sign in sign up
<<
Home , Resource, Wilderness

Bob Krumenaker and Natural in the NPS: Another View

[Ed. note: This comment on wilderness management from GWS president Bob Krumenaker continues the dialogue begun in the last issue by outgoing GWS president and National Park historian Richard West Sellars in his Box 65 article “The Path Not Taken: Wilderness Management.” The Society invites further discussion on the topic of wilderness management in the national parks, or of other topics of to the readers of THE GEORGE WRIGHt FORUM. There will be a plenary session on the new interagency report on wilderness at the upcoming GWS conference in April.]

y friend and colleague Dick Sellars quite rightly points out in the last issue of the FORUM that many in the NPS management community are reluctant to take on wilderness man- agement responsibilities. It may be indifference towards, or even outrightM distaste for, the restrictions placed on management activities within designated and proposed wilderness areas. I suspect, however, that it involves something more. In fact, in my own experience I would say that NPS natural resource managers are generally among the strongest supporters of wilderness values on the park staff. Supporting wilderness values and about (as the 1964 taking on the organizational respon- says) the “preservation of outstand- sibility for wilderness management ing opportunities for solitude or a are, however, different (although re- primitive and unconfined type of rec- lated) things. What do we mean by reation” on that retain their “wilderness management,” anyway? “primeval character.” Some, of course, think it is an oxy- Preservation of wilderness, then, moron—that wilderness, by defini- is really about minimizing tion, should not need to be managed. influences on wilderness lands and While that may be an ideal, if we on the wilderness experience of didn’t need to manage wilderness we those who venture forth into these would also not be lamenting that places. In that regard, I believe that wilderness values are eroding. For our mandates for preserving natural wilderness management, in reality, is within wilderness are no

10 The George Wright FORUM more and no less than they are for from the circumstance that back- other natural areas within the Na- country permitting and use regula- tional Park System. And, as natural tion, as well as decisions on adminis- resource managers within NPS are trative facilities, generally do not fall already responsible for providing within the organizational purview of park superintendents with technical most natural resource managers, support and programmatic advice on rather than from a lack of interest in how to preserve, restore, or maintain seeing wilderness managed in accor- natural values in parks, organiza- dance with legal intent. Few resource tional changes would make little dif- managers are eager to take on new ference in this regard. Hence, natural responsibilities when they lack suffi- resource managers already have the cient staff, and in most cases organi- natural resources responsibility zational power, to do their current within designated and proposed wil- jobs, let alone the new ones. That’s derness—but to preserve wilderness true of everyone—so Dick and I cer- values, we have to manage more than tainly agree that to do wilderness resources. “right” in the national parks, regard- Managing wilderness users and less of where it falls in the organiza- managing administrative intrusions tion, we need to make sure there are are the real challenges of wilderness people dedicated (in every sense) to management, and it is in these areas the task and accountable for their that the legal and policy constraints performance. of wilderness designation differ from Do resource managers have the other backcountry. The on-the- expertise to take on wilderness man- ground truth is that, in most parks agement? Certainly they can develop with wilderness, users move from it, just as good park rangers do. In- non-wilderness to wilderness and terpreting the Wilderness Act on the back in the course of their use of the ground is not a technical proposi- park. We should make it clearer than tion, but one of managerial direction we do when they are in wilderness and the will and skills to implement and when they are not, but the key it. I think the real problem is that in point is that a visitor-use permit sys- too many parks we still think of natu- tem cannot and should not be sepa- ral (and cultural, for that ) re- rate and distinct for wilderness and source management as separate from non-wilderness. Use restrictions park operations. Where we have inte- ought to be different in each area, grated effec- and we can and must make that clear tively with other operations, wilder- before visitors start their off-road ness responsibilities make tremen- trips. dous sense within the natural re- I believe the reluctance of park source management program. At Isle natural resource staff to take on wil- Royale, for example, where 98% of derness management stems more the area of the park is desig-

Volume 18 • Number 1 2001 11 nated wilderness, the natural re- to evaluation of wilderness condi- source management staff led the de- tions—which means measuring the sign and implementation of the back- impact of people on , vegetation, country and wilderness permitting and other people’s perceptions of system in the 1980s, and are still to- solitude and enjoyment. day part of an interdisciplinary team So, in sum, Dick Sellars and I that decides on use limits and site- agree that many in the NPS do not specific design issues for and take our wilderness mandates seri- campsites. At Shenandoah, where ously, and we need to change that. I 40% of the park is wilderness and the don’t care where wilderness man- park organization has more depth, agement resides in a park, however, backcountry and wilderness man- as long as our legal mandates for wil- agement is a branch of the park’s derness are taken seriously and natural and cultural resource man- staff are provided the fiscal, person- agement division. The park’s wilder- nel, and leadership support to do the ness coordinator is the branch chief job. I believe that in many parks, the and oversees maintenance as wilderness role fits well into the natu- well as the permit system. It works ral resource management program, quite well, and the real opportunity but the real need is to integrate re- that an integrated program encour- source management fully into park ages is that the expertise the park al- operations. If we accomplish that, ready has in natural resource inven- wilderness can work well anywhere. tory and monitoring can be applied

Bob Krumenaker, Valley Forge National Historical Park, P.O. Box 953, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482-0953; [email protected]

12 The George Wright FORUM