International Journal of Wilderness, Vol 1 no 2, December 1995

DECEMBER 1995, VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2

2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDERNESS / Volume 1, Number 2, December 1995

International Journal of WildernessEXECUTIVE EDITORS

Alan W. Ewert, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George B.C.Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation/ICEC, Ojai, Calif.

David Porter, Bureau of Land Management, Lakewood, Colo.,Alan E.Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.

James R. Fazio, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

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

PRODUCTION EDITORMichelle S. Mazzola, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho

ASSOCIATE EDITORSLiz Close, U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Mont., Dave Cockrell, University of Southern Colorado, Pueblo, Colo., Dave Cole, Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute, Missoula, Mont., Don Duff, U.S. Forest Service, Salt Lake City, Utah,William Forgey, Medical Doctor, Crown Point, Ind., NancyGreen, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C., Glen Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo., Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management,Portland, Oreg., Steve Hollenhorst, West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.Va., Jon Jarvis, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park, Glennallen, Ark., KrisKennett, British Columbia Parks, Loiliaras Lake, B. C., Canada, Jamie Kirkpatrick, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia, Ruthann Knudson,National Park Service, Washington, D.C, Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, David Lime, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minn., BobManning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt., ]oe Mazzoni, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, N.M., Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club,Washington, D.C., Jonathan Miller, Australian Heritage Commission, Australia, Chris Monz, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wy, BobMuth, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass., Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Huson, Mont., Roderick Nash, Univer-sity of California, Santa Barbara, Calif., Max Oelschlaeger, University of North Texas, Corrales, N.M., Margaret Petersen, U.S. Forest Service, Portland,Oreg., Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va., Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo., Mitch Sakofs,Outward Bound, Garrison, N. Y., Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg, Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wy,Alan Schmierer, National Park Service, San Francisco, Calif, Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea, Jerry Stokes, U.S. ForestService, Washington, D. C., Ralph Swain, U S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colo. Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif, Tom Zimmerman,National Park Service, Boise, Idaho

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) will be launched in 1995 with twoissues (September and December). Look for three issues in 1996 (April,August, and December) and full-production of quarterly issues thereafter(March, June, September, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication.

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

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

Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are in U.S.dollars only—$30 for individuals and $50 for organizations/libraries. Subscrip-tions from Canada and Mexico add $10; outside North America add $20.Back issues are available for $15.

For advertising rates please contact Michelle Mazzola @ the University ofIdaho, Wilderness Research Center, FWR Room 18-A, Moscow, ID 83844-1144, USA; (208) 885-2267. Fax: (208) 885-6226. e-Mail: [email protected].

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness copyright ©1995 by the InternationalWilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation.Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to makefair use of material from the journal.

Mission: The International Journal of Wilderness seeks to link wilderness pro-fessionals, scientists, educators, and interested citizens, worldwide with aforum for reporting and discussing wilderness research; inspirational ideas;planning, management, and allocation strategies; education; and practicalissues of wilderness stewardship.

Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide are solic-ited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, and allocationstrategies; wilderness education, including descriptions of key programsusing wilderness for personal growth, therapy and environmental educa-tion; wilderness related science and research from all disciplines addressingphysical, biological, and social aspects of wilderness; and international per-spectives describing wilderness worldwide. Articles, commentaries, lettersto the editor, photos, book reviews, announcements and information forthe wilderness calendar are encouraged. A complete list of manuscript sub-mission guidelines can be found toward the end of this journal.

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

Reprints: Manuscript reprints are available from the production office for anominal charge.

Printed on recycled paper.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS• Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • America Outdoors (National Outfitters and Guides Association) • Inter-national Center for Earth Concerns (ICEC) • International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation • NationalOutdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America (ORCA) • Outward Bound • Societyof American Foresters—Wilderness Work Group • The Wilderness Society • University of Idaho Wilderness ResearchCenter • University of Northern British Columbia (Faculty of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies) • U.S.D.A.Forest Service • U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management • U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service • U.S.D.I. National ParkService • Wilderness Education Association • Wilderness Inquiry • Wilderness Watch

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDERNESS / Volume 1, Number 2, December 1995 3

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

JOURNAL OF WILDERNESSDECEMBER 1995 VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2

FEATURES4 THE POWER OF WILDERNESS

by John C. Hendee, Managing Editor

5 SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS—The Wild, the Tame, and theFolly of Sustainable Developmentby Max Oelschlaeger

8 CANADA’S WILDERNESS

by Ron Rutledge and Terje Void

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT15 BRITISH COLUMBIA’S QUIET

WILDERNESS REVOLUTION

by Patrick Moore

18 LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE

CHANGE PLANNING—Evaluating Implementationby the U.S. Forest Serviceby K. Lynn McCoy Edwin E. Krumpe,and Stewart Allen

23 TRAIL AND SITE MANAGEMENT

ARE THE KEY TO UNTRAMMELED

WILDERNESS

by Alan Jubenville

EDUCATION25 WILDERNESS @ INTERNET

• The Wildlife Society’sWildlife Information Network

• Columbia Northwest TechnicalAssistance Network

26 WILDERNESS INQUIRY

by Greg Lais

SCIENCE AND RESEARCH30 TRENDS IN RECREATION USE

AND MANAGEMENT OF WILDERNESS

by Barbara Cook and William Borrie

35 INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS

ARE DESTROYING THE NATURALNESS

OF U.S. WILDERNESS AREAS

by Jerry E. Asher and David W. Harmon

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES38 AUSTRALIAN APPROACHES

TO WILDERNESS

by Jonathan Miller

41 THE WILDERNESS MOVEMENT

IN ITALY—A Wilderness Model for Europeby Franco Zunino

WILDERNESS DIGEST43 ANNOUNCEMENTS AND

WILDERNESS CALENDAR

46 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

47 BOOK REVIEWS• Northern Protected Areas and Wilderness• The Capacity for Wonder:

Preserving National Parks• The Wilderness Movement and the National

Forests• The World of Wilderness:

Essays on the Power and Purpose ofWild Country

Cover photograph of Mt. Fairweather, border of Alaska and British

Cloumbia, Tatshenshini area by Uri Peepre. Caribou photograph

by Ken Bowen. The cover photograph on issue one, a mid-winter

forest scene near Sodankylä, Finland, was by Ville Hallikainen.


FEATURE

The Power of WildernessBY JOHN C. HENDEE, MANAGING EDITOR

THE STEADY GROWTH OFlegally protected wilderness in the

United States, to more than 100million acres during the past 30years, is one measure of the powerof the wilderness idea. That poweris what inspired action by millionsof citizens, scientists, educators, andnatural resource professionals tosecure wilderness protection for futuregenerations. The emergence of wilder-ness as a politically viable conceptin Canada, with plans and actions

underway for dramatic growth in its legal protection, is animpressive measure of the power of the wilderness idea inCanadian culture. (See the articles by Ron Rutledge and TerjeVold, and by Patrick Moore in this issue.) Likewise, the recog-nition of wilderness as a category of land to be protected inmany other countries reflects the power of the wilderness idea,worldwide (see the article by Jonathan Miller on Australianwilderness approaches).

This past summer I participated in several of the WildernessDiscovery, seven-day backpacking trips that the University of IdahoWilderness Research Center operated for youth-at-risk at fourfederal Job Corps centers around the United States. During these

trips, I observed the power of wilderness firsthand as economicallydisadvantaged young adults, seeking a second chance at complet-ing their education and finding productive employment throughtraining in the Job Corps, struggled up steep trails carrying every-thing on their backs for seven days while leaving the culture andcomforts of civilization behind. The results were astonishing toteam leaders and Job Corps officials. We saw it in the poetry andinsights written in the Job Corps student journals, their emergingconfidence and assertiveness, in their sharing of responsibility anddecision making, their growing compassion for each other, andtheir determination to address addictions and healthfulness as theirsystems were cleansed by simple wilderness living. After seven days,they returned to their education and vocational training with highergoals than would have been possible only days earlier. I, too,returned from the wilderness empowered by my experience ofnaturalness and solitude, and by seeing the power of wilderness inhealing and inspiring these youths.

This theme of wilderness empowerment continues in this issuewith Greg Lais’s article on Wilderness Inquiry’s programs forexposing people with disabilities to the power of wilderness.

So, as the power of wilderness inspires its further protectionworldwide, it is also empowering humankind to enhance themodern human condition. We should celebrate the opportuni-ties for enhancing the human condition reflected in the growthof wilderness protection around the world. IJW

John C. Hendee


AS THE CIVILIZED WORLD CAREENS MADLY to-wards a doubling of the human population, the mass

extinction of life, and global climate change, the idea of wilder-ness assumes new relevance. Today literally, as Thoreau said, “inWildness is the preservation of the World.”

In the inaugural issue’s “Soul of the Wilderness” article, IanPlayer avows that wilderness is not, as the world’s politicians think,a peripheral matter in the larger context of global ecocrisis. It liesat the center. Let me go one step further in favor of wild thingsand wildlands by claiming that their continued presence is a ne-cessity for our own human existence, our humanity, our verysoul. We must listen to what the creatures and plants are telling us,or their destiny may become our own. Yet what chance does wil-derness have in the face of the politically correct, dominant ideologyof sustainable development? Is not the entire idea a contradictionin terms? I have serious reservations about the notion of sustain-able development and what it holds in store for wilderness. Butmake no mistake, sustainable development, as detailed in theBrundtland Commission’s United Nations report, Our CommonFuture and Agenda 21, is the politically dominant discourse.

Sustainable DevelopmentDoesn’t Work

To a few hard-core, big wilderness advocates, as well as toleaders of some environmental protection organizations, thenotion of sustainable development is deceitful, even danger-ous. They believe that the prevailing notion of sustainabledevelopment is first and foremost a public relations effort.Even the post-Rio, officially sanctioned United Nations studygroup, a 53 nation Commission on Sustainable Development,chaired by Klaus Toepfer of Germany, concludes that little, ifany, progress has been made toward such goals as protectingbiodiversity and ameliorating poverty (NewYork Times, May29, 1994). More penetrating studies have made clear that theeconomic goals of sustainable development cannot be rec-onciled with the preservation of biodiversity and theconservation of habitat, even on making the assumptions thathuman population remains at present levels (5.4 billion) alongwith implementation of so-called best available technolo-gies. Yet some of our wilderness colleagues and their fellowtravelers, as I discovered in 1993 at the 5th World WildernessCongress in Tromso, Norway, believe that sustainable devel-opment is the road to the future.

Nothing could pose a greater threat to continued existence ofthe wild earth. Concealed beneath the scientific facade of sus-tainable development lurks a potentially deadly force. Namely,the total domestication of the planet, an Earth converted to onevast factory and agricultural system designed to support a singlespecies. With the total domestication of the planet comes not

only the end of wildcreatures and lands,but also the totaldomestication ofhumankind. In thatdystopian world,human beings willrecognize the barsof the cages andfences of the parksconfining the floraland faunal remnantsof days gone by, dayswhen the animalsand plants freelypopulated Ear thand speciation wasan ongoing process.But they will notsee, indeed, theywill be incapable of seeing, that their own domestication hasbeen just as complete. Sustainable development would tame allwildlands, habitats and inhabitants alike, as well as humankind.

Wilderness Helps Define CivilizationWhich brings me full circle, like a mountain trail looping back to thetrailhead, to Thoreau’s assertion that “in Wildness is the preservation ofthe World.” Wild things and wildlands provide a boundary that definesthe ambit of human possibility. No doubt, wilderness experience is inpart culturally defined and mediated. But there is something in wild-ness, and in the experience of wildness, that reminds us of the artificialityof culture. It reawakens us to the reality of our species being; ourhuman nature exists in the reality of biological, even cosmological,time. Which is to say that the wild helps to disclose the tame, thedomesticated, human. Mother Culture, the antipode to Mother Na-ture, holds us tightly to her bosom, playing a powerful nurturing functionin human development (a role characteristically associated with women,though men are capable of nurturing as well). Humans are flung intothe world as little more than wrinkled lumps of flesh, totally depen-dent upon the sustaining care of others for survival. Only through anextended period of acculturation and socialization do we acquire ouridentity as a North American or South African, butcher, baker, orcandlestick maker, and yes, as environmentalists or natural resourceprofessionals. But, as writers from Thoreau to Freud have made clear,these cultural projects are at one and the same time the source of ouridentity and yet a lie, a concealment of our species’ being. The wonderand terror of the human predicament is that we are simultaneouslyempowered and enslaved by culture, and it constantly threatens tooverdetermine our being. Thoreau catches this idea in Walden; his life

FEATURE

Soul of the Wilderness—The Wild, the Tame, and the Folly of Sustainable Development

BY MAX OELSCHLAEGER

Article author Max Oeischlaeger. Photo credit:Peter Oeischlaeger


at Walden Pond was an experiment designedto discover what it was that he might recoverin a life lived outside the cocoon of culture.He vowed to tell the truth, and to name thewild mean and “barbaric,” if indeed it wereso. He came, upon reflection, to the discov-ery that he loved the wild equally with, notless than, the civil, and that only together, ina life experiencing both, could the humanbeing be whole, vital, and healthy.

Clearly, then, wildness and wilderness arenot only objects of scientific inquiry to beelucidated through experimental researchand analysis. They are also about the awe-some mystery of existence, about the worldand our participation in that world, and theyare necessary to civilization. For without thepossibility of knowing wilderness we haveno reference with which to contrast our cul-tural being. Thus, insofar as wilderness issubsumed as an object of scientific inquiry,that is, described, explained, and articulatedthrough professional discourse (disciplinaryframeworks or paradigms, as these are called),things wild and free recede, concealed be-hind a facade of words that reduces wildnessto culture. All language reveals and conceals,but scientific discourse can obscure the fun-damental truth that wilderness is not justdata points to be plotted, concepts to be rea-soned, computer models to be constructed,and management policies to be formulated.It is much, much more.

Still, as of this moment, whatever thethreats posed by global ecocatastrophe, the

possibility of wilderness experience re-mains. Such experience is a clarion call toreclaim our roots, and acknowledge ouraffiliation with evolutionary process. JohnMuir put it so well: Going to the moun-tains is going home.

Boundary CrossingYet what chance, the skeptic asks, is therefor wilderness experience in a world in-creasingly covered with burgeoninghuman masses that spread amoebalike overthe land and consume habitat? Populationgrowth is the biggest threat to wilderness,as Jon Roush explained in volume one,issue one of this journal.

Our very biological success—human bio-mass now exceeds that of any other terrestriallife form with the exception of domesticatedherbivores—endangers a common futureshared with wild things. Primates historicallyand contemporaneously, with one exception,are among the scarcest of creatures. In a rela-tively short time, we, species Homo sapiens,have become 100 times more numerous thanany other terrestrial creature of similar sizeand now exert more than one million foldthe resource demands of our ancestors at thedawn of civilization.

Yet wildness is all around us, if we butremember. True, few of us are accorded op-portunities to walk the wildlands andencounter the exotic creatures of South Af-rica. Dorothy’s breathless expression in TheWizard of Oz, “Lions, and tigers, and bears!Oh my! Lions, and tigers, and bears!” comesto mind. There are, alas, neither lions nor ti-gers in my part of the world. Yet wildnesslives. I remember attending a conference manyyears ago and hearing the term urban wil-derness for the first time. I thought the notion

was a contradiction interms, not fully appreci-ating the demographicand geographic vectorsthat give it meaning as ur-ban proximate wilderness.Or the underlying biol-ogy, the natural history, ofmy species’ being. Myown wilderness excur-sions were summertimeodysseys, usually extend-ing over several weeks,when I roamed the con-tinental divide in the SanJuans, still some of thehighest and wildest coun-

try existing in the 48 continental states of theUnited States.

Now I live alongside a so-called urbanwilderness, that is, the Sandia Mountain Wil-derness of New Mexico. Alpine trailheads areno more than 15 minutes from my house. Ifrequently wander along the Rio GrandeBosque, a near portion of which is a desig-nated nature preserve. While New Mexico isgeographically vast and sparsely populated,with only 1.5 million total population, nearlytwo-thirds of its residents live near this desig-nated wilderness area.

My perspective on urban wildernesshas changed. Boundary crossings remain,and, for me, they have become more fre-quent. I often head off for mountain trails(especially the two or three that are clos-est to my house) or wander in the Bosque.When I do, the grain of nature, its grittytexture and timeless patterns, appears as ifby magic, impressing itself upon my sen-sibilities. These experiences stand out inremarkable contrast to the civilized rou-tine of my life. I feel more deeply andknow more reflexively the continual in-terpenetration and interaction of the wildand the tame.

My son, too, has come to better knowthese things since we’ve taken up residencealongside the Sandias and the Rio Grande.His experiences, such as solo backpacking,have rekindled remembrances of thingspast—my own youth. Once again, I am re-minded of the importance of nature inhuman ontogeny, especially the importanceof granitic truth, the mysterious, deep struc-tures of existence that stand outside theartifice of culture.

Again comes the skeptic’s voice, “Howis it that you know these things of which

A boundary crossing marker in the Sandia Mountain Wilderness (left). “Thegrain of nature,” as seen in the bark of a rio grande cottonwood tree (above).Photo credit: Peter Oelschlaeger.


you speak?” Can such be measured?weighed? graphed? Such questions, forthose who freely explore the boundarybetween the wild and the tame, reveal thehold of domestication upon the profes-sional mind. Its immediate impulse is toresettle the wild within the confines ofculture. Boundary crossings between cul-ture and the wild can only be madeobliquely; if we look directly through thehistorical lens, the learned categoricalscheme of modern culture, we see noth-ing. The reason why we see nothing isclear: the idea of history—the domesticpoint of view—itself precludes under-standing of the idea of wilderness.

Through the lens of history, human ex-perience takes place entirely outside nature.We are butchers, bakers, candlestick makers,and environmentalists and natural resourceprofessionals, too. Nature becomes merely astage upon which the human drama is en-acted. The wild plants and animals, the webof life with which our humanity is bound,and without which the human drama couldnot be played out, become bit players. Thecivilized perspective, which Mother Cultureteaches us all too well, impels us to relent-lessly subjugate the wilderness, since thingswild and free are alien to sensibilities nur-tured so carefully in the garden of civilization.Hence, the wild and spontaneous wonderof nature is translated into the convenientcategories of culture. Our prevailing defini-tions of wildness and wilderness precluderecognition of nature as a spontaneous andnaturally organized system with its own telos,its own deep structure, freely existing apartfrom any and all human purpose. The con-sequence is that we, who increasinglydomesticate ourselves, believe that we mustimpose order on nature.

The Buzzword:Sustainable

DevelopmentSustainable development is now the catch-word, the buzzword, for that domesticimpulse. Unable to control ourselves, as theburgeoning mass of human beings confirms,and oblivious even to the possibility of see-ing ourselves against the background ofnature, we must therefore (as a McArthurprizewinner proclaims) Manage planetEarth. Such arrogance is a confirmation ofDescartes’ dream of rendering ourselves themasters and possessors of nature. But thereis an alternative to sustainable development,

one that placeswild-ness at its cen-ter. From such aperspective, the re-lation between thehuman species andwilderness itself, isnot simply one ofexploitation anddomination. Instead,wild nature and cul-ture are understoodas organically related.

Viewed together,the destruction ofthings wild and freeentails the collapseof civilization. In-sofar as this thesis is correct, then themodern project, which has long promisedthe total humanization of the earth’s sur-face, is paradoxically destined to fail throughits own success. Wildness reveals to us whatit means to be civilized human beings, sinceonly through the recognition of wildernesscan we understand ourselves: the wild andthe tame are dyadic, virtual figure, andground. Otherwise we are ungrounded,caught totally in the hothouse of culture,sundered from the reality that we are ofand about Earth.

We can be what we are capable of be-ing only if we also have some sense ofcontrasts. Wilder ness experience rekindlesthe consciousness of ourselves as domesti-cated creatures. Boundary crossingsbetween wilderness and culture facilitatethe discovery that we are flesh, organic be-ings whose thoughts and feelings areembodied in a human nature (species be-ing) fashioned in the web of life overmillions of years. Boundary crossings ex-pose the arbitrariness of the line separatingwilderness and civilization.

RecursionHaving crossed the boundary, the cultur-ally constructed divide that facilitates thedomestication of the world and ourselves,and returned, I gaze again on the hoaryface of sustainable development. Beneaththe smooth veneer of professional discourselies the arrogance of anthropocentrism (i.e.,the belief that the earth exists but for a singlepurpose: humankind). The great paradoxof such a belief is that we ourselves cannotbe fully human unless we exist in relationto a world of things wild and free. It is the

height of conceit to believe that we, what-ever our storied achievements, can replacethe deep structures of biogeophysical pro-cess that sustain the thin covering of life onearth with our technologies. Yet we con-tinue to act as if we can: there are no limitsto the reassuring voices of the advocates ofsustainable development. The truth is thatin the present scheme of things we havebecome, as the renowned conservation bi-ologist, E. O. Wilson tells us in his book,The Diversity of Life, an ecological aberra-tion.

Where are the words that speak fornature,Thoreau once wondered, the wordsthat still have earth clinging to their roots?The words still exist, and they can be re-covered, at least for those who close theirears to the din of civilization and the sirensong of sustainable development. As a poetonce wrote, we must learn to speak a for-gotten language, the language of the forestsand the creatures, the mountains and therivers, the deserts and the oceans. We canknow in our own souls the wild, irrepress-ible mystery of nature, of things wild andfree. In wildness, truly, is the preservationof the world. IJW

MAX OELSCHLAEGER is professor of philosophyand religious studies at the University of North Texasin Denton,Texas, where he teaches environmentalethics. His recent books include The Idea of Wildernessand Caring for Creation. He edited The WildernessCondition, Postmodern Environmental Ethics, and TheCompany of Others.

REFERENCESEdward O.Wilson, 1992. The Diversity of Life.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

The juxtaposition of the wild and the civil.


Geography, Forests, and Wildlife

C ANADA IS THE WORLD’S SECOND LARGESTCOUNTRY (7% of the world’s land area), with a land area

of nearly 10 million square kilometers (3.86 million squaremiles)—about the size of Europe. Canada has six broad physi-ographic regions, including the vast Canadian Shield (60% of thecountry), the Interior Plains (18%), the Cordilleran Region (in-cluding Coast and Rocky Mountains—16%), the Arctic Islands(8%), the Appalachian region (4%), and the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence lowlands (2%).

Approximately 50% of Canada is forested, with remaining veg-etation being primarily tundra or grasslands. Over 80% of itsforests are boreal (or taiga) forests; the remaining 20% consist ofpacific and eastern forest types. Pacific forests include coastal tem-perate rainforests which comprise about 1% of Canada (2% of itsforests).

Canada is renowned for its abundant and distinctive wildlife.Canada has most of the world’s Stone (thinhorn) sheep, bighornsheep, and mountain goats, and sizeable populations of many spe-cies that have become wilderness symbols, including grizzly bears,polar bears, caribou, wolves, and bald eagles.

Canada has one of the lowest population densities in the world(3 people per square kilometer). Most of Canada is largely unin-habited, since 30 million people mainly reside in urban areas closeto the long southern border with the United States. Canada’seconomy is strongly natural resource-oriented, including logging,mining, fisheries, and resource-based tourism. Canada is com-prised of ten provinces and two territories; over 90% of Canadianlands are publicly owned, with provinces having jurisdiction overmost of the lands and resources.

Wilderness Values in CanadaIn 1970, Bodsworth wrote “the Canadian land has shaped thespirit and nature of its people much more than Canadians, up tonow, have reshaped the land ... .The Canadian wilderness se-lected and molded the Canadian character, for those who couldadjust ... stayed, and those who couldn’t ... went elsewhere”(Bodsworth 1970, 17–18). For many years, as Livingston (1970,121) put it, Canadians felt: “We could never lose the wilderness.There is so much of it!” In fact, in 1970, Bodsworth estimatedthat over 90% of Canada could still be considered wilderness.

Leopold (1949) pointed out nearly 50 years ago: “In Canada... a representative series of wilderness areas can and should bekept. It will be contended, of course, that no deliberate planningto this end is necessary; that adequate areas will survive anyhow.All recent history belies so comforting an assumption... .To whatextent Canadians ... will be able to see and grasp their opportu-nities is anybody’s guess.”

Protected Areas and Wilderness—History

So what has happened and what is happening to Canada’s wil-derness? There has been a steady increase in protected areas andprotected wilderness since Banff National Park was establishedin 1885. (See Nelson 1979, for an historical perspective.) Table1, (updated from the International Union for the Conservationof Nature publication [IUCN] 1992) shows this steady increasein large protected areas (>5,000 hectares/> 12,345 acres) thatare considered highly or partially protected; that is, areas withthe degree of protection provided under the following IUCNcategories I—IV:

FEATURE

Canada’s WildernessBY RON RUTLEDGE AND TERJE VOLD

Abstract: Canada is a largecountry with close ties to itswilderness heritage. This paperdescribes the extent of Canada’swilderness (both protectedwilderness and remainingroadless areas) and discussessome of the challenges andopportunities facing wildernessstewardship.

Mt. Asgard from Turner Galcier. Auyvittug National Park, Baffin Iswland, Northwest Territories. Photo credit: W Trotter.


I. Scientific reserves/strict naturereserves

II. National parks (and equivalentreserves)

III. Natural monuments/naturallandmarks

IV. Managed nature reserves/wildlifesanctuaries

V. Protected landscapes or seascapes

Protected Areasand Wilderness—

Current StatusCanada has about 3,100 protected areas(IUCN categories I—V) amounting toabout 79 million hectares (195 millionacres); this represents almost 8% percent ofthe country (updated from Turner et al.1991). Canada’s protected areas range fromfederally owned national parks and migra-tory bird sanctuaries to provincial-ownedparks, wildlife management areas, and wil-derness areas. Table 2 provides a list of someof the more common types of protectedareas (updated from IUCN 1992).

About 50% (by area) of the protectedareas are either in national or provincialparks; these areas are generally consideredto be highly protected where industrialactivities like forestry and mining are usu-ally prohibited. About 45% of theprotected areas are in various federal andprovincial wildlife area designations; theseareas are often only partially protectedbecause forestry and mining activities maynot necessarily be prohibited.

Provincial “wilderness area” designa-tions are infrequently used in Canada, andvary considerably from province to prov-ince as to their meaning (McNamee 1990;Clowater 1991; British Columbia Minis-try of Forests 1989; Province of Alberta1970). Wilderness is most often protectedin parks and wildlife area designations, themost formal protection provided through1988 amendments to the National ParksAct which provide for the designation, byregulation, of wilderness areas within na-tional parks. Less formal protection isprovided through the establishment ofwilderness zones in parks.

Table 3 (updated from IUCN 1992)shows 294 large protected areas (>5,000hectares/> 12,345 acres) in Canada thathave a high likelihood of having or pro-tecting wilderness values.These areas total63.8 million hectares (157.5 million acres)representing about 6% of Canada. Not all

of these large protected areas are in a wil-derness condition. About 85% of all largeprotected areas (>5,000 hectares/ >12,345 acres) were considered wildernessin British Columbia (Wilderness AdvisoryCommittee 1986); that is, about 15% areinfluenced by roads and development. As-suming this factor is reasonablyrepresentative, the total amount of “pro-tected” wilderness is likely to be about 54million hectares (133.3 million acres)—approximately 5.4% of Canada—withabout 32 million hectares (79 millionacres)—3.2% of Canada—consideredhighly protected (i.e., in IUCN catego-ries I—II), and about 22 million hectares(54.3 million acres)—2.2% of Canada—

considered partially protected. In compari-son, the U.S. National WildernessPreservation System now stands at about40 million hectares (98.8 million acres),representing approximately 4% of theUnited States (including Alaska).

Protected Areasand Wilderness:

Progress and TargetsThe Brundtland Commission’s UnitedNations report, Our Common Future, hada profound impact on Canada. National,regional, and local “round tables” wereformed throughout Canada to try toachieve the commission’s goal of “sustain-able development.” The report is

Table 1—Protected Areas (>5,000 hectares) by Year of Establishment

Table 1 confirms that two-thirds of Canada’s large protected areas were designated since 1959, more thanone-fourth since 1980, and 12% during 1990–1994

Table 2—Types of Protected Areas in Canada


frequently cited to ensure Canada meetsits global obligations. One of the report’srecommendations was that the earth’s pro-tected areas should at least triple in sizeand represent all ecosystems. At the time,about 4% of the earth was considered tobe in some form of protected status.

As a consequence, Canadian conser-vation groups like the Canadian Parks andWilderness Society and the World Wild-life Fund of Canada initiated an“Endangered Spaces” campaign in 1989and a Canadian Wilderness Charter(Hummel 1989). The charter calls for atleast 12% of Canada to be in protectedareas by the year 2000, with representa-tion in each of Canada’s natural regions.Over 600,000 individuals have signed thecharter (World Wildlife Fund 1995).

The federal government respondedwith Canada’s Green Plan (Governmentof Canada 1990), which states that“Canada’s long-term goal is to set aside asprotected space 12% of the country”through various federal and provincialdesignations, and that these areas shouldrepresent Canada’s natural regions. Achiev-

ing this target would mean that about 120million hectares (296.3 million acres) ofCanada would be in various protected ar-eas with at least 80 million hectares (197.5million acres) likely in some form of wil-derness-like protection. This projection isbased on the current situation where over

two-thirds of Canada’s protected areas areconsidered “protected” wilderness.

A. Hackman reports that every prov-ince has stated their commitment toachieving this goal according to the WorldWildlife Fund of Canada (personal com-ment 1995). For example, Br itishColumbia’s protected areas strategy statesthat 12% should be protected by the year2000 and represent ecosystems; further, itdefines protected areas to be “fully” pro-tected (IUCN I—II) and prohibits resourceuses such as logging, mining, and hydro-electric development. The B.C. Parks Actwas just amended in 1995 to provide legis-lative protection for 2.4 million hectares(5.9 million acres) of new parks created un-der the protected areas strategy, and also toestablish a target of land to be protected bythe year 2000 in the act itself.

Biodiversity andEcosystem

RepresentationOne of the important stated objectives ofprotected areas, including wilderness inCanada, is to help maintain natural bio-logical diversity. Maintaining biodiversityalso requires careful management on otherlands. British Columbia, for example, hasrecently enacted the Forest Practices Codeof B. C. Act to address (among other things)biodiversity at both landscape and stand-level in all provincial forests.

The Canadian Parks Service recognizes39 terrestrial natural regions. Nationalparks have been established in 23 of the39 regions, and some kind of protectedarea exists in 34 of the 39 regions (Gov-ernment of Canada 1991). The provincesand territories have developed their own,more detailed natural regions, with 25(6%) considered fully represented, 47(11%) moderately represented, 132 (31%)partially represented, and 220 (52%) withlittle or no representation (WWF 1995).

Various public opinion polls haveshown strong support for additional wil-derness protection in Canada. Althoughmany Canadians take wilderness trips (arecent British Columbia study indicated50% of the residents there had at sometime in their life, with 16% having doneso in 1992), the most commonly cited rea-sons for wilderness preservation are forbequest (for future generations) and exist-ence (just knowing the wilderness isprotected for its own sake) motives ratherthan use motives (British Columbia Min-istry of Forests and Ministry ofEnvironment, Lands and Parks et al. 1994).Tourism values associated with wildernesstrips by nonresidents are also a significantvalue to Canadians.

Roadless AreasCanada’s vast tracts of roadless wildernessis one of the country’s most defining fea-tures. McCloskey and Spalding’s (1989)global wilderness inventory estimated thatabout 65% of Canada (640 million hect-ares/1.58 billion acres) is in large (>400,000hectares/>988,000 acres) roadless areas. Thisrepresents about 12% of the world’s wil-derness (18% excluding Antarctica). Theselarge roadless tracts mainly occur in north-ern Canada. If smaller tracts of roadless areasare included, this total would increase. Forexample, in British Columbia,Vold et al.

Table 3—Protected Areas (>5,000 hectares) Most Likely to Protect Wilderness[Area in Millions of Hectares (no. of areas)]

Canada has continued to increase the size of its protected areasystems, continued to give more protection, and increasingly givenspecial recognition to protecting wilderness.


(1993) note that about 63% of that prov-ince was roadless in 1988 when looking atareas > 1,000 hectares (>2,470 acres) insize, and this estimate of the total roadlessarea is much larger than shown by the glo-bal inventory.

Some roadless areas are recognized asbackcountry or wildland areas in land-useplanning. For example, in Alberta, alongthe eastern slopes of the Rocky Moun-tains, plans have recognized wildland areasoutside of protected areas. Recently inBritish Columbia, land-use plans havegiven emphasis in some areas tobackcountry values. For example, theCariboo-Chilcotin Land Use Plan (Prov-ince of British Columbia 1995), coveringa 9 million-hectare (22.2 million-acre)area, establishes 12% in protected areas (1million hectares/2.5 million acres), andalso targets another 14% (1.3 million hect-ares/3.2 million acres) to remain in aroadless backcountry condition.

The British Columbia Ministry of For-ests (1994) projected that roadless areas (>1,000 hectares/>2,469 acres) would de-cline from about 56% of British Columbia(53 million hectares/130.8 acres) in 1994to about 42% (40 million hectares/98.8million acres) in 2014 due to road accessto commercial forests.This 13 million-hectare (32.1 million-acre) decrease inroadless areas over 20 years averages toabout 650,000 hectares (1.6 million acres)per year. If extrapolated to Canada as awhole, the decline of roadless areas wouldbe about five times greater, since BritishColumbia harvests about 20% of the over-all area harvested in Canada, or about 3.25million hectares (8 million acres) per year.This estimate of reduction in roadless ar-eas may also be conservative in that it doesnot include road access development foroil, natural gas, and mining which is espe-cially significant in northern Canada.

The Rocky Mountains in Canada contain extensivepark and wilderness opportunities, many of whichare already protected. Photo credit: T. Void.

Although Canada is making progressin protecting more wilderness, it is alsovery reliant on developing roadless ar-eas to support its resource industries. Forevery hectare of wilderness protected,about 3 hectares (7.4 acres) of roadlesswilderness is likely being roaded andharvested or developed. Yet, still a siz-able area of Canada, about 60%, or 600million hectares (1.5 billion acres), willlikely remain as either protected or un-protected wilderness by the year 2000.However, many natural regions in south-ern Canada have few remaining roadlessareas and these ecosystems are “endan-gered spaces” in terms of wildernessprotection.

WildernessStewardship—

Future ProspectsCanada has continued to increase the sizeof its protected area systems, continued togive areas more protection, and increas-ingly given special recognition toprotecting wilderness. These trends willlikely not just continue, but increase morerapidly in the years to come.

At the same time, Canada’s economicdependence on its natural resources willmean that many roadless areas will be opento resource extraction and that only someroadless areas will be formally deferredfrom development until a land-use deci-sion can be made. Backcountrytourism-related developments will alsolikely increase in the future.

As we have seen, Canada has a historyof wilderness protection going back over

100 years with about 5.4% of the countrynow afforded some level of protectionfrom industrial development. But what ofthe future? Rollins and Dearden (1993)provide a useful typology with which tohighlight some current initiatives, chal-lenges, and future opportunities for theprotection of wilderness values in Canada.

Legislationand Policy Issues

The “lack of clear legislation and policywith regard to parks and protected areas”has led to ad hoc decisions by many prov-inces (Rollins and Dearden 1993, 294)Recent initiatives like British Columbia’sProtected Areas Strategy (Province of Brit-ish Columbia 1993) have sought to clarifyboth the objectives of wilderness protec-tion (e.g., ecosystem representation) andappropriate uses of wilderness resources.While such efforts to broaden wildernessprotection policy to encompass conceptslike ecosystem management have occurred,legislative renewal to enforce these changesby statute has been minimal or nonexist-ent at the provincial level.

The level of legislative protection inCanada varies. National parks and someprovincial parks are guided by their respec-tive acts. Changes in boundaries or statusrequires legislative debate and approval.Most other protected areas are createdthrough cabinet approval (by Orders-in-Council.) As a consequence, boundariesor status can be changed and regulationsaltered with only cabinet approval and nolegislative debate needed (Government ofCanada 1991). Thus, there remains the


need to examine and update the “real levelsof legal protection afforded” by the vari-ous provincial park and protected areaacts and regulations (Government ofCanada, 294).

Public ParticipationHistorically, land-use planning, includingthe planning of parks and protected areasin Canada, has used the synoptic planningmodel with its authoritarian “top-down”approach. Critics have cited its tendencyto be elitist, centralized, resistant to change,and unresponsive to the concerns andneeds of the public (Ashor et al. 1985).The synoptic approach began to come un-der increasing attack in the 1970s asalternatives, such as Friedmann’s (1973)transactive planning model with its em-phasis on communal learning combiningpersonal and processed knowledge wereelaborated (Friedmann and Weaver 1979).Now, two decades later, Canadians are dis-illusioned with the traditional approachto land-use decision and are demandingmore meaningful input into decisions thatdirectly affect them or the place wherethey live. This demand for direct input isevident in stakeholders’ views toward boththe allocation and day-to-day manage-ment decisions associated with protectedareas and wilderness. Gillespie (1995, 17)describes some of the reasons why nationaland provincial governments in Canadashould incorporate more direct publicinvolvement in decision-making processeslike the planning and management of pro-tected areas and wilderness.

In today’s world, the reasons for not in-volving citizens in the planning andmanagement process are no longer valid.People are far better educated than in previ-ous decades and they can contribute well tothe development of government decisions.The contemporary reality is that through con-sultation, governments today can make moreinsightful decisions that are better supportedby their publics, and are therefore more likelyto work when they are implemented.

Nowhere is the need for stakeholdersupport greater than in the implementa-tion of management plans for wildernessprotection. While natural resource manag-ers actually administer management policyand direction, it is the actions of users andother interested stakeholders that oftendetermine the effectiveness of these poli-cies. “The future success of our parks andprotected areas relies largely upon contin-ued public support (Rollins and Dearden1993, 297). Effective public involvement indeveloping area-specific management poli-cies is one key element in creating a feelingof ownership that generates such support.The challenge in Canada is one of meet-ing the continuing public demand formeaningful public participation in the man-agement of the wilderness resource whileminimizing what some have termed “con-sultation fatigue” and imbalances in interestgroup power and resources.

In order to more clearly guide the man-agement of protected areas, resource agenciesare also recognizing the need for explicitarea-specific management plans. The trendhas been for increased public participationand to provide clearer and more reasonableobjectives. Examples include park masterplans created for various national and pro-vincial parks throughout Canada.

The Role ofIndigenous Peoples

“Most of the Yukon, Northwest Territo-ries, British Columbia, Quebec and theAtlantic provinces were never covered bytreaties” with indigenous peoples (Berg etal. 1993, 228). Negotiations are now un-derway in many of these areas to defineAboriginal rights, interests, and title totheir traditional lands and the natural re-sources they contain. As Rollins andDearden (1993,297) indicate: “Many parksand protected areas are located in parts ofthe country that are important territoriesfor native peoples. South Moresby Island,Pacific Rim, Head-Smashed-In BuffaloJump, and Nahanni are examples of thissituation. Management of these places re-quires special sensitivities and strategies.”

“In the planning of new protected areas,aboriginal people also expect to be involvedfrom the very beginning. They want pro-tected area managers to realize that theirparticipation in planning and managementis not a threat, but a guarantee of their ownlivelihood and a positive contribution to thepreservation of wild spaces” (Morrison 1995,28). This is occurring in northern Canadawhere parks are tied to settlement of federalland claims. Agreements are also being ne-gotiated for South Moresby National ParkReserve between the Haida and the Gov-ernment of Canada regarding the operationand management of the park including parkmanagement plans and annual work plans(Berg et al. 1993).

The direct involvement of indigenouspeople in the joint management of parks andprotected areas at the provincial level is grow-ing as well. The Province of British Columbiahas recently announced the creation of thefirst provincial park to be jointly managed bygovernment and a First Nations tribal coun-cil, the Nisga’a Memorial Lava Bed ProvincialPark. A memorandum of understanding hasalso been developed which outlines the mu-tual commitment between the Nemiah ValleyIndian Band and the provincial governmentto work together in managing the newly cre-ated Ts’yl-os Provincial Park.

ResearchCanada has long been recognized as a uniquenatural laboratory for wilderness research,but until the last decade the level of researchwas minimal. Today, more researchers in thebiological sciences, especially, have begun totake advantage of Canadian wilderness to

Canada has large river systems in existing or pro-tected wilderness. Kitlope wilderness in coastalmountains of western Canada (left). Photo credit: T.Void. River boats are used to provide access to manyof Canada’s remote wilderness and roadless areas(above). Photo credit: T. Void and E. Lea.


increase our understanding of ecological pro-cesses, particularly the boreal forests and thenorthern Arctic ecosystem.

Eagles (1993) described a number ofCanadian studies investigating the ecologi-cal functions and environmentalmanagement of provincial and nationalparks. Examples include research into: pastforest fire behavior and prescribed burningto mimic natural fire regimes (Lopoukhineand White 1985); evaluating and rankingflora and fauna species in Canada (Hooseand Crispin 1990); the reintroduction ofdeclining species of Atlantic salmon in pro-tected area rivers (Eagles 1993); themaintenance and restoration of a prairie na-ture preserve (Ontario Ministry of NaturalResources 1991; Pratt 1979); and assessingthe protection of rare bird breeding sites(McColeman and Eagles 1990).

Other Canadian research efforts haveexamined the attitudes and preferences ofwilderness re creationists. Two recent ex-amples include investigations to: identifydesired ecotourism opportunities includ-ing preferences for nonconsumptiveforest-based activities, unmodified pristineforest settings, and remote wilderness ex-periences (Robinson et al. 1995); anddetermine the importance and acceptabil-ity levels of impacts from recreation use onwilderness experiences (Rutledge inprogress, and Rutledge and Trotter 1995).Canadian wilderness research studies arealso incorporating concepts and theoriesfrom disciplines such as marketing, socialscience, and social psychology in their ef-forts to investigate how to integratewilderness in land-use and tourism strate-gies as well as basic wilderness management.However, much more will be required fromthe research community in the future.

As the complexity of the managementsituation increases, so will the need for in-formation and understanding on which tobase decisions. A vast increase in biophysicaland socioeconomic scientific research willbe required to meet this demand. This willentail not only the establishment of morein-house expertise but also a willingness toenter into cooperative research with uni-versities and non-government organizations(Rollins and Dearden 1993, 297–298).

Educating the Publicand Resource Managers

The education of both resource manag-ers and the people who visit parks and

protected areas presents challenges but alsofuture opportunities for the managementof Canada’s internationally significant wil-derness values.

Walter Lusigi (1988) at the 4th WorldWilderness Congress in 1987 called forthe development of a “new resource man-ager” which ... should be a broadlyeducated person with equal emphasis inbiological as well as social sciences .... Thenew resource manager will have to bemore outward looking and place empha-sis on managing the whole region wherethe resource is situated. This will meandealing with people of all walks of life andother resource managers.

The challenge to Canada’s educationalinstitutions is to train natural resource man-agers for the future. An important objectiveof degree programs will be to prepare pro-fessionals to manage, market, and interpretthe natural, aesthetic, and cultural valuesfound in parks, wilderness areas, forests,heritage sites, and other special resource-based areas that serve as tourist destinations.

Teaching and communicating mini-mum-impact ethics among wildernessusers is another challenge and opportu-nity for the wilderness movement inCanada. While not yet experiencing usepressures typical of some U.S. wildernessareas, impacts from recreation use, like lit-ter accumulation, trampled vegetation, treedamage from horses in campsites, andhuman-made salt licks are already presentin some Canadian wilderness areas. Al-though long advocated by the broaderconservation community in Canada, lo-cal and specialized user groups andmanagers are working to promote wilder-ness use ethics to combat such impacts.

Contributions toInternational ConservationCanadian involvement in international con-servation efforts has taken many forms overthe past century. With almost 10 millionsquare kilometers (3.86 million square miles)of land and inland waters, Canada can makeits major contribution to global wildernessprotection by being a prudent steward of itsown resources (Eidsvik 1989; 1993).

Some of Canada’s commitments tofuture international efforts toward achiev-ing global environmental stability andproviding future generations with a viablebiodiversity legacy include: the designa-tion of ten Canadian World Heritage Sites

and six Biosphere Reserves; the adminis-tration of controls over trade inendangered wildlife and wildlife products;the designation of 12.9 million hectares(31.8 million acres) of internationally sig-nificant wetland sites; the regulation ofmigratory bird hunting, and the establish-ment of sanctuaries and restorationprograms to protect endangered species(i.e., whooping cranes) and wetland habi-tats; signing the Antarctic Treaty of 1988to protect and conserve all living resources;a leadership role in the development ofthe World Conservation Strategy byIUCN in 1980; and preparation of Caringfor the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Liv-ing. Through its support of theseinternational initiatives combined withincreased efforts at wilderness protectionat home, Canada has the potential in thefuture to realize a national and interna-tional identity as a wilderness steward. IJW

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThe authors wish to thank K. Morrison,B.C. Parks, and A. Hackman, World Wild-life Fund of Canada, for reviewing anearlier draft of this paper.

RON RUTLEDGE is wilderness areas managementspecialist and TERJE VOLD is senior wildernessforester, with British Columbia Ministry of Forests, 1450Government Street, Victoria, B. C., Canada V8W 3E7.

Floodplain Flowers, Tatshenshini Wilderness Park.Photo credit: T. Void.


Ashor, J. L., S. F. McCool, and G. Stokes. 1985. ImprovingWilderness Planning Efforts: Application of theTransactive Planning Approach. In Proc. of the NationalWilderness Research Conference: Current Research. July23–26, 1985, Fort Collins, Colorado. USDA ForestService, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT–212. IntermountainResearch Station, Ogden, Utah: Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office. 424–431.

Berg, L.,T Fenge, and P. Dearden. 1993. The Roleof Indigenous Peoples in National Park Desig-nation, Planning and Management in Canada.In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planningand Management. P. Dearden, and R. Rollins, eds.Toronto, Ont.: Oxford Univ. Press. 291–298.

Bodsworth, F. 1970. Wilderness Canada: Our Threat-ened Heritage. In Wilderness Canada. B. Spears,ed. Toronto, Ont.: Clarke, Irwin & Co. 17–48.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1989. ManagingWilderness in Provincial Forests: A Policy Framework.Victoria, B. C.: British Columbia Ministry of Forests.

______________1994. Forest, Range and RecreationResource Analysis. Victoria, B. C.: British Co-lumbia Ministry of Forests.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests (BCMOF) and B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. 1994.Wilderness Issues in BC: Preliminary Results of a 1993Province-wide Survey of BC Households. Victoria, B.C.:British Columbia Ministry of Forests.

Brundtland Commission. 1987. Our Common Fu-ture. Oxford, England: Oxford Univ. Press.

Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. 1991.A Protected Areas Vision for Canada. Ottawa, Ont.:Canadian Environmental Advisory Council.

Clowater, R. 1991. Critique of “Wilderness” as anAdministrative Category for Natural Areas Pro-tection in Canada. Master’s thesis, Universityof Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.

Dearden, P., and R. Rollins, eds. 1993. Parks andProtected Areas in Canada: Planning and Manage-ment. Toronto, Ont.: Oxford Univ. Press.

Eagles, P. F. J. 1993. Environmental Management inParks. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Plan-ning and Management. P. Dearden, and R. Rollins,eds. Toronto, Ont.: Oxford Univ. Press. 154–184.

Eidsvik, H. 1993. Canada, Conservation and Pro-tected Areas: The International Context. InParks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning andManagement. P. Dearden, and R. Rollins, eds.Toronto, Ont.: Oxford Univ. Press. 273–290.

Eidsvik, H. 1989. Canada in a Global Context. InEndangered Spaces. M. Hummel, ed. Toronto,Ont.: Key Porter Books Limited. 30–45.

Friedmann, J. 1973. Retracking America: A Theory of TransactivePlanning. Baltimore, Md.: John Hopkins Univ. Press.

Friedmann, J., and C. Weaver. 1979. Territory and Func-tion—The Evolution of Regional Planning. Berkeleyand Los Angeles, Calif.: Univ. of California Press.

Gillespie, P. 1995. Will Governments Stay on the PublicConsultation Path? In The National Round TableReview. K. H. Baxter, ed. National Round Tableon the Environment and the Economy. Ottawa,Ont. 17–18. Minister of Supply Services Canada.

Government of Canada. 1990. Canada’s Green Plan.Ottawa, Ont.: Minister of Supply Services Canada.

______________1991. The State of Canada’s Envi-ronment. Chapter 7—Protected Areas. Ottawa,Ont.: Minister of Supply Services Canada.

Hoose, P., and S. Crispin., eds. 1990. The Status of NaturalHeritage Data Centres in Canada. In Conserving Caro-linian Canada. G. M. Allen, P. F. J. Eagles, and S. D. Price,eds. Waterloo, Ont.: Univ. of Waterloo Press. 327–331.

Hummel, M., ed. 1989. Endangered Spaces: The Fu-ture for Canada’s Wilderness. Toronto, Ont.: KeyPorter Books Limited.

International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture (IUCN). 1992. Protected Areas of the World:A Review of National Systems. Vol. 4: Nearctic andNeotropical. Gland, Switzerland: InternationalUnion for the Conservation of Nature.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand Country Almanac. NewYork, N.Y.: Oxford Univ. Press.

Livingston, J. A. 1970. Man and His World: A Dis-sent. In Wilderness Canada. B. Spears, ed. Toronto,Ont.: Clarke, Irwin & Co. 115-130.

Lopoukhine, N., and C. White. 1985. Fire Manage-ment Options in Canada’s National Parks. In Proc.of the Intermountain Fire Council 1983 Fire Man-agement Workshop. D. E. Dube, ed. InformationReport NOR-X-271. Northern Forest ResearchCentre. Canadian Forest Service. 59–68.

Lusigi, W. 1988. The New Resource Manager. In For theConservation of Earth: Proc. of the Fourth World WildernessCongress. V. Martin, ed. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum, Inc.

McCloskey, J. M., and H. Spalding. 1989. A Reconnais-sance-level Inventory of the Amount of WildernessRemaining in the World. Ambio, 18(4): 221–227.

McColeman, K. L., and P. F. J. Eagles. 1990. An As-sessment of the Protection of Selected Rare BirdBreeding Sites in the Carolinian Forest Regionof Ontario. In Conserving Carolinian Canada. G.M. Allen, P. F. J. Eagles, and S. D. Price, eds. Wa-terloo, Ont.: Univ. of Waterloo Press. 163–169.

McNamee, K. 1990. Canada’s Endangered Spaces: Pre-serving the Canadian Wilderness. In ManagingAmerica’s Enduring Wilderness Resources: Conf. Proc. St.Paul, Minn.: Univ. of Minnesota Press. 425–434.

Morrison, J. 1995. Protected Areas and Aboriginal In-terests in Canada. Toronto, Ont.: World Wildlife

Fund Canada.Nelson, J. G. 1979. Canada’s Wildlands. Working

Paper No. 4. Faculty of Environmental Stud-ies. Waterloo, Ont.: Univ. of Waterloo Press.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1991. DraftResource Management Plan for Ojibway PrairieProvincial Reserve 1991–1996. Chatham, Ont.:Chatham District Office.

Pratt, P. D. 1979. A Preliminary Life Science Inventoryof the Ojibway Prairie Complex and SurroundingArea. Windsor, Ont.: City of Windsor andOntario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Province of Alberta. 1970. Wilderness Areas, Ecologi-cal Reserves and Natural Areas Act. Edmonton,Alberta: Province of Alberta.

Province of British Columbia. 1993. A ProtectedAreas Strategy for British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.: Province of British Columbia.

______________. 1995. Canboo-Chilcotm Land-UsePlan. Victoria, B. C.: Province of British Columbia.

Robinson, D, D. Twynam, and L. Hunt. 1995. To-ward Integrated Forest Management North-ern Canada: Ecotourism Activities, Settings andExperiences in Northern Ontario. Presentedat the “Northern Parallels” Fourth Circumpo-lar Universities Cooperation Conference, Feb-ruary 24-26, 1995. University of NorthernBritish Columbia. Prince George, B. C.

Rollins, R., and P. Dearden. 1993. Challenges for theFuture. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Plan-ning and Management. P. Dearden, and R. Rollins,eds. Toronto, Ont.: Oxford Univ. Press. 291–298.

Rutledge, R. B., and W. Trotter. 1995. The 1993Northeastern British Columbia RecreationUse Survey. Range, Recreation and Forest Prac-tices Branch, B. C. Ministry of Forests.

Rutledge, R. B. In progress. Subject Variability in Esti-mates of Impact Saliency and Impact Acceptabilityfor Wilderness Conditions. Ph. D. diss., Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Turner, A., C. Rubec, and E. Wiken. 1991. CanadianEcosystems: a systems approach to their conser-vation. In Proc. of the International. Conf. on Science& Management of Protected Areas. May 14–19, 1991,Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia.

Vold, T, H. Eidsvik, and K. Kennett. 1993. Wilder-ness Situation in British Columbia, Canada. InProc. of the 5th World Wilderness Congress. J.Hendee, andV . Martin, eds. Tromso, Norway.

Wilderness Advisory Committee (WAC). 1986. The Wilder-ness Mosaic. Vancouver, B. C.: Queen’s Printer, B. C. Victoria.

World Wildlife Fund of Canada (WWF). 1995. En-dangered Spaces Progress Report 94–95. Number5. Toronto, Ont.: World Wildlife Fund of Canada.

REFERENCES

Midway through 1995, at a series of 13 press conferencesacross the country, the World Wildlife Fund Canada releasedits 1995 Endangered Spaces Progress Report. The conclu-sion of this fifth report? The protection of Canada’s naturalheritage is lagging badly, and protection of the marineenvironment lags even further.

The report graded the federal, provincial, and territorialgovernments on their progress in establishing protected areasin their jurisdiction. Grades ranged from an A- for BritishColumbia, to a dismal F for its neighbor, Alberta. While notgraded, the actions of the First nations (indigenous peoples)were lauded in the report. More wildlands have been protected

by First nation’s efforts than by any other means in the firstfive years the report has been published.

Reaction was sharp and swift. Alberta’s premier, reacting tothe first F grade ever issued by the report, called it “an unfairhit,” but put a politician’s positive spin on it by saying “the onlyway we can go is up.” British Columbia’s conservation organi-zations were quick to point out that the A-awarded their provincemasked the continuing calamity of over-logging.

For information on the report, contact WWF Canada,90 Eglinton Avenue E., #504,Toronto, Canada M4P 2Z7.

—from The Endangered Spaces newsletter,World Wildlife Fund Canada, summer 1995

“Endangered Spaces” Report Creates a Fuss


AMIDST THE PUBLIC CLAMOR over logging practicesin the Clayoquot Sound rainforest on Vancouver Island, a

quiet revolution is occurring over British Columbia’s vastremaining wilderness. Simply put, British Columbians are movingto establish new protected areas faster than any other jurisdictionon Earth.

Historical BackgroundUntil recent times the rich forest lands of British Columbia’smountainous terrain were valued mainly for their timber andwildlife. Following World War II, the forest industry grew rapidlyand fueled the post-war boom in material gains for workers andowners alike. Little regard was paid to environmental impactsother than along salmon streams, and even they were often dam-aged. The timber resource seemed inexhaustible since valleys ofbig trees stretched from horizon to horizon across the land.

Earlier in the history of the province a system of national andprovincial parks had been established. In time-honored fashion theseprotected areas were generally located where there was little con-flict with competing uses such as forestry and mining. The emphasiswas on mountains and the surrounding high country, what hasbecome known as “rocks and ice” to environmentalists who wereseeking to include more productive lowlands in the park system.

At the turn of the century less than one-half of 1% of the landbase of British Columbia was officially protected as parks. In the1920s this was increased to about 2% and by 1950, a little morethan 4% of the province was designated as park land. During the1950s and 1960s, the expansion was reversed as a number of parkswere reduced in size or eliminated altogether. At the beginning ofthe 1970s, only 3 1/2% of the province’s land was officially pro-tected from development (Harding and McCullum 1994).

The shrinking park lands and the growing emphasis on re-source extraction came into headlong conflict with the emergenceof the modern environmental movement in the early 1970s. By1980 there were well organized campaigns to increase wilder-ness protection by groups such as the Sierra Club, the ValhallaWilderness Society, and the Western Canada Wilderness Com-mittee. In most cases these proposals were opposed by industrialinterests. The result was two decades of confrontation and politi-cal debate over the future of many areas that had been allocatedfor resource extraction but were now targeted for wilderness pres-ervation by environmentalists. During those twenty years from1970 to 1990, the extent of protected area gradually doubledfrom about 3-1/2% to 7%, indicating the growing strength of theenvironmental movement despite increasingly stiff opposition fromforestry and mining interests. This set the stage for the revolutionin land-use planning and conservation that is now underway acrossthe province.

The Past DecadeIn 1986 the United NationsCommission on Environ-ment and Developmentpublished its landmark reporton sustainable development,Our Common Future(Brundtland 1987). They sug-gested adopting a goal ofprotecting 12% of the globalland base from development,triple the amount protectedat the time. This was taken upby environmentalists aroundthe world, nowhere morethan in Canada and itswesternmost province, Brit-ish Columbia. In 1989 theWorld Wildlife Fund Canadaofficially announced its Endangered Spaces program calling for 12%of Canada to be set aside as protected wilderness (Hummel 1989). In1990 the Canadian Parliament agreed in principle with a unani-mous vote calling for the 12% target to be achieved by the year2000. While the vote itself didn’t result in immediate action, it pro-vided government agencies with a goal and set the wheels in motionto achieve it.

The movement to achieve the 12% target is most advanced inthe Province of British Columbia. When the New DemocraticParty (NDP) won the provincial elections in 1991, they came inwith a platform to nearly double the area of protected lands to12% and to do so by the year 2000. They also promised a widerange of legislation to improve forestry practices and settle theland-use debate. During the past three and a half years they havedelivered on many of these promises. There is now almost noquestion that the target for wilderness protection will be met.

Since 1992 the government of British Columbia has been legis-lating an average of about 800,000 hectares (2 million acres) of newprotected areas per year. This is four times the area of land that islogged each year. Furthermore, all logged lands are now either natu-rally regenerated or planted with native species, mostly from seedscollected in the wild. During the decade of the 1990s, at least, therate of protection is far greater than the rate of development.

At this writing 103 new protected areas have been proclaimedin British Columbia bringing the total to 8.6 million hectares (21.4million acres) or 9.14% of the provincial land base of 94.8 millionhectares (234.2 million acres). These range in size from the tiny two-hectare (five-acre) Haro Woods munic ipal park on Vancouver Islandto the vast 958,000 hectare (2.4 million acre) Tatshenshini-Alsek

PLANNING AND MANAGMENT

British Columbia’s QuietWilderness Revolution

BY PATRICK MOORE

Article author Patrick Moore.


Provincial Park in northwest British Co-lumbia adjacent to Alaska and the Yukon.It includes the world’s largest undevelopedcoastal rainforest watershed with the cre-ation of the 317,291 hectare (784,000 acre)Kitlope Provincial Park on the central coastof the British Columbia mainland. Fully34% or 48,492 hectares (120,000 acres) ofthe controversial Clayoquot Soundrainforest on the west coast of VancouverIsland is now fully protected, includingthree entire undeveloped watersheds. Each

of the 103 new parks has its own uniquefeatures and add up to a tremendous in-crease in biodiversity protection andpotential wilderness experiences for hik-ers, naturalists, and scientists.

Put in another context, the additionsthat have been made to British Columbia’sprotected areas in the last three years aregreater than the combined state and na-tional parks in all of California. The totalpark area for British Columbia is more thantwo and a half times that of the U.S. statesof California, Oregon, and Washingtoncombined and is now equivalent in area toall protected land in the U.S. states west ofthe Mississippi, with the exception of Texas(U.S. Department of Commerce 1994).When the 12% goal has been reached, Brit-ish Columbia will have as much protectedland as the entire lower 48 states, with the

exception of Florida. If, as is widely ex-pected, the total ends up closer to 13%, evenFlorida could be included in the compari-son. This is the province that has beenlabeled “Brazil of the North” by some en-vironmental activists for its forest policy(McCrory 1992), an epithet that many be-lieve is an unfair slur on both jurisdictions.

Ecoscience-DrivenWilderness Protection

Perhaps even more significant than the sizeof the area protected is the fact that the wil-derness system is now based on representativeecosystems. Prior to the introduction of theProtected Area Strategy there had been nosystematic plan to ensure that all ecosystemtypes were included in the protected areasystem. Parks had been created on their ownmerits for various reasons ranging from rec-reation to scenic beauty to unique biologicalfeatures. In particular, there were a lot morerocks and ice than commercially valuableforest lands in the mix. Redressing this im-balance is an integral part of the ProtectedArea Strategy. A detailed “gap analysis” ofexisting protected areas compared to eco-system types was done to determine whatwas missing from the system. This is a com-plex task as British Columbia has the mostdiverse range of climates and ecosystem typesof any jurisdiction in North America. For-

tunately, the ecology of British Columbiahas been well documented through theBiogeoclimatic Zone Classification Systemdeveloped by the late Dr. Vladimir Krajina(Meidinger and Pojar 1991). This ecologi-cally based and highly refined system is nowthe foundation for both wilderness protec-tion and forest management in the province.

Many of the new parks are specificallyintended to fill the gaps and this has re-sulted in a greater emphasis on theprotection of commercially valuable for-est lands than was previously the case.Because of this, it has been doubly diffi-cult for the forest industry to accept thenew reality of increased protection. Thisleads into the most fascinating part of thestory; how did the Protected Area Strat-egy succeed in the face of resistance bystrongly polarized commercial interests?

Implementing“Common Future”

Round TablesAnother of the recommendations in OurCommon Future was that all national, state,provincial, and local levels of governmentshould establish “round tables” in order tobring people from all interests together todiscuss sustainable development strategiesfor their jurisdictions. Canadian govern-ments were particularly enthusiastic aboutthis approach, and by 1991 formal roundtables on the environment and economyhad been established by the federal, all 10provincial, and the 2 territorial govern-ments. Although the round tables wereconstituted somewhat differently, they wereall variations on the theme of multi-stake-holder citizens groups with a mandate tofind consensus on matters of sustainability.In addition, they provided working mod-els of consensus decision-making processand prepared a definitive document onstructure and process for reaching agree-ments (Canadian Round Tables 1993).

The round table approach was particularlyuseful in land-use planning where a wide rangeof often conflicting interests can only come toconsensus through a complex series of trade-offs among the competing concerns. Hard-linepositions must be softened by continuous ef-forts to satisfy the real needs of each participantwithout seriously compromising the needs ofthe others. Rather than battling it out in sen-sational media headlines, the parties get to sitdown together on a regular basis with the helpof professional facilitators. They soon come toappreciate each others’ points of view, even torespect opinions that are strongly opposed totheir own. These processes invariably provevaluable in furnishing political decision-mak-ers with a more informed basis on which tofinally determine policies that are in the bestinterests of their electorate.

In early 1991, the leaders of the largestforest companies created a variant on theround table theme with the launching of theForest Alliance of British Columbia. Theyrealized that public support for the industrywas at an all-time low due to their poor en-vironmental record.The Forest Alliancecitizens board was recruited from a wide rangeof people from across the province, includingranchers, retailers, professionals, mayors andformer mayors, academics, labor leaders, andenvironmentalists. They had in common thebelief that what was needed was a balancebetween the environmental and economic

Table 1—Trends in Growth ofProtected Areas in British Columbia(after Harding and McCallum 1994)

Since 1992 the government of British Columbia has been legislatingan average of about 800,000 hectares (2 million acres) of newprotected areas per year. This is four times the area of land that islogged each year.


priorities for the forest. They were all willingto help the forest industry if it was willing toimprove forest practices and take advice fromthe new board. This initiative has helped getthe forest industry out in front on the envi-ronmental agenda by adopting a proactive andprogressive stance on a number of issues.

Prior to the creation of the Forest Alli-ance, the forest industry generally opposedadditions to forested parks and wildernessfor the obvious reason that this would meanless timber for their mills. The Forest Alli-ance helped convince leaders in the forestindustry that increased wilderness was in thegreater public interest and that they wouldbe in a better position to influence the de-tails of new protected areas if they acceptedthe idea in principle. On another front, theindustry was on-record as opposing a legis-lated Forest Practices Code in favor of avoluntary scheme of self-regulation. TheForest Alliance took the position that a sys-tem of self-regulation would not be credibleto the public and that it was in the compa-nies interests to have the “bad actors”disciplined because the whole industry wasjudged by their worst performer. Most sig-nificantly the alliance drafted the 21Principles of Sustainable Forestry and hadthem signed by the chief executive officersof the 17 member companies (Forest Alli-ance 1992). These principles have provideda common set of goals for improvements inforest practices on the ground. Taken to-gether, the initiatives of the Forest Allianceprepared the industry for a more construc-tive role in the unfolding land-use debate.

When the New Democratic Party cameinto power in the fall of 1991, they movedquickly to establish the Commission on Re-sources and the Environment (CORE) witha mandate to create land-use plans for thethree most contested regions in the prov-ince. Central to the process was thedetermination of new protected areas to sat-

isfy the 12% target. Vancouver Island, theCariboo-Chilcotin in central British Colum-bia, and the West and East Kootenays in thesoutheast of the province had long been thefocus of numerous disputes. Most of theseinvolved opposition to cutting areas of oldgrowth forests that were considered of spe-cial value to preservationists. By boldlybeginning the process in the most difficultregions the government took the risk of fail-ure in hopes of a breakthrough that wouldset the tone for the rest of the province. Theirgamble has paid off.

Using the provincial round table as amodel, CORE first appointed regional roundtables for each of the regions. These includedup to 30 members in order to ensure com-plete representation of all interests. Someobservers and participants felt the commis-sion was going overboard on this point whena representative for the “All-Beings” was ap-pointed to the Cariboo-Chilcotin table.Nonetheless the regional tables became thefocal point for detailed, “get the maps out”discussions and led to reports that recom-mended a range of options for thegovernment. Full consensus was not achievedat any of the table meetings but this was duein large part to some basic weaknesses in thedesign of the process (Moore 1994). A flurryof post-report meetings and a lot of shuttle-diplomacy eventually resulted in agreementsin all three regions and fully legislated land-use plans (Government of British Columbia1994 and 1995). In each region the 12% wil-derness goal was slightly exceeded withgeneral agreement from all parties.

As an objective measure of the success ofBritish Columbia’s Protected Area Strategy theprovince received the highest rating for wil-derness protection of any jurisdiction in Canadafrom the Word Wildlife Fund Canada in 1995(WWF 1995). The B. C. spokesperson forWWF stated that “All British Columbians canfeel proud of the leadership role that our prov-

ince is taking to preserve British Columbia’swilderness and biodiversity for future genera-tions. While there have been tradeoffs, whatBritish Columbia is successfully demonstrat-ing to all Canadians is that a balance can beachieved between jobs and the environment.”

FutureProtection Efforts

The task now remains to complete the pro-vincial land-use plan by designating additionalwilderness areas in the remainder of the prov-ince. This effort is well advanced through thesub-regional Land and Resource Manage-ment plans that have been established for mostof the province that was not covered by theCORE process. There is now little questionthat the 12% target will be realized by theyear 2000. It is less clear whether this willeffectively end the controversy over forest de-velopment versus protection. Somepreservationists, including Vicky Husband(personal comment to author, 1995) whoonce saw the 12% goal as a distant ideal, nowrefer to “a measly 12 percent,” indicating theywill continue campaigning for an even higherlevel of protection (personal comment 1995).Others, such as the WWF can be expected todeclare their agenda satisfied and turn to otherissues in other jurisdictions. Whatever the fi-nal outcome, it is fair to say that BritishColumbia is doing more than its share to meetthe global challenge of preserving biologicaldiversity for generations to come. IJW

DR. PATRICK MOORE is president of Green Spirit,a consultancy which promotes sustainability, consensusbuilding, and collaborative efforts among competingconcerns. In 1990 he founded and chaired the BritishColumbia Carbon Project, a multistake-holder group thatworked to develop a common understanding of climatechange as it applies to British Columbia. As Chair of theForest Practices Committee of the Forest Alliance ofBritish Columbia, he leads the process of developing the“Principles of Sustainable Forestry,” which have beenadopted by a majority of the industry. Dr. Moore is also afounding member of Greenpeace and for seven yearswas a director of Greenpeace International.

Brundtland, et al. 1987. Our Common Future, (TheBrundtland Report). New York, N.Y.: OxfordUniversity Press.

National Round Table on the Environment and theEconomy. Canadian Round Tables. August 1993,Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future—Guid-ing Principles. National Roundtable on the Envi-ronment and the Economy. 1 Nicholas Street, Suite1500, Ottawa, Ont. KIN 7B7; (613) 992-7189.

Forest Alliance of British Columbia. February 1992.Principle of Sustainable Forestry, Vancouver, B.C. Vancouver, Canada: Forest Alliance of BritishColumbia.

Government of British Columbia 1994, 1995. TheVancouver Island Land-Use Plan, Victoria, June

REFERENCES1994, and The Cariboo—Chilcotin Land-UsePlan, Victoria, October 1994; The West Kootenay-Boundary Land-Use Plan, Victoria, March 1985;The East Kootenay Land-Use Plan, Victoria,March 1995. Victoria B. C.: Commission on Re-sources and Environment.

Harding, L. E., and Emily McCullum, eds. 1994.Biodiversity in British Columbia: Our ChangingEnvironment. Ottawa, Ont.: EnvironmentCanada and Canadian Wildlife Service.

Hummel, M. 1989. Endangered Spaces: The Future forCanada’s Wilderness.Toronto, Ont.: Key Porter Books.

Meidinger, D., and J. Pojar, eds. 1991. Ecosystems ofBritish Columbia. Special Report Series No. 6.Victoria, B. C., Canada: B. C. Ministry of Forests,

Public Affairs Branch.McCrory, C. 1992. The Valhalla Wilderness Society,

information pamphlet. Box 224, New Denver,B. C., Canada: Valhalla Wilderness Society.

Moore, P. January 5–7, 1995. What is a SustainableResource Community? Keynote address, Com-munities and Resources—A Special Confer-ence for Resource-Based Communities. Unionof B. C. Municipalities.

U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Census.1994. State and Metropolitan Area Data Book. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

World Wildlife Fund. 1995. 1994–95 EndangeredSpaces Progress Report. Toronto, Ont.: WorldWildlife Fund.


Introduction

WILDERNESS IS MANAGED to provide opportunitiesfor wilderness recreation while maintaining natural con-

ditions. The challenge is not simply to determine how much andwhat kind of human use is too much, but how much change inresource and social conditions will be allowed, where it may oc-cur, and what management actions are needed to maintainacceptable conditions. Recreational use of wilderness always hassome impact but it is a legitimate use and prohibitions are nei-ther possible nor politically feasible (Stankey et al. 1985). LACsystem for wilderness management planning is one of the latestplanning tools developed to address increasing recreation use andinevitable change, while still meeting legal requirements for highquality social and environmental standards. In the early 1980s,while testing the concepts underlying the recreation opportu-nity spectrum, the USDA Forest Service demonstrated basicelements of the LAC wilderness planning process in the Ma-roon-Bells Snowmass Wilderness in Colorado (Stokes 1990), andsimilar ideas were being tested in the Flat-head River manage-ment plan (Stokes 1991). From this experience the Bob MarshallWilderness management planning process adopted and appliedthe LAC system from 1982 through 1987 (Stokes 1990).Boththe managers and the citizens involved in this process believed itwould better maintain natural conditions while providing qual-ity wilderness recreation opportunities (Ashor 1985). An additionalindicator of the success of the new LAC planning process wasthe lack of appeals to management directives in a potentially con-tentious area like the Bob Marshall Wilderness and this led to anincreased awareness and interest in the LAC process.

In 1985 a report was published outlining the LAC approach towilderness planning in a nine-step framework designed to developmeasurable objectives that defined desired conditions (Figure 1),and management actions necessary to maintain or achieve them(Stankey et al. 1985). The report emphasized the integral role ofpublic participation, as did several early articles on the LAC pro-cess (Stankey et al. 1984; Ashor 1985; Stokes 1990), and quicklybecame (and remains) the key instruction manual for LAC plan-ning. By 1989 the LAC system had become an accepted method

for developing a viable wilderness plan and one study reportedthat 75% of wilderness managers anticipated adopting the LACapproach (GAO 1989).


(Peer Reviewed)

Limits of Acceptable Change Planning—Evaluating Implementation by the U.S. Forest Service

BY K. LYNN MCCOY, EDWIN E. KRUMPE, AND STEWART ALLEN

Abstract: Over the past 15 years the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) planning system has evolved as an importantplanning tool. Originally developed for wilderness planning, the system is expanding to Wild and Scenic Rivers, NationalRecreation Areas, and forest planning applications. A survey of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service LACleaders in the western United States revealed how the LAC system is being applied and modified, that leaders perceiveLAC positively, and that the public is being involved in LAC planning in a variety of ways. The study concluded that: LACshould be applied as a methodology, not just as procedures, and integrated with NEPA guidelines; workgroups shouldbe utilized in LAC; current interpretations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) are a barrier to using publicwork groups, but not to LAC; and the benefits of LAC far outweigh its disadvantages.

The Need For the StudyBy the early 1990s, 23 separate LAC planning efforts had begun insix western states (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Colo-rado, and Wyoming) based upon the essentially untested LAC systemwhich had only been fully applied in one wilderness area, the BobMarshall Wilderness complex, and partially in the Alpine LakesWilderness. Scientists, managers, and planners began asking ques-tions about applications of the process. In 1991 the University ofIdaho was asked to help evaluate success and acceptance of LAC,and with telephone surveys they asked managers the followingquestions: Was the original LAC process being followed? To whatdegree were modifications necessary? To what degree was public

Figure 1—Steps in the Limits of Acceptable Change(LAC) Planning System


involvement being incorporated into theprocess and with what results? How didagency personnel perceive the process? Thegoal was to capitalize on experience gainedby managers in their initial applications ofLAC and to suggest improvements for fu-ture wilderness planning.

MethodologyA census was conducted of all LAC leadersat National Forests (N=50) in six westernU.S. states (Washington, Oregon, Idaho,Montana, Colorado, and Wyoming). Thisarea contains 116 wilderness areas withmore than 6.89 million hectares (17 mil-lion acres), which in 1992 comprised overhalf of all the USDA Forest Service wil-derness acreage in the lower 48 states. Atelephone survey identified national for-ests applying the LAC process to designatedwilderness or other resources such as Wildand Scenic Rivers. Individuals serving asLAC leaders were interviewed, includingrecreation staff officers, wilderness or rec-reation planners, LAC coordinators, andLAC interdisciplinary team leaders.

The telephone survey of LAC leaderscontained three primary sections. The firstsection asked whether the LAC process wasbeing followed as outlined in the USDAForest Service General Technical ReportINT-176, commonly referred to as the“LAC instruction book” (Stankey et al.1985). Beyond simply checking for com-pliance, the focus was to identify if andhow changes were being made to LAC infield application of the process. Questionswere designed to determine whether ornot respondents had completed each par-ticular step in the LAC process and hadproduced a product as outlined in theGeneral Technical Report. The second sec-tion of the questionnaire evaluated theplanning leaders’ perceptions of the pro-cess, with questions to explore whatrespondents felt were the most importantelements of LAC, and what they felt werethe biggest drawbacks to the process. Thethird section of the questionnaire asked howpublic participation was being incorpo-rated in LAC planning. Publicparticipation is important because defin-ing “acceptable” standards for resourceconditions, as LAC requires, calls for citi-zen (user) judgments as well as technicaldata and expertise. This idea has been fur-ther supported in the literature on LAC(Stankey et al. 1984,1985; Stokes 1986,

1991; Ashor 1985, Hendee 1990;Merigliano 1994) which recognizes pub-lic involvement as an essential componentof the LAC process.

While LAC does not require the use offormal task forces or public work groups(participation can occur in a variety ofways), LAC has been commonly associatedwith working group scenarios, and respon-dents were asked to identify whether theyhad established an agency/ public workgroup to collaborate on the developmentof the LAC plan. LAC leaders who hadutilized such groups were asked additionalquestions about the operation of that groupand its advantages and disadvantages in theLAC planning process.

QuestionnaireDevelopmentand Reporting

ProcedureThe questionnaire was developed follow-ing the Total Design Method (Dillman1978) with respondents’ answers recordeddirectly on the questionnaire during thetelephone interview. Because a census wasconducted, statistical tests of significancewere not appropriate.

To understand the role public task forcesplayed in the field applications of LAC andto determine if there were differences in theapplication of LAC by those efforts that uti-lized a public work group and those whodid not, responses were categorized into twotypes: (1) Type A—utilized a public workgroup, and (2) Type B—did not utilize apublic work group. Overall response ratesare reported and sub-group responses (TypeA and Type B) are provided for comparison.Complete details of the methodology canbe found in McCoy (1994).

Study LimitationsBecause LAC is a dynamic process, theresults can be generalized to other LACplanning efforts only to the degree towhich they are similar to the study popu-lation. This study presents a factualanalysis of conditions existing in 1992,but the LAC process continues to evolveat a rapid pace and the status of thosereports included within the survey may

significantly change over time. Analysesrelating to compliance with the nine stepsmust be carefully considered becauseLAC is a flexible methodology, meant tobe modified if necessary to fit uniqueplanning circumstances.

ResultsLAC was a primary system for wildernessplanning among the 50 western nationalforests surveyed, with 92% of them eithercurrently involved in applying LAC, hadalready applied it, or intended to apply itin the near future. Only 8% of the na-tional forests in the study population werenot utilizing the LAC planning system andhad no plans to do so. Thirty-five forests(70%) had completed or begun LAC basedplanning for 67 separate wilderness areas,two federally designated Wild and ScenicRivers, and three National RecreationAreas. Only 23 (56%) of those LAC ef-forts were far enough along (haddeveloped indicators, standards and man-agement actions) to be included in thesurvey A 100% response rate was obtainedafter several rounds of calls to the 23 LACleaders. Results are reported in percent-ages for the 23 cases in the population.

Of the 23 LAC efforts, ten of them(43%) utilized public work groups (TypeA). The work groups most commonlyconsisted of 16 to 30 agency and citizenparticipants who collaborated in develop-ing the LAC plan and met an average of20 times to “complete” the process. Uti-lizing public work groups did not excludethese LAC efforts from also using othermeans to obtain public input such as dis-tributing press releases, or holding publicscoping meetings. The 13 LAC efforts(57%) that did not use public work groups

Building rapport between the public and agency participants wascommonly cited as a key advantage of the process, as was improvingthe dialogue among resource users.


(Type B) primarily established agency in-terdisciplinary teams to complete theprocess, and also employed other meansto obtain public input such as press re-leases, scoping meetings, or open houses.

Major Findings1) In general, the nine-step framework(Figure 2) was followed but the process toachieve those steps was modified from theprocess outlined in the General TechnicalReport. LAC was also applied differentlyamong the Type A and Type B applica-tions (Figure 3); often different means wereutilized to accomplish a step.

2) Input on issues was gathered differentlyby the groups. Overall, 91% of all respon-dents reported that they had identifiedissues and concerns and had a written nar-rative or list of those issues. How this listwas achieved varied for the two groups.All (100%) of the planning efforts utiliz-ing a public work group (Type A) obtainedinput from the public and resource man-agers on issues and concerns. In effortsconducted without a public work group(Type B), input was obtained primarilyfrom other resource managers (85%) andless often from the public (62%).

3) LAC efforts with public work groups(Type A) did a more complete job of writ-ing physical, social, and manager ialattributes (i.e., goals or objectives) for theirplanning area. All of the efforts utilizingpublic work groups identified opportu-nity classes and wrote physical, social, andmanagerial attributes for each opportu-nity class, but only 62% of the LAC effortsconducted without a public work group(Type B) identified opportunity classes or

wrote physical, social, or managerial at-tributes for their planning area.

4) LAC efforts utilizing public workgroups (Type A) used more comprehen-sive methods in identifying indicators ofresource and social conditions. Over three-fourths (78%) of the efforts with publicwork groups developed indicators for theirplan by utilizing a variety of methods—such as analyzing issues, opportunityclasses, and project goals; as well as review-ing outside materials such as Cole’s“Campsite Inventory” (1983), Frissell’s“campsite condition class” methodology(1978), other LAC plans, and regional andforest guidelines. Only 23% of the LACefforts conducted without a public workgroup (Type B) reported utilizing a vari-ety of such methods to select indicators.Instead, they primarily adopted the itemslisted in Cole’s “Campsite Inventory,”Frissell’s “campsite condition class,” oradopted regional or national guidelines.

5) LAC efforts utilizing public workgroups (Type A) were less likely to con-duct field inventories to identify theexisting condition of the indicators in theplanning area. Only 25% of the Type Aefforts utilized field inventories for thispurpose while 92% of the Type B groupsconducted a field inventory of indicatorsbefore selecting standards. However, almostone-third of the Type B efforts did notutilize the data they collected to specifystandards. Regardless of how standardswere selected, the majority (83%) of bothtypes reported that they felt the selectedstandards required the area to be restoredto at least the minimum acceptable levelof wilderness conditions.

6) Generic rather than specific manage-ment actions were identified by themajority of both groups (60% in Type Aand 85% in Type B) to bring existingphysical and social conditions in line withstandards. These generic management ac-tions were not tied to a specific issue/indicator/standard. Instead, respondentsreported selecting a “laundry list” of po-tential actions that could be implementedas deemed appropriate. The high percent-age of these laundry lists may be a resultof the high percentage of efforts that chosesimply to use a campsite inventory systemwhen selecting indicators. All efforts(100%) utilizing a public work group(Type A) reported that they analyzed al-ternative management actions that wouldbring conditions in line with standardsprior to selecting actions, compared toonly one-half (54%) of those efforts with-out a public work group (Type B).

7) Data on the existing relationships betweenresource conditions and the selected stan-dards, and recommendations for bringingexisting conditions up to those standards,were lacking. Unfortunately, two-thirds(68%) of all respondents reported that theyhad insufficient baseline data about wilder-ness conditions. Most of both groups plannedto re-inventory indicators in the future.

8) Planning leaders of both groups (Type Aand Type B) reported that the biggest draw-backs to implementing the LAC process was alack of clear understanding of how to developindicators and standards and the commitmentof resources required. Leaders believed that theGeneral Technical Report was difficult to

Figure 2—Overall Compliance with Nine-step Process(% of respondents in compliance)

Figure 3—Group Compliance with Nine-step Process(% of respondents in compliance)

Group A Group B


understand and they were uncomfortable withthe subjectivity involved in setting their ownstandards for the wilder ness. Another com-mon complaint was that LAC required a majorcommitment of personnel time (not to men-tion the substantial commitment of work groupmembers’ time). Conducting a work grouprequired a considerable effort. On average pub-lic work groups met 20 times to “complete”the LAC process (although efforts ranged from17 to 40 meetings). Leaders spent an averageof 23 hours preparing for each meeting and40% of the LAC leaders reported spendingbetween 30-40 hours in preparation. Eightypercent of the meetings were facilitated byagency personnel and 20% contracted withoutside facilitators.

9) Respondents were very positive about ap-plying the LAC process. All respondents (100%)reported that completing a LAC plan was avaluable use of their time. Leaders embracedthe philosophy of the planning system andnoted that they believed the most importantelement (albeit the most difficult) of the LACprocess was the ability to establish standardsand quantitatively measure the status of con-ditions. Respondents also thought that publicinvolvement was a very important element ofthe process. One respondent seemed to bestsummarize the reported advantages of the LACplanning system: “This process allows us to de-velop decisions we can live with.”

The Role ofPublic Involvement

in LAC PlanningThe LAC General Technical Report statesthat the public should be involved through-out the LAC process, however, it does notrequire use of a citizen task force. It is pos-sible to incorporate the public (and obtainpublic input) successfully in a variety of dif-ferent ways. Two primary reasons surfacedfor the decision to conduct a work group:1) The issues were highly controversial, re-sulting in an intense social and politicalplanning climate, and 2) the agency wasinterested in improving the quality of deci-sions and wanted to better integrate publicinvolvement. The work groups most com-monly consisted of 16–30 participants,representing 11 to 15 different interests(although the number of reported participantsranged from as few as 10 to as many as 65).

Group decision-making relied primarilyon working toward consensus. The mostcommon method for achieving consensus

was utilizing a processentailing four levels ofsupport for decision-making (adapted fromSchell and King 1988by Krumpe andMcCoy 1992) (Figure4). Consensus was de-fined as “no onereaching level 4.” Thisprocess provided threeacceptable levels ofsupport for a decisionwhich allowed peopleto state their levels ofacceptance rather than requiring them toreach complete agreement, a subtle but im-portant difference.

Advantages andDisadvantages of

Public Work GroupsThe disadvantages of work groups relatedprimarily to the impact it had on theagency—not having enough time, money,or personnel to conduct the process prop-erly. Leaders cited several primary advantagesof conducting LAC public work groups. Re-spondents were pleased that both the citizenparticipants and forest service personnellearned from one another, shared informa-tion, and built a mutual understanding ofthe issues and values involved in wildernessmanagement. Building rapport between thepublic and agency participants was com-monly cited as a key advantage of the process,as was improving the dialogue among re-source users. LAC coordinators also felt thatthe process built public support for agencyactions. Over 90% of the LAC work groupcoordinators believed that completing a LACplan had a positive impact on the agency’spublic relations and that the plan would besupported by the general public.

Conclusions andRecommendations

While the nine-step process needs to beupdated based on the results of the initialapplications and the experiences of theLAC leaders, LAC as a system for plan-ning is an important and successful tool.All agency managers responding believedthat producing a LAC plan was a valuableuse of their time. With this in mind, thefollowing conclusions and recommenda-tions are offered as implications tomanagement, policy and research.

ManagementImplications

LAC should be implemented as a methodology.In the future, LAC should not be viewedas a regimented step-by-step procedure,but rather as a systematic means of struc-turing a management plan uniquelytailored to each natural resource setting.LAC is being modified in the field;primarily the process is being shortened.Unfortunately, some attempts to stream-line have resulted in shortcutting orexcluding essential aspects of LAC. Itappears that glorified campsite invento-ries are being confused with LAC. Justmonitoring campsites (and/or trails) as theonly method for determining wildernessconditions is neither appropriate nor ad-equate to provide the agency with apicture of the overall health of the wil-derness. Indicators should not be hastilycopied but must be carefully defined, ac-counting for the unique characteristics ofeach resource.

There is a continuing debate overwhether the forest service should standard-ize (or institutionalize) indicators andstandards, or whether they should encour-age individual national forests to customizethe process to each wilderness or resourcearea. Standardizing could be cost effective,may simplify the process, and could promotesome level of quality across resource areas;however, institutionalized standards wouldbe meaningless if they failed to reflect thewide variation of resource and social condi-tions found across the nation (Krumpe andStokes 1993). Additionally, adopting institu-tionalized standards might shortcut thevaluable process of having agency staff andmembers of the public working together todefine the appropriate limits of acceptablechange for a particular site.


Public workgroups should be used in LAC.Where LAC has been combined with goodpublic involvement it has resulted in greaterpublic ownership in wilderness managementand helped resolve issues at the local level(Krumpe and Stokes 1993; Merigliano 1992).Survey results illustrate that LAC efforts whichutilized public work groups reported a highercompliance rate with the technical process aswell as a higher level of satisfaction. This seemsto demonstrate the positive correlation amongthe degree of compliance with the planningprocess, the level of public and agency inter-action, the level of consensus, and the amountof dialogue. Thus, we present a hypotheticalmodel that depicts the integrating role thatdialogue plays, that is, with increased dialoguethere is likely to be a higher degree of com-pliance with the LAC system, a higher degreeof public and agency interaction, and a higherlevel of agreement (consensus). The modeldoes not mean to suggest a precise linear cor-relation, but to illustrate the importance ofinteracting with the key publics in effectivedialogue during the planning process, basedon findings from our study.

Policy ImplicationsLAC should be integrated with the procedural guide-lines of NEPA. LAC was developed specificallyas a framework for wilderness managementplanning and thus has been viewed as sepa-rate from the planning process outlined inthe National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). Overlap in the steps outlined in LAC

and the requirements of NEPA, such as theidentification of issues, development of alter-natives, and selection of a preferred alternative,supports the idea that these processes couldbe implemented concurrently. Better integrat-ing LAC and NEPA would supportreasonable time frames for the planning pro-cess to be finalized and implemented.

FACA is a barrier to utilizing a public workgroup but not to implementing LAC. Unfortu-nately, based on recent USDA Forest Serviceinterpretations of the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (5 U.S.C. App.l), processesusing public work groups are being restricted.Use of the words task force, consensus, and rec-ommendation are currently being discouragedfor fear that this would constitute a FederalAdvisory Committee and fall under the do-main of the act which stipulates, among otherthings, that a charter for the group must bedeveloped, submitted to the Secretary of Ag-riculture for approval, and that meeting datesmust be announced in the Federal Register.Tocomplicate matters, the formation of newadvisory groups under FACA was prohib-ited by Executive Order in late 1993.

LAC does not require the use of a formaltask force. Citizens and agency personnel canwork collaboratively in efforts to encouragedialogue and mutual learning among diverseinterests without evoking FACA. Efforts whichseek to include a high level of public involve-ment are currently establishing citizen workinggroups as one of a variety of tools used to gatherpublic input on a project. To reduce the risks

of being defined as a Federal Advisory Com-mittee, formal memberships should not beestablished, all meetings should be open to thepublic, meeting minutes and notes should beavailable for public review, and consensus shouldnot be actively sought (Merigliano 1994).

ResearchRecommendations

Further research should address the pressingquestion—does LAC planning result in re-source and social conditions in the field beingmaintained at acceptable levels and moni-tored in a systematic fashion? Researchshould also continue to evaluate field appli-cations of LAC since more LAC plans havebeen completed throughout the UnitedStates. The perceptions and evaluations ofcitizen work group participants should alsobe documented and an analysis of completedLAC plans might be revealing.

In conclusion, based upon response fromthose people with hands-on experience ap-plying LAC, it appears that the benefits inapplying LAC far outweigh administrative in-convenience. Identifying and maintainingdesirable resource conditions in an era ofchange is a daunting but imperative goal. IJW

LYNN McCOY, now a natural resource consultantwith Sustainable Decisions, Inc., was a graduate studentin the Department of Resource Recreation & Tourismat the University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-1139,USA, where EDWIN E. KRUMPE, Ph.D. is aprofessor. STEWART ALLEN, Ph.D. is a social scientistwith the USDA Forest Service Federal EcosystemManagement Team (Eastside) in Walla Walla, WA, USA.

Ashor, J. L. 1985. Recreation Management in the Bob MarshallWilderness Complex: An Application of the Limits ofAcceptable Change Concept and Trans active PlanningTheory. Missoula, Mont.: University of Montana.

Cole, D. N. 1983. Monitoring the Condition of Wil-derness Campsites. USDA Forest Service Inter-mountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation. Ogden, Utah. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: TheTotal Design Method. New York, N.Y.: John Wiley& Sons, Inc.

Friedmann, J. 1973. Retracking America: A Theory ofTransactive Planning. Garden City, N.Y.: AnchorPress/Doubleday.

———————-. 1987. Planning in the PublicDomain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton,N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Frissell, S. S. 1978. Judging Recreation Impacts on Wil-derness Campsites. Journal of Forestry, 76:481–483.

General Accounting Office (GAO). 1989. WildernessPreservation: Problems in Some National ForestsShould Be Addressed. GAO/ RCED-89-202. Wash-ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Hendee, J. C, et al. 1990. Wilderness Management—Managing for Appropriate Wilderness Conditions:The Carrying Capacity Issue. Golden, Colo.:North American Press. 215–238.

Krumpe, E. E., and L. McCoy, eds. 1991. The Limits

REFERENCESof Acceptable Change Recreation Management Planfor the Snake River. Univ. of Idaho Forest, Wild-life and Range Experiment Station. Misc. Pub-lication No. 624, Moscow, Idaho.

Krumpe, E. E., and L. McCoy. 1992. Techniques toResolve Conflict in Natural Resource Man-agement in Parks and Protected Areas. In Proc.Of Workshop 1.9—Resolving Conflict in ProtectedAreas. International Union for the Conserva-tion of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)IV World Congress on National Parks and Pro-tected Areas. Feb. 10–21, 1992, Caracas, Ven-ezuela. Keystone, Colo.: Keystone Center.

Krumpe, E. E., and G. L. Stokes. 1993. Applicationof the Limits of Acceptable Change PlanningProcess in United States Forest Service Wil-derness Management. Proc. of the Fifth WorldWilderness Congress. Tromso, Norway.

McCoy, K. Lynn. 1994.The Limits of AcceptableChange Planning System: Applications andAdaptations. Unpublished thesis. Departmentof Resource Recreation & Tourism. Univ. ofIdaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Merigliano, L. L., ed. 1992. Ideas for Limits of Ac-ceptable Change Process. USDA Forest Service.Recreation, Cultural Resource and WildernessManagement Staff publication. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Merigliano, L. L. 1994. Wilderness Planning Training Module.

Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center.USDA Forest Service. Hudson, Mont. Washington,D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Schell R., and T. King, eds. 1988. The Arkansas RiverRecreation Management Plan (Draft). Denver,Colo.: Colorado Department of Parks andOutdoor Recreation.

Stankey, G. H., S. F. McCool, and G. L. Stokes. 1984.Limits of Acceptable Change: A New Frame-work for Managing the Bob Marshall Wilder-ness Complex. Western Wildlands, 10(3): 33–37.

Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R. C. Lucas, M. E. Peterson,and S. S. Frissell. 1985. The Limits of AcceptableChange (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning.General Technical Report INT-176. USDA For-est Service Intermountain Forest and Range Ex-periment Station. Ogden, Utah. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Stokes, G. L. 1986. LAC Task Force Role. In Proc. ofthe National Wilderness Research Conference: Cur-rent Research—1985. General Technical ReportINT-212. USDA Forest Service IntermountainResearch Station. Ogden, Utah. 546–547.

Stokes, G. L. 1990. The Evolution of WildernessManagement: The Bob Marshall WildernessComplex, Journal of Forestry, 88(10): 15–20.

___________1991. New Wildland RecreationStrategies: The Flathead Experience. WesternWildlands Winter: 23–27.


An alternative approach would harden critical sites, such asstream crossings, but without automatically making access easier.Then use levels, patterns of use, and associated impacts could bemaintained by the location, design, and maintenance of trail sys-tems to protect desired ecological and sociological conditions.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 declares that a wilderness, in con-trast with those areas where the works of humans dominate thelandscape, is an area where the earth and its community of lifeare untrammeled by human beings, where humans are them-selves visitors who do not remain.

Untrammeled means not subject to human controls and ma-nipulations that hamper the free play of natural forces, and theword has typically been applied to ecological conditions. It ap-pears in the Wilderness Act of 1964, and implies two managementobjectives: to preserve the natural ecological conditions createdby the forces of nature, and to maintain the naturalness of thearea in terms of impact from recreational use (Hendee et al. 1990).

Naturalness, or untrammeledness, assumes a larger social con-text when linking change in naturalness (ecological condition)to change in recreational use (social conditions), which is influ-enced primarily by the access trail system. In general, thebenchmarks for desired social and ecological conditions are thoseexisting at time of congressional designation, the concept ofnondegradation (Hendee et al. 1990). However, in protecting socialand ecological conditions from degradation, and attending topublic safety, managers have often introduced developments (im-provements), while ignoring the long-term consequences of thoseactions on maintaining those benchmark conditions.

Trail and Site Management ActionsChallenge Wilderness Use

Since designation, most wilderness areas have received “improvements”from management to protect the resource base, or visitor safety. Someexamples are: improved trail design by increasing trail width; hardeningand/or smoothing of tread, footbridges, or stock bridges; new trails; in-creased trail maintenance; and campsite facilities. Regardless ofmanagement motives, these improvements change peoples’ perceptionsof a wilderness and may affect visitation and the wilderness experienceby making wilderness travel easier. Something as simple as a few foot-bridges across intervening creeks and improved trail maintenance canmake an area easier to visit and thus, attractive to many more visitors.

A cycle begins with protective improvements that subsequentlyattracts more and different kinds of users (Clark et al. 1971). The easieraccess leads to increased use, which causes more environmental impact,further reducing naturalness, and leads to even more protective develop-ment by managers. This cycle continues to move the particular wildernessfurther away from an untrammeled condition and the naturalness andsocial conditions existing when it was designated as wilderness.

While the change in naturalness may be obvious to management,the change in social conditions, except the increased use, is less obvi-ous. What occurs is a social-ecological process in response to theprotective improvements, an invasion, succession, and displacement ofvisitor use, much like the traditional ecological process. Many originalusers are displaced since the naturalness and solitude they sought aredisappearing, and more new users are attracted because the access iseasier, a new user group with different perceptions and preferences forthe wilderness (Clark et al. 1971; Jubenville and Twight 1993).


Trail and Site Management Are the Keyto Untrammeled Wilderness

BY ALAN JUBENVILLE

Figure 1—Trail design is critical in determining patterns of use. The designs in these photos represent separatepoints on the continuum of wilderness recreational opportunities and generally determine the pattern of use.

PROTECTING UNTRAMMELED WILDERNESS against visitor use requires managing visitor impacts, and the principlemanagement tools for achieving this are trails and sites. Managers have often responded to resource impacts by

making improvements in trails and sites in order to protect the resource base. In response to the easier access, more anddifferent kinds of users are attracted to these areas causing greater impact.


Trails and SiteImprovements are theKey to Management

Wilderness management has a dual mis-sion of maintaining naturalness andproviding outstanding opportunities forwilderness recreational experiences. Trailsand site improvements are the keys tomeeting these goals because they deter-mine the amount and kind of use awilderness will experience. While tryingto maintain an area’s naturalness, more rec-reational use is encouraged through simpletrail and site improvements. Ultimately, thisstarts the cycle described earlier (attract-ing more and different kinds of users),which may lead to the need to limit useto guard against social and ecological im-pacts. Even simple and rustic traildevelopments may attract more userswhose impacts are difficult to reverse.

Cole (1981, 1982) concludes that sitedeterioration is faster than recovery, even onthe better sites. Thus, reducing use wouldhave little impact on recovery to an accept-able level of naturalness. Hammit and Cole(1987) stated such deterioration will likelycontinue until use is totally eliminated andspecific cultural treatments are applied tospeed recovery. Cole (in Hendee et al. 1990),in synthesizing his earlier work, suggests thattrying to manage the problem after the im-pact occurs is typically too late. The traillocation, design, and type of long-term main-tenance, assuming there are some naturalattractors to draw visitors, will determine thegeneral pattern of recreational use and thusthe particular impacts (Jubenville 1975). Re-locating trails onto more durable sites is abetter long-term solution (Helgath 1975).The original design of these trails is impor-tant in limiting specific resource impacts andin limiting the type and amount of use, and

thus the overall severity of the problem (Colein Hendee et al. 1990).

Sociologically, limiting the number of us-ers to some former, lower level will notrecapture the original social conditions becausethe social-ecological process, the invasion, suc-cession, and displacement of original users isnot easily reversed. Even the imposition of alimited entry permit system itself may con-tribute to displacement (Stankey 1979).

So how do we keep wilderness reallywild, and stop the successional displacementof original visitors by those attracted by de-velopment and improvements? Since80—90% of wilderness use is trail-oriented(Hendee et al. 1990), the key to maintainingnaturalness and outstanding opportunities forsolitude depends on how we manage ourtrails. Improved roads leading to wildernesstrailheads may attract more visitors, but thelocation, design, and maintenance of trailswithin wilderness are the wildernessmanager’s key tools to direct and containuse, and minimize the associated impacts. Butif we keep the design of trail systems primi-tive enough, we could keep wilderness useand impacts within acceptable limits, and doa better job of keeping wilderness and wil-derness use in an untrammeled state.

Policy ImplicationsAt the recent National Wilderness Con-ference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA,there was a call for increasing wildernessbudgets by 16-fold. This was because wil-derness now constitutes 16% of the U.SForest Service and U.S. National Park Ser-vice lands, yet receives only 1% of thebudget. Certainly agencies could use addi-tional monies for education of visitors,scientific studies, assessment of neededboundary changes, and a myriad of othermanagement tasks. Few condemn manag-

ers for protective development, increasingtrail width, improved tread on the trail, ora footbridge, in order to protect the resourceor public safety. But shouldn’t we be con-cerned about the long-term aggregateimpacts of such decisions on changingwilderness use and condition?

Can’t we implement protective develop-ment of trails and sites without lessening thenaturalness or making use easier? For ex-ample, rather than building footbridges acrossintervening creeks to reduce erosion atstream crossings, why not locate the trail atdownstream angles to the normal waterlineand develop upstream water deflectors—large rocks or simple gabians if necessary?This would keep the trail at the same designlevel, requiring people to continue to wadethe creek. This should protect the resourcewithout altering existing patterns of use andthus maintain original, primitive conditions.This approach would keep the particular wil-derness zone untrammeled, ecologically andsociologically (i.e., numbers, type of users,and their patterns of use). While such anapproach may be difficult to implement,wouldn’t the result be greater protection ofuntrammeled conditions?

SummaryThe Wilderness Act laid the foundation forwilderness as untrammeled, both ecologicallyand sociologically, meaning free and unshack-led, not subject to human controls. To meetthis objective, wilderness managers often optfor trail and site improvements to protect theresource base from deterioration. Conse-quently, more and different types of users areattracted, and many previous users are dis-placed, causing greater social and ecologicalimpacts. In some instances, this cycle can lead

(continued on page 25)

Figure 2—The design of water crossings are also critical links in determining patterns of use.The photos here show a range of wilderness water crossings from modern to primitive.


to increases so great as to require rationing.Thus, trying to maintain the naturalness ofwilderness through trail developments andsite improvements is self-defeating. To in-advertently encourage use throughdevelopment and then hope to recoup theoriginal conditions is not possible. The re-source will continue to deteriorate and the

original wilderness recreational opportu-nity will be lost and cannot be recaptured.An alternative is to harden sensitive sites,such as trail crossings, but to do so in a waythat does not make access easier—and thuschange the social conditions of use. Or thetrail can be rerouted around the sensitiveareas while maintaining the appropriate

primitive design. In some cases, the area maybe better served without a trail. The key tobetter long-term management of wilder-ness is the appropriate trail design, location,and maintenance.

ALAN JUBENVILLE is professor of OutdoorRecreation Management at the University of Alaskain Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

EDUCATION

Wilderness @ InternetTHE WILDLIFE SOCIETY’S WILDLIFE INFORMATION NETWORK

IMAGINE BEING ABLE TO TAP THE EXPERTISE of hundreds of wildlife professionals, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The Wildlife Society (TWS) is making this dream a reality Theimportance of communication in attaining the society’s goals ofbringing the best scientific knowledge to bear on wildlife man-agement cannot be underestimated. The wildlife informationcomputer network will allow easier communication among wild-life professionals. The new network will facilitate discussion ofpertinent issues with wildlife colleagues in an informal atmo-sphere, every day, across the country.

In addition to the existing e-mail connection to The WildlifeSociety’s Bethesda, Maryland offices ([email protected]), a jointventure with Cornell University has allowed TWS to set up alistserve. Essentially an e-mail discussion group, interested parties

are invited to subscribe (it’s free) and join in. Once you havesubscribed, any message you send to the list will be instantlyredistributed to all other list members over e-mail. Discussions ofmanagement techniques, resource and policy issues, as well as joband educational opportunities will allow TWS members to worktogether better, share ideas, and facilitate their work.TWS willpost information on meetings, happenings in Washington, D.C.,calls for action, and resources on the net.

To subscribe to the listserve, send the following e-mail messagewith no subject line to [email protected]: SUBCRIBETWS–L your first name, your last name. When you subscribe, you willreceive guidelines on using the discussion list as well as instructionson how to post messages and unsubscribe. If you have any ques-tions, please contact [email protected]:Listserve.

COLUMBIA NORTHWEST TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NETWORK

THE COLUMBIA NORTHWEST REGION FACESmajor long-term challenge to its fisheries, wildlife, forests,

agriculture, rangelands, water quality, wilderness, and to the qual-ity of life and economies of its cities and rural communities.

The Columbia Northwest Technical Assistance Network, aprototype science information initiative, is designed to helpensure that scientific information about the Northwest’s naturalresources generated by universities, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other sources, is instantly availableto public and private natural resource managers in the field. Thenetwork will use advanced communications technologies, includ-ing a World Wide Web site, to make the latest regional scientific

information available through America Online, CompuServe, andother World Wide Web providers.

Managers of the new network will collaborate in gaining andsharing information with federal and state organizations and uni-versities. The network is not a research institution, rather it transfersthe best available science to field organizations and assists in imple-mentation of this knowledge to solve the basin’s long-termproblems, thus, it is a new “virtual organization.”

The network’s coleaders are Jack G. Peterson and Jack E. Wil-liams. Send an e-mail to them at: [email protected]. Their WorldWide Web site is: http://www.cntan.org/~colnw.

(CONTINUED FROM PAGE 24)

REFERENCES

Clark, R. N., J. C. Hendee, and F. Campbell. 1971.Values, behavior, and conflict in modern camp-ing culture. J. Leisure Research, 3(3): 143–149.

Cole, D. N. 1981. Vegetational changes associatedwith recreational use and fire suppression inthe Eagle Cap Wilderness. Biological Conserva-tion, 20: 247–270.

____________1982. Wilderness campsite impacts:effects of amount of use. Research Paper INT-284, USDA Forest Service. Washington, D. C:U.S. Government Printing Office.

____________1990. Ecological impacts of wilder-ness recreation and their management (Chap-ter 6). In Wilderness Management. J. C. Hendee,G. H. Stankey, and R. C.Lucas. Golden, Colo.:North American Press.

Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1987. WildlandRecreation: Ecology and Management. New York,N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons.

Helgath, S. F. 1975. Trail Deterioration in theSelway–Bitterroot Wilderness. Research NoteINT-193, USDA Forest Service. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas. 1990.

Wilderness Management. 2nd ed. Golden, Colo.:North American Press.

Jubenville, A. 1975. Outdoor Recreation Planning.Philadelphia, Pa.: W. B. Saunders Co.

Jubenville, A., and B. W. Twight. 1993. Outdoor Rec-reation Management: Theory and Application. StateCollege, Pa.: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Stankey, G. H. 1979. Use rationing in two SouthernCalifornia wildernesses .J. Forestry, 77(6): 347–349.


Introduction

IN 1977, PRIORTO THE PASSAGE of the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness Act, a U.S. senator from Minnesota

stated that reducing motorized use in the Boundary Waters CanoeArea Wilderness would discriminate against “the handicapped,the elderly, and women.” Over the years many people have claimedthat wilderness designations discriminate against people withdisabilities, the elderly, and anyone else who is not young andphysically fit. This charge has been difficult to answer. But it isalso the notion that sparked formation of the Minneapolis,Minnesota based, nonprofit group called Wilderness Inquiry (WI).

I was in college at the time, and had been involved with agroup of friends in the fledgling WI organization. Having justreturned from a winter camping trip with 11 and 12 year-oldgirls, the notion that wilderness was inaccessible to women seemedout of place. It occurred to me that maybe the rest of the senator’squote was inaccurate too.

Being young and, perhaps, a bit overconfident, some friends and Idecided to test the hypothesis that wilderness was not accessible topeople with disabilities. In August of 1977 we planned a 100-milewilderness trip involving two people who used wheelchairs as well astwo young men who were deaf. To make a long story short, with ahuge expenditure of energy, we succeeded in traveling over 80 miles.But, in the end, we rented motor boats to take us the last 20 miles.

At that tender age we were forced to eat crow, but we also stumbledupon something that was far more meaningful than simply provinga U.S. senator wrong.1 We discovered that traveling in the wildernesswith an integrated group of people was a tremendously powerful

personal experience for everyone involved. It opened our eyes.We wanted more.

Almost 20 years later, more than 30,000 people have had theopportunity to share this kind of experience in wilderness through-out the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe. WI has grownbeyond its fledgling state. Yes, some people are still saying that wil-derness designations discriminate against people with disabilitiesand the elderly. If we measure progress in incremental steps, we canat least take some satisfaction in the fact that no one today woulddare claim that wilderness discriminates against women.

Dispelling StereotypesIn utilizing integrated wilderness adventures to dispel stereotypes,we’ve encountered an interesting irony. When trying to explainthe mission of WI, I often see people focus on the issue of servingpersons with disabilities. They frequently grab that notion andstereotype WI as the program that serves “the handicapped.” Whilethis is understandable, it misses the point.

On our first trip we learned that the world is not easily split intodisparate camps such as “the disabled” and “the able-bodied.” The lessonthat comes through so clear in the contrast of a wilderness environmentis that each person has their own unique abilities that defy stereotyping.If the desire is there, every person can go out and discover the beautyand mystery of wilderness, regardless of their level of ability. Wilder nessInquiry simply makes it possible for this to happen.

“I learned that I could get along with people whohave disabilities. They became ‘so and so’ and notthe person in the wheelchair or the person withdown syndrome or whatever disability, which wassomething I never experienced before.”

—Kelly a nondisabled WI participant

Shared wilderness experience can be an extremely effective meansof breaking down the stereotypes we have of our fellow human beings.It can be more effective than busing students to different school systemsto integrate cultures and races, diversity training, or all of the other meanscurrently used to bring diverse groups of people together.

As one WI participant put it, “I gained a better understandingof ’ the whole is greater than the sum of the parts it’s made of. “Irealized that despite our individual needs, age differences, back-grounds or economic status, we all have in common suchtremendous capacity to learn from one another. We became wiserand we learned a greater sense of trust.”

Why Does Wilderness Unify People?Since that first trip, we have asked what it is about wilderness thathelps to facilitate this “coming together” of diverse people. Canthis be accomplished in other environments? If not, why not? Wedo not claim to have the answers; however, we believe that the

EDUCATION

Wilderness InquiryBY GREG LAIS


wilderness environment itself is a key elementin the process. As environments go, wilder-ness is indifferent to our existence. In thecontext of this indifferent environment, ourcommon human needs become self-evident,and they far outweigh our differences—what-ever those differences may be.

One of the many lessons learned by in-volving physically disabled persons, is thatwilderness appreciation is not at all limitedto those who are independently mobile inthe woods. In fact, often the opposite is true.People who infrequently visit the wilder-ness often cherish the opportunity more.

As our society has become less depen-dent upon muscle power due to technicalinnovation, people go more places withless effort. Wilderness travel takes us backto different modes of transportation andmakes us rely on our bodies to providethe energy to move—a notion that in-timidates many who are unsure of theirphysical capabilities. Instead of being anobstacle, this can be an exciting means todiscover what we are in fact able to do.

In wilderness, the traditional yardstickby which we measure the value of our fel-low human beings is somehow different.This, we think, has important—if unex-plained—social ramifications. At the veryleast, wilderness travel with diverse groupsof people can be an excellent means of fa-cilitating a process called social integration.

Wilderness FacilitatesSocial Integration

“When I first became disabled Iwas afraid of the physical chal-lenges, but I had no idea howtough the social challengeswould be. Marriages break up;old friends no longer feel com-fortable. Medicine can rebuildthe body, but they cannot re-build a social life. My trip withWilderness Inquiry gave me thetools to start this long process.”—Jay Johnson, a WI participant

with a spinal cord injury

Social integration is a term widely usedamong groups serving persons with dis-abilities, especially those serving personswith cognitive impairments. In brief, itmeans overcoming stereotypes, usuallynegative, based on perceptions of physicaldifferences. It stems from the reality thatmany people with disabilities suffer some

ticipate equally—when their contributionto the outcome of the experience is equal.

Wilderness travel can accomplish thisparticipatory function far better than anyother recreational activities. Unlike com-petitive sports, wilderness travel allows farmore opportunities for contributions thatare not based upon group members’ physi-cal capability, or their intellectual capability.Participants can play different, but equallyvalued, roles on a wilderness adventure. Ona WI trip, we can have physical workers,attitude shapers, navigators, skills contribu-tors, and group skills workers. Everyone isencouraged to contribute to the good ofthe group according to their means.

3) Wilderness is indifferent which rein-forces common human needs.

We all have basic needs for food andshelter. Because we often have to work abit harder in wilderness to accommodatethose needs, this makes it an ideal placefor us to explore our common humanity.Unless you’re living on the street, urbansettings cannot easily replicate this.

4) The beauty of wilderness builds a com-mon bond of appreciation.

Most wilderness areas are naturallybeautiful. This is what draws many peopleto visit wilderness. People who share thesebeautiful places together often form an in-tangible bond, a form of spiritual renewal,that brings them closer together.

There are also other reasons why wilder-ness facilitates social integration. For example,Alan Ewert (1989) describes the contribu-tions of wilderness to the development of

form of social ostracism sim-ply because they look differentthan the norm.

This social ostracism can takemany forms, from downrightavoidance to well-meaning butmisplaced displays of patroniz-ing behavior toward thoseconsidered “less fortunate.” It isa very real form of discrimina-tion, just ask someone who hasa disability. Moreover, the con-cept transcends disability issuesto encompass many forms of dis-crimination based on theperception of physical differ-ences, including racial, religious,and cultural differences, as wellas others.

For the last 15 years, especially sincepassage of the Americans with DisabilitiesAct, the concept of social integration hasbeen pushed to facilitate inclusion intoschools, team sports, and the workplace.For example, today it is not uncommonto catch a glimpse of a person who uses awheelchair in an advertisement.

WI believes that integrated wildernessexperiences are one of the most effectivetools at facilitating social integration. Oth-ers believe it too, as evidenced by thegrowth of other programs with similarends, such as S’PLORE, NE Passage, C.W. HOG, and Environmental TravelingCompanions. WI, the University of Min-nesota, and others have conducted someresearch on the effects of integrated wil-derness travel. More studies need to bedone, but based on the research and ourown observations over the years we’vecome to the following conclusions:

1) Social integration is easier to achieve whenpeople are further removed from their ev-eryday existence, patterns, and behaviors.

The routines of daily life often dictateour perceptions and stereotypes. If you seea lawyer, a police officer, or a politicianon the street you probably have a set ofbeliefs about how that person may act. Thesame is true if you see a person with adisability, or someone else who is physi-cally different than you. Wilder ness travel,of course, tends to break the routine ofdaily life, at least for most of us.

2) Social integration is easier to achieve whenall participants are able to compete or par-


society and its members. These contribu-tions are often related to interactions ofpeople with natural environments and so-cial interaction in wildland settings. Suchsettings create socially acceptable mediusfor testing oneself; provide opportunitiesfor learning and shared experiences in aunique physical and social environment;link values and attitudes with behavior;allow participants to reconstruct feelings,experiences, and problems faced by ourancestors; provide opportunities for a moreintimate view of one’s strengths, weak-nesses, and character (Ewert 1989).

Wilderness Inquiry’sMission

The primary mission of WI is to provideopportunities that integrate adults and youthswith and without disabilities in outdoor edu-cation and adventure expe-riences.Theseexperiences inspire personal growth, instillconfidence, develop peer relationships, andenhance awareness of the natural environ-ment for everyone involved. Other elementsof WI’s mission include: 1) providing op-portunities to increase awareness ofdisabilities among nondisabled people, andto reduce negative stereotypes nondisabledpeople may hold toward people with dis-abilities; 2) developing adaptive equipmentand program strategies advancing the studyof the recreational and educational needs ofpeople with disabilities, with particular em-phasis on accessibility to wilderness areas andeducating people on the value of wilder-ness to our society.

Audiences ServedPeople of all ages and abilities throughout theworld participate in WI adventures. The widemix of people typically found on WI trips al-lows for reflection and discussion about thenature of human differences and stereotypesabout them. This mixing of people from all walksof life is essential to our mission of integration.

In addition, WI maintains active part-nerships with a number of organizationsfor a variety of purposes. Working coop-eratively with other organizations has alwaysbeen the way WI does business. These stra-tegic partnerships help to further ourmission of making integrated outdoor ad-ventures accessible to everyone.

WI typically integrates people with a va-riety of disabling conditions in each activity,including people with spinal cord injuries,multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, men-tal retardation, deafness, Parkinson’s disease, andother disabling conditions. Most trips are in-tegrated to include approximately 50% peoplewith disabilities, and 50% people without dis-abilities. A typical group would include 12people as follows: one person who uses awheelchair; two people with a sensory, cog-nitive, or other type of impairment such ascoronary disease, epilepsy, mental retardation,etc; one person who ambulates with canes orcrutches; six nondisabled participants; and twoWI staff people. Participants are mixed by ageand gender. The average age is in the mid-30’s, with a range from 2 to 85 years old. Inaddition to this mix of disabilities, WI adven-tures are integrated to include people ofdiverse cultural, racial, and socioeconomicbackgrounds. The following demographicbreakdown for 1994 is typical:

Males 50%Females 50%Under 21 39%Over 60 3%Disabled 52%Nondisabled 48%Racial minorities 15%

One of the subtle factors in WI’s suc-cess is that the experiences are offered asappealing “recreational” programs that areopen to everyone regardless of their ability.People participate simply because they wantto share the recreational adventure. Thereis no stigma of “therapy” attached to theseexperiences. WI was founded on thepremise that these socially integrated ex-periences are the true building blocks ofself-esteem, confidence, and greater sensi-tivity to the needs and potentials of others.

In addition to the obvious physical chal-lenges involved in wilderness travel,able-bodied and disabled participants facemany emotional challenges. Difficult physi-cal conditions demand cooperation whichin turn fosters understanding. The stereo-types, discomfort, and emotional distancethat sometimes exist between able-bodiedand disabled persons are reduced and usu-ally abandoned during the course of a trip.Regardless of one’s ability level at the be-ginning of a trip, participants usually findthat the preconceived limits of their owncapabilities were far too conservative.

The MethodologyWater is the key to accessing wildernessfor persons with limitations in mobility.Water-based activities, such as canoeing andkayaking, provide the means to travel greatdistances with relative ease. People whopush their own wheelchairs generally havemore than enough upper body strength topaddle a canoe. The greatest physical diffi-culty facing some persons is with backsupport and balance, but with simple ad-aptations these problems can be remedied.

Winter camping provides a different setof conditions and problems. To increasewinter mobility, persons with mobility im-pairments use one-person “pulk” sledspulled by dogs to travel along the frozenlakes and trails. Sliding through the woodson a dog sled is a truly thrilling experi-ence, one that is available to most anyonewho makes the effort to try.

Whether it is winter or summer, byworking together and experimenting withnew ideas, participants on WI trips teamup to overcome the challenges of wilder-ness travel. People with balance problems,for example, often team up with personswho use wheelchairs to cross “portages”—trails between bodies of water. Thewheelchair provides a stable base for theperson with balance difficulties, who in turnhelps give the extra push needed to get overthe many rocks and bumps along the way.

These “symbiotic” relationships developnaturally on mixed ability wilderness adven-tures. The key ingredients to success arecooperation, trust, and allowing enough timefor the tasks to be completed. The meansfor successful wilderness travel by mobilityimpaired people are no secret: hard workand determination. The payoffs are the same:beauty, solitude, and the confidence in know-ing that you can do it yourself.


Within the context of the WI programthere are several major initiatives. These include:

Extended Tripping Program—WI currentlyoffers 125 extended trips annually, includ-ing canoe, kayak, raft, and dogsled adventuresthroughout the United States, Canada, Aus-tralia, and Europe. Financial aid is providedfor those who need financial help.

Outdoor Skills Workshops—WI offers free ca-noeing, kayaking, dog sledding, and outdoorskills events on public lands. They are designedto introduce people with severe disabilitiesand others to the sport of canoeing and tothe programs of WI.

Youth Programs—Through WI’s outdooreducation and recreation programs, youthswith and without disabilities learn new skills,gain confidence, and become more tolerantof differences. The goal of WI’s youth pro-gram is to empower youths with disabilitiesto become socially integrated and move intothe mainstream of community life.

Universal Program (UP) Training—Since thepassage of the Americans with Disabilities Actof 1990, WI has received countless requestsfor training from outdoor recreation serviceproviders and other groups. UP training isdesigned to assist these organizations in de-signing programs that are universally accessibleto everyone. For example, WI and the Uni-versity of Minnesota team up to provide atwo-week “short course” for federal, state, andlocal land managers on UP design.

Project PILOT—A three-year project (Sep-tember 1993 through August 1996) madepossible by a grant from the U.S. Departmentof Education. The goal of Project PILOT isto train people with disabilities to become“Integration Specialists,” who will, in turn,train other outdoor service providers (e.g.,U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Park Service, and oth-ers) in the concepts and practices of UP designin an outdoor recreation context.

Veteran Programs—For the past four years, WIhas received funding from the Agent Or-ange Class Assistance Program (AOCAP) toserve Vietnam veterans and their families. Thisfunding will end in January 1996. Work is inprogress to find new funding sources toreplace AOCAP funding.

Wilderness Access Decision Tool—With fundingand assistance from the US. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Forest Service, WI hasdeveloped a decision tool for federal land man-agers regarding use of the National Wilderness

Preservation System for persons with disabili-ties. Presented at the Sixth National WildernessConference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, this toolwill help federal land managers develop con-sistent policies regarding accessibility in theNational Wilderness Preservation System.

Adaptive Equipment Development—Over theyears WI has developed many pieces of adap-tive equipment to assist persons withdisabilities. With funding from the STAR Pro-gram (a System of Technology to AchieveResults) ,WI and Tamarack Habilitation Tech-nologies developed a bow stern seat, a slingseat and oarlock frame, and a portage carrier.

Curriculum Development—WI has publishedseveral curricula on various topics, includingissues related to integration and outdoor skills.With funding provided by the state of Minne-sota Department of Education, WI publisheda leadership development curriculum foryouths with disabilities. In cooperation withthe U. S. Forest Service and America Outdoors,a national trade association of outfitters, WIproduced a “how to” manual for outfitterswishing to make their programs and servicesmore accessible for persons with disabilities.

ResultsOver the years WI has conducted several stud-ies in cooperation with the University ofMinnesota, the U.S. Department of Educa-tion, and other agencies to document theeffects of integrated adventure experiencestoward achieving these goals. Results of athree-year longitudinal study conducted bythe University of Minnesota show partici-pants in WI programs experiencing positivechanges over time in major life areas such as:

• Interpersonal relationships• Attitudes towards those with

disabilities• Tolerance of stress• Approaching new situations• Social activities• Ability to live independently• Education• Mobility• Employment

While we believe that empirical documen-tation of integrated wilderness experiencesis critically important, we know that mea-suring these types of “intangibles” is difficultto accomplish. We also know, as evidencedby the concluding participant anecdotes,that the program works. Now we have towork harder at proving it.

“I have just had the most mean-ingful event of my life for the pasteighteen years. Eighteen, be-cause that is my life span as aphysically disabled adult. It is un-fortunate that I had to becomedisabled to enjoy outdoor activi-ties on such a magnificent scaleas Wilderness Inquiry offers.”

—Natalie, a WI participant

This experience in the wildernesshas helped me to grow stronger.This feeling of accomplishmentis wonderful. I also saw otherswith disabilities share their skills,participate, and grow as peoplethis summer. We all paddled, setup camp, portaged, cooked,and got to know each other. Be-fore my trip, I knew people withdisabilities could do challengingthings, but I didn’t really believeit. Now I know and believe.”

—Patricia, a WI participant

For more information contact: WildernessInquiry, 1313 Fifth Street SE, Box 84,Minneapolis, MN USA 55414-1546. Tele-phone: (612) 379-3858 (voice or TDD);Fax: (612) 379-5972.

GREG LAIS is founder and executive director ofWilderness Inquiry. He received an M. B. A. from theUniversity of Minnesota and a B. A. in Psychologyfrom St. John’s University.

1The Boundary Waters bill was passed, and the sena-tor lost his bid for reelection.

REFERENCESEwert, A. 1989. Outdoor Adventure Pursuits: Founda-

tion, Models, Theories. Columbus, Ohio: PublishingHorizons, Inc.


Introduction

THIRTY YEARS AFTER PASSAGE of the US. WildernessAct of 1964, more than 115 wilderness allocation laws have

also been passed to designate additions to the National Wilder-ness Preservation System and sometimes to clarify wildernessstewardship direction. This is a good time to look at the characterof the wilderness and the people who use it. Have the character-istics of the American people who use wilderness changed overthe past 30 years? Have their patterns of use changed, or theirpreferences for how wilderness is managed?

At the Fourth International Symposium on Outdoor Recre-ation and Tourism Trends in St. Paul, Minnesota, May 14–17,1995, two sessions were devoted to discussing trends in wilder-ness users, resource conditions, and management.1 A mixture ofwilderness managers and planners, commercial and institutionaloutfitters, federal agency and university scientists, students, andother wilderness interests were assembled to discuss these trendsbased on results of scientific studies and personal experiences.The following is a highlight of important points made in thatdiscussion.

Recreation User TrendsOnly recently have we had the opportunity to document trendsin wilderness recreation use and user characteristics. An earlierattempt by Roggenbuck and Watson (1988) to document usertrends summarized results from 30 studies conducted at differentplaces at different times, but they found limited basis with whichto compare results and trends. At that time only one study hadspecifically compared wilderness recreation use at one place overtime. Lucas (1985) had compared user characteristics in the BobMarshall Wilderness Complex in Montana in 1970 and 1982.

Cole, Watson, and Roggenbuck (in press) explore in moredetail how wilderness recreation use has changed. The AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institute recently conducted orfunded replications of earlier visitor studies conducted in theDesolation Wilderness in California, the Boundary Waters Ca-noe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, and the Shining RockWilderness in North Carolina. The desolation study, conductedin 1990, compared results to two studies in 1972 (Lucas 1980;Stankey 1980). Shining Rock Wilderness visitors were also stud-ied in 1990, replicating an earlier study there in 1978(Roggenbuck,Watson, and Stankey 1982).A study in the Bound-ary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in 1969 (Stankey 1971,1973)was replicated in 1991. Additionally, studies by Burde and Curran(1986) in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park and a studyby Lucas (1985) in the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex wereaimed at similar purposes, provided complementary data, and areincorporated into this discussion of trends. These trend data,coupled with the expert knowledge held by symposium panel-ists, expanded the discussion.

Changes That OccurredBased on the five studies described, there were only five of the 63variables investigated that changed in a consistent way across atleast three of the areas (older visitors, more women, more minori-ties, other nontraditional users, and higher education levels—butnot income; visitors had been to other wildernesses and litter wasrated as less of a problem but still the biggest problem). There wereno changes in the opposite direction on any of these variables.

Wilderness visitors today tend to be older than those whoused wilderness in the past. For example, in the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness, the average age of users increased from25 to 37 from 1967 to 1991, a trend confirmed by members ofthe symposium panel. Greg Lais, founder and executive directorof Wilderness Inquiry, an organization that offers outdoor expe-riences to diverse groups of people including persons withdisabilities, acknowledged that visitor age is increasing among hisclientele. Bill Hansen, president of Sawbill Outfitters, also notedthe trend toward older clients.

Hansen noted other demographic changes in clients too, in-cluding a higher percentage of women among all groups, and moregroups of women taking wilderness trips. The increased percent-age of women among wilderness user samples confirms this trend.For example, in Shining Rock Wilderness there was an increasefrom 25% women in the 1978 sample to 31% in 1990. Outfittersbelieve there is generally an increasing tendency for “nontradi-tional” users of wilderness (i.e., more women, more persons withdisabilities, and more minorities, specifically His-panics and Asians).The outfitters believed that these changes in visitor characteristics

Trends in Recreation Use andManagement of Wilderness

BY BARBARA COOK AND WILLIAM BORRIE

SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

Clear Lake WSA—soon to be a new wilderness? Photo credit: Terry Tenold.


were related to increases in income and op-portunity rather than cultural valuesregarding wilderness. Use of wilderness byminorities and their ties to the land, is be-ing examined in depth by Patricia Winter,a social scientist with the U. S. Forest Ser-vices Wildland Recreation and UrbanCulture Research Project in Riverside,California, one of the symposium panel-ists. Looking at wilderness users inurban-proximate wilderness, she is investi-gating whether urban-proximate wildernessvisitor expectations are different from otherwilderness users.

Winter found that only 8% of a sampleof San Gorgonio Wilderness users were ra-cial minorities (mainly Hispanics andAsians), although the nearby communitiesof Los Angeles are 20 to 40% Hispanic.While minorities are not well representedamong wilderness users, even in wilder-ness areas with high numbers of minoritiesin nearby communities, continued growthin this segment of the population suggeststhe need for better knowledge about thevalues minorities associate with wilderness.

Another strongly consistent changeacross the wilderness studies spectrum wasthe increased educational level of visitors.Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wildernessvisitors increased from a median educationachievement level of 13.1 years in 1969 to16.4 years in 1991. Over half of the 1991visitors had a four-year college degree. De-spite these consistent and dramaticeducation changes, income was found toincrease only slightly. The median house-hold income of desolation visitors, forexample, (in 1990 U.S. dollars) was near$50,000 per year in both 1972 and 1990.

Another strongly consistent change wasthe proportion of visitors who have vis-ited other wilderness areas. In theBoundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness,this proportion changed from 45 to 58%.Of course, there are many more wilder-ness areas today that provide people withmore opportunities to visit a federally pro-tected wilderness than there have been atany time in the past.

The last strongly consistent change wasa tendency for visitors to evaluate litter assignificantly less of a problem than theyreported in earlier studies. Even though itwas consistently rated as less of a problemthan in the earlier studies, litter was stillthe most serious problem, according tovisitors, of the problems investigated.

Things That Did NotChange

From the five wilderness studies there were14 user characteristics that showed nochange between years. Characteristics thatremained the same were length of stay;percentage of visitors from urban areas(wilderness users continue to be mostlyurban residents); the percentage of peoplewho hike, swim, or photograph; visitorevaluations of wear and tear on resourceconditions; distance traveled off-trail; abil-ity to find a preferred level of solitude;number of groups encountered aroundcampsites; and attitudes toward facility de-velopment (day users remained ambivalentabout facilities and overnighters stillslightly oppose them). Thus, visitor char-acteristics changed more than the kind oftrips they took, the experiences theysought, or the evaluations of their visits.

Things to Watch for inthe Future

Bill Hansen reported his perception thatthe persons who use outfitters are seek-ing solitude, renewal, and a wildernessexperience, the same as nonoutfitted us-ers. Outfitted visitors, however, are willingto pay for better food, lightweight canoes,and better equipment. At the BoundaryWaters Canoe Area Wilderness, for ex-ample, they are expecting this market tocontinue to increase. Bulky aluminum ca-noes are being replaced by lightweight,new technology canoes, and the visitorsare willing to pay the difference it takes touse them.

Use by nontraditional visitors is ex-pected to increase. Wilderness Inquiry, theorganization that offers trips at places suchas the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wil-derness, the Everglades, Grand Canyon, and

Yellowstone by canoe, kayak, horseback, oron foot, surveyed wilderness managersacross the National Wilderness Preserva-tion System (NWPS) and asked them toestimate use by persons with disabilities. Thegross estimate was 16,000 persons with dis-abilities visiting wilderness each year, andthese numbers are increasing. Past researchsuggests that for persons with disabilitiesthe high points of a wilderness visit arescenery, location, a sense of achievement,personal relationships with other groupmembers, and solitude. The low points—rugged terrain, physical discomfort, pooraccess at entry points, and uncooperativegroup members—are similar to those ofthe general wilderness-using population.Persons with disabilities want the same ex-perience as other wilderness visitors. Theywant wilderness on its own terms, notmodified or changed. Wilderness manag-ers would do well to note that persons withdisabilities understand the risks and chal-lenges that come with wilderness and lookforward to them.

Future Changesin Wilderness Use

Is the way we use and value wilderness go-ing to change? Recreation is still one of thebiggest uses of wilderness (or at least the moststudied/reported on) and the types of rec-reation activities pursued in wildernessremains roughly the same. Bill Hansen ofSawbill Outfitters, says Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness visitors are first andforemost seeking the wilderness values ofsolitude and renewal. Fishing, once a majorattraction for his company’s clients, is nolonger a primary focus for most users.

Wilderness managers and the publicalike are beginning to focus more onvalues beyond the purely recreational use

Canoeing in the Mid Swamp/New River Wilderness (above).Photo credit: Karen Westley. Scenealong the Mud Swamp/New RiverWilderness (right).


of wilderness. One of the key points madeby Dan Williams of the University ofIllinois, is that what we value about wil-derness, in addition to what we do inwilderness, should guide how we describeand manage it. To date, most studies havefocused on recreational use of wilderness,but Williams now sees more interest byscientists in studying relationships betweenhumans and nature and suggests this willcontinue to be the focus of many futurestudies and of future management.

There is also more interest in scien-tific study of ecological values ofwilderness. Some managers and univer-sity scientists believe that over the last fiveyears recreational values of wilderness hasreceived less emphasis, compared to eco-log ical values. Alan Ewert of theUniversity of Northern British Colum-bia fears that the importance and powerof the wilderness experience will bedownplayed. Coupled with less empha-sis on environmental education by naturalresource agencies, Ewert speculates thiscould lead to a decline in youth partici-pation in wilderness. Managers need toensure that the values, interests, and skillsrelated to being in a natural environmentare encouraged in young people, and rec-reation is one way of experiencing andinculcating these values.

The way we use and value wildernesshas become global in scale. At the 1989celebration of the 25th Anniversary of theWilderness Act, Williams cited Michael

McClosky’s suggestion that we export theconcept of wilderness to other countriesin order to protect some of the earth’s lastwild places. This, too, has been the subjectof much debate in recent years among wil-derness managers and academics. Williamsreminds us that our concept of wilder-ness is uniquely American. The historicalcontext that led us to protect wildernessas part of our national heritage cannot betransferred cross-culturally. Other coun-tries do not have the same reasons for

preserving wild places, or the same typesof use. Indeed, for indigenous populations,recreational use of the scale that Americahas may be an anathema. In the UnitedStates we see wilderness as an uncivilizedplace where humans are only visitors. Fordeveloping countries whose indigenouspopulations must exist in and depend onthe resources, this concept does not fit intotheir cultural context.

Williams suggests two viewpoints toput recreational use of wilderness intoperspective. First, perhaps we should ques-tion the idea of recreation as a strictlyutilitarian use of wilderness. Recreationcan be nonutilitarian as well as provide aflow of experiences and benefits, andshould not be considered the key conceptof wilderness. It is a mistake, however, ifwilderness advocates minimize the valueof recreational use of wilderness in an ef-fort to bolster the case for nonutilitarianvalues. Much of that recreational use is anexpression of the greater value of wilder-

ness; its meaning is not merely seeking awilderness experience but a statement ofthe human value of that type of place. Sec-ond, we must begin to consider howpeople experience and value places. A“sense of place,” so often talked about bylandscape architects and others today,depends not only on how we value oruse wilderness when we are there, but howwe value it when we are not there.Wilderness has cultural meaning to us andindividuals bring their own cultural mean-ings and expectations with them to createtheir wilderness experience. Cultural values,such as subsistence or ancestral values, arenot usually addressed in studies whichfocus on recreational use.

Perhaps it is time for development of abroader wilderness ethic. Julia Parker, withthe Wildland Recreation and Urban Cul-tural Research Project in Riverside,California, suggested that different kindsof people with different kinds of valueswill view wilderness differently. Do ourpresent concepts of wilderness reflect thediversity of values of the American popu-lation? Perhaps they did at one time, butin the last 30 years the racial and ethnicmake-up of the American population haschanged. Parker suggests it is time for agreater democratization of wildernessconcepts; otherwise, we run the risk ofhaving income, opportunity, and culturalbackground become determining factorsin who uses wilderness. Wilderness runsthe risk of being thought of as an elitistvalue and if we don’t collect more dataon ethnic minorities and other nonuserswe won’t know if wilderness is indeed anelitist notion or if it has broad support.

ManagementImplications

Since visitor attitudes toward wildernessand visitor use patterns have remained rela-tively consistent despite sociodemographicchanges in the U.S. population, wilder-ness managers may have less need to worryabout shifts in the sociodemographic char-acteristics we have traditionally monitored(e.g., age, education, income) and moreneed to focus on ethnicity changes insociety or neighboring communities, dis-abled and minority uses of wilder ness,general public awareness of wildernessconcepts and values, and risks of incomeand opportunity becoming determiningfactors in wilderness access.

Canoeing in the Juniper Prairie Wilderness.

... we must begin to consider how people experience and valueplaces. “A sense of place,” ... depends not only on how we value oruse wilderness when we are there, but how we value it when weare not there.


Trends in WildernessManagement

The NWPS has grown from nine millionacres designated in 1964, to more than 104million acres. Thus, the American publichas voiced its approval of wildernessthrough Congress and the presidentialadministration’s actions. John Twiss, theNational Wilderness Program Leader forthe U.S. Forest Service in Washington, D.C., has an answer for that oft-asked ques-tion, “How much more wilderness can bedesignated?” By his estimate, there’s anotherpossible 60 million acres out there, includ-ing former RARE II areas, protected areas,and defacto (roadless) wilderness. The 1993Colorado Wilderness Act and the 1994California Desert Protection Act suggestthat wilderness designation is still feasible.Congress will respond when the supportfor wilderness designation is strongenough. The current focus is on potentialwilderness additions in Utah, Alaska, Ari-zona, and New Mexico, with significantadditional opportunities in Idaho, Mon-tana, and other states.

Natural processes won’t cease no matterwhat, but challenges lie ahead too.Twissidentified the four greatest threats to wil-derness as being: 1) distortion of naturalprocesses, primarily due to the lack of fire(resulting in unnatural fuel buildup); 2)pollution to air and water, and introduc-tion and spread of exotic species; 3) misuseand impacts by people, though recreationuse occurs on only about 2% of the wil-derness land base; 4) lack of scientificmonitoring. Using the U.S. Forest Serviceas an example, less than $1 million is spenton research; that’s less than one-half of onepercent of the budget, and wilderness com-prises about 20% of US. Forest Service lands.At present, it’s hard to report to Congresson the condition of the NWPS withoutdata. Twiss is adamant in calling for morebaseline research and monitoring to detectchanges in wilderness conditions.

Twiss also commented on legal trends.Interest from Congress is higher than ever,especially in wilderness allocation and man-agement. There is also some interest fromCongress in declassifying wilderness, a movethat could set a new precedent. Twiss alsoexpects an increase in lawsuits, more appealsover management actions or lack thereof,and prescriptive legislation telling managershow to manage wilderness. Allocation willcontinue, although more slowly.

Another trend is increased cooperationbetween agencies, with more exchange ofinformation and research, and the combinedmanagement of some resources. An examplewould be a prescribed fire being allowed toburn across agency boundaries, or across wil-derness boundaries. Managers can expect todeal with more non-conforming issues, andwill be monitored more closely by watch-dog groups focusing on how wildernessesare managed. More groups like WildernessWatch or Friends of the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness may form. Interestin wilderness and its management will gohigher, and managers will need to be able toanswer the questions Congress and the publicwill be asking.

Many wilderness managers had thechance to contribute their views of impor-tant trends in wilderness managementthrough a survey at the Sixth National Wil-derness Conference in Santa Fe, NewMexico, in November 1994. By rankingtheir concerns, Chris Barns of the U.S.Bureau of Land Management was able tocompare results from a similar ranking donein 1983 at a wilderness conference in Mos-cow, Idaho.Topping the list of concerns bymanagers in 1994 was the absence of natu-ral processes (28.3% of maximum possiblestandardized score of 100, compared to only11% in 1983). Other high-rated concernsin 1994 included nonconforming legal uses(21% compared to 20% in 1983), ecosys-tem management outside wilderness (21%compared to 10.6% in 1983), and the needto educate nontraditional users (20.2%compared to 15.2% in 1983).

Interestingly, the role of wilderness inbiodiversity and ecosystems, rated by 1994respondents at 12.3%, was not even men-tioned in the 1983 survey. In addition, theissue of handicapped accessibility, rated asa concern by 3.8% of managers, was thelowest-rated issue in 1983. The numberone issue from 1983, Limits of AcceptableChange (LAC) planning and recreationcarrying capacity, was only listed by 10.6%of managers in 1994.

Barns reported the top five actions ob-tained from multiple meetings, whichutilized the nominal group process facili-tation method, at the National WildernessConference held in Santa Fe were the needto: 1) acquire legal authority and fundingto retire nonconforming uses in wilder-ness; 2) develop and commit to a nationalstrategy to address wilderness education;

3) restore the natural process of fire towilderness ecosystems; 4) continue to funda field-based work force; and 5) add wil-derness education to environmentaleducation curricula for grades K— 12.

As a result of the changing issues andtop actions recommended by the partici-pants at the 1994 conference, Barnsanticipates an increase in management’sattention to the biophysical aspects of wil-derness rather than concentrating on therecreational/social values. In discussingtrends in wilderness education, he suggeststhere will be a move toward greater em-phasis on the values of wilderness and awayfrom education being primarily concernedwith low impact methods of visitation.

ImplicationsFirst, wilderness managers will need moreexpertise in legal aspects of wilderness. Suchexpertise will not only help in avoiding ap-peals and lawsuits, but a sound knowledgeof pertinent wilderness legislation will en-sure managers have firm ground fordecision making. Second, as the number ofwatchdog groups increase, wilderness man-agers will need to cooperate with them,enlisting their aid in developing manage-ment standards and wilderness regulations.Third, more money is needed for baselineresearch and monitoring. More wildernessresearch information looking at ecosys-tem functions as well as user impacts willhelp managers make better decisions.Fourth, managers must place greateremphasis on restoring natural processesin wilderness, specifically by increasingthe use of prescribed fire, both naturaland management-ignited. Fifth and last,there must be more cooperation in man-aging wilderness that extends acrossagency units and to other agencies. Theremust be more consistency in manage-ment across the NWPS.

Trends inHigher Education forWilderness Managers

One of the major opportunities to shapewilderness management in the future isthe education of wilderness managers. Tra-ditionally natural resource curricula havebeen sorely lacking in this area. Oftensuperficial, sometimes omitted completely,academic courses in wilderness manage-ment have been scarce in universities, orjust touched on in classes in recreation


management. But students leaving uni-versities with natural resource degreesneed to have an appreciation of wilder-ness, an understanding of its complexities,and an awareness of current policy andmanagement issues.

Perry Brown, dean of the School of For-estry at the University of Montana, believeseducation is a key path to achieving moreholistic wilderness management. Brown ex-pressed a view that wilderness study in auniversity curriculum should use a “wil-derness and civilization” approach (anoption at Montana) to teach students howwilderness fits into American life. In thisapproach, a combination of biology, music,art, history, religion, economics, and phi-losophy are interwoven to instill a personalwilderness ethic and an understanding ofwilderness values. A second approach towilderness is to emphasize management,but Brown states that curricula must em-body a holistic view of land ethics, landmanagement, and ecosystem management,focusing not just on biological and physi-cal components of a landscape but on thehuman component and what the landscapemeans to humans. Brown insisted it’s timeto make a greater investment in wildernessmanagers, and he expressed a view that allnatural resource curricula should offer

opportunities for students to developwilderness policy and legal expertise. Healso suggested that the prevalent attitudehas been that agency recreation and wil-derness programs would provide wildernesseducation for their employees throughhands-on experience and training.

Craig Mackey of Outward Bound sug-gests that agencies with wilderness stewardshipresponsibilities are still far behind in wilder-ness education. Mackey expresseddisappointment that 31 years after passage ofthe Wilderness Act of 1964 there is still a greatneed for basic wilderness education of man-agers and the public in general. Implications:Wilder ness may soon be recognized as itsown field of specialization in natural resources,and universities will need to respond to ademand for more classes or programs inwilderness management. IJW

BARBARA COOK, U.S. Forest Service, NationalForests of Florida, Woodcrest Office Park, 325 JohnKnox Road, Suite F-100, Tallahassee, FL 32303 USA.WILLIAM BORRIE, School of Forestry, Universityof Montana, Missoula, MT.

1 Proceedings from the Fourth International Out-door Recreation and Tourism Trends Symposium(May 14–17, 1995) may be obtained from theUniversity of Minnesota, Department of ForestResources, 115 Green Hall, 1530 North Cleve-land Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA.

REFERENCESBurde, J. H., and K. A. Curran. 1986. User percep-

tion of backcountry management policies atGreat Smoky Mountains National Park. In Wil-derness and Natural Areas in the Eastern UnitedStates: A Management Challenge. D. L. Kulhavy,and R. N. Conner, eds. Nacogdoches, Texas:Center for Applied Studies, School of Forestry,Stephen F. Austin State University. 223–228.

Cole, D., A. Watson, and J. Roggenbuck. In press/Trends in Wilderness Visitors and Visits: Bound-ary Waters Canoe Area, Shining Rock, andDesolation Wildernesses. Ogden, Utah: U. S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, In-termountain Research Station.

Lucas, R. 1980. Use patterns and visitor character-istics, attitudes and preferences in nine wilder-ness and other roadless areas. Research PaperINT–253. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, IntermountainForest and Range Experiment Station.

Lucas, R. 1985. Visitor characteristics, attitudes, anduse patterns in the Bob Marshall WildernessComplex, 1970–1982. Research Paper INT–345. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agri-culture, Forest Service, Intermountain ResearchStation.

Roggenbuck, J., and A. Watson. 1988. Wildernessrecreation use: the current situation. In Out-door recreation benchmark 1988: Proc. of the Na-tional Outdoor Recreation Forum. A. Watson, comp.January 13–14, 1988, Tampa, Fla. Gen. Tech.Rep. SE-52. Asheville, N.C.: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, SoutheasternForest Experiment Station. 346–356.

Roggenbuck, J., A. Watson, and G. Stankey. 1982.Wilderness management in the Southern Ap-palachians. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry,6: 147–152.

Stankey, G. 1971. The perception of wilderness rec-reation carrying capacity: a geographic studyin natural resources management. Ph.D. diss.Michigan State University. East Lansing, Mich.

____________1973. Visitor perception of wilder-ness recreation carrying capacity. Research Pa-per INT–142. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, IntermountainForest and Range Experiment Station.

____________1980. A comparison of carrying capacityperceptions among visitors to two wildernesses.Research Paper INT–242. Ogden, Utah: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Inter-mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.


Introduction

LIKE A THUNDERHEAD building on a hot summer day,there is a growing peril looming over the wilderness land-

scape—the rapid expansion of invasive exotic plants intowilderness ecosystems. These invaders are beginning to destroynatural ecosystems in far too many wilderness areas. Without majorincreased control efforts these aggressive plants will continueexpanding through and degrading the lands we value most: desig-nated wilderness and wilderness study areas.

Wilderness managers and the public must first understand moreabout the proliferation of exotic plants and their often perma-nent damage to ecosystem health. If we act quickly, however, ona large scale, cooperative exotic plant management can beeconomical and effective.

Exotic Plant Invasionson Western Wildlands

Since exotic plants arrived in this country without their naturalenemies, they are typically very aggressive. They prefer disturbedsites, but they commonly invade relatively undisturbed plant com-munities as well. “Several exotic, noxious, perennial weeds,including spotted, diffuse and Russian knapweeds, leafy spurge,and yellow star thistle, are moving into excellent condition standsof native vegetation” (Harris 1991). Tyser and Key (1988) re-ported that spotted knapweed invaded and reproduced in roughfescue communities in Glacier National Park. Forcella and Harvey(1983) documented Eurasian weeds dominating relatively undis-turbed grasslands in Montana. “Several exotic weeds will invadeundisturbed climax communities and can become significant com-ponents of a community” (Bedunah 1992). While discussing theecological equilibrium of native communities, Bedunah also noted“that the introduction of exotic plants can throw this balance off,possibly forever.”

Weeds are spread by vehicles, humans, horses, livestock, wind,water, and wildlife. For example, S. Dewey (personal comment 1993)reported that birds spread weed seeds, and leafy spurge is beingspread by elk and deer in the Naomi wilderness area in Utah.According to D. Lange (personal comment 1993) Elk have beenreported to eat knapweed seedheads. It also has been shown thatover 13% of spotted knapweed seeds pass undamaged through thedigestive tracts of mule deer (Wallander et al. 1992). D. Lange alsonoted that ground squirrels have also been observed carrying knap-weed seedheads into their burrows (personal comment 1993).

To address the management of exotic plants in wilderness wemust understand the exotic plant invasions in adjacent lands. Exoticplants increased on the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)lands from 2.5 million acres in 1985 to over 8 million acres in1994. When exotic plant populations on the U.S. Forest Service,

National Park Service, and the US. Fish and Wildlife Service landsare included, that acreage nearly doubles.

Recognizing that exotic plants typically increase at about 14%per year if unchecked, the increased infestation rate on thesefederal lands is now approximately 4,600 acres per day, an “explo-sion in slow motion.”

A few examples of recent exotic plant increases will serve todemonstrate the rapid invasions that are underway. Spotted knap-weed, first reported in Montana in 1920, has increased to over 4million acres in that state alone. Similarly, there are over 600,000acres of leafy spurge in Montana. During the last 30 years, leafyspurge has increased from 200,000 acres into over 1 million acresin North Dakota. Since 1977 yellow star thistle infestations innorthern California have spread from 1 million acres to over 10million acres today. In Idaho, rush skeleton weed has expandedfrom 40 acres in the early 1960s to over 4 million acres today.

Exotic plants typically spread more slowly in wilderness butthese areas are not immune. For example, parts of the Selway–Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho are severely infested with spottedknapweed, and acreage estimates range up to 40,000 acres. Sheepand cattle have not grazed in this area for over 50 years and log-ging and mining have been absent. The exotic plant introductionhas been attributed to recreational activities.

Exotic Plants Destroythe Natural Integrity of Wilderness

The Wilderness Act of 1964 mandates that wilderness be adminis-tered so its community of life is untrammeled by man, its primevalcharacter is retained, and its natural conditions are preserved (PL88–577). Policy directs that wilderness be managed to ensure that itsecosystems and ecological processes function naturally (USDI BLM

SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

Invasive Exotic Plants Are Destroying theNaturalness of U.S. Wilderness Areas

BY JERRY E. ASHER AND DAVID W. HARMON

Dyer’s woad, subject to transport by people and wildlife along a trail in theWellsville wilderness in Utah.


1983) with biodiversity and ecosystemhealth being key management goals. Ex-otic plant invasions violate these mandates,policies, and goals.

Naturalness, a condition of being freefrom the evidence of human activity, isone of the principal definitions of the wil-derness condition. Since it is assumed thatpractically no roadless landscape is trulypristine, thus having no evidence whatso-ever of human use, naturalness is relative.For a roadless area to meet the naturalnesscriterion, the land must appear to be natu-ral to the average visitor. For example,subtle changes in vegetative patterns, suchas the beginnings of a weed invasion, didnot disqualify an area from wilderness con-sideration during the BLM’s wildernessinventory conducted in 1978-1980. Themore obvious impacts to natural condi-tions, such as seedings of crested wheatgrass, past timber harvesting, or the pres-ence of structures were considered themost important unnatural intrusions in theinventory of natural conditions of prospec-tive wilderness areas.

Few would dispute the fact that thesesurface disturbing activities severely impactthe naturalness of a landscape. However, thetransformation of complex and biologicallydiverse wilderness ecosystems that haveevolved over the millennia to exotic, weedymonocultures creates a far greater impacton the wilderness than a few structures. Al-though the average wilderness visitor maynot realize it, there is little that is naturalabout an unroaded landscape dominatedby knapweed.

If a vegetative community is function-ing well, the soil, air, water, and animalcomponents of the ecosystem will func-tion well also. Therefore, healthy nativevegetative communities are the foundationsupon which wilderness values rest. Thesingle greatest impact to this native vegeta-tion is the rapid spread of invasive plants.For example, exotic invasive plants canrapidly infest wilderness sites following fire.Then, in a few years a near monoculturemay evolve, drastically reducing naturaldiversity of native plants, associated wild-life, and stable soil. Exotic plants increaseerosion, reduce water quality, and serve asindicators of, and contributors to, deserti-fication (Asher 1994).

Nondegradationand the Minimum Tool

An important principal of wildernessmanagement is that of nondegradation ofwilderness values (Hendee and Lucas1990). The goal is to maintain the area’snatural qualities and opportunities for soli-tude and pr imitive (nonmotor ized)recreation over the long term. The bench-mark is the characteristics that existed atthe time of wilderness designation. Themanager must attempt to maintain the val-ues over the long term and, when possible,enhance them through actions that mightrestore natural and solitude qualities wherethey have become degraded.

When weeds invade and expand into awilderness environment they degrade the wil-derness qualities that existed at the time thearea was designated wilderness. If nothing is

done to curb their expansion or to eradi-cate them, the principal of nondegradationhas been violated. Naturalness, as well ashabitat for wildlife and scientific values ofonce biologically diverse landscapes, willbe eroded. Wilderness managers who ig-nore this situation will be contributing tothe degradation of the public resourcesthey have been entrusted to manage.

Another important concept of wildernessmanagement is that of using the “minimumtool.” This means that when planning neces-sary actions within wilderness, managers mustuse the minimum necessary tools, equipments,or structures to accomplish wilderness man-agement objectives. The challenge is tomanipulate the wilderness environment aslittle as possible and only in a manner that iscompatible with maintaining wilderness val-ues, while still achieving desired results. Forexample, if a wilderness ranger has collecteda summer’s worth of garbage in a centrallocation that must be removed, the minimumtool approach would utilize pack animalsrather than the more expedient approach ofsling loading the material out with a heli-copter. The pack string is much morecompatible with the wilderness setting.

Can wilderness managers take action tocurb weed invasions in an acceptable man-ner? Control methods might includehand-pulling, grubbing with hand tools, bio-logical control, and chemical control. Theminimum tool approach to wilderness man-agement would typically suggesthand-pulling or grubbing as the leastimpacting to wilderness values and there-fore the most acceptable. These methods areeffective for some species but not for exten-sively rooted plant species. Effectivebiological controls are not available for manyinvasive exotic plants and bio-controls areleast effective on small isolated infestations.

When Chemical Controlis the Minimum Tool

In some situations chemical applicationmay be the only effective control—andthus the minimum tool. Rush skeletonweed, an exotic from Europe, was ob-served gaining a toehold in Washington’sJuniper Dunes Wilderness, a land of roll-ing sand dunes and western juniper.Scotch thistle, another hardy invasive spe-cies, was present in a small patch justoutside the boundary of the wilderness,but threatening to spread. While thethistle was easily eradicated by grubbing

Badlands WSA (Oregon) is behind the wildernessboundary sign. People, livestock, and wildlife aretansporting seeds from the spotted knapweed in theforeground into the WSA. Exotic plant seed sources,especially in access areas need to be controlled (above).Forest service ranger Dennis Dailey examines a spot-ted knapweed infestation following a recent fire in theSellway–Bitteroot Wilderness. If crews returned to wild-fire areas to remove new exotic plant infestations,allowing native plants to return, it would cost a tinyfraction of the fire suppression expenditures.


with hand tools, the survival of nativebunch grasses and other plants within thewilderness were threatened by the rushskeleton weed as this species has the ca-pability of dominating the ecosystem.Once established, the deeply rooted plantscannot be controlled with hand pullingor grubbing with hand tools. Chemicalapplication was the only effective alter-native (i.e., the minimum tool).

After explaining the problem to thepublic, preparing an environmental assess-ment, and garnering the support from localenvironmental groups, the chemical Pi-cloram was applied to individual plantswith backpack sprayers (USDI, BLM1992). Picloram kills broadleaf plants forup to three years after application, so itwas essential to confine the spray to a ra-dius of three feet around individualrosettes. After several follow-up applica-tions, the weed has been nearly eradicatedfrom the wilderness.

There is traditional opposition to theuse of chemicals in wilderness, and man-agers accept it only as a last resort. But ifwe are to save ecosystems from silent in-vasion and ultimate take-over by exoticplants, and if the particular weed speciescan only be controlled with chemicals,wouldn’t it be better to use chemicalssparingly on very small areas to protectthe much larger areas, and in a mannerthat is sensitive to the wilderness envi-ronment? Isn’t the trade-off worth theundesirable (but short-term) situation ofchemicals in wilderness? Here the mini-mum tool concept still applies. Chemicalsshould be used only when they are theminimum methods for meeting the ob-jectives. Then, instead of broadcastspraying with a helicopter, chemicalsshould be applied to individual plantswith a backpack sprayer or with tankstransported by a pack animal.

Degradation ofWilderness Resources

is a Worldwide ProblemThe natural qualities in many of the world’swilderness areas are under attack by inva-sive exotic plants. Simply letting “naturetake its course” will only exacerbate thedisplacement of native vegetation. Exoticplants alter ecological processes that oper-ate everywhere. While most wildernessmanagement may be people management,its heart and soul surely rest on maintain-ing natural processes and vegetation.

Strategies forProtecting Wilderness

Naturalness1. Exotic plants prefer disturbed sites sowe must manage wilderness to minimizedisturbance. This includes limiting distur-bance by recreation use, outfitters, mining,livestock, and so forth.

2. Carriers are the key, so weed seed trans-port by people, pack animals, livestock, etc.,must be minimized.

3. Exotic plant management is almostidentical to fire management. The widelyunderstood fire model of prevention, de-tection, and quick control can be used todevelop understanding and support for ag-gressive exotic plant management. Sincethe long term impacts from exotic plantsare more serious and often permanentwhen compared to fire, exotic plant man-agement deserves at least as much urgentattention as fire control activities.

4. Exotic plant control should be integratedinto the national Leave No Trace Program.Put “pull it out” on a par with “pack it out.”

5. Surrounding lands should be coopera-tively managed to minimize sources of

exotic plant seed. Wildlife and livestockwintering areas are often sources of con-tamination as are trailheads and roadsleading to wilderness areas.

Wilderness as aBeachhead for the War

on Exotic PlantsJust like the military uses a “beachhead” tolaunch strategic activities, wilderness canserve as a prevention and control beach-head, providing leadership in the battleagainst exotic plants everywhere. To pro-tect wilderness we must aggressively attackexotic plants in surrounding areas. Oncekey people understand and support thisprocess, then areas adjacent to lands thatsurround wilderness will also receive ap-propriate invasive plant management.Wilderness provides the best place to fo-cus because wilderness typically has themost natural conditions, limited access,committed constituents who can help, anda legal mandate to protect naturalness comesdirectly from the 1964 Wilderness Act. IJW

JERRY ASHER is a natural resource specialist in theOregon State Office of the Bureau of Land Management,with responsibility for weed research and management.DAVID HARMON is Oregon State WildernessCoordinator for BLM.Telephone: (503) 952-6368.

REFERENCESAsher, J. 1994. Rapidly expanding exotic weeds:

indicators of and contributors to desertifica-tion. Paper presented at the International Sym-posium on Desertification in DevelopedCountries, 25 October, Tucson, Arizona.

Bedunah, D. 1992. The Complex Ecology of Weeds,Grazing and Wildlife. Western Wildlands, 18: (2).

Forcella, E, and S. J. Harvey. 1983. Eurasian Weed In-festation in Western Montana in Relation to Veg-etation Disturbance. Madrono, 30: (2) 102–109.

Harris, G. A. 1991. Grazing Lands of WashingtonState. Rangelands, 13: 222–227.

Hendee, S., et al. 1990. Wilderness Management.Golden, Colo.: North American Press.

Tyser, R. W., and C. H. Key. 1988. Spotted Knap-weed in Natural Area Fescue Grassland: AnEcological Assessment. NW Sci., 62: 151

U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement. 1983. Manual Transmittal Sheet8560, Management of Designated Wilderness

Areas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of LandManagement. 1992. Environmental Analysis OR130 0206. Juniper Forest Noxious Weed Con-trol. Washington, D.C.: US. Government Print-ing Office.

Wallander, R., B. Olsen, J. Lacey. 1992. Passage ofSpotted Knapweed by Sheep/Mule Deer. Wash-ington Knapweed Newsletter, 6: (4) 1–2.

Chemicals being applied to very small patches ofleafy spurge on a steep slope in Idaho. Once estab-lished, this deep-rooted species cannot be controlledby pulling or grubbing with hand tools.


Human Associationwith Australian Wilderness

AUSTRALIA RETAINS SEVERAL LARGE, remote, and natural areas. Even so, these areas represent a small and

diminishing proportion of the country’s land area, particularlyon the more densely settled eastern seaboard.

A workable wilderness concept for Australia needs to takeinto account the layers of human history across the continentthat have left a range of imprints on the landscape. Arguably, muchof Australia could be considered a cultural landscape, despite theabsence of widespread, urban cultural features.

There has been a dramatic rise in the profile of issues relatingto Australia’s indigenous peoples, with an accompanying recog-nition of the importance of their activities in shaping the Australianlandscape. Aboriginal people reached Australia at least 50,000 yearsago, and it has been argued that occupation spread rapidly rightacross the continent. Over the millennia Aboriginal peoplesbrought major changes to their environment, especially throughhunting and burning.

The idea of wilderness as land with no human presence orimpacts is of major concern to Aboriginal groups. Certainly thevery close ties of Australia’s indigenous peoples with their tradi-tional lands stand in stark contrast with the concept of “wilderness”

as land that is remote or lacking in human imprint, as defined inthe United States Wilderness Act of 1964. In a similar vein toAboriginal groups, some Australian historians have expressed con-cerns that the wilderness concept can lead to cultural imprintson the landscape not being recognized, or to pressures to removecultural heritage from areas managed for wilderness objectives.Even in areas managed for wilderness values there has often beena long European association which has left subtle marks on thelandscape, and which would detract from a view of wilderness asunaffected by human activity.

The ongoing changes to the Australian environment by hu-man activities must be placed against the backdrop of dramaticenvironmental change brought about by climatic change even inthe last 20,000 years. There is no single static “pristine environ-ment” to which a wilderness manager can set out to restore ormaintain an area.

Australian Concepts of WildernessMany of the early British settlers found the Australian “bush”alien and hostile. Affinity for the Australian natural environmentincreased in the nineteenth century and Australian ideas of wil-derness were doubtless informed by the Romantics and importantAmerican thinkers, but the Australian wilderness tradition hashad its own distinctive history.

Wilderness issues have been central to many land use contro-versies in Australia over the last 20 years. Support for wildernessprotection in the 1970s came conspicuously from outdoorrecreationists, and this was reflected by wilderness being conceivedas providing a certain experience, close to nature and removedfrom the influence of modern technological society. The mainvalues recognized in Australia for wilderness areas have been:

• nature conservation• recreational opportunity• providing spiritual/emotional experiences• intrinsic values for “wilderness has a right to exist”• scientific research

More recently the emphasis in Australia has shifted from recreationvalues to nature conservation values and “intrinsic” values. This hasbeen accompanied by a changed perception of the wilderness

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Australian Approaches to WildernessBY JONATHAN MILLER

[Editor’s Note: Australia does not have national wilderness legislation such as exists in Finland, the United States, Canada,and South Africa, but rather relies on legislation passed at a state level. Currently, six of the eight states, plus theAustralian Commonwealth Territory (analogous to, but much larger than, the jurisdiction of Washington, D.C.) havesuch legislation. However, some wilderness initiatives are taken at a national level, the best example of which is theNational Wilderness Inventory (NWI), a pioneering effort recently completed in Australia. In the following article, JonathanMiller of the Australian Heritage Commission provides a brief introduction to the NWI framed within a general picture ofAustralian approaches to wilderness, and some of the wilderness management objectives down under. Look for moredetailed information on the NWI in upcoming issues of the International Journal of Wilderness. —Vance G. Martin]

Mt. Manfred, in Tasmania’s famed Cradle Mountains, Lake St. Claire Natural Park.Photo credit: David Ziegeler, Australian Heritage Commission Collection.


landscape. Wilderness areas are no longerconceived as lacking in human history, butrather as areas large enough and in suchcondition that they allow the long-termmaintenance of natural systems and bio-logical diversity, as well as cultural values.

Over the last decade the conservationof biological diversity has become the pre-eminent conservation concern for naturalenvironment planners in Australia, aselsewhere. While not all Australian con-servation planners see the protection ofwilderness areas as necessary to maintainbiodiversity, or even an efficient means ofdoing so, wilderness areas do provide pos-sibilities for protecting biological systemsand natural processes.

Australian NationalWilderness Inventory

A definition of wilderness that has beenwidely adopted is “... an area that is, orcan be restored to be: of sufficient size toenable the long-term protection of itsnatural systems and biological diversity;substantially undisturbed by colonial andmodern technological society; and remoteat its core from points of mechanized ac-cess and other evidence of colonial andmodern technological society.”

Consistent with this definition is theAustralian National Wilderness Inventory(ANWI) techniques, which establishes aGeographic Information System (GIS)database of wilderness quality. The ANWIstarts from the premise that the distinc-tive elements of wilderness areas are size,remoteness, and naturalness. It then definesremoteness and naturalness of land interms of the imprints on landscape bymodern technological society. Recently,there has been considerable internationalinterest in the use of the ANWI, includ-ing within the International Union for theConservation of Nature. A survey of partsof Scandinavia and Russia has now beencompleted, and may be extended to thewhole Arctic region.

The ANWI approach allows explora-tion of the value society places on remoteand natural land, even if it is below a mini-mum size threshold for wilderness areas.Over time minimum size thresholds ap-pear to decrease as remote and natural areasdiminish. This approach also allows areasto be selected for the protection (and res-toration) of remoteness and naturalnessvalues, irrespective of the areas’ size or

whether the land necessarily has importantidentified biological or recreational values.

Systematic Assessmentwith the Inventory

One of the benefits of the ANWI approachis that it allows for the systematic iden-tification of wilderness areas across broadareas, using explicit thresholds and crite-ria for selection.

With the completion of nationalANWI data coverage, the Australian Heri-tage Commission will undertake thenational identification of wilderness areas.One challenge is that wilderness values areunevenly distributed across the continent.In eastern Australia wilderness areas arerelatively small and confined to mountain-ous areas. In contrast, the arid lands thatdominate central and western Australiahave huge expanses of remote and naturalland. It is impossible to set a single thresh-old that does not include the majority ofAustralia’s land mass, but that does notexclude the smaller areas on the east coast,which are certainly valued as wilderness.Stratification of the country into two ormore zones may be a solution.

The ANWI database also allows for con-sideration of wilderness values at a regionalplanning level. The Australian HeritageCommission has been conducting regionalheritage assessments in forest regions, andhas set its thresholds for the identification

of significant areas on the basis of the rela-tive abundance or scarcity of remote andnatural values in the region.

Using the GIS-based ANWI techniques,remoteness, and naturalness values can beincorporated with other layers of landinformation, such as biological data, to makea powerful basis for designing nature con-servation systems. It can be usefully linkedto gap analysis processes, and in this casebecomes an indicator of land condition.

Government Actions toProtect Wilderness

Under Australia s constitution, the statesand territories have prime land manage-ment responsibility. The Commonwealth(or national) government has direct con-trol over very little land, but hasincreasingly become involved in environ-mental policy. Over the last three years ithas facilitated a range of national environ-mental strategies. The Commonwealth iscommitted to establishment of a compre-hensive, National Reserve System by theyear 2000, and the protection of wilder-ness could be achieved through thatsystem. Forest wilderness areas will be re-served under a separate initiative.

The Commonwealth has established aWilderness and Wild Rivers Unit in theAustralian Heritage Commission whichwill continue work on the National Wil-derness Inventory and the Wild Rivers

Figure 1—The Wilderness Continuum

After land Conservation Council; Lesslie and Taylor (1985).


program. The unit also will administer aCommonwealth wilderness program, forwhich objectives are being finalized. Wil-derness legislation is absent at theCommonwealth level, but if it were everenacted, its scope would probably be lim-ited to protecting the very limitedwilderness estate on Commonwealth land,

and to ensuring that Common-wealth agencies do not act todegrade wilderness. Specificlegislation has been passed bystate governments in New SouthWales, Victor ia, and SouthAustralia to protect wilderness,and there are provisions forwilderness management inQueensland and the AustralianCapital Territory.

WildernessManagement

IssuesWhile European settlement in 1788may be one useful theoreticalbenchmark from which to measurechanges to the landscape, Australianwilderness managers do not try torecreate the evolving landscape as it

appeared at that point in time. Rather, the goalof wilderness management is to maintain orrestore wilderness quality within a matrix ofother objectives, such as maintenance of cul-tural heritage and broad nature conservation.Australian wilderness managers face a numberof challenges, including increasing pressuresfrom recreation and ecotourism.

Aboriginal sites are protected by stronglegislation in all states, and these apply alsoin wilderness areas. Nonindigenous cul-tural heritage sites are assessed for theirsignificance and maintained and protectedif considered important; otherwise they areleft to decay or are sometimes removed.The protection of cultural values in wil-derness areas raises interesting questionsof accommodating apparently conflictingobjectives. Restoration of wilderness val-ues remains controversial, particularlywhere this would reduce the access ofgroups who have had a history of access.

Finally, increasing recognition of Aborigi-nal access rights to their traditional landsraises a number of issues, including hunt-ing in protected areas, and mechanizedaccess in wilderness areas. Most impor-tant will be the increasing land estaterecognized as Aboriginal land and howprotection of wilderness values might beachieved in these lands with the agree-ment of the Aboriginal owners. IJW

JONATHAN MILLER IS director, NaturalEnvironment Section, Australian Her itageCommission, GPO Box 1567, Canberra, ACT, 2601Australia. Telephone: 61-6-271-2111; Fax: 61-6-273-2395. Internet: [email protected].

Figure 2—Wilderness Quality

REFERENCESAustralian Heritage Commission. 1993. National

Wilderness Inventory: Bulletin No. 1. Adelaide,Australia: Australian Heritage Commission.

Australian Heritage Commission. 1994. NationalWilderness Inventory: Bulletin No. 2. Adelaide,Australia: Australian Heritage Commission.

Baird Lambert, J. 1988. The need for legislativeprotection of wilderness. In wilderness and itsrole in the preservation of biodiversity: the needfor a shift in emphasis. L. E. Carter. 1992. Aus-tralian Zoologist, 28(1–4): 28–36.

Commonwealth of Australia. This paper is expandedand updated from a summary in ‘Wilderness, theSpirit Lives’, Handbook to the Sixth NationalWilderness Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico,USA 14–18 November 1994.

Etdsvik, H. 1989. The Status of Wilderness: An in-ternational Overview. Natural Resources Journal,29: 57–82.

Head, L. 1992. Australian Aborigines and a Chang-ing Environment—Views of the Past andImplications for the Future. In Aboriginal In-volvement in Parks and Protected Areas. J.Birckhead, T. De Lacey, and L. Smith, eds.Canberra, Australia: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Jones, R. 1968. The Geographical Background tothe Arrival of Man in Australia and Tasmania.Archaeology & Physical Anthropology in OceaniaIII, (3): 186–215.

Lines, W. J. 1991. Taming the Great South Land: AHistory of the Conquest of Nature in Australia.North Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Lesslie, R. 1993. The National Wilderness Inven-tory: wilderness identification, assessment andmonitoring in Australia. A paper presented tothe 5th World Wilderness Congress Sympo-sium on International Wilderness Allocation,Management and Research, Tromso, Norway.

Lesslie, R., D.Taylor, and M. Maslen. 1993. Na-tional Wilderness Inventory: Handbook of prin-ciples, procedures and usage. Canberra, Australia:Australian Heritage Commission.

Miller, J. 1993. Evolution of wilderness conceptsin Australia. A paper presented to the 5th WorldWilderness Congress Symposium on Interna-tional Wilderness Allocation, Management andResearch, Tromso, Norway.

Preece, K. 1992. Wilderness Conservation: the ‘Quality’approach. Advances in Nature Conservation, 1: 19–29.

Pyne, S. 1991. Burning Bush: A Fire History of Aus-tralia. New York, N.Y.: Henry Holt and Co.

Robertson, M., K. Vang, and A. J. Brown. 1992.Wilderness in Australia: issues and options. Adiscussion paper. Australian Heritage Commis-sion, Canberra, Australia.

Sultan, R. 1991. A Voice in the Wilderness? Aboriginalperspectives on conservation. Habitat, 19(3): 2.


THE ITALIAN WILDERNESS SOCIETY (AIW) was offi-cially founded in 1985 after about five years of activities,

during which we publicized what we refer to as the “wildernessidea.” Having learned from American history, the AIW promotesan environmental ethic in which it is assumed that: nature has acultural and spiritual value for humans; nature has a right to existfor itself (per se); and, most importantly, wilderness areas needlaws and/or measures to protect them as forever wild.

AIW adopted a concept of “wilderness area” designation similarto the American concept. But it was adapted to the European realityof a land which has ancient human improvements, as old as a millen-nium, a land where human tracks are everywhere. The high populationdensity in Europe is a grave problem for the conservation of wildplaces, and for the use of natural renewable resources. Given thishigh human impact on wild places, the AIW considered it impor-tant to maintain within designated wilderness areas some restrictedand controlled use of resources, such as wood cutting, pasturage, andhunting rights. But where forest exploitation is permitted, it will beoperated only with traditional methods of transport, with pack mulesand horses. Nevertheless, in all such areas an interior zone was de-clared, where forest exploitation is prohibited. The Italian wildernessconcept is similar to the concept adopted by Finland in 1991, whichestablished wilderness areas in the Lapland region.

It is important to note, however, that the decision to designatewilderness areas has a very low priority to Italian public authori-ties. Such decisions are actually more important at the democraticgrassroots level because wilderness decisions are people-based andshould be approved by the people.

In ten years of activity, the AIW has stopped roads, dams, and otherdamaging construction in many wild places, and obtained the desig-nation of seven small municipal and regional “wilderness areas.” These“postage-stamp sized wilderness areas” provide examples for the Ital-ian wilderness concept, with the long-term objective to obtain regionaland/or state laws preserving the last wild places of the country.

Another victory for the AIW was the establishment (with thehelp of The WILD Foundation) of the Val Grande National Park

for the preservation of the wildest area of the Alps, of whichapproximately 28,000 acres (11,700 hectares) were considered tohave wilderness values significant enough to establish the parkand guide its future management priorities.

Italy’s First Designated WildernessThe first designation of a “wilderness area” took place in 1988,with the help of a private foundation that gave the AIW a manage-ment agreement for 283 acres (118 hectares) in the wildest valleyremaining in the Romagna Region (Fosso del Capanno Wilder-ness Area). After this first step, the Regional Forestry authorityagreed to classify as wilderness 622 acres (259 hectares) of its landadjacent to this private area, followed by the Municipality of Bagnodi Romagna, which agreed to unify its public and other privatelands to the area, adding another 919 acres (383 hectares).

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

[Editor’s Note: How many times have you heard that wilderness does not exist in modern Europe? Therefore, don’tunderestimate the value and significance of this brief article. It illustrates the importance of the wilderness concept, andthe power of persistence in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Most of all, it shows us that individuals canmake a difference for wilderness all over the world.

Franco Zunino presented his vision for wilderness in Italy at the 3rd World Wilderness Congress held in Scotlandin 1983. At the time he thought his long struggle for wilderness recognition might fail. But, with support andencouragement from international colleagues, he never looked back. He renewed his vision and determination, andthe Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness began to grow. This dedicated group have subsequently created a model forwilderness conservation, protection, and legislation for all of Europe, which has both symbolic and practical importance.Wilderness trivia buffs (and others) should note that the word “wilderness” is now part of the Italian language, and that“Area Wilderness” is an officially recognized land designation in Italy. —Vance G. Martin]

The Wilderness Movement in Italy—A Wilderness Model for Europe

BY FRANCO ZUNINO

Figure 1. Wilderness areas in Italy


But the first public authority that accepted the wilderness conceptas a type of land conservation, the Commune of Mignano MonteLungo in the Campania Region, adopted a decision in 1990 designat-ing the 2,800-acre (1,160-hectare) Monte Cesima Wilderness Area.

The AIW achieved a significant victory last year, when the Re-gional Forestry authority of the Veneto Region in the northeasternAlps agreed to establish a 2,400-acre (1,000-hectare) wilderness area.A few months later the local municipality agreed to enlarge the areato a total of 8,100 acres (3,380 hectares). In the future, this area willprobably become the largest established wilderness in Italy, becauseit is part of a larger mountainous region of over 48,000-72,000 acres(20,000-30,000 hectares), which is extremely wild and rugged.

After 10 years of the AIW activities, the Italian environmentalmovement as a whole is now familiar with and speaks of the wilder-

ness concept, wilderness values, and the wilderness experience. Theseconcepts have helped define a pure and visionary aspect of landconservation previously unknown in Italy—and in modern Europe.

More work is needed to strengthen the wilderness movementand to conserve the wildest regions remaining in the country.These regions are large, up to 72,000 acres (30,000 hectares),such as: Majella and Serra Lunga Mountains in Abruzzo Region;Supramonte Plateau and Orosei Coast Gulf in Sardegna Region;Val Grande Mountains in Piemonte Region; Orsomarso Moun-tains in Calabria Region; Adamello Mount in the Alps; or EtnaVolcan in Sicilia.We continue to work.

FRANCO ZUNINO, a former forester and wildlife manager, founded and directsthe Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, and can be contacted at C.P. #61, 67050Villavallelarga (AQ), Italy.

Wilderness Areas in Italy(proposed by the Italian Wilderness Society and established by municipal and regional authorities)

Fosso Del Capanno (The Hidden Creek)Region: Emilia RomagnaDesignation year: 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993Wilderness area: 760 hectares; 1,825 acresInside conservation zone: 533 hectares; 1,280 acresJust south of the newest Casentino Forest National Park, it is probablythe largest wild area of the Romagna Region. The area includes arugged valley on the east slope of the northern Appennino Moun-tains; rich with oaks, Ostrya c. and beech woods; with many streamsand very scenic gray cliffs; and Appennino fauna such as red deer, roedeer, wild boar, wolf, goshawk, eagle, and owl.

Monte Cesima (Cesima Mountain)Region: CampaniaDesignation year: 1990Wilderness area: 1.160 hectare; 2.80 acresInside conservation zone: 455 hectares; 1,090 acresThis area includes the western slope of a small mountain of 1,180 meterson which appears all the vegetation belts of the South Appennino Moun-tains, from the chaparral to the beech forest and high mountain pasture.With very rare flora and fauna species, as the orchid, Ophrys lacaitae; irisgermanica; a population of testudo (Testudo hermanni); a peregrinefalcon breeding pair; and the porcupine. It is on the site of Monte Lungo,a well-noted and famous allied battle of World War II.

Bric Zionia (Zionia Mount)Region: LiguriaDesignation year: 1993Wilderness area: 45 hectares; 108 acresInside conservation zone: 45 hectares; 108 acresA small but very wild forested mount (1,070 meters in height), with beechand chestnut woods, in the most southern part of the Alps Mountains.Interesting flora and fauna (raptors) species.

Gola Del Fiume Rapido (Rapid River Canyon)Region: LazioDesignation year: 1994Wilderness area: 820 hectares; 1,968 acresInside conservation zone: 324 hectares; 778 acresConsidered one of the wildest places of this central region, consistingof long, deciduous forest canyon where the Rapid River is born froman interesting spring. Inhabited fauna species such as wolf, brown bear,roe deer, wild boar, and also with a peregrine falcon breeding pair and

other rare ornithological species. This area is also the site of the mostimportant population of a rare toad (Bombina variegate) in central Italy.In the canyon there is a well-preserved ancient Roman bridge. Thecanyon was the site of the famous World War II Battle of Cassino.

Val Montina (Montina Valley)Region VenetoDesignation year: 1994Wilderness area: 3,380 hectares; 8,112 acresInside conservation zone: 1,940 hectares; 4,656 acresNow designated the wildest of the Italian wilderness areas, this scenic,rugged, and beautiful valley is located in the eastern part of the famousDolomite Mounts in the Alps. With big streams and high peaks (2,706meters is the highest) and alpine temperate forests. Rich of flora andfauna of the alpine bioregion, with chamois, red deer, roe deer, a fewrare wild ibex, capercaille, black grouse, hazel hen, rock partridge, ptar-migan, snow hare, golden eagle, pine marten, and ermine.

I Monte Bianchi (The White Mounts)Region: LazioDesignation year: 1994Wilderness area: 990 hectares; 2,160 acresInside conservation zone: 677 hectares; 1,625 acresAn area of many small wild valleys and mounts, interesting for the botanicvalues; with rare species as the tree Staphilea pinnata (probably the onlysite in central Italy), or the Erica multiflora; with oaks, Ostrya c. andbeech woods, the last of which is very interesting for the mixture withthe chaparral species. It is a goshawk breeding site, too. Geologically, it isinteresting for the unusual presence of the white exposure of dolomiterocks, a very rare event in central Italy, with its erosion phenomenon.

Ernici Orientali (Eastern Ernici Mountains)Region: LazioDesignation year: 1995Wilderness area: 2,560 hectares; 6,144 acresInside conservation zone: to be determinedThe area contains the extreme eastern part of the Ernici Mountains,east of Rome, consisting of large extensions of beech and oaks forestsmixed with large tracts of high pastures and rugged slopes. Characteriz-ing the environment is a fine plateau in the wildest part of the area,preserving some ancient human and historic tracts as old as Romantime. It is inhabited by typical Apennine fauna, including the dalmatianwoodpecker (Dendrocopus leucotus lilfordi), a very isolated bird subspecies.


WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT CORRESPONDENCE

STUDY PROGRAM MOVES TO MONTANA

The U.S. Interagency Wilderness Management Correspondence(WMC) Study Program has moved from Colorado State Universityto the Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center in Montana. TheWMC courses will now be offered for academic credit through theUniversity of Montana. The WMC study program includes six, collegecredit, distance-learning courses on wilderness designed to meet abroad range of needs for educators, managers, and interested individu-als in the fields of wilderness and wildland management and planning.In 1993 the WMC study program received the U.S. Forest Service’snational Wilderness Education Award for excellence in wilderness edu-cation. For more information about the WMC study program, contactWMC Program Director Ralph Swain at (406) 626-5201.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD

SUPPORT SCIENCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Lawmakers, businesses, and local communities don’t have the reli-able environmental information they need to make informed choices.As a result, environmental decisions too often are based on emotionand politics, rather than on sound science. We all bear the cost in theform of inappropriate regulations, excess litigation, and environmentalcrises that could have been avoided. The United States needs anauthoritative source of credible science for the environment, thusthe proposal for the National Institute for the Environment (NIE).

The proposed NIE will provide the information needed to solvethe United States’ complex environmental problems. As an indepen-dent, nonregulatory, federal science institute, the NIE will improve thescientific basis for making environmental decisions. The NIE will in-tegrate environmental knowledge assessment, research, informationservices, and education by: 1) Assessing environmental knowledge andidentifying issues of critical importance where more information isneeded; 2) Funding peer-reviewed research in the natural and socialsciences, engineering, economics, and other fields as required to un-derstand environmental issues; 3) Communicating environmentalinformation through an easy-to-use electronic National Library forthe Environment; 4) Supporting public education and sponsoring train-ing for future environmental scientists and professionals.

The NIE will be a credible, independent source of scientificinformation. Because the NIE will not set environmental policiesor enforce regulations, NIE’s research will be insulated from the

political influences typically experienced by federal agencies. AllNIE science will be subject to peer review to ensure its quality.The effort to create the NIE began in 1989 with a meeting of 50scientists, environmentalists, and policy experts. Since then, bi-partisan legislation to create the NIE has been introduced in theU.S. Congress, and the committee for the NIE has grown into anational nonprofit organization of more than 9,000 scientists, busi-ness leaders, environmentalists, and concerned citizens. For furtherinformation contact Committee for the NIE, 730 11th Street,NW; Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20001-4521, USA.

NEW AUSTRALIAN WILDERNESS AND WILD RIVERS UNIT

The Australian Commonwealth (national) government has es-tablished a new Wilderness and Wild Rivers Unit within theAustralian Heritage Commission. This follows a decision to allo-cate $3.9 million over four years for programs that will identifyand assist in conserving Australia s wilderness and wild rivers.

The unit will build on the work of the National WildernessInventory program which has mapped wilderness quality acrossthe country The Commonwealth Wilderness Program will usethis information to ensure that commonwealth actions assist inconserving wilderness areas across a range of programs.

Working with key groups, the Commonwealth Wilderness Pro-gram will identify wilderness areas and prepare conservation guidelineswith consultation and sharing of information. The commonwealthgovernment will liaise closely with states and territories, who are keyplayers in water and land management, on the conservation of wilder-ness values, because they own most of the land.The government isalso keen to discuss the conservation of wilderness with public groupssuch as conservation bodies, Aboriginal communities, and industry.

Funds provided to the Wild Rivers Program will contribute to thework already being done by the Australian Heritage Commission withStates, Territories and other groups, to identify Australia’s wild rivers.Wilder ness areas and wild river catchments are important as bench-mark systems that have been little disturbed since European settlement,and for conserving biodiversity They are also significant to Aboriginalcommunities who have links to areas going back thousands of years.

For further information, contact Jonathan Miller, director, Wil-derness and Wild Rivers Unit, Australian Heritage Commission,GPO Box 1567, Canberra Act 2601 Australia. E-mail:[email protected].

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcements and Wilderness Calendar• WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT CORRESPONDENCE STUDY PROGRAM MOVES TO MONTANA

• NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD SUPPORT SCIENCE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

• NEW AUSTRALIAN WILDERNESS AND WILD RIVERS UNIT

• UTAH ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS BATTLE INADEQUATE UTAH WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

• NATIONAL MAPPING OF WILDERNESS IN AUSTRALIA HAS BEEN COMPLETED: METHODS ATTRACT

INTERNATIONAL INTEREST

• ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

• BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS COMPLEX PUBLISHES EXCELLENT NEWSLETTER

• UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO’S WILDERNESS RESEARCH CENTER SEEKS WILDERNESS LEADERS

• CONFERENCES


UTAH ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS

BATTLE INADEQUATE UTAH

WILDERNESS PROPOSAL

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance(SUWA) and 81 other organizations in theUtah Wilderness Coalition are fighting foradequate wilderness designations in the re-maining wild and unspoiled canyon countryof southern Utah. The contested areas arepublic domain land, surrounding and con-necting Utah’s famous national parks andcontaining intricate canyons, arches, buttes,vast expanses of slickrock, and red and salmoncolored pinnacles in a unique variety of formand color. The areas are vast, magic land-scapes with opportunities for immensesolitude and silence.

The SUWA and the larger coalitionare supporting legislation (HR1500) called“America’s Redrock Wilderness Act” thatwould designate 5.7 million acres of pub-lic domain as wilderness. The origins ofthis bill date back to field studies in theearly 1980s leading to a citizens’ proposalfor wilderness designation in 1986 and theproposed bill to protect 5.7 million acresfirst introduced in 1989.

As a result of changes in Utah’s con-gressional delegation during the 1994elections, and other changes in key con-gressional committee membership inWashington, D.C., much political supportfor wilderness was lost. The current Utahdelegation is supporting a proposed UtahWilderness Act (HR1745 and S882) thatwould protect much less land as wilder-ness than that proposed by the coalition,1.8 million acres compared to 5.7 millionacres, and the delegations’ bill would alsoweaken overall environmental protectionby releasing areas for development.

The Utah wilderness battle is a classicstruggle between local rural county and de-velopment interests seeking expandedopportunities for natural resource consump-tion and extraction, and Utah’s and thenation’s urban populations hungering forwilderness opportunities. Some of theregion’s best scientists from several universi-ties have joined in the battle to stop thedelegation’s inadequate proposal in favor ofextensive, additional wilderness designationin southern Utah on ecological, archeologi-cal, sociological, and economic grounds.

Economist Thomas Powers’ testimonyto the U.S. Congress entitled “The Eco-nomics of Wilderness Preservation in Utah,”summed up the situation: “Wilderness

protection does not impoverish commu-nities by locking up resources. Rather, itprotects the economic future of thosecommunities by preserving high qualitynatural environments that are in increas-ing demand across the nation.”

NATIONAL MAPPING OF WILDERNESS

IN AUSTRALIA HAS BEEN

COMPLETED: METHODS ATTRACT

INTERNATIONAL INTEREST

The mapping of wilderness quality acrossAustralia through a National WildernessInventory has been recently completed.The National Wilderness Inventory is adatabase that measures wilderness qualityacross the Australian landscape and hasmapped Australia, not in terms of roadsand cities, but in terms of wilderness.

The inventory is a flexible, decision-mak-ing tool to assist scientists, land managers,and administrators in monitoring wildernessloss, delineating wilderness areas, definingmanagement options, and predicting the ef-fects of development on wilderness. Mostof the data used in the National WildernessInventory has been provided by the state andterritory governments, demonstrating na-tional cooperation.

According to Minister for the Envi-ronment, Senator John Faulkner, “thegood news is that Australia still retains largeareas of wilderness with excellent optionsfor conservation. The bad news is that thiswilderness does not include all the eco-systems which were once represented inAustralia. Most of the wilderness areas thatremain are either desert or very arid.”

The National Wilderness Inventory is alsobeing used internationally. The 1994 GeneralAssembly of the International Union for theConservation of Nature and Natural Re-sources passed a resolution linking Australia’sWilderness Inventory to other internationalsurveys for biodiversity protection.

Australia’s wilderness inventory methods arealso being used internationally. An internationalconsortium has completed a survey of theBarents Sea Region in northern Scandinaviaand northwest Russia using Australia’s Wilder-ness Inventory methods. This study may beextended to the entire Arctic region and pos-sibly to all of Europe, with interest also expressedby Canada and the United States.

The national wilderness inventory is anexciting development in Australia’s environ-mental management and is proving to be aninvaluable tool for decision makers through-

out the world. The International Journal of Wil-derness congratulates Australia’s wildernessscientists, managers, conservation community,and government for this important achieve-ment. For further information see the article“Australian Approaches to Wilderness” in thisissue and contact Jonathan Miller, director,Natural Environment Section, AustralianHeritage Commission, GPO Box 1567,Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. E-mail:[email protected].

ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

All across the United States, policymakersand pundits sit up and take notice whenthe Dow Jones inches up, housing starts toplummet, or unemployment rates rise, andmillions of Americans rethink personal fi-nancial decisions. In every country, leadersfind changes in the gross national productsimilarly riveting. These economic indica-tors show the power of a single numberwhen its importance is widely understood.Yet, no remotely similar numbers exist toindicate how the environment is faring.

A significant attempt to bridge thisknowledge gaps is Environmental Indicators:A Systematic Approach to Measuring and Re-porting on Environmental Policy Performancein the Context of Sustainable Development,published by the World Resources Insti-tute. The authors begin by laying out aconceptual approach for producing“highly aggregated indicators”—that is, forturning mountains of data into a set ofsimple, significant, and user-friendly tools.

The authors note the special utility ofenvironmental indicators in democraticcountries, where electorates push govern-ments to act on perceived problems. Indeed,they maintain, creating environmental in-dicators that the public can easily grasp isthe surest way to compel high-level gov-ernment attention, both to the environmentand to the efficacy of policies for protect-ing or restoring it. Besides illustratingenvironmental trends, indicators can bedesigned to measure how well policieswork, implicitly pointing the way towardbetter approaches. In most countriesthough, policymakers and the public areequally in the dark when it comes to timelywarnings about whether policies are tak-ing the nation in the right direction.

There are exceptions, of course, most no-tably the Netherlands. As the authorsdemonstrate, the Dutch have made good useof indicators based on strong national goals to


curb such environmental problems as ozonedepletion, climate change, and acid rain. Since1991 the Dutch government has published in-dicators showing how the nation’s contributionto such problems has changed from one yearto the next. When combined with targets forfuture performance, these indicators showDutch citizens how effective current policiesare at helping to improve both the Dutch en-vironment and global conditions, and how farthey have yet to go. As this report documents,the Dutch experience also shows that whenconditions do not improve, indicators stimu-late the search for improved policies.

Environmental Indicators will not be the lastword in this new field. On the contrary, itdeliberately proposes bold ideas to spark dia-logue on environmental problems. Forinformation on ordering Environmental Indi-cators, contact WRI, 1709 New York Avenue,NW, Washington, DC. 20006, USA. Tele-phone: (202) 638-6300. (Reprinted fromRenewable Resources Journal, summer 1995.)

BOB MARSHALL WILDERNESS COMPLEX

PUBLISHES EXCELLENT NEWSLETTER

Wilderness stewardship buffs would like BobMarshall Wilderness Complex (BMWC)Highlights, a newsletter published by theBMWC. Issue No. 5 (summer 1995) pre-sents eight pages of news pertinent to theBMWC and lots of information valuable towilderness stewards everywhere (e.g., aboutpartnerships between the U.S. Forest Ser-vice and cooperating organizations, anequipment loan program to improve foodstorage for bear and people protection, appli-cation of the Wilderness Land and EthicAwareness Box, the Bob Marshall Founda-tion, etc.). Contact Joel Holtrop, Lead ForestSupervisor, Flathead National Forest, 19353rd Avenue, East Kalispell, MT 59901, USA.

UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO’SWILDERNESS RESEARCH CENTER

SEEKS WILDERNESS LEADERS

The University of Idaho’s Wilderness ResearchCenter is nearing completion of a two-yearpilot program and study of Wilderness Dis-covery, a seven-day wilderness experienceprogram featuring soft skills and reflection toinspire federal Job Corps students towardstrengthened performance in their academiceducation and vocational training. Havingcompleted 44 Wilderness Discovery trips overthe past three years, at four different Job Corpscenters in Washington, Oregon, Montana, andGeorgia, respectively, the program may expand

to additional Job Corps centers in the future.Several qualified wilderness leaders, 21 yearsand older, may be needed for summer 1996.Two weeks of training will be required. Forinformation, contact Keith Russell, Univer-sity of Idaho Wilderness Research Center,Moscow, ID 83844-1144, USA. Telephone:(208) 885-2267. Fax: (208) 885-2268. E-mail:[email protected].

CONFERENCES

• Expanding Wilderness to NontraditionalAudiences: Planning for the 1996 NationalWilderness Conference in the USAMargaret Petersen, chair of the Wilderness Work-ing Group of the Society of American Foresters,has put out a call for ideas, topical issues, andcreative presentations pertinent to wilderness andurban issues for the next National WildernessConference—probably to take place in fall 1996.Examples are connecting urban youth to wil-derness, creating understanding’s of wildernessamong urban populations, strengthening linksbetween wilderness and urban efforts to pro-tect natural areas, wilderness programs fornontraditional populations, and others. For ad-ditional information, contact Margaret Petersen,P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208-3623, USA.Telephone: (503) 326-6719.

• 6th International Symposium onSociety and Resource ManagementThe 6th International Symposium on Societyand Resource Management will be held May18-23, 1996, at Pennsylvania State University,University Park, Pennsylvania. This conferencewill focus on a better integration of social andnatural sciences in addressing resource and envi-ronmental issues. A commitment to the role ofsocial perspectives in managing natural resourcesis underscored. For additional information, con-tact A. E. Luloff, Professor of Rural Sociology,111 Armsby Building, University Park, PA16802 USA.Telephone: (814) 863-8643.

• Wilderness Guides Council Annual MtgThe Wilderness Guides Council is a globalnetwork of leaders offering wilderness visionquests and other earth centered healing andpersonal growth programs. The guiding pur-pose of the council is to maintain and improvethe health of wilderness ecosystems, and thusensure that the spiritual values of wildernesswill also remain intact for the benefit of par-ticipants in vision quests and related programs.The council operates a self-registration systemwhereby program leaders register sites they useand self-regulate occupancy so sites will beimpacted only once per year by any program.

Annual meetings of the council featurediscussion of issues important to wildernessvision quests and fasts such as: insurance; per-mits and fees; relationships with federalagencies; competing land uses where appli-cable such as grazing, mining, off-road vehicleuse, hunting, and shooting; ethical standardsof conduct; safety; training and education; re-search; public relations; and image.

The next annual meeting of the councilwill be February 8–11, 1996, in StovepipeWells, Death Valley, California. For more in-formation about the council, contact MarilynRiley, Netkeeper, Wilderness Guides Coun-cil, P.O. Box 482, Ross, CA 94957,USA.Telephone: (415) 456-4370.

• American Forest CongressThe American Forest Congress will be heldFebruary 19-24, 1996, in Washington, D.C.USA. It is being sponsored by the Yale Schoolof Forestry and Environmental Studies. Foradditional information, contact William R.Bentley. Telephone: (203) 653-3195. E-mail:[email protected].

• Wilderness and Natural Areas inEastern North America: Research,Planning, and ManagementJoin your colleagues in Gatlinburg, Tennes-see USA, May 19–23, 1996, for this wildernessconference which focuses on eastern NorthAmerica. The purpose of the second Wilder-ness and Natural Areas Symposium is to bringtogether researchers, planners, and managersto address the complex issues of managingnatural areas in the densely populated easternportion of North America.

Since the passage of the “Eastern Wilder-ness Act” 20 years ago, wilderness and otherareas managed to preserve or enhance naturalqualities have taken on increasing significancein the eastern portion of North America. Frag-mentation of ecosystems, population pressuresand past human influences combine to createa unique combination of research, planning,and management challenges on these areas.

Conference topics will include visitor use,management, impact, and education; wetlands,wild and scenic rivers and waterways; wildlifemanagement, landscape ecology and planning;air and water quality; ethics, history and policy.

For additional information contact Dr.Mike Legg, Conference Chair, College ofForestry, Stephen F. Austin State University,Nacogdoches, Texas 75962, USA.Telephone:(409) 468-3301. Fax: (409) 468-2489. E-mail: [email protected].


Names on Wilderness Features Are Development

As the number of unnamed features in wilderness decreases, thestandards for naming them should increase accordingly.

There is currently under consideration a proposal to namethe northern flank of Mt. Dana at the entrance to YosemiteNational Park USA after a recently deceased park serviceemployee, Ferdinand Castillo. Mt. Dana is a very prominent featureon the High Sierra Crest marking the entrance to some of thenation’s most pristine wildernesses. Once named, it will becomea national landmark alongside Half Dome and Glacier Point. Thefeature would be known as “Ferdinand’s Point” and the parkservice is already discussing scheduling regular hikes to the pointnow visited only by self-motivated hikers and climbers. Mr. Castillocollected tolls at the Yosemite entrance station during the summermonths for 35 years. He was popular among his coworkers, somevisitors, and a circle of friends, and they have led the effort toname the feature for him.

I am troubled at this campaign to name a national feature thatlies within two wilderness areas after a local agency person. Doesn’texisting policy strongly discourage the commemorative namingof features within a wilderness? There is a great danger that thisproposal could be precedent-setting. Inspired by this proposal,other groups of individuals may now seek to have other wilder-ness features named for their friends.

Naming wilderness features for less than deceased nationalfigures may be a nice sentiment, but it is a bad idea. Wilderness isnot simply any area that hasn’t yet been logged, dammed, or strip-mined. Wilderness is an area characterized by the absence of theartifacts and cultural overlay of civilization. Hence, the percep-tion of wilderness is of prime importance. And perception isstrongly shaped by the attachment of the human artifact of namesto the unnamed features of the wilderness. With the naming ofit’s features, the wilderness looses its character of terra incognita,its attraction as the “blank spot” on the map. Unnamed featuresin wilderness are essentially a nonrenewable resource. As theirnumbers decrease, the standards for naming them should increaseaccordingly. If they are to be named at all, they should be re-served for individuals of monumental stature, sacrifice, orcontribution. The legacy we leave should not include the fes-tooning of the wilderness with names of our friends.—R.A. Kaspar

Mr. Kaspar invites letters supporting his opposition to naming aportion of Mt. Dana inYosemite National Park for a local parkservice employee. Mail them to R.A. Kaspar, P.O. Box 394,Midpines, CA 95345, USA. Telephone: (209) 379-2041.

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Letters to the EditorPolicy Will Limit Naturalness

of Wilderness Fire Management

I thought Norm Christensen’s article on Fire and Wilderness inthe first issue of the International Journal of Wilderness was accurateand pertinent. However, associated with wilderness fire manage-ment are two important areas worthy of clarification. These includethe blurred understanding of appropriate fire management prac-tices and application of selected strategies, and limitations affectingthe accomplishments of desired objectives.

Dr. Christensen presents a concise synopsis of federal fire policyby describing management options of suppression, managementignited prescribed fire, and prescribed natural fire. Within thesuppression option, three further strategic categories exist. Thecontrol strategy is the most aggressive and strives to minimizeburned area. Two other strategies, containment and confinement,seek to limit fire spread within a combination of constructed firelines and natural barriers, or natural barriers only. These strategiesdo not necessarily minimize burned area but maximize cost-effi-ciency and firefighter safety.

Differences between these available management options, spe-cifically containment or confinement actions and prescribed naturalfires in wildernesses, are often interpreted as being minimal. Bydefinition, prescribed natural fires are managed to produce resourcebenefits, and confinement actions are managed to allow wildfiresto burn themselves out within a set of natural barriers. Superfi-cially, the end results of these strategies may seem nearly identical,because the difference is explained in overall objectives. For bothoptions, suppression actions are implemented in response to pro-tection needs, to minimize unacceptable losses, and for prescribednatural fires, to achieve beneficial resource objectives.

Another important point in Dr. Christensen’s discussion re-lates to the ability to manage for variability and complexity innatural fire regimes. Current policy directs agencies to suspendprescribed natural fire programs when wildfire activity reachescritical levels regionally and nationally. Thus, ecologically signifi-cant and intense fire events of long duration are frequentlyprohibited from landscapes. Dr. Christensen succinctly and cor-rectly questions whether this course of action is realistic andnatural.

Current fire management policy promotes establishment ofwilderness fire management programs. But current and futurepolicy, whether perceived as good or bad, will limit fire manage-ment in wildernesses, and how natural and realistic managementactions can be.—Thomas Zimmerman, Fire Management Specialist NationalPark Service, National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho USA

(IJW invites letters and opinion editorials expressing views on all sidesof wilderness issues, or in response to articles published in IJW. —Managing Editor)


The proceedings of a unique international conference held inNovember 1993, in the Yukon Territory of Canada. The book isa lightly edited compilation of the presentations made by a hostof native people, resource professionals, educators, and activists—nearly all of them from the grassroots of the Arctic and sub-Arcticregions of North America. It is this examination of the North bynortherners that provided the unique nature of the conference,and that gives special value to this publication.

The purpose of the conference was to address the multitudeof problems facing northern protected areas. It was also to seek

ethical approaches to the care of ecosystems, find means of pro-viding comanagement, assure consideration of traditionalknowledge, and develop a cooperating network of all interestedparties. Topics covered the science and ecology of northern eco-systems, a proposed protected areas system for the Canadian north,management of existing protected areas, and better understand-ing of laws, sacred sites, ethics, and education.The book is rich indetail, varied in style, and an invaluable resource for anyone withan interest in northern Canada.

BOOK REVIEWS

Book ReviewsJAMES R. FAZIO, BOOK REVIEW EDITOR

Northern Protected Areas and Wilderness, edited by Juri Peepre and Bob Jickling. 1994. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, andYukon Conservation Society, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. 379 pp., $20.00 (Canada) and shipping (softcover).

The Capacity for Wonder: Preserving National Parks by William R. Lowry 1994. The Brookings Institution,Washington, D.C.280 pp., $28.95 (hardcover).

The memories come back to me now of last July s excursion into thebackcountry of Rocky Mountain National Park. From a little-usedtrailhead north of the park, I climbed steadily to Stormy Pass. There Istopped to survey the forested valleys dropping off to each side and togaze across a meadow decorated with Indian paintbrush, harebell, andcolumbine. This was the beginning of a four-day trip of renewal andserendipitous surprises, filling me with “the capacity to wonder.”

In contrast, the book, The Capacity for Wonder, does anythingbut lull the reader into a sense of serenity. Its documentation ofthreats to the national parks of North America, which preservesome of the finest designated and de facto wilderness on theplanet, is disturbing. But rather than reciting a familiar litany ofproblems to wildland protection,William Lowry, an assistant pro-fessor of political science at Washington University, stakes out amore original thesis. “Of all the threats facing the park,” he writes,“the most important is the behavior of government officials.”

Lowry develops this thesis through a comparative study of theCanadian Park Service and the U.S. National Park Service. Whileboth have similar missions and resources to accomplish their tasks,these agencies have taken divergent paths in the past 15 years,resulting in quite different outcomes.

With data and anecdotes, Lowry shows how two variables—consensus over goals and level of political support—can make

the difference between effective or compromised wildland pro-tection. In the U.S. National Park Service, wilderness preservationhas suffered as a result of conflicts between use and preservationgoals, and the increasing tendency of politicians to override thedecisions of field-level staff. The Canadian Park Service, by con-trast, has experienced more political support and consensus behindtheir preservation goals.This clarity, and the political climate, hasfostered independent decision-making, employee enthusiasm, anddiminished interagency conflict.

A disappointment, however, is Lowry s attempt to offer neededreforms (primarily targeting the U.S. agency) in only 13 pages.After a detailed and insightful investigation of the problems, onewishes for more substance in his recommendations. Sometimesthese ideas border on being naive, such as his suggestion that theentire National Wilderness Preservation System in the United Statesbe placed under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.

Nevertheless, the reader comes away with the feeling that

Lowry has put his finger on key ingredients in federal efforts to

preserve wildlands along with examples of the consequences

when these elements are missing.

—Review by Mark Peterson, doctoral candidate in wilderness management atColorado State University, and former director of the Sigurd Olson Environ-mental Institute.

The Wilderness Movement and the National Forests by Dennis M. Roth. 1995. Revised, second edition. Intaglio Press, CollegeStation, Texas. 105 pp., $14.95 (paperback).

If you have ever read a historian s dissection of a Civil War battle,you will have an idea of what this book is like—and the staminait may take to get through it. Roth’s battlefields are the remnantsof wild, roadless America. As chief historian for the U.S. ForestService from 1979 to 1989, the author was witness to some of

the important conflicts over protection of this land. More im-portantly, he had ready access to the records and many of thepeople involved in the struggle that has stretched from the 1920sto the present. Interviews with the combatants and selectionsfrom their letters and internal memorandums provide detailed


insights that make this book whatRoderick Nash has called “a model ofcareful and original research.”

Roth opens with brief introductionsto the pioneers of the wilderness move-ment, the likes of Leopold, Carhart,Marshall, Zahniser, and others. Some ofthe information will be familiar to mostreaders, but considerable detail is addedthat is probably not known to the casualstudent of wilderness. These insights carrythrough the entire book, particularly asRoth presents the players, plans, victories,and disappointments in the torturous,eight-year struggle to pass the WildernessAct. With equal historical detail, the au-thor brings on the parade of people andissues that emerged as the American wil-derness went through its periods of

Primitive Area reviews; debates over de factowilderness and the resulting roadless areareviews and evaluations (RARE I & II);development of omnibus designationssuch as the Endangered American Wilder-ness Act and statewide wilderness bills; andnow the movement down-slope to the lastpockets of low-elevation, old-growth for-ests, and home of the spotted owl.

This is not an easy, pleasant read. Youneed a compelling interest in the legisla-tive history of wilderness to truly enjoythis book. In fact, it would be an unex-celled reference if it were not for the sinof sins—no index. It is also physically awk-ward with a horizontal 8-1/2 x 11 inchformat and no graphic relief from what attimes seems like endless columns of type.There are some black-and-white photos

of enticing wilderness scenes, but they arepresented in a single block of pages nearthe book’s center.

Nonetheless, this is a valuable book thatdoes a remarkable job of pulling togethera wide-ranging, complex story into asingle volume. In a sense, it is more than abook. It is the record of hard-fought battlesthat are rapidly being forgotten. Althoughthe struggle continues, particularly withthe fate of roadless areas on national for-ests in Idaho and Montana yet to bedecided, the war for wilderness is wind-ing down. Roth’s book preserves therecord for generations who will not re-member this era and provides a lastingtribute to the leaders engaged in the longstruggle for wilderness preservation.

The World of Wilderness: Essays on the Power and Purpose of Wild Country, edited by T. H. Watkins and Patricia Byrnes. 1995.Roberts Rinehart Publishers, Niwot, Colorado. 284 pp., $14.95 (paperback); $24.95 (hardcover).

This is a rare book that combines literaryexcellence with informational detail. TheWorld of Wilderness is such a book. It is ac-tually a collection of 16 essays that werepublished in Wilderness, the magazine of TheWilderness Society, over the past 13 years.In the introduction titled “The Poetry ofan Idea,” a small literary gem, the editorspromise to “illuminate the power and pur-pose of wilderness” and help readers dealwith “the increasingly complex mix of sci-ence, politics, and economics that nowcharacterizes the conservation movement(and its opposition).” I was skeptical onebook could deliver all this, but not for long.

The selection of essays forms an encyclo-pedia of wild country issues. The scopeextends from modern range-wars in Oregon’shigh desert to the fate of the “densely pat-terned quilt of micro-habitats” tucked awayin the southern Appalachians. Each essay islike a briefing paper, providing the busy readera way to become quickly familiar with the

background and key details of important is-sues. For example, if the complex history ofthe Alaskan Lands Act is murkier than youwish to admit, T. H. Watkins’ chapter on Alaskawill give you the whole story from the pre-Carter/Andrus era to the current dilemmasof oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refugeor the status of subsistence practices (a term,by the way, many natives find repulsive). Ifthe fuss about cougars, grizzlies, and wolveshas left you confused, Charles E. Little andChristina Bolgiano will provide you with bio-logical facts, lessons in ecology, and a goodstart toward understanding the managementchallenges.

The chapter which I personally ex-pected to find boring—wetlands and theirprotection—turned out to win my vote forbest piece in the book. David Rains Wallaceopens with, “Wetlands are subtle things, hardto measure and define.” He then proceedsto captivate his audience with descriptionsand history in ways that Thoreau would

surely have applauded (“my temple is theswamp,” Henry said in 1853).

Another masterpiece is the capsulationof western expansion history by the lateWallace Stegner. For the non-historian, itoffers an excellent way to understand theevolution of federal land managementagencies and reasons why the United Stateshas been able to set aside land as wilder-ness. Stegner also exposes the motives andmethods of the resource grabbers who haveceaselessly tried to wrestle away this na-tional birthright under the guise of state srights and other ploys that are still verymuch alive today.

We won’t often use these pages to urgethat a book be added to your shelves, butthis is one of those times. The reason is notso much that the proceeds benefit The Wil-derness Society, which they do, but becauseThe World of Wilderness is truly a collectionof some of the best and most informativeconservation writing in recent years.

At two o’clock in the morningI found that silence is not a time when there are no sounds, but is when

sounds blend to form a silhouette of one’s thoughts.—Brian Hackland

Documents

International Journal of Wilderness, Vol 1 no 2, December 1995