dollarcampaign over the next five years toprotect wildlands. It is, they say, the

greatest investment in conservationever by a private organization.

Two ListservesHelp EnvironmentalOrganizations ShareInformation and ResourcesGrassroots organizations are a tremen-dous tool for shaping U.S. environ-mental policy in the 21st Century.That’s why Steve Holmer and StuDalheim started “americanlands-list,”an extensive computer network ofmore than 2,500 activists and organi-zations who share information over e-mail to help them be as effective aspossible in their efforts to protect theUnited State’s natural heritage. Mem-bers are encouraged to post informa-tion and alerts as well as receiveinformation from other individualsand organizations. Holmer andDalheim strongly believe that each in-dividual voice makes a real difference,and that collectively environmentallyminded groups are having a very “sig-nificant cumulative impact” on thehealth of the natural world. For moreinformation, please contact AmericanLands at [email protected],or call 202-547-9105.

Wilderness Watch! maintains asimilar listserve called WILDNET. Theorganization encourages subscribers toshare information toward building abetter wilderness system. To subscribe,address a message to: [email protected]. For information, contactthe list administrator, Glenn Marangelo,at: [email protected].

American RiversPresses for Dam Breachingon the SnakeThe environmental organization Ameri-can Rivers is pressuring the ClintonAdministration to breach four dams on

the Snake River to help recover threat-ened salmon runs. For the second con-secutive year, the organization hasdeclared the Snake the most endangeredriver in the United States. Activists sup-porting dam breaching delivered120,000 letters and cards to Vice Presi-dent Al Gore’s office. The four dams inquestion provide only 5% of the region’selectric power, while destroying 90% ofthe salmon. The federal government iscompleting its study and plans to makea recommendation later this year. Seemsthe future of salmon runs in westernrivers depends not on high-tech fish lad-ders, but on restoring waterways to freeflowing states.

National MountainConference in Golden,Colorado“Stewardship and human poweredrecreation for the new century” is thetheme of the National Mountain Con-ference to be held September 14–16,2000, in Golden, Colorado. Registra-tion is $110.00. For more information,contact National Mountain Confer-ence Coordinator, c/o AMC ResearchDepartment, P.O. Box 298, Gorham,New Hampshire 03581, USA. Tele-phone: 603-466-2721, x184. E-mail:[email protected].

Sierra Club Files Suitagainst Shopping Mall atGrand CanyonThe Sierra Club filed suit to stop de-velopment of Canyon Forest Village,a 330-million-dollar project thatwould include up to 1,140 hotelrooms, 2,375 housing units, and250,000 square feet of commercialspace at the main entrance of GrandCanyon National Park. The group con-tends that building “Arizona’s largestshopping center at the entrance to


Grand Canyon” is a bad idea. Beyondspoiling one of the most beautifullandscapes in the world, of primaryconcern is the development’s demandfor groundwater. For more informa-tion, contact the Sierra Club at 85 Sec-ond Street, Second Floor, SanFrancisco, California 94105, USA.Telephone: 415-977-5500. Website:www.sierraclub.org.

National Wilderness 2000Conference in Denver,ColoradoCelebrate wilderness at the NationalWilderness 2000 Conference, Septem-ber 8–10 at the Hyatt Regency Hotelin Denver, Colorado. Under the con-ference theme, Protecting America’sWild Places in the 21st Century, ac-tivists will find opportunities to ad-dress present and future challenges

and formulate a wilderness agenda forthe next century. Conference organiz-ers say they want to broaden the kindsof people advocating for wildernessprotection and so encourage atten-dance by nontraditional allies such asartists, writers, musicians, religiousgroups, business leaders, hunters, an-glers, and young people. For more in-formation or registration, write to SaraScott at The Wilderness Society, 7475Dakin Street, Suite 410, Denver, Colorado80221, USA. Telephone: 303-650-5818,x107. E-mail: [email protected].

Website FollowsExpedition of YoungPeople PromotingWilderness AwarenessA new wilderness-based educationwebsite, www.arcticyear.org, willfollow an expedition of young

people spending an entire year (Au-gust 2001 to July 2002) on the Nor-wegian Island of Svalbard. Theexpedition is administered by Brit-ish Schools Expeditions. Svalbard,often described as Europe’s last wil-derness area, is far from a pristineenvironment. Converging air andwater masses transport pollutants tothe area, and scientists have recentlydiscovered polar bears with levels ofpollutants 20 times that of bears inAlaska. Later this year, lesson plansfor teachers will be added to thewebsite to encourage young peopleworldwide to consider the threatsfacing Svalbard and the value of wil-derness. For more information, con-tact Mark Evans, British School, P.O.Box 85769, Riyadh 11612, SaudiArabia.

Michelle Mazzola LeavesIJW Managing Editor andProduction EditorPositionsMichelle Mazzola, who has been IJW’sproduction editor since its inceptionin 1995, and managing editor for thepast two years, is leaving the journalto focus on new professional chal-lenges. Director of the Foster CreekConservation District in WashingtonState, Mazzola recently received amajor grant from the National Fishand Wildlife Foundation to developa model habitat conservation project.Editor-in-chief John Hendee will re-assume the position of managing edi-tor, and Kurt Caswell (see below) willbecome production editor. IJW willmiss you, Michelle. Thank you foryour many and steady contributions.Good luck in your future endeavors.

Kurt Caswell Joins IJW as Production EditorKurt Caswell, chair of the English department at Cascade School nearWhitmore in rural northern California, is IJW’s new production editor. Caswellwill work with the editor-in-chief to copyedit and organize all IJW materialsfor submission to Fulcrum Publishing.

Caswell, age 30, grew up in a Forest Ser-vice family in the Cascade Mountains of Or-egon and on the Snake River Plain in southernIdaho. He holds a bachelor’s degree in En-glish from Boise State University, and amaster’s degree from the Bread Loaf Schoolof English at Middlebury College inMiddlebury, Vermont. He has taught inHokkaido, Japan, on the Navajo Reservation,and on a working cattle ranch in Arizona. AtCascade School Caswell specializes in teach-ing Shakespeare, Native American literature,and Romantic poetry. He leads wildernesstrips for students during the summer. He has published stories, articles, andessays in numerous magazines and journals, including Left Bank, Boise Maga-zine, West Wind Review, and the Orion Society’s anthology Stories in the Land.A frequent contributor to the Chico News and Review, he lives with his wife,Suzanne. Welcome aboard Kurt!

IJW Production Editor Kurt Caswell insouthern Utah’s Grand Gulch. Photo bySunny Weir.


Letters to the Editor

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Use Fees Constitute Wilderness for Sale

Dear International Journal of Wilderness,

Congress is pushing federal agencies to institute user fee pro-grams. To increase the incentive, congress is telling managersthey can keep all or a portion of the fees collected to run theprogram. Congress launched the Recreation Fee Demo pro-gram in 1996 to test this concept. At first glance, this makes alot of sense. However, I have some very serious concerns.

Proper stewardship of public lands (especially wilder-ness) often requires limitation of use. My 33 years in theU.S. Forest Service tells me exactly what will happen if yousay to any bright manager, “Sell the resource and you canand keep the proceeds to enhance your program!” This isexactly how the Recreation Fee Demo Program works. Itprovides a powerful incentive for managers to avoid any-thing that will limit use, because the more use they cangenerate the greater their budget. Raising money soon drivesthe program instead of proper resource stewardship.

In addition to wilderness users, wilderness benefits mil-lions of Americans who will never set foot there, millionsof Americans yet unborn, and millions of animals great andsmall. How do you collect user fees from them? How doyou put a price on outstanding opportunities for solitude?Any fees that are collected must go directly to the treasuryand there must be no relationship between fees and thefunds appropriated for stewardship.

Congress must provide the funding to maintain and pro-tect our wilderness treasures for future generations. It shouldnot tell wilderness stewards they must sell the resource topay their salary.

Bill WorfPresident of Wilderness Watch6315 Hillview WayMissoula, Montana 59803406-251-6210

Medberry Supports Roadless Area Policy

Dear IJW,

Jay O’Laughlin and John Freemuth oppose the proposed Forest Service policy to protect the remaining 40 to 60 millionacres of national forest roadless lands from road constructionand logging (see “Roadless Area Policy, Politics, and Wilder-ness Potential,” IJW, April 2000). They argue for current plan-ning processes and assert that the proposed roadless policyignores people’s opinions by being the centerpiece of a politi-cally driven agenda. I disagree!

The roadless issue has a long history of active, publicdebate. In the 1970s and 1980s the Forest Service performedtwo major roadless area studies (RARE I and RARE II). Inthe 1980s and 1990s, wilderness legislation was proposed,debated, and passed or killed, and these debates continuetoday, sometimes in policy wrangling over forest health,salvage logging, fire policy, endangered species, and waterquality, all of which affect roadless area management. But itis in project level decisions (such as timber sales) wherethe fate of many roadless areas are settled. It is in the ar-cane, jargon-packed, convoluted, policy never-never landsof passionless, mind-numbing, bureaucratic documentswhere many roadless areas meet their fate. In Idaho, we’velost a million acres of potential wilderness through “exist-ing policy processes.” Enough is enough! The proposedpolicy would protect roadless areas in their current condi-tion while the long-term debate over each area continues.Is that political? Of course it is.

The agency has heard from more than half a millionpeople at its many hearings and open houses, and currentpublic opinion polls show overwhelming support for pres-ervation of roadless areas. This time the Forest Service is insync with the public.


This old debate descends from John Muir and GiffordPinchot’s arguments over preservation versus multiple-useand development of the nation’s forests. Now that we

Americans have developed the vast majority of ourland—and less than 5% remains wild—it is certainly timefor more creativity, humility, and restraint. It is time to adoptMuir’s approach and preserve the forests that remain mostnative, most untrammeled, and most wild.

Mike MedberryAmerican Lands AllianceE-mail: [email protected]

O’Laughlin’s Response to Medberry

Dear IJW and Mike Medberry,

President Clinton said 40 million acres will be preserved.Forest Service leaders he appointed are solidly behind thisdone deal (see www.house.gov/resources/106cong/forests/staffreportroadlessinfluence.htm). To help establish Clinton’spublic lands protection legacy, 20% of national forest landswould become quasi-wilderness without going through thecontentious struggle among competing interests our law-makers intended for permanent wilderness protection.

Perhaps (as Mr. Medberry claims) one of every nine acresof roadless national forest in Idaho has been developed sinceRARE II. Identifying these lands as lost potential wildernessillustrates why Idahoans cannot agree on the roadless/wilder-ness issue. Some groups want it all. The president obligesthem. After-the-fact public input satisfies only the letter, notthe spirit, of the law. Do we want a public policy processwhere the rule of law matters less than interest group influ-ence and opinion polls? I hope not. Enough is enough, Mike.

Jay O’LaughlinDirector of the Idaho Forest,Wildlife and Range Policy

Analysis GroupUniversity of IdahoE-mail: [email protected]

Freemuth’s Response to Medberry

Dear IJW,

Mike Medberry has, as usual, written a passionate defenseof the need to protect the remaining roadless lands in theUnited States. I do not question Mike’s passion, and cer-tainly think that a case can be made for the protection ofthe remaining roadless areas in the United States. My con-cern is with process, and how we make decisions in oursystem of democracy. We must make them with delibera-tion, discussion, and thought. In a political sense, there isnothing new about the Clinton move—it is strategic poli-tics as it has always been practiced. Yet, when Mike says“enough is enough,” I fear he is more accurate than heknows. I worry that we are close to the time when “enoughis enough” is everyone’s cry, and we sink into the morass ofgotcha politics, and nothing else. Maybe there is still roomto move here.

John FreemuthSenior Fellow, Andrus Center for

Public PolicyProfessor of Political ScienceBoise State UniversityE-mail: [email protected]


Book ReviewsBY JOHN SHULTIS

Nature: Western Attitudes Since Ancient Times by Peter Coates. 1998. University of California Press, Berkeley and LosAngeles. 256 pp., $29.95 (hardcover).

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Peter Coates’s book Nature:Western Attitudes Since An-cient Times brings to mindmany great books about thehistory of Western attitudestoward nature: ClarenceGlacken’s Traces on theRhodian Shore; RaymondWilliams’s The Country andthe City; Roderick Nash’s Wil-derness and the AmericanMind; Hans Huth’s Natureand the American; and MaxOelschlaeger’s The Idea ofWilderness. Cumulatively,these and other books cre-ated the field of environmen-tal history by the 1970s,

allowing the study of nature and wilderness to take theirrightful place among more traditional historical subjects.

Like the books above, Nature explores the tangled his-tory of Western society’s concepts of nature. While the word“nature” has an astounding range of definitions, Coates’sbook concentrates on five meanings of the term: nature as(1) a physical place, particularly unmodified or threatenedenvironments (i.e., wilderness); (2) the collective phenom-ena of the world, either including or excluding humans;(3) an essence, quality and/or principle that informs theworkings of the world; (4) an inspiration and guide forpeople to govern human affairs; and (5) the opposite ofculture. Throughout the book, Coates explores the originof human control over wilderness, human separation fromthe natural world, and the ideas and actions that might beto blame for our current “ecological crisis”.

After outlining the five major categories of meaning un-derlying past and present concepts of nature in chapter 1,

Coates discusses Greek and Roman society in chapter 2,and medieval attitudes toward nature in chapter 3. Coatessuggests that the Renaissance era may be the crucible of“modern” concepts of nature (chapter 4), and then he re-views the controversial idea of whether indigenous people’sconcepts of nature may have reflected “ecological sainthood”in Chapter 5 (p. 82).

In chapter 6, Coates describes how the concept of na-ture as “scenery” and “landscape” relates to the creation ofthe eighteenth century British landscape park, the directantecedent of urban and, later, national parks in the NewWorld. He also notes how these first parks, as well as theearly national parks in the United States, reflect the distri-bution of power and class within society. The importantimpacts of Romanticism, the concept of ecology (chapter7), and twentieth-century socialism (chapter 8) on mod-ern concepts of nature are also reviewed. The final chapterassesses “the future of nature” by looking at recent devel-opments including cloning.

What differentiates this book is that more recent timeperiods are incorporated: Coates’s discussion ranges fromprimordial to postmodern. For example, the book in-corporates the impact of the contemporary Green move-ment and the Third Reich era of Germany on attitudestoward nature. He does not offer new perspectives onthe historical human relationship with wilderness, nordoes he break new ground. The strength of this book isthat it provides a current, well-written, succinct reviewof the myriad meanings the term “nature” has hadthroughout human history.

Coates’s writing style is clear and fluid (it would makean excellent college textbook). While it doesn’t reach thelofty heights of the seminal books noted above, Nature isfor all those fascinated by how humans have viewed “na-ture” throughout history.

Book review editor John Shultis.


George Catlin’s original vision of “aNation’s park” included both indig-enous peoples and wildlife. Despitethis early inclusionary vision, the ex-clusionary “Yellowstone model” be-came the standard for mostsubsequent protected areas. In thismodel, humans were not consideredpart of wilderness, but were separatefrom it, cast out to protect the wilder-ness from human exploitation.

Despite sustained opposition fromindigenous groups throughout theNew World, their forced displacementfrom parks became the norm. Thestrength of the myth of wildlands asprimeval, “untouched” nature was toostrong to allow for human settlementin these areas, even after it becameevident that indigenous peoples hadlived in these areas from approxi-mately 2000 years (New Zealand) to10,000 years (North America) to morethan 60,000 years (Australia).Roderick Neumann’s Imposing Wilder-ness is a provocative case study of thehistorical tensions between localpopulations and protected area man-agers in Tanzania’s Arusha NationalPark region. Neumann powerfullydocuments the past and presentstruggles of community residents withpark managers and the state. He de-scribes the tensions between the origi-nal African appropriation of land formaterial production and the nine-teenth-century European appropria-

tion for aesthetic consumption (i.e.,recreation and tourism). In this criti-cal shift, kinship-based tenure systemsthat had controlled land for centurieswere replaced by private or state-con-trolled systems that restricted or ex-tinguished local access to criticalresources.

Neumann provides a fascinating,scholarly account of the spatial, tem-poral, and social patterns of illegal ac-tivities, such as firewood collectingand hunting, from both the villagers’and managers’ perspectives. Theanalysis of daily confrontations be-tween the two groups is the most pow-erful section of the book. Neumannsuggests a moral justification forcrimes such as theft and grazing tres-pass based on ancestral and custom-ary claims to land and resources:“Simultaneously and inseparably, theseacts defend a set of locally recognizedsymbols and an idealized history in theland—an ancestor’s homestead, ameeting place, a battle site, a commu-nal salt lick” (p. 175). The battle be-tween villagers and managers is botha contest between land rights and thesymbolic meaning of the land itself.

Village economies in Africa arebased on social arrangements amongcommunity members, including reci-procity, forced generosity, communallands, and work sharing. Interestingly,Neumann argues that tensions be-tween villagers and managers stem

from the reluctance or inability ofmanagers to be included in such com-munal relationships, as it would forcethe state to relinquish some controlover land and resources. While thelives of park staff, and communitymembers are forcibly intertwined,state policies and regulations deliber-ately discourage such relationships. Insuch an atmosphere, notes Neumann,neither the residents nor wildlife canthrive, and the goals of the nation,park staff and community cannot bemet.

While based in Africa, Neumann’sanalysis is relevant to both develop-ing and developed nations and chal-lenges traditional, deeply rootedbeliefs about the relationship betweenindigenous peoples and protected ar-eas. At the heart of Neumann’s bookis a question receiving increasing de-bate: If protected areas had been ac-tively managed over long periods oftime by indigenous peoples, shouldtheir descendants continue to occupyand utilize the resources in their tra-ditional homelands?

The maps, figures, and photo-graphs do not match the quality of thewriting or analysis in Imposing Wilder-ness, but Neumann provides athought-provoking read for those whowish for deeper understanding of thetensions between indigenous peoplesand protected areas throughout theworld.

Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa by Roderick P. Neumann. 1998.University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 271 pp., $35.00 (cloth).

More book reviews on page 48


Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management (second edition) by William Hammitt and David Cole. 1998. New York:John Wiley and Sons. 364 pp., $80.00 (hardback).

Recreation Ecology: The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation and Ecotourism by Michael Liddle. 1997. London:Chapman & Hall. 664 pp., $107.00 (hardback).

$80, it’s expensive, but provides up-dates of research findings, new per-spectives, and includes two newchapters.

Michael Liddle’s Recreation Ecologyfocuses on ecological aspects of out-door recreation impacts, but ignoresmanagement perspectives. However,Liddle’s book contains more informa-tion on a wider scope than WildlandRecreation, and will have greater ap-peal for wilderness researchers thanpractitioners. For those studying rec-

reation from an ecological/scientific (asopposed to practitioner) perspective,Liddle’s book is important reading.

Together, these two books providean excellent overview of the researchpublished on the ecological impactsof outdoor recreation.

JOHN SHULTIS is an associate professor atthe University of Northern British Columbia,Canada and is IJW’s executive editorhandling book reviews. Telephone:250-960-5640. E-mail: [email protected].

Despite the attention to the issue ofthe environmental impact of outdoorrecreation, there are few full-lengthbooks dealing with this subject. Wild-land Recreation and Recreation Ecologyare two books helping to fill this need.

This second edition of WildlandRecreation is a valuable tool for wil-derness recreation researchers. Writ-ten by two well-known wildernessscientists, the text is clear and concise,and outlines management strategies tomitigate environmental impacts. At

Must we always teach our children with books?

Let them look at the stars and the mountains above. Let them look at the waters

and the trees and flowers on Earth. Then they will begin to think, and

to think is the beginning of a real education.

—David Polis

Journal of Wilderness - IJWijw.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/08/Vol-06.No-2.Aug-00...director of the...

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Wilderness - IJWijw.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/08/Vol-06.No-2.Aug-00...director of the...