INTERNATIONAL Journal of Wilderness
AUGUST 2006 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2
FEATURES INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES 36 El Carmen 3 Different Voices in Wilderness Advocacy The First Wilderness Designation in Latin America and Management BY PATRICIO ROBLES GIL BY CHAD P. DAWSON 41 A Proposal for a Pamir International Peace Park SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS BY GEORGE B. SCHALLER 4 A Perspective on Wilderness, the Forest Service, and Taking the Long View 45 The Global Wilderness Seminar BY REBECCA ORESKES for Government Agencies A Meeting at the Crossroads of STEWARDSHIP Wildlands Stewardship 8 Defining the Concept of Cave Wilderness and Its BY NANCY ROEPER, PETER LANDRES, and DON FISHER Designation Values BY PATRICIA E. SEISER and MICHAEL A. SCHUETT WILDERNESS DIGEST 47 Announcements and Wilderness Calendar 17 Managing Caves as Wilderness at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California Book Reviews BY JOEL DESPAIN 50 Transboundary Conservation: A New Vision for Protected Areas SCIENCE AND RESEARCH By Russell Mittermeier, Cyril Kormos, Cristina Mittermeier, Patricio Robles Gil, Trevor Sandwith, PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDER- NESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE and Charles Besançon 22 Revisiting Wilderness Science Priorities REVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS BY DAVID J. PARSONS 50 Recommendations and Guidelines for Managing 23 Wilderness and Persons with Disabilities Caves on Protected Lands Edited by W. K. Jones et al. Transferring the Benefits to Everyday Life REVIEWED BY PATRICIA E. SEISER BY LEO McAVOY, TOM HOLMAN, MARNI GOLDENBERG, and DAVID KLENOSKY 51 The Multiple Values of Wilderness By H. Ken Cordell, John C. Bergstrom and EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION J. M. Bowker 32 Writers and Wilderness REVIEWED BY CHAD P. DAWSON How to Recapture the Momentum in Saving Wilderness BY ROBERT C. BARON
Disclaimer On the Cover The Soul of the Wilderness column and all invited and featured FRONT: Phul man (semi-nomadic pastoralist tribe) walks across the Sahel, articles in IJW, are a forum for controversial, inspiring, or especially central Mali, West Africa. Photo © Carlton Ward Jr/LINC. informative articles to renew thinking and dialogue among our readers. INSET: Desert Elephants of Gourma Elephant Reserve, Mali, West Africa. The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors. IJW Photo © Carlton Ward Jr/LINC. neither endorses nor rejects them, but invites comments from our readers. —John C. Hendee, IJW Editor-in-Chief International Journal of Wilderness The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interested citizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning, management, and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship. EDITORIAL BOARD Perry Brown, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA H. Ken Cordell, Wilderness and Trends Research Forestry Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, Ga., USA Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Ojai, Calif., USA Rebecca Oreskes, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, N.H., USA John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF John C. Hendee, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho, USA
MANAGING EDITOR Chad P. Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA
ASSOCIATE EDITORS—INTERNATIONAL Gordon Cessford, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; Karen Fox, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Andrew Muir, Wilderness Foundation Eastern Cape, South Africa; Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal, Republic of South Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea; Anna-Liisa Sippola, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy.
ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATES Greg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; Lisa Eidson, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.; Don Fisher, USFS, Washington D.C.; Joseph Flood, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Gary Green, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. Forest Service, Mesa, Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Greg Kroll, El Rito, N.M.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Yu-Fai Leung, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land Management, Sierra Vista, Ariz.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club; Christopher Monz, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y.; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Hendee, Wilderness Transitions Inc., Sausalito, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Keith Russell, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, N.Y.; Michael Tarrant, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.; Dave White, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.
International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) publishes three issues per year Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide are (April, August, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication. solicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptions Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, One of key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and Forestry Drive, Syracuse, N.Y. 13210, USA. Telephone: (315) 470-6567. environmental education; wilderness-related science and research from Fax: (315) 470-6535. E-mail: [email protected]. all disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilderness; and international perspectives describing wilderness Business Management and Subscriptions: WILD Foundation, P.O. Box 1380, worldwide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book Ojai, CA 93024, USA. Telephone: (805) 640-0390. Fax: (805) 640-0230. reviews, announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are E-mail: [email protected]. encouraged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is available from the managing editor. Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are in U.S. dollars only—$35 for individuals and $55 for organizations/ Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are libraries. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $10; outside North encouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signed America, add $20. Back issues are available for $15. by the author. All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright World Wide Website: www.ijw.org. © 2006 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation. Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make Printed on recycled paper. fair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.
SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS • Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Conservation International • National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outward Bound™ • SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry • The WILD® Foundation • The Wilderness Society • University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center • University of Montana, School of Forestry and Wilderness Institute • USDA Forest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDI National Park Service • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)
2 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 FEATURES
EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES
Different Voices in Wilderness Advocacy and Management
BY CHAD P. DAWSON
ultiple voices are crying out about wilderness Too often, we have let ourselves become divided about preservation, and some may even have conflict- which values and whose benefits we are trying to maintain M ing visions about what we are saving and for or maximize. Maybe it is time to see our collective values whom. Do we have tolerance for those other voices? Can held in common as a starting point so that we may evolve we recognize the beliefs and practices of others as legiti- back into more of a shared vision about wilderness preser- mate expressions of a wilderness ethic? Do we have the vation. This is not some idealist notion of unity and one capacity to respect the point of view of others who believe voice, but rather of practical alliances, tolerance for differ- that the wilderness movement needs to take this or that ences, and a shared passion for protecting and preserving action or make a statement? what we value in common—wilderness as a place and our We all hold to our favorite and most moving quotes from experiences there. wilderness visionaries of past and present. Those quotes In this issue, Rebecca Oreskes talks about taking the long and sayings have become our individual credo or mantra. view within the U.S. Forest Service to see the value of wil- Each of us has our own inspiration about wilderness and derness stewardship activities over time. Patricio Robles Gil how to save it. Such mental, psychological, and spiritual tells the story of his groundbreaking work to designate the imagery is a powerful reminder of the difficult and chal- first wilderness area in Latin America. Articles by Seiser and lenging task before us to ensure that present and future Schuett and by Despain explore the potential for the desig- generations have wilderness to enjoy, cherish, and preserve. nation of caves areas and environments as subsurface One factor is clear—we will all strive to save what we wilderness areas. Persons with disabilities using wilderness value, and we all hold different values and value sets: so- and the immediate and long-term benefits they receive are cial, economic, ethical, and ecological. If you want to discussed by McAvoy and coauthors. Robert Baron relates explore the complexity of wilderness values and benefits, some of the writing workshops and involvement by well- find and read through a new book called The Multiple Values known wilderness authors from the 8th World Wilderness of Wilderness edited and compiled by H. Ken Cordell, Congress. George Schaller presents a proposal for an inter- J. C. Bergstrom, and J. M. Bowker (Venture Publishing, national peace park to protect Marco Polo sheep in the Pamir 2005). See the book review in this issue of IJW for more Mountains. IJW details. You may come away with a different perspective on the complex and conflicting or complementary values CHAD P. DAWSON is managing editor of IJW. held by different people.
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 3 FEATURES
SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS
A Perspective on Wilderness, the Forest Service, and Taking the Long View
BY REBECCA ORESKES
y first “wilderness” experience probably began clash. It’s hard to be thinking of Thoreau, or Muir, or Abbey, or in Central Park when as a child I would take of anyone except a vengeful god when you’re moving illegal Mlong walks with my father, looking at squirrels campers, burying human waste, or doing any number of the and picking mulberries—an activity that particularly hor- other highly unglamorous tasks of a wilderness ranger. rified people who thought that any food product not bought As happened to many of us, my introduction to wilder- in a supermarket must be inherently unsafe. My childhood ness was a confusing jumble of wilderness versus imagination served as an endless wilderness landscape in nonwilderness policy; a wilderness plan that didn’t make which New York City slush would morph into first expeditions perfect sense to me; lots of people; a bad upper-level boss; to Antarctica. In those days, I wasn’t informed enough to and a general sense that I was hacking at the branches and realize that make-believe not the roots of the management issues. I did all of this for expeditions involving Scott lowly USFS GS-4 level wages and a seasonal appointment were not the best side to be on. that began and ended with very little notice. I stuck with it Later I realized there was because I loved the land. a world and a landscape out- Over the past 20 years I came in and out of wilderness side of city parks; that there work. I did other USFS jobs, gave up on the seasonal em- might be places where one ployment, and was very lucky to land a permanent job could hear nothing but birds that now allows wilderness to be part of my responsibilities. and wind and water; where So what changes have I seen in 20 or so years? Of course, one could see a night sky a lot has changed: We have more wilderness; we are more filled with stars; places where aware of broad-based ecological dilemmas and questions, Rebecca Oreskes hiking in Crows Pass in the people didn’t occupy every if not their solutions. Examples of such include: what to do Chugach National Forest of Alaska. Photo by Chad Dawson. corner or put their mark on about invasive species, global climate change, and the role every creature. And, of of people in nature? We have population and technology course, as I grew up I read Thoreau and cherished the idea— pressing in on and threatening our designated wilderness without fully understanding it—that “in wildness is the areas. The very foundation of the wilderness ideal of “hu- preservation of the world.” man restraint” is tested not just by our insatiable appetites In adult years, I headed north and eventually found my for using resources, but the spirit of wildness is often di- way to a job with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Naturally, aled and digitized away by technology such as cell phones there was a little cultural readjustment that had to take place— and personal locator beacons. We have allowed ourselves but, nevertheless, after a few years I was getting paid to be a to poke and prod and collar so much wildlife in the name wilderness ranger. Of course, it didn’t take long for the ro- of science that one wonders if animals—human or non- mance of the title and the reality of the job to meet in a violent human—can ever be truly self-willed.
4 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 People Do Matter those days my greatest goal in life was derness. As far as I can tell, this change Two years ago, I was at a conference to be a hermit. I’m a lot like 90% of was recommended by at least three in Big Sky, Montana, on science, tech- USFS employees, except that I’ve come Wilderness Advisory Groups (WAGs). nology, and public policy. I think I was around to realize that people aren’t There were lots of reasons not to make the only person there who worked for really so bad. Misguided, misin- the change—fear of increasing Wash- a living in land management and stew- formed, and incomprehensible at ington bureaucracy, fear that this ardship, and I was more than a little times, but other than that—not really would create a domino effect of in- out of my element. We ate all of our so bad. Maybe most of all, I’ve come creasing bureaucracy at regional and meals together, and I sat at a medium- to realize that whatever one’s personal forest levels, fear of making wilderness sized table at lunch. One day I was in opinion on our human species—it stand out as a political target, and on the middle of the table and trying to doesn’t matter. For better or worse, and on. There were many compelling figure out whether to join the conver- we’re in charge and we’re stuck with reasons to create the position. But the sation to my left or my right. I had each other, so let’s make the best of it. single most compelling reason that I been listening on my right when I In the past 20 years with the USFS, heard and the one that most shaped heard the word wilderness to my left what’s the same? Difficult and some- my own thinking, was that USFS wil- and quickly swiveled my head to catch times conflicting mandates; employees derness rangers and managers across the conversation. who have trouble making the bridge the United States said they wanted it; A very nice, thoughtful biologist between multiple use and wilderness they thought it was worth the risk and from South Africa, with whom I’d stewardship; too many people wanting worth the money. To me it was a des- struck up some conversation earlier in too many things from the land; too few perate cry for leadership—a cry that the week, was talking about wilder- dollars; money that seems to evaporate was eventually heard and a cry to ness in South Africa. He was talking before it hits the ground. Also, people which I have great faith that the USFS about the role that people had played in and outside of the agency who care director of wilderness will respond, no on the land for thousands of years, from the depths of their being about matter who he or she is. particularly in the context of fire, con- wilderness and wild places. cluding his words with the What do I think has changed? I’ve The Long View pronouncement: “People have been an seen what seems to me from my very In their book Wilderness Ethics, Guy integral part of the landscape for ten limited historical perspective to be ever- and Laura Waterman (1993) wrote thousand years—the idea of ‘pristine’ increasing polarization in our ideas. about the future of wilderness: wilderness is a ridiculous idea.” There is no doubt a gap between many We tend to a guarded optimism. As the words exited his mouth, he of us in wilderness management, and a Certainly we have overloaded the caught my eyes and quickly added, gap between us and many wilderness environment with our arrogant “No offense.” Nodding with what I advocates throughout the country. We technologies. But nature is too resilient an antagonist to be easily hoped was a thoughtful expression, I may never agree on the role of humans vanquished. The natural world responded honestly: “No offense in nature, or even on the smaller day- still has power, immensity, com- taken.” But I went on to add, “I don’t to-day management challenges we face, plexity, beauty beyond humanity’s think the idea of wilderness is ridicu- but I desperately hope we’ll keep talk- power either to create or to lous. I do think that countries and ing with one another. manipulate. What various kinds people around the world need to fig- I think we have outstanding people of wilderness have in common, whether mountain or ocean or ure out what wilderness is for working in wilderness throughout the polar ice or desert sands, is a vivid them—and not, without thinking, USFS and that they’re commitment and sense of both the overpowering apply the American model.” their values are strong. I don’t mean to strength and the delicate intricacy My point here is I believe people say our employees have gotten better— of nature. (page 34) do matter. They mattered when the but I do think that collectively we are Wilderness Act was written, they mat- more focused in our wilderness stew- Despite everything, I too am guard- ter now, and they will matter in the ardship and on the task at hand. edly optimistic about the future. If future. This is not easy for me to say— In the last two years, perhaps the nothing else, optimism makes it much when I told you about expeditions in greatest organizational change is that easier to get out of bed in the morning. Central Park I didn’t tell you that in the USFS now has a director of wil- Many of the problems we face today
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 5 related to wilderness are the same prob- where that restraint begins or How do we protect the spirit of wild- lems we have faced for 40 years; some ends—does wilderness restoration ness in a world where instant of them have shifted or reformed, some make any sense? How can we as communication is taken for granted, have compounded, some have im- stewards find the collective will to where cell phones and personal loca- proved, but few are unique. They were restrain our love of technology tor beacons and technologies still here in varying degrees 40 years ago, even when that technology is for a unknown change how we communi- and they will be here, in varying de- good cause such as monitoring cate? Who among us would have grees, 40 years from now. wilderness conditions? thought 15 years ago that today we’d It’s certainly not easy to imagine a We all know that wilderness be confronting the issues of instant rosy picture 40 years from now. There is not an island unto itself, communications, Internet cell phones, are lots of people everywhere, more unaffected by political or environ- satellite phones, and personal radio and more of us clamoring for places mental actions outside its beacons when considering what it to “get away from it all”; there’s never borders—that the ultimate health means to experience wildness? In some enough money and there’s never of wilderness depends on the cases, we’ve done an admirable job of enough public support. Although health of the world around it. Can physically protecting land, but we may have forgotten to ask what it means to Restraint, protecting the spirit of wildness, openness— respect the land’s wild character. How do we honor the sprit of wildness when that’s what I think it will take to be able to sit together in our lust for knowledge—but not nec- essarily wisdom—drives us to poke and celebration at the 80th anniversary of the Wilderness prod every corner of the Earth for data? Act. I think it’s possible, though not easy to get there. Twenty years ago I didn’t hear much conversation about this within the For- est Service. But now, thanks to a lot of some days it’s discouraging to think we find the collective will to hard work by a lot of dedicated people, we keep playing out the same issues restrain ourselves outside of wil- we’re trying to figure out how to incor- over and over again, I take great com- derness to keep the ecosystems porate the idea of maintaining the spirit fort in knowing that many better men from collapsing in on one another? of wildness in our wilderness monitor- and women than I have wrestled with I can’t think of too many things ing. What an exciting change! these issues. Collectively, we have more tragic than a country divided struggled with criticisms and questions into suburbs and wilderness, yet • New Visions. Can we be open to over the value or place of wilderness, more and more that seems a path new visions? Can we define new and these struggles will continue. I we might travel. options, new ways of thinking that think that’s healthy—for the worst are not “either/or,” that are not enemy of all is complacency. • The spirit of the land. Guy and based on the premise that “you’re I think the future of wilderness in Laura Waterman (1993) noted that either with us or against us?” Don’t the USFS and beyond continues to rest “preserving the spirit of wildness think that I’m asking for a on three main ideas: restraint, protect- requires action on at least two deconstructed or neoreconstructed ing the spirit of wildness, and being entirely distinguishable fronts. In or a neodeconstructed view of wil- the first place, the more obvious open to new visions. derness—I’m not. I am asking us forms of destruction—industrial- ization, whether by miners or the to be able to talk with my South • Restraint. Can we find the disci- recreation industry or second- African friend who said wilderness pline of restraint? Can we ever even home developers—must be fended was a ridiculous idea. I’m asking agree on what it means? All of us off from significant blocs of natural us to figure out ways to keep the can understand the general idea of lands. But after that, we must integrity of wild places without decide what we’re preserving the restraint as it applies to wilder- excluding entire human histories land for: the preserved land must ness—the belief that “self-willed” be treated with respect for its wild from the picture. Can we accept land is a valid and noble idea. But, character, its internal integrity, the that people are not automatically we don’t necessarily agree on spirit of the land.” (27) the enemy of wild places? I think
6 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 the future depends on it. I think He called me to tell me the news. I felt Whether you’ve worked for the USFS in the next 40 years there will be crushed and disappointed. Jerry told or for a nongovernmental organization new models for wilderness outside me that he looked to me—and a list for 20 years, for three years, or 40 years, of America, and that’s a good thing. of other folks that he believed in—to you may not always feel ready for the carry on, to fight for good wilderness task; there will be good days and bad The Future stewardship. I hung up the phone after days, optimistic times and times Restraint, protecting the spirit of talking with Jerry, honestly thinking everything we do feels hopeless. There wildness, openness—that’s what I think that he was nuts. That, at least in my will usually be many more small victories it will take to be able to sit together in case, I wasn’t ready for any torch- than big victories. The point is to do our celebration at the 80th anniversary of passing to come my way; that I was best. To quote what I think may be from the Wilderness Act. I think it’s possible, ill-prepared, uninformed, and, if that the Talmud, “We’re not expected to though not easy to get there. wasn’t enough, pretty much a nobody finish our work, but neither are we Wherever you are in your life, the in the organizational food chain. excused from it.” IJW future has a nasty way of sneaking up I realize now that Jerry was right. on you. When I was chair of the The future of wilderness stewardship REFERENCES Waterman, Guy and Laura. 1993. Wilderness Wilderness Advisory Group, I had the in the USFS was and still is in my hands Ethics, The Countryman Press, Woodstock, pleasure of getting to know Jerry and in the hands of all USFS employees. VT. Stokes, the former USFS assistant More often than not the progress is director for wilderness. I didn’t know slow. There always will be people who REBECCA ORESKES is an IJW editor and a Jerry very well, but I knew him well tell you what you want is impossible, staff officer on the White Mountain enough to know he was a visionary or that what you’re advocating is National Forest, 719 North Main Street, Laconia, NH 03246, USA. Telephone: and he was passionate about impractical and too idealistic. Those 603-528-8757; email: [email protected]. wilderness. Shortly after I joined the people can make an awful lot of noise, WAG, Jerry announced his retirement. but we can’t let them stop us.
From MANAGING CAVES AS WILDERNESS on page 20 buried resources. SAR events must in- tains, Caves of Sequoia and Kings Canyon tion in the Sierra Nevada, California, re- clude ongoing efforts to minimize National Parks. Dayton, OH: Cave Books. vealed by cosmogenic dating of cave sedi- Krejca, Jean K. 2006. Draft inventory of karst ments. Geology 32(3): 193–96. impact to the cave and preserve wil- fauna in Sequoia, Kings Canyon, and Tinsley, John C. 1999. New karst connection in derness values. Yosemite National Parks. Buda, TX: Zara Mineral King Valley. California Caver 210: 22. Environmental. REFERENCES National Park Service. 2001. National Park D’Agostino, Jean. 1992. Defining underground Service Management Policies. Sections 6.3.1 JOEL DESPAIN is a cave specialist for wilderness: A proposed management plan for and 6.3.11.2.Washington, DC: Department Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Lechuguilla Cave. Unpublished bachelor’s the- of the Interior. 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, sis, University of California, Santa Barbara. Stock, Greg, Robert S. Anderson, and Robert CA 93271, USA. Email: Despain, Joel D. 2004. Hidden Beneath the Moun- C. Finkel. 2004. Pace of landscape evolu- [email protected].
The First 10 years of the International Journal of Wilderness on CD!
$95 Regular Price $70 IJW Subscriber Price, Save 25%! $50ea. When you buy 10 or more
Orders to: The WILD Foundation • Phone: 805-640-0390 • Fax: 805-640-0230 On line: www.wild.org
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 7 STEWARDSHIP
Defining the Concept of Cave Wilderness and Its Designation Values
BY PATRICIA E. SEISER and MICHAEL A. SCHUETT
report. It is apparent that special study is needed to develop suitable definitions for these recreation resources, which can be applied in survey and manage- ment efforts. (ORRRC, 1962, p. 4)
In the end, the Wilderness Act of 1964 made no reference to caves. However, cave conservationists felt that Congress was aware of caves’ potential as wilderness and had intended to include them, just as other natural features were included without specific reference (Stitt 1982). Attempts were made to designate caves or portions of caves as wilderness (Stitt 1991). Yet no federally designated wil- Article co-authors Patricia E. Seiser and Michael A. Schuett. derness has been established based on the wilderness qualities inherent to the caves found there. Nor has the presence of Introduction caves been an important criterion in the determination of any wilderness designation (Seiser 2003). This lack of desig- For some, caves are one of the last remaining frontiers for ad- nation suggests that cave wilderness is not an intuitive venture, wilderness, and exploration in America. In concept, at least not in the context of the Wilderness Act. acknowledgment of these qualities, a few have sought national The lack of understanding, by the general public and recognition for caves in the form of a wilderness designation. policy makers, of caves’ ecological importance and associ- However, their efforts have not resulted in any cave or portion ated wilderness values may play a role in the lack of a thereof receiving congressional recognition as wilderness. designation. Congressional testimony and other records During the years that the Wilderness Act was under con- indicate that values were a critical focal point in the pas- gressional consideration, numerous hearings were conducted. sage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Cordell et al. 2003). A report, submitted by de Saussure (1962), entitled “Cave Developing an understanding of values associated with caves Resources,” as well as testimony by representatives of the Na- may lead to better understanding of cave wilderness and tional Speleological Society, was taken under review during the need for a congressionally legislated designation. preparation of the final draft of the Wilderness Act (Stitt 1982). Justifications for wilderness preservation arise from val- The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission ues ascribed to wilderness. McCloskey (1990) defines these (ORRRC), in its 1962 Study Report No. 3 noted the poten- values as reasons, based in philosophy and culture, for want- tial wilderness value of caves: ing wilderness. These tangible and intangible values are Rivers and caves are considered in the report as important potential wilderness resources, and we have attributed to the benefits experienced by individuals, soci- attempted a limited inventory of wilderness rivers and ety, or nature. Various wilderness- and protected areas–related discussion of cave preservation in appendixes to the full value typologies have been developed. Two specific typologies
8 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 address American and worldwide per- spectives. A 13-item Wilderness Values Table 1. Cave Wilderness Definitions Scale (WVS) has been used, as part of Author Year Definition the American National Survey on Recre- Watson 1971 Underground wilderness consists of cave systems that generally appear ation and the Environment, see table 3 & Smith to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint Cordell et al. 2003; Cordell et al. 1998). of man’s work substantially unnoticeable. The World Commission on Protected Stitt 1972 Underground wilderness is that portion of a cave or karst area, lying Areas (WCPA), a voluntary technical & Bishop below the surface of the earth, which meets the requirements of the Wilderness Act regarding value and impact on the observer. body of the IUCN, developed a typol- Gamble 1981 Areas from which Man can derive the wilderness experience exists in ogy of intangible values most the remote areas of cavern systems, where the impact of Man’s activities commonly associated with protected is largely unnoticeable. Any cave or portion thereof, which has not areas, see table 1 (Putney 2003). These been markedly disturbed by tourism or other exploitive activities, typologies have contributed to the un- therefore includes substantial tracts of wilderness. derstanding of the diverse values Wood 1983 [Cave] Wilderness is an area that can provide people with wilderness associated with protected areas, both experience. The primary purpose of wilderness is recreational and cultural with ecological values important but secondary. Wilderness nationally and internationally. The experience consists of feelings of freedom, beauty, empathy with wild work of Cordell et al. (2003) highlights nature, and remoteness from the ordinary works of man. the change, over time, in the relative Millar 1994 Cave wilderness is a function of the difficulty of ingress/egress, travel importance of specific values associated within the cave and/or the feeling of remoteness from the surface. with wilderness in the United States. In a 1961 Cave Research Foundation derness, defining both intent and pur- Report, Smith (1981) wrote, “The ap- pose of such a designation, as well as plication of wilderness philosophy to predication of the definition of cave caverns is neither a well defined nor a wilderness on the 1964 Wilderness Act. widely thought about concept. It is not The purpose of this study was to an easy concept to develop for speleo- explore values and meanings associated logical wilderness values are alien to with cave wilderness from the perspec- much of the human experience.” Other tive of stakeholders who perceive their authors have discussed values associated lives to be affected by caves and/or a with both caves and wilderness (Gamble cave wilderness designation. The study 1981; Huppert and Wheeler 1992; examined stakeholder expectations of Watson and Smith 1971). The intrinsic and concerns regarding a special cave values of caves make it evident that many designation, such as cave wilderness. caves do meet the criteria for a wilder- In establishing the foundations of ness site (Huppert and Wheeler 1992). meaning for a phenomenon, it becomes However, there has been little to no re- possible to construct sound scientific Figure 1. Hazel Barton crossing a “pit” in a cave while on belay. search identifying which values are and political theories, management Photo by Patricia E. Seiser. associated with the creation of a desig- practices, and policy. The defining of a nation such as cave wilderness. concept, such as cave wilderness, is a Focus group dynamics can stimulate Much of the research on cave wil- way to enhance the knowledge base for discussions and encourage in-depth derness was confined to the legal the discipline of cave resources stew- articulation of concerns, attitudes, and definition of wilderness (Seiser 2003). ardship (Parse 1997). perceptions, thus providing insights Several definitions for cave wilderness into the research topic (Fleitas 1998). have been proposed, most are Study Design Discussion topics covered meanings grounded in the Wilderness Act, and Cave regions of central Kentucky and and values associated with cave wil- none has gained wide acceptance (see southeast New Mexico were selected derness, need for a congressional table 1). The lack of a federally desig- as study sites for a phenomenological wilderness designation, and perceived nated cave wilderness may lie in the investigation of cave-related stake- benefits and risks associated with a lack of a clear definition for cave wil- holders, using a focus group format. cave wilderness designation.
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 9 Findings and Discussion Table 2. Community of Interest and Community of Place Stakeholders It is beyond the scope of this article to Defining Stakeholders by Community of Interest and Community of Place report on all findings of this research. The intent of this article is to identify Community of Interest (Those who use and/or participate in the stewardship of caves and karst.) values associated with the establish- ment of a special designation such as 1. Individuals who utilize caves for recreation, exploration, and/or research. cave wilderness based on themes iden- 2. Individuals who own or manage wild or developed caves (regardless of ownership or tified from focus groups discussions. commercial use). The article also presents goals and ob- 3. State and federal government officials responsible for decisions impacting caves or cave management. jectives of a cave wilderness designation as derived from focus group discus- 4. Special interest organizations that have an interest in cave and karst environments. sions. The research revealed a need for Community of Place a clearly delineated definition of cave (Those who work, reside on, or own land in cave and karst regions.) wilderness, and a purposed definition 1. Local individuals who earn a living via a nonresource extraction business. is developed, based on special desig- 2. Local individuals who earn a living via a natural resource extraction industry. nation values, goals, and objectives, 3. Local government officials who may have an impact on cave stewardship activities. resulting from focus group discussions. The sociodemographic profile of fo- 4. Local residents cus group participants was as follows: Both study sites contain a national groups were held during a national predominately white (98%), male “cave” park: Mammoth Cave and caving event (39 participants had (78%), between the ages of 40 and 69 Carlsbad Caverns National Parks. At- caved in one or both study regions). (77%), had a bachelor’s degree or tempts to establish cave wilderness Five focus groups were held within the higher (74%), had an annual income have occurred at both parks. specific study sites (21 participants), of US$40,000 or higher (72%), had These cave regions differ culturally, three in Kentucky, and two in New visited a wilderness site (90%), and historically, and economically, and in Mexico. Effective focus groups com- identified themselves as a caver (76%). terms of regional population, land own- prise six to eight participants (Krueger Caving experience levels ranged from ership, and designated wilderness. They 1995). In this study focus group sizes novice to very experienced to retired. differ in mechanism of cavern develop- ranged from two to 12. Variations in They also indicated wide-ranging spe- ment, nature of the caves, and in how group numbers resulted from partici- cializations (explorer, photographer, their relation to the surface landscape pants failing to attend or the inclusion cave diver, etc.) (Seiser 2003). may affect individual awareness of caves. of individuals invited by participants. These distinctly different regions pro- In addition to focus group partici- Designation Values vided a wide range of experiences and pation, stakeholders were asked to Seven value-related themes were identi- values from which stakeholders drew complete a questionnaire with ques- fied regarding a special cave designation, upon in discussing their perspectives of tions about demographics, caving such as cave wilderness: (1) research and caves and a special cave designation, experiences, and wilderness visitation. monitoring, (2) experiential, (3) resource such as cave wilderness. Focus group sessions were taped protection, (4) educational, (5) future, (6) Participants were recruited based on using video and audio recorders. Tran- significance, and (7) existence. Themes membership in selected target popula- scripts of recordings were first coded often overlapped. All groups discussed tions—stakeholders who may effect or by the researcher to identify themes, the first four themes to varying degrees. be affected by cave stewardship policies reviewed by the research assistant, and Seven groups directly or indirectly ad- and legislation. Cave-related stakehold- then evaluated by two independent, dressed educational and future value ers fell into one of two, potentially noncaver reviewers. Identified themes themes. Only two groups discussed ex- overlapping, communities—the com- and concepts that appear to link sub- istence value. munity of interest and the community stantial portions of the data together of place (see table 2). served as a basis for a developing nar- • Research and Monitoring: Dis- Nine focus groups were conducted, rative (Winter, Palucki, and Burkhardt cussions on the intent of a special involving 60 participants. Four focus 1999; Fleitas 1998). designation centered on protecting
10 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 physical and social scientific val- ture of “somebody else can take ues and resources. This included care of me,” when I feel like I’m establishment of baseline data for getting away from, that is when I feel like I’m in the wilderness. monitoring purposes. The preser- Maybe it’s the same for Joe Blow vation of future discoveries was an public, at what point does he important component of scientific cross the boundary where it’s like, research. The value of research and oh my goodness I’m taking care of monitoring is illustrated in this myself now? This is wilderness. stakeholder comment: Who cares that they’re the last • Resource Protection: Resource unexplored frontier, because of that protection discussions ranged from broad statements, such as “good Figure 2. Pat Kambesis recording research notes while exploring we don’t know enough about them. a cave. Photo by Patricia E. Seiser. This is an opportunity to go into an for the health of the planet,” to environment that we have not more specific benefits, including educate. So, the education aspect impacted on our planet and study protection of water quality and of any kind of designation would ecosystems that are undamaged. just be paramount. We’ve never really had an opportu- protection of fauna. Protection in- nity to do that before and now we cluded the physical aspects of a have the tools to do it, and we are cave—preservation of the cave’s • Future: Discussions focused on the getting so much information from natural state and its original re- need to protect caves based on not those environments… So, the sources, and recognition of only today’s knowledge and values, scientific potential is vast for these resource fragility. The following but also on the preservation of cave areas, what we can learn. For most stakeholder comment discusses resources for future generations’ people, if you say the cave needs to needs and values. Preservation be protected, it’s very delicate, we the value of resource protection: have these formations, we have You know if you get a pass to would also protect the potential for these complex ecosystems, they’re go into what I would deem as a future discoveries, as noted in the not going to get that, but when you cave wilderness area, it just takes following stakeholder comment: say it’s this incredible scientific one person to go in there and take Why do you want to preserve resource, which it really is, then what he wants and that piece is this, is it for current scientific study, they’re like oh science well that’s nonrenewable. … But, there is is it for future scientific study? Let’s important please do that. more chance of renewability on not exhaust all of the resources. the surface, … because in caves With science, we may discover in a there’s virtually no chance. hundred years, we may find that • Experiential: Preservation of the ex- science in 2002 was just in its periential aspect of wilderness was • Educational: Focus groups dis- infancy. Let’s do what we need to do another important component of a cussed the importance of a special to learn to as much as we can about special designation. Such an experi- designation in generating public what’s beneath us and leave it in such a way so that two generations ence offers the perceptions of awareness of the significance of solitude, remoteness, and self-suffi- hence they won’t say, oh you’ve caves. Specially designated caves wiped out the footprints. ciency. This value is aptly discussed can serve as educational resources by this stakeholder comment: for land managers and the public If I’m in Fairy Cave and I’m • Significance: Discussions touched (with or without visitation). The way back in the most miserable upon the need for the designation part of Fairy Cave, which is still educational value is best illustrated to be based on the overall quality like an hour from the entrance, I by this stakeholder comment: of the resource to be protected, as don’t feel like I am in the wilder- If we go through the process of opposed to one or two resource at- trying to pursue some kind of ness; I am in a wild cave there, tributes (including scientific, but I’m not in wilderness. When designation, it should be for the I’m in Lech and I’m like four or purpose of creating broader aesthetic, and other intangible at- five hours from the entrance, and community outreach and a tributes). The following stakeholder we’re camping down there, I broader forum for education about comment discusses significance: absolutely do feel like we’re in the caves and karst, obviously for the There has to be some value wilderness. I think, for me, it’s protection of caves and karst. But criteria in there too. It’s got to be how far am I from the infrastruc- in order to protect you’ve got to an outstanding example of
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 11 protected. Such concerns may be why Table 3. Protected Areas Value Typologies emphasis was placed on the Value Typologies experiential value by all focus groups. Cave Wilderness WCPA (2003) NSRE (2000) If a special designation did not use the Designation Values Intangible Values of Wilderness Values Scale3 term wilderness, it was still to protect (2003)1 Protected Areas2 the experience of wilderness. Experiential Research & Monitoring Research & Monitoring Scientific Study Scientific research was a primary Existence Existence Knowing It Exists component of focus group discussions, Educational Educational indicating the importance of research Future Option for Future Generations Resource Protection and monitoring values to a special cave Protecting Water Quality Protecting Water Quality designation. This runs contrary to Protecting Air Quality Protecting Air Quality Protecting Wildlife Habitat Protecting Wildlife Habitat recent research indicating that scientific Preserving Unique Wild Plants & Animals Preserving Unique Wild Plants & value was not a significant aspect of Animals wilderness (Brown and Alessa 2005; Protecting Rare & Endangered Species Protecting Rare & Endangered Species Cordell et al 2003). In the case of this Recreational Recreation Opportunities study, scientific value is significant to Aesthetic Scenic Beauty Spiritual Spiritual Inspiration the establishment of cave wilderness. Cultural Five of the nine focus groups Therapeutic discussed recreation, specifically noting Identity Artistic that cave wilderness should not be Peace established for recreational purposes, Tourism Income as illustrated by the following Option for Personal Use stakeholder comment: “It’s not for 1 As Identified in this article. 2 See Putney (2003). recreational use; it’s for exploratory and 3 See Cordell et al. (2003). documenting.” Although it can be something. Outstanding Wilderness Values Scale (Cordell et al. argued that cave explorers are resources, outstanding geological 2003; Cordell et al. 1998) (see table 3), recreating while they are mapping and speleothems, hydrology for the indicating that these values are not inventorying a cave, they are producing local area, whatever it is, you can’t just take any little feature… it’s dissimilar from those associated with scientific documents. It is questionable got be of great value, significance. other types of protected areas. The one if cave visitors, whose primary interest exception was experiential value. The in caves is for sport/adventure, would • Existence: Two groups mentioned WCPA typology covers a wide variety feel the same way about a nonrecreation the value of knowing that wilder- of protected areas, and it is based wilderness designation. ness existed even without actual understandable that experiential value Values not identified in focus group visitation, as illustrated by the fol- would not be a primary value of all sites. discussions on cave wilderness, yet listed lowing comment: “There’s a lot of Perhaps it is not included in the WVS in the two the WCPA and WVS wilderness areas that I don’t get any typology because the perceptions of typologies, should not be considered as selfish thing from personally, but I solitude, remoteness, and self- unimportant to focus group participants. feel good knowing that there are sufficiency are integral components of Rather, these values are not significant places out there that humans aren’t wilderness. in the establishment of a special cave [messing] up.” Focus groups indicated difficulty designation. As noted by Harmon, 2003, with use of the phrase cave wilderness. “No single protected area can cover the Designation Values Two primary reasons were (1) negative spectrum of intangible values” (p. 20). Discussion experiences associated with wilderness It is highly likely that additional values With one exception, focus group values hearings and establishment of will be associated with cave wilderness associated with a special designation wilderness, and (2) the concern that once a designation is established. such as cave wilderness were similar to such a designation would serve as an Understanding the values associated those of the WCPA Intangible Values attractant, resulting in the destruction with a special designation begins to lay Typology (Putney 2003) and the of the resources intended to be the foundation of cave wilderness. Such
12 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 knowledge will aid in answering the question; “What is cave wilderness?” Table 4. Criteria Important in Defining the Idea of Cave Wilderness. Are we talking about people? Are we talking about places? And if Criteria Important in Defining the Idea of Wilderness as Established by Focus Groups we’re talking about preserving Is the designation for resource protection or recreation and caves, are we talking about Intent knowledge? It is necessary to define what is being protected and preserving them for their own from what activities or events. Cave wilderness should not be sakes or preserving them because established primarily for recreational purposes. they are of value to humanity? Designation must protect caves based on today’s knowledge and Visionary Impact values and preserve caves and cave resources for future Designation Goals and generations’ needs and values. Objectives Designation must provide protection of the cave’s scientific values As noted previously, cave wilderness Scientific Values and resources, for study now and in the future, including is not an intuitive concept. Under- preservation of future discovery opportunities. standing the values associated with a Designation must provide for the protection of individuals’ ability to special cave designation is critical to Experiential Values have a wilderness experience that offers the perceptions of solitude, understanding cave wilderness. So too remoteness, and self-sufficiency. is an understanding of what the in- Access restrictions should occur for the protection of the cave tentions are in such a designation. resources, but should not result in permanent closure of the cave. Access Rationales for limiting access include the existence of other caves Understanding the purposes a cave open for recreational purposes and the ability to provide alternative wilderness designation would serve is ways to experience the cave via the use of photographic and an important aspect of defining what videographic imagery. cave wilderness is to be. Designation will need to provide protection for physical, biological, Research findings suggest the follow- and other components of a cave, preservation of the cave’s natural state, its original resources, and recognition of resource fragility. ing goals are important in defining the Resource Protection The designation will address surface as well as subsurface activities intent of a special designation such as that may impact upon the cave resources. It will also need to cave wilderness: (1) protection of cave provide protection for the human dimension aspect of a cave— resources and associated scientific val- protection of physical and social sciences’ values, aesthetic values, wilderness values, and other values. ues that occur within a wilderness setting for present and future research Specially designated caves can serve as educational resources Education (with or without requiring physical visitation), generating public opportunities, and (2) protection of the awareness of the significance of caves. wilderness experience. The sense of iso- lation, as defined by solitude and Designation must recognize that each cave is different. It would be Management necessary to tailor management practices to meet specific cave remoteness, and the sense of self-suffi- needs. Specific management should evolve from cave resources ciency are important elements in a cave (physical and social sciences) and skill requirements. wilderness experience. Based on these goals, it was pos- managers. … I think research is an the values and resources for which it sible to develop objectives of a special important part of the whole was designated. cave designation. These objectives in- protection, because if you don’t cluded: (1) intent, (2) visionary truly understand how something works then how are you going to Defining Cave Wilderness impact, (3) scientific values, (4) expe- come up with the most effective In developing the definition of cave riential values, (5) access issues, (6) ways to help protect, and preserve, wilderness, a combination of two ap- resource protection, and (7) educa- and manage those resources? proaches was used. The traditional tional values (see table 4). As one approach was used to identify values participant noted: The objectives delineate cave wil- and meanings associated with the con- …research to understand our derness stewardship goals without cept via focus groups. The second resources and how they interact placing specific restrictions or require- approach, concept inventing, results with other resources, from taking that information and data and ments on how they are to be achieved, from the interpretation of literature using that to educate not just the thus allowing each designated site to from various disciplines, personal ex- public, but to educate our land be managed as appropriate to protect perience, and other sources in order
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 13 to discover associated meanings. The part of the wilderness experience is not value, known and unknown. scholar selects which meanings to use a new one. Believing that the urge to These same caves and cave in the definition and distinguishes the explore was basic to human nature, passages exhibit high degrees of wildness and naturalness (the concept via a logical combination of Aldo Leopold felt that designated wil- physical reality of wilderness) and these chosen meanings (Parse 1997). derness would provide opportunities the intangible essence of wilder- In the first approach, the structure of to safeguard the romance of explora- ness (solitude, self-sufficiency, and the concept is generated from the re- tion (Sutter 2002). “And now, sense of remoteness) such that search participants. In the second speaking geographically, the end of the visitation evokes a wilderness approach, the ideas arise from mul- unknown is at hand. … Is it to be ex- experience. In order to protect these scientific and cultural tiple sources (Bournes 2000). pected that it shall be lost from human resources, wilderness qualities, In defining cave wilderness, the re- experience without something like- and opportunities for discovery, it search findings were complemented wise being lost from human is proposed that the designation with the researcher’s personal experi- character?” (Leopold 1991, p. 124). In of cave wilderness be established. ences, reflections on wilderness and combining the possibility of adventure In recognition of the spirit of cave wilderness literature, and from and wilderness preservation, Leopold exploration and discovery, cave wilderness shall be open to those existing U.S. federal legislation: the envisioned the potential to prevent the who desire to meet the cave on its Wilderness Act of 1964, the Wild and loss of the idea of exploration from the own terms, to explore, discover, Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, the Federal average person’s life. and report, thereby contributing Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988, In defining cave wilderness, con- to the world’s knowledge of and the Lechuguilla Cave Resources sideration is given to the physical speleology and other sciences. It Protection Act of 1993. Thus, values resources of the cave, its wilderness is the hope that use of such knowledge will be for education, and meanings of the concept of cave qualities, and stewardship goals. A resource stewardship, and other wilderness developed from research definition should recognize that hu- additional beneficial purposes for participant inputs, as well as emanat- mans have a past, present, and future all of humankind. ing from a synthesis of multiple sources. history with caves, and recognize that The proposed definition of cave scientific ventures can be intertwined Cave wilderness is defined as wilderness is also guided by an added with a wilderness experience. those caves and cave passages exhibiting exceptional scientific and component—the idea of exploration The following preamble and defi- cultural resources, and wilderness and discovery. Kerbo and Roth (1989) nition of cave wilderness are proposed qualities. These sites display a high note that caves not only emphasize herein: degree of wildness, in which the wilderness qualities and benefits, they physical structure and ecological Caves are valuable, nonrenewable systems are largely unimpacted by also allow individuals to experience resources. Wilderness caves and humans and in which there is a the spirit of exploration and adven- other significant wild caves exist sense of remoteness from the ture. Although alluded to in and are protected to preserve their ordinary activities and works of recreational and educational discussions regarding exploration and humankind. Cave wilderness is to values for the perpetual use, mapping and other scientific activities, mean those caves and cave passages enjoyment, and benefit of all explicit expression of this idea by in which stewardship shall protect people. There exist some caves the cave resources, its wilderness research participants as a specific value and cave passages that are values, and future discoveries. of cave wilderness did not occur. The repositories of scientific and Stewardship goals include: sanction idea that exploration and discovery be cultural resources of extraordinary of exploration and other scientific research activities, while seeking to limit the impact of these activities The lack of understanding, by the general public and and other visitation; protection of the sense of solitude, remoteness, policy makers, of caves’ ecological importance and and self-sufficiency as well as other characteristics of a wilderness associated wilderness values may play a role experience; recognition of the historic connection of humans and in the lack of a designation. caves, such that evidence of historic human visitation and usage that
14 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 does not detract from the cave’s wildness or wilderness experience is acceptable; and management of surface activities to protect the cave resources and wilderness qualities.
The preceding preamble and definition is based on themes identified from discussion groups conducted in two cave regions of the United States. The following two questions arise: (1) Would the same themes be identified from focus groups conducted in other regions of the United States? and (2) Are there issues and concerns not addressed by the focus groups in our study? Additional research would aid in determining the nation’s level of Figure 3. Reviewing research notes at the end of a day of exploring and surveying. Photo by Patricia E. Seiser. interest in a cave wilderness designation. It would also provide an provides opportunities for researchers validation, it is a beginning for laying opportunity to evaluate the level of to pursue cave and karst investigations, the foundation for cave wilderness. understanding and interest in cave there still exists the obligation of pro- There is also a need to understand the stewardship, as well as determining tecting the cave resources and public’s knowledge of and perceptions cave-related educational needs. wilderness experiences while manag- regarding caves and caving activities, in- ing research activities. Public cluding exploration. Conclusions education may require the expansion An understanding of the values This study identified values associated of current educational programs and associated with a special cave with the establishment of a special the development of new programs. designation, as well as a clear definition designation such as cave wilderness. For some, the word wilderness is of cave wilderness, may aid in Hendee and Dawson (2001) noted troubling. Nevertheless, whether a legislators’ and the public’s appreciation that in the future, wilderness may special cave designation goes by a for the need of a congressionally represent remnants of ecosystems, convoluted title such as “site of legislated special cave designation. wild conditions, and opportunities for extraordinary interest for speleological This study emphasizes the need to wilderness experiences, and is exploration and research” or other expand the concept of wilderness to in- reflective of our stewardship of today. verbiage, the heart of the designation clude nontraditional wildernesses such Threats to existing wilderness sites are is still to protect the wilderness of caves as caves, and the idea that wilderness similar to those faced in the and their associated values. can be managed with an emphasis on stewardship of caves. The identified A special cave designation should science, education, and exploration, in- values associated with cave wilderness require both surface and subsurface stead of recreation. This study lays the can guide today’s stewardship lands be considered, as well as associ- foundation for cave wilderness steward- practices to protect these ated activities, to address the ship and aids in expanding the concept nonrenewable environments. They multidimensional aspect of cave of wilderness. The proposed definition can also be used to help identify caves boundaries. It does not require that the of cave wilderness provides a framework on federal lands that deserve special surface lands meet wilderness qualifi- upon which to base cave ecosystem designation (be it called wilderness or cations, only that activities occurring management practices and policies. by another name) and the protection on the surface do not adversely affect In 2005 U.S. Senate Bill 1170 was associated with such a designation. the subsurface cave wilderness. introduced to Congress proposing to Research and education were iden- Whereas this research needs to be ex- establish the Fort Stanton-Snowy River tified as integral components of cave panded to other cave and noncave National Cave Conservation Area, located wilderness stewardship. Although this regions of the United States for further on Bureau of Land Management land near
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 15 Capitan, New Mexico, “to secure, protect, Fort Stanton-Snowy River National Cave ed. D. Harmon and A. D. Putney (pp. 3–11). and conserve subterranean natural and Conservation Area. Senate Bill S. 1170. Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield. June 6, 2005. Seiser, P. E. 2003. Dark wilderness: A unique features and environs for Gamble, F. M. 1981. Disturbance of phenomenological exploration of the idea scientific, educational, and other underground wilderness in karst caves. of cave wilderness. Unpublished doctoral appropriate public uses” (S.1170, June International Journal of Environmental dissertation, West Virginia University, Studies 18 33–39. Morgantown, WV. 6, 2005). The nature of Fort Stanton cave Harmon, D. 2003. The source and significance Smith, P. M. 1981. The Flint Ridge Cave System: and its long history of recreational of values in protected areas. In The Full Value A wilderness opportunity. A Cave Research visitation do not lend much of the of Parks. From Economics to the Intangible, Foundation Report (May 1961). In The Cave currently known cave to wilderness ed. D. Harmon and A. D. Putney (pp. 13– Research Foundation Origins and the First 25). Boulder, CO: Rowman & Littlefield. Twelve years 1957–1968, ed. R. A. Watson consideration. Of the eight criteria Hendee, J. C., and C. P. Dawson. 2001. (pp. 157–69). Mammoth Cave, KY: The defining the idea of cave wilderness, the Stewardship to address the threats to wilderness Cave Research Foundation. bill specifically addressed six, lacking the resources and Values. IJW 7(3): 4–9. Stitt, R. R. 1982. Underground wilderness. In National criteria of “visionary impact” and Huppert, G. N. and B. J. Wheeler. 1992. The case Cave Management Symposia Proceedings, ed. for underground wilderness. In Proceedings of R. C. Wilson and J. J. Lewis (pp. 201–3). Oregon “experiential values.” Although the bill the Symposium on Designation and City, OR: Pygmy Dwarf Press. seeks to establish protected status for a Management of Park and Wilderness Reserves, ———. 1991. Underground wilderness and the specific cave and does not specifically ed. E. E. Krumpe and P. D. Weingart. 4th World NSS. NSS News 49: 26. Wilderness Congress. Boise: International ———. 1993. Legal brief. In National Cave establish a federal land management Wilderness Leadership Foundation and the Management Symposium Proceedings, ed. D. category, it does not preclude that use. Department of Resource Recreation and L. Foster, D. G. Foster, M. M. Snow, and R. K. The significance of the bill lies in the Tourism, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Range Snow (pp.275–88). Horse Cave, KY: The potential establishment of a designation Sciences, University of Idaho. American Cave Conservation Association. Kerbo, R., and J. Roth. 1989. Lechuguilla Cave Stitt, R. R., and W. P. Bishop. 1972. Underground for the protection of scientifically notable on the edge of wilderness. In 1987 Cave wilderness in the Guadalupe Escarpment: A caves, regardless of their wilderness Management Symposium, ed. G. N. Huppert concept applied. Bulletin of the National values. This could be the first step and D. R. McClurg (pp. 56–62). Huntsville, Speleological Society 34: 77–88. toward the establishment of a cave AL: National Speleological Society. Sutter, Paul S. 2002. Driven Wild: How the Fight Krueger, R. A. 1995. The future of focus groups. against Automobiles Launched the Modern wilderness–based designation. IJW Qualitative Health Research 5: 524–30. Wilderness Movement. Seattle: University of Lechuguilla Cave Protection Act of 1993. Public Washington Press. REFERENCES Law 103-169, 103rd Congress, S. 1, Watson, R. A., and P. M. Smith. 1971. Brown, G. C., and L. Alessa. 2005. A GIS-based December 2, 1993. Underground wilderness: A point of view. inductive study of wilderness values. IJW Leopold, A. 1991. The river of the Mother of International Journal of Environmental 11(1): 14–18. God. In The River of the Mother of God and Studies 2: 217–20. Bournes, D. A. 2000. Concept inventing: A Other Essays by Aldo Leopold, ed. S. Flader Wilderness Act of 1964. Public Law 88-577, 78 process for creating a unitary definition of and J. B. Callicott (pp. 123–27). Madison: Stat. 890; 16 U.S.C. 1121 (note, 1131-36). having courage. Nursing Science Quarterly University of Wisconsin Press. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Public Law 13: 143–49. McCloskey, M. 1990. Evolving perspectives on 90-542, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287. Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, and G. T. Green. wilderness values: Putting wilderness values in Winter, P. L., L. Palucki, and R. L. Burkhardt. 2003. Is the public viewpoint of wilderness order. In P. C. Reed (comp.), Preparing to (1999). Anticipated responses to a fee shifting? IJW 9(2): 27–32. manage wilderness in the 21st century: program: The key is trust. Journal of Leisure Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, B. L. McDonald, Proceedings of the conference (pp. 13-18; GTR- 31: 207–26. and J. C. Bergstrom. 1998. How the public SE-66). Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Wood, M. 1983. Cave wilderness: The recon- views wilderness: More results from the Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. ciliation of conservation and use. Unpub- U.S.A. survey on recreation and the Millar, I. R. 1994. Aurora Cave and Mount Luxmore lished bachelor’s thesis, Lincoln College, New environment. IJW 4(3): 28–31. Caves: Cave management issues. Unpublished Zealand. de Saussure, Raymond, 1962. Cave resources. report to Te Anau Field Center. Nelson, New In Wilderness and Recreation: A Report on Zealand: Department of Conservation. PATRICIA E. SEISER is an adjunct professor, Resources, Values, and Problems. ORRRC Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Department of Humanities, New Mexico Report No. 3. Appendix B (pp. 322–24). Commission. 1962. Study Report No. 3, Tech, and cave research specialist, Washington, D.C.: Outdoor Recreation Wilderness and Recreation—A Report on National Cave and Karst Research Institute, Resources Review Commission. Resources, Values, and Problems. Washington, Carlsbad, NM 88220, USA. Email: Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [email protected]. Public Law 88-691, 16 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.; Parse, R. R. 1997. Concept inventing: Unitary 102 Stat. 4546. creations. Nursing Science Quarterly 10: Fleitas, J. 1998. Spinning tales from the world 63–64. MICHAEL A. SCHUETT is an associate wide web: Qualitative research in an Putney, A. D. 2003. Introduction: Perspectives on professor, Recreation Park & Tourism Sciences, electronic environment. Qualitative Health the values of protected areas. In The Full Value Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A & M Research 8: 283–92. of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible, University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
16 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 STEWARDSHIP
Managing Caves as Wilderness at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California
BY JOEL DESPAIN
Introduction longest caves in the state, al- Wilderness has become one of the most popular ideas in though many of the 230 are the U.S. conservation movement. More than 100 million small and remote (Despain acres (over 40 million ha) have been designated wilder- 2004). The two parks contain ness, and since the Wilderness Act’s inception in 1964 every 722,715 acres (292,598 ha) of U.S. president has signed a wilderness bill. Yet caves-as- wilderness and 106,580 acres wilderness is a concept that has not caught on, and no (43,151 ha) of recommended subterranean areas have been specifically declared wilder- wilderness, or combined 96% ness within the United States (Seiser and Schuett, in this of the park land area. Most of issue of IJW). Caves contain values supported by the Wil- these lands are the alpine high derness Act, such as solitude for the visitor, untrammeled mountains of the Sierra crest. natural features and wildlife, and the existence of areas Park caves are generally lo- Joel Despain in Hurricane Crawl where people are clearly visitors. cated along the western slope Cave. Photo by Dave Bunnell. More than 60 U.S. National Park Service (NPS) units of the Sierra Nevada at lower have caves, including such notable areas as Carlsbad Cav- elevations compared to most park lands, and in some areas erns, New Mexico, and Mammoth Cave, Kentucky—the that were previously prospected for minerals. Therefore, world’s longest cave. However, many of the long and fa- many areas containing park caves are not in declared or mous caves of the U.S. national parks do not underlie recommended wilderness. wilderness, such as Carlsbad, Mammoth, and Wind and Many of the park’s longer and more significant caves do Jewel (South Dakota). One important exception is happen to fall within wilderness and proposed wilderness Lechuguilla Cave within Carlsbad Caverns National Park, boundaries. Of the 50 longest caves in the parks, 62% (31) which is known for its great length, exceptional and beau- are protected within areas managed as wilderness. It is these tiful mineral deposits, and unique microbes. NPS policies larger caves that are of concern to park managers. Smaller require that caves under wilderness areas also be managed caves in wilderness are seldom visited, do not contain any as wilderness. In addition, NPS policies also require that infrastructure associated with cave visitors, and are not areas recommended as wilderness, but not approved by managed in ways that may conflict with wilderness values. the U.S. Congress, be managed as wilderness (NPS Man- Three of these larger caves, Lilburn, Soldiers, and Hurri- agement Policies 2001). Yet the specifics of wilderness cane Crawl, will be considered in this article. management for caves have been left to individual parks, Larger caves are frequently visited by recreational cavers few of which have considered caves in their wilderness plan- and cave researchers under park permit systems (see figure 1). ning or as wilderness in their cave management planning. This visitation creates opportunities for damage to features In Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in Califor- and resources of concern and, thus, the need for ongoing nia, more than 230 caves have been documented. This management. Although limited in extent and impact, the includes the longest cave in California and half of the 10 larger caves contain metal and concrete cave gates, metal
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 17 primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” (2) Wilderness “has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” (3) A wilderness should have “at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition.” (4) Wilder- ness “may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scien- tific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” In addition the Act defines wilderness as “in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby rec- Figure 1—A caver in the largest room in Hurricane Crawl Cave and one of many found on lands managed as ognized as an area where the earth and wilderness in Sequoia National Park, California. Photo by Dick La Forge. its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- ladders, research equipment, survey ries of management that range from tor who does not remain.” stations and entrances marked with open to any and all visitation, to re- The imprint of humans’ work in the fixed metal tags, surveyors flagging quiring a park-approved trip leader, form of gates, ladders, and other struc- tape to delineate travel routes, fixed to closed for almost all purposes due tures is obvious in some locations in ropes, and metal rope anchors. This to specific hazards or particularly sen- park caves. But, in general, these ar- infrastructure, which protects cave sitive resources. The plan does eas are limited in extent. Solitude resources or makes visitation to park incorporate the use of permits for most comes easily in a cave where absolute caves safer, may be incompatible with park caves, including the ones in wil- darkness is the norm and sounds are wilderness values. The overuse of derness. Currently the park is rare. Caves, although generally smaller caves and the resulting damage to cave undertaking a major revision of the in floor area than 5,000 acres (2,024 wildlife and ecosystems is an addi- Cave Management Plan. An increased ha), are practical for preservation be- tional concern. Caver traffic may awareness of wilderness values and the cause they include small entrance compact soils, trample small cave- wilderness significance of the two connections to the surface. Park caves adapted animals or their habitat, and parks, combined with GIS technology contain features of scientific, educa- move sediments from muddy areas to that accurately delineates which caves tional, scenic, and historical values. areas of bedrock or secondary calcite, are protected by surface area wilder- The biology and hydrology of park marring their appearance and limiting ness designation or recommendation caves are the focus of many scientific their use as habitat. make this issue a key component of papers (Krejca 2006; Tinsley 1999; Management policies derived from the new planning effort. Stock et al. 2004; Despain 2004). Park the park Cave Management Plan are caves are the focus of many educa- reviewed in this article in light of wil- The Consideration tional efforts, including educational derness management and include cave of Wilderness tours at Crystal Cave and a park out- restoration, excavation for exploration, Two things can act as guides in cave reach program for area schools. Park cave research, and cave search and wilderness planning—the act itself caves are scenic—speleothems and the rescue operations (SAR). The current and the management of surface lands banded marble of park caves are very Cave Management Plan, completed in as wilderness. The Wilderness Act of popular with visitors to Crystal Cave and 1996, all but ignores the implications 1964 creates four primary criteria for with recreational cavers (see figure 2). of managing caves as wilderness. In wilderness: (1) That an area “gener- Park caves also contain Native Ameri- it, park caves are assigned to catego- ally appears to have been affected can artifacts of historical value. Park
18 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 caves in wilderness, although contain- dataloggers and associated electrodes ing a few infrastructure components, and probes, phone lines for transmitting are untrammeled and are not subject data, and sediment samplers to assist to controls that hamper natural forces with their research on the cave system. (D’Agostino 1992). Finally, overnight In addition, the cave contains three lad- stays are not currently allowed in any ders at short vertical drop-offs, fixed bolt park cave in wilderness. anchors at several sites where deeper pits NPS wilderness management allows exist, and surveyors flagging tape at ap- for Minimum Requirement Analysis, by proximately 10 sites to protect which the minimum tool necessary for speleothems from trampling and dam- managing a wilderness area can assessed. age (see figure 3), and nearly 100 fixed Criteria for minimum requirement survey stations allowing spatial referenc- analysis within the NPS are: (1) Is it an ing of the research work in the cave. The emergency threatening human life? (2) cave has two entrances, both of which Does the action conflict with the law? include cave gates. These features are (3) Can the action be accomplished with scattered across 21 miles (34 km) of less intrusive means? (4) Can the action known cave passage. be done outside of wilderness? NPS Hurricane Crawl Cave is generally documents go on to ask, Is the action closed. The cave was recently discov- Figure 2—Redwood Creek deep inside the banded marble passages necessary? What would happen if the ered, contains many rare and very scenic of Lilburn Cave contained within lands managed as wilderness by the U.S. National Park Service. Photo by Dave Bunnell. action did not go forward? Does the ac- cave speleothems, and endemic cave tion benefit the resource? Have animals. Four trips per year maximum wilderness values been considered over are allowed to enter the cave, and each Conflicts with Wilderness convenience, comfort, politics, and eco- must be accompanied by a park staff Values Matrix nomics? person. The cave contains no ladders, Table 1 summarizes the potential con- The vast majority of park wilderness fixed bolts, or research equipment, but flicts in these three caves and includes areas are wild, and the surface land does contain two fixed ropes and nu- the necessity for each potential action management of wilderness allows de- merous areas with surveyors flagging or infrastructure, the likely outcome of fined trails and campsites in certain tape defining travel routes. The cave has areas. Bear boxes in many areas attempt two entrances, both of which are barred to keep these animals from human food by cave gates. The cave has been sur- and to keep them wild. Historic cabins veyed, but no fixed survey stations have and seasonal ranger stations exist at been created. The cave is approximately numerous sites. Overnight visitation to 2.5 miles (4 km) long. park wilderness requires a permit, and Soldiers Cave is open for recreational group party size is limited. In general, caving with a park-approved trip leader. nothing in the current management of A maximum of 20 trips per year may park caves in wilderness appears to be enter the cave. It contains numerous in conflict with the management of sur- fixed bolts for rigging ropes, and most face wilderness areas in the parks. of these predate wilderness designation. The three primary caves in this study One ladder is in the cave to protect (Lilburn, Hurricane Crawl, and Soldiers) adjacent speleothems, and several ar- are managed for different purposes. All eas of flagging are present to protect three have or will have their own other formation areas. The cave has one subplan attached to the greater park entrance with a cave gate. The cave has Cave Management Plan as an appendix. been surveyed, but no fixed survey sta- Figure 3—An extremely delicate helicitite speleothem composed of Lilburn Cave is a research site used pri- tions have been created. This cave also calcite in Hurricane Crawl Cave, one of many cave features protected within the Redwood Canyon and North Fork recommended marily by the Cave Research Foundation has endemic wildlife. Soldiers Cave is wilderness in Sequoia National Park. Photo by Mark Fritzke. (CRF). Within the cave, CRF maintains approximately 1.8 miles (3 km) long.
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 19 minimum tool analysis, and the poten- ness Act. Such activities are specifically ness values and the Wilderness Act do tial conflict with wilderness values. supported by the law. Restoration ac- not arise, such as the existing ban on First, there are a number of visually tivities return areas to a close camping in park caves. In a national park intrusive components in park caves. approximation of their original appear- setting, smaller, remote caves that are not These include fixed bolts, anchors, and ance and character. Research the focus of ongoing recreation and re- affixed survey station tags that are po- equipment, although visually intrusive, search are not likely to be threatened tentially in conflict with the Wilderness is temporary and removable. Cave SAR with respect to their wilderness re- Act because they permanently scar cave operations and excavation for explora- sources and values. Wilderness values walls, must be replaced, which creates tion are more problematic. SAR and management requirements can best more scars, and may not be necessary operations can impact cave speleo- be incorporated in the management of as minimum tools. Ladders, flagging thems and features, but would be larger caves through the creation of spe- tape, and rope are also visually intru- allowed due to the emergency nature cific plans for those specific caves. sive, but when not permanent, do not of SAR operations under minimum tool Wilderness and management issues will scar or mark cave surfaces. analysis. Cave excavations are useful for vary from cave to cave depending on the Cave gates are likely the most sig- research because they allow access for level of use, type of use, nature of re- nificant impact on wilderness values research and study, but they can con- sources to be protected, and other and policies. But, clearly for Soldiers flict with wilderness values due to factors. and Hurricane Crawl caves, which are unsightly spoil piles, potential impact Visually intrusive infrastructure can prone to vandalism and are particu- to habitat due to climate change within impact wilderness values and should larly delicate respectively, gates are a a cave after excavation, and possible be limited in extent and visibility, tem- minimum tool for securing and pro- damage to scientific materials contained porary, and removable. Fixed anchors tecting cave features. The case for in soils. Excavations deep in caves are and survey stations should be avoided minimum tool for Lilburn may be far less likely to damage habitat through in wilderness caves due to the perma- harder to make due to the cave’s re- climate change and to disturb scientific nent damage they create on cave walls. mote location and extremely mazy materials, such as archaeological or When such anchors are used they nature, which limits the ability of paleontological materials, compared to should be justified with minimum tool recreationists to find many of the cave’s surface excavations at new potential analysis for that particular site. Exist- passages. The same complex passage cave entrances. ing anchors should be replaced in such junctions, multiple parallel passages, The current use of park caves and the a manner that no new scars are cre- and few landmarks that “hide” the cave existence of closed areas help to limit ated on cave walls. Survey stations also make it dangerous because it the effects of trampling and disturbance may be denoted using unfixed mark- is very easy to become lost. These on park cave wildlife. Low numbers and ers and the careful use of cave map features, combined with low tempera- travel restrictions are important for lim- cross sections to reveal the exact loca- tures inside this cave and many iting this impact in the future. tion of the point in question. hazards, including loose rock, drop- Overuse, trampling, cave gates, cave offs, and pits, may mean that a gate Conclusion excavation, and cave SAR all have the on this cave is the minimum tool nec- Cave management in a national park potential for significant impact with essary for public safety. setting is already focused on conserva- respect to wilderness values. Careful Cave research and restoration seem tion and research. Thus, many potential and ongoing management of these is- to pose little conflict with the Wilder- issues that could conflict with wilder- sues is needed to ensure that they do not. Cave gates should only be imple- mented with a thorough minimum tool Caves contain values supported by the Wilderness analysis; carefully managing the num- ber of visitors to park wilderness caves Act, such as solitude for the visitor, untrammeled should be an ongoing management natural features and wildlife, and the existence of goal; and cave excavations must not proceed without concern for potentially areas where people are clearly visitors. Continued on page 7
20 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 Table 1—Potential Conflicts with Wilderness Values–Based Research in Three Caves: Lilburn, Hurricane Crawl, and Soldiers Infrastructure Likely to Meet Component or Potential Purpose Rationale Minimum Management Wilderness Conflict Requirements Issue Cave gates Security Protects research equipment, cave Yes; due to the extremely Visually noticeable humanmade speleothems, and promotes safety in a fragile nature of this cave, features; permanent in nature; also dangerous cave gates are needed. visible from the surface wilderness
Dataloggers, Research Necessary for research Yes Visually noticeable humanmade electrodes, features phone line, samplers Permanently Research; Necessary for research; permanent No; do not have to be Visually noticeable humanmade tagged survey survey & affixing to cave walls is questionable fixed features; permanent scarring of the station documen- cave walls during tag placement tation of the cave Cave gates Security Protects research equipment, cave Uncertain; are gates Visually noticeable humanmade speleothems, and promotes safety in a needed on this cave? features; permanent in nature; also dangerous cave visible from the surface wilderness
Fixed rope Safety Very useful for anchoring ropes to cave No; do not have to be Visually noticeable humanmade anchors walls, including in areas with no natural fixed features; permanent scarring of the anchor points cave walls during bolt placement; bolt life span is 20 years
Ladders Ease of Could be replaced with belay lines or No; other means could be Visually noticeable manmade features; travel; fixed lines for single-rope-technique used; do not have to be Often affixed to the wall leading to bolt safety fixed holes and permanent scarring of the cave walls Flagging of Protect Needed to protect delicate features Yes Visually noticeable humanmade delicate areas speleothems features; not permanent
Flagging to assist Safety Cave is very complicated and potentially Uncertain; necessary, or Visually noticeable humanmade with route dangerous. is training in route-finding features; not permanent finding better?
Overuse and Cave Necessary for people to visit the cave; Yes; recreation and Greatest potential for wildlife is in trampling researcher the lower 150 feet of the cave floods on research are supported by upper levels where there are food travel decadal cycles; most travel is in a few the Wilderness Act; close sources; these areas do not flood; primary routes; cave sees approximately areas with little travel to essentially all areas of the cave have 35 parties of 3 to 4 people per year. reduce trampling? seen some disturbance during survey work. Cave restoration Restoration Restores habitat and adds to the cave’s Yes; habitat and Little aesthetic appeal wilderness enhancement is supported by the Minimum Requirement process.
Cave excavation Discover Adds to understanding of the park cave Uncertain; supports the Disturbance to soils, but limited in more cave systems; allows documentation of park discovery and extent passages caves; usually effects very small areas management of deep in the cave previously unknown park resources; is it necessary? Cave research Better Helps with cave management and with a Yes; research is supported Little, generally supported by the understand- greater ecological understanding of park by the Wilderness Act. Wilderness Act ing of the geomorphic processes cave and its processes Cave SAR Safety Needed to protect researchers Rescue routes are marked by flagging; generally easy to protect cave features during a SAR operation in Lilburn
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 21 SCIENCE and RESEARCH
PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE Revisiting Wilderness Science Priorities BY DAVID J. PARSONS
he Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute re- cently completed an extensive effort to address its T role in meeting the future needs for science to sup- port wilderness stewardship. Carried out in collaboration with wilderness managers and scientists from its partner agencies (Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Fish and Wild- life Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Geological Survey) as well as universities, NGOs, and international part- ners, this effort resulted in a new Program Charter that is expected to provide guidance to the institute’s research, ap- plication, and service programs over the next decade. Approved in late 2005, the Program Charter identifies a pro- their wilderness values, including how these relation- gram of work that aims to provide scientific leadership in ships affect and are affected by management policies bringing diverse groups of scientists and managers together and actions. This includes improved understanding in developing and using the knowledge needed to sustain of contrasting values of different stakeholders, con- wilderness ecosystems and values. flicts between differing demands and interests, and the Building on a vision of being the premier institution for attitudes people hold toward public lands. wilderness stewardship research, the Leopold Institute’s Pro- 3. Stewardship of fire as a natural process. This includes an gram Charter identifies important roles in the conduct, support, improved understanding of natural fire regimes, options and and facilitation of scientifically rigorous research; the delivery consequences of strategies for restoring fire as a natural pro- and application of research findings; and in fostering collabo- cess, and how social and institutional factors influence the ration and partnerships with a wide variety of individuals and evaluation of trade-offs by managers and the public. organizations. Much of the charter focuses on identifying a 4. Wilderness in the context of larger ecological and social program of work that is built around five priority areas. These systems. This includes such topics as the introduction, emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary approaches to spread, and effects of nonnative species; global change challenging issues that face wilderness managers. The five prob- and its effects on wildlife and other wilderness values; lem areas identified in the charter are: protection of water quality and quantity; and develop- 1. Recreation experiences and the impacts of recreation. This ment of indicators and monitoring protocols to assess includes such topics as understanding the basic dimen- trends in ecological and social conditions. sions of human experiences in wilderness and influences 5. The delivery and application of scientific knowledge and on those experiences, biophysical impacts of recreation tools. This focuses on facilitating access to and improv- activities, guidelines for restoration of impacted sites, and ing awareness of scientific knowledge and tools, as well an understanding of visitor distribution and flow patterns as investigating influences on and developing improved needed to guide planning and management decisions. 2. Relationships between people and lands protected for Continued on page 35
22 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 SCIENCE and RESEARCH
Wilderness and Persons with Disabilities Transferring the Benefits to Everyday Life
BY LEO McAVOY, TOM HOLMAN, MARNI GOLDENBERG, and DAVID KLENOSKY
Abstract: Persons with disabilities are using the National Wilderness Preservation System, and they are receiving a range of benefits from such wilderness use. The means-end theoretical and analysis perspective was used to explore the outcomes and related meanings associated with participating in a wilderness experi- ence program for people with disabilities as well as those without disabilities. Data were collected through a questionnaire completed by 193 trip participants (74 with disabilities and 119 without disabilities) immedi- ately after their wilderness experience, and a telephone interview with 29 of those same participants con- ducted six months later. The wilderness visitors with disabilities are able to transfer the outcomes gained on the wilderness trip into parts of their lives when they return home—parts of their lives such as family, work, and their general perspective on life. The results show that participation in these inclusive wilderness trips results in a higher appreciation of nature and the wilderness for persons with disabilities. In fact, the wilderness environ- ment is an integral component that generates these benefits.
Article co-authors from left: Leo McAvoy, Tom Holman, Marni Goldenberg, and David Klenosky.
Background Richards (1997); and Roggenbuck and Driver (2000). Hav- The personal benefits that people in general gain from wil- ing a disability does not preclude persons from visiting derness and wilderness activities have been documented in wilderness, and persons with disabilities are using wilder- a number of studies. Extensive reviews of this literature are ness and other primitive environments (Lais, McAvoy, and available in papers published by Easley, Passineau, and Driver Frederickson 1992; McCormick 2001). The goal of the study (1990); Ewert and McAvoy (2000); Hattie, Marsh, Neill, and reported here was to develop a better understanding of the
PEER REVIEWED
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 23 Figure 1a and b—Recreationist transferring from wheelchair into a canoe in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Photo by L. McAvoy-Wilderness Inquiry.
disabilities, and found that their levels of expressed by those for whom wilder- participation in outdoor recreation activi- ness is a very important part of their ties were equal to and in some instances lives. Janet Zeller (1992), a person greater than participation rates for those with quadriplegia who uses a wheel- without disabilities. As an example, per- chair, commented on her experience sons with disabilities who were under age on a wilderness canoe trip in Maine: 65 participated in primitive camping at a higher rate than did those without dis- I was back to feeling the quiet of the lake, listening to the loons at abilities. Studies by Anderson, Schleien, night as the sun goes down, the McAvoy, Lais, and Seligmann (1997); sounds of the night, living with McAvoy, Schatz, Stutz, Schleien, and Lais the land—it was something that I (1989); and Robb and Ewert (1987) all had sadly missed. It was that Figure 2—Lake and mountain view in Yellowstone National Park. Photo by K. Beckman-Wilderness Inquiry. have indicated that persons with disabili- place in my soul that needed to be ties participate in even the most refilled. And it was. At the end of that week I could say that I felt outcomes that persons with disabilities challenging outdoor activities, including less disabled than I usually do. associate with participation in a wilder- wilderness activities. And it certainly was not because ness experience (see figure 1). Person with disabilities go to wilder- there were fewer barriers. It was ness for a variety of reasons. Lais et al. the wilderness, that peace you Research on Persons with (1992) questioned a sample of 80 per- can’t get anywhere else. (p. 45) Disabilities and Wilderness sons with disabilities from across the Persons with disabilities are participating country who had visited units of the In general, most persons with dis- in outdoor recreation activities typically National Wilderness Preservation Sys- abilities do not want the wilderness associated with wilderness. A large na- tem about their motivations for going environment altered in order to make tional survey, the National Survey on to wilderness. Their responses were it more accessible. In the Lais et al. Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), very similar to responses obtained from study (1992), 76% of those with dis- included 1,252 persons with disabilities persons without disabilities in a num- abilities did not believe the restrictions (Cordell 1999). Those with disabilities ber of larger studies (Roggenbuck and on mechanized use diminished their indicated they participate in a wide range Driver 2000). Those motivations were ability to use the wilderness. The larger of outdoor recreation activities, includ- (1) to experience scenery/natural McCormick (2001) study found that ing: walking, family activities, sightseeing, beauty, (2) to experience nature on its those with disabilities favored preser- picnicking, fishing, bird-watching, camp- own terms, and (3) to experience a per- vation of the wilderness environment ing, hiking, boating, and hunting (see sonal challenge (see figure 3). over accessibility, even though some figure 2). McCormick (2001) further ana- The value of wilderness participa- in the study favored increased access lyzed the Cordell study data for those with tion for persons with disabilities is best for those with disabilities.
24 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 Americans value the wild aspects of wilderness, and favor protecting the lands within the wilderness system from development and exploitation. Mike Passo, wilderness user and ad- vocate, injured his spinal cord and now uses a wheelchair. He expressed his view of the need to keep wilderness wild: Wilderness is the great equalizer, it takes everyone down a notch because everyone is leaving their comfort zone. That leaves everyone on a wilderness trip at about the same level. It lets everyone see people for what they really are rather than how they get around. (personal communica- Figure 3—Kayak trip on Lake Powell. Photo by B. Moritz-Wilderness Inquiry. tion, October 23, 2002)
Persons with disabilities also real- Anderson et al. (1997), studying studied the preferences for natural set- ize a full range of benefits from persons with disabilities who go to wil- tings for person with and without wilderness and from participating in derness areas, found that the wilderness disabilities. They found that persons wilderness activities. A number of environment itself was a major contrib- with disabilities had the same prefer- studies have documented that persons uting factor to persons with disabilities ence for undeveloped natural settings with disabilities who participate in realizing some of the major benefits of as did those without disabilities. Per- wilderness trips experience positive wilderness. Study participants indi- sons with disabilities valued the changes as a result of their wilderness cated that the wilderness environment undeveloped, wild elements of wilder- experience, changes such as increased intensified their individual efforts, pro- ness, as did persons without disabilities self confidence, increased likelihood ducing a dramatic positive impact on (see figure 4). Indeed, research by of pursuing new challenges, and in- group development. Research by Cordell, Tarrant, and Green (2003) in- creased appreciation of diversity. Brown, Kaplan, and Quaderer (1999) dicated that a large majority of Studies by Anderson et al. (1997), McAvoy et al. (1989), Scholl, McAvoy, Rynders, and Smith (2003), and Stringer and McAvoy (1992) show these benefits to include: increased self-efficacy, increased leisure skills, increased social adjustment, enhanced relationships, increased self-under- standing and awareness of capabilities, increased self-directed activity, in- creased family satisfaction, increased appreciation for nature and the wil- derness, and spiritual benefits.
Theoretical Framework The theoretical frame for this study was provided by means-end theory, which
Figure 4—Teaming up on the trail. Photo by G. Lais-Wilderness Inquiry. was developed by marketing/advertis- ing researchers (Gutman 1982;
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 25 little research documenting how wilder- ness visitors have been able to transfer into their daily lives benefits gained through wilderness experiences (Ewert and McAvoy 2000). This is especially true regarding persons with disabilities. Transference is the application of prin- ciples and attitudes learned from an experience into future experiences. Wil- derness programs have the potential to create transference opportunities regard- ing principles and attitudes (Gass 1999). The purpose of this study was to de- Figure 5—Kayak camp in Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia. Photo by L. McAvoy-Wilderness Inquiry. velop a better understanding of the outcomes that persons with disabilities Reynolds and Gutman 1988) to better efits of experiencing nature, developing associate with participation in a wilder- understand consumer decision-making skills and abilities, and reflecting on one’s ness experience program (see figure 5). behavior. Means-end theory has been life or situation, as well as potential costs/ In addition, the study sought to better applied to examine decision making in risks such as wasting time and money, understand if and how participants who a variety of traditional product and ser- feeling embarrassed, or risking physical have a disability are able to transfer out- vice settings. Recently the approach has injury. Personal values refer to enduring comes gained on a wilderness trip back been used to examine the outcomes beliefs about desired or undesired modes into their everyday life after a program associated with outdoor recreation ac- of conduct or end states of being, in short, experience. The study focused on an in- tivities, including participating in a what a person wants in life or in living tegrated wilderness experience program ropes/adventure course program their life (Klenosky, Gengler, and Mulvey where persons with and without disabili- (Goldenberg, Klenosky, O’Leary, and 1993). Values relevant to a wilderness ex- ties participated in wilderness trips Templin 2000) and an Outward Bound perience might include a sense of together. The wilderness outcomes of program (Goldenberg, McAvoy, and accomplishment, self-awareness, and those without disabilities were included Klenosky 2005). warm relationships with others. in the study to see if there were notice- Means-end theory posits that people Means-end theory links these three dif- able differences from the outcomes of think about the products and services ferent meanings together in a single persons with disabilities (see figure 6). they purchase, consume, and experience conceptual framework, known as a means- in terms of three key types of product end chain (Gutman 1982). The attributes Methods meanings: (1) attributes, (2) conse- of a product/service are viewed as the This study focused on persons who had quences, and (3) personal values “means” by which consumers/resource participated in trips to wilderness areas (Gutman 1982; Reynolds and Gutman users obtain desired consequences/benefits or wildernesslike areas in Minnesota, 1988). Attributes refer to the characteris- (as well as avoid undesired consequences/ Wisconsin, Montana, Maine, Florida, tics or features of the product or service costs), and achieve or reinforce important Alaska, British Columbia, and Ontario. in question. In the context of a wilder- personal values or “ends” (Gutman 1982). The trips were taken with Wilderness ness trip, relevant attributes would An example of a means-end chain for a Inquiry, Inc. (WI), a not-for-profit wilder- include a wilderness setting, the type of wilderness trip might link the attribute ness outfitter that provides wilderness trip activities experienced while on the trip, “wilderness environment” to the conse- experiences for persons with and with- and the other people on a group wilder- quence of “appreciate nature,” and this is out disabilities. Since water travel is more ness trip. Consequences refer to outcomes linked to the value of feeling a “personal accessible for those with mobility impair- or benefits that are desired from the prod- or spiritual connection to nature.” ments, most WI trips are water related uct or service experience, as well as (i.e., involve the use of canoes, kayaks). undesirable outcomes or costs/risks to be Transference WI’s integrated trips combine par- avoided. Examples of consequences for Outcomes and benefits of wilderness ticipants with disabilities together with a wilderness trip would include the ben- have been studied, but there has been those without disabilities.
26 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 WI trips of at least four days in length during the summer season of 2002 were selected for this study. All participants (272) on these trips over the age of 18 were asked to participate in the study. Post-trip questionnaires were distributed to study participants on-site directly following the comple- tion of their wilderness trip. In the open-ended questionnaire, respondents were instructed to think about the three most important out- comes resulting from their wilderness trip experience (“think about the things you learned and the outcomes you re- ceived from participating in this trip”), Figure 6—The serenity of islands and the sea. Photo by L. McAvoy-Wilderness Inquiry. and to write these outcomes in spaces provided on the questionnaire. Then they were asked to indicate in an adja- data were then analyzed again by the ladders. The HVM allows the researcher cent space, for each outcome listed, Ladder Map program to further sort all to see which concepts (i.e., attributes, why that outcome was important to concepts into the coded areas. An in- outcomes, and values) were mentioned them. They were then instructed to dependent coder analyzed a portion of most frequently; and also see the chain explain in another adjacent space on the data to verify the accuracy and ap- of meanings that help explain how and the questionnaire why that response propriateness of the codes created. The why those concepts were important to was important (“and this is important Ladder Map program summarizes the the study respondents. to you because…”). Finally, they were number of times each concept was as- The questionnaire also asked partici- asked to list the attribute or part of the sociated with the other concepts pants if they were willing to be contacted trip that led them to each identified included in respondents’ ladders. These by phone to further discuss their trip outcome. The process of having par- links were then used as the basis for experience. Of the 111 participants who ticipants link a particular trip constructing a Hierarchical Value Map indicated they were willing to be inter- component (attribute) to one or more (HVM; for an example, see figure 7), viewed, 30 subjects were selected in a outcomes (consequences), and these which graphically summarizes the im- stratified random sample to be con- outcomes to one or more personal val- portant concepts and associations tacted by phone for an interview six ues, formed a means-end chain or reported by the respondents. months after their wilderness trip. The “ladder” of related meanings. An HVM depicts the attributes, phone interview consisted of ques- The concepts generated on the post- consequences/outcomes, and values. tions related to the possible trip questionnaires indicating Each concept in the HVM is repre- transference of outcomes into a participants’ attributes, consequences, sented as a circle. Attributes are person’s life after the trip experience. and values, and how they are linked represented using white circles (and all Twenty-nine interviews were com- together, were entered into a computer lowercase letters), consequences/out- pleted (14 with persons with data analysis program called Ladder comes using gray circles (and a mix of disabilities and 15 with persons with- Map (Gengler and Reynolds 1995). lower- and uppercase letters), and val- out disabilities), audiotaped, and then This analysis procedure groups con- ues using black circles (and all transcribed. The interview data were cepts from the data into categories uppercase letters). The larger the circle analyzed through qualitative tech- within each of the three means-end the more frequently that concept was niques (Glaser and Strauss 1967), components (attributes, consequences, mentioned in participants’ ladders, and including reading all responses, estab- and values). The researchers then cre- the thicker the lines connecting con- lishing themes, coding narrative data ated codes corresponding to the cepts, the more frequently those to develop patterns, summarizing concepts grouped in each category. The concepts were linked together in the theme areas, and using respondent
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 27 statements to illustrate themes. Coding multiple sclerosis, head injury, blindness, table 1). Two Hierarchical Value Maps reliability was achieved by having a sec- deafness, amputation, developmental were generated from the content ond coder analyze 25% of the interview disabilities, diabetes, and stroke. Re- codes: one for people with disabilities data, and agreement was reached on spondents did not include anyone with (n=74), and one for people without coding themes and categories. a severe cognitive disability. disabilities (n=119). There were few differences between those with and Results and Discussion Consequences, Values, those without disabilities, and these A total of 193 questionnaires were re- and Attributes differences will be explained. turned (71% response rate). Of the 193 Thirty-one content categories were The HVM generated from the respondents, 74 had at least one of a generated from the questionnaire data: responses of those with disabilities number of different disabilities, includ- nine referred to attributes, 14 to con- appears in figure 7. The consequences ing cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury, sequences, and eight to values (see mentioned most frequently by persons with disabilities included: Awareness (increased awareness of things in their Table 1. Number of Times Concepts Mentioned in Respondents’ Ladders lives and understanding of themselves), Number of Percent of Respondents Relationships with Others (developing Respondents Mentioning Concept at personal relationships with others), Mentioning Concept Least Once at Least Once Personal Growth/Challenge (growing as a person and succeeding at a personal ATTRIBUTES MENTIONED Interactions 134 69.4 challenge), Nature Appreciation Trip overall 119 61.7 (increased awareness and appreciation Wilderness experience 96 49.7 for nature and wilderness), and New Canoeing 54 28.0 Opportunities (experiencing something Program staff 38 19.7 New experiences 31 16.1 new or different). The primary values Kayaking 28 14.5 associated with these outcomes Camping 22 11.4 included: Transference (a sense that the Hiking/horsepacking 6 3.1 outcomes of the trip would transform CONSEQUENCES MENTIONED or enhance aspects of daily life or life Relationships with others 190 98.4 back home), Self-Awareness/Improve- Awareness 164 85.0 ment/Fulfillment (feelings of being Personal Growth/challenges 135 69.9 Nature appreciation 117 60.6 more aware, improved, or fulfilled in New opportunities 78 40.4 one’s life), Value Personal/Spiritual New/improved skills 57 29.5 (feeling or valuing a personal and Rest/relaxation 41 21.2 Reflection 40 20.7 spiritual connection to people and Physical fitness 31 16.1 nature), Warm Relationships with Awareness of abilities 30 15.5 Others (developing warm relationships Family relationships strengthened 27 14.0 with others on the trip), and Personal Knowledge 18 9.3 Achievement 16 8.3 Goal (achieving one or more personal Appreciation 16 8.3 goals). The attributes or wilderness trip VALUES MENTIONED components that contributed most to Transference 175 90.7 the outcomes were Interactions Self-awareness/improvement/ (interactions with other participants fulfillment 91 47.2 during the trip), Trip Overall (the Personal goal 78 40.4 Value (personal/spiritual) 66 34.2 overall experience of taking the trip), Warm relationships with others 64 33.2 and Wilderness Experience (being in a Fun and enjoyment of life 31 16.1 wilderness environment/setting). A sense of accomplishment 25 13.0 Self-confidence 15 7.8 There were several links worth noting among the attributes, outcomes, and Note. n=193 values on the HVM for persons with
28 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 disabilities. The attributes Wilderness
Self-Awareness/SELF-AWARENESS/ Experience and Canoeing linked to the IMPROVEMENT/FULFILLMENTImprovement/Fulfillment AA Sense SENSE OF of ValueVAL UE AccomplishmentACCOMPLISHMENT PEPersonalSpiritual RSONA L/SPIRITUA L n=27n= 27 outcomes Nature Appreciation and Value Awareness (suggesting that being in the n=11n= 11 n=25n= 25 PersonalPERSONAL GOALGoal Consequence wilderness and appreciating nature n=18n= 18 Attribute allowed participants to become more TRANSFERENCETransference n=33n= 33 New/ aware of and reflect on their lives), which ImprovedNew/Improved Skills Skills PersonalPersonal G rowth/Challenge Growth/ Challenge n=14n= 14 linked to Personal Growth/Challenge, n= 37 n=37 which then linked to thoughts about Awareness Transference (i.e., transferring the Awareness of Abilities of A bilities n=12n= 12 WarmWARM RELATIONSHIPSRelationships WITHwith OthersOTHERS ReflectionReflection outcomes of the wilderness trip back n=21n= 21 n=10n= 10 New AwarenessAwareness home into their everyday lives). The OpportunitiesNew Opportunities n=40n= 40 n= 21 attribute Interactions (interactions with n=21 PhysicalPhysical FitnessFitness n=11n= 11 Kayaking others on the trip) linked to outcomes Rest/RelaxationRest/Relaxation n=13n= 13 kayakingn=11 associated with better relationships with n= 11 Family Relationships Relationships Program Staff Family R elationships others and with family members program staf f StrengthenedStrengthened NatureNature Appreciation Appreciation R elationshipswith Others with Others n=12n= 12 n=8n= 8 (Relationships with Others and Family n=29n= 29 n-39n= 39 Relationships Strengthened), and to the value Warm Relationships with Others. Canoeing The trip component of Wilderness canoeing Wilderness n=18n= 18 Interactions Trip Overall linked to the outcome of Rest and wildernessExperience experience interactions trip overal l n= 32 n=34n= 34 n= 31 n=32 n=31 Relaxation and then to the value of Transference, indicating that the rest and relaxation found on a wilderness trip can Figure 7. Hierarchical Value Map for Wilderness Inquiry participants with a disability (n=74) be transferred back home. The HVM for the persons without Warm Relataionships Self-Awareness/ Transference Improvement/Fulfillment disabilities (see figure 8) appears to be with Family n=73 n=35 n=49 Value very similar to the HVM for those with Fun and Enjoyment of Life Personal Goal Consequence disabilities, but there are some n=18 n=41 differences. Some persons with Attribute Personal Growth/ disabilities identified the outcome of Challenge Reflection n=45 Awareness of Abilities, and this did not n=21 Value appear on the HVM of persons without Awareness (Personal/Spiritual) n=31 disabilities. This is not unexpected. n=69 Nature Some persons with disabilities had little Appreciation n=53 history of outdoor recreation or New/Improved Kayaking Skills n=14 wilderness experience before their trip n=36 New Experiences and may have thought that wilderness n=21 Rest/Relaxation n=23 experiences were beyond their New Program Staff Opportunities n=20 capabilities. n=41 Physical Fitness In the values category, persons with Relationships Family Relationships n=16 with Others Strengthened disabilities named the value of Warm n=18 n=71 Relations with Others and the value of Sense of Accomplishment, and these did
Wilderness not show up in the HVM for persons Canoeing Trip Overall Experience Interactions n=30 n=45 without disabilities. Persons with n=51 n=74 disabilities saw the wilderness trip as giving them incentive to move forward Figure 8. Hierarchical Value Map for Wilderness Inquiry Participants without a disability (n=119) in developing warm relations with others
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 29 the results of the wilderness experience The research reported here indicates that persons in this study was the increased confidence that such a family feels with disabilities use and receive a range of benefits regarding their ability to now take an from wilderness, and the outcomes from that outdoor-oriented trip as a family. The participants with disabilities in wilderness use have a lasting effect. this study came away with higher levels of self-confidence and motivation, and these outcomes were still present six during and after the trip. They also saw to transfer wilderness trip outcomes to months after the experience. Interview the wilderness trip as an experience that their work, to outdoor skills, to their participants often referred to having a brought them feelings of personal family lives, and to everyday stressful new outlook on what they could growth and facing challenges and challenging situations. Many accomplish after their wilderness trip. successfully, which linked to their overall participants also indicated overall higher An often-heard comment in the sense of accomplishment in life. levels of motivation and increased self- interviews was that having successfully confidence in their regular life abilities accomplished difficult tasks on their Transference to Everyday Life as a result of their wilderness experience. wilderness trip, participants are now When asked on the questionnaires at the The outcomes transferred to work better able to accomplish other difficult end of their wilderness trips the values included using communication skills, tasks in their everyday life. The of the outcomes gained on those trips, group interactions, teamwork, and trust wilderness experience provided them persons with disabilities and those at work. The transference to outdoor with a fresh perspective on the issues without disabilities named Transference skills meant that participants acquired of their lives. They expressed having most often as a value. The code skills in lifetime outdoor recreation more motivation to do more activities Transference represented responses activities as a result of their wilderness in daily life, including more challenging where participants indicated they trip experience. They learned how to daily tasks. During an interview, one believed they could integrate or camp, to canoe, to kayak, and they have participant who was blind spoke of the incorporate the outcomes gained in the continued those activities after the wilderness trip as follows: wilderness back into their everyday lives wilderness trip. These activities are now at home. In an effort to develop a better contributing to feelings of relaxation, It was probably one of the best understanding of this value, and to see peacefulness, connection to nature, and things I’ve ever done in regards to if transference actually occurred once connections to other people. building my confidence and really participants were back in their everyday Some study participants went on stepping out on a personal ledge lives, we selected a group of participants their wilderness trip with family for me. … And I think it has given me a lot more confidence to to interview six months after the members. They have been able to take on some of those really out- wilderness trip experience. Fourteen of transfer outcomes including increased on-the-edge things; and just kind those interviewed were persons with awareness of important aspects of their of say I did this so it makes me disabilities. Caution is needed in life and developing relationships with think that I can probably do generalizing from 14 interviews, but the others into a deeper understanding of anything I put my mind to. in-depth responses (each interview was family members. They also have over an hour in length) help us to better transferred better communication Having been immersed in a wilder- understand how people with disabilities among family members and a ness environment during their trip, can transfer outcomes from a wilderness confidence that the family can now go participants came away with a new or experience back into their everyday lives. on outdoor trips as a group. The latter renewed appreciation for wilderness All of the 14 persons with disabilities outcome is very important for families environments and wildlife. Some of who were interviewed were able to that include a person with a disability. those interviewed expressed having transfer outcomes from the wilderness Often these families are hesitant to go discovered a new wilderness area and trip back into their everyday lives. on an outdoor or wilderness-oriented valuing that discovery. Others noted Results of the interviews suggest that outing because of the logistical concerns seeing wildlife that the participant had participants with disabilities were able with access, safety, and comfort. One of never seen before and having an
30 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 increased understanding of wildlife. formation about the levels of access Cordell, K., ed. 1999. Outdoor Recreation in These outcomes transferred into the available in wilderness areas. They can American Life: A National Assessment of De- mand and Supply. Champaign, IL: Sagamore. participants having a deeper apprecia- provide prospective wilderness visitors Cordell, K., M. Tarrant, and G. Green. 2003. Is tion for the beauty and diversity of with information about outfitters and the public viewpoint of wilderness shifting? wilderness and a deeper commitment programs that provide wilderness op- IJW 9(2): 27–32. Easley, A. T., J. F. Passineau, and B. L. Driver, comps. to preserve these wilderness areas and portunities for persons with disabilities. 1990. The Use of Wilderness for Personal wildlife resources. Managers can also enter into coopera- Growth, Therapy, and Education. Gen. Tech. tive agreements with such outfitters and Rep. RM-193. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Depart- Recommendations for programs to provide wilderness access ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Moun- tain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Managers for a broad range of people. Ewert, A., and L. McAvoy. 2000. The effects of The research reported here indicates As the country’s demographics and wilderness settings on organized groups: A that persons with disabilities use and wilderness use patterns continue to state-of-knowledge paper. In Wilderness receive a range of benefits from wil- change, wilderness management agen- Science in a Time of Change Conference. Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scien- derness, and the outcomes from that cies will have to continually pay tific Inquiry, comp. S. McCool, D. Cole, W. wilderness use have a lasting effect. attention to various constituency Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin (pp. 13–26). Pro- These wilderness visitors are able to groups to maintain the ideal of wilder- ceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol 3. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, transfer the outcomes gained on a wil- ness and the existence of wilderness. Rocky Mountain Research Station. derness trip into parts of their lives Persons with disabilities care about Gass, M. 1999. Transfer of learning in adventure when they return home, parts of their wilderness, and receive benefits from programming. In Adventure Programming, ed. lives such as family, work, and their the existence of wilderness. There are J. C. Miles and S. Priest (pp. 227–34). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. general perspective on life. This study currently 43 million Americans with a Gengler, C. E., and T. J. Reynolds. 1995. Laddermap also indicates that for persons with disability, and that number is increas- . Camden, NJ: Means-End Software. disabilities, participation in wilderness ing. Wilderness agencies are going to Glaser, B. G. and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discov- trips results in a higher appreciation have to continue to understand and ery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for quali- tative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Press. of nature and the wilderness. communicate with this important Goldenberg, M.A., L. McAvoy, and D. B. Klenosky. Wilderness managers are charged stakeholder group because wilderness 2005. Outcomes from the components of with the difficult task of balancing the is important to persons with disabili- an Outward Bound experience. Journal of Experiential Education 28(2): 123–46. current use and enjoyment of wilder- ties. Barry Corbet (1992), a Goldenberg, M. A., D. B. Klenosky, J. T. O’Leary, ness with the need to preserve the mountaineer, editor, and person with and T. J. Templin. 2000. A means-end in- quality of wilderness so it is unimpaired paraplegia appropriately expressed the vestigation of ropes course experiences. for future use and enjoyment. Previous importance of wilderness to persons Journal of Leisure Research 32(2): 208–24. Gutman, J. 1982. A means-end chain model research has indicated that people with with disabilities: “We especially, with based on consumer categorization pro- disabilities want wilderness to be ev- all our motor and sensory constraints, cesses. Journal of Marketing 46: 60–72. ery bit as challenging and pristine as need activities which focus on the lim- Hattie, J., H. W. Marsh, J. T. Neill, and G. E. do those without disabilities. The re- itless, not the limitations. We need Richards. 1997. Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that search reported here indicates that beauty to counteract the grit in our make a lasting difference. Review of Educa- persons with disabilities are receiving lives. We need novelty and discovery. tional Research 67(1): 43–87. benefits from wilderness in its unde- We need wilderness” (p. 30). IJW Klenosky, D. B., C. Gengler, and M. Mulvey. 1993. Understanding the factors influencing ski desti- veloped, primitive state. The wilderness REFERENCES nation choice: A means-end analytic approach. environment seems to be an excellent Anderson, L., S. J. Schleien, L. McAvoy, G. Lais, Journal of Leisure Research 25(4): 362–79. setting to receive those benefits. and D. Seligmann,1997. Creating positive Lais, G., L. McAvoy, and L. Frederickson. 1992. Wilderness is not intended to be a change through an integrated outdoor WildernessAccessibility for People with Disabilities: A Report to the President and developed recreation facility. The re- adventure program. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 21(4): 214–29. the Congress of the United States on Section moteness and physical challenge of Brown, T., R. Kaplan, and G. Quaderer. 1999. 507 (a) of the Americans with Disabilities access are part of what makes wilder- Beyond accessibility: Preference for natural Act. Washington, DC: National Council on ness what it is. Managers are not areas. Therapeutic Recreation Journal Disability. 33(3): 209–21. McAvoy, L., E. Schatz, M. Stutz, S. J. Schleien, expected to solve accessibility problems Corbet, B. 1992. Going wild: Your guide to and G. Lais. 1989. Integrated for person with disabilities. On the outdoor adventure. Spinal Network EXTRA other hand, managers can provide in- (Spring) 30(31): 44–49. Continued on page 35
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 31 EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION
Writers and Wilderness How to Recapture the Momentum in Saving Wilderness
BY ROBERT C. BARON
any of us were introduced to nature at a young But there are a few people who are able to broaden their age. In most cases, our education was started by audience. These artists, photographers, filmmakers, lectur- M a parent or grandparent, a teacher or friend, ers, and writers reach out to many, in some cases to thousands someone our age or many years older. But we were led out- or even millions. And by their work they influence the world. side and taught how to see, what to look for, and our Think of John Muir and his writings that helped develop our questions of what and why were answered. national parks, or Rachel Carson who wrote about DDT and pesticides and helped bring the bald eagle back from the brink of extinction, or Ansel Adams whose photography caused many people to see nature in a new way. The theme for the 8th World Wilderness Congress (8th WWC) in Alaska in 2005 was Wilderness, Wildlands and People: A Partnership for the Planet. The conference ad- dressed the importance and benefits of wilderness to contemporary and traditional human societies, using the latest information to make the strongest case possible for balanc- ing wilderness protection and human needs. Among the highest of human needs is the spiritual value of wilderness. At the 8th WWC, special attention was paid to those photographers and writers who have guided our relation- ship with nature. The International League of Conservation John Hendee and Bob Baron sharing field observations while on a trip in Alaska following the Photographers was established by 40 of the world’s finest 8th World Wilderness Congress in 2005. Photo by Chad Dawson. conservation photographers. And during the congress we heard from and paid tribute to writers, both from the past Sometimes the first introductions to nature are very spe- and the present. cific—the name of a bird or a flower, what the formation of Writers have strongly influenced our views on nature the clouds signify, what that bright light in the night sky and wilderness. For three days, established and new writ- means and why its position in the sky changes with the ers from around the world shared their experiences and seasons, why birds fly north in the spring. Some of us, as a future plans. result of this early start, have become naturalists, botanists, ecologists, teachers, and other professionals. Almost all of What I sought in books was imagination. It was depth, us prefer being outdoors to being in an office, and to spend depth of thought and feeling; some sort of extreme of our weekends continuing the explorations of our youth. subject matter; some nearness to death; some call to courage. I myself was getting wild; I wanted wildness, This personal introduction to nature is often a one-on- originality, genius, rapture, hope. I wanted strength, not one experience. One parent teaches one child how to tea parties. What I sought in books was a world whose appreciate and love the world in which we live. surfaces, whose people and events and days lived,
32 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 actually matched the exaltation of through their writing affected our vi- the best newspaper article, magazine the interior life. There you could sion of the natural world and helped article, essay, book, or body of work live. (Annie Dillard in Gilbar to preserve wilderness. These published relating to meaningful and 1989, p. 118) people—Henry David Thoreau, John significant writing on wild nature, the Muir, Rachel Carson, Edward Abbey, environment, or the land. Submissions Some writers describe what they see and David Brower—had major influ- in English anywhere in the world are in nature, and how wondrous it is. In ence on conservation and love of the eligible. The first annual WILD Wilder- this they are similar to a nature pho- land. A short biography of each per- ness Writing Award was presented to tographer who takes pretty pictures. son was given and then selections from John Haines of Alaska. Through his But some writers have an underlying their work were read. poetry and essays, John has contributed message; something important they are Another session dealt with writers greatly to our appreciation of this world trying to convey to the reader. The best and Alaska. Alaska had been pur- we share. of the environmental writers, such as chased from Russia in 1867. It became Henry David Thoreau, John Muir, a territory in 1912, and a state on Janu- Rachel Carson, Sigurd Olson, and Aldo Most Influential Authors ary 3, 1959. Today, almost a century At the congress, a questionnaire was Leopold, communicated to inform and after becoming a territory and a half- distributed asking participants which influence as well as to provide feelings century after statehood, Alaska writer(s) influenced them the most. about nature. Perhaps that is why their remains the last American frontier. There were 100 writers listed on the books still affect readers today. Alaska is a place where people come survey, and participants added several Most nature writing is local, whether to live out their personal dreams. In a other names. Participants identified 91 a small pond in Massachusetts, a re- panel, Children of Dreamers, contribu- writers, with most people mentioning mote cabin in Alaska, a small woodlot tors to a new book called The Alaska several writers who have had great in Wisconsin, a beach in Maine, a Reader: Voices from the North, discussed influence on them. mountain vista in the Catskills, a val- what it meant to live in the shadow of Five of these writers were honored ley in Yosemite. A few writers are able others’ dreams of Alaska. In another at the congress. Sixteen others received to take a small wild place and make its panel, Alaska as a Parable for the Fu- numerous votes for their influence on story universal and personal. And, in ture, contributors to the anthology attendees. These writers are Wendell the writing, change us forever. discussed why Alaska is a canary in the Berry, Annie Dillard, Loren Eisley, Aldo mine for so many issues of national and Leopold, Barry Lopez, Peter Modern-day global significance. These sessions were Matthiessen, John McPhee, Margaret Wilderness Authors led by the editors of the anthology: Murie, Roderick Nash, Sigurd Olson, In a preliminary session on writing and Carolyn Kremers and Anne Hanley. Ten Roger Tory Peterson, David Quammen, advocacy at the 8th WWC, established major Alaskan writers participated. Gary Snyder, Wallace Stegner, Terry writers talked about their work and Another session dealt with Native Tempest Williams, and Laurens van der its meaning, where they were, what Writings from North America. Marilou Post. Several of them will be honored they were thinking and feeling, and Awaikta and Daniel Wildcat talked at the 9th World Wilderness Congress. what they were trying to communi- about writing and its importance to Being a writer can be a very lonely cate. These writers, Dave Foreman their culture, their environment, and occupation. Yet a writer and a book (Rewiring North America: A Vision for their world. They paid tribute to some can reach out across the centuries and Conservation in the 21st Century), Jay of the major Native writers. the miles, touching the hearts and Griffiths (A Sideways Look at Time), Finally, in a session called Passing minds of other human beings. Writ- John Haines (The Stars, the Snow and the Torch, writers met and talked about ers who received mention were born the Fire), Patty Limerick (The Legacy their work, and received advice and as early as 1739 and as late as 1963. of Conquest), David Quammen (Song encouragement from other writers, pro- Yet their words and ideas are known of the Dodo), and Marianne Wallace ducers, editors, and publishers. These and treasured by people from around (America’s Ecosystems series), are conversations continued well into the the world in 2005. among the leading authors today. evening. As people working for the preserva- This session was followed by a trib- At the Congress, The WILD Wilder- tion of wilderness, it is essential to read ute to five deceased people who ness Writing Award was announced for the best writings and understand the
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 33 intellectual grounding of the move- open space as a paved parking lot for enforcing the Clean Air and Water ment. In this way, we can build on the another Wal-Mart or strip mall. Acts, and much more. ideas of the past and move strongly to- But there have always been some ward the future. For the same reason who have fought to preserve the Recapture the Momentum that every citizen should know about planet, its land, and the plants and in Saving Wilderness the Declaration of Independence, the animals who inhabit it. At the congress As a species, we believe in our technol- American Revolution and Civil War, we honored the writers and photog- ogy, our power, our money, our egos. Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, so raphers who have led the battle. But Mother Nature can show us who is everyone who works to preserve the “There is just one hope for repuls- really in charge—in the recent hurri- planet and the creatures we share it with ing the tyrannical ambition of canes hitting the Gulf Coast, in global should know our history. civilization to conquer every niche of warming, arctic ice meltdown, earth- What should be read by everyone? the whole earth. That hope is the or- quakes, tsunamis, and in countless The list of classic books is long but ganization of spirited people who will other ways. would certainly include: Walden by But nature can also be a teacher. We can learn in a quiet walk through wil- derness. We are part of nature and nature A few writers are able to take a small wild place is part of us. No matter what a few mis- guided people say about evolution, our and make its story universal and personal. And, ancestors have been on this planet for in the writing, change us forever. millions of years, and we should not cut off that portion of our heritage. Wilderness is under attack in Af- Henry David Thoreau, John Muir’s The fight for the freedom of the wilderness” rica, in Latin America, in Siberia, and Mountains of California, Aldo Leopold’s (Bob Marshall, 1930). around the globe. Species dependent Sand County Almanac, Henry Beston’s The battle is hard and relentless. A on wilderness are in danger. We must Outermost House, Annie Dillard’s Pil- writer may not know who he or she fight for endangered species, the chim- grim at Tinker Creek, Edward Abbey’s influenced or how long is his or her panzee, gorilla, panda, tiger, blue Desert Solitaire, Sally Carrighar’s One shadow. Henry David Thoreau cham- whale, northern spotted owl, Asian Day at Teton Marsh, Sigurd Olson’s pioned the human spirit against elephant, white rhino. But more than Reflections from the North Country, and materialism and conformity. During that, we must fight for wilderness, for Rachel Carson’s A Sense of Wonder. The his lifetime, fewer than 2,000 copies nature, for undeveloped space, and for list could be extended significantly, but of his books were sold. But his voice the creatures and plants with whom this is a good start. and words are with us now. John Muir we share the planet. All of us who were at the congress fought hard and not always success- The writers’ sessions at the 8th WWC know the value of wilderness, preserva- fully. But what he built and stood for were titled Writing and Advocacy. We tion, and the importance of people, has changed the environmental move- need to convince the silent majority to animals, and places. We need to widen ment. Rachel Carson, sick with cancer, become the vocal majority, to get people our constituency. Some of us must reach gave us Silent Spring, and today the to fight for wilderness, wild places, spe- out to additional thousands of people eagles and the osprey are back from cies, clean air and water. Some did it in and tell why it is essential to conserve the edge of extinction. the 1960s when major legislation was parts of the world. Those of us who are My favorite philosopher, Lucy from passed with strong bipartisan support, writers, photographers, teachers, film- the Peanuts cartoon strip, said, “There and we have benefited. We need to con- makers, speakers, and publishers have is no problem so big or so complicated tinue and escalate the fight. We owe it to let our voices be heard. that it can’t be run away from.” And to our grandchildren and to future There is no shortage of people who our elected leaders in Washington and generations. wish to drill, dig, and pave over the other places have for decades followed We have let some politicians be planet anywhere, anytime. To them, this advice—on formulation of a na- wrong on Middle East oil, on tax the only value of a tree is as lumber, tional energy policy, acting on global policy for the rich, on balancing the an animal as a trophy or as food, an warming, funding our national parks, budget, on domestic policies, and most
34 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 importantly on the environment. It is A shift of 1% or 2% of the votes Europe. It is our jobs as readers, as edi- time to fight strongly for the truth, to would have changed the last several tors, and as publishers to find them, to not let noise be confused with wisdom elections. If a politician, any politician, encourage them, and to read their books. or sound bites for thought, to have our does not care about the future that we The fight for wilderness and the message be heard, and to leave the leave to our grandchildren or about the natural world continues. We are grate- world a better place. environment, and will not address the ful to those who write about our Preservation of our wilderness and issues, he or she should be defeated. It relationship to wilderness. IJW expansion of our national parks has tra- is time for us to speak out. It is time for ditionally been a Republican issue. Yet us to take back our country. REFERENCES we have in Washington today a group Finally, there are excellent young Gilbar, Steven, ed. 1989. The Open Door: When Writers First Learned to Read. Bos- from the radical right that wishes to writers, some of whom were at the 8th ton: David R. Godine. destroy what has been preserved for WWC, born in the 1970s and 1980s, Marshall, Bob. 1930. The problem of the wilder- centuries. It is time for moderate Repub- who will someday be considered in the ness. The Scientific Monthly (Feb.): 43–52. licans, Democrats, and Independents to same class as those named previously. fight for the land, to speak out for wild There are also great writers from Africa, ROBERT C. BARON is chairman of The WILD Foundation and president of Fulcrum nature, to acknowledge the intrinsic Latin America, Asia, and elsewhere, un- Publishing. Email: Bob@Fulcrum- value of all life-forms. known to those in North America and books.com.
From REVISITING WILDERNESS SCIENCE PRIORITIES on page 22
approaches for effective science de- ings to management and policy issues. management can be hosted at the insti- livery and application. Scientific collaboration with the many tute for varying periods of time. other scientists that conduct research The Leopold Institute’s 2005 In addition to these priorities, the Pro- important to wilderness management or Program Charter, as well as additional gram Charter outlines a renewed that use wilderness as study sites is par- information on its wide variety of commitment to collaboration and part- ticularly important. In an effort to further research and science delivery and nerships. To fulfill its science leadership strengthen its collaborative activities, the application programs, can be found at vision the Leopold Institute must work Leopold Institute has recently formalized http://leopold.wilderness.net. closely with the science and manage- a Visiting Expert and Exchange Program DAVID J. PARSONS is director of the Aldo ment staffs of the federal wilderness in which scientists, managers, students, Leopold Wilderness Research Institute in agencies to identify information needs and other specialists with expertise in Missoula, Montana, USA; email: and priorities and apply research find- areas relevant to wilderness science or [email protected].
From WILDERNESS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES on page 31
wilderness adventure: Effects on personal and peutic Recreation Journal 21(1): 58–69. for something different: Spirituality and wil- lifestyle traits of persons with and without dis- Roggenbuck, J. W., and B. L. Driver. 2000. Ben- derness adventure. Journal of Experiential abilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal efits of nonfacilitated uses of wilderness. In Education 15(1): 13–20. 23(3): 51–64. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Zeller, J. 1992. Is there wilderness after quad- McCormick, B. P. 2001. People with Disabili- Conference. Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place riplegia? Spinal Network EXTRA (Spring): 32. ties: National Survey of Recreation and the for Scientific Inquiry, comp. S. McCool, D. Environment. Retrieved December 2, 2004, Cole, W. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin (pp. 33– LEO MCAVOY is a professor in the School of from Indiana University, National Center on 49). Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol 3. Ogden, Kinesiology at the University of Minnesota, Accessibility website: http:www.ncaonline. UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 1900 University Avenue SE, 224 Cooke Hall, org/research/nsre.htm. Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA; email: Reynolds, T. J., and J. Gutman. 1988. Scholl, K., L. McAvoy, J. Rynders, and J. Smith. [email protected]. Laddering theory, method, analysis, and 2003. The influence of an inclusive outdoor interpretation. Journal of Advertising Re- recreation experience on families that have TOM HOLMAN, Southeast Missouri State search 28(1): 11–31. a child with a disability. Therapeutic Recre- University; MARNI GOLDENBERG, Robb, G. M., and A. Ewert. 1987. Risk recre- ation Journal 37(1): 38–57. California Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo; ation and persons with disabilities. Thera- Stringer, L. A., and L. McAvoy. 1992. The need and DAVID KLENOSKY, Purdue University.
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 35 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
El Carmen The First Wilderness Designation in Latin America
BY PATRICIO ROBLES GIL
Wilderness conservation is a series of stories, as much about personal vision and commitment as it is about science, law, and policy. To the stories of Ian Player in South Africa; Bob Marshall, Sigurd Olson, Aldo Leopold, and Howard Zahniser in the United States; and other pioneers, we can now add that of Patricio Robles Gil in Mexico. At the 8th World Wilderness Congress in Alaska, October 2005, the multinational cement company CEMEX announced the designation of a 75,000-hectare (185,250-acres) wilderness on their corporate landholdings in northern Mexico, and the government of Mexico announced new wilderness legislation to address wilderness protection on these private lands and several other land ownership regimes. In this article, Patricio tells his personal story of this conservation accomplishment, and the people who worked with him to make it happen. —Vance Martin International IJW Editor
he process of experiencing wilderness, and then to establish a conservation movement and create an envi- advocating for its protection and sustainability, can ronmental culture, our society must understand the T create a collage of distinct, often varying episodes importance of wildness, and the threats that imperil wil- that forms a fascinating and unforgettable personal picture derness. Thus, a large portion of my time has been focused of one’s own life. Each element of the collage—from the on these two primary issues. wilderness, a meeting, or a conversation—is often so In some cases I have been involved in the field with ranch- different that they rest in my mind as unique encounters ers, campesinos, ethnic groups, scientists, and researchers. These with nature and people, the sum total of which produces experiences taught me a great deal, primarily that communi- within me a sense of dynamic peace. cation is essential in order to “sell nature to society.” This I’ll try to explain—in English!—this process, which for me realization caused me to coin the term “conservation market- has been a challenge, a passion, and a commitment. It has ing,” and for it to be the central organizing principle of my work. been an evolution of thought, As conservationists we also need to create successful, concept and action, changing practical, and replicable conservation models. I consider and growing with each person myself a promoter of these models and techniques, with a I’ve tried to convince about the focus on species management, biodiversity conservation, value of wild open spaces. and the protection of wild, open space without an indus- For 16 years I’ve been trial human footprint. This last concept is where my heart involved in the conservation lies, so when the president of The WILD Foundation, Vance of nature through Agrupacion Martin, suggested that Mexico could embrace wilderness, I Sierra Madre, the nongovern- saw the opportunity to build on this concept a more inti- mental organization (NGO) mate relationship between the modern Mexican people and that I founded in Mexico. its natural wild places, or tierras silvestres. This country gave me the op- portunity to understand the Conservation Movement in Mexico challenges of conservation. I This process of helping Mexico to protect large areas of Article author Patricio Robles Gil. truly believe that if we want wild land has become one of the most interesting debates
36 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 in which I have been involved. To help you understand this, I’ll briefly sum- marize the conservation movement in Mexico. First of all, Mexico’s southern part is in the Neotropics region, and tropi- cal rain forest habitats are dominant. The northern area is Nearctic, with primarily arid habitats, except the pine-oak forest of the high mountains. The interaction of these different eco- systems results in enormous biodiversity, placing Mexico among the top-five megadiversity countries worldwide. This natural wealth pro- duced some of the most remarkable cultures on the planet—Mayas, Aztecs, and Olmecs—that used these re- sources to create great empires. Therefore, all over Mexico, wetlands and forests were heavily used, and the impact of the human footprint spread almost everywhere. Only the deep canyons and remote deserts of the northernmost system remained rea- sonably unaltered. Second, Mexico’s system of land tenure is a significant factor for the status of our protected natural areas. There is a saying that Mexican land has been given “several times” to its people. After the agrarian reform, a high percentage of the land was held under communal private property, or Sierra del Carmen, Coahuila, Mexico, the location of the first designated wilderness in Latin America. Photo by Patricio Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion Sierra Madre. ejidos. This means that there is virtu- ally no public land, so the government cannot unilaterally set any aside pro- ture, or relationship, with nature, and with wild nature and my commitment tected areas. Integrated, complex our language has not even a word that to its conservation. The mountain efforts are required. This makes con- conveys the meaning of wilderness. range has been declared a Flora and servation of wilderness and Fauna Protected Area (FFPA), one of biodiversity a singular and interesting El Carmen the least strict categories of the Mexi- challenge, because the general public I could only conceive of protecting can protected areas system. Its has almost no access to wild open Mexican wilderness by first identify- management plan allows people and spaces. In all the other countries that ing a place that everyone would cattle to live inside the protected area, have wilderness legislation, the expe- consider wilderness: El Carmen—a and Mexican legislation allows envi- rience of wild nature by the public has sky island—is in northern Coahuila on ronmentally aggressive activities such been instrumental in creating the the border with Texas’s Big Bend Na- as mining inside the perimeter. movement and subsequent legislation. tional Park. For special reasons, this El Carmen is a keystone in a huge Mexico essentially lacks a popular cul- place is the cradle of my involvement complex of transboundary protected
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 37 El Jardin escarpment of Sierra del Carmen, a “sky island” in the Chihuahuan desert. Photo by Patricio Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion Sierra Madre.
areas that comprise one of the biggest In addition to these governmental maintained a healthy population and high-biodiversity megacorridors in models of land protection, a group of even expanded to its former territories North America. In the last year ranchers in the heart of Serranías del across the border into Big Bend Na- Agrupacion Sierra Madre has focused Burro in Mexico committed several tional Park, from which it had been its efforts on the promotion of El years ago to the private conservation previously exterminated. Carmen-Big Bend Conservation Corri- of its ranches. They formed CONECO Finally, one of the most important dor Initiative, a conservation initiative (for its acronym in Spanish)—a non- stakeholders of the region is CEMEX, that holds one of the most diverse ar- profit organization—which helped the third largest cement producer in rays of conservation models in the them to address severe environmental the world. This corporation presented world, ranging from government pro- threats to their lands. These 17 ranches a great opportunity to Agrupacion Si- tected areas to a private protected area encompass almost 500,000 acres erra Madre when they asked us to help managed by a corporation. If we only (202,429 ha) and comprise a conser- them strengthen their commitment to focus on the government’s protected vation success story in and of itself. For the natural world. In 1995 we pre- areas we can see that four different example, thanks to the effort of these sented to them the importance of El models coexist in this area. Maderas del ranchers the black bear in Mexico has Carmen. Today the company owns Carmen (520,000 acres; 210,526 ha) and Cañón de Santa Elena (693,000 acres; 280,566 ha) are both FFPAs managed by the Mexican central government’s National Commission for Protected Areas (CONANP). Ocampo is a new FFPA of 680,000 acres (275,300 ha) that will be declared be- tween them. On the U.S. side, Big Bend National Park (800,000 acres; 323,886 ha) has on its eastern flank the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area (119,000 acres; 48,178 ha) and on the west, Big Bend Ranch State Park (300,000 acres; 121,457 ha), both managed by the Texas Parks and Wild- life Department. Together, all these reserves protect a surface of more than The Rio Grande (US)/El Bravo (MX) River cutting through a canyon on the Texas/Mexico border. Photo by Patricio Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion Sierra Madre. 3 million acres (1.2 million ha).
38 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 transboundary wilderness area of enormous significance for North America. We had the commitment of land— we now needed the government. We knew there was the opportunity for the Mexican government to embrace the wilderness concept because of the true passion of Ernesto Enkerlin, president of the CONANP, with whom I had a long dialogue about wilderness. He asked me to collaborate with Juan Bezaury, a CONANP advisor and di- rector of environmental policy of The Nature Conservancy-Mexico. Juan explained that if we wanted the initia- tive to move forward, it should be
Rock formations in Big Bend National Park, Texas. Photo by Patricio Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion Sierra through an existing scheme of private Madre. and social land system certification through which CONANP recognizes almost 195,000 acres (78,947 ha) in- wilderness. Years later, the biggest at- landowners’ voluntary efforts to pro- side and outside the FFPA (Maderas traction for tourists in Big Bend is its tect their lands. His idea was to raise del Carmen), and through conserva- wilderness qualities. the level of protection for wilderness tion partnerships manages another With this northern neighbor and by creating an official certification or 62,500 acres (25,303 ha). Its conser- the conditions of isolation and lack of designation. vation activities include the rewilding human presence, the northern portion Under Mexican law, private own- of this sky island through intensive of Sierra del Carmen seemed the per- ers accept certain limits of control over habitat restoration programs, the re- fect place to be designated as their land that can be imposed by the moval of all fences and cattle, and the wilderness. Hence, we worked with government or other actors (e.g., road reestablishment of big mammals such CEMEX’s field team and presented the building, mining, fishing in lakes and as the desert bighorn sheep—a flag- proposal to the CEO for approval. His rivers, water extraction, etc.). Under ship species that represents the true vision and commitment were tested in existing certification, CONANP pro- historic wilderness. The northern end this endeavor. But, finally, after con- tects the landowner against of this mountain range, bordered by sultations with staff and neighbors, the government imposition, except min- the Rio Grande River and Big Bend owners made a long-term commit- National Park, is remote and without ment to wilderness, and approved the human disturbance. Big Bend has launch of the initiative at The WILD struggled to be declared a wilderness Foundation’s 8th World Wilderness area since 1978, when the park staff Congress in Alaska (see IJW, Decem- (concerned by the increasing number ber 2005), becoming the first of visitors) proposed 79% of the park’s wilderness designation in Latin surface as a wilderness area. Some lo- America. In light of the political situa- cal residents opposed the initiative, tion between Mexico and the United fearing it would limit tourism oppor- States, this wilderness designation rep- tunities. A strong debate ensued, but resents an opportunity to strengthen the U.S. Congress didn’t pass the pro- relationships, and, for Big Bend Na- posal. However, since then, park tional Park, it supports their dream of Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), reintroduced to El Carmen area as part of the re-wilding process. Photo by Patricio administrators have been managing declaring a big portion of the park as Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion Sierra Madre. most of Big Bend’s area as a de facto a wilderness. If so, it would be a
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 39 have used as a spiritual, magic I’m optimistic for the future, one in which Mexicans ritual place. 2. Places with cultural biodiversity will enjoy, respect, and feel the awe of their landscape: where habitats, biotic wilderness areas. communities, and species of flora and fauna have been managed by communities under traditional ing and water extraction. The next step (2) the Wilderness Land certification practices with the understanding Juan envisioned was to have a new by the NGO coalition for those who of a component of conservation of certification, one that would be much don’t want any government interven- the native species and exotics that stronger and would be given by a coa- tion, but who want to fight to maintain have historical land uses for the lition of NGOs, both national and the highest ecological integrity; and (3) sustenance/nourishment of those international, such as Unidos para la both certifications, Wilderness Zone societies. Conservación, Pronatura, Conserva- and Wilderness Land, such as in the 3. Places dedicated to long-term sci- tion International, and The Nature case of CEMEX’s great commitment for entific research. Conservancy, among others, and sci- the El Carmen 4. Areas of almost-intact habitats and entific institutions such as the National One of the interesting parts of this biotic communities, where the Institute of Ecology of Mexico (INE) process is the different perceptions human footprint or industrial civi- and the Mexican Commission for the shared by the actors involved in the lization is not present, where Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity discussions. First, many of them con- human activities are developed (CONABIO). These would provide sider the core areas as de facto without leaving evidence of their both a scientific and ethical compo- wilderness without a special name to presence and that are large enough nent to the wilderness argument that highlight them. Others think that this to enable the reconciliation of hu- would fight even mining and water scenario could be easily implemented mans as a species, with nature. extraction. in the north of Mexico where there is Therefore, private owners would desert, and not so easily in the tropi- The steps taken in the promotion have three possibilities: (1) the certifi- cal forest communal lands of the of this wilderness initiative in Mexico cation of Wilderness Zones by the southeast, and this became a strong are parts of a collage. Each piece CONANP, which would give legal pro- argument of opposition. The fear was doesn’t make great sense by itself, but tection from certain government also expressed that this new certifi- when seen together they are much big- agencies and common use by people; cation would not include important ger than the sum of the single parts. areas of high biodiversity because Many things remain to be done, but they were too small, or because they we are on the right track. I’m optimis- contained existing human distur- tic for the future, one in which bance. As a result of the discussions, Mexicans will enjoy, respect, and feel an additional approach was proposed the awe of their wilderness areas. IJW to address cultural, tribal, and sacred PATRICIO ROBLES GIL is president of areas. Sharing these different con- Agrupacion Sierra Madre and Unidos para cerns enriched the debate and la Conservation; he is also the series enlarged the concept, out of which producer for the CEMEX books on nature emerged four different certifications including Transboundary Conservation: A within the framework of the New Vision for Protected Areas (R. A. CONANP: Mittermeier, C. F. Kormos, C. G. Mittermeier, P. Robles Gil, T. Sandwith, and Black bear (Ursus americana) are abundant in the El Carmen 1. Natural sacred places: areas with C. Besançon, CEMEX-Agrupacion Sierra area. Photo by Patricio Robles Gil, courtesy of Agrupacion Sierra Madre. importance for the conservation of Madre-Conservation International, 2005, biodiversity, which tribal groups published in Mexico.)
40 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
A Proposal for a Pamir International Peace Park
BY GEORGE B. SCHALLER
Introduction From the Pamirs, with their wide valleys and mountain chains, radiate the Kunlun, Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and Tian Shan, four of the highest and most rugged mountain ranges on Earth. The Pamirs lie principally in Tajikistan at elevations of 3,500 to 5,000 meters (11,480 to 16,400 ft.) and more, but they also extend into Kyrgystan, China, Af- ghanistan, and barely south into Pakistan. The flagship species, the icon, of these uplands is the Marco Polo sheep (Ovis ammon polii), first noted by Marco Polo in 1273 when he commented on the “great quantities of wild sheep of huge size” after he found their long, curving horns. With their habitat harsh, remote, and difficult of access, Marco George Schaller on the Tibetan Plateau. Polo sheep had by the late 1800s become the most coveted of trophies by foreign hunters—and they still retain this Marco Polo sheep females and young but no males, and we almost mythical aura. However, the sheep has decreased were informed that at this season many animals are now in greatly in recent decades, as has other wildlife in the re- Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Realizing that the species could gion, because of unsustainable hunting by local herdsmen, only be adequately protected and managed through the military, and others, and there is great need to devise transboundary cooperation and joint conservation initiatives, some form of protection for the landscape. An international we urged “the creation of one large reserve” that encompasses peace park is one option. the four countries and preserves the integrity of the moun- tain landscape (Schaller et al. 1987). Peace Park Planning At the time, Afghanistan was at war and Tajikistan would While conducting wildlife surveys in northern Pakistan dur- soon be in turmoil, making it inadvisable to plan projects ing the early 1970s, I was told that Marco Polo sheep occur there. The idea of transboundary reserves was successfully only in two small areas around the Kilik and Khunjerab passes applied in many parts of the world during the following years bordering China. Visiting the two sites in late 1974, I found (Hamilton et al.1996; Sandwith et al. 2001). The purposes only skulls; the animals, I was told, were now in China. Pa- of such reserves include cooperation between countries for kistan established the Khunjerab National Park (6150 km2; mutual benefit, better management of joint resources, and 2,370 sq. mi.) the following year (Schaller 1977). China cre- encouragement of good neighborly relations through con- ated the Taxkorgan Nature Reserve in 1984 along the Pakistan servation. After nearly two decades, I resumed surveys of border, in effect establishing a transboundary reserve, a des- Marco Polo sheep, this time in Tajikistan (2003, 2005) and ignation that was formalized between China and Pakistan in Afghanistan (2004). Having evaluated the situation in these 2000. I checked on the status of wildlife in the Taxkorgan four countries, I can now suggest potential borders for a Pamir Reserve during the summers of 1985 and 1986. We saw International Peace Park (see figure 1).
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 41 environment upon which local people depend for their livelihood. The four countries already have a scattered network of protected areas along their borders, and all of these could be incorporated into a peace park. Pakistan has the Central Karakoram National Park (9738 km2; 3,760 sq. mi.) bordering the Khunjerab National Park, and both border China’s Taxkorgan Reserve. In addition, Paki- stan has made a major effort to provide economic incentives to communities promoting sustainable use of natural resources, for example, by sharing en- trance fees to parks and trophy hunting fees. Pakistan and India might also be- come formal conservation partners in a peace park by adding a part of Ladakh adjoining the Line of Control (Raja 2003). Marco Polo sheep do not occur Figure 1—The proposed Pamir International Peace Park along the borders of Pakistan, China, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan, showing existing and suggested protected areas and hunting concessions. east of Khunjerab National Park, but other mountain species, such as ibex and snow leopard, are found there. Different levels of protection would their traditional lives. Each country The staff of China’s Taxkorgan Re- apply to different areas of the peace would, of course, decide on the type serve also protects some surrounding park and include both ecological and of zoning that would be most effec- areas. A small trophy hunting site along cultural considerations: (1) strictly tive and appropriate. Such a peace the Tajikistan border has recently been protected areas and other forms of re- park would benefit not just Marco Polo expanded, and there are plans to create serve, (2) hunting concessions to help sheep, ibex (Capra ibex), snow leop- another protected area in that region; I raise funds for conservation and the ard (Uncia uncia), and others that collaborated in a survey there in 2005. local communities, and (3) areas in travel across frontiers, but all plants The Afghan Pamirs (see figure 2) re- which nomadic herders can maintain and animals, as well as protect the main currently under the local control of a commander. President Hamid Karzai banned hunting in Afghanistan for five years in March 2005 and estab- lished an Environment Department. The Big Pamir Wildlife Reserve (679 km2; 262 sq. mi.) was designated in the 1970s but never legally established; it was pri- marily used for trophy hunting until Russia entered the country in 1979. Our 2004 survey found that the reserve still has viable wildlife populations, and we also noted two other areas, totaling 550 km2 (212 sq. mi.) that are only seldom used by Kirghiz herders and would ben- Figure 2—The Little Pamir, Afghanistan, looking south toward the Pakistan border and with our expedition yaks in the foreground (September 16, 2004). Photo by George Schaller. efit from reserve status. The rest of the 2500 km2 (965 sq. mi.) or so of the
42 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 grams, and developing compatible goals for trophy hunting and shar- ing the economic benefits with communities. My discussions with relevant officials in Tajikistan, Af- ghanistan, and China elicited positive responses with respect to the creation of a peace park; I have not visited Pakistan so far. The presi- dent of Tajikistan, Imamali Rahmanov, has approved a peace park as part of a larger plan for protected areas submitted by the State Commit- tee on Environment and Forestry. It should be noted that the Tajik National Park in the western Pamirs is Figure 3—The southern Pamirs in Tajikistan with a herd of male Marco Polo sheep (March 5, 2005). Photo by not included in the proposed peace George Schaller. park. This large park (26,000 km2; 10,038 sq. mi.), with a land area cov- Afghan Pamirs would need a flexible country shares information, has a ering 18% of Tajikistan, virtually lacks land use plan that recognizes the stew- policy dialogue, sets priorities, infrastructure, knowledge of status of ardship role of the local people. agrees on principles, and, most im- wildlife, and various aspects of devel- Tajikistan has a strictly protected portant, decides on specific actions. opment essential to a functional reserve area, the Zorkul zapovednik (870 km2; These might include establishing (see Hamilton et al. 1993). It deserves 336 sq mi), along the Afghan border, relevant legislation, conducting ba- a major conservation effort in itself. although actual protection is minimal. sic research on wildlife and East of Zorkul is the Murgab Company, rangelands, developing joint pro- Marco Polo Sheep a hunting concession of about 2,200 grams to raise funds from Numbers km2 (849 sq. mi.). It is the only area development organizations, creating Management of any resource requires in the Tajik Pamirs that has an active joint education and training pro- adequate knowledge. Trophy hunters guard force, privately funded, and not coincidentally the finest Marco Polo sheep population in the country. Rus- sia built a border fence near the Tajik-China border, several kilometers within Tajikistan (see figure 3), leav- ing a no-man’s-land in which Marco Polo sheep persist and move back and forth into China and Afghanistan (see figure 4). This strip of land requires protected status, especially from bor- der guards who hunt wildlife for food. These various areas could readily be linked to create a Pamir Interna- tional Peace Park (see figure 1) of about 50,000 km2 (19,300 sq. mi.). There is need for a cooperative Figure 4—The Pamirs in China, near the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan with head of a male Marco Polo framework, established at an inter- sheep about nine years old at time of death (June 17, 1986). Photo by George Schaller. national workshop, where each
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 43 pay about US$25,000 for killing a restricted hunting. We counted 624 vancy at a conference in 2003, the Aga Marco Polo sheep in Tajikistan and Marco Polo sheep, a minimum figure Khan Foundation in Kabul proposed China, and perhaps Afghanistan at because we did not visit every valley, a program entitled Pamir Conserva- some future date. The income derived and, importantly, animals are known tion: Pamir Integrated Development in from such hunts could contribute sig- to cross the frontier seasonally into 2004, and Fitzherbert et al. (2003) nificantly to conservation and Tajikistan and China. endorsed the peace park idea. My sur- community development. However, Various counts have been made in veys in the four countries and personal the number of animals must be known, Tajikistan since the early 1990s, but contacts contribute to these prelimi- as must the number of trophy-sized these weren’t comprehensive. It is be- nary ideas by providing a specific, males that can be sustainably shot in a lieved that a great decline in numbers immediate, and limited goal that population. Furthermore, given inter- has occurred since the 1960s. The would advance the conservation pro- mittent deep snows and droughts, both Action Plan on Conservation (2003) cess in a critical area through the of which may lead to malnutrition, and gives a total population figure of 3,000 creation of a Pamir International Peace the occasional impact of disease, sheep to 5,400 and Tajik Pamirs (2003) Park. The area would also qualify as a populations need to be monitored to 3,000 to 14,500. In June and July Biosphere Reserve. The need now is detect major changes. Marco Polo 2003 we censused four blocks of ter- to transform the concept into action. sheep have so far been little studied rain known to have substantial sheep Wildlife surveys in the Pamir Moun- (Petocz 1978; Fedosenko 2000). Num- numbers at that season. In three blocks tains of Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, ber estimates that have been published totaling 937 km2 (360 sq. mi.), sheep and Tajikistan revealed that Marco Polo are often outdated or of questionable densities varied from 0.3 to 0.5 ani- sheep (Ovis ammon polii) roam back and accuracy, and a principal task of a peace mals/km2 (0.7–1.3 sq. mi.). The fourth forth across the frontiers of these coun- park would be to census populations block, comprising 800 km2 (308 sq. tries. There has been a considerable and monitor them (see figure 5). mi.) within the Murgab Company decline of wildlife in recent years. The In the 1960s several hundred Marco hunting concession had a density of creation of an international peace park Polo sheep frequented Pakistan, but 1.4 animals/km2 (3.62 sq. mi.). We re- would offer the four countries one op- numbers dropped then precipitously visited that hunting concession in tion of cooperatively protecting and due to illegal hunting, especially dur- March 2005, at a time of year when managing not only Marco Polo sheep ing the construction of the Karakoram wildlife had concentrated low on hills and other species, but also the range- Highway, so that by the end of the to avoid deep snow, and counted 2.7 lands upon which the livelihood of 1980s only occasional small herds vis- animals/km2 (7.0 sq. mi.), partly in the local peoples depend. ited seasonally from China (Rasool same area we had censused in 2003. 1989). I was told that as many as 120 Incidentally, the concession prohibits Acknowledgments animals are said to enter Pakistan at the killing of snow leopards and brown Travel was under the auspices of the present. The October–November 2005 bears, and two of the former were seen Wildlife Conservation Society and par- survey in the Chinese Pamirs resulted during the 2005 census. tially funded by the National Geographic in a count or 2,175 Marco Polo sheep, The number of Marco Polo sheep in Society. World Wildlife Fund-Pakistan indicating a substantial increase during Kyrgystan is unknown. The distinction hosted the project in Pakistan; the Insti- the past two decades of protection. In and geographic separation, if any, be- tute of Zoology and Parasitology, the 1986 Schaller et al. (1987) saw 89 tween the Marco Polo sheep and the State Committee for Environment Con- sheep and estimated 150 in the corner so-called Tian Shan argali (O. a. servation and Forestry, and Khujand of the Pamirs where the four countries karelina) farther north remains obscure. State University assisted in Tajikistan; the meet. Xinjiang Forestry Department cooper- Petocz (1978) censused Marco Polo Conclusion ated closely in China; and Minister sheep in the Afghan Pamirs in 1973 and There is considerable interest in pre- Ahmad Nuristani and Commander tallied 1,260 animals, but he estimated serving the ecological integrity of the Yakub Khan permitted the project to 2,500 to include those he may have Pamirs and in promoting development work in Afghanistan. I would like to ex- overlooked. Our survey in 2004 re- programs there. For example, World press my gratitude to many people, vealed that the range of the species had Wildlife Fund-Pakistan promoted the contracted since the 1970s due to un- idea of a Pamir International Conser- Continued on page 52
44 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
The Global Wilderness Seminar for Government Agencies A Meeting at the Crossroads of Wildlands Stewardship
BY NANCY ROEPER, PETER LANDRES, and DON FISHER
wo days before the 8th World Wilderness Congress servationists from around the world, meeting old friends and began in Alaska, nearly 200 government wildlands making new ones, surrounded by this beauty.” Tmanagers from 17 countries met to share ideas The more formal sessions started the next morning with about common challenges and to explore ways to improve a deeply inspirational talk by Dr. Ian Player, founder of wildland stewardship globally. The goal for this Global Wil- The WILD Foundation. Dr. Player shared stories about his derness Seminar for Government Agencies was to lay the early years as a game ranger in KwaZulu-Natal and spoke foundation for an operating peer network of government movingly about the importance of the human spirit and its professionals committed to fostering best management prac- connection to wilderness. tices in wilderness and other wildlands. The seminar, hosted Several invited speakers, chosen to represent the diver- by the Wilderness Policy Council (the group of U.S. federal sity of our global community, next demonstrated the government policy level representatives from the wilder- commonality of wilderness stewardship concerns across glo- ness management and research agencies) was designed to bal boundaries and cultures as they discussed some of their encourage discussion among the participants with a one- country’s most pressing wildland resource conservation chal- day field trip, presentations from a diversity of countries lenges and creative solutions. For example, discussing their over a range of topics, and small-group discussions aimed respective wildland challenges, Adrian Stokes (Australia), at developing ways to improve global communication about Liisa Kajala (Finland), and Vicki Sanahatien (Canada) inde- wildland stewardship (see figure 1). pendently highlighted the need for, and the desirability of, On the first day, participants traveled by train and boat working closely with aboriginal peoples. Their respective from Anchorage to Seward, and out into Resurrection Bay, agencies have realized that as long as people remain con- to experience a representative sample of Alaska’s wildlands. nected with their aboriginal homeland, they will be strong Interpreters and local government agency resource manag- proponents for their continued protection as wildlands. ers pointed out historic, cultural, and ecological highlights, Likewise, Freek Venter (South Africa) and Teresa Magro (Bra- and discussed current wildlands management issues, as zil) each addressed the challenges of balancing conservation and participants passed through a mix of private lands, the Chugach State Park, Chugach National Forest, Resurrection Bay State Park, and Kenai Fjords National Park. The many The goal… was to lay the foundation for hours of traveling gave everyone an outstanding opportu- nity to meet one-on-one and in small groups, talk in a relaxed an operating peer network of setting, share experiences, and enjoy the spectacular scen- ery. The high quality interactions on the field trip led Jeff government professionals committed to Jarvis, group manager—Wilderness, Rivers, and National fostering best management practices Trails with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, to remark, “This sets a new standard for the wilderness community. in wilderness and other wildlands. What a wonderful way to start the congress, a day with con-
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 45 information on wilderness stewardship challenges and solutions as a top prior- ity. Other significant recommendations were to hold smaller or regional inter- national seminars for government agencies between World Wilderness Congresses, maintain accessibility of the World Wilderness Congress to the in- ternational community, contribute articles to and subscribe to the Interna- tional Journal of Wilderness, and develop new exchange programs and expand existing ones. Figure 1—Discussion during the Global Wilderness Seminar. Photo by Teresa Magro. Of the many recommendations de- veloped in this seminar, two resulted development needs. In both their coun- groups to allow more focused discus- in resolutions that were passed by the tries, for example, ecotourism associated sion on specific wilderness stewardship World Wilderness Congress delegates: with wildlands has provided economic, topics. Those topics were: improving (1) hold future Government Seminars social, and ecosystem benefits, through global communication for wilderness to further improve international coor- the creation of employment opportuni- stewardship, managing for ecological dination and cooperation on wildland ties and incentives for wildlife values, managing for social values, protection, and (2) develop an umbrella conservation. However, both acknowl- meeting the challenge of human use global network to foster international edged the potential negative management, protecting the wilderness communication and learning about consequences associated with growing resource, and partnerships. wilderness stewardship. ecotourism, such as the loss of wildland Each group identified priority stew- A list of participants, presentations, values resulting from the development of ardship issues and critical stewardship small discussion group results, and pho- tourism infrastructure, and the impor- needs within their focus topic. Not sur- tos are posted at www.wilderness.net. tance of thorough planning and prisingly, discussions of these broad With support from the U.S. Wilderness collaboration with all interested parties topics elicited many priority issues and Policy Council, the IUCN Wilderness to assure the sustainability of wildlands. needs, such as: Task Force, and the people who volun- All of the speakers highlighted the • Maintaining the natural ecological teered from these discussion groups to need for working with a broad array integrity of wildlands; continue working together, we intend of partners. Steve Carver (United King- • Determining thresholds for wild- to move forward on several recommen- dom), for example, works closely with lands management action; dations this year to improve our several nongovernmental organiza- • Managing user conflicts; capacity and ability for global wilder- tions that are attempting to rewild • Educating and informing the pub- ness stewardship. IJW parts of the country. Lisa Eidson lic about the importance of (United States) discussed the under- wilderness and appropriate ways NANCY ROEPER, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USA. Email: lying structure that makes to enjoy it; [email protected]. www.wilderness.net, itself a partner- • Bringing funding to the table to ship, such an effective information generate partnerships; and PETER LANDRES, U.S. Forest Service, delivery system. As the webmaster, she • Developing a website for sharing Missoula, MT, USA. Email: ensures that a diverse array of users information. [email protected].
can easily locate the wilderness infor- DON FISHER, U.S. Forest Service, mation they want and need. All of the discussion groups indepen- Washington, DC, USA. Email: In the afternoon, participants di- dently identified the establishment of a [email protected]. vided into relatively small, facilitated web-based clearinghouse for posting
46 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 WILDERNESS DIGEST
Announcements and Wilderness Calendar
COMPILED BY GREG KROLL
Greg Kroll—New IJW as a Peace Corps volunteer in Colom- Yellowstone National Park, will remain Digest Editor bia, South America. Greg is a native of free of logging and commercial devel- Greg joined IJW with this issue as di- California and earned a B.S. in natural opment. An additional 10 million gest editor. He currently works as a resources conservation and park ad- acres (4.05 million ha) outside the private contractor, providing wilder- ministration at Humboldt State protected areas will be managed ac- ness management training programs in University, California, and received a cording to new practices called national parks around the United master’s degree in social work from the “ecosystem-based management” that States. From 1996 through 1999 he was University of Washington, Seattle. will set limits on logging, mining, and the National Park Service representa- GREG KROLL other commercial activities. In what tive at the Arthur Carhart National can be has been described as “a crossroads in Wilderness Training Center in contacted at our relations,” a decade of talks and Missoula, Montana, where he coordi- P.O. Box 699, international boycott campaigns re- nated wilderness training for the El Rito, NM sulted in agreement among First wilderness units of the National Park 87530, USA; Nations representatives, environmen- System. From 1985 to 1996, he served telephone: tal groups, logging companies, and as a park ranger at Yellowstone National (505) 581-4410; provincial officials. Merran Smith, of Park, first as public affairs officer, then email: Vancouver-based Forest Ethics, says, as assistant chief naturalist. From 1981 [email protected]. “This is a revolution. This rainforest to 1985 he directed two outdoor agreement provides a real world ex- schools and managed the Summer British Columbia Protects ample of how people and wilderness Field Seminar Program at Redwood Great Bear Rainforest can prosper together. And this is just National Park, California. Prior to his A wilderness of 4.4 million acres (1.8 the beginning.” (Source: http:// employment by the National Park Ser- million ha) was protected in perpetu- www.forestethics.org) vice, he worked for the California State ity by the provincial government of Park System, the California Conserva- British Columbia, Canada, on Febru- Requests Increase for tion Corps, and the Annette Island ary 7, 2006. Known as the Great Bear Helicopter Intrusions into Indian Reservation in Metlakatla, Rainforest, this remote and rugged Wilderness Alaska. Greg is well traveled, having landscape represents a quarter of the The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is fac- spent time with the National Park Ser- world’s remaining coastal temperate ing multiple challenges regarding vice in Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama, rainforest, and is home to a healthy helicopter landings in wilderness and Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia, where he population of salmon, wolves, grizzly, wilderness study areas. The Forest taught ranger skills to park profession- and black bears. Under the provincial Service’s Alaska Region proposes to als of those countries. He also served Park Act, these lands, twice the size of make approximately 1,100 helicopter
Submit announcements and short news articles to GREG KROLL, IJW Wilderness Digest editor. E-mail: [email protected]
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 47 landings in wilderness over a 10-year Finally, the Forest Service is being Rock Creek mining method and risks period to inventory vegetation. They challenged in federal court over the of subsidence.” Now Kootenai forest want to access 540 plots by helicop- issuance of a permit allowing in- supervisor Bob Castaneda admits the ter (each plot requiring two landings) creased helicopter skiing in the two sinkholes will “raise more ques- and 373 plots by day hiking. The plots Palisades Wilderness Study Area tions by some people about how well are located in 19 wilderness areas on (WSA) of the Caribou-Targhee and we did the assessment for the Rock the Tongass National Forest, and one Bridger-Teton National Forests. A Creek mine.” (Sources: http:// Wilderness Study Area on the single Jackson, Wyoming-based com- www.clarkfork.org/programs/ Chugach National Forest. The final mercial heliskiing company would rock_creek.html, and the Missoulian, Environmental Impact Statement on have exclusive use of the WSA for up March 6 and 28, 2006) the proposal is due to be released to 1,200 skier-days of service every September 2006, at the earliest. winter for the next decade. New Utah Wilderness (Source: http://a257.g.akamaitech. Earthjustice, on behalf of four envi- Stymies Nuclear Option net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/ ronmental groups, seeks a court order As the result of an unprecedented edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06- that would limit the heliskiing to meeting of the minds between the 1002.htm) 1984 levels. (Source: http:// Utah congressional delegation and Idaho state fish and game director www.earthjustice.org/news/ wilderness advocates, the new Steve Huffaker proposes to use heli- display.html?ID=1099) 100,000-acre (40,485 ha) Cedar copters to locate, dart, and radio Mountain Wilderness was signed into collar up to 16 wolves in the Selway- Grizzlies, Bull Trout, law by President George W. Bush on Bitterroot, Gospel Hump, and Frank Arsenic, and Sinkholes January 6, 2006 (P.L. 109-163). The Church-River of No Return Wilder- One of the largest proposed under- first new stand-alone wilderness des- nesses. “We need to know how they ground mines in North America is also ignation in Utah since 1984, it was use a big habitat… so we can trap the first to be permitted beneath a U.S. included in the Utah Test and Train- them if we need to,” he was quoted wilderness area. The Rock Creek cop- ing Range Protection Act, which was as saying by the Idaho Statesman. For- per and silver mine, located beneath attached to the large Defense Autho- est Service intermountain regional Montana’s Cabinet Mountains Wilder- rization Act. What does wilderness forester Jack Troyer says his agency ness, was approved in June of 2003 have to do with national defense? A proposes to help catch the wolves by state and federal agencies. Even private company seeks to create a without the use of motorized vehicles, though the only surface disturbance high-level nuclear waste storage fa- although he still intends to carry out would be outside the wilderness cility at Skull Valley on the Goshute an Environmental Assessment on the boundaries, the mine start-up has Indian Reservation, near the Training state’s request. (Sources: http:// been repeatedly blocked by court de- Range. The protected military air- www.wildernesswatch.org; and Idaho cisions. First, a U.S. district court space above the Cedar Mountains is Statesman, February 14, 2006) judge ruled that federal wildlife offi- used by the U.S. Air Force, and the cials had put grizzly bears and bull military was concerned that a nearby trout at risk by permitting the mine. nuclear waste facility would curtail Get your copy Then a Montana district judge ruled training operations for safety reasons. that the state water-quality permit The Utah delegation was also uneasy of the IJW would allow too much arsenic to be about siting the facility so close to Salt Subscribe Today! sent into the groundwater, violating Lake City. The Cedar Mountain Wil- the Montana Constitution’s guarantee derness now prevents the waste of a clean and healthful environment. storage company from building a rail Student: $25/year Next, by March 2006, two large cave- line to the Skull Valley site. Although Individual: $35/year ins collapsed portions of the nearby waste could still be trucked in, that Institution: $55/year Troy mine. In permitting the Rock is a much less desirable option for the Creek mine, the U.S. Forest Service company. Less than an hour’s drive www.ijw.org stated that the Troy mine provided “an from Salt Lake City, the Cedar Moun- excellent analogy for the proposed tain Wilderness will be a permanent
48 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 refuge for mule deer, pronghorn an- we lose our heritage.” (Source: Los Wilderness and The WILD Founda- telope, coyotes, bobcats, golden Angeles Times, March 3, 2006; for spe- tion to Drs. Chad Dawson and Alan eagles, and mountain lions, as well cific wilderness area information, visit Watson for their leadership and work as the area’s burgeoning human popu- http://www.wilderness.net) with IJW and wilderness research and lation. (For more information, visit education for stewardship of wilder- http://www.wilderness.org; and the IUCN Review of Protected ness resources. An award was also Salt Lake Tribune, December 19, Area Categories presented to Dr. Stephen McCool for 2005.) The World Commission on Protected his lifetime of research and educa- Areas (WCPA) of the World Conser- tional contributions to wilderness Wilderness on U.S.- vation Union (IUCN) has embarked planning and the Limits of Accept- Mexico Border Trashed on a process of reviewing the catego- able Change Planning Process. Dr. The Cabeza Prieta Wilderness ries included in its Framework for McCool was the 2004 recipient of the (803,418 acres; 325,139 ha) is the Protected Areas. This could have im- IJW and U.S. Forest Service Chief’s largest in Arizona. The adjacent Or- plications for recognition of Award for Excellence in Wilderness gan Pipe Cactus Wilderness contains wilderness. Wilderness is category 1b, Stewardship Research (see IJW 11[2]: 312,600 acres (126,507 ha). Together, and has been included only since the 29). Steve Bschor (U.S. Forest Ser- they have protected a broad expanse last revision in 1992, largely as a re- vice) joined Dr. Dawson in making of Sonoran Desert, which has the sult of many years of work by the the presentation to Dr. McCool. All greatest diversity of plants and animals World Wilderness Congress and the three awards were presented during of any North American desert. They tireless efforts of Mike McCloskey, Ed the October 2005 World Wilderness also form the U.S. border with Mexico, Wayburn, and others. The Wilderness Congress in Alaska. and there’s the rub. According to the Task Force (WTF)—established Los Angeles Times, these two wilderness within the WCPA in 2001 and co- areas have suffered a “devastating toll” chaired by Vance Martin (president, from the government’s ongoing battle The WILD Foundation) and Khulani with cross-boundary smugglers and Mkhize (CEO, Ezemvelo KZN Wild- migrants. Cabeza Prieta National life, South Africa)—has been asked to Wildlife Refuge manager Roger DiRosa submit updated findings on wilder- claims that 2.5 million pounds of gar- ness as a protected area category to bage are abandoned in the refuge each justify its continued inclusion within year. Sections of Organ Pipe Cactus the framework. By the time this issue
National Monument (managed by the of the IJW is published, that report will John Hendee, Alan Watson, Chad Dawson National Park Service) are so danger- be submitted, and further issues of the ous they are closed to the public. Since IJW will keep you updated on progress the U.S. Department of Homeland in this regard. For further information, Security has legal authority to ignore contact Cyril Kormos, WILD’s vice environmental laws, the U.S. Border president for policy ([email protected]), Patrol has set up camps in the wilder- or Harvey Locke (strategic advisor, Ca- ness, replete with helicopter pads, nadian Parks and Wilderness Society, trailers, fencing, generators and high- [email protected]). intensity lights. Organ Pipe superintendent Kathy Billings is IJW and WILD Awards quoted by the L.A. Times as saying, “If Awards were presented by IJW edi- we lose Organ Pipe and it becomes a tor-in-chief Dr. John Hendee on moonscape as a result of these impacts, behalf of the International Journal of Chad Dawson, Stephen McCool, Steve Bschor
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 49 WILDERNESS DIGEST
Book Reviews
Transboundary Conservation: backs and challenges are also noted, servation issue. This coffee table book A New Vision for Protected but this discussion is not as extensive would be an excellent gift for budding Areas as the above topics. or experienced conservationists, but By Russell Mittermeier, Cyril Kormos, Three “exemplary” case studies— includes enough detailed information Cristina Mittermeier, Patricio Robles Gil, the first TBCA of Waterton-Glacier to satisfy those wishing for more than Trevor Sandwith, and Charles Besançon. International Peace Park, the Limpopo just pretty pictures. 2005. CEMEX-Agrupacion Sierra Madre-Conservation International, Transfrontier Park, and the El Carmen- Reviewed by JOHN SHULTIS, who is the 372 pp., $50.00 (cloth). Big Bend TBCA—are the focus of the book editor for IJW. next chapter, although what makes Officially released at the 8th World these three areas so exemplary is not Wilderness Congress in Anchorage, explicitly noted. The basic template of Recommendations and Alaska, Transboundary Conservation is the remaining chapters, which each Guidelines for Managing another magnificently detailed and il- document one TBCA, is introduced in Caves on Protected Lands lustrated book in the CEMEX Books these case studies: Each TBCA is de- Edited by W. K. Jones et al. 2003. Karst Waters Institute (KWI). 95 pp. on Nature series. As in their previous scribed by a different author or group $16.00 (paper) PO Box 537, Charles publications, Mittermeier et al. provide of authors, with a focus on listing the Town, WV 25414. a global review of the crème de la most important flora and fauna of each crème of conservation areas, this time area. Threats to each TBCA are also The goal of this publication was to focusing on transboundary conserva- identified. The exquisite photography provide federal land managers with tion areas (TBCA). The term conservation provided throughout each chapter on guidelines for the development of area rather than protected area is used high quality paper must again be cave-management plans and policies in order to allow for the inclusion of noted: These illustrations are worth based on the Federal Cave Resources areas that may not fit the IUCN crite- the price of purchase alone. Each Protection Act (FCRPA). It is a helpful ria for protected areas. TBCA averages six to eight pages, with introduction to cave management Twenty-eight existing TBCA (out of half of that being photographs. (more appropriately, cave stewardship) a potential total of 188 global com- Mittermeier et al. have again pro- in the United States, but is far from plexes identified) are reviewed in this vided an outstanding overview of a the definitive text on the subject. book, with half of these TBCA located critical conservation issue, using ex- The manual is divided into three in the Americas. The introduction pro- perts in each area to provide a brief parts. Part 1 describes the features to vides a history and review of this but substantive overview of each be protected and gives an overview of specific type of conservation area and TBCA. Despite the large number of the science behind management related areas such as peace parks. The authors, Mittermeier et al. have done guidelines. Part 2 provides cave stew- IUCN definition of a TBCA—“an area an outstanding job in editing each sec- ardship guidelines and describes that straddles one or more boundaries tion, and have once again collected an typical problems in protecting caves between regions or nations, is dedi- outstanding series of photographs to and karst. Part 3, the smallest section, cated to the protection of biological help bring each region to life. Kudos outlines management tools and inves- diversity, and is managed coopera- must also be given to the publishing tigative methods. These three sections tively through legal or other effective trifecta of CEMEX, Agrupacion Sierra total 52 pages, 32 of which are devoted means”—is adopted in this book. Or- Madre, and Conservation Interna- to Part 1, giving the impression that ganizations that deal with TBCA, their tional, who have once again spared no cave science is more important than benefits, and best practices are also expense in creating this illustrated management. The manual concludes included in this section. Some draw- overview of an important global con- with a two-page summary, references,
50 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 a glossary of terms, and six appendixes is, in part, due to KWI’s expertise in derness values that were formally stated totaling 18 pages. While the National karst research rather than actual stew- in the Act. The social and political his- Park Service is well represented in the ardship. tory of the legislature policy and NWPS appendixes, no reference is made to Ideally, the publication should be set the context to understand the com- the other federal agencies involved in more in line with the model presented plex public values that led to protection cave stewardship. by the IUCN’s Guidelines for Cave and of these natural areas. Perhaps because it has multiple au- Karst Protection. A second publication The wilderness values framework in thors, Part 1 contains some lapses and should be developed to cover karst chapter 4 is one of the most substantive contradictions. Greater care in editing and cave stewardship from a natural and important contributions of this could have addressed these problems. resources management perspective. book, providing a comprehensive over- For example, it gives the impression Such a text should cover the biophysi- view of how wilderness attributes and that cave management deals only with cal, social, and economic aspects of characteristics support wilderness func- biophysical cave resources; human di- caves and karst. tions and services and lead to wilderness mensions of management are not Nonetheless, this publication is still values. The four main perspectives or discussed. It suggests that the FCRPA an invaluable reference for those fed- categories on wilderness values are out- should also be applied to other natural eral land managers who know little lined as (1) social, (2) economic, (3) geologic features, including natural about cave stewardship. I certainly ecologic, and (4) ethical. These values bridges and arches, but this exceeds the recommend it as a useful introduction flow from the attributes and character- scope of the FCRPA. Citations are lack- to the subject. istics of the lands within the NWPS that ing for much of the information Reviewed by PATRICIA E. SEISER, New are described in chapters 5 and 6. presented in Part 1, a curious fact con- Mexico Tech Faculty Adjunct Humanities The four categories of values are cov- sidering the emphasis on scientific Department, Socorro, NM. Cave steward- ered in subsequent chapters: Social ship specialist, National Cave and Karst backing for management plans. Research Institute, 1400 Commerce Drive, values are based on concepts of human As previously noted, Parts 2 and 3 Carlsbad, NM 88220, USA; email: use and benefits and public perceptions could have been extended. For ex- [email protected]. of those benefits as measured by public ample, the book would have opinion surveys, with differences ana- benefited from examples of cave man- lyzed between different demographic agement plans. The preface indicates The Multiple Values of and socioeconomic groups (chapters 7 that such plans are included in an Wilderness and 8); economic values are conceptu- appendix, but none is provided. Al- Edited by H. Ken Cordell, John C. ally discussed for active on-site though some of the best texts on cave Bergstrom and J. M. Bowker. 2005. recreation and passive uses to measure Venture Publishing, Inc., State College, stewardship are cited, justice is not PA. 297 pp. $49.95 (hardcover). net economic values and economic im- done to the full value they offer to pacts on local economies (chapters 9 and cave stewards. It might have been The three principal authors and edi- 10); ecologic values of naturalness and useful to summarize guiding prin- tors—Cordell, Bergstrom, and wildness are described, and indicator ciples and concepts, and to provide Bowker—are joined by 20 other chap- measures for research applications are an annotated list of recommended ter authors and coauthors. The 13 reviewed (chapter 11); and ethical and readings for each subject category. chapters of the book are presented by intrinsic values of wilderness are ex- The book does not mention the Na- leading scholars and researchers on the plored from anthropocentric and tional Cave and Karst Management full range of values held by U.S. citi- nonanthropocentric theory (chapter 12). Symposia, a valuable resource in this zens toward wilderness and the The main authors conclude that “it constantly evolving field. National Wilderness Preservation Sys- is our view that the values American The intent of the publication had tem (NWPS). citizens broadly hold are most impor- been to complement the IUCN’s Chapters 2 and 3 summarize the tant in determining the future of Guidelines for Cave and Karst Protec- Wilderness Act of 1964, subsequent Wilderness. It is the value-laden and tion, which took a human dimensions wilderness designations, and the devel- diverse voices of our country’s public, approach to cave and karst steward- opment of the NWPS. The formative individually and collectively, that are ship. Unfortunately, this book falls origins of the wilderness concept were featured in this book” (p. 270). This short of this laudable goal. Perhaps this instrumental in evolving a set of wil- book is intended for both the general
International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2 51 public interested in wilderness as well an important outline for newcomers must-read for U.S. and international as those already involved in teaching, to wilderness preservation and an wilderness professionals as well. research, planning, and management. overview and reminder for those al- Reviewed by CHAD P. DAWSON, IJW This comprehensive look at the val- ready engaged. This book is a managing editor. ues that brought about the NWPS is
From PAMIR PEACE PARK on page 44
especially to Major S. Amanullah Khan and Pervez Khan (Pakistan); Talipu, Lu Hua, Li Hong, Shi Jun, and Zhu Fu De (China); Safraz Khan, Muhammad Sidiq, Anthony Fitzherbert, Erin Hannan, Trevor Monroe, Elizabeth Wald, and Scott Wallace (Afghanistan); and Abdusattor Saidov, Tolibjon Khabilov, Otabek and Aidibek Bekmurodi, Eric Engel, Kokul Kasirov, and Neimatullo Safarov (Tajikistan). IJW
REFERENCES Anon. 2003. The Tajik Pamirs. Berne, Switzer- land: University of Berne, Centre for Devel- opment and Environment. Fedosenko, A. Figure 5—Female Marco Polo sheep in molt with young (July 15, 2004). Photo by George Schaller. 2000. Argali Sheep in Russia and Adjacent Territories. Moscow: Center for Hunting Con- trol (in Russian). Kabul, Afghanistan: UNDP, FAO, and Min- Areas for Peace and Co-operation. Gland, Fitzherbert, A., C. Mishra, and A. Khairzad. istry of Agriculture. Document No. 7. Switzerland: IUCN, Best Practice Protected 2003. UNDP and FAO: Afghanistan: Raja, P. 2003. Siachen, peace park or war zone. Area Guidelines Series No. 7. Wakhan Mission Technical Report. UNDP Mumbai, India: Sanctuary Asia 23(4): 24–25. Schaller, G. 1977. Mountain Monarchs: and FAO. Hamilton, L., D. Bauer, H. Rasool, G. 1989: Wildlife in the wilderness. WildSheep and Goats of the Himalaya. Chi- Takeuchi. 1993. Parks, Peaks and People. WWF-Pakistan: Natura 8(1): 4–6. cago: University of Chicago Press. Honolulu, HI: East-West Center. Republic of Tajikistan. 2003. National Strategy and ———. 2006. A Proposal for a Pamir Interna- Hamilton, L., J. Mackay, G. Worboys, R. Jones, Action Plan on Conservation and Sustainable tional Peace Park. In Science and Steward- and G. Manson. l996. Transborder Protected Use of Biodiversity. Dushanbe, Tajikistan: Na- ship to Protect and Sustain Wilderness Area Cooperation. Canberra, Australia: tional Biodiversity and Biosafety Center. Values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Alps Liaison Committee. Sandwith, T, C. Shine,L. Hamilton, and D. Symposium, comp. Alan Watson, Liese Petocz, R. 1978. Management plan for the Big Sheppard. 2001. Transboundary Protected Dean, and Janet Sproull. September 30–Oc- Pamir Wildlife Reserve. Unpublished report. tober 6, 2005; Anchorage, AK. Proceed- ings RMRS-P-(forthcoming). Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- The creation of an international peace park would vice, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Schaller, G.; H. Li, Talilpu, H. Lu, J. Ren, M. Qiu, and H. Wang.. 1987. Status of large mam- offer the four countries one option of cooperatively mals in the Taxkorgan Reserve, Xinjiang, protecting and managing not only Marco Polo sheep China. Biological Conservation 42: 53–71. GEORGE B. SCHALLER is a field biologist and other species, but also the rangelands upon and vice president of international conservation, Wildlife Conservation which the livelihood of local peoples depend. Society, Bronx Park, New York 10460, USA; e-mail: [email protected].
52 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 2