Wilderness Benchmark 1988: Agkdture Forest Service Proceedings of the National Wilderness Colloquium
d States wpartment of Wilderness Benchmark 1988: Agkdture Forest Service Proceedings of the National Wilderness Colloquium
Southeastern Forest Tampa, Florida Experiment Station January 13-14, 1988 General Technic& Report SE-51 Whenever possible, authors supplied their papers as electronic recordings; they therefore are responsible for content and accuracy. Opinions expressed are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect positions of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The use of any trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.
January 1989 Southeastern Forest Experiment Station P.O. Box 2680 Asheville, NC 28802 Wilderness Benchmark 1988:
proceedings of the NATIONAL WILDERNESS COLLOQUIUM Tampa, Florida, January 13-14, I988
Compiler:
HELEN R. FREILICH Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service FOREWORD
The USDA Forest Service is required by This volume begins with an overview of the Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) the National Wilderness Preservation System - of 1974 to prepare an Assessment every ten what it is now and what it could be in the years. This document includes assessments of future. The overview papers are followed by ah resources of the National Forests and other thirteen papers addressing specific non- public lands, including wildlife, range, water, recreational uses and values of wilderness. timber, minerals, outdoor recreation, and Authors were asked to include descriptions of wilderness. 1) legislative guideli.nes influencing the use; 2) inventory of use; 3) value of use; 4) trend in In January 1988, the Forest Service use; and 5) issues and recommendations. sponsored Benchmark 1988, a national conference held in Tampa, Florida. The A short summary of discussions at the Conference was divided into two parts: the colloquium and the results of a national National Wilderness Colloquium and the telephone survey are included in the Appendix. National Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Many of the ideas expressed in the discussion Forum. Presentations and discussions at this groups were used in the preparation of the conference were asource of information for RPA Assessment and are valuable reading for the Forest Service’s 1989 Assessment of wilderness mangers and planners. A number of Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness. authors in these proceedings referenced the telephone survey in their papers. A short The Proceedings are being published in description of the procedure and the results of two separate volumes. This volume includes the survey are included here. over twenty papers addressing the wilderness resource and its (non-recreational) values and Numerous individuals contributed to the benefits to the American people. The second planning and organization of the colloquium volume reports current research in outdoor and the publication of the Proceedings. Pat recreation, including additional descriptions of Reed of Colorado State University was the the wilderness resource with emphasis on principle organizer and worked closely with the recreational use. Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group of the USDA Forest Service in Athens, The Colloquium Georgia in selecting participants and soliciting papers. Reviewers of colloquium papers Forty persons from throughout the United included: Evan DeBloois, Ken Cordell, Sarah States participated in the presentations and Greene, David Cole, Bev Driver, Gary Davis, group discussions of the 1988 National Tom King, Steve McCool, Perry Brown, David Wilderness Colloquium. Invited participants Porter, Roger Clark, Robert Greenway, Alan came from the National Park Service, USDA Ewert, Greg Alward, Jim Absher, Pat Long, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Terry Hartig, Ted McConnell, Susan Bratton, universities, private research groups and William McLaughlin Walter Cook, Doug environmental organizations. “Nonrecreational Welhnan, Ross Gorte, Sally Ranney, Robert uses and values of wilderness” were the Lucas, Joe Roggenbuck, Jim Omemick, Larry colloquium’s themes, reflecting the need to Phillips, and Larry Hartmann. describe and quantify all uses of wilderness. We hope these proceedings will spark the The 1964 Wilderness Act specifically interest of researchers, planners, and managers authorizes a number of uses of wilderness. and they will be encouraged to add to the Section 4b of the Act states that “wilderness information base presented here. More areas shall be devoted to the public purposes information is necessary if we expect all of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, mandated uses and values of wilderness to be conservation, and historical use” (78 Stat 894). considered equally in land management Notwithstanding, research into the extent and decisions. value of nonrecreational uses lags considerably behind those of recreational uses and values. Helen R. Freilich, compiler
ii CONTENTS
Introductory Remarks Wilderness and the Protection H. Ken Cordell ...... 1 of Genetic Diversity Christine Schonewald-Cox and Thomas J. Stohlgren . . 83 Overview Cultural iesources and Wilderness The National Wilderness Loretta F. Neuman and Preservation System: Kathleen M. Reinburg . . . . 92 The First 23 Years and Beyond Patrick C. Reed ...... 2 Scientific Values Threats to the National Wilderness Preservation System Environmental Monitoring John Peine, John Burde, in Wilderness and William Hammitt . . . . 21 Susan P. Bratton ...... 103 Defacto Wilderness: Lands The State of Ecological Research in Complementary to the National Forest Service Wilderness Wilderness Preservation System Sarah E. Greene and Curt Soper and Jerry F. Franklin ...... 113 John W. Humke ...... 30 Social Research in Wilderness Understanding the Demand for More Robert E. Manning . . . . . 120 Wilderness Michael McCloskey ...... 38 Education Values Compatible and Incompatible Interactions Between Recreation The Wilderness Environment: Training and Nonrecreational Uses Wilderness Managers of Wilderness Richard H. Spray and Joyce M. Kelly ...... 45 Paul D. Weingart ...... 133 The Future Wilderness System Barry R. Flamm ...... 54 Social Value-s The Nonrecreational Use of Wilderness and Subsistence-Use Wilderness in the Opportunities: Benefits and International Context Limitations G.N. Wallace and Robert M. Muth and Harold K. Eidsvik ...... 66 Ronald J. Glass ...... 142 Therapeutic Value of Wilderness Preservation Values Lynn Levitt ...... 156 Preservation of Natural Diversity: The Role of Wilderness in Human The Role of Ecosystem Development Representation Within Daniel R. Williams, Wilderness Lois Haggard, and George D. Davis ...... 76 Richard Schreyer . . . , . . 169
. . . ill PIP Appendix paw The Nontraditional Public Valuation (Option, Bequest, Existence) Optimizing Nonrecreational of Wilderness Wilderness Uses and Values: Richard G. Walsh and Recommendations and Strategies John BLoomis ...... 181 for the Next Ten Years Patrick Reed, The Spirit of Wilderness: The Use H. Ken CordeN, and Opportunity of Wilderness and Helen R. Freilich . . . 2 16 Experience for Spiritual Growth Barbara McDonald, Nonrecreational Uses of the Richard Guldin, and National Wilderness G. Richard Wetherill . . . . 193 Reservation System: A 1988 Telephone Survey Patrick C. Reed, Commercial Values Glen Haas, and Lois Sherrick . , ...... 220 The Commercial Production Values of Wilderness Terence Yorks ...... 208
iv INTRODUCTORY REMARKS H, Ken Cordell* The Renewable Resources Planning Act you can help us better formulate the questions (RPA) Assessment covers the various uses of and pose them as a research agenda. Such a natural resources such as timber, wildlife, research agenda will help guide future RPA range, recreation, wilderness, minerals, and Assessments. We are most anxious to hear water. Its purpose is to communicate the what you have to say. importance of those resources and their condition. This requires a series of analytical For this Colloquium, each of you have steps to describe the resource, how it is been asked to examine a particular aspect of managed, the cost of managing it, the societal wilderness. The information you provide will and economic demands placed on the be used for natural resources planning through resources, and the improvements needed to the Administration and in the RPA Assessment meet those demands through better resource report to the Congress. With your help we management. All of this is aimed at will be better able to communicate the identifying what the future could be and what importance of wilderness relative to some of role the Federal government should play in that the other uses of natural resources. We will future. also recommend a research program to improve knowledge of wilderness uses and values in the To my knowledge, this is the first time future. that we have had the opportunity as a group to look at wilderness from the perspective that it We hope to see a repeat of this meeting at is much more than a recreational resource. In the appropriate time in the future. At this the past, recreational uses of wilderness has meeting we will reexamine what we said here seemed to be a primary focus. This about the non-recreational uses and values of Colloquium recognizes the many different uses wilderness. When we reconvene let us ask, and values of wilderness and acknowledges “Are there still holes in our knowledge about that we know very little about those uses this vast and vital wilderness resource and its which we might call “nonrecreational”. We uses?” The goal is to improve the need improved understanding of the non- management of wilderness, to create a better recreational uses and values of wilderness for base of information, and to effectively the upcoming RPA Assessment. communicate this information to those who am making decisions. You are the experts. You have an understanding of both the questions and the answers concerning nonrecreational uses and values and can greatly help us to better evaluate the wilderness resource as an RPA Assessment focus. Where there are no answers,
*Project Leader, Outdoor Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Group, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Athens, GA. 1 THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM: THE FIRST 23 YEARS AND BEYOND
Patrick C. Reed*
ABSTRACT scientific, educational, scenic, and historical value” (16 USC 1131). Following nearly 10 years of congressional debate, the National Wilderness Initially, the NWPS was homogeneous in Preservation System was created in 1964. several senses. With the passage of the Since then the System has grown in size and Wilderness Act 1964, the nine million acres of geographic distribution and now totals nearly the NWPS were all located within the National 89 million acres in 44 different States. The Forest system. With the exception of the System has been shaped by existing patterns of Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota Federal land ownership and is concentrated in and some 25,000 acres in New Hampshire and Alaska and the 11 Western States. North Carolina, it was also all located within Considerably more acreage may be eligible for the 11 Western states. wilderness status; but, as the System matures, attention will begin to shift away from Over the past 23 years, the NWPS has designation of new wilderness to the become more diverse both in size and management of existing wilderness. This paper geographic range. With more than 460 units briefly describes the past and present size and located in all but six States, the NWPS now distribution of the System, as well as some of totals almost 89 million acres, or about 4 the issues associated with its future percent of the total land area of the United composition and management. States. Its units are now managed by four different Federal agencies: the Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife INTRODUCTION Service, and Bureau of Land Management. The next 10 years are likely to hold both Just over 23 years ago, and after nine long opportunity and more challenges to the years of effort, the U.S. Congress passed the development of the NWPS. Decisions about Wilderness Act (PL 88-577) in 1964 in order future wilderness additions may need to be to “establish a National Wilderness made jointly by the four agencies if the NWPS Preservation System for the permanent good of is to obtain the richest diversity of natural and the whole people” (78 Stat 890). The first cultural environments. Increased attention will system of its kind in the world, the National be given to management in order to insure that Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) the areas already within the NWPS provides for the protection and preservation of permanently retain their wilderness character. congressionally designated wilderness areas, or The value of the many non-recreational uses of “areas where the earth and its community of wilderness will gain more recognition. life am untrammeled by man” and which retain their “primeval character and influence” (16 USC 1131). Wilderness has outstanding A LOOK BACK opportunities for solitude and a primitive form of recreation, but may also contain any of a The road to a national system for the number of non-recreational amenities such as protection of wilderness lands was rocky and “ecological, geological, or other features of long. Both popular and political appreciation
* Faculty Afiliate, Department of Recreation Resources and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 2 of wilderness built slowly throughout the early since the enhancement of habitat and range history of America and well into the middle of were major management policies of the this century (Allin 1985, Hendee and others respective agencies (Hendee and others 1978, 1978, Nash 1982). However, the road to Reed and Drabelle 1984). Federal support for wilderness preservation in 1964 was not entirely uncharted. Not withstanding the policies of the federal agencies, Congress had acknowledged the idea and value of a national network to A Federal Track Record protect “strict wilderness reserves” as early as 1940 in a joint Pan-American agreement (56 Several Federal agencies now managing Stat 1354). Still, if the way to a national designated wilderness did have some prior wilderness system was no longer uncharted, it experience in managing de facto wilderness (or was not necessarily to be smooth. Regardless lands exhibiting wilderness-like characteristics of their earlier flirtations with backcountry and but not officially designated by Congress). wildland preservation, both the National Park The National Park Service Act of 1916 created Service and the Forest Service were initiahy and charged the new agency with, among other opposed to Senator Hubert Humphrey’s early things, keeping park scenery and wildlife attempts to introduce and pass the first national ‘unimpaired for the enjoyment of future wilderness bill beginning in 1956. It was generations” (39 Stat 535). Although early contrary to the National Park Service’s then backcountry preservation was largely ignored new ‘Mission 66” program which encouraged in favor of recreational use (Foresta 1984), the more recreation-related development in the intent of subsequent park legislation for the parks (Foresta 1984). For its part, the Forest Grand Tetons in the late 1920’s and the Service was concerned with a number of Everglades in the early 1930’s became much issues, including water and timber rights in the clearer in its effort to preserve wilderness proposed wilderness lands, and was also values in the parks (Hendee and others 1978). opposed to such legislation (Allin 1982). Like the National Park Service, the Forest Service in its early years was also reluctant to An Idea Comes of Age stand in the way of “progress” (Robinson 1975). However, largely through the efforts of Real help for a national system of people like Aldo Leopold and Arthur Carhart, wilderness came with the recommendations of the Forest Service began to set aside lands for the 1962 Outdoor Recreation Resources wilderness recreation beginning with the Review Commission. The Commission 574,000 acre Gila Wilderness Preserve (the identified more than 28 million acres of forerunner of current wilderness areas) in New Federal, State, and private lands with Mexico in 1924. By 1929, the Forest Service wilderness qualities (ORRRC 1962). Table 1 had adopted an internal policy (the G20 lists the Commission’s inventory of potential Regulation) to manage and protect a system of wilderness by Federal agency. “primitive areas.” In 1939, the U-l, 2, and 3 Regulations further developed the formal As shown in table 2, most of the ORRRC practice of protection and management of acreage recommendations were located in two wilderness, wild lands, and roadless areas. Western Regions’ (eleven Western States), but none in Alaska. The other Federal agencies that now manage wilderness in the NWPS, the Fish and Finally, after almost yearly attempts and Wildlife Service (then known as the Bureau of failures on 65 different wilderness bills, Sport Fisheries and Wildlife) and the Bureau of Congress reached a compromise and passed the Land Management, essentially had no formal Wilderness Act on September 3, 1964. The lands to manage prior to the 1950’s because newly created NWPS would become an they had no “organic” acts. Any protection of “overlay” on the existing National Forest, Park, diverse wilderness values (as later described in and Wildlife Refuge systems (Hendee and the Wilderness Act) in national wiIdlife refuges others 1978). The purposes for which the or public domain lands was probably fortuitous wilderness areas were designated was to be
3 Table 1. -- A comparison of the 1962 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission inventory of potential wilderness and the National Wilderness Preservation System as of December 31, 1987 (by Federal agency) 1962 ORRRC 1987 NWPS potential acreage’ acreage2 Forest Service 18,967,590 32,411297 National Park Service 7276,000 36.756.382 Fish and Wildlife Service3 694,540 19,330,335 Bureau of Land Management 220,740 470,779 Bureau of Indian Affairs 560,650 State 291,240 : Private l 193,630 0 United States 28,204,390 88,968,793 ’ Source: Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission 1962. 2 Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1987a. 3 The Fish and Wildlife, Service replaced the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.
Table 2. -- A comparison of the 1962 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission inventory of potential wilderness and the National Wilderness Preservation System as of December 31, 1987 (by RPA Region) 1962 ORRRC potential 1987 NWPS RPA Region’ wilderness acreage’ acreage’ Pacific Coast 7,944,800 67,176,085 Rocky Mountains-Great Plains 17,512,730 17,807,232 North 705,680 1,456,855 south 2,041,180 2.528.621 United States (excluding AK) 28,204,390 32,484,117 United States (including AK) 28,204,390 88,968,793 ’ See Appendix for listing of States within each RPA Region. 2 Source: Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission 1962. 3 Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1987a.
4 Figure 1. -- Composition of the RPA Regions (by State) used in this paper
Figure 2. -- Yearly additions and total acreage for the National Wilderness Preservation System (1964-1987)
Million Acres 100
80
60
40
20
0 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 7172 73 74 75 76 77 70 79 80 8102 83 84 85 86 87 YEARS (1964 THROUGH 1987)
ezd Original Acreage m Amended Acreage - Total Acreage
5 “within and supplemental” to the purposes for The authority for the Bureau of Land which the [National Forest, Park, and Wildlife Management to manage wilderness came with Refuge systems are established and the passage of the FLPMA (PL 94-579) in administered” (16 USC 1133). Regardless of 1976. It required the agency to review all of what the purposes of the other systems might its 400 million-plus acres for suitable be, it is clear that the NWPS provides a wilderness. The first Bureau of Land number of different benefits to the American Management wilderness (the Bear Trap Canyon people (Driver and others 1987). These Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness in benefits are both “personal” in nature (such as Montana) was designated 7 years later in 1983. self-actualization, mental and physical well- being, and spiritual) and “social” (including Second only to the original Wilderness commodity uses, economic, and cultural). Act in number of units added to the NWPS was the 1980 ANILCA (PL 96-487). Signed The Wilderness Act created 54 “instant” by President Jimmy Carter in the final days of wilderness units in the NWPS, totalling more his administration, the 56 million acres of new than 8.9 million acres. All of this acreage was wilderness created in the National Forests, administered by the Forest Service and much Parks, and Wildlife Refuges of Alaska more was former wilderness, wild, or roadless areas than doubled the total size of the NWPS with under the U-Regulations. The act also the stroke of a pen. empowered the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service to manage wilderness. In 1964, the Wilderness Act gave the The fiit wilderness within a National Wildlife Forest Service, National Park Service, and Fish Refuge (the Great Swamp in New Jersey) was and Wildlife Service 10 years to complete designated in 1968 and the first two units studies of their respective lands for potential within National Parks (the Craters of the Moon wilderness. However, as the result of in Idaho and the Petrified Forest in Arizona) extensions to this deadline, notably for the were designated in 1970. Forest Service’s controversial Roadless Area Review and Evaluations (RARE I and II), the largest number of units (nearly 200) were A System Takes Shape added in several State-specific acts in 1984. Since then, there has been little additional As illustrated in fig. 2, over the next 23 legislation designating more wilderness. years wilderness units were slowly added to the NWPS through numerous public laws. In addition, a number of existing wilderness units ALOOKAROUND had their acreages adjusted upwards in subsequent acts. Most notable among the post- Today, the NWPS consists of 464 units Wilderness Act legislation are the “Eastern administered by four Federal agencies, totaling Wilderness Act”, the Federal Land Policy 88,968,793 acres’ (U.S. Department of Interior Management Act (FLPMA), and the Alaska 1987a) [see Appendix]. It is a more diverse National Interest Lands Conservation Act system now, often with unusual contrasts. For (ANILCA). example, the largest unit, the 8.7~million-acre Wrangell-St. Elias Wilderness in the National Nearly all of the units originally created Park of the same name in Alaska, is inland. by the Wilderness Act were located in the Less than one-millionth of that size is the Western United States. In 1973, Public Law smallest wilderness, the 6-acre Pelican Island 93-622, often referred to as the Eastern Wilderness managed by the Fish and Wildlife Wilderness Act (Hendee and others 1978, Service off the Florida coast. Two wilderness Wilderness Society 1984), designated 16 new areas lie within 35 miles of New York City’s units in the Eastern United States. More Yankee Stadium, but none within 300 miles of importantly, the act set a precedent for Des Moines, Iowa. And the Bandalier including wilderness that had been previously Wilderness in New Mexico, once the home of modified by human activity. the ancient Anasazi people, is less than 10 miles from the birthplace of the hydrogen bomb in Los Alamos.
6 Because wilderness units are supplemental Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service to the purposes for which agency systems were combined, manages less than 1 percent of the established, there are some differences in the NWPS’s total acreage. way that they are administered (Allin 1985; Edwards 1986). The contrasts among the As graphically illustrated in fig. 3, the principal charges of the four agencies are picture changes radically if Alaskan wilderness somewhat perpetuated in the management of acreage is excluded. In the lower 48 States their respective wilderness areas, particularly in and Hawaii the Forest Service is the largest terms of their recreational use. Because the manager of wilderness by a rather large recreational use of national parks is a margin. With more than 26 million acres, it paramount objective of the National Park has about five times as much wilderness as the Service, there are fewer distinctions between National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife wilderness and non-wilderness lands. Service, and Bureau of Land Management Recreational use in the national wildlife refuge combined. system wilderness is permitted only when it does not conflict with the principal charge for In terms of agency land in wilderness status, that system, which is the propagation of the National Park Service again leads the other wildlife habitat. Forest Service and Bureau of agencies with 50 percent. The Forest Service Land Management wilderness use reflects the follows closely with 36 percent of its total historical multiple-use perspectives of these acreage in wilderness and the Fish and Wildlife agencies. Service with about 2 percent. The Bureau of Land Management again is last with less than Subsequent legislation has also generated one-half percent. All together, the 88.8 million anomalies within the wilderness of any given acres in wilderness status account for about 14 agency, especially in mining activities and percent of the total land administered by these motorized access. Permitted uses in any four Federal agencies. Alaskan wilderness may vary markedly from those of the lower 48 States due to special Not surprisingly, the Forest Service manages provisions of the ANILCA. the largest number of wilderness units in the NWPS units (more than three-fourths), even A review of some key statistics helps to including those located in Alaska [table 41. put the size and distribution of the NWPS into On a regional basis, the Pacific Coast and better focus. Because almost two-thirds of all Rocky Mountains-Great Plains Regions NWPS acreage is located in Alaska, the NWPS together account for about three-fourths of ah is often described as having two different individual NWPS units. components. Any such review of the size and distribution of the NWPS needs to distinguish wilderness in Alaska and in the other 49 Regional Wilderness Acreage States. Because wilderness lands are an “overlay” on Federal agency lands, their location necessarily Federal Agency Wilderness Acreage mirrors the existing distribution of those lands. Primarily because 88 percent of Alaska is In terms of total wilderness acreape federally owned, the bulk of the NWPS managed, the National Park Service leads the acreage--over 75 percent--is located in the other agencies with more than 40 percent of Pacific Coast Region (U.S. Department of the total NWPS acreage (U.S. Department of Interior 1987a) [table 51. Another 20 percent Interior 1987a) [table 31. This is primarily due is located in the Rocky Mountains-Great Plains to their vast Alaskan holdings. For the same Region. The other two Regions (with 37 reason, the Fish and Wildlife Service is second States) share the remaining 4 percent of the with about 24 percent of the NWPS acreage, NWPS’s total acreage. Figure 4 illustrates well followed by the Forest Service with 20 percent. the differences in wilderness acreage among The Bureau of Land Management, which the four Regions as well as how Alaska manages almost twice as much total land influences the Pacific Coast Region acreage. acreage as the Forest Service, National Park
7 Table 3. -- A summary of Forest Service, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management acreage and the National Wilderness Preservation System acreage as of December 3 1, 1987 (by agency) Total Percent Agency Agency agency 1987 NWPS agency in percent acreage acreage wilderness of NWPS Forest Service 161,038,854 32,411,297 20.1 36.4 National Park Service 68,898,258 36,756,382 53.3 41.4 Fish and Wildlife Service 81,007,068 19,330,335 23.9 21.8 Bureau of Land Management 334,029,039 470,779 0.1 0.4 United States 644,973,219 88,968,793 13.8 100.0 Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1987a.
Figure 3. -- National Wilderness Preservation System acreage by Federal agency as of December 31, 1987
Million Acres
FS NPS FWS ELM FEDERAL AGENCY
m Lower 48 B Hawaii m Alaska
8 Table 4. -- A summary of National Wilderness Preservation System units as of December 31, 1987 (by agency and RPA Region) National Fish & Bureau All Forest Park Wildlife of Land Federal RPA Region’ Service Service Service Management Agencies Pacific Coast 119 26 172 Rocky Mountains-Great Plains 125 :72 8 :!: 162 North 2 south 74: 6 :1 ! z United States 360 37 65 27 489’ Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1987a. l See Appendix for listing of States within each RPA Region. 2 Total reflects sever@ units located in more than one State and/or agency.
Table 5. -- A summary of total regional acreage and National Wilderness Preservation System acreage as of December 3 1, 1987 (by RPA Region) Total Percent Region regional 1987 NWPS Region in percent RPA Region’ acreage’ acreage’ wilderness of NWPS Pacific Coast 589,692,OOO 67,176,085 11.4 75.7 Rocky Mountains-Great Plains 749,449,OOO 17,807,232 ;; 19.9 North 446,176,OOO 1,456,855 south 37 1,990,OOO 2528,621 0:7 2:: United States (excluding AK) 1,937,726,000 32,484,117 36.4 United States (including AK) 2,315,969,000 88,968,793 ::;I 100.0 1 See Appendix for listing of States within each RPA Region. 2 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 1987. 3 Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1987a. In terms of the proportion of total regional due to the influence of the Pacific Coast and acreage in wilderness status, the Pacific Coast Rocky Mountains-Great Plains Regions. This again leads with more than 11 percent. A type of land-surface form includes lands with distant second is the Rocky Mountains-Great less than 20 percent of the area gently sloping, Plains Region with 2 112 percent. In the North with local relief ranging from 300 to 5,000 and South Regions, less than 1 percent of all feet. The next most common form is open hill regional acreage is in wilderness status. Taken and mountain (19 percent), characterized by 20 together, NWPS acreage represent less than 4 to 50 percent of area gently sloping, with local percent of the total land area of the United relief ranging from 100 to 5,000 feet. Plains States. Six States, including Connecticut, and tablelands, characterized by 50 percent or Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, and Rhode more of the area gently sloping, total less than Island, have no designated wilderness. 5 percent of the NWPS. Because of the Alaskan wilderness, tundra Wilderness Unit Size and subarctic ecoregions (Bailey 1980; U.S. Department of Interior 1982a) dominate the One of every two wilderness units in the acreage of the NWPS with more than 44 NWPS is between5,OOO and 50,000 acres percent of the total [table 81. Marine (U.S. Department of Interior 1987a). About 4 ecoregions account for some 23 percent and percent of the NWPS is in units larger than 1 steppe ecoregions another 14 percent. million acres, led by the Pacific Coast Region Especially underrepresented in the NWPS are with 14 one-million-plus wilderness units (all the prairie (0.02 percent), rainforest (0.16 in Alaska). percent), and subtropical (0.8 percent) ecoregions. While not an absolute requirement, the Wilderness Act recommends that a wilderness unit be “at least 5,000 acres, or of a size Wilderness versus Urban Acreage sufficient as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired Nationwide, there is a little less than twice as condition” (16 USC 113 1). Nearly one of much wilderness as there is urban built-up land every eight NWPS units is less than the 5,000 (U.S. Department of Interior 1987a; U.S. recommended acres, with most belonging to Department of Commerce 1987) [table 91. the Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of However, if Alaska is excluded, urban built-up Land Management and occurring in the North acreage exceeds wilderness acreage by about 3 and South Regions. to 2. For purposes of this paper only the Alaska surely possesses the greatest ratio of wilderness units have been arbitrarily divided wilderness acreage to urban built-up land into seven different size classes: 0 to 4,999 acreage (although accurate data on Alaska’s acres (class 1); 5,000 to 49,999 acres (class 2); urban acreage is unavailable). Consequently, 50,000 to 99,999 acres (class 3); 100,000 to the Pacific Coast Region has the highest 499,000 acres (class 4); 500,000 to 999,000 wilderness to urban built-up acreage ratio: acres (class 5); l,OOO,OOO to 4,999,OOO acres nearly 14 to 1. The Rocky Mountains-Great (class 6); and greater than 5,000,OOO acres Plains Region follows with about 4 acres of (class 7). The relative distribution of these wilderness for each urban built-up acre. The size classes among the Regions is shown in North and South Regions have the lowest table 6. ratios--as little as 0.07 acre of wilderness per urban built-up acre. Land-Surface Form and Ecoregion Diversity Per Capita Wilderness Acreage As shown in table 7, hill and mountain land- surface forms (Hammond 1970; U.S. Nationwide, including Alaska, there is about Department of Interior 1982a) account for 0.4 acre of wilderness for every American almost three-fourths of the NWPS primarily citizen (U.S. Department of Interior 1987a;
10 Figure 4. -- National Wilderness Preservation System Acreage by RPA Region as of December 31, 1987
Million Acres 70 60 50
40
30
20
10
0 PACIFIC ROCKY MTS-GRT PLAINS NORTH SOUTH RPA REGION
m Lower 48 & Hawaii m Alaska
Table 6. -- Percent of National Wilderness Preservation System units as of December 31, 1987 by size class (by RPA Region’) Pacific Rocky Mtns- AllRPA Size Class (acres) coast Great Plains North South Regions 1 (0 - 4,999) 12.2 3.8 32.1 35.4 16.4 2 (5,ooo - 49,999) 43.0 57.5 64.3 61.6 54.0 3 (50,ooo - 99,999) 15.0 0.0 1.0 4 (100,ooo - 499,999) 27.; 19.4 1.8 1.0 1::: 65 (l,ooO,OOO(500,ooo - 999,999)- 4,999,999) :*f512 2.51.9 kk:1.8 0.01.0 ;:; 7 (5,000,OOO and above) TOTAL, 1oo:o 1OE:X 1oo:o 1Oz 1oE Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1987a. 1 See Appendix for listing of States within each RPA Region.
11 Table 7. - Percent of National Wilderness Preservation System acreage as of December 31, 1987 by dominant land-surface form (by RPA Region’) ARRPA Land-surface Form2 Ezc North South Regions Plains 2.50 04 7 $$;~;o-$?&~tams ll:o 9”:: 1::; %Z Tablelands 0:04 7E. ‘Z 7E Plains with hills & mountains 0.80 5%) * - TOTAL 100.00 10% 1OO:o 100”:; 10% ’ See Appendix for listing of States within each RPA Region. ’ Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1982a.
Table 8. - Percent of National Wilderness Preservation System acreage as of December 31, 1987 by dominant ecoregion (by RPA Region’) AURPA Ecoregion* EZZc EZPYZE North South Regions
TundraSubarctic 35.4 E % ::: :E. Warm continental 2E. 31:3 Hot continental :; iE! %. 1:: ::7’ Subtropical ::: 28:0 E+?& 31:3 0:o 2:; 0.03 E 0:02 MediterraneanSteppe ;:: 6;:; ::: ::: 1::: Desert A:: 0”:: Fso$savanna 2:; 5::; ::: E % TOTAL 1OO:o lO!E 1OO:o loo”:: 1OEE ’ See Appendix for listing of States within each RPA Region. * Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1982a.
Table 9. - A comparison of urban built-up acrea e and National Wilderness Preservation System acreage as of December 3 1, 1987 (by RPA regionf 1987 NWPS Total urban Wilderness acres RPA Region’ acreage* acreage’ per urban acre Pacific Coast 67,176,085 4,907,OOO % 4 goctib Mountains-Great Plains l;,i$J;; 4,222,OOO south 2:528:621 $;O$‘OO(& 0:07 United States I excluding AR) 32,484,117 46:416:000 ::: United States including AR) 88,968,793 ___ -_- 1 See Appendix for listing of states within each RPA region. * Source: US Department of Commerce 1987. ’ Source: US De artment of Interior 1987a. ’ Does not incluse Alaska (data unavailable).
12 U.S. Department of Commerce 1987) [table Wildlife Refuge systems and public domain lo]. Excluding Alaska, that figure drops to lands, it can only repeat the same pattern of less than one-sixth of an acre per person. geographic distribution exhibited by the parent Alaska residents enjoy the highest per capita systems. This means that the present pattern acreage of wilderness, more than 100 acres for of unequal wilderness distribution in Alaska each person (much of that total, however, is and the two Western Regions will continue for relatively inaccessible). Consequently, as a most new wilderness acreage. If significant Region, the Pacific Coast offers the highest per changes are to occur in this pattern, some of capita acreage of wilderness, about 2 acres for the limitations inherent in the Wilderness Act each resident. The next highest per capita may need to be re-evaluated. wilderness acreage is found in the Rocky Mountains-Great Plains Region, with 1 acre per person. Again, residents of the North and Wilderness Recommendations and Study South Regions have the least wilderness, Acreages although it is generally much more accessible. In these two Regions there is only about 0.01 Despite these apparent limitations, acre of wilderness, or less, for every resident. considerable additional acreage has already been recommended to Congress for inclusion Given the expected national population in the NWPS and even more is under study for growth rate (U.S. Department of Commerce its suitability as wilderness. Although this new 1987), 6 million acres of additional wilderness acreage could effectively double the size of the would be required to maintain the current NWPS, there are no guarantees how much will national ratio through the year 2000. eventually be added. Nor would the new acreage necessarily insure regional equality or representative diversity. To the contrary, it A LOOK AHEAD may perpetuate most of the existing patterns. What is to determine the ultimate nature The original lo-year inventory period and composition of the NWPS--its size, specified in the Wilderness Act has long geographic distribution, natural resources and passed for the Forest Service, National Park environments, and management direction? Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. The Will--and should--the same factors that shaped Bureau of Land Management has another 4 it to date continue to control its future? years to complete its inventory of suitable wilderness areas and make its The pattern for the size and diversity of recommendations. As of 1987, some 14.6 the NWPS has already been effectively million acres of land have already been outlined, albeit indirectly, in the language of recommended by the agencies for wilderness the Wilderness Act itself. For the act states designation. More than half of this total (8.7 that the NWPS shah “be composed only of million acres) would come from the National federally owned lands designated by Congress” Park System (U.S. Department of Agriculture (16 USC 1131). There are several important 1986) [table 111. The remainder is divided consequences of this language. First, it among the Forest Service, with 2.4 millions obviously eliminates the possibility of non- acres (U.S. House of Representatives 1984), Federal lands from the NWPS. Therefore, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, with 3.4 State and private wild lands are excluded from million acres (U.S. Department of the Interior consideration no matter how well they meet all 1987b). None of the recommended acreage other qualifications or characteristics. Second, would come from the Bureau of Land it further limits the distribution of wilderness to Management’s public domain lands. only &j_r Federal agencies. Regardless of their merit, the lands of other Federal agencies, such The recommended wilderness acreage is as those of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and concentrated in the Rocky Mountains-Great various Department of Defense agencies, are Plains Region. The 9.8 million acres there excluded from wilderness review. Third, by represent about two-thirds of the national total virtue of the fact that wilderness is an of recommended acreage [table 121. (The four “overlay” on the National Forest, Park, and Great Plains States of North Dakota, South
13 Table 10. -- Per capita National Wilderness Preservation System acreage and required acreage for maintenance of existing per capita rate in year 2000 (by RPA Region) Additional 1987 Estimated acreage 1985 population required to estimated 1987 NWPS giita growth-- maintain RPA Region’ population’ acreage3 acreage 2ooo2 1987 ratio Pacific Coast 35036,000 67,176,085 1.9 20.1% 5707,508 Rocky Mountains-Great Plainsl8,238,000 17,807,232 North 114,908,OOO 1,456,855 & -:*t: 24.57: south 70,557,OOO 2,528,621 0:04 29:2% 303,435 United States (excluding AKj138,219,000 32,484,117 0.1 --- 2,476,984 United States (including AK~38,740,000 88,968,793 0.4 --- 6,035,519 ’ See Appendix for listing of States within each Region. ’ Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 1987. 3 Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1987a. Table 11. -- A summary of acreage recommended to Congress and in study for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (by agency) Recommended Under study 1987 NWPS wilderness wilderness Agency acreage’ acreage acreage Forest Service 32,411,297 2,413,370 4,054,913 National Park Service 36,756,382 8,776,405 31,618,115 Fish and Wildlife Service 19,330,355 3,436,2242 57,748,8682 Bureau of Land Management 470,77g3 0 23,386,7143 United States (excluding AK) 32,484,117 14,626,754 31,346,491 Unites States (including AK) 88,968,793 14,626,754 116,808,610 ’ Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1987a. 2 Source: U.S. House of Representatives 1984. 3 Source: U.S. Department of the Interior 1987b. Table 12. -- A summary of acreage recommended to Congress and in study for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System (by RPA agency) Recommended Studied RPA Region’ 1987 NWPS wilderness wilderness acreage’ acreage 3 acreage3 Pacific Coast 67,176,085 3,698,089 95,804,989 Rocky Mountains-Great Plains 17,807,232 9,846,730 19,659,852 North 1,456,855 75,667 295,633 south 2,528,621 1,006,268 1,048,136 United States (excluding AK) 32.484.117 14,626,754 3 1,346,491 United States (including AK) 88,968,793 14,626,754 116,808,610 ’ See Appendix for listing of states within each RPA region. 2 Source: US Department of Interior 1987a. 3 Source: US Department of Interior 1987b, US House of Representatives 1984.
14 Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas share less than Federal ownership, roadless character, and size 50,000 of those acres, however.) Another 3.7 (see 16 USC 1131). For the next half decade, million is located in the Pacific Coast Region, most National Park Service and Fish and none of which is located in Alaska. Wildlife Service wilderness additions to the Particularly deficient (in terms of recommended NWPS were also added largely if they met the wilderness) is the North Region. basic criteria in the act. However, in 1971 the Forest Service undertook the RARE I In addition to the recommended acreage, procedure. RARE 1 a~ .zd additional another 116.8 mihion .acres of land within the objectives not necessarily spelled out in the respective systems of the four agencies are Wilderness Act to the selection process, being, or have been, studied by the agencies including optimization of resource and for possible recommendation to Congress. wilderness value trade-offs, preservation of Nearly one-half of this, about 57.7 million representative ecosystems, and proximity to acres, belongs to the Fish and Wildlife Service. densely populated areas. Despite the Within the National Park System there are 31.6 innovations of RARE I, it also had some million acres of wilderness under study. The methodological shortcomings and was roundly Bureau of Land Management is studying 23.3 criticized (Allin 1982). A second wilderness million acres and the Forest Service another 4 inventory and evaluation process, dubbed million acres. RARE II, was begun in 1977 and was to experience its own criticisms. Regardless of Primarily due to Alaska, the Pacific Coast the problems of RARE I and II, they laid the leads all Regions in terms of wilderness under groundwork for consideration of objectives study. Almost three-fourths of all remaining beyond the general goal and criteria specified wilderness under study, about 95.8 million in the Wilderness Act. acres, is located there. The Rocky Mountains- Great Plains Region is second with about 19.6 An integrated, interagency plan for the million acres. A little more than 1 million future development of the NWPS may soon be acres is being studied in both the North and needed. Based on agreed-upon objectives for South Regions. Again under-represented are the NWPS, such a plan might prioritize all the Great Plains and Northeast States, where potential wilderness--irrespective of Federal no further potential wilderness is being studied agency ownership--on strategic considerations for suitability. such as the following: (1) integrity and fragility of wilderness character; (2) threats to the wilderness character; (3) size and completeness Some Strategic Considerations of ecosystems; (4) representativeness of different natural ecosystems and culturaI The prognosis for the inclusion of the heritage; (5) productivity in terms of renewable recommended and/or study areas in the NWPS resources such as water and wildlife; (6) in not entirely clear. It may be politically proximity to population and transportation; unrealistic to expect that all recommended and/or (7) scientific and educational and/or study areas will eventually enter the opportunities and needs. Such a plan might NWPS (Crandell 1987). This may be address the “rehabilitation” of existing Federal primarily due to the potential for competing lands that have been impacted by allowing interests in the energy resources, timber, water, them slowly to regain wilderness qualities. strategic minerals, and other commercially or Finally, the plan might consider the outright strategically important national resources within fee purchase (or even purchase of use these areas. It has been a long standing and easements) of private lands with wilderness common perception that such resources are qualities and significant opportunities to fill “locked up” once they enter the NWPS (Irland “holes” in the strategic plan. 1979). As mentioned earlier, the NWPS doesn’t When the first wilderness units entered the appear to have a wide-open range of options to System directly through the Wilderness Act in meet different strategic considerations. The 1964, they only needed to meet the basic Great Plains ecosystems, for example, will requirements stipulated in the act, such as never be proportionally represented because
15 there is little Federal acreage in those States to possible exception of commercial uses (U.S. begin with. Likewise, the Northeastern urban Department of Agriculture 1973; U.S. centers will never have a large amount of Department of Interior 1978, 1981, 1982b). If nearby wilderness acreage. If the available the non-recreational values of wilderness are to land base is to provide more opportunities--and be more fully appreciated and protected, meet rising expectations for non-recreational additional management attention must be paid wilderness uses--then some new options should to them--including better training for managers, be explored, even including the possible increased budget, and more coherent amendment of the Wilderness Act itself. Ideas management policies. that have been suggested in the past include (1) stronger language regarding non- Still another challenge will be to develop recreational value and uses of wilderness; (2) the sensitivity and methods to assign non_ the creation of a separate wilderness commodity, if not non-economic, values to administration agency; or (3) incorporating wilderness planning and administrative State or privately owned lands into the NWPS. considerations--and the courage to equate those Many are loathe to consider amending the values with the traditional economic values that Wilderness Act because it could also open the are more easily, though not necessarily any door to changes that might adversely affect the more correctly, measured (Rolston 1986). existing supply and management of wilderness. But, much like other environmental legislation The last domestic challenge for the future in the past, there may be good reason to of the NWPS will be to stretch further our review the goals and performance of the recognition of still human-oriented Wilderness Act on its 25th anniversary in light “anthropocentric” (Hendee and others 1978) of nearly a quarter of a century’s experience non-recreational wilderness values to include and changing expectations. the nonhuman “inherent/intrinsic” values of wilderness (Driver and others 1987). Such latter values assert that the wilderness has a The Next Challenges right to exist quite apart from any human benefits. As noted by Driver and others The preservation of wilderness involves (1987), “wilderness preservation, as a form of more than just its initial protection through restraint, helps temper the tendency of congressional designation however. Equally aggressive humankind to conquer and subdue important is the subsequent agency the entire Earth.” management after designation. The next challenge ahead then will be insuring that the wilderness already in the NWPS is A Worldly Epilogue administered “in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment If the NWPS protects in perpetuity a piece as wilderness” (16 USC 1131). Making basic of this Nation’s natural heritage it will be a wilderness management tenets and objectives tremendous achievement indeed. But, if it operational, however, is yet to evolve fully and serves, as with our National parks earlier, to is often the subject of intense debate. As the inspire other nations likewise to preserve process of fiig out the NWPS eventually unique wildlands in a similar if not identical slows, more attention and energy must be way, then it may become a legacy for the focused on the management practices of the world as well. Perhaps the final challenge in Federal agencies (Bolle 1985). the long evolution of wilderness preservation in this nation--as well as the world--is the Part of this challenge will be to expand wholesale eradication of war, poverty, and and refine management practices for the many ignorance among humankind. For these are non-recreation& uses of wilderness. A quick the real threats to a planetary wilderness review of the wilderness-specific sections preservation system. within the administrative manuals of the four agencies shows that more attention has traditionally been focused on recreation rather than the other non-recreational uses, with the
16 REFERENCES Irland, Lloyd C. 1979. Wilderness Economics Allin, Craig W. 1985. “Hidden agendas in and Policy. DC Heath: Lexington, MA. wilderness management.” In Parks and Recreation. Volume 20, Number 5 (May). Nash, Roderick. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. 3rd ed. Yale University Allin, Craig W. 1982. The Politics of Press: New Haven, CN. Wilderness Preservation. Greenwood Press: Westport, CN. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. Wilderness and Bailey, Robert G. 1980. Bcoregions of the Recreation - A Report on Resources, United States. USDA Porest Service Values, and Problems. ORRRC Study Miscellaneous Publication No. 1391. Report 3. The Wildland Research Center: Washington, DC. Belle, Arnold W. 1985. “Public groups turn to management issues.” In Frome, Michael Reed, Nathaniel P. and Dennis Drabelle. 1984. C., ed. Issues in Wilderness Management. The United States Fish and Wildlife Westview Press:-Boulder, CO. Service. Westview Press: Boulder, CO. Crandell, Harry. 1987. “Congressional Robinson, Glen 0. 1975. The Forest Service. perspectives on the origin of the Resources For The Future: Washington, Wilderness Act and its meaning today.” DC. In Proceedings-National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of- Rolston, Holmes, III. 1986. Philosophy Gone Knowledge, Future Directions. US Wild. Prometheus Books: Buffalo, NY. Department of Agriculture. USDA Forest Service Technical Report INT 220. Sierra Club. 1985. National Wilderness Preservation System. Driver, B. L., Roderick Nash, and Glenn Haas. 1987. “Wilderness benefits: a state-of- University of Montana. 1985. National knowledge review.” In Proceedings- Wilderness Preservation System. National Wilderness Research Conference: Wilderness Institute: Missoula, MT. Issues, State-of Knowledge, Future Directions. US Department of Agriculture. U.S. Code Annotated. 1985. Title 16- USDA Forest Service General Technical Conservation. Sections 761-1150. West Report INT 220. Publishing: St. Paul, MN. Edwards, Gregory W. 1986. “Keeping US. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Twenty- wilderness areas wild.” In Virginia Journal second Annual Wilderness Report on the of Natural Resources Law. Volume 6, status of the National Wilderness Number 1 (Fall). Preservation System for the calendar year 1985. USDA Forest Service. Foresta, Ronald A. 1984. America’s National Parks and Their Keepers. Resources For U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1973. Forest The Future: Washington, DC. Service Manual. Chapter 2320: Wilderness, primitive areas, and Hammond, Edwin H. 1970. “Classes of land- wilderness study areas, USDA Forest surface form.” US National Atlas Sheet Service. Washington, DC. Nos. 1 and 2. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987. Hendee, John C., George H. Stankey, and Statistical Abstract of the United States. Robert C. Lucas. 1978. Wilderness Bureau of the Census. Management Handbook. USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365.
17 U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987a. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1978. National National Wilderness Preservation System. Park Service Management Policies. U.S. Geological Survey. Chapter 6: Wilderness preservation and management. U.S. National Park Service. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987b. Washington, DC. Wilderness Opportunity Areas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. US. House of Representatives. 1984. House Subcommittee on Public Lands and U.S. Department of the Interior. 1982a. National Parks. Forest Service and BLM Rcoregions and Land-Surface Forms of Wilderness Statistics as of December 1, the United States. US. Fish and Wildlife 1984. Service. Wilderness Society. 1987. National Wilderness U.S. Department of the Interior. 1982b. Preservation System (Summary Data). National Wildlife Refuge Manual. Part 6, Washington, DC. Section 8: Wilderness area management. US. Fish and Wildlife Service. Wilderness Society. 1984. The Wilderness Act Washington,-DC. Handbook. Washington, DC. US. Department of the’htterior. 1981. Wilderness Management Policy. Bureau of Land Management. Washington, DC.
18 APPENDIX: Summary of National Wilderness Preservation System acreage by Federal agency and RPA Region as of December 3 1, 1987. National Fish & Bureau All RPA Region Forest Park Wildlife of Land Federal State Service Service Service Management Agencies Pacific Coast: Alaska 5453,366 32,355,OOO 18,676,310 0 56,484,676 California 3,920,050 1,990,034 141 15,216 5,925,441 Hawaii 142,370 0 0 142.370 Oregon 2,077,08!: 495 16,543 2,094;125 Washington 2,521,495 : 838 7,140 2,529,473 (SUBTOTAL) 13,971,998 34,487,404 18,677,784 38,899 67,176,085 Rocky Mountains-Great Plains: Arizona 1,315,657 443,700 272,520 2,03 1,877 Colorado __ 2.585.802 52,730 : 2.638,532 Idaho 3,957,438 43,243 72: 4,001,401 Montana 3,371,513 64,53: 6,000 3442,048 Nebraska 8,100 : 4,635 12,735 Nevada 64,677 ! 64,677 New Mexico 1,388,735 56,39; 39,89! 130,040 1,615,065 North Dakota 29,920 9,732 0 39,652 South Dakota 9,s; 64,250 74,074 Utah 779,638 : 22,6$ 802,238 Wyoming 3,084,933 : 3,084,933 (SUBTOTAL) 16,566,317 690,235 118,8$ 43 1,88i 17,807,232 North: Illinois 4,050 4,050 Indiana 12,93! : 12,935 Maine 0 7,39: 7.392 Massachusetts : 2,420 21420 Michigan 91,53: 25,309 248,724 Minnesota 798,309 131*88Z 6,180 804,489 Missouri 63,130 0 7,730 70,860 New Hampshire 102.932 102,932 New Jersey : 10,34! 10,341 New York 1,363 11363 Ohio 0 7; Pennsylvania 9,70! 9,7;; Vermont 59.448 : ! ’ 59,448 West Virginia 78;131 0 78,131 Wisconsin 43,959 : 43,988 (SUBTOTAL) 1,260,084 133,243 65,5;: 1445,500
19 APPENDIX (cont’d): Summary of National Wilderness Preservation System acreage by Federal agency and RPA Region as of December 31, 1987.
National Fish 8z Bureau All RPA Region Forest Park Wildlife of Land Federal State Service Service Service Management Agencies south: Alabama 19,426 0 19,426 Arkansas 1151805 10,529 2,1: 128,478 Florida 72.582 1,296,500 51,271 1,420,353 Georgia 89;%8 8.840 362,107 460,215 Kentucky 18,056 18,056 Louisiana 8,700 i 8,3460 17,046 Mississippi 5,500 3,202 8,702 North Carolina 100.218 8.78: 109,003 Oklahoma : 8,570 8,570 South Carolina -- 16,52: 29,000 45,529 Tennessee 66,714 : 0 66,714 Texas 35,413 46,850 82,263 Virginia 64,687 79,579 : 144,266 (SUBTOTAL) 612,898 l&5,500 470,223 2,528,621 united states: Total (excluding AK) 26,957,931 4401,382 656,581 470,779 32,484,117 Total (including AK) 32,411,297 36,756,382 19,330,335 470,779 88,968,793 Source: U.S. Department of Interior 1987a.
ENDNOTES
1. The four Regions used in this paper are the same as those to be used in the Forest Service’s 1989 RPA Assessment. These Regions do not correspond to the standard Forest Service Regions. Fig. 1 above depicts the composition of these RegionflAlaska and Hawaii are not shown but are part of the Pacific Coast). A list of States within each Region may be found in the Appendix.
2. This total is according to the U.S. Department of Interior (1987a). It should be noted that authoritative sources oflen diger on several important statistical characteristics of the NWPS, including the number of units, their acreage, and who manages them (see, for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture 1986, U.S. Code Annotated 198.5, University o Montana 1985, Sierra Club 1985, and Wilderness Society 1987). Discrepancies result from several Bactors, such as units in one or more States or agencies, changes in land acquisition, boundary adjustments, refinement in measurements, and completion of oficial mapping, as well as whether gross (including water and private inholding) or net acreage is reported. Actually, failure of agreement on the acreage of units is probably insignificant in assessing the true size of the NWPS since nearly two dozen Alaskan wilderness units have only been reported to the nearest 100,000 acres!
20 THREATS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM
John Peine, John Burde, and William Hammitt*
ABSTRACT For the purpose of this discussion, the term “threat” will be limited to those activities Influences by man on natural ecosystems by man which degrade valued characteristics of are escalating at an alarming rate, with nature. Unfortunately, “threat” is a loaded profound global effects on natural resources. term and means different things to different Resources of the National Wilderness System people but is generally accepted to convey the are not immune to those threats. A review of topic at hand. four surveys of wilderness unit managers conducted over the last seven years reveals the From Rachel Carson in “Silent Spring” to wide variety of internal and external threats to the Apollo mission astronauts who were the wilderness, the lack of understanding of the first to see the earth as a finite planet, man has ramification of those threats on the resource gradually become aware of the ramifications of base or wilderness experience, and the trend his actions on the planet Earth. toward an increase in the number and intensity of threats over time. The perception that Our understanding of the health of the wilderness is forever may be a pipe dream. planet lags far behind our understanding of the Managers are a long way from understanding health of the human body. Our present the. ramifications of anthropogenic influences awareness of global health may be equivalent, on the natural ecosystem process which in the evolution of medical science, to a period constitute the essence of wilderness values they somewhere between the bubonic plague and are charged to protect. the discovery of the polio vaccine, It is definitely at some point prior to the modem era of extensive cancer research and treatment INTRODUCTION technology. The concept of threats is difficult to Global health encompasses all terrestrial define. As J. S. Burgess and E. Woolmington and aquatic ecosystems. Threats to global (1981) note, the term “threat” is highly health most assuredly affect our wilderness anthropocentric: it is a social metaphor applied system. Man’s global population escalates at to biological systems. It suggests human an ever-increasing rate, and his adverse impact concern that certain valued characteristics of on the natural environment escalates nature are in danger of degradation or exponentially. We are just beginning to take destruction. Ecologically, threats can be the carbon cycling issue and resultant global considered suspected stresses, and “thus threat warming phenomenon seriously. Ozone can be said to roughly equal perceived (and depletion in the stratosphere and artificial sometimes imagined) stress, often with formation in the atmosphere have recently additional connotations relating to the interests come to our attention. Massive global of the perceive?’ (Burgess and Woolmington deforestation is under way. Intercontinental 1981). species introduction threatens native species populations on every continent. As a result of all this, scientists are predicting rises in sea
* Chief, Science Division, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Gatlinburg, TN: Associate Professor, Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL; and Professor, Department of Forestry,Wildlife, & Fisheries, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN.
21 level anywhere from 6 inches to 3 feet; major In 1983 Randel Washburne and David shifts in climate, creating deserts in regions Cole published results of a survey of with normally plentiful rainfall; and possible wilderness managers (Washbume and Cole loss of species critical to many other forms of 1983). The section of that report directed life. For example, Asian bee mites have toward impacts from recreational use on invaded Florida and threaten the future wilderness values was utilized. This study was existence of honey bees in North America. limited to internal influences on wilderness. This is not too important unless you want to The data were collected in 1980. eat. The third study utilized is an assessment Assessment of anthropogenic threats of the state of the world’s parks conducted by related to natural ecosystems has been focused Gary Machlis and David Tichnell (Machlis and primarily on parks as opposed to wilderness Tichnell 1985). Questionnaires were analyzed areas. Most studies of threats to parks have from 100 parks in 49 countries. been limited to specific parks or discussion of geographically homogeneous parks. Much of The fourth data set was collected for this the research has been qualitative. A few paper, consisting of a telephone survey of systematic studies of threats to parks have been managers of 50 designated U.S. wilderness conducted, mostly *%I the United States. None areas. Data were collected by Mark Young, a of them incorporate any of the issues of global graduate student of Dr. William Hammitt of health previously mentioned in a broad context, the University of Tennessee, and Denise Ervin, such as sea level size or climatic change. a graduate student of Dr. John Burde of the Southern Illinois University. Data for this Long-term ecological research sites have study consisted of replication of a section of varying histories in the type and length of Washbume and Cole’s questionnaire in order to studies concerning ecosystem level processes establish trends in recreation impacts and a and species community dynamics. These section devoted to external influences on programs are laying groundwork for detecting wilderness values in which managers indicated ecosystem response to environmental change on a scale the level of significance of the and anthropogenic influences. These programs threat. tend to be site-specific, and their relevance to the landscape scale is not well understood. All four of these studies utilized Syntheses of research conducted at these sites qualitative, judgmental variables to assess are not usually couched in terms of threats as threats. All essentially were attempting to the concept is presented here. establish a consensus of management opinion concerning a broad range of issues. A case The assessment of threats to wilderness in study of wilderness management for the Great this discussion will be based on a synthesis of Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) is four studies. First, the National Park Service also included in order to provide specific 1980 Report to Congress on the State of the examples of issues raised by the general Parks will be utilized (NPS 1980). This surveys. represents the only attempt made to assess internal and external threats to 320 park units of the National Park System The term OVERVIEW OF THREATS “threats” as used in the NPS report refers to those pollutants, visitor activities, exotic All four studies conclude that a wide . species, industrial development projects, and so variety of threats exists concerning parks and on, which have the potential to cause wilderness areas. Seventy-three different kinds significant damage to park resources or of threats were identified in the 1980 NPS seriously to degrade important park values or assessment. A total of 1,611 threats were park experiences. The report had significant identified by park managers in the global park impact in Congress, but the term “threat” has assessment. Only 3 out of 100 global park since been dropped by NPS in order to avoid managers reported no threats to their parks. the perception of sensationalizing the issues. These instances were due to extreme isolation from areas of human activity. Washbume and
22 Cole found wilderness unit managers shared On an average, human-caused adverse common problems of resource degradation and impact from recreational activity frequently loss of solitude due to recreational use. None occurs in one out of four wilderness units. of the 50 wilderness unit managers contacted Vegetation damage around campsites was most in the 1987 survey indicated an absence of frequently cited. It is considered to be a threats in their areas. At GSMNP; 41 threats problem at a few areas by 46.7 percent of the were listed. respondents, and a problem at many areas by 36.7 percent of the respondents. The 7-year Documentation as to the degree and nature trend indicates an increase in damage for 12 of impact from the threats is considered percent of the areas and a decline in damage in inadequate. In the 1980 NPS assessment of 10 percent of the areas. parks, 75 percent of all 3879 reported threats identified by the 310 respondents to the At GSMNP from 1980 to 1985, a 50 questionnaire were in need of research to percent decline occurred in backcountry document adequately. As depicted in figure 1 overnight use, from approximately 100,000 to from the 1980 NPS Report to Congress, none 50,000 overnight stays. During that period, an of the categories of threats beyond esthetic extensive mapping of bare ground at degradation had more than 70 percent of their backcountry campsites was conducted and threats adequately documented. Responses to revealed significant recovery at a majority of the global park assessment portrayed in table 1 the sites. However, the trend in the Smokies indicate that, on an average, over 40 percent of is not universal. The problem of crowding the threats are not documented. occurred in 16 percent of the areas. The problem of litter, of similar magnitude to Despite 12 years of an established in- crowding, may show slight improvement. house research program at GSMNP, most of Over 85 percent of the managers indicated the recognized threats are not well understood. litter was a problem in at least some places in For instance, the makeup of air pollutants and their areas. A few more indicated an their adverse effects on plants, animals, and improvement (14 percent) than a decline (10 soils is just beginning to be understood. Of percent) in this impact. approximately 300 exotic plant species occurring in the park, only one, kudzu Comparisons of recreation-caused impacts (Pueraria lobata), has been thoroughly mapped by Region size and agency are displayed in and populations treated. Long-term effects of table 3. Human-caused impacts on vegetation those treatments are not adequately monitored. are greater in the West than the East. This is Eradication treatment for many species, such as undoubtedly due in part to the fact that Eastern Microstegium, a Japanese grass that is taking areas are more likely to be mesic and have over the forest floor in disturbed areas, is just greater species diversity so they may be more now being studied, with no promising resilient to human activity and recover more treatment yet discovered. The illegal taking of quickly from it. Interestingly, large wilderness plants and animals is another activity that is areas are much mom frequently cited than known to occur in the park, but the extent of it small areas (under 50,000 acres) as having is unknown. diverse impact from human activity. Sixty percent of the managers of large areas cited vegetation trampling at campgrounds as a RECREATION-CAUSED IMPACTS problem in many places. Soil compaction was cited almost as frequently. Litter was cited as Only 13 of the 252 area managers a serious problem three times as often by included in the Washbume and Cole survey managers of large versus small areas. indicated no recreation problems in their management units. Perceptions of recreation- caused impacts by the 1987 sample of wilderness unit managers is portrayed in table 2. Response summaries displayed are only for those instances where managers considered the impacts to be a problem in many places.
23 Table 1. -- Status of reported threats in the Global Park Assessment NS% N-% Subsystem
Total Water Eil Vegetation Animal life ManagementOther Source: Machlis and Tichnell 1985
7. Table 2. -- Trends in recreation-caused impacts for a 50-unit sample of the National Wilderness Preservation System
% of units having % Change “a problem in from 1980 many places” Impacts in 1987 Worse Better Human-caused vegetation impacts TrailsCampsites 36.722.4 :t 1: Waterbodies 28.6 16 8 Human-caused soil impacts Trails 26.5 2 8 Campsites 28.6 10 10 Waterbodies 8.2 14 8 Pa&stock-caused vegetation impact TrailsCampsites 15.911.4 : : Waterbodies 2.3 10 2 Pa&stock-caused soil impact TrailsCampsites 18.211.6 :: ; W aterbodies 2.3 10 2 Other recreation-caused impacts On wildlife 10 Water pollution :f :; : Litter 16:3 14 Human waste 10.2 :: 4 Crowding 18.4 6 Conflicts between users 4.1 4 Trailhead vandalism 12.2 :; Theft within area 14.3 2; : Boundary-related problems 28.6 22 Source: 1988 National Wilderness System assessment
24 Table 3. -- Comparison of recreation-caused impacts among subsets of the National Wilderness Preservation System
Impacts HuT,,n;caused vegetation impacts 31.3 28.0 16.7 29.4 23.1 Campsites 26.: 40.6 60.0 12.5 47.1 34.6 Waterbodies 17:6 34.4 32.0 25.0 35.3 30.8 Human-caused soil impacts Trails 23.5 28.1 20.8 35.3 26.9 Campsites 29.4 28.1 % 41.2 26.9 Waterbodies 41.2 12.5 12:o ::: 11.8 7.7 Pa&stock-caused vegetation impacts Trails 13.3 17.2 21.7 21.4 16.7 Campsites 13.3 10.3 14.4 :; 16.7 Waterbodies 13.3 3.4 0 4:8 3;:: 4.2 Pa&stock-caused soil impacts Trails 13.3 20.7 26.1 9.5 21.4 20.8 Campsites 14.3 17.4 57.1 21.7 Waterbodies 1% 3.4 0 ::: 21.4 4.2 Othe; reFe;on-caused impacts 9.4 12.0 17.6 3.8 Water pollution :,“9 3.1 2% 34:: Litter 11:8 18.8 2% 1:.: Humanwaste 11.8 16:0 :; 11:8 11:5 Crowding 11.8 2;:; 20.0 16:7 11.8 26.9 Conflicts between users 5.9 Trailhead vandalism 1% 20:o 1:: 14:: ::; 1::: Theft within area 1:*: Boundary related problems 23:5 31.3 28.0 2;:; 3i.3 1;:; ‘West = West of Great Plains ‘Large = greater than 50,000 acres Source: 1988 National Wilderness System assessment
National Park Service managers were more displayed in table 4. Military operations, likely to cite recreation caused impacts than namely overflights, was ranked frrst among all were USDA Forest Service managers. One threats listed. The all-pervasive airborne exception to this is in citation of crowding, pollution ranked a close second. As shown in where more than twice as many Forest Service table 5, air pollution was the least often managers as Park Service managers cited it as mentioned as an insignificant threat. Fires set a widespread problem. by man was the next most frequently mentioned threat of the slightly (2 level) and somewhat significant (3 level) categories. EXTERNAL THREATS Exotic plant species was the most frequently mentioned threat in the very significant (4 Cumulative rank order responses for the level) category, and military operations was significance of external threats are most often mentioned in the extremely significant category. (The military operations
25 Table 4. -- Rank order of external threats to the National Wilderness Preservation System (n = 50) External threat category Rank Order Military operations (overflights) Air pollution :. Exotic plant species Fires set by man : Tourist Poaching 2 Exotic wildlife species Water pollution ; Mining/prospecting for minerals 9 Industrial development Livestock grazing :: Logging activity Exotic pathogens K Exotic insect pests Overpopulation of native species :f Oil and gas mining 15 Incompatible use of inholding properties 17 Thermal mining 17 Source: 1988 National Wilderness System assessment
Table 5. -- The degree of significance of external threats to the National Wilderness Preservation System (n = 50) _ Significance Level 2 3 4 5 External Threat Category (No; (Extremely) Poaching 50 22 20 8 0 Incomp&ble use of inholding properties Fires set by man 21 Exotic plant species 12 Exotic wildlife species Exotic insect pests : Exotic pathogens Overpopulation of native species : Livestock grazing Military operations (overflights) :;: Logging activities 10 Air pollution 18 Water pollution 12 Tourism 20 Oil and gas mining 6 Mining/prospecting of minerals Thermal mining : Industrial development 6 Source: 1988 National Wilderness System assessment
26 Figure 1. -- Number of known and suspected threats to National Parks (by threat category) which require research to adequately document, as compared with threats which are adequately documented by research _
Threat Category
Air Pollution
Water QltylQnty
Esthetic Degradation
Phy. Removal of Rea.
Exotic Encroachment
Viaitor Phya. Impact
Park Operatione 0 200 400 000 000 1000 1200 1400 Total Number of Threats Reported
m Docd.= m Reqd.-
* Adequately Documented by Research ** Known or Suspected Threats which Require Research to Adequately Document Source: National Park Service, 1980 Report to Congress on the State of the Parks Table 6. -- Comparisons of external threats among subsets of the National Wilderness Preservation System (n = 50) % of unit managers cons’derine threat not significant East/West’ &ge/Small’ NPSKJSFS External threats n=17/ n=33 n=25/ n=25 n=18/ n=26 Poaching 29 60 69 Inholders :: 66; :: :: Fires by man 44 E 44 ;: Exotic plants 41 :; i : ;zi 61 Exotic wildlife 71 :5 :; Exotic insectspathogens 71 76 80 76; 77 Overpopulation :; t: :: 85 Livestock 100 38; 56 54 !; 52 Military (overflights) 28 46 Logging ;; :: ;t ;: 67 Air pollution 53 :; 28 52 ;; :z Water pollution 4; :; 48 Tourism 48 64 ;: oil dz gas 82 85 ;; 92 MiningThermal 7688 7094 f!:: 96:: 76; 1; Industrial development 76 76 80 61 81 l West = West of great plains 2 Large =greater than 50,000 acres Source: 1988 National Wilderness System assessment
27 Table 7. -- Ten most reported threats of the Global Park Assessment (n=98) Subsystem Threat N % Animal life Illegal removal of animal life 74 76 Management Lack of personnel 72 73 Vegetation Removal of vegetation soil Erosion g Z Management Local attitudes 42 53 Management Conflicting demands Vegetation Fire :; :: Animal life Human harassment Animal life Loss of habitat :; :; Vegetation Trampling 46 47 Source: Machlis and Tichnell 1985
Table 8. -- Ranking of threats cited by 1980 State of Parks report Threat Category Number of citations Noise - motor vehicles and aircraft 153 Land development 120 Exotic plants 116 Utility access 110 Overcrowding and vandalism 107 Roads and railroads 106 104 :~l?ing 102 Soil erosion 100 Urban encroachment 193 Source: National Park Service, 1980 Report to Congress on the State of the Parks category is somewhat misleading in that it plants, exotic wildlife, air pollution, and refers primarily to overflight, and some tourism. This dichotomy for these categories respondents may have included commercial or held true for large versus small units as well private air traffic within the category.) Agency differences probably reflect differences in core agency missions as well as the fact that Comparisons of responses to the external the Forest Service units tended more to the threats question for various subsets of the West, where they are more likely to be sample population of unit managers are surrounded by large buffer zones of Federally displayed in table 6. External threats were owned land. Six of the 17 Eastern wilderness more likely to be cited in the Western than units were managed by the Forest Service. Eastern units, in large rather than small units, and in those units managed by the Park Machlis and Tichnell did not differentiate Service rather than the Forest Service. between internal versus external or recreation Disparity between agencies was most extreme versus other internal activity, but their list of for the threat categories of poaching, exotic most reported threats, as displayed in table 7, is quite similar to that displayed in table 4. Many on the list are human behavior problems.
28 Table 8 is a list of threats to parks from 3. A standard data base on wilderness. the 1980 NPS study. Again, many recurring themes occur 4. A means of liaison between the site manager and the perpetrators of the At GSMNP, the number one threat to the external threats. park is the external threat of air pollution. The extent of the adverse effect is yet to be determined, but scientific study to date has REFERENCES clearly indicated a significant decline in visibility and a high degree of pollutants Burgess, J. S., and E. Woolmington. 1981. loading in the high elevation forests. Ozone Threat and stress in the Clarence River damage to plant foliage is widely documented. Estuary of Northern South Wales. Human The high-elevation red spruce trees are in a Ecology 9(4) (419-43 1). severe state of decline in vigor. Other external threats of key importance are tourism-related Machlis, G. E., and D. L. Tichnell. 1985. development adjacent to the park; poaching of The state of the world’s parks. Westview plants and animals; fires set by man; and Press, Boulder and London. exotic pathogens, insects, and plants. The next wave of extreme stress will be from the exotic National Park Service. 1980. State of the gypsy mom parks, 1980. A Report to the Congress. Office of Science and Technology, National Park Service, U.S. Department of CONCLUSIONS the Interior, Washington, DC. The concept of wilderness in perpetuity Washbume, R. F., and D. N. Cole. 1983. might be overly optimistic. Global climatic Problems and practices in wilderness change could drastically change biological management: a survey of managers. Res. elements of our National Wilderness Paper INT-304, USDA Forest Service, Preservation System. The threats to the system Intermountain Forest and Range are numerous and not well documented. Those Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. that are most likely to receive ag essive management action are associatefwith recreational use, The National Park Service is more likely to place restrictions on public use of wilderness and more frequently cited threats associated with exotic species and poaching. The USDA Forest Service was more concerned with crowding than the National Park Service. There may be a problem with a lack of recognition of threats in some circles. The external threats are particularly troublesome since the means to deal with them tend to be beyond the authority of the unit manager. The following recommendations are suggested: 1. Establishment of a long-term, ecologically based monitoring program for the wilderness system to evaluate nature’s response to anthropogenic influences. 2. More uniformity of wilderness management policy among agencies.
29 DE FACTO WILDERNESS:
LANDS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS SYSTEM
Curt Soper and John W. Humke*
ABSTRACT agencies make up the bulk of the Federal estate as well as the bulk of both established The Wilderness Act defines wilderness in and de facto wilderness Nationwide. part as land retaining its primeval character and influence, which is protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions, is of National Park Service sufficient size to make practicable its preservation and may contain ecological, The National Park Service administers 339 geological, and-other features of scientific, National Park System units encompassing 79 educational, scenic or historic value. In the million acres (National Park Service 1986). United States there are Federal, State, and Lands are managed for recreation and private systems of land that are of similar preservation under a variety of names, character and serve to complement the including National Parks, National Monuments, National Wilderness System. The principal, National Historic Sites, National Historical but not exclusive, purpose of these non- Parks, National Recreation Areas, National wilderness land systems is to ensure the long- Seashores, and National Lakeshores. term preservation and maintenance of the Nation’s elements of natural diversity. With It is difficult to ascertain precisely what this objective, these lands primarily serve non- portion of the National Park System is recreational purposes, although, like National managed for natural diversity because the Wilderness Systems lands, man usually is agency generally has avoided using special allowed to come as a visitor. There are designations to indicate which lands serve natural preserve designations at all levels of which purpose. Their current approach is to government, as well as other recreational, recognize that lands may have several wildlife, open space, and scenic land systems attributes and to manage all lands as “jewels in that, to a greater or lesser degree, complement a crown of jewels” (National Park Service the National Wilderness System. This paper 1964). However, in the 1960’s and 1970’s the will attempt to treat public and private nature Park Service categorized their lands as natural, preserves fairly comprehensively because it is recreational, and historic. In 1975, 83 percent these lands that most closely replicate and of Park Service land was in the natural contribute to the non-recreational aspects of category. If the same ratio holds true today, wilderness. and it should because the major additions have been in Alaska, there would be 66 million acres of natural lands. Some 36.8 million MAJOR FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH acres of these lands are currently wilderness NATURAL AREA PROGRAMS (Wilderness Society 1987). Five major Federal agencies are Within each park, regardless of the responsible for managing more than 723 management category or the natural or historic million acres (BLM 1983). Together, these theme it portrays, the Park Service classifies all
* Regional Director of Preserve Selection & Design, Western Region, San Francisco, CA, The Nature Conservancy; Regional Vice President, Midwest Region, Minneapolis, MN, The Nature Conservancy.
30 lands for management purposes on a land preserve for the future valuable environments classification system designed to recognize the that are essentially unmodified to man. inherent qualities of park land, the visitor uses they may serve, and the special uses allowed There are currently 37 Public Use Natural by law or administrative regulations. Areas covering 210,673 acres and 186 Research Natural Areas covering 1,850,685 The National Park Service natural zones acres (table 1). are subdivided into wilderness/wilderness study, environmental protection, outstanding natural features, and natural environment Table 1. -- Established Research Natural subzones. There also are historic development Areas by Agency’ and special use zones. The National Park Service has also participated in the interagency Agency RNAs Acres Research Natural Area Program (table 2). Based on the premise that the National Park USDA Service manages its natural lands for their Forest Service 160 181,041 inherent qualities, the 29.2 million acres of non-wilderness natural-lands can be described USDI as contributing significantly ,towards non- Fish & Wildlife Service 186 1,850,685 recreational wilderness objectives. USDI National Park Service 66 2,000,000 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Bureau of Land Mgt. 100 190,138 The US Fish and Wildlife Service administers the 90million acre National Department of Defense _5 ? Wildlife Refuge System (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). The refuge system Totals 517 4,221,864+ includes National wildlife refuges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, waterfowl ’ Data from personal communication between production areas, and areas for the protection authors and agency personnel. and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with extinction, The Service administers and manages these lands for The Fish and Wildlife Service also purposes that range from strict protection of a administers the Federal Endangered Species specific species or native habitat to major Act of 1973 as amended. This act requires all habitat manipulation and change. Therefore, it Federal agencies to utilize their authority to is difficult to say what percent of the total carry out programs for the conservation of non-wilderness portion of the refuge system is officially listed endangered and threatened maintained in a natural condition, It is, no species. To facilitate this process, “critical doubt, significant acreage. habitat” may be designated during the listing process for each species; this constitutes the In addition to the 19.4 million acres of geographical areas occupied by that species wilderness that the Fish and Wildlife Service that are essential to its conservation. There are manages, they have an internal Public Use now a total of 101 species that have been Natural Areas Program and participate in the listed with designated critical habitat (U.S. Fish interagency Research Natural Area Program. and Wildlife Service 1988). A “Public Natural Area,” a Fish and Wildlife Service administratively created designation, is defined as ‘I. . . a relatively undisturbed Bureau of Land Management ecosystem or sub-ecosystem that can be enjoyed by the public under certain restrictions The BLM owns and manages some 341 without destroying it” (US Fish and Wildlife million acres of the Federal estate, almost Service 1972). Along with Research Natural entirely in the Western half of the country Areas, Public Use Natural Areas serve to (BLM 1983). These lands are managed under
31 a multiple use policy as outlined and specified beginning in 1925 with the first official in the Classification and Multiple Use Act of designation, There are now 160 established 1965 and the Federal Land Policy and Forest Service RNAs totaling 181,041 acres Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), Among with over 500 new areas proposed in forest the expressed land use categories for BLM plans and pending designation (tables 1 and property are wilderness and a host of other 2)Special Interest Areas are designated designations that have non-recreational administratively under the recreation branch of wilderness values. To date, the BLM has the Forest Service with their objective being to established 23 wilderness areas totalling protect and manage special recreation areas 370,000 acres (Wilderness Society 1987). with scenic, geological, botanical, zoological, Several State BLM offices are in the process paleontological, archeological, or other special of analyzing a number of wilderness study characteristics (USDA Forest Service 1986). areas for potential Congressional designation. Of these categories, only the botanical, zoological, and geological themes contribute Along with other Federal agencies, the substantial non-recreational wilderness values. BLM has participated in the National Research There are currently 45 such areas in the Natural Areas system (table 2). This agency National Forest system, with more likely as has also used many other special designations forest plans are finalized (USDA Forest Service but brings them all together in its Areas of 1987). Critical Environmental’Concem (ACEC) Mandated by the FLPMA legislation, gz:i%as are designated when special Department of Defense management attention is needed to protect important historic, cultural, scenic, and/or The defense agencies (Army, Air Force, natural values. Those identified for natural Navy, Marines, and Army Corps of Engineers) values best represent non-recreational together own and manage over 22 million wilderness values. There are a total of 281 acres of the Federal estate (BLM 1983). The established ACECs covering 5.1 million acres Department of Defense recognizes natural (BLM 1987). A majority of these have resource management for environmental substantial natural area values. quality, which can include the selection of lands as natural areas (Department of Defense 1965). The individual defense agencies have USDA Forest Service participated in various Federal land protection programs in a limited fashion by designating a The USDA Forest Service owns and handful of Research Natural Areas, National manages over 191 million acres (USDA Forest Wildlife Refuges, and National Monuments on Service 1986). As with the BLM, these lands their lands (tables 1 and 3). Although the are managed under a multiple use concept. Department of Defense has relatively few Guidance has been provided by the National established natural areas, their lands contain Forest Management Act of 1976, which called substantial biological diversity and hold great for the generation of individual National Forest potential for adding to the National system of plans to allocate specific land uses. To date, de facto wilderness. the Forest Service has 338 units of established wilderness totaling 32.4 million acres (USDA Research Natural Areas Program Forest Service 1987). Other protective designations used internally by the agency The one Federal program that probably which have significant natural diversity values best represents non-recreational wilderness include Research Natural Areas and Special values is the Research Natural Areas system. Interest Areas. This designation is used by all the major Federal land managing agencies and carries The Forest Service has traditionally been with it a connotation of relatively strict the lead agency in the Federal Research management practices for the preservation of Natural Area program (see RNA section). natural diversity. There are now 517 Much of the substance and direction for the established Federal RNAs with more pending system has developed within the Forest Service (tables 2 and 3).
32 Table 2. -- Established and Proposed USDA FS RNAs by Region’ FS Region Established Proposed Total 1 (Northern) 20 75 95 2 (Rocky Mountain) 13 12 25 3 (Southwest) 14 29 43 4 (Intermountain) 19 89 118 5 (Pacific Southwest) 15 84 99 6 (Pacific Northwest) 39 80 119 8 (Southern) 22 17 39 _. 9 (Eastern) 12 140 152 10 (Alaska) 4 _zz ae Totals 160 549 709 l Data from Mr. Russell Bums, USDA FS, Washington, DC.
Table 3. -- Major Federal De Facts Wilderness Designation Types Agencies’ Designations’ USFWS NPS USFS BLM DOD Congress Research Natural D,M D,M D,M D,M D,M -- Areas National Parks -- M M -- M D and Monuments National Wildlife D,M ------M D Refuges Critical Habitat D,M M M M M -- Wild and Scenic M M M M -- D Rivers Areas of Critical ------D,M -- -- Env. Concern Special Interest -- -- D,M ______Areas
’ USFWS = US Fish and Wildlife Service; NPS = National Park Service; USFS = US Forest Service; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; DOD = Department of Defense. 2 D = Designation Authority; M = Management and/or Ownership Authority.
33 Guidelines for the identification, Many States have established nature establishment, and management of RNAs were preserve programs which are established and originally developed by the Forest Service. managed exclusively for the preservation of Each agency that uses the RNA designation natural diversity. Some nine States have their has its own internal procedures for establish- own internal wilderness systems similar to the ment, but the Forest Service manual provides a Federal system, set up via State law or good overview. Objectives for the RNA administrative regulation. These programs, system therein include preserving a wide among all other State natural area activities, spectrum of pristine representative ecosystems, contribute the most in terms of National non- preserving and maintaining genetic diversity, recreational wilderness values. Some State and serving as reference baseline areas for nature preserve programs receive significant studying succession, and monitoring the effects State government funding and actively acquire of resource management practices. and manage new lands via purchase, while Management standards are designed to protect others identify and designate the most RNAs against activities that directly or appropriate existing State-owned lands for indirectly modify ecological processes (USDA preservation. The nine States with wilderness Forest Service 1985). systems have established at least 50 areas totaling more than 1.7 million acres (Natural Areas Journal 1984). Wild and Scenic Rivers Natural Heritage Inventories and databases In 1968, Congress enacted the Wild and exist in 48 States. Developed originally by Scenic Rivers Act. The purpose of this act is The Nature Conservancy in the 1970’s. these to preserve selected rivers or sections thereof programs contain detailed manual and in their free-flowing condition to protect water computerized data on rare and endangered quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital species and native ecosystems. Jn most States, National conservation purposes. Three levels Natural Heritage Programs are now partially or of designation/protection are defined in the act: wholly operated by State government. They are Wild, Scenic, and Recreation. Of these, only used extensively by the private and public the Wild designation contains specific sectors as a tool to help determine conservation management provisions which qualify it for priorities of specific sites and to track the inclusion as deA facto totalwilderness. of status of species of concern. 7,363 river miles of 72 individual rivers have been designated Nationally as Wild and Scenic Rivers to date. Of this total, 4,293 river miles Private Preserves and Related Systems are designated as Wild (National Park Service 1986b). Ownership of these river miles Systems of privately held preserves that includes Park Service, Forest Service, BLM, contribute to the protection of natural areas fall and Fish and Wildlife Service, among others into two categories: (1) National nonprofit (table 1). organizations and (2) local or regional land trusts. Relatively few of the National organizations are set up to acquire and manage State Activities parcels of land. The Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society are the two most Every State has some form of de facto significant ones. wilderness system within one or more of its land managing departments. The entities of The Nature Conservancy has established State government involved range from the largest system of privately held reserves in Departments of Transportation to Divisions of the world. Their preserves are identified, Water Resources but most typically include established, and managed strictly for the some forms of designation administered by purpose of protecting natural diversity. To State Parks, Game and Fish, and/or Natural date, the Conservancy has protected 2,866 Resource agencies. preserves totaling 2.68 million acres through various mechanisms including easements and
34 leases as well as outright ownership (The system of protected areas. The Department of Nature Conservancy 1987). Defense needs to develop its own formal natural areas system or participate fully in the The Audubon Society operates a National existing RNA system. system of wildlife sanctuaries. The primary objective of these sanctuaries is the long-term States without nature preserve programs protection of plants and animals, especially designed specifically to protect natural diversity threatened and endangered species. There are need to develop them. State funding for the a total of 68 Audubon sanctuaries Nationwide acquisition of important sites should be a part totaling 133,332 acres (Audubon Society of each of these programs. Innovative 1987). mechanisms for dedicating such funding have been developed in several States and could be Land trusts include local or regional utilized elsewhere. private conservation organizations working in the direct protection of lands with open space, private efforts aimed at preserving key recreation, or natural resource values. There parcels of land must be redoubled. Many am 535 land trusts operating in 45 States important natural areas can only be which own or have under conservation safeguarded through the expensive acquisition easement 737,000 acres (Stone 1985). It is not of privately owned property. The Nature known what percentage of these lands could be Conservancy must continue to expand its considered de facto wilderness. protection efforts and reach or exceed its goal, set in 1986, to raise $300 million in private CONCLUSIONS AND funds by 1990 in support of those efforts. RECOMMENDATIONS Beyond 1990, they will need to set and reach higher goals. Other National conservation There is a developed system of non- organizations and local land trusts will also wilderness lands that contribute to the need to increase their land protection activities. preservation and maintenance of the Nation’s natural diversity and that can be considered & Finally, cooperation and teamwork m wilderness. The mechanisms for between the various non-wilderness land identifying and offkially protecting the most protection programs should increase. More significant sites have been developed, and a Statewide or regional natural area committees, number of areas have become established with interagency and private organization under the various existing programs. The participation, should become active. Such important goals of these programs, however, communication will help set important are far from being met. Biological diversity in priorities for each entity in the huge task the United States is declining at an alarming ahead. rate. Native habitats are being altered on a large scale, and unless conservation efforts am increased substantially over the next 10 to 15 years, many will be lost permanently. The Federal land managing agencies need to place more emphasis on their various natural area systems and increase their level of participation in certain geographical regions. Some Forest Service Regions are lagging behind in proposing and establishing RNAs, and the identification and designation of biological Special Interest Areas needs attention in most regions. The BLM’s ACEC program is inconsistent with a few States having virtually no program at all. Management guidance and practices on established ACECs also need proper development if these important areas are to be a valuable contributor to the National
35 REFERENCES U.S. Department of Defense. 1965. Natural resources - conservation and management. Audubon Society 1987. National Audubon Directive 5500.5. Washington, DC. Society Properties. U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Forest Classification and Multiple Use Act. 1965. Service. 1986b. Land areas of the National Forest System. Report #383. Endangered Species Act. 1973. as amended. U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Forest Federal Land Policy Management Act. 1976. Service. 1986a. Title 2300 - Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource National Forest Management Act. 1976. Management. Chapter 2370 - Special Recreation Designations. Forest Service Natural Areas Programs State Reports. 1987. Manual. Fourteenth Annual Natural Areas Conference. IIIinois Department of U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Forest Conservation, Division of Natural Service. 1985. Series 4000 - Research. Heritage. -. Section 4063 - Research Natural Areas. Forest Service Manual. Natural Areas Journ& 1984. Wilderness, wiIdIands. Natural Areas Journal 4(4). U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1987. Areas of critical Nature Conservancy. 1982. Preserving our environmental concern and other special naturaI heritage, Volume III - private, designations on public lands, fiscal year academic, and local government activities. 1988. From: BLM (WO-760). U.S. Department of the Interior, EFmment Pnntmg Office, Washington, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and . Wildlife Service. 1985. Lands under control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Nature Conservancy. 1976. Preserving our Service. Annual Report. natural heritage, Volume II - sta& activities. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land $vemment Printmg Office, Washington, h$n,nIeyt. 1983. Pubhc Lands . Nature Conservancy. 1975b. Preserving our U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and natural heritage, Volume I - Federal Wildlife Service. 1972. Wildlife Refuge activities. U.S. Department of the Interior, Handbook. Government Printing Office, Washington, nfl UL. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Listing and Nature Conservancy. 1975a. The preservation recovery data bases. Washington, DC. of natural diversity: A survey and Personal communication with authors. recommendations. U.S. Department of the Interior, Government Printing Office, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Washington, DC. Service. 1986b. Status of the wild and scenic rivers program. National Park Nature Conservancy. 1987. Preserve and tract Service Summary. data bases. Stewardship Department. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Stone, P. K. 1985. 1985-86 National Directory Management. Undated. Managing special of Local and Regional Land Conservation areas on the public lands. A summary Organizations. Land Trust Exchange, Bar report on special area policy and proce- Harbor, ME. dure.
36 U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. 1986a. Park designations and how the sites are managed. U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Forest Service. 1987. Discover your national parks. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. 1964. Administrative policies - natural area category. revised 1970. Appendix A-3, Memorandum from Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall to George Hartzog, Director of National Park Service. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 1968, as amended. -. Wilderness Society. 1987. Wilderness units and acreage of Federal agencies. Personal communication with authors. Wilderness Act. 1964.
37 UNDERSTANDING THE DEMAND FOR MORE WILDERNESS
Michael McCloskey*
ABSTRACT National Geographic Society found that “when people go to parks their most important criteria The topic posed for me -- “What If We Do are the natural beauty of the area and whether Nothing?” i.e., “what if the National it is crowded or uncrowded”(Shabecoff 1986). Wilderness Preservation System stays the same In that same survey, 68 percent of the public in terms of size, location, diversity, and said they “enjoy being in nature.” These management?” -- must be intended to provoke responses express a desire for quality in inquiry into the case for more wilderness, outdoor experiences, and wilderness epitomizes particularly in terms of the non-recreational that desire. values of wilderness. Under the hypothesis posed, the question must be: what would The greatest change over the past 20 happen if the ptiic is frustrated by the failure years in terms of the policy debate over of Government to respond to its demands for questions of wilderness and public lands is more wilderness? toward the quality of the experience as opposed to the quantity of users. To a certain Rather than try to cope with what I extent, this shift mirrors the changes wrought regard as a totally unlikely hypothesis, I will by environmentalism. Questions of ecology, interpret the question as a way of getting at biological diversity, and the maintenance of understanding the nature of public demand for geophysical systems’ integrity have displaced more wilderness in all its aspects. discussion of recreational use patterns. The gross number of users is no longer a paramount concern, particularly with the INTRODUCTION National Park Service demonstrating techniques to limit and control numbers of users of In the 1960’s, recreational use of wilderness. In the context of wilderness, wilderness achieved a central place in the case accordingly the more relevant considerations of more wilderness. With the “baby boom” today are the non-recreational bases for valuing generation growing up and changing attitudes, wilderness: its ability to maintain natural wilderness use skyrocketed, increasing lo-25 diversity, in situ germ plasm, ecosystem percent per year (Hendee and Stankey 1973). integrity, nongame wildlife habitat; and its Now with an aging population, less leisure contributions to geophysical system health and time, and reduced mobility, wilderness use is watershed function. Various offsite uses, leveling off. However, the data presented by including vicarious use and what some call the President’s Commission on Americans “existence and bequest” valuations, are another Outdoors suggest that almost 20 million consideration. Americans backpack, which is mainly done in wilderness-type areas (President’s Commission In some ways, the dialogue has shifted 1987). Thus, the recreational constituency for toward what some might call a more wilderness is substantial, even if it is no longer “biocentric” concept (Hendee and Stankey growing explosively. 1973) of wilderness valuation and away from an “anthropocentric” concept. When John However, what is continuing to grow Hendee suggested these terms 15 years ago, explosively is the demand for quality in the they reflected the debate over “purism,” but areas used, even though the frequency of use they ring truer today in terms of the valuations may be less. A survey done for the President’s just described. In short, the constituency for Commission on American Outdoors by the wilderness wants it to be there regardless of
* Chairman, Sierra Club, Washington, DC 38 the fluctuations in recreational use of specific private commodity interests are trying to buy areas. Many would say “we need wilderness rights to take away wilderness values--to take even if no one goes there.” various natural resources for private gain Rolston 1985). In any event, all of these The constituency for wilderness expresses efforts--some of which are interesting--strain at its demands through pressures upon Congress imagining what a market would look like in to add more units to the National Wilderness wilderness values. The fundamental point to Preservation System. To a limited extent, the remember is that all of these efforts are demand exerts itself on land management imaginary; they do not describe anything real. agencies too, but because final and binding decisions are made by Congress, the pressures The real marketplace that exists is the are directed primarily there. This may make it political one--the system by which Congress seem that the subject can only be discussed in makes decisions. If one wants reality, that is the terminology of political debate, and clearly the system to study, not systems of elaborate management agencies yearn for a more imagination. Imagining what people would objective and even a scientific vocabulary for pay to have wilderness under hypothesized discussion. But, if the discussion is to be market systems says very little about what useful in the real world in which the decisions Congress will in fact do in response to the are in fact made, there must be no flight from public demand that it sees. Congress’ decisions reality into a vocabulary which is self- reflect the actual value that the body politic deceptive, albeit comfortable. places on having wilderness. The relevant discipline for analyzing decisions made by the national legislative body Underlying Theory is political science. Underlying theory can be analyzed, trends in public opinion can be Today wilderness advocates place less charted, the nature of the interests at stake can emphasis on the recreational case for be examined and their relative strength wilderness than they did in the decade-long assessed, and the behavior of the Congress in struggle for the Wilderness Act. dealing with wilderness questions can be studied. Inquiries of this sort will shed light In 1966, I summed up the case which had on what is really going on and can at least been made for wilderness in an article provide a realistic context for management published in the Oregon Law Review entitled agencies to understand what is happening when “The Wilderness Act of 1964: Its Background wilderness questions are decided. In this and Meaning” (McCloskey 1966). Eleven paper, I will provide an introduction to this bases for valuing wilderness were set forth, mode of analysis, with some flavor provided. five early and six contemporary, which I would More work would be needed to flesh out the summarize as follows: analysis. Early Valuations An alternative discipline which purports to (1) As a place of challenge and self- offer an objective framework for discussing discovery of one’s capacity; this subject is economics. Economists are (2) As a setting for a religious devising techniques for assigning dollar values experience (e.g., “temple of nature”); to such concepts as “option demands” and (3) As a setting for political reform (e.g., similar ones (Chichetti and Smith 1973). All of “return to nature”); these efforts involve guessing at how much the (4) As a place of refuge (e.g., simple life public would pay for various values of of Walden Pond); wilderness if a real market existed for buying (5) As the center of conflicts over and selling wilderness. Some of these efforts threatened nature; also assume that wilderness is really owned by private commodity interests and that the public Contemporary Valuations is buying back the opportunity to have these (6) As a cultural heritage (e.g., as an areas. Of course, the reverse is the case: the historic or esthetic experience or source of public owns wilderness on public lands, and inspiration);
39 (7) As a setting of scientific value (e.g., From this review of the reasons benchmarks, in situ gene banks, discovery of wilderness is valued, the recreational new species of economic value, center of experience can be viewed more as the occasion further evolutionary development); for reinforcing all of the intellectual reasons for (8) As an expression of ethical valuing wilderness (e.g., historical, cultural, obligations to nature (e,g., of an “ecological ethical, religious, political, literary, scientific, conscience”); educational, and esthetics). The term (9) As a setting for an educational “recreation” does not begin to capture the experience (e.g., nature study); richness of the intellectual valuations. As (10) As a place for therapy (e.g., to nature is hard pressed on more and more of overcome the stresses of modern urban life); the land on this continent, and indeed on the (11) As a recreational setting (e.g., for planet (McCloskey 1987); the sense of backpacking and what is now called “adventure desperation which many feel about the need to travel”). maintain a balance between development and nature becomes focused on the effort to protect Even during the campaign for the more wilderness. Wilderness has come to Wilderness Act, recreation was of less embody the culture of more and more educated importance as the case was articulated; professionals in our society and is the object probably less thaii half of the valuations listed on which they project their hopes for a better above can be immediately experienced by the outcome in the struggles over the environment. recreational user. In looking over some more It is the one place, they believe, “we haven’t recent attempts to summarize the values of spoiled . . . where we can start over.” wilderness, the non-recreational values stand out even more, and a number of additional Thus, the demand for more wilderness to valuations are proffered. Some are new, and be preserved has very little to do with trends some are further variations on older themes. in recreational use of wilderness areas. As They are: long as there is a sense that the condition of (1) The value of wilderness in the environmen is getting worse rather than maintaining life-support systems (i.e., better, the pressures for more wilderness will geophysical systems, such as watershed continue. Wilderness is an expression of a function and reduced CO, production)(Rolston dominant cultural imperative among many 1985); well-educated, urban professionals. This (2) Wilderness as a key component of a culture is not likely to change soon. system of “regions of biotic freedom” where natural processes have a right to continue; here The members of Congress who represent the change is from man’s duty to nature to these people will continue to press for the nature’s rights (McCabe 1971); protection of more wilderness. Even their (3) Wilderness as a hedge against future constituents who do not care about wilderness imponderables in the need to protect the have no opposing interests and thus do not biosphere (the concerns that we cannot afford shape the outcome. With the population now to lose any more and that “they are not making largely urban, there is no prospect that rural any more”); legislators will ever dominate the process again (4) Wilderness as a place of scientific (though they may have temporary successes in study; it is now identified as the uniquely blocking the addition of certain units to the qualified place to study evolution to determine system). how important competition between species may be (Ralston 1985); (5) Wilderness as a place to build Public Opinion character, especially with youth, as in Outward Bound programs; Empirical evidence for the demand for (6) Esthetics benefits, now getting more wilderness protection can be found in public emphasis, even among recreational users, than opinion surveys. Feelings underlying the the rewards from sports such as demand for more wilderness can be seen in the mountaineering and river-running. results of surveys that measure public concern over stresses affecting nature and the
40 I
environment. The responses to three questions wilderness at the national level. However, one asked in recent years are particularly revealing. study was done for the Western Regional Because some other queries of a more general Council in 1978 by the fii of Yankelovich, nature show incredibly high levels of public Skelly, and White. It found that 82 percent of concern, these questions posed tougher those surveyed “feel the government has a tradeoffs or called for more discriminating responsibility to protect large areas of land for responses. wilderness and related environmental values” (Yankelovitch 1978)). In a question asked annually from 1976 through 1986, the public was asked to choose The preceding year the American Forest between two contrasting propositions: (1) We Institute commissioned a special survey to help must be prepated to sacrifice environmental guide its public affairs strategy. It posed a quality for economic growth, and (2) we must question relevant to the trdeoff between sacrifice economic growth in order to preserve having commercial timber available for logging and protect the environment. In 1976, 38 versus wilderness. Those surveyed were asked percent of the public called for sacrificing to choose between two alternatives: ‘I. . . economic growth; by 1987, that figure had increase the yield and sales of timber from climbed to 66 percent -- a 28-point increase. National Forests, or . . . preserve these trees in In contrast, only 19 percent called for their natural state.” Sixty-two percent of the sacrificing environmental quality in 1987, public called for preservation, while only 28 while the figure in 1976 was 21 percent percent called for an increase in timber sales. (Dunlap 1987) By a nearly 3 to 1 margin, the Again, the public made the environmental public --and now a majority of it--favors choice by a 2 to 1 margin. In that same sacrificing economic growth over the survey, other questions asked revealed that environment if forced to make a choice. only 7 percent of the public felt there was “too much” wilderness. Those making the survey In the 1980’s, another question forced for the Institute concluded by saying: “It is even harder choices. Those polled were asked obvious that opposing wilderness or other set whether or not they agreed with the following asides on the basis of lost timber growing proposition: Protecting the environment is so potential has no appeal to the public” important that requirements and standards (American Forest Institute 1977). cannot be too high, and continuing environmental improvements must be made It is usually assumed that those residing regardless of the cost. In 1981, 45 percent in the localities near wilderness oppose its agreed, while 42 percent disagreed; by 1986 protection. However, a recent study by the margin had shifted so that 66 percent Gundars Rudzitis contradicts this view. agreed, while only 27 percent disagreed. Now Finding that the 227 counties containing there was more than a 2 to 1 margin for an wilderness in the United States are extremely strong proposition (Dunlap 1987). experiencing more rapid growth than other areas, he interviewed a cross-section of That these results were not a fluke can be residents in four typical counties of this sort. seen in another survey which asked if He found that among those who had moved respondents “think there is too much, too little, there in the past decade, “environmental or about the right amount of governmental quality, pace of life, amenity, and the regulation and involvement in the area of recreational factors are most often cited as environmental protection.” In 1982, 35 percent reasons why they moved to these counties. said there was too little; by 1986 those The presence of wilderness is an important believing there was too little had grown to 59 reason why they moved . . . and both migrants percent. Those responding “too much” shrunk and residents feel strongly about protecting from 41 percent in 1982 to 26 percent in 1986 wilderness areas from any development” --again a 2 to 1 margin for the environmental (Rudzitis 1987). position (Dunlap 1987). Through the years, fewer questions have been asked directly about attitudes toward
41 Competing Forces (including wilderness needs) as forest planning struggles forward. Ultimately, all involved will The decisions that Congress makes on be mindful of the fact that 80 percent of the wilderness reflect not only public opinion but commercial forest land in the country is in the relative strength of the forces which lobby private hands. Wilderness-type areas on public for and against wilderness reservations. Over lands are generally the least promising areas on the past decade, environmental groups have which to grow timber. been growing in size and strength. Both the Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society have The grazing industry has also experienced doubled in size,. and other environmental declining fortunes. Sheep numbers today are groups that participate in wilderness lobbying less than one-third of what they were in 1960. have been growing too (Dunlap 1987). Cattle numbers have declined too, and again Moreover, public confidence in deciders of public policy will recognize that 86 environmentalists is high. One survey showed percent of the livestock production comes from them near the top of groups commanding private lands (Wyant 1982). respect in American society. Oil companies were near the bottom of the list. The survey Finally, one should note what has found that environmentalists were “seven times happened under provisions of the Wilderness as popular as the major oil companies” Act that made concessions to commodity (Democratic National Committee 1982). interests. These provisions reflected concern at the time that the claims of commodity interests In the past few years, almost all industries might have had more merit than was initially devoted to development of natural resources apparent. Twenty more years was allowed to have fallen on hard times. With the drop in file mining claims in wilderness. This period oil prices, the oil industry is in a depression, came and went with no major discoveries with drilling activity down by 75 percent announced, and there was no successful effort (Famey 1987). Even if it revives somewhat, its to extend the dispensation. The U.S. focus is likely to be primarily on private lands Geological Survey was asked to study potential since 88 percent of the producible oil and gas wilderness areas to identify important mineral is thought likely to be found there. In any potential; it found such potential in only 8 event, over 100 million acres of Federal land percent of the areas it studied. The President have already been leased for oil and gas was granted authority to permit water projects development (Wilderness Society 1982). The to be developed in wilderness if he found an uranium industry is near collapse, being unable overriding national need. He never has. Pre- to compete with higher grade foreign ores existing grazing permittees were allowed to (Famey 1987). The Western coal industry also continue, but the number of such permittees is facing bleak times as demand has not grown has declined. as was forecast and prices are half of what they were a decade ago (Famey 1987). The The Record domestic hardrock mining industry is also fading away, with the U.S. copper industry’s . In response to public opinion and the market share only half of what it was in 1970 interplay of forces, the Congress has in fact Farney 1987). Only gold mining is showing increased the size of the Wilderness System much strength. from about 9 million acres in 1964 to nearly 90 million acres today (a tenfold increase). The timber industry is still recovering Reserved areas are found in 44 States and 9 from its depression of 1982, and is absorbing States have their own systems (President’s the lesson of having to give back sales on Commission 1987). It is not difficult to foresee which it overbid. The market could not support the system growing to include as many as 150 the prices it paid in the late 1970’s. The million acres (about 8 percent of the nation’s shakeout in this industry has reduced its budget land, including Alaska) and some suggest it for government affairs and the number of should grow to include nearly 300 million lobbyists it fields. In the meantime, many acres (Flamm 1988). National Forest managers are trying to reduce allowable cuts in light of environmental factors
42 Table 1. -- Wilderness Legislation and USDA Positions’ Year FS recommendation Congress’s increase % increase 1981 no action 1982 10,010 acres 2,943 a&G +ziJ.O% 1983 340,068 acres 25,506 acres +7.0% 1984 4503,045 acres 2,006,936 acres +44.0% 1985 3,260 acres 0 acres 0 Average increases: +41.8%
l USDA Forest Service
The demand is certainly there, and the CONCLUSIONS Congress has shown a general willingness to add more to the system than administering This paper suggests a series of inquiries agencies recommend. They are more which could be pursued in greater depth to conservative than the Congress in judging what assist agencies administering wilderness, such is politically viable and good public policy. I as the USDA Forest Service, to develop recall that one study of the 1970’s found that strategies to guide the process of making Congress on the average increased the size of recommendations on wilderness reservations in units added to the system by 25 percent above the future. what the agencies recommended. Data from the first half of the 1980’s show that the While the inquiries pursued here are margin for the National Forests has jumped to limited, they clearly suggest continuing public nearly 42 percent (table 1) (USDA Forest demand for wilderness as a reflection of Service). cultural and social preferences, and that Congress is likely to ratify those preferences Research is needed to put the whole by continuing to add acreage to the National record since 1964 together by agencies. Wilderness Preservation System. Figures should be obtained on the original agency recommendation for each unit, showing Each decision that Congress makes is the acreage put in the system by Congress and evidence of the value that American society the relative increase or decrease. The figures places on having such areas preserved. The should be organized by the years in which fact that none of these decisions has been Congressional decisions were made. This reversed later or even revisited suggests a high information could be organized by States and degree of social consensus about the values of Regions also to show trends in handling adding areas to the wilderness system. The wilderness questions. It would be interesting strong demand and absence of any backlash also to examine trends in the number of units suggests that the process of enlarging the added to the system enjoying local system will continue and that a.rbitrariIy halting Congressional sponsorship. This information this process is not a social option. could shed light on the changing popularity of wilderness in the districts hosting the units. This area of research could play an important part in helping the Forest Service develop an accurate appraisal of the political viability of proposing larger areas for wilderness in the Federal electoral jurisdiction closest to its operations.
43 REFERENCES Rolston, Holmes III.1985. Valuing wildlands. Environmental Ethics. (7):31-38. American Forest Institute. 1977. Public participation in outdoor activities and Rudzitis, Gundar. 1987. How important is attitudes toward wildemess.Research wilderness: attitudes of migrants and Recap 10. residents in wilderness counties. Unpublished research paper, University of Chichetti, Charles J.; Smith, Kerry V. 1973. Idaho, September. Congestion, quality eterioration and optimal use. Social Science Research 2 (1) Schabecoff, Philip. 1986. Survey finds outdoor U.S. that wants nature areas kept. New Democratic National Committee. 1982. York Times, April 23, 1986. Memorandum re: national survey on environmental issues; February 24, 1982. Wilderness Society. 1982. Potentially p.8. producible petroleum and natural gas in the U.S. and western overthrust Dunlap, Riley E. 1987. Public opinion on the belt.February (revised in January 1983). environment&r the Reagan era. Environment 29: 11, 32, 33, 35. Wyant, William K. 1982. Westward in eden, Berkely:University of California Press. Farney, Dennis. 1987. Western gloom: Chapter 12. resources-rich basin finds its treasures don’t bring prosperity. Wall Street Journal, Yankelovich, Skelly, White. 1978. October 28, 1987. Memorandum to the Western Regional Council dated September 27, 1978, p. 52. Flamm, Barry. 1988. The future wilderness system. In: Proceeedings of the 1988 National Wilderness Colloquium; 1988 January; Tampa, Florida. Hendee, John; Stankey, George. 1973. Biocentricity in wilderness management. Bioscience(September): 535. President’s Commission on American’s Outdoors. 1987. Americans outdoors, the legacy, the challenge. Washington: Island Press. 420 p. USDA Forest Service, Legislative Affairs. Wilderness legislation and USDA positions (undated mimeographed chart). McCabe, John M. 197 1. A wilderness primer. Montana Law Review 32:43. McCloskey, Michael. 1966. The wilderness act of 1964: its background and meaning. Oregon Law Review 45: 288-321. McCloskey, Michael. 1987. The world wilderness inventory. InProceedings of the Fourth World Wilderness Congress; 1987 September.
44 COMPATIBLE AND INCOMPATIBLE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN RECREATIONAL AND NON-RECREATIONAL USE OF WILDERNESS
Joyce M. Kelly*
ABSTRACT Teton, Absaroka National Forests; two ate BLM areas: Table Rock, OR: Paria-Vermillion The non-recreational aspects of Cliffs, AZ. wilderness are an element central to the very concept of wildness, but one that is all too To determine what the wilderness values often overlooked and ignored. were and what management actions were proposed and implemented to preserve the -. wilderness character, I looked at the legislation INTRODUCTION establishing the area as wilderness, the testimony and background documentation in Federal lands managed by the Forest support of designation (values), and finally, the Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land management plan for the area. What I found Management (BLM), and Fish & Wildlife wasn’t encouraging. Most wilderness Service provide the widest possible management plans are so generic as to be opportunities for dispersed recreation. Nowhere virtually useless. is this more true than in wilderness areas, which are oriented to primitive recreation and It is a rare to find any recognition of the the virtues of solitude. Because these areas wilderness areas’ special values. Without this provide recreation that allows the user a high information, I maintain the compatibility degree of freedom of choice, the potential for question cannot truly be answered. impact or incompatible interaction is high. Before discussing my “findings” for each Can the recreationist and nature coexist of these wilderness areas, let me set the stage harmoniously in the wilderness? Yes. To do by briefing addressing the meaning of so means first articulating the values wilderness, the tendency to overemphasize (recreational and non-recreational) for which recreation values in wilderness, and the the area was set aside and then defining importance of the, wilderness management plan recreation use in the context of protecting those in defining the values of an area. values. Without the frrst step, compatibility determinations become extremely haphazard, if they occur at all. SETTING THE STAGE - THE MEANING That in essence is the focus of my OF WILDERNESS presentation. To assess how recreation and non-recreation values were managed in Let’s back up a moment and examine the wilderness, 1 randomly selected six wilderness meaning of wilderness and how recreation fits. areas based on geographic diversity and high As one colleague of mine in the Forest Service recreation use: four are USDA Forest Service stated: “Wilderness is clearly a place where a areas: Dolly Sods, W. Va., Monongahela recreational experience can be found, but National Forest; Sandia, NM, Cibola National wilderness is not a recreational area.” Forest; Boundary Waters Canoe Area, MN, Superior National Forest; Yellowstone Wilderness has always been intended to Ecosystem, WY and MT. (includes Bridger, be more than a place for recreation. In Aldo
* Executive Director of Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Council, Washington, DC
45 Leopold’s land ethic, wilderness was “a model recreation visitor days only. It is a rare plan of ecological perfection. Unmodified, wild that will contain a discrete listing of the country assumed significance as ‘a base-datum wilderness values with appropriate locations. of normality, a picture of how healthy land Why is it that we have placed so much maintains itself as an organism”‘(Nash 1967). value on recreational use of wilderness, or He stated that recreation was not the only or what I call the recreation “trap”? First, it’s even the principal utility of wilderness (Nash more difficult to define non-recreation values. 1967). Bob Marshall stressed the psychological The concepts, as well as the inventory and esthetic importance of wilderness. Sigurd methods, are in still in the developmental Olson wrote of the scenic beauty and the phase. Second, existing recreation use patterns wildlife associated with the great silences of by and large dictate the nature of management, land lying Northwest of Lake Superior (Olson to the extent the wilderness is managed at all. 1982). The Wilderness Society was formed in It’s simply much easier to use recreation (a 1935 “for the purpose of fighting off the definable use) to justify management action invasion of the wilderness and of which is basically responsive to an existing stimulating...an appreciation of its multiform use. Third, training programs which focus on emotional, intellectual, and scientific values developing understanding and awareness of (Nash 1967). ._ non-recreational values for wilderness managers have been minimal at best. Hence managers It is clear from the Wilderness Act’ itself attitudes will most likely be attune to the status that recreation is but one value in the quo and past practices - recreational use. wilderness setting. Wilderness implies an Fourth, much of the use of a wilderness area is absence of civilization. Man is but “a visitor”. for its recreational values - the enjoyment of “Wilderness values are so fragile that even solitude, physical and spiritual renewal. appropriate kinds of recreational use detract from, and in sufficient quantity, destroy The recreation “trap” has always been wilderness.” Using the area for recreation must there. Nash states that in 1918 new ideas be done on wilderness’ terms (Nash 1967). If about the nonmaterial values of the National we are to define what constitutes compatible Forests were beginning to challenge the and incompatible interactions between the traditional utilitarian objectives of foresters. nature and our recreational use of it, we must The National Park Service was attracting first describe the values (or character) of the considerable attention to parks as recreation wilderness area. If we are to maintain the meccas for the newly motorized public, The wilderness character (where man is but a Forest Service, fearful of losing land, countered visitor). then there is greater need for by giving unprecedented publicity to scenery specificity in the definition of uses and the and outdoor recreation as major “products” and management prescription than may be the case commissioned a study of the forests’ for other dispersed outdoor recreation uses on recreational potential (Nash 1967). In 1938 public lands. Until the character and important Leopold expressed concern about the recreation values of the area have been defined with their development focus in wilderness areas. We locations, I maintain, you cannot determine have yet to commission a study of non- whether coexistence is possible. recreation values or even require individual forests to do so. I shudder to hear Mike McCloskey THE RECREATION “TRAP” define wilderness for purposes of the international inventory as an area through We are finally beginning to realize that which you can hike for two weeks without wilderness provides a unique opportunity to ever crossing your tracks (McCloskey 1989). protect communities of species, total food It’s a definition focused purely and simply on a chains and ecosystems, in addition to geologic, primitive recreational experience and accounts esthetic, historic and psychological values. Yet for none of the other values which a we continue to place a singular value on wilderness area holds. It restates Leopold’s recreational use of wilderness. In most forest early definition but loses sight of Leopold’s plans any specificity accorded the wilderness own evolution toward a broader ecological area will generally be stated in terms of perspective of wilderness. Let us not deviate
46 from the definition in the Wilderness Act. It is generally ignored. Without an examination of a more than satisfactory definition and the relationship between the wilderness area’s continues to serve us well. values and the objectives of current management, it will be extremely difficult to The manager’s attitude is also a critical define appropriate mitigation measures, factor, not to be overlooked. The perception of educational programs and management incompatible recreation impacts is influenced techniques. So the standard for managing by the manager’s possessive interest in the land recreational use is to t it until there is some he manages, his resource management training destruction of the resource, then apply a band- and experiences, the historic role of protection aid. responsibilities, and the mandate to provide a wide spectmm of recreation opportunities I am not suggesting that we ignore the (Bauscher 1981). In the case of the Forest recreation as a value. In fact recreation may Service the timber management experience rank high in the list of values for which the influences what will be viewed as an impact or area was added to the wilderness system. My an incompatible use. In the case of BLM, it concern is that the majority of the wilderness will be grazing, minerals and land adjustment management plans, to the extent they exist, experience. 7. focus exclusively on existing patterns of recreation use and fail to account for and Bob Lucas reminds us: “The tension manage for all the values for which the area between recreation and regulation is intensified was established. in wilderness management. The Act defines wilderness as an area that provides ‘outstanding How well are the Forest Service and opportunities for solitude or a primitive and BLM doing in terms of ensuring compatible unconfined type of recreation’. The Act also interactions to the maximum extent possible? requires managers to protect and manage The clue to how agencies view wilderness wilderness ‘so as to preserve its natural values in the areas under their jurisdiction can conditions ’ - an almost impossible mandate if be found in policy statements, forest plans, the uncontrolled recreational use is allowed” management implementation schedules or (Lucas 1983). Yet how often do agencies management plans, and in the attitude of the attempt to control recreation use? local manager. The results of a recent telephone survey (Reed and others 1989) reveal startling THE WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT information, if our goal is to preserve PLAN wilderness values. Only 39 per cent of those interviewed had a completed and approved In the new forest planning process with a wilderness management plan. Only 39 per consolidated forest plan, that document alone cent were conducting any environmental may contain the only management plan for the research studies (determining baseline data). wilderness area. There may not be any The remainder were not, and had not done so additional prescriptions; if there are, they am at for the past three years, Only 14 percent were the discretion of the manager. doing studies on use. Further, 70 percent did not have standards below which changes would In the Forest Service wilderness be unacceptable. management handbook, approved September 1986, the 6th wilderness principle states: Based on general correspondence in the “Management should be guided by objectives wilderness files that I reviewed plus the survey established in Forest Plans.” There is no results above, I maintain that incompatible requirement to prepare a specific management interactions between recreational and non- plan for the area, nor to inventory or ask for recreational values occur all too often with public input if a separate management little remedial action or mitigation, Why? document is prepared, The handbook Because the wilderness values or the recognizes that the basic purpose of a acceptable limits of change for the area have wilderness management plan is to give a clear never been determined. They are, in fact, picture of what the wilderness should look like
47 in the future, what management actions are wilderness. With the exception of the RVD necessary to achieve this, and how the (Recreation Visitor Day) numbers listed for wilderness management strategy deals with the each of the 5 wilderness areas within relationship between all wilderness Monongahela, the management prescription resources/values. The handbook does not was so generic that it would be applicable to focus too much on developing isolated most wilderness areas around the country. management strategies for individual uses and There was no mention of the unique natural resources. The key elements in the handbook values which both Cranberry and Dolly Sods include recreation (2/3 of the text), range, fish share and which need to be protected. The plan and wildlife, vegetation, and minerals. simply says “Allow recreation use consistent with protection of the wilderness attributes.” The BLM Wilderness Management Policy, issued in 1984, requires completion of Materials developed in 1969 by an Ad a management plan within two years following Hoc Committee on Dolly Sods, recommending designation of an area as wilderness. I believe the area’s designation as wilderness, highlight that requirement is a critical element in the the scenic and ecological values of the area pTc7tection and preservation of wilderness and the need to protect and enhance these values. The plan-itself, based on the old Forest values. The 1969 public comment discussed Service MB0 model (which the Forest Service the need to preserve wildlife habitat and no longer uses), requires a statement of maintain low interaction among users, the need objectives, a description of the current for an expanded trail system, better signing and sih?ation, and specific management actions with more recreation information. None of these a schedule. This is accompanied by an were addressed in the forest plan. environmental assessment with a “no action”, a resource protection alternative, and a recreation In discussions with the staff on the development and use alternative. Monongahela Forest, 1 found that no inventory of natural values exists. Fortunately, the Let’s turn to the six wilderness areas to existing recreational use pattern lies outside see how the policy guidance is interpreted. what is considered the unique tundra-like ecosystem area. But this is accidental and not 1. Dolly Sods, West Virginia, a planned, the result of existing use patterns. wilderness area of 10,215 acres, was established by P.L. 93-622, commonly referred The Forest anticipates initiating a LAC to as the Eastern Wilderness Act, in 1975. It is (Limits of Acceptable Change) framework a high, wind-swept plain offering unique study in 1988 which should provide better vegetation, climate and animal life comparable definition of the important values of the area to what might be found in parts of Canada and hence help define what may constitute with outstanding opportunities for nature study. incompatible use. As a result of a monitoring The 1975 Wilderness Act Statement of study completed this year, the Forest intends to Findings addressed the need for areas in the conduct an assessment of what the recreational East that are managed to promote and user expects. The LAC framework study is not perpetuate the wilderness character of the land mandated. The potential for incompatibility is and its specific values of solitude, physical and high until the LAC is completed and mental challenge, scientific study, inspiration appropriate management actions are in place. and primitive recreation. While Dolly Sods shares all these values, because of its unusual 2. BWCA (Boundary Waters Canoe ecosystem, it has particularly high scientific Wilderness Area), Minnesota, in Superior values. National Forest was established as a full wilderness by P.L. 95-495 in 1978. The The Monongahela National Forest Plan BWCA, an area with which I am personally was disappointing in its coverage of the familiar, has been studied more intensively in wilderness area, but not unique. First, as a terms of visitor use/carrying capacity than any member of the public and one familiar with other wilderness area. The wilderness values bureaucratic documents, I had some difficulty cited in the Congressional Record include: the locating the section dealing with Dolly Sods only lakeland canoe wilderness, a historic
48 portaging area, a remnant forest of “old begging in all but a few areas, such as the Northwoods”, wildlife (wolves are found in the BWCA. BWCA) and intact ecosystems. A 1981 Forest Service briefing paper on the designated By managing entry via each portal, the wilderness gives priority to the non-recreational Forest Service has made a serious effort to values, stating that “management emphasis is maintain solitude and other wilderness on the protection and perpetuation of the opportunities while limiting the sense of wilderness resource while allowing use and regulation in the BWCA. There are wilderness enjoyment by the people.” purists who would argue that such regulation, trail construction and maintenance, fireplace Because of intensive use (it is the most grates, and primitive privies are incompatible heavily used wilderness), the need for a with the wilderness resource values. 1 c&agree management plan manifested itself well before with that argument and maintain that thGse the consolidated forest plan process was facilities are necessary to protect the resource adopted. The 1974 plan, which superseded an and reduce incompatible interactions. The earlier version, has an updated 1981 mitigation plan for the BWCA provides solid supplement. Thus, the BWCA benefits from a statements for why these “regulations and fairly detailed management action plan facilities” are necessary. In my opinion the identifying the critical values that need management of the BWCA is unmatched protection and how they will be addressed. It anywhere in the system. It is a model which is a precursor of the format used by BLM. should be widely emulated. The management plan identifies various The recreation mitigation plan calls for elements: soil quality, water quality, vegetation, designating campsites and controlling users in fish, wildlife, wilderness, sensory, recreational order to safeguard water quality and soil and to experiences. For each element there is a keep campsites away from known raptor and description of the existing situation, a statement loon nesting sites. The water component of of assumptions, management direction, and the management plan assumes that “water policies. The level of detail is still general sensitivity to nutrient inputs will be a primary enough to allow the manager sufficient factor in developing recreation use capacity flexibility in implementation. Most important, guides.” The related policy calls for locating there is sufficient knowledge of the resources and constructing needed sanitary facilities so as values to enable prescriptions to protect those to minimize pollution and contamination of values and to reduce the likelihood of surface and ground water, and monitoring and incompatible interactions. testing water quality on lakes and streams to detect changes caused by recreation use; this In the House Committee hearings on the helps to determine visitor carrying capacity. BWCA, Congressman Sebelius, Kansas, While this is hardly overly detailed or recommended to the Forest Service that it constraining to the manager, it is sufficient to “strengthen its commitment to make stronger indicate how the area will be managed to application of this (refers to all research on protect the resource, as well as the user. use, attitudes, impacts) work to the management of the area and to other In summary, this is a management plan wilderness areas across the Nation. Of which should serve as a model for other Forest absolutely critical importance is the Service wilderness areas. The only other Forest development and implementation of wilderness Service area I reviewed with a comparable carrying capacity thresholds and controls. It is management plan was Sandia, in New one thing to initially designate a wilderness, Mexico’s Cibola National Forest. It is a new but safeguarding its integrity in perpetuity does plan, effective 1987. not stop there. It is essential that appropriate user limitations are recognized and adhered to 3. Sandia was designated as wilderness so that the wilderness qualities for which the by P.L. 95-237, the Endangered American area was established are perpetuated Wilderness Act of 1978. Its inclusion in the indefinitely for the sake of many generations of wilderness system was in large part due to a users to come.” Sadly, that advice has gone concern that the Forest Service might allow
49 logging in the area. In testimony supporting Absaroka, Washakie, and Lee Metcalf; these designation, the values cited included the were early designations to the wilderness importance of the area as a scenic backdrop to system. The values cited in the original Albuquerque, recreational values for a major wilderness designation files include big game metropolitan area, and watershed. Recreational and other wildlife, unique geologic features, use ranked high as a value. Each year the La spectacular mountain vistas, varied topography, Luz Run, an annual competitive event that and historic fur trails. predates the wilderness designation, takes place in the Sandia Wilderness. The La Luz Run is The Yellowstone ecosystem area is one clearly a recreational experience, but most of the largest assemblages of wilderness likely not a wilderness experience. In fact, it acreage in the lower 48 States. Is it managed may web be an incompatible recreation use. in a unified way to enhance those values, which were identified well before there was a Section 1 of P.L. 95-237, states: “These Wilderness Act? No! Only belatedly have and other undeveloped national forest lands areas been closed to recreational use to protect exhibiting wilderness values are immediately the grizzly - the consummate incompatible threatened by pressures of a growing and more recreation/non-recreation interaction. Even so, mobile population, large-scale industrial and the grizzly usually loses in a confrontation economic growth and development and uses with man. Management of this system is inconsistent with protection, maintenance, dictated largely by existing recreation use restoration and enhancement of their wilderness patterns and by the outfitter and guide industry. characteristics.” Hence there is an A comprehensive wilderness management plan acknowledgment of the strong potential for does not exist for the area. incompatible and conflicting uses in these areas so close to urban centers, In a frrst step toward meaningful management coordination, the involved Federal The House committee report provides a agencies have recently completed an further clue to the values of this particular Assessment of the Ecosystem. With respect to wilderness. That report states that the management of the wilderness, the Assessment Committee expects the Forest Service to points out only that the primitive character of maximize efforts to construct, maintain, and the area will be maintained, but this is improve trails and the trail system so as to nowhere defined. It states that the facilitate access and recreational use, as well as opportunities for managers am: (1) to provide to increase opportunities for high quality for quality wilderness experience for an wilderness experience for the visiting public. increasing number of users; (2) to ensure The Committee report goes on to state that visitor use does not adversely affect the Sandia is an important addition to the wilderness resource (undefined); (3) to ensure wilderness system because it is readily rules for visitors are reasonably consistent from accessible to residents and visitors of a large one area to another. metropolitan area, and because recreation use is on the increase. Urban sights and sounds The Assessment is, according to one of heighten the public’s awareness and its architects, simply an aggregation of appreciation of areas with outstanding information, a snapshot of what’s there. There wilderness values. is no analysis, no determination of what is compatible and what is in conflict. Setting the Without delving further in the legislative values has not been done. At this juncture history, one could reasonably argue that the La there has been no determination of what the Luz Run is a compatible use of the Sandia ecosystem should look like and what uses, and wilderness given the strong emphasis on where, are compatible with that vision. We recreation values for the Albuquerque public in should applaud the desire and intent to move the legislative history. to that stage of analysis; but we must also lament our failure in waiting so long. 4. The Yellowstone ecosystem includes Yellowstone National Park and a number of That is not to say that no baseline data nearby wilderness areas including Teton, exists. Yellowstone Park benefits from the
50 efforts of some 150 independent researchers conditions requiring remedial work are each year. The Grizzly Bear Cumulative reached.” The LAC standard setting is in Effects Analysis for the Greater Yellowstone process, but not completed. area is now 90 percent operational. Information on other “heroic wildlife” species 6. The Arizona Wilderness bill, P.L. also exists. The Grizzly Analysis has brought 98-406, added Paria Canyon -Vermillion Cliffs requests from the public for similar information Wilderness to the system. Values cited for on other species. The information data base is, Paria in the legislative history include the however, highly variable and developed as a unique red slickrock canyon, opportunities for reaction to recreation overuse and misuse and hiking and other primitive recreation; and for the needs of independent researchers. Vermillion, scenic, wildlife, and archeological values were noted. Both areas have special According to one of the key Federal geologic and plant community values. managers in this area, when baseline data exists, it is much easier to dictate a proactive A management plan was completed for agenda that protects the wilderness resource Paria-Vermillion that has been criticized by the values, rather than waiting to develop a Wilderness Society for: (1) failing to specify reactive agenda in response to a crisis. what LAC field studies will be initiated for Hopefully, the Federal agencies responsible for which resources and when, and (2) developing managing the Yellowstone ecosystem will isolated, rather than integrated, management quickly move beyond the Assessment and strategies. This is an example of a plan which develop the proactive agenda. There is, may have met the requirements of the BLM unfortunately, no timetable that requires them policy but where management commitment at to do that. the upper levels was missing to ensure implementation. This comment is made based Let us turn now to BLM, currently the on my personal knowledge as Director of the only land-managing agency offering specific BLM wilderness effort for 4 years. The guidance on how to develop a management commitment exists at the field working level, it plan for wilderness and requiring that it be is not supported by management. done. For those unfamiliar with BLM, the agency is truly in its infancy with respect to the wilderness designation and management CONCLUSION process. Hence, only a few examples of wilderness management plans exist. The Table In summary, of the six plans, only two Rock Wilderness Management Plan may be Forest Service wilderness areas, BWCA and considered the best example of a BLM Sandia, had detailed wilderness management wilderness management plan at this time plans which provided a baseline against which because it covers all the values of the area, one could determine compatibility of values. contains considerable public input, and sets Both BLM areas had detailed wilderness area specific objectives and management actions. plans, but in one the commitment may be missing to implement it effectively. The Dolly 5. Table Rock, Oregon, wilderness was Sods qualified as having a management plan established by P.L. 98-328, the Oregon under the rubric of the Forest Plan, but it was Wilderness Act, in 1984. The Act cites the so generic as to be virtually useless. The same outstanding natural characteristics of the area. applies to the wilderness areas of the The Senate Committee report comments that Yellowstone ecosystem. Table Rock represents an ecologically intact island with rare and endangered plants and A policy statement supporting the wildlife. development of a wilderness management plan is a critical first step. However, without a LAC standards were to be established for specific mandated deadline for completion of each element by September 1986. AMU~ the plan the policy is all too often ignored monitoring of water, soil, vegetation, fish and following designation of an area. Existing use wildlife elements, as well as recreation, is done patterns often dictate management to the extent to “detect changes before unacceptable it exists at all. The requirement to complete a
51 wilderness management plan within a specified existing use patterns. Until wilderness timeframe, however, forces the manager to managers become more attune to wilderness identify and articulate the values for which the values and the need to ensure their protection, area was included in the system, and to the plan serves as the only tool the public has manage for those values. There should be to force managers to protect these values. provision for monitoring to ensure management is successful. The plan provides a tool for the Once values are defied, the public to use to ensure the manager is carrying compatibility question becomes clearer but no out his wilderness management mandate less challenging to deal with. We are now responsibly. faced with the carrying capacity question, and the problem of defining the limits of acceptable The key to a successful plan are the change (LAC). The carrying capacity concept, identification of wilderness values (including which was never fully utilized throughout the those unique to that area), integration of the Forest Service, has been replaced by LAC, elements into the action plan, and an with its emphasis on the conditions desired in implementation schedule. As noted earlier, the area rather than on how much use the area Bob Lucas has pointed out that the tension can tolerate. between recreation and regulation is intensified in wilderness management. Thus, it is critical Completing the LAC framework for each to control recreation use with as little wilderness area is unfortunately not a regulation and as much education as possible if requirement for the Forest Service. It should one is to enhance the wilderness experience, be. The guidelines are there, examples of well preserve wilderness values and ensure defined management plans exist, but the harmonious coexistence. This also means that concern for managing the wilderness resource personnel must be available to implement the is still far from being of paramount plan and do requited monitoring. Otherwise, importance. incompatibility and conflict are inevitable. Until we begin to recognize a wilderness According to Dave Porter, BLM’s area’s special values, we will be hard pressed Wilderness Management expert, all BLM to answer the compatibility question. The wilderness management plans to date recognize BLM requirement to do management planning there are other reasons for managing for each area is commendable. The Forest wilderness besides recreation use. This results Service should follow suit with a requirement from the wilderness specialists, involved public to complete a LAC framework for each and some managers recognizing that most wilderness area. The BWCA management plan BLM wilderness areas are not just “recreation provides an excellent model. To permit a play areas”. The plans recognize this, but only National Forest to pass muster with a generic time will tell if actual management practices statement “to encourage good things and also reflect this insight. Because BLM has discourage bad things”, such as exists for lands “where people are not”, the agency has Dolly Sods, is unfortunate. an opportunity to demonstrate excellent management of the non-recreational wilderness Those ardent framers of the Wilderness resources. Hopefully, it will rise to that System eloquently argued for protection and challenge. preservation of the wilderness resource. The wilderness resources’ very existence depends on Comprehensive wilderness management such protection and preservation; the public plans, and proper implementation, updating and needs it; and future generations deserve it. A monitoring of them will begin to assure the plan defines what needs to be preserved and compatibility of all uses and ensure that how. We can afford to do no less. We will recreational activity does not degrade the then be on the way to developing an wilderness character of the area. This requires environmental ethic that respects all the values inventorying the area for its values and setting of the wilderness while permitting us to enjoy up a schedule of actions to protect them The its benefits. absence of a plan increases the likelihood of single use (recreation) management dictated by
52 REFERENCES
Buscher, Richard F. 1981. Wildland Nash, Roderick. 1967. Wilderness and the Recreational Impact from the U.S. Forest American Mind. New Haven: Yale Service Land Manager’s perspective. University Press. Recreation Resource Bulletin. Fall 1981:11-12. Olson, Sigurd F. 1982. The Singing Wilderness. New York: Knopf, p. 5 Lucas, Robert C. 1983. The role of regulations in recreation management. Reed, Patrick; Haas, Glen; Beum, Frank, Western Wildlands. (9)2:6. Sherrick, Lois.1989. Non-recreational uses of the National Wilderness McCloskey, Michael. 1989. Understanding the Preservation System: A 1988 Telephone demand for more wilderness. In: Survey. In: Proceedings of the 1988 Proceedings of the 1988 National National Wilderness Colloquium; 1988 Wilderness Colloquium; 1988 January; January; Tampa, FL. Tampa, Florida. *.
ENDNOTES
1. Section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577) states:” Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.
53 THE FUTURE WILDERNESS SYSTEM
Barry R. Flamm*
It would promise us a more serene and State and local Governments also have confident future if at the start of our sixth the opportunity to set aside areas of land to be century of residence in America, we began to preserved in their natural state and managed as listen to the land and hear what it says, and wilderness. Nine States have established know what it can and cannot do. wilderness systems within their boundaries Wallace Stegner (1981) totaling more than 1.7 million acres and at least five areas (National Areas Journal, 1984). California, with two areas totaling 97,000 INTRODUCTION acres, and New York, with 16 areas totaling approximately one milhon acres, are the only Since the end of the 19th century, States that incorporated the Federal standards various efforts by States and the Federal for wilderness. Eighteen other States have Government have led to land designations passed wilderness legislation or already providing various degrees of protection to wild contained designated areas that do not meet the resources. The establishment of Yellowstone Federal standards but do preserve lands in a and Yosemite National Parks and New York natural condition (RARE II EIS 1979). Soper State’s Adirondack Park, as well as and Humke have further described de facto administrative primitive and wilderness wilderness systems owned and managed by designations by the Forest Service, serve as States and by private nonprofit organizations notable examples. and land trusts. (Soper and Hurt&e, 1988). It was not until after the mid-20th At present, the Wilderness Preservation century, however, that the United States System includes 88.8 million acres. Nearly pronounced an official national policy on two-thirds of these lands are found in the great wilderness. Congress enacted legislation--the expanses of Alaska; 32.2 million acres are Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577)--that located in the contiguous 48 States and Hawaii. created the National Wilderness Preservation Yet despite this commendable commitment to System. land preservation for future generations, the finite wilderness resource on all land The Wilderness Act immediately ownerships has decreased in quantity and designated 9.1 million acres of National Forest quality. During the last 25 years, millions of land in 54 areas. Previously, these lands were acres of wildlands were lost to development in classified as wilderness, wild, and canoe areas. this country. The quality of wilderness decreased through pollutants such as acid The Wilderness Act also directed a deposition and under the impacts of grazing, review of 34 National Forest primitive areas, mining, and visitation. In addition, profound totaling 5.4 million acres, and roadless lands in ecological changes and perhaps direct effects National Parks, monuments, National wildlife on our biota are occurring as tropical forests refuges, and game ranges to determine the around the world are destroyed. Predicted suitability of each area for preservation as global climatic changes in the next century--a wilderness. In 1976, Congress required a like direct result of tropical forest liquidation and review--under the Federal Land Policy and air pollution--may be the biggest threat of all. Management Act--on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Americans currently enjoy the benefits of de facto wilderness from wildlands not yet roaded and developed. These lands provide
* Chief Forester, The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC.
54 enormous ecological services, such as Biological Diversity watershed and airshed protection, and serve to enlarge the effective size of protected areas The estimated 30 million-plus species on such as designated wilderness, National Parks, Earth constitute a genetic resource that is the and wildlife refuges. But these lands will not most valuable and irreplaceable resource we long survive in an undeveloped state without have. Once lost, it is gone forever. Yet affirmative action. Opportunities for humans are wasting and degrading this genetic preserving wilderness values in the United reservoir that provides food, clothes, clean States are limited. Only an estimated 7 percent water, energy, building material, medicines, of the Nation’s land outside Alaska remains psychological well-being, and many other undeveloped, increasing to 16 percent when benefits. Simply put, unless we dramatically Alaska is included. alter current practices, the Earth will certainly lose a large share of its species during our I argue that the most effective means of lifetime. Biological diversity is also being preserving pristine lands is congressional seriously affected through the loss of diversity designation of wilderness. While wilderness within species (genetic loss) and the areas are frequently portrayed by friend and destruction of ecosystems. foe alike as simply primitive recreation areas, others have long recognized the wide array of Before solutions to the loss of biological values that wilderness offers. Indeed, the diversity can be achieved, we must have a Wilderness Act acknowledges that wilderness more complete and widespread understanding “may also contain ecological, geological, or of what biological diversity is. In basic terms, other features of scientific, educational, scenic, biological diversity is the diversity of life. It or historical value.” encompasses these related levels of diversity. First, ecosystem diversity, defined as different Therefore, I am pleased to present this physical settings containing distinctive but paper on the additions that are essential if the interacting communities of species. Second, Wilderness Preservation System is to fulfill the species diversity or species richness--the most entire range of non-recreational needs in the commonly used form of the term biological future. I congratulate the Forest Service and diversity. It refers to the number of different the organizers of the colloquium for their species that share the planet. Third, genetic recognition of the broad importance of diversity which is the genetic variability that wilderness and for this first-time effort to exists among individuals of a species. Genetic collect information on the non-recreational variation affects the ability of that species to values of wilderness for the upcoming adapt to environmental changes. Resource Planning Act Program assessment. Wildlands are necessary to the conservation of biological diversity. NON-RECREATIONAL VALUES OF Experience has shown time and again that WILDERNESS human manipulation of the environment fails to ensure diversity at its three basic levels. In In wildness is the preservation of the fact, preserving intact representatives of each world. native ecosystem to allow for natural Henry David Thoreau (1862) ecological functions should be a primary objective of the National Wilderness The preservation of wildness is an Preservation System. It is estimated that 157 essential form of land stewardship, providing of the 261 ecosystem types in the United tremendously important societal benefits States are currently included in the wilderness beyond recreation. Among those are biological system (Davis 1987), but they may not be diversity, geological and watershed protection, sufficiently represented or large enough to scientific opportunities, and other values as sustain all species populations. discussed below. A second important objective should be the preservation of species that are dependent on wildlands for all or part of their lives.
55 Such species exhibit great differences in their Outstanding and representative natural abilities to tolerate human disturbance. Some geologic features should be preserved as an disturbance-sensitive species, such as the important part of our National heritage. Of ivory-billed woodpecker, require vast expanses course, geologic features are closely related to of undisturbed forest. The Northern spotted biological diversity. Wilderness designation owl is equally particular, requiring large areas provides protection for these features. of old-growth forests--primarily Douglas-fir--to survive. Restoring grizzly bear, mountain lion, and wolf populations to parts of their former Watershed Protection range requires large undeveloped areas. Practically speaking, the National Wilderness The value of wildlands for watershed Preservation System is not now--and may protection is undisputed. In the Western never be--of sufficient magnitude for the United States, for example, the majority of all long-term survival of these species. Therefore, flowing water used by industry, municipalities, wildland areas must be combined with other farmers, and ranchers ori inates on public lands on which activities have been designed lands--most often on wilc!lands. or restricted so as to meet those species’ needs. Foresters and other resource managers Finally, wildlands preservation plays a many times argue that they can manage a critical role in genetic conservation. Although watershed better than nature. However, a gene banks, gardens, and zoos are a limited considerable body of research and experience means in genetic conservation, in situ methods demonstrates the values of undisturbed forests provide the only reasonable, cost effective in providing high-quality water with the added solution on the broader scale. Plant and benefits of low cost and naturally regulated and animal species existing in their natural habitats modulated flows. have been vital to the development of drugs to fight heart disease, of antibiotics, anti-cancer There is little doubt that resource agents, hormones, and anticoagulants. More extraction activities can disturb natural than 40 percent of modem pharmaceuticals are waterways in such a manner as to cause derived from natural substances; yet, only one disastrous effects on water quality and aquatic percent of known plant species has been habitats. A classic case involves the South studied thoroughly for human benefits. The Fork Salmon River on the Payette National genetic reservoir is critical for future food and Forest in central Idaho. Once one of the most fiber supplies, not only for new crops but to important spawning areas for summer chinook “revitalize” existing commercial species. salmon in the Pacific Northwest, the South Fork contributed 55 percent of the entire To paraphrase Aldo Leopold, wilderness Columbia River basin summer chinook serves a crucial role by allowing us to save population. The river produced approximately some of the ecological pieces as we tinker 50,000 adult chinook annually, of which wholesale with our natural environments. As 10,000 later returned from the Pacific Ocean to private lands are developed and modified and spawn. During the early 1960’s, more than 30 as unprotected Federal lands are progressively percent of Idaho’s chinook salmon angling roaded, logged, and mined, the need for occurred on the South Fork. permanently protected wilderness increases. This river has been severely impacted by timber management practices. The South Fork Geological Features drainage is located atop the Idaho Batholith, a highly unstable and erosive granite formation “Geologic and land form features are that underlies much of central Idaho and evidence of the historical forces that shaped extends into Montana. In the mid-1960’s, the evolution of living organisms and can heavy rains fell on the winter snowpack, provide insight into past environments . . . .” causing a massive washout of Forest Service (Juday 1987). logging roads and clearcut areas. The washout dumped tons of sediment into the South Fork, smothering fish spawning and rearing gravels
56 and devastating the fishery. This disaster Unfortunately the final forest plan for the caused population numbers of anadromous fish Payette does not reflect this policy. to decline drasticall , The South Fork drainage was closeJ to further logging for a In addition, research in the Pacific decade during which time the river slowly Northwest has demonstrated that undisturbed began to cleanse itself of the sediment. In old-growth forests produce the highest quality 1978, the Forest Service resumed logging on a water for human consumption and that streams limited basis, These logging activities were free of sediment are prime anadromous fiih again halted after monitoring revealed spawning areas. (Maser and Trappe 1984; increasing levels of sediment in the river. Mastrantonio 1987). From mountain tarns to ovefflow river bottoms and from bubbling Today the South Fork, a fishery once glacier-fed brooks to braided river deltas, the valued at $100 million, has a fraction of its diverse nature of and benefits to humans from former capacity to produce fish. Only about untainted, free-flowing, and healthy watersheds 7,000 summer chinook smolts are now cannot be overstated. Protection for reasonable produced annually, with as few as 300 adults portions of these systems relieves humans from returning from the Pacific Ocean to spawn. the onus of attempting to artificially duplicate Federal officials have considered nominating literally hundreds of within-system functions, the South Fork’s salmon and steelhead Cleansing water, supporting complex wildlife populations for listing under provisions of the systems, trapping and modrfying chemical Endangered Species Act. concentrations, recharging underground systems, regulating annual water regimes, The Forest Service has recognized that recreation for man, and esthetics are all natural wilderness management provides the greatest contributions of watersheds. Clearly the opportunity to protect and improve fish habitat dilemmas of Southern Florida and the in the South Fork. In its draft management everglades system indicate that nature is far plan for the Payette National Forest, the better and more cost effective at operating agency explained: watershed functions. A major opportunity exists to One of two original purposes in improve anadromous fish habitat in establishing the National Forests was the the South Fork Salmon River. protection of watersheds. In the East, one of Near natural habitat potential could the central aims of the acquisition of the be achieved by decreasing existing National Forests under the 1911 Weeks Act erosion and sedimentation and was to protect watersheds. Through a series of protection of habitat by wilderness improvements in clean water and other related designation and Wild and Scenic legislation, the American public has River designations. Fish habitat is demonstrated its commitment to quality water maximized within naturally for human consumption, wildlife, and functioning ecosystems, in which recreation use. Wilderness designation fish evolved or were created. The continues to offer the surest long-term adaptation process, which has protection of watersheds at the lowest cost. occurred over millennia, cannot be Most of the National Forest roadless lands improved upon by relatively short- could be justified for addition to the wilderness term human strategies. Therefore, system based solely on their importance to the wilderness designation or Wild and protection and maintenance of high quality Scenic River designations, which waters. protect the integrity of naturally functioning ecosystems to the greatest extent possible, have the Science indirect benefit of being optimal from a fish habitat management A most obvious non-recreational benefit standpoint. (USDA Forest Service, of wilderness is its ability to provide 198%). benchmarks for scientific research, applied forestry, and agriculture. In this sense,
57 wilderness is like a trust fund for the future, wilderness continues to shape our National holding answers to questions we have not yet development and is widely heralded and learned to ask. As examples, the study of any sometime used to develop leadership, personal species in its natural, undisturbed habitat confidence, and social skills and to instill a contributes to a more intelligent management sense of pride and respect for our natural regime for the species elsewhere. This is resources. particularly important for forestry and wildlife management. Wilderness watersheds, in In addition, wilderness is believed by addition to the benefits I noted above, also some professionals and lay people alike to be establish a benchmark against which to judge important for mental health and well being. the impacts of development activities Just the mere presence and availability of elsewhere. Wilderness waters ate being used wilderness may have psychological benefits. to conduct important studies on acid Wilderness experiences increasingly are used deposition. Because these waters am largely for therapeutic reasons and to help correct free of disturbances caused by human activity, social disorders. they can provide vitally needed base-line data about the effects of atmospheric pollution. Esthetics Wilderness-offers a tremendous opportunity for the study of patterns of Natural, undisturbed landscapes have a disturbance and recovery. As a USDA Forest special beauty and inspire awe in ways that Service scientist has noted, “Wilderness cannot be duplicated by the works of humans. ecosystems are unique in their scale and in The National Wilderness Preservation System their degree of naturalness, which provide contains many examples of such landscapes people with unique opportunities to learn.” and should encompass even more of the (Franklin 1987) Nation’s scenic wonders. But a landscape does not have to be spectacular to be esthetically pleasing. Wilderness should protect both the Heritage, Educational, Cultural, grand and the simple natural land forms of the Psychological, and Spiritual Values country. Wilderness has been a major force in the development of the United States. It has been Moral a source of important cultural differences, and even today is viewed differently by individuals All the wilderness values discussed to and cultural groups. Native Americans this point have a decidedly anthropogenic traditionally and now see the natural world approach or bias. However, there are those unlike European settlers and their descendants who believe that nonhuman life and wild see it. Chief Standing Bear of the Ogalala ecosystems simply have a right to exist. The Sioux made this clear in reference to contacts basic intuition is that all organisms and entities with white civilization: “We did not think of are equal in intrinsic worth (Devall and the great open plains, the beautiful rolling hills Sessions 1985). No conventional economic or and the winding streams with tangled growth biological analysis will encompass this as wild. Only to the white man was nature a concern. It is more a religious belief or an wilderness and . . . the land infested with wild article of faith such as is found in the thinking animals and savage people” (Nash 1982). The and writing of the “deep ecologists.” “wildness” shaped those who colonized North America and helped form the National character. Rod Nash describes this history and THE FUTURE WILDERNESS SYSTEM has concluded it is a source of our democracy. Remaining wildlands have enormous Preserving wilderness to protect the importance for the preservation of Native values and insure the benefits described above American cultural and spiritual values and for is a considerable challenge. Indeed, there are saving a microcosm of what shaped the some who would claim that we have already heritage of the United States. Today’s “locked up” enough lands in the United States.
58 My own experience and research leads me to a As to quantity, redundancy of different conclusion. representation is essential insurance for the future. One cannot assume that all species A quick review of the present wilderness within an ecosystem are randomly and system makes it clear that additional wildland uniformly distributed. We could miss entire protection is necessary to meet the challenge I species or certainly key genetic variants if we have defined. First, only 4 percent--88.8 preserve only one of several like ecosystems or million acres in 463 areas--of the U.S. landbase fail to establish a properly designed is included in the National Wilderness macroreserve. Replications of similarly Preservation System.’ Four Federal functioning ecosystems would provide a safety agencies--the National Park Service, USDA net for little known invertebrate animals and Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nonvascular plants, some of which could be and Bureau of Land Management--oversee the seriously endangered (Wilcove and Flamm lands in the system. 1986). Approximately 16 percent of the Nation In addition, greater consideration must be remains in a relatively natural, roadless given to the problem of habitat fragmentation. condition. However,_these wildlands are not When continuous habitats are fragmented, distributed on an even basis in the some habitat islands will be unable to support geographical sense. Most are located in viable populations of certain species. This is Alaska and in the 11 Western States. often the case for animals requiring large areas for survival such as the grizzly bear. A single Table 1 and figures 1 and 2 show the grizzly in the Yellowstone ecosystem might amount of Federal designated wilderness by range over an area up to 3,000 square Federal land system and give estimates of kilometers. Species with large area acreage with the potential for inclusion in the requirements can be very difficult to conserve; wilderness system.2 Acreage figures tell us yet they are often the ones most in need of little, though, about the quality and types of protection (Norse and others 1986). lands preserved as wilderness today. Ideally, a full range of functioning, intact ecosystems One solution is to ensure that each should be protected. But, as George Davis eco-region (as defined by Bailey) contains at reports in using a refinement of the least one “macro-wilderness” as a haven for Bailey-Kuchler ecosystem approach, only 157 those species requiring large areas. Properly of the country’s 261 ecosystems are now managed, these large areas will provide a represented in the National Wilderness protective umbrella for many species. To Preservation System. I believe that many of achieve macro-wilderness, existing wilderness these ecosystems are under-represented with areas could be enlarged by adding adjacent respect to both their size and quantity. roadless areas. In some cases, two or more wilderness areas could be joined by restoring In other words, simply saving roaded lands that link wilderness areas. The “representative” ecosystems is not sufficient. effective size of these macro-wildernesses Indeed, size may be the most important factor could be further increased by restricting land in conserving biological diversity. Island use activities in areas adjacent to the protected biogeographic theory and site specific studies areas. It is clear that such a solution to the provide tools to estimate the relationship problems caused by habitat fragmentation will between species and areas. The rough rule is require a high level of coordination between that a tenfold decrease in area corresponds to a private and public land managers, including halving of the equilibrium number of species foreign Governments. present (May 1981 p. 231). This estimate indicates we can eventually expect a significant The Wilderness Society has proposed a loss of species dependent on wildlands in the macro-reserve management approach for the United States, considering that only 7 percent Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Wilderness of the landbase on the contiguous 48 States is Society 1986). This region consists of all or wild. portions of the Gallatin, Custer, Shoshone, Bridger-Teton, Caribou, Targhee, and
59 Table 1. -- Designated wilderness and potential wilderness by federal land system (millions of acres) Other 49 States Alaska (Excluding Alaska) Total United States Desig- Desig- Desig- Poten-nated Poten- nated Poten- nated Federal Land System tial (NWPS) Total tial (NWPS) Total tial (NWPS) Total National Forest System 12.0 5.5 17.5 41.0 26.8 67.8 53.0 32.3 85.3 National Park System 19.0 32.4 51.4 6.0 4.4 10.4 25.0 36.8 61.8 National Wildlife Refuge System 58.0 18.7 76.7 5.0 0.6 5.6 63.0 19.3 82.3 Public Lands (BLM) 75.0 00.0 75.0 50.0 0.4 50.4 125.0 0.4 125.4 Total Four System’ 164.0 56.6 220.6 102.0 32.2 134.2 266.0 88.8 354.8 State System Equivalent 1.1 1.1 to National Syctem Total Acreage 379.1 1902.0 2281.1
’ Figures may not add to total due to rounding.
Table 2. -- A proposed future national wilderness preservation system (millions of acres) Other 49 States, Puerto Rico, and Federal Land System Alaska Territories Total National Forest System 15.0 50.0 65.0 National Park System 51.4 10.4 61.8 National Wildlife Refuge System 76.7 82.4 Public Lands (BLM) 50.0 2% 75.0 New Areas 0.0 9:o 9.0 Total (rounded off) 193.0 100.0 293.0
60 Figure l.--Wilderness Today (Total United States)
Wilderness 3.9% oadless Public 11.7%
3$;: Roaded Pu blic 12.2%
Source: The Wilderness Society
Figure 2.--Wilderness Today (Excluding Alaska)
Wilderness 1.7% Roadless Public 5.4% dP ublic 9.5%
Source: The Wilderness Society
61 Figure 3.--Future Wildemess (Total United States)
Wilderness
Roaded Pu blic 14.9%
Source: The Wilderness Society Figure 4.--Future Wilderness (Excluding Alaska)
Wilderness
blic
83.4%
Source: The Wilderness Society
62 Beaverhead National Forests; Grand Teton and Alaska and the Western States to meet most Yellowstone National Parks; the National Elk ecosystem protection needs and to preserve Refuge; and Red Rock Lake and Gray’s Lake areas of sufficient size to conserve most National Wildlife Refuges. In the Greater species. The Great Plains and much of the Yellowstone Ecosystem, the opportunity exists East present different conservation challenges. to link together critical Federal wildlands, Cooperatively managed protective systems will creating a macro-reserve that may well be be necessary and new acquisitions for units essential to the long-term health of the such as the Tallgrass Prairie National Park and ecosystem and the creatures it harbors. for linkage areas will be required. Examples of other candidate macroreserves Inclusion of the remaining ecosystems not are: found on Federal lands would require a large land acquisition program and commitment by 1. Appalachian Mountains - encompassing States for protection of the lands under their the Chattahoochee, Cherokee, and jurisdiction. A report to The Nature Nantahala-Pisgah National Forests to the South; Conservancy nearly a decade ago stated that the Great Smoky Mountain National Park; and “as of April I, 1978, 69 ecosystem types the Jefferson, George Washington, and appeared to have no definite Federal protection. Monongahela National Forests and Shenandoah The top 11 States in terms of the number of National Park to the North. Federally unprotected major ecosystems which they contain were as follows: Texas (14); 2. Northern Great Lakes - comprised of Oklahoma (lo), California (9); Minnesota (6); Voyageurs National Park; the Superior, and Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Chequamegon, Ottawa, Nicolet, and Hiawatha Nebraska and Wisconsin (5 each).” National Forests; the Seney National Wildlife (Crumpacker 1979) Further study should be Refuge; and Quantico Park in Canada. made of the opportunity and legislation requirements to complement the National 3. Northern Continental Divide - including Wilderness Preservation System with State the Flathead and Lewis & Clark National wilderness systems. Forests, Glacier-Water-ton National Park, Swan River National Wildlife Refuge, and adjacent lands. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS 4. Pacific Forests - from Northern Alaska.--Alaska is one of the few places California through British Columbia to remaining in the world where all of the values Southeast Alaska (requiring several associated with wilderness still exist and where macroreserves). we have an opportunity to protect large and complete ecosystems for the future. Because 5. Arctic Region - preserving the Brooks of the fragility of the Alaskan environment, Range, the South slope tiaga forests and any development must be done with extreme portions of the coastal plain, Arctic National care. The biological needs of the large Wildlife Refuge, and Canada’s Northern Yukon Alaskan mammals and other migratory species National Park. require large undeveloped areas. Alaska has very diverse geology and some very dynamic 6. Colorado Plateau - encompassing the environments that also require protection. physiographic province located in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona (bordered For these reasons, I recommend that to the North by the Uinta Mountains, to the approximately one-half of Alaskan lands East by the Southern Rocky Mountains, to the remain forever wild. South by the Mogollon Rim, and to the West by the Hurricane and Wasatch faults). Contiguous United States--Designated and de facto wilderness in the contiguous 48 States Despite the rapid pace at which wild areas falls short of the aggregate needed to insure are disappearing in the United States, I believe biological diversity in the long term and to there are sufficient wildlands available in meet other needs. In addition, the wilderness
63 resource is inadequately distributed, above approach should be included on a concentrated in the Western United States. An case-by-case basis. estimated 104 ecosystems are not represented in the National Wilderness Preservation It is my belief that these wilderness values System. Some of these “missing ecosystems” warrant protecting forever in a wild State at may occur on State or other Federal lands. least 5 percent of the lands of the coterminous These ecosystems should either be transferred United States and 13 percent of United States for inclusion in the system or provided with lands overall, (as shown in table 2, figures 3 comparable long-term protection under other and 4, a Future Wilderness System). authorities. Many of the missing ecosystems will require acquisition and subsequent restoration. REFERENCES Islands, Aquatic and Underground Bailey, Robert G. and Charles T. Cushwa. Ecosystems. --Most islands under United States 1981. Bcoregions of North America. sovereignty have been greatly modified. Yet Washington, DC.; U.S. Geological each has unique and important ecosystems, I Survey. believe that all of the remaining undeveloped lands on these islands should be protected. Crumpacker, David W. 1979. Acquisition Representative aquatic and under-ground priorities for major natural ecosystems in ecosystems should also be protected and the United States, Report to the Nature included in the National Wilderness Conservancy. Preservation System. Davis, George D. 1987. Ecosystem Ecoregion and Ecosystem Representation.-- representation as criterion for World Ideally each ecoregion (Bailey) should include Wilderness Designation, prepared for the at least one macro-wilderness within a larger Wild Wings Foundation and presented at macro-reserve complex. The system should the Fourth World Wilderness Congress. include three to five representatives of each of September 1987. the ecosystems (Davis 1987). Ecosystem redundancy is needed for geographic and Devall, Bill; Sessions George. 1985. Deep genetic representation, as insurance against ecology. catastrophes, and for inclusion of all narrowly confined insular species. Ecosystem Franklin, Jerry F. 1987. In: Lucas, Robert C. representation should also ensure representation compiler, Proceedings, National wilderness of many of the Nation’s geologic features. research conference; July 23-26, 1985; However, it will not completely capture the Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Tech. Rept. geologic component of our natural heritage. A INT-220, Ogden, UT. geologic classification system should be used to identify features that may have been missed Juday, Glenn P. 1987. Selecting natural areas by the ecological approach. Such a for geological features: A rationale and classification system was developed in 1978 by examples from Alaska. Natural Areas a panel of professional geologists. The system Journal 7(4): 137. is process-oriented to provide a means of classifying all geologic features of possible Maser, Chris; Trappe, J. M. 1984. The seen National, State or local significance. The and unseen world of the fallen tree. classification system can be used in connection Pacific Northwest Forest & Range Exp. with the ecological systems (Spicer 1987). Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW 164. A National Wilderness Preservation Mastrantonio, J. L. 1987. Old growth forests System that adequately protects natural teach many lessons, Oregonian: July 30. diversity can be expected to satisfy most of the Portland, OR. other non-recreational needs wilderness provides. Lands that were excluded from the May, Robert. 1981. Theoretical ecology: Principles and applications. 23 1.
64 Nash, Roderick. I Yi:. ‘:,‘ildemdss and the anierican hiid. xiii. Natural Areas Joilmal. 1984.. Wilderness wildlands. 4(4). Norse, Elliott, et al. 1586. Conserving biological diversity in our National U.S. Department of Agriculture. IQrrest Service. Forests. The Wilderness Society. 1985. Draft management pi;lu. i”ayette National Forest; h4cCal1, ID. Soper, C.; Htrrnke,J. W. 1988. De Facto Wilderness: Lands’complementary to the Wilcove, David, and Barry R. Flamm. 1984. National Wilderness System prepared for Conserving biological diversity: A the National Wilderness Colloquium. challenge for National Forest management. Paper presented at the IV InterNational Spicer, Richard C. 1987. Preserving the Congress of Ecology; Syracuse, NY; geological component of, our natural August 15, 1986. heritage. Natural Areas Journal. 7(4):135-136. Wilderness Society [The]. 1986. Management directions for the greater Yellowstone Stegner, Wallace. 1981. American Places. ecosystem; Washington, D.C. Thoreau, Henry David. 1862. Walking.
ENDNOTES
1. These figures a!o not reflect privately protected lands such as those owned by The Nature Conservancy.
2. Potential lands are based on the following: (1) National Forest estimates from Roadless Area Revieiv and Evaluation process (RARE II), including roadless lands released by legislation; (2) National Park acreage based on agency wilderness proposals; (3) VSFWS acreage based on agency wilderness proposals; and (4) BLM acreage based on agency review as required by FLPMA, adjusted upward 25 million acres to compensate for faults--namely excessively stringent standards--in the review process.
65 THE NON-RECREATIONAL USE OF WILDERNESS IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
George N. Wallace and Harold K. Eidsvik*
ABSTRACT awareness among decision makers about the importance of wilderness protection. This It is in the developing countries that the awareness is usually linked to concerns about non-recreational uses and benefits of things like watershed management, biological wilderness have added significance. It is these and genetic diversity, and the protection of benefits that provide the most convincing endangered species, which are now topics that arguments for wildland protection and are difficult to escape if one is involved in a management. This is especially true in country’s development. This understanding has countries where basic human needs are still at been fostered by those agencies (AID, CIDA, the top of the agenda and where the GTZ etc.) offering development assistance, the recreational use of wilderness is, for the most efforts of organizations like The International part, a new or a foreign idea. This paper Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), begins with a general discussion of the concept programs like The United Nations Man and the of “wilderness” as it relates to the world Biosphere (MAB) and the World Wilderness beyond our borders; goes on to examine the Congress -- among others. extent of the worlds wildlands, including an estimate of which might be said to have While wilderness protection is an objective “wilderness quality”; then describes why the of wildland managers worldwide, few countries non-recreational benefits are so important for have chosen to designate wilderness through a countries that are trying to protect and legal process. As of this writing, Canada, manage their wildlands. Australia, New Zealand and South Africa ate the only countries besides the United States to have wilderness legislation and some of that is THE INTERNATIONAL at the provincial or state level. Protected areas UNDERSTANDING OF WILDERNESS with limited resource utilization, however, exist in 125 of the world’s 160 countries (IUCN Not long ago the concept of wilderness 1985). “Wilderness”, in the international was, in the words of Roderick Nash, a “full context, more often than not, refers to the stomach phenomena” (Nash, 1978). It was the wildlands within these protected areas that invention of a few developed countries that have “wilderness characteristics”. were blessed with abundant natural resources and who had attained a high standard of living. Even though the term “wilderness” is used These countries, it was thought, were the ones more frequently among members of the world who could afford to set aside such areas. conservation community, it is still infrequently used elsewhere. There are problems with the This attitude has begun to change and the translation of the word “wilderness” into concept of wilderness is now frequently languages like Spanish and French (Dourjeanni, discussed in international circles in a serious 1984), and words like “wildland” or “wild and considered way. Even in developing area” (“area silvestre”, “aire sauvage”) are more countries that lack organized environmental or understandable and used more often. recreational constituencies, there is a growing
* Faculty Associate, Dept. of Recreation Resources and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO; Chairman, Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Ottawa, Ontario.
66 The World Wilderness Congress has given occupied by or under pressure from nearby wilderness a formahzed international platform. non-traditional subsistence peoples who engage It has dealt with the concept, the reality, the in shifting cultivation, grazing, hunting or difficulties and the need for wilderness. In gathering. This is an important distinction spite of many cultural differences, each of the which we shall discuss later in the paper. four World Wilderness Congresses has worked on a definition of wilderness that is acceptable The Wilderness Congress also continues to to the world community. The most recent address the criteria for the size of wilderness Congress adopted the following revision of areas. Some feel that an area size standard as previous defiinitionti small as the 5000 acres or more prescribed by the U.S. Wilderness Act would make it “Wilderness is an enduring natural difficult to achieve the objectives of large size, resource which provides opportunities to remoteness, and the protection pristine natural obtain those pristine elements which elements. (Eidsvik, 1985; Mosley, 1986). comprise the spiritual and physical Others feel that area criteria may be wilderness experience. unnecessary and point out that an isolated mountain valley or an island, which otherwise It is protected as an ecological meet wilderness criteria, might be excluded preserve of natural diverse processes and from designation if size standards were not genetic resources, it is primarily affected flexible. by nature, with human impact substantially unnoticed, and where people are visitors, without mechanical transport or HOW MUCH WILDERNESS/WILDLAND installation. IS THERE IN THE WORLD? It must enjoy the highest legislative The Sierra Club recently completed a protection. It should be of sufficient size worldwide inventory using jet navigation charts to realize its essential nature. It should be to see how many blocks of roadless and managed so as to retain its wilderness relatively uninhabited land larger than 400,000 qualities.” (Estes Park -Colorado, 1987) ha. could be found. They identified five billion hectares or roughly one third of the Subsequently, the Resolutions Committee worlds land area that fit this description. requested that IUCN further revise the above Much of this “de-facto” wilderness (> 60%). definition in a way that accommodates however, is tundra, desert or unoccupied indigenous peoples who live within wilderness. because of it’s inhospitable nature (McClosky The following has been proposed: 1987). The Sierra Club survey gives a preliminary overview of how much of the “Wilderness is an enduring natural world remains relatively undeveloped. Much area, legislatively protected and of of this could be considered “wildland” but is sufficient size to protect the pristine not “wilderness” under currently accepted natural elements, which may serve physical definitions which require some degree of legal and spiritual well being. It is an area protection. where little or no persistent evidence of human intrusion is permitted, so that Another measure of the worlds wilderness natural processes may continue to evolve areas comes from the data kept by IUCN’s (Eidsvik, 1988). Protected Areas Data Unit (PADU) which was initiated in 1959 at the request of the United There is then, a marked difference between Nations. This data which is kept at the this evolving definition and the US. Conservation Monitoring Center registers the Wilderness Act . . . .“where the earth and its legally designated or privately owned protected community of life are untrammeled by man, areas found in 125 of the worlds 160 countries. where man himself is a visitor who does not As of 1985 PADU describes the worlds remain’ (U.S. Wilderness Act, 1964). Nearly protected areas as presented in table 1. all wildland areas in developing countries, if not occupied by indigenous people, are
67 Table 1. -- Protected Areas of the World IUCN category units land area I Scientific, Nature Reserves 526 38,106,074 ha. II National Parks, or Equivalent 1,050 256,029,904 ha. National Monuments 70 6556,943 ha. : Managed Nature Reserves and Wildlife Sanctuaries 1,488 103,504,852 ha. V Protected Land or Seascapes 380 19,586,625 ha. TOTAL 423,774,398 ha. Source: IUCN 1985 protected by their climate and isolation Of this total, about half, or more than 200 (IUCN/SCAR 1986). million hectares (772,200 square miles), are of wilderness quality using U.S. standards The wildemess/wildland areas that are the (Eidsvik 1987). Further observation indicates focus of the remainder of this paper are those that 100 million ha are North of 60 degrees in lying below or above circumpolar regions and the Northern Hemisphere. within developing countries (Table 2) that am struggling to protect their wildlands. It is This 200 million ha. of “wildland” having here we find the tropical and neotropical wilderness quality includes about 39 million rainforests, the snow leopard, the great game ha. in the U.S. Wilderness Preservation System herds of the African Savanna, the cloud forests, and approximately 71 million ha. are in the volcanos, waterfalls, coral reefs, condors, wilderness systems of Canada, Australia, New mangrove swamps and thousands of other Zealand and South Africa. “Wilderness areas” examples of (known and unknown) flora, in most countries are wildland zones within fauna, land and seascape that the world is legally protected areas found in IUCN beginning to treasure - and worry over. It categories I-IV. The “core areas” of the seems appro riate that we focus on these areas worlds Biosphere Reserves are good examples and their ricK diversity of biomes principally of this type of zoning. The 50 countries in because most are under tremendous pressure Table 2 incorporate more than 90% of the from inappropriate economic development as worlds’ protected areas (Eidsvik 1984). well as from nearby human activity and encroachment. These developments include the North of 60 degrees there are 44 protected over-exploitation of tropical forests, poorly areas over 50,000 in size which could be planned hydroelectric projects and the considered as de facto wilderness areas. These conversion of forest lands to agricultural land are dramatic numbers which include 25% of uses that are often not sustainable. the world’s largest park, the 70,000,OOO ha Greenland National Park. There are few THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN permanent residents in any of the circumpolar INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, defacto wilderness areas. PEACE AND STABILITY AND WILDLAND PROTECTION One of the world’s greatest wildlands is Antarctica, which is 99% ice, 1% soil and has There is consensus among all involved-- a negative heat supply for all but two months expressed at the Fourth World Wilderness of the year. It does, of course have unique Congress--that the protection of wildlands can flora and fauna. The international treaties that only succeed if it is part of an overall strategy govern the area do include special conservation for peace and development that will raise the and scientific interest sites, access to which is standard of living for the world’s poor and prohibited except by permit. Members of the make it less likely that individual nations will Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research sacrifice their natural resources in order to pay (SCAR) feel that such areas will continue to be their foreign debt or to win a war (Brundtland
68 Table 2. -- The world coverage of protected areas’, countries protecting more than 1,000,000 ha COllntry Number of Areas Hectares 5 1517,700 gztEa Angola 5;; 2594,351 3;,74;;J& Bolivia 11:644:000 :z.z”” 11894.302 Cameroon 2;228;200 Canada Fh-rpl African Republic China Colombia Congo Cz;;;;;tvakia Ecuador Ethiopia gay!: 1,175,075 Fdr-!z” 11,149,261 Indonesia 1;,;-7;,;;; Iran Ivory coast 1:865:000 Japair 2,195,600 Kenya :.;B$,;;; Malawi Malaysia 115581882 Mauritania 1,483,OOO Mongolia 4,672,580 Mozambique 1,815,OOO New Zealand ;,;=;,;;; Norway Pakistan 6153713 11 ; yargua y 1,120,538 2,407,642 Senegal South African 149 South West Africa Spain 5: Sudan Sweden 6; 15 &ytia$ 72 xza 122 1;4;;,;;+ United Kingdom 57 United States of America 251 64:946:135 Venequela ;>;gz;,9& Zaire 3t: Zambia 6:664:400 Zimbabwe :I: 2,757,709 1 Adapted from IUCN? 1985. Thus about 50 countries incorporate more than 90% of the world protected areas (Eidsvlk 1987).
69 1987). Without an integrated approach to rural crops or the inputs necessary to intensify and development in particular, wildlands in the stabilize subsistence production, rural people third world will remain under pressure from become increasingly dependent on limited people who need their resources to survive. natural resources and find it difficult to sustain themselves without encroaching on “protected In much of the tropical and neotropical areas”. These areas in effect are their external realm, for example, there is no frost and support system providing wild meat, firewood resident subsistence or near-subsistence and agricultural opportunity. agriculture is possible year round - even on lands that would never be farmed in temperate There are numerous instances where or developed countries. Steep hillsides, rocky wildlands have been located on or near or densely forested areas do not deter people productive lands where people with money and who have few other economic options and who power have taken advantage of the can survive by using the simple tools of fire, government’s reluctance to remove squatters machete, ax, grazing livestock, rifle or snare from protected areas in order to establish their to provide for themselves or their families. In own farms and ranches. In most cases, some of the poorer countries 60 to 75 percent however, the encroachment of wildland of the population still earn their living from protected areas located on marginal lands can agriculture. It is convenient for politicians and rarely be said to be the fault of the person government officials to look the other way. In wielding ax, torch or herding a few head of many countries, search for wildlands are livestock. Such people are typically landless, pressure relief valves that temporarily absorb have few other options for earning a living, hundreds of thousands of people who might and little idea of the long term implications of otherwise be in the streets demanding jobs, their actions or the extent of world resources. housing and food. It is also necessary to point out that there Given the basic need for food and shelter are long time indigenous occupants of wild the encroachment of wildland protected areas is areas who’s hunting, gathering and farming is continual even without the surges of new extensive (as opposed to intensive) enough that settlement that are provoked by warfare, it allows the land to recover with little long economic downturns or the construction of a term damage. In some cases Indian tribes new roads. This is explained not only by might be said to be living in harmony with increases in population but also by the fact that their ecosystem and guardians of valuable many of the remaining wildlands and nearby knowledge (Gomez and Pompa 1987). Where settlements occur on marginal lands. On such traditional cultures do use sustained yield lands the nutrients are frequently tied up in the practices, indigenous people and protected area vegetative cover where decomposing plant managers can be appropriate allies but this material is quickly recycled and where the soil requires considerable mutual understanding is protected from sun or wind and rain by the (IUCN/UNEP, 1986). native vegetation. The subsistence agricultural cycle often entails clearing the land for it’s Subsistence pressure on wildlands has timber or fuelwood, which enables the been intensified by warfare and the resulting cultivation of subsistence crops for a few years numbers of refugees in places like Central until nutrients are depleted. This is often America, Africa and South East Asia. followed by a few more years of grazing and Refugees entering neighboring countries who the felling of more forest for new cropland as do not have the means to care for them are the cycle continues. often allowed to settle in protected wildland areas as a last resort. Guerrillas hide in wild With only a limited ability to govern their areas and use them intensively for their needs. own destiny and an increasing international The government in power builds roads into debt, many of the lesser developed countries protected areas to facilitate the entry of are unable to sustain their economies or counterinsurgency forces and to “pacify” the provide effective rural development or resource area. Combat zones experience considerable management programs. This exacerbates damage from the fighting itself. War and conditions with the rural poor. With few cash underdevelopment are usually related and have
70 many indirect repercussions for wilderness. The in-country support that does exist for An example of indirect impact is provided in protecting wildlands in most third world Nicaragua. Their national treasury depleted by countries has been achieved with difficulty and years of strife the government has, in desperate has more often than not arisen out of a effort to pay for imported energy, recently growing awareness about the importance of the agreed to allow both Honduran and Costa following kinds of non-recreational benefits, Rican companies to enter previously protected most of which are essential for sustaining wildland areas inside Nicaragua in order to regional or local development: harvest timber. 1. Maintaining the environmental stability The massive disruption of protected areas of the surrounding region. This entails by military and civil disturbance is stabilizing the water regimen or the intensity of overshadowed by the human misery, floods and dry periods, decreasing the rates of desperation and desolation caused by these soil and wind erosion and ameliorating local activities. From a long term conservation microclimatic conditions such as protected perspective, however, one cannot ignore the areas in India and Nepal like Manas NP. destruction of the protected area systems, for example, of Angola, Mozambique, Uganda, 2. Protecting the public’s investment in Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iran, Cambodia, infrastructure such as hydroelectric or irrigation Nicaragua and El Salvador. projects which are huge investments for any developing country. The loss of reservoir and power generating capacity as a result of THE IMPORTANCE OF FOCUSING ON sedimentation and dramatic fluctuations in THE NON-RECREATIONAL BENEFITS water regimen have become serious problems PROVIDED BY WILDERNESS IN ORDER for many countries in recent years (Quesada TO FACILITATE PROTECTION and Wallace 1985). As a result, watershed protection is starting to be included as part of In developing countries that have large the anticipated costs of most hydroelectric or numbers of rural and urban poor it goes irrigation projects funded by the World Bank without saying that most people have neither or sponsored by USAID and other development the time, money or the cultural predisposition organizations. Examples include: Canaima NP for outdoor recreation that is found in the in Venezuela, Sinhara River in Sri Lanka, and developed world. In situations where a large Dumoga-Bone NP in Indonesia. percentage of the population is still involved in small scale farming it is less likely that those 3. The protection of quantity and quality who work physically in the outdoors will opt of domestic water supplies. The procurement to spend available free time in a wilderness and treatment of water is a costly process. setting. Environmental groups that support the These costs are frequently minimized by the protection of wildlands are beginning to appear presence of protected watersheds and forest in the larger cities of many developing reserves that are close to urban areas. Such countries. Few of these constituencies areas have the potential to serve as wildlands however, have members that defend, or like that provide many benefits to the local their counterparts elsewhere, demand population and it is in such areas that there is wilderness as a result of their coming to know perhaps the highest level of interest in wildland and love such areas via personal recreational management (Wallace, 1985). La Tigra experiences (Barborak, Morales, 1987). On the National Park near Tegucigalpa, Honduras contrary, protected areas in developing comprises a minor portion of the watershed countries often lack the staff or budget to land area but provides the city with a provide access, facilities or information for disproportionate amount of it’s water supply the local people even though there may be quality of which requires considerably less outfitters present who cater to foreigners who treatment than the water from the rest of the come for recreation or nature tourism (Ingram watershed area. Among many other examples and Durst, 1987). are the Rio Macho/I’apanti Wildlife and Watershed Protection Area in Costa Rica and the Mome Trois Pitons NP in Dominica.
71 previously unrecognized wildland values and 4. Maintaining the productive capacity of resources (I,aarman and Perdue, 1987). ecosystems. Wildland protected areas serve as sources of wild breeding stock for a variety of 7. Tourism that brings visible benefits to plant and animal products that are important the local economy. There is some resentment renewable, harvestable resources for the local about preserving third world wildlands (that economy. Protected areas serve as might otherwise be exploited for their indispensal~:le nesting, calving, spawning areas consumable resonrces) for the benefit of first for species uporl which local people depend for world tourists and scientists. In countries like bushmeat, wildlife products such as hides and Kenya, Costa Rica or Nepal, however, the ve1!0m, or plants ‘a~(! animals reared from benefits Fi)m wildland tnrlr;s~t! h:~vc been wiidstock ior ~M~XH such ;!s cular$, periwG&le raotlr.:ea1>?e e~ougi) r!lrar ipA deciGon makers crocodiles, ornamental fish or butt&lies and the general public have come to recognxlizt: (HJCN,UNEP, 1.984). the value of protected wildlands to the local. economy. In these countries it has become 5. Genetic and Species Conservation. more acceptable to enforce the boundaries and Increasingly, national leaders, government regulations of protected areas. Costa Rica officials and environmental groups, even in the recently used their civil guard to remove poorest countries; are being exposed to the several hundred illegal subsistence gold miners worldwide concern about the importance of from remote and roadless areas of Corcovado protecting a wide range of biomes and species National Park. What would haye been seer, as communities. The international scientific a bold and risky move in many countries went community together with non-governmental smoothly and was accepted by the public. organizations like the IUCN, World Wildlife Costa Ricans have come to recognize the value Federation, Worldwatch, The Nature of their wildland resources and the fact that Conservancy and programs like The United many tourists and scientists visit and return to Nations Man and the Biosphere Program, The Costa Rica specifically to experience pristine World Conservation Strategy, and others have backcountry in a tropical setting (I,aarman and made an attempt to reach national leaders and Perdue, 1987). to move ahead with their own wildland protection projects. In some cases this This list of non-recreation;\! benefits is not awareness is, again, a result of stipulations as exhaustive as those brought forth durir!g this placed con money being loaned for development symposium, but it does serve to high.!i&t some projects by iuterllatiorlal lending and donor of the more significant reasons that organizations. Such external development wildland/wilderness areas are being protected assistance now l’requently requires the analysis in most of the world. Poverty and of a projects impacts on species and genetic underdevelopment have meant that the diversity and may require mitigation which protection of wilderness cannot yet be based includes the designation of protected areas and on a “love for wilderness” of the sort held by a interagency coordination to ensure their significant number of people i.11 the United v iabjlity. States and a few other developed countries. It is a difficult and perilous business for 6. Research. The benefits to all mankind government officials to tell thousands of rural ftom wildland research in the areas of medical poor that they cannot consume wildland pharmacology, plant breeding, environmental resources or to tell already established groups tnodification etc, - both basic and applied have that they must leave wildland protected areas. been described adequately elsewhere in these ‘I’here rnust be convincing reasons. As an proceedings. It is important to note that the awareness about the long term benefits interest in conducting research and the provided by wildlands increases, especially presence of rriore research activity in among the educated and urban public, it will developing countries has helped to make become more feasible to actually enforce the decision makers aware of the economic and regulations and wildland boundaries that often social t)enefi.ts cicrived from research. It has only exist on paper ifI Irl:rny of the countries also stin!r!la:ed “sci~:ntific tourism” and helped that are li:tciil ir: ‘I’:\t:lc ’ L%ores and Flouseal, to pt.Gflt out the I_~I~CIIIII~\C~S and importance of 1988).
‘72 long been known and is reflected in legislation Simultaneous with increasing the general like the Migratory Bird Treaty Act involving public’s awareness about the importance of Canada, Mexico and the US. Likewise, wildlands, perhaps the greatest challenges endangered plant and animal species worldwide facing officials and managers and others who depend on agreements like those developed by are concerned about wildlands am: the Convention on International Trade of (a) being able to integrate the protection Endangered Species (CITES) which has led to of wildlands into regional land-use and the creation of the Office of Scientific development planning, and Authority by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (b) improving the lot of and winning the Service. The National Park Service, the Forest support of those who live immediately adjacent Service and the USFWS have established to or within protected areas and who are international assistance units. immediately affected by restrictions on their use of the area. The interdependence of protected areas is further underlined by the Convention for the It is a reality that the future of wilderness Protection of the World”s Cultural and Natural in much of the world in a sense depends on Heritage. The World Heritage Convention the future of development. If basic human provides technical advice and financial needs are not met we can only agonize at the assistance to the most outstanding protected slow but continual loss of wild tissue. areas in the world - known as World Heritage Conventional politics, economics and Sites. The funds available, as with most government processes tend to overlook the protected amas in the world, barely scratch the values inherent in wilderness even when not surface of the needs. pressured by short term survival needs. It is therefore important that these values be The National Park systems that exist in carefully articulated and then brought forth - as many countries am frequently patterned after they have been at this conference - and U.S. and Canadian parks and the Park Service whenever possible put in the international has a long history of technical assistance in context. this area. Wilderness management is a relatively new field within the USFS, NPS, USFS and BLM (Wilderness Research Center THE ROLE OF U.S. AGENCIES 1985). The Forest Service has developed perhaps the most extensive knowledge about There now exists a considerable body of wilderness management. Many agency people knowledge that contribute to our understanding have themselves been trained in the field via about the relationship between world’s in-service training since University natural undisturbed wildlands and their importance as resource management curriculums are just gene pools, for scientific research, (medical, beginning to incorporate wilderness agricultural, industrial), and their long term management courses. In spite of wilderness role in enabling sustainable national management’s being a relatively new field in development, hence peace and prosperity the this country, Agencies like the Forest between nations. Thoreau’s claim that, “In Service should anticipate the need to assign Wilderness lies the preservation of the world” time, budget and personnel to international has now been substantiated scientifically. That programs that have already requested and will the U.S. has a stake in the protection of the continue to seek assistance in the areas of world’s wildlands goes without saying. wildland management, research, training and Precedents for U.S. public land management other support necessary for the future agency assistance to other counties have been designation of wilderness areas per se and to set and such assistance is likely to continue to make effective wilderness and wildland expand into the area of wilderness management a reality in more than just a management. handful of countries which is now the case. Such assistance can be an important part of the The interdependence that many species of overall international development effort that wildlife found in the United States have with must take place for many years to come. wildlands in other parts of the Americas has
73 REFERENCES Ingram, C. and Denise and Patrick Durst, 1987. “Nature Oriented Tourism by U.S. Barborak, J. and Morales, R., 1987, Based Tour Operators”, FPEI (Forestry unpublished papers, Wildlands Program, Private Enterprise Initiative) Working CATIE, (Centro Agromomico Tropical de Paper No. 28 Investigation y Ensenanza), Turrialba, Costa Rica. IUCN, 1985, United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas, IUCN Gland Dourjeanni, M. (personal communication with and Cambridge, 1985. author) June 1984, Gland Switzerland. Laarman J. G. and Richard R. Perdue 1987. Eidsvik, Harold K. 1987. Wilderness Policy - “A Survey of Return Visits to Costa Rica An International Prospective. ~~54-68, In: by OTS Participants and Associates”, FPEI Lucas, Robert C. Proceedings - National Working Paper No. 6 Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-knowledge, Future Directions. McCloskyMichael J., and Heather Spalding, 1985. July 23-26; Fort Collins, CO. Gen. 1987, ” A Reconnaissance-Level Inventory Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Of The Wilderness Remaining In The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, World”, Sierra Club, Washington DC. Intermountain Research Station, Mosley, G. “Our Last Great Wilderness, Eidsvik, Harold K. 1988. “Wilderness Australian Conservation Foundation, Sanctuaries”, forthcoming paper done for Melbourne, 1986. the IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas. Nash, Roderick, 1976, “Nature in World Development”, Bellagio Lectures, Eidsvik, Harold K. 1987. “The Status Of Rockerfeller Brothers, 197 8 Wilderness: An International Overview”, unpublished paper prepared for: The Shores, J.and Brian Houseal, 1988, “Of Natural Resources Journal, University of Partners and Paper Parks”, IN The Nature New Mexico Law School, Albuquerque. Conservancy Magazine, Vol 38, number 1, Jan.- Feb. Eidsvik, Harold K. 1985. Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference, Quesada, C., and Wallace, G., 1985, “El Ft. Collins, Colorado, July 1985. Manejo de Las Cuencas Hidrographicas” ( Watershed Management), audio- visual Estes Park Colorado, 1987, Proceedings - with booklet, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Fourth World Wilderness Congress” Rica. Gomez Pompa and Andrea Kaus, 1987, “The United States Wilderness Act, Public Law 88- Conservation of Resources by Traditional 577, 88th Congress, S.4 Sept. 3 1964. Cultures in the Tropics”, presented at the 4th World Wilderness Congress, Estes Wallace, George, 1985, “Cuanto Vale El Agua” Park, Colorado, 1987. ( How Much Is Water Worth), audio-visual with booklet, produced for CATIE and IUCN/UNEP, 1986, Managing Protected Areas Acueductos y Alcantarillados (A y A, the in the Tropics, MacKinnonJ and K., Child National Water Utility), San Jose, Costa and Thorsell, editors, IUCN Conservation Rica. Monitoring Center, Cambridge, UK. Wilderness Research Center, 1985, “Wilderness IUCN/SCAR, 1986, “Conservation in the Management - A Five Year Action Plan”, Antarctic”, report of the Working Group University of Idaho, Moscow. on Long Term Conservation in the Antarctic, Gland, Switzerland.
74 World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, Our Common Future, Gro Harlem Brundtland, chairperson, Oxford University Press, New York.
75 PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DIVERSITY: THE ROLE OF ECOSYSTEM REPRESENTATION WITHIN WILDERNESS
George D. Davis*
ABSTRACT practical sense, depends on the preservation of a full range of functioning ecosystems. The value of preserving the natural diversity of the United States’ 261 major The benefits, material and esthetic, of terrestrial ecosystems is defined and maximum diversity are well documented, so I preservation efforts on public lands in the will not reiterate in detail the myriad values to National Wilderness Preservation System be derived from ecosystem preservation. The (NWPS) are reviewed. One hundred and four literature clearly documents both the major ecosystems not protected in the NWPS anthropocentric and the biocentric values of are identified and some opportunities to such preservation (Norton 1985; Norse and include such systems with the NWPS are others 1986; Randall 1985). discussed. Inclusion within the NWPS of representative samples of all 261 major Advocates of wilderness should never terrestrial ecosystems of the United States is forget, for all the heated debate, that wilderness advocated. preservation is a mechanism for granting future generations optimal enjoyment of an array of natural landscapes and ecosystems. We must INTRODUCTION recognize, however, that wilderness protection is but one mechanism for protecting selected Scientists have long extolled the portions of our natural landscape. National importance of preserving the widest possible parks, nature preserves, and similar legal spectrum of life forms. It is only in recent reservations also play important roles in years, however, that lay conservationists and determining what this generation will pass on political leaders have understood that the to the next. preservation of natural diversity may very well be vital to the survival of the human race. The quality of life of future generations will Legal Basis benefit significantly if this generation takes steps to ensure the preservation of portions of The National Forest Management Act all the major ecosystems represented on this (16 U.S.C. 1600) speaks to the importance of planet. natural diversity, and throughout the Act a regard for future generations is clearly evident. By definition, natural diversity must Preserving natural diversity for future include both biological diversity and a diversity generations is only possible by understanding of physical environments. Biological diversity political feasibility, recognizing resource includes both species diversity and genetic management limitations, and respecting diversity within species. Natural diversity scientific integrity. Natural diversity is incorporates the physical environment within provided by two methods: manipulative which species interact with biological diversity. management and preservation management. Natural diversity is, therefore, synonymous Both are necessary to provide a true cross with ecosystem diversity. The preservation of section of diversity. In this paper I will limit the widest range of natural diversity, in a myself to preservation management and, more specifically, to the inclusion of representative
* Principal partner, DAVIS ASSOCIATES, Chevre Hill Farm, Wadhams, New York. 76 samples of our naturally occurring ecosystems Defining Ecosystem - A Matter of Scale in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Tansley (1935) is credited with coining the term “ecosystem”. He used the word to Preservation management insures describe a “biotic community interacting with diversity through the process of unrestrained its physical environment” (Dasmann 1972). ecological processes. In forested areas it can Thus, in the sense Tansley used the term, an provide for old growth, in a dynamic steady ecosystem could be readily mapped by state condition, which recent studies (Schoen delineating the boundaries of any particular and others 1981) have shown to be among the community. The scientific definition of most complex, diverse, and productive of all ecosystem has since become more complex, forest age classes. incorporating energy flow, soils, and physiography. Still, the basic concept as Preservation management can and should expressed by Tansley is of immense value to be pursued at various scales. The biosphere lay persons, generalists in the natural resource reserve program of LINESCOp is intended to field, public policy-makers, and government eventually contain an international network of officials. protected areas representing the major natural regions of the world (UNESCO 1984). This The Tansley concept allows us to view initiative was undertaken by ‘the International the earth as a series of ecosystems whose Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural components are dependent upon one another. Resources (Dasmann 1972) and adopted for Yet these ecosystems also interact. As Bailey UNESCO’s biosphere reserve program has pointed out, “The boundaries of (Udvardy 1975). A research natural area ecosystems, however, are never closed or program has been administratively operative on impermeable; they are open to transfer of Federal lands in the United States since 1927 energy and materials to or from other (The Nature Conservancy 1977). The ecosystems” (Bailey 1982). It is possible to biosphere reserve program generally seeks to develop a defined hierarchy of ecological units preserve large areas of the world’s major of different sizes that reflects a continuum of ecoregions whereas the research natural area ecosystems. The largest is formed by the program incorporates areas at a more detailed planet Earth; examples of small ecosystems scale for specific ecological baseline purposes. include a narrowly limited, homogeneous stand Both programs exist primarily for scientific of vegetation or a small pond. Since purposes. ecosystems are spatial systems, they will be consistently inserted, or nested, into each other Wilderness at the national level and in (Bailey 1982). the legal sense can only be created by Congress. Furthermore, the 1964 Wilderness As an aside, it is useful to note that in Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). which created the choosing an appropriate definition of ecosystem National Wilderness Preservation System, and an appropriate hierarchical classification specifies that whereas scientific value may be a system, the purpose to which the definition and part of the basis for wilderness classification, it resultant classification system is to be put must is not mandatory and, at least by inference, not be considered. When the purpose behind the preeminent. Still, it would be difficult to choice of an ecosystem classification scheme is overstate the scientific and educational values to preserve representative samples of of wilderness. ecosystems, the plant and animal components of such systems determine the minimum Although all of the preservation methods critical size for reserves. Larger reserves tend we have are important, I intend in this paper to to reduce or prevent the loss of individual dwell on the potential role of wilderness as a species and communities (Diamond 1975; method for preserving ecological diversity for Torborgh 1975). Recent studies by Newmark future generations. (1987) confii this insofar as mammalian extinctions in Western North American parks am concerned.
77 Early effn-s at mapping ecosystems Forest Service provides enough detail to be centered around the vegetative element. For biologically significant yet broad enough to be example, Clements (Weaver and Clements easily understood by lay persons. 1938) described and mapped major climax plant communities. A year later Clements The Bailey-Kuchler system, as it became worked with animal ecologist Victor Shelford known, readily lends itself to further to develop the concept of the biome, an area refinement; e.g., it places little emphasis on defined by climax vegetation and its associated aquatic ecosystems. Furthermore, the small animal life (Clements and Shelford 1939). The scale (1:7,500,000) obviously omits much biome concept is particularly useful because it on-the-ground heterogeneity. Federal Research is based on readily visible species. Since it Natural Area programs, the Experimental relies on the climax vegetative type, it is most Ecological Reserve program (Institute of useful in areas where human disturbance has Ecology 1977). and the individual States were been minimal--areas where a wilderness encouraged to refine this system to help ensure classification has not yet been forgone. that representative samples of the United States’ natural heritage would be set aside for posterity. THE SECOND NATIONAL FOREST ROADLESS AREA REVIEW AND In evaluating diversity in the National EVALUATION (RARE !I) Wilderness Preservation System, the Forest Service defined adequate representation of each In 1977 the Forest Service, an agency of Bailey-Kuchler ecosystem as two or more the U.S. Department of Agriculture, undertook distinct examples of at least 400 hectares a review of 62 million acres (24,800,OOO apiece. This definition left a margin of error hectares) of roadless and undeveloped lands for mistaken or atypical classifications. In under its jurisdiction to determine which of addition, if preservation of a nation’s basic these lands should be incorporated into the ecosystems is a legitimate objective, it was National Wilderness Preservation System recognized that the areas selected as (NWPS). Early in the process the Forest representative must epitomize that particular Service decided that preference would be given ecosystem. In reality, of course, optimum in allocating roadless areas to wilderness if the spatial requirements would vary with addition of the areas would increase the ecosystems; 400 hectares was determined to be diversity of the NWPS (USDA 1978a). only a reasonable minimum. In its RARE II program, the Forest Service merged two widely accepted national The Impact of RARE II on Ecosystem ecological classifications: Bailey’s ecoregion Preservation in the United States concept (Bailey 1976) and potential natural vegetation (Kuchler 1966; Ewe1 and Whitmore As a result of the RARE II program and 1973). This produced a particularly strong the political process of formally designating system emphasizing both factors from the wilderness areas, 157 of the United States’ 261 physical environment such as climate and soil, basic ecosystems are now represented in the and factors of the biological environment such NWPS (Davis 1987) compared to 131 prior to as vegetation. (Vegetation generally defines RARE II (USDA 1978b). At least 11 more the animal life in an area.) Using this system, unrepresented ecosystems are in national parks the Forest Service mapped 242 distinct and wildlife refuges that have been ecosystems in the United States and Puerto recommended for wilderness designation but Rico (USDA 1978a). Refinement by Bailey are still awaiting Congressional action. (1980) and Davis (1980, 1984, 1987) brought Thirteen others are represented in national the actual number to 261. While other parks not recommended for the NWPS. classification systems could be designed to describe the vast natural diversity found on Since the Bureau of Land Management lands administered by the Forest Service in (BLM) of the U.S. Department of the Interior perhaps as few as 50 or as many as 500 basic has also agreed to use the Bailey-Kuchler ecosystems, the one chosen for use by the concept of ecosystem representation as a
78 criterion in its current wilderness studies, it is Wilderness Congresses. This report should expected that diversity within the NWPS will include recommendations for the designation of be considerably increased. Because of the additional wilderness or similar protected areas Forest Service and BLM decisions to adopt to expand the representation of ecosystems and diversification of the NWPS in the United therefore preserve a wider array of biological Sates as a criterion for wilderness designation, diversity.” I estimate that the number of ecosystems represented in the NWPS will have been hqeanwhile the i rest Service’s increased by 50 percent, from 131 to an commitment in the 197’7- 1979 RARE II estimated 200, between 1978 and the end of period seems to have waned. Anticipated the century--if our public land managing wilderness recommendations for the Mexican agencies do not lose their commitment to this Highlands-Grams Tobosa and Palouse- criterion, Wheatgrass Bluegrass ecosystems did not materialize. Forest Service support for It is anticipated that most, but not all, of wilderness recommendations in the Shortgrass the forest and desert ecosystems in the United Prairie-Grama Buffalo Grass, Shortgrass States will be represented in the NWPS by the Prairie-Juniper Pinyon, and Upper Gila year 2000. Unfortunately, few of the fertile Mountains-Grama Galleta Steppe ecosystems native grassland ecosystems are likely to be was withdrawn. Precious few national forest represented since most of these lands are in management plans developed in the last decade private ownership and lack the scenic splendor use ecosystem representation as a criterion for that spurs the citizenry to seek wilderness determining wilderness recommendation. designations. The scientific community must Forest Service testimony before Congress on play a more active political role if truly diverse proposed wilderness legislation has been areas are to be preserved as wilderness. generally silent about the desirability of increasing the diversity within the NWPS. More remains to be done, but an This silence has resulted in lost opportunities impressive step forward to ensure the for preserving the last known undeveloped preservation of ecosystem diversity has been remnants of at least two, and likely more, taken in the United States. major ecosystems. Although such areas often lack the dramatic, high country appeal that has come to be associated with wilderness, THE NEXT STEP professional resource managers should emphasize the importance of preserving Whereas the Forest Service pioneered the samples of all resources. concept of using ecosystem representation a decade ago, its leadership role has since been One question in particular needs to be eclipsed. First, the Bureau of Land asked: Why has the Forest Service lost Management embraced the concept and interest in preserving samples of the major included it as a key criterion in its ongoing ecosystems it manages while other agencies roadless area review. Then, during an and nations are increasingly recognizing the international assemblage of government great importance of doing so? The 1989 officials and scientists at the Fourth World Resources Planning Act (RPA) assessment Wilderness Congress in September 1987, a offers an excellent opportunity for the agency major initiative was advanced. Representatives to reassert its commitment both to the of 62 nations voted unanimously for a preservation of natural diversity and to the resolution calling for the preservation of diversification of the NWPS. “representative samples of all major ecosystems of the world to ensure the preservation of the Appendix A (available from the author full range of wilderness and biological upon request) lists all units of the NWPS, as divenity”. * This resolution went on to request well as equivalent State wilderness systems and that the International Union for Conservation national parks, by the Bailey-Kuchler of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) ecosystem(s) they include. In addition, this “appoint a task force to prepare a status report table identifies the 80 major ecosystems within to be presented at the Fifth and future World the United States that are not yet represented
79 in any preservation-oriented system, i.e., 5. After a national survey to determine NWPS, national park, State wilderness, The which ecosystems can only be preserved by 1989 RPA assessment might recognize these State action, the Federal government should “missing links” and encourage all public land encourage, support, and, as appropriate, managing agencies to review their undeveloped subsidize effective State wilderness lands for opportunities to fill these gaps in the preservation systems that protect ecosystems preservation system. not available for preservation in the NWPS. 6. The Forest Service should use its OUR LEGACY, THEIR HERITAGE international influence to promote the worldwide preservation of representative What prouder natural resource legacy ecosystems either through expansion and could we leave future generations and what refinement of the UNESCO biosphere reserve richer natural resource heritage could they program or other, more detailed, programs. enjoy than a wilderness system that includes representation of all of this nation’s major 7. The Federal government and academic ecosystems? institutions should continue to investigate and refine ecosystem classifications and define Ecosystem-representation should be adequate spatial requirements for their adopted as a fundamental criterion for preservation as functioning units. wilderness designation. Such action would show that our generation cares deeply for our heritage and for the legacy we leave for future REFERENCES generations. A fundamental charge to this generation should be to help ensure that our Bailey, Robert G. 1976. Ecoregions of the children and grandchildren may know and United States. USDA Forest Service, cherish the wonders of all our natural systems, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah. Map. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS Bailey, Robert G. 1980. Description of the Ecoregions of the United States. USDA 1. Congress should be encouraged to act Forest Service, Misc. Pub. 1391, on those wilderness recommendations pending Washington, D.C. 77 pp. before it, particularly those of the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service that Bailey, Robert G. 1982. Classification Systems have been awaiting action for more than a for Habitat and Ecosystems. In: decade. Research on Fish and Wildlife Habitat. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2. The Bureau of Land Management EPA 600/8-82-022: 16-26. Washington, should be commended for using ecosystem D.C. 248 pp. representation as a criterion in its wilderness studies; such representation should be a leading Clements, F.E. and V.E. Shelford. 1939. criterion when ecosystems not presently Bioecology. John Wiley, New York. represented in the NWPS are considered. Crumpacker, David W. 1986. Status/Trends 3. The Forest Service should reassert its of US. Natural Ecosystems. Office of commitment both to the preservation of natural Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, diversity and to the diversification of the Washington, D.C. 71 pp. NWPS in the 1989 RPA assessment. Dasmann, Raymond F. 1972. Towards a 4. National Forest Management plans System for Classifying Natural Regions should be required to include a review of all of the World and Their Representation roadless areas and to recommend wilderness by National Parks and Reserves. In: designation for those that would fill an Biological Conservation 4(4): 247-255. ecosystem gap in the NWPS.
80 Davis, George D. 1980. The Case for Extinctions in Western North American Wilderness Diversity. American Forests Parks. In: Nature 325 (29): pp. 430-432. 86(8): 24-27, 60-63. Norse, Elliott A., K.L. Rosenbaum, D.S. Davis, George D. 1984. Natural Diversity for Wilcove, B.A. Wilcox, W.H. Romme, Future Generations: The Role of D.W. Johnson and M.L. Stout for The Wilderness. Pp. 141-154 In: Natural Ecological Society of America. 1986. Diversity in Forest Ecosystems, Conserving Biological Diversity *in Our Proceedings of the Workshop, (Eds. J.L. National Forests. The Wilderness Cooley and J. H. Cooley) Institute of Society, Washington, D.C. 116 pp. Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 290 pp. Norton, Bryan G. 1985. Values and Biological Diversity. Contract Paper No. 2, Office Davis, George D. 1987. Ecosystem of Technology Assessment, U.S. Representation as a Criterion for World Congress. Washington, D.C. 38pp. Wilderness Designatiorh Wild Wings Foundation, c/o DAVIS ASSOCIATES, Randall, Alan. 1985. An Economic Perspective Chevre Hill Farm, Wadhams, NY 12990. of the Valuation of Biological Diversity. 86 PP. Contract Paper No. 1, Office of J/’ Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Diamond, J. M. 1975. The Island Dilemma: Washington, D.C. 40 pp. Lessons of Modem Biogeographical Studies for the Design of Nature Schoen, John W., O.C. Wallmo and Matthew Reserves. In: Biological Conservation D. Kirchhoff; 1981; Wildlife - Forest (7): pp. 129-146. Relationships: Is A Reevaluation of Old-growth Necessary?; Transactions, Ewel, J.J. and J.L. Whitmore. 1973. The 46: 531-544. 46th North American Ecological Life Zones of Puerto Rico Wildlife and Natural Resources and the U.S. Virgin Islands. USDA Conference. Forest Service, Research Paper ITF-18, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 72 pp. Tansley, A.G. 1935. The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms. In: Hendee, John C., George H. Stankey and Ecology (16): 284-307. Robert C. Lucas; 1978; Wilderness Management; USDA Forest Service Terborgh, J. 1975. Fauna1 Equilibria and the Misc. Publ. 1365. Design of Wildlife Preserves. pp.369-380 in: Tropical Ecological Systems: Trends Institute of Ecology. 1977. Experimental in Terrestrial and Aquatic Research (F. Ecological Reserves: A Proposed Golley and E. Medina, editors). National Network. U.S. Government Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. Printing Office 038-000-00321-6, Washington, D.C. 40 pp. Udvardy, M.D.F. 1975. A Classification of the Biogeographical Provinces of the World. Kuchler, A.W. 1966. Potential Natural IUCN Occasional Papaer No. 18, Vegetation (Map). National Atlas of the Morges, Switzerland. 49 pp. United States: pp. 89-92. USDI, Geological Survey, Washington, DC. United National Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1984. The Nature Conservancy; 1977; Preserving Our Action Plan-for Biosphere Reserves. In: Natural Heritage, Vol. 1, Federal Nature and Resources (XX) 4. Activities; USGPO. U.S. department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Newmark, William D. 1987. A Land-Bridge 1978a. Roadless Area Review and Island Perspective on Mammalian Evaluation (RARE II) Draft Environmental Statement 78-04. USDA
81 Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 112 pp. and 2 maps. U.S. Department of Agricuhe, Forest Service. 1978b. RARE II National Analysis. Updated mimeo. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Weaver, J.E. and F.E. Clements. 1938. Plant Ecology, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. 601 pp.
ENDNOTES
1. From Resolution 25 adopted by the Fourth World Wilderness Congress at Denver and Estes Park, CO, September 12-18, 1987.
82 WILDERNESS AND THE PROTECTION OF GENETIC DIVERSITY
Christine Schonewald-Cox and Thomas J. Stohlgren*
ABSTRACT includes the encroachment of rapidly growing human populations that are placing increased Merely “designating” areas or pressures on their habitats (Dahlberg and others establishing laws does not guarantee the 1985, Diamond 1987). protection of biological and genetic diversity. Similarly, it does not guarantee the The National Wilderness Preservation preservation of naturally functioning System (NWPS) has undoubtedly provided a ecosystems. To achieve protection we must structural framework for preventing rapid reassess the goals, objectives and unique human encroachment and habitat destruction contributions of wilderness in preserving within the boundaries of wilderness areas biological and genetic diversity. We must (Reed 1988). Along with the designation of study social and economic impacts on wilderness areas, however, comes the challenge protection of wilderness areas. We must to successfully develop a management evaluate the relationships between wilderness framework. This framework should (1) protect areas and adjacent habitats/land uses, naturally functioning ecosystems and (2) including critical habitats not yet protected. actively protect biological and genetic diversity We need also to establish jirmly the within wilderness areas (Hendee and others advantages of designating wilderness areas. 1978, Freeman 1986). “Each species is a storehouse of Definitions of terms used throughout the irreplaceable genetic material text follow. Unlike “biological diversity” that whose loss we cannot afford.” includes all the diversity comprising life, - Dasmann 1978 “genetic diversity” is a specialized term referring to the genetic variation existing at or We would like to begin by discussing below the species level, within and between protection, the value of our specific types of populations. genetic diversity, and our concept of the importance of wilderness to the protection of The Endangered Species Act defines an genetic and biological diversity. In response to endangered species as one that is close to the editors’ request, we will emphasize extinction throughout all or a significant part threatened and endangered species and genetic of its range. A threatened species is one m diversity of species yet undiscovered but of to become endangered in the future. In potential value to humankind. preserving genetic diversity, we must also be concerned with “rare” species. Norris (1987) Maybe it was foresight that when defines a numerically rare species as one with Yellowstone National Park was dedicated in a few individuals, and a geographically rare 1872, its purpose was as a “reservation of its species as one that are abundant in a local area territory from private occupancy so that it may but not found away from that small geographic remain in unrestricted freedom.” Though it area. The latter may possess unique physical may be common knowledge to most field and/or behavioral characteristics worthy of managers, the conservation research community preservation despite the lack of preservation is only now beginning to appreciate that status given threatened and endangered species. humans pose a significant if not the greatest threat to the survival of most species. This
* Research Scientist and Ecologist respectively at the Cooperative National Par-h Resources Studies Unit, Institute of Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA. 83 PROTECTION OF BIOLOGICAL AND This would imply the ability to restore GENETIC DIVERSITY resilience of a population to withstand ecological pressures, natural selection and While some species are rare for reasons random (unpredictable) fluctuations in local such as low density or restriction to one survival. (See Shaffer 1981, Schonewald-Cox locality, and some species face natural and others 1983, and Harris 1986 for extinction, most of contemporary extinction is treatments of these subjects.) at least anthropogenic. Space limitations, pollution, and acid rain may be indirect causes of decline, whereas. direct anthropogenic effects Accomplishing Protection such as poaching are more obvious contributors to numerical declines. If we wish to slow and Protection can be accomplished for the halt the loss of species, to what values can we present by a variety of methods in-habitat and appeal to insure dedication of land and funds out-of-habitat (used for in situ and ex situ, for their protection? Myers (1987) and others respectively). In-habitat we have the (Oldfield 1984, Prescott-Allen and Prescott- opportunity of setting aside sufficient acreage Allen 1986) have attempted to itemize the of suitable land, preferably optimal habitat, that values of nature to_humankind. We feel it is well protected. Enforcement and preferable not to have to do this. Esthetics and management should be sufficiently strong to cultural values are not generally shared, restore the population (species) to short-term however. Fortunately, within our culture we stability, at least. Successive efforts towards are seeing some large-scale changes. A 1985 protection of genetic diversity, such as Harris poll, for example, showed the concept protection by law with the Endangered Species of “value” in the U.S. has changed with 63 Act, Migratory Bird Act and a potential percent of Americans placing a greater priority biodiversity act, can increase the long-term on “environmental cleanup” than on economic survival probability for focal populations and growth (Harris 1985). Although the issue of peripheral fragments. These laws act together values is not resolved, we can appeal to values with land management, modification of at the economic and cultural (recreational and behavior, and species management to achieve esthetic, at least) levels. protection. Out-of-habitat protection can work to Objective of Protection insulate a gene pool from loss of habitat and exploitation. Reproduction can be controlled What is the objective of threatened and as can environment and competition or endangered species protection? At the very predation. However, limited space, food and least it is only to avert an inevitable extinction. medical care affect the evolution of the At the most, it is to maintain or increase species. Under such evolving conditions, species numbers to viability in the face of expanded measures of germplasm storage and current ecological and evolutionary changes. concurrent in-habitat protection can counteract While major efforts are concentrated on the the inadvertent changes in genetic diversity. subject of viability, there is no single formula They are also high-tech and comparatively that works generically across species. expensive management techniques, such as Requirements for viability are variable between embryo storage and transfer. These out-of- localities and within and between species. (For habitat techniques can also act favorably to a recent treatment of the subject see Soule increase the effective population size, shorten 1987.) Instead, it is the demographic generation time, and counteract stochastic estimates, ranges of desired growth, and events at the demographic and catastrophic estimated genetic variability that can be levels, and are therefore essential to protection provided to synthesize estimates of viability in general. requirements. Some progress is being made in this area for spotted owl and grizzly bear (Bolger and others 1986). Restoring viability of populations and species should be the objective of protection of genetic diversity.
84 HOW WILDERNESS CAN PROTECT We have perhaps the greatest species DIVERSITY diversity in the humid tropics. But, we have no guarantee that the impact of discovery is Wilderness designation may help protect greatest just from tropical species. The biological and genetic diversity. Wilderness variability we seek may be different major areas are usually greater than 5000 acres (Reed phenotypes rather than taxa. Different 1988). Large size wilderness confers phenotypes within species respond differently protection at an in-habitat scale and permits to “polarized” natural selection extremes across species to express behavioral and other a species’ range. phenotypic variation not otherwise possible. It may buffer against boundary intrusion by impacts, and facilitate natural forces to act on Economic Value of Genetic Diversity large scales. Conversely, it is likely to soften conflicts posing threats to surrounding land In 1979, Arthur found that public support ownership. I for maintaining species diversity was based largely on ecological and existence values. There are costs resulting from this Driver and others (1987) maintain that few preference for large+5000 acre) size. published articles on wilderness preservation Administrative decisions regarding protection have contributed to the appraisal of economic may be difficult to influence or enforce. For benefits of diversity. They note that while example, day-today support for monitoring only a small percentage of species are found in species may not be available; complacence can designated wilderness, and their numbers are exist undetected; sampling may be forcibly comparatively small, even their future benefits localized in planning and management and am unknown. may, therefore, miss some genetic diversity (including ecotypes) existing in non-sampled Questioned about the value of genetic parcels. diversit , what have others said? The range of uses, oxen including travel, pharmacy, Preference for large size can cause us to toothpaste, or bread made from stoneground miss inclusion in the wilderness system of grain, reflects our dependence on diversity important habitats, such as in riparian zones, (Myers 1987) The value of genetic diversity, natural islands, urban parks and corridors and directly related to the quality of life, is more nodes in agricultural areas. Some areas are not than an inference. The replacement costs for necessarily best protected in single, large some species (including genes), were they to reserves (Quinn and Robinson, 1987). disappear, would go beyond our affordable monetary ranges. The fact is the value of a species is more than just quantitative. This is Human Value of Genetic Diversity hard for some to reconcile, unfortunately, with the concept of value. We may assume that most endangered species have been identified and their listing lobbied for because someone knew of their Affixing Potential Value to Diversity rarity and proposed a listing based partially on (1) esthetics, (2) function of the species in the How does one defend the value of ecosystem, (3) recreation, (4) curiosity and (5) species of yet undiscovered cultural or the notion that to value the species was seen as economic value? As mentioned earlier, we a reflection of broader values. Regardless of have not yet come across any means to assess the motivating initiative for proposed listing, the broad array of values. If there were an easy those involved certainly sensed responsibility answer, our methods of proactive conservation (whether to the species, to themselves, to would be farther ahead, better received and human kind in general or all of these). They more soundly supported. There is yet no likely sensed the irreversibility of the loss if it failsafe path for making such assessments. were to occur, and likely felt a desire to (Discovery does not necessarily occur where awaken others regarding the potential loss. the greatest investments have been made.) Consider wheat, barley, oats, alfalfa, and rice.
85 Just these five species represent the majority of wilderness area cannot contain roads, it may be the world’s nutritious consumption. It would bordered by them. Adjacent land use may have been hard to predict that these few weedy involve a policy of fire suppression in contrast species could be so vital to human survival in to regulated burning in a wilderness area, as both temperate and tropical regions. These do with Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks not represent great species diversity. They do, (Bancroft and Partin 1979). Moreover, the however, represent enormous genetic landscape may include nearby rural or urban manipulation, investment, and learning. They development. In the case of rural represent contrasting values related to profit, development, mining, industry, agriculture, and trade, treaties, and good will that, taken as a rural towns may be close to the border; in the category of species, represent a keystone to case of the urban development, the nearest human survival. major city and associated industries may be spreading rapidly to the borders of the Genetic diversity may increase in value wilderness (as is the case with Saguaro at an entirely different level, such as in National Monument and the city of Phoenix). photography for commercials and magazines, film making, and television tourism. In these, the diversity and its value is contained in the Internal Control Over Wilderness ambience, the poetic;, daring, affectionate, and generally esthetic components of nature. The From the internal perspective, the diversity contributed by genes to this use is too wilderness area is managed and regulations are complex for us to dissect here. In contrast, enforced to achieve protection. Enforcement when something is awry and significant may take on many aspects depending upon the components of diversity are lost, the value regulations, what is and is not permitted within judgement changes. Who could have guessed the geographic limits of the wilderness area one or two hundred years ago that someone (Schonewald-Cox 1988). It may be that would lose sleep over condors, dusky seaside numerous visitors come, and regulations are set sparrows, or African “killer” bees? It works in down to limit the number of people that can both directions. How many are anxious today enter the wilderness at any one time. to find whether something can be done with Wilderness permits may assist in regulating the the especially potent antibiotics secreted numbers. Perhaps enforcement may entail use naturally by an obscure toad? In the case of of backcountry rangers or superintendents who the bees, the quality or value of genetic and check for incorrect uses of camp sites, illegal biological diversity can be undermined by hunting, or illegal specimen collections. inadvertent changes in the constitution of gene pools and the natural selection and ecological Management may entail manipulation of processes that follow. certain biological features to preserve a series of natural features that would otherwise disappear for lack of space or other resources THE CONTEXT IN WHICH (such as fire or succession). Management may WILDERNESS EXISTS just involve picking up after visitors to the area, and monitoring the changes in species When we are faced with evaluating and physical environment. wilderness, how much of it exists is only part of the assessment. Several other factors are appropriate. These have to do with locality, A National Park Service Example biome, geographic context, regulations, uses, and adjacent area interface (purpose of this Present NPS policy (USDI National Park volume). Service Management Policies 1978) states that “the ecosystem will constitute the unit for The wilderness area occurs in a resources management purposes in natural geographic/landscape context. It may have one areas of the National Park Service” and that of many possible shapes, most likely defined generally this is confined to one community by things other than the limits of the type. The NPS, however, recognizes the “key ecosystem (Schonewald-Cox 1988). While the to successful management will be found in
86 identifying man’s adverse influences, correcting period, if only by trampling and crowding out them, and properly regulating his future wildlife. activities.” By contrast, use by visitors is likely to It is easy to assume that by “maintaining communicate the existence, value, and purpose and restoring natural processes” we are also of the ama to others who travel there and to maintaining primeval genetic and biological those who live near the wilderness. These diversity. The term “restoring” is loosely values are likely to be passed on further. To interpreted. Whether or not contemporary this extent, the wilderness area serves as a peoples of North America had interfered with communication beacon pointing out the values natural processes, there would still be of such natural areas. Their shared use brings evolutionary shifts in both biological and communal value to an area. To communicate genetic diversity. Also, since we did interfere a sense of value and to pass on this to others in most cases (in some causing irreversible still is very important to the survival of impacts) (Freeman 1986), we cannot assume wilderness and its constituent parts. This is. as restorations are at all similar to the effects of with species preservation mentioned earlier, in that same process at an earlier time. For the realm of esthetics; it is increasingly example, 60 years of tire suppression in a important to this country. naturally high fire frequency area (i.e., every 20 years) may have resulted in the loss of Uses of Adjacent Habitat viability in fiie ephemeral herbs such as lotus. Restoring the “process” of fire cannot restore Adjacent lands can contribute to the viability of seeds, and lower genetic protection, recreation, residences, and economic diversity and perhaps lower species diversity growth. In contributing to economic growth, will result. Therefore, movements to recreate the areas adjacent to wilderness are likely to be the past can be easily misguided. Adapting to used for industry (as for mines, dams and modem and future selection with existing electricity, forestry and factories), urban diversity might be considered the priority development and recreation, and for living challenge. Restoring diversity lost to the areas; these may be compact as with system may mean restoring genotypes no developments of houses and apartments, or longer capable of surviving current local may be low density housing. They may serve selection. for urban development, becoming crowded and expensive. The lands may be used for agriculture, including crop dusting or irrigation IMPACTS systems. This may transfigure the land, as may urbanization. as in Phoenix, Miami, and Each wilderness area may suffer impacts Los Angeles. from inside or outside regardless of a responsible agency and appropriate policies. These impacts include tourism, acid rain, air Impacts and Genetic Diversity pollution, water pollution, and the propagation of alien species. Those listed are among the Genes are immediately responsive to most widespread impacts likely to affect most pollution and other stresses. Whether regions of the country. population and species flourish or become extinct will be determined by their ability to cope with the stresses. If some individuals Internal Uses carry the genetic tolerance for new changes, these will likely increase in frequency, while Tourism, the byproduct of development others less fortunate may become dormant or and beauty, brings additional people to the die out. Stress-induced changes may adjacent habitat where they rest, and demonstrate characters or bring to light species subsequently into the wilderness area to or genotypes of particular commercial or participate in the wilderness experience. The esthetic interest. One can predict with latter may be innocent in intent but may also certainty that diversity that is lost is not likely create pressures on a small area within a short to be of any use regardless of its previous
87 potential. Therefore, land use in and adjacent As for protection of species of yet to wilderness areas needs to be planned and undetected value, or protecting diversity for monitored, and additional support is needed for future generations, we do not know what future cooperation and long-term inter-institutional generations will cherish. We can take only our planning and monitoring. present values and carry these forward. So it is especially clear that we need to identify While the focus of preservation may be them, bearing in mind their implications for at the geographic level (i.e., to protect and protection and human development. maintain representative habitats or ecosystems) and will automatically include much diversity, this is not all inclusive. Benefits can be Unique Features of Wilderness derived from protection at the species or population level; such as has been done for The title “wilderness area” is consistent threatened and endangered species. Keystone throughout the United States within and species and ecotypes are still overlooked as between agencies. While the specific mandates justification for establishment of protection of agencies vary considerably, there are some despite their dominating roles in ecological commonalities that are apparent in designated processes. -. wilderness. One of the interesting characteristics of wilderness areas is that they In establishing our goals, we should assimilate the collective benefits of their assess continually the viability of all focal agencies. They represent different scopes of species in our care. This should include protection. They have different administrations evaluations of population trends both within protecting them and therefore experience and in areas adjacent to wilderness areas. different management techniques. This Proposed changes in land use and external provides the inter-agency wilderness system threats such as pollution, alien species, with an insurance against overdevelopment and invasions, etc. need consistent and thorough exposure promoted by a single agency. There evaluations. We should recognize and follow is an associated spreading of risks. The through with the support to both research and interagency network provides a supra-structure resources management. of management that will ensure that some form of wilderness protection persists into the future. Problems of Protecting Genetic Diversity in Besides offering us an opportunity to Wilderness learn different long-term effects of adjacent land uses and management, the effort to protect Too little attention is given to how wilderness offers the opportunity to create wilderness areas are designed (recognizing that cooperative linkage between agencies. This in most instances there is little leeway for could strengthen the quality of wilderness choice). How will protection expectations be management and of cooperation between matched to the size, complexity, and protection agencies for other protection activities. investment? How will the management fit the objectives of the agency, and of wilderness systems in general? Are management and Unique Contributions of Wilderness research support sufficient to achieve objectives? What will be done to ensure Wilderness gives us several intrinsically cooperation, maintenance, and public variable strategies for putting land aside at an development of respect and appreciation for the intermediate scale. wilderness area? How can predispose our network of wilderness areas to protect genetic The unique contributions of wilderness to and biological diversity while, at the same protecting genetic diversity, whether this time, furthering international contributions constitutes threatened and endangered species towards the protection of biodiversity and the or genes, is the geographic core. Wilderness is biosphere in general? likely to be the least disturbed of a network of public and private lands set aside for protection. Wilderness areas have the potential to function like core areas of biosphere 2. Funded research programs need to be reserves that serve as bench marks of dedicated to the ecology, demographics, environmental change, as reservoirs of behavior, genetic variability, and viability of diversity, and as focal points for protection. focal species. These programs require increased Additional protected lands surrounding the inter-institutional cooperation and collaboration. wilderness core areas can, by serving multiple purposes, be directly responsive to local human 3. Specific proportions of annual funding needs without compromising the buffer and long-term funding of wilderness areas properties they confer to the core area or should be dedicated to the synthesis of wilderness. The Biosphere Reserve model of information regarding wilderness areas and protection is respected globally. Following this biodiversity/genetic diversity. model enhances the value of Wilderness designation. 4. Continued attention must be given to external threats (i.e., anthropogenic air There is a disproportionate shortage of pollution, global warming, CO, increase, alien wilderness representing North central species invasion, etc.). Management practices grasslands and Northeastern forest. As Reed such as use of prescribed fire, handling of (1988) points out, it may not be the additions visitors, habitat rehabilitation, etc. in wilderness as much as the modifications of management areas and adjacent lands must also be of wilderness areas that we may witness in the scrutinized. coming years. How do we direct this protection and management to increase or at 5. Increased information is needed on the least project the current value of wilderness relation of human behavior to protection of areas into the future? It is easy to see from biological and genetic diversity. Wilderness the U.S. Geological Survey map that areas provide an excellent focus, and should be wilderness areas increase in size inversely to asked to contribute to our knowledge in this the colonization sequence of the United States. subject. Land cannot be requisitioned from dense landscapes, but small wilderness areas will 6. Scientists in the conservation-related have to be managed cooperatively in networks fields should be encouraged to provide of nodes and corridors up and down the sustained guidance to wilderness administrators Eastern and in the agrarian States. Where and field managers of adjacent lands on the wilderness areas are small, we may have to protection of biological and genetic diversity. settle for more humble objectives of protecting species and communities at a level appropriate 7. Wilderness areas should not be viewed to the size of the system offered (Schonewald- as single protected isolates. They should Cox 1983, Salwasser and others 1987). While function cooperatively both nationally and it may not change our expectations for internationally in habitat protection. herbaceous species, it may change them for large or medium sized vertebrates.
RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Wilderness areas require funds specifically designated for repeated inventories and monitoring of biological diversity. Genetic diversity should be routinely examined for selected species in the course of monitoring activity. Selected species should include keystone, threatened/endangered, environmental indicator and popular species and their ecotypes.
89 REFERENCES Freeman, J. 1986. The parks as genetic islands. National Parks 60( l-2): 12-17. Althur, L.M. 1979. The esthetic value of wildlife: perceptions of the American Harris, L. 1985. Current public perceptions, public and sportsmen. In: Daniels, attitudes and desires on natural resources Terry C.; Zube, Ervin H.; Driver, B.L., management. Transactions of the 50th tech. coords. Assessing amenity resource North American Wildlife and Natural values. General Technical Report RM- Resource Conference. Washington DC: 68. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department Wildlife Management Institute. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Harris, CD. 1986. The fragmented forest: Station; 1979:32-34. island biogeography theory and the preservation of biological diversity, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Bancroft, W.L. and W.A. Partin. 1979. Fire Management Plan, Sequoi and Kings Hendee, John C., George H. Stankey, and Canyon National Parks. National Park Robert C. Lucas. 1978. Wilderness Service. Three Rivers, CA. Management Handbook, U.S. Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication No. Bolger, D.T., C.C. Biehl, M. Sorice, and M. 1365. Gilpin. 1986. Estimation population size for the Yellowstone grizzly bear Myers, N. 1987. Not Far Afield: U.S. population: effects of non-poisson Interests and the Global Environment. family size distribution and breeding sex World Resources Institute Report No. ratio. Pp 3-16. In: Proceedings of the S786. Washington, D.C. Conference on Science in the National Parks. Fort Collins, CO. July 13-16, Norris, L.L. 1987. Uniform Appearance? Yes. 1986. Uniform terms? Not yet. Park Science 8(1):6. Dahlberg, K.A., M.S. Soroos, A.T. Feraru, J.E. Hat-f and B.T. Trout. 1985. Environment Oldfield, M.L. 1984. The value of conserving and the Global Arena: Actors, Values, genetic resources. USDI, National Park Policies and Futures. Duke University Service, Washington DC. Press, Durham, N.C., p. 95. Prescott-Allen, C. and Prescott-Allen R. 1986. Dasmann, R. 1978. “Wildlife and The fist resource: wild species in the Ecosystems.” p. 18-27. In Brokaw, H.P., North American economy. Yale ed. Wildlife and America. U.S. University Press, New Haven, CT. Eopmment Printing Office, Washington, . . Quinn, J.F., and G.R. Robinson. 1987. The effects of experimental subdivision on Diamond, J.M., K.D. Bishop, and S.V. Balen. flowering plant species diversity in a 1987. Bird survival in an isolated Javan California annual grassland. J. Ecol. woodland: island or mirror? Cons. Biol. 75:837-856. 1(2):132-142. Reed, Patrick C. 1989. The National Driver, B.L., R. Nash and G. Haas. 1987. Wilderness Preservation System: The Wilderness benefits: a state of the First 23 Years and Beyond (this volume). knowledge review. Pp. 294-319, In: Proceedings National Wilderness Salwasser, H., C.M. Schonewald-Cox, and R.J. Conference: Issues, State of Knowledge, Baker. 1987. The role of interagency Future Decisions. R.C. Lucas (Compiler) cooperation in managing for viable USDA Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-220. populations. In: M.E. Soule (ed.) Viable populations. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
90 Schonewald-Cox, C.M. 1988. Boundaries in the protection of nature reserves; translating multi-disciplinary knowledge into practical conservation. Bioscience (In Press). Schonewald-Cox, C.M., S.M. Chambers, B. MacBryde and L. Thomas. (eds.) 1983. Genetics and conservation. Benjamin Cumming, Menlo Park, CA. Shaffer, M.L. 1981. Minimum population sixes for species conservation. Bioscience 31:131-134. Soule, M.E. 1987. ViabIe populations. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K. (In Press). L. USDI, National Park Service. 1978. Management Policies Handbook. Part 2. pp. 7-8. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
91 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND WILDERNESS
Loretta Neuman and Kathleen M. Reinburg*
ABSTRACT and managed so as to preserve (their) natural conditions.” This paper discusses issues of wilderness management and cultural resource protection Two years later, the National Historic on Federal lands, based on the directions and Preservation Act was enacted on October 11, authorities contained in federal preservation 1966. It created the National Register of laws, the Wilderness Act, and agency Historic Places maintained by the Secretary of authorities and reguhztions. The capabilities, the Interior and established the Advisory opportunities and constraints of wilderness for Council on Historic Preservation. Section 106 the appreciation and preservation of historical of the Act requires Federal agencies to take and prehistorical sites and artifacts are into account the effects of undertakings on examined. Although conflicts may sometimes historic properties and to give the Advisory occur, we believe that the goals of natural and Council an opportunity to comment. Section cultural resource management in wilderness 110 of the NHPA (added by Congress in 1980) areas are compatible and can be mutually directs federal agencies to take responsibility beneficial. Proper planning and policies for for preserving historic properties they own or dealing with cultural resources in wilderness control; to locate, inventory, and nominate to areas may need legislation to be efectuated. the Secretary of the Interior properties that appear to qualify for the National Register; and to carry out their programs and projects in INTRODUCTION accordance with the purposes of the NHPA. All Federal land managing agencies, All of these requirements are in addition regardless of their specific missions or to those contained in the National mandates, are required to protect the cultural Environmental Policy Act, which requires resources on their lands--archaeological sites as agencies, among other things, to prepare an well as historic structures and artifacts. This environmental impact statement on any major duty has become increasingly recognized since actions that significantly affect the human the mid 1960’s, with enactment of major environment. In 1979 a separate Act was environmental and preservation legislation. established to specifically help protect cultural resources on federal lands--the Archaeological In particular, two landmark laws were Resources Protection Act (ARPA). The Act enacted that had a profound impact on the way provides for a system of permits to excavate or that agencies in the Departments of Interior remove archaeological resources, prohibits and Agriculture manage their natural and nonpermitted activities and contains civil and cultural resources. The Wilderness Act, signed criminal penalties for violations. into law September 3, 1964, established the National Wilderness Preservation System. It While these Acts were well intended as a provided a process to identify, designate and means of protecting important resources, their protect areas of undeveloped Federal land interpretation by Federal agencies have often which retain their “primeval character and created conflicts with regard to the influence, without permanent improvements or management of cultural resources in proposed human habitation” and which are “protected and designated wilderness areas.
* Vice-President for Conservation, Environment, and Historic Preservation and Director of Archaeological Programs respectively, Foresight Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
92 * Whether historic and prehistoric structures Some agencies initially took a very should be allowed to remain in wilderness if “purist” approach. They attempted to eliminate they have no administrative function; from consideration areas which contained manmade resources, even historic ones, as * Whether designation of a wilderness area incompatible with “primeval” wilderness, constitutes an adverse effect on cultural despite the fact that the standards of the resources and requires compliance with Section Wilderness Act provide for a more generous 106 procedures, especially if restoration or interpretation. A later issue was whether the maintenance of historic sites were not allowed full range of historic preservation activities-- and they were thereby subject to deterioration inventory, evaluation and excavation--were or removal. allowed by the Wilderness Act and, if so, the extent to which limited agency resources * And, the age-old question of whether cultural should be spent on such activities. resources (and attendant management activities) add to, conflict with or detract from This paper will examine these and other wilderness. issues relating to wilderness management and cultural resource protection on Federal lands In examining these and related issues, it managed by the Forest Service in the U.S. is significant to point out that the Wilderness Department of Agriculture. The Forest Service Act does more than merely mention “historical has the longest track record relating to these value” as contributing to wilderness. Section issues and manages the largest number of 2(c) of the Act defines wilderness as an area wilderness units of any Federal agency. It is that “generally appears to have been affected second only to the National Park Service in primarily by the forces of nature, with the wilderness acreage.’ The issues relating to the imprint of man’s work m management of cultural resources in national unnoticeable” (emphasis added). The Act does forest wilderness areas are similar to those of not state that the area must be pristine with no other Federal agencies and many of the evidence of human activity (Wilderness Society recommendations relating to them are 1984). applicable to other agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and In terms of on-the-ground cultural Wildlife Service and even to the National Park resource management, however, the Wilderness Service. Act is less specific. Section 4(b) directs agencies to administer a designated wilderness area “for such other purposes for which it may CONFLICTS BETWEEN WILDERNESS have been established as also to preserve its AND CULTURAL RESOURCES wilderness character.” Section 4(c) simply states that activities which could have negative For several decades, federal mangers impacts on wilderness (such as temporary have been grappling with the question of how roads, motor vehicles, and motorized to best integrate cultural resource management equipment) may be undertaken only “as into wilderness settings. Among the major necessary to meet minimum requirements for issues are the following: the administration of the area for the purposes of this Act...” No mention is made of the types * Whether the language referring to the of activities that would otherwise be carried absence of evidence of man in section 2(c) of out for cultural resource management purposes the Wilderness Act includes historic properties on non-wilderness lands nor is any direction and archaeological sites and to what extent this provided as to whether these activities are language is modified by the acknowledgement allowed or precluded in wilderness. of “historical value” in the definition of wilderness under the same section and in the Most of the guiding legislation for uses of wilderness under Section 4(b). federal agency implementation of the Wilderness Act fails to acknowledge this issue. For example, the Forest Service’s National Forest Management Act, is silent on the
93 matter.2 Nor is any mention of wilderness prehistoric cultural resources. The legal included in the relevant preservation legislation authorities governing protection and (NHPA, ARPA etc.) As a result, most management of cultural resources in wilderness agencies have been ambiguous and often include the Acts discussed above, inconsistent on how to deal with cultural implementing regulations in 36 CFR 800, resources in wilderness areas. Executive Order 11593, and individual forest and management plans. Some forest managers have taken a hands-off attitude or, at best, have assumed The manual states that the Forest Service that the mere inclusion of an historic property policy is that cultural resources in wilderness in wilderness (especially an archaeological site are available for scientific study to the extent which is underground and generally not that the study is consistent with the concept of visible) will be enough to protect the site. wilderness, the intent of the Wilderness Act, Some have concluded that cultural resources in and cultural resource management objectives. wilderness can be managed in much the same Cultural resources are also available for way as they are in other areas. Exceptions recreational, scenic, scientific, education, include non-motorized methods of treatment conservation, and historic uses, consistent with and a focus on the natural processes (allowing management as wilderness. deterioration of non-significant properties, for example). The policy also directs that analysis will be on a case-by-case basis and will ensure that Clearly, many professional wilderness actions are compatible with wilderness and managers and cultural resource professionals cultural resources objectives as stated in the believe that wilderness designation does not forest plan. As a general rule, cabins, shelters, mean that human activities and the remains of or other structures approaching 50 years of age these activities will not occur in these areas should be examined for their cultural resource (Peters 1987). In Minnesota at the Superior value. Those sites or structures that do not National Forest, for example, some of the best qualify for the National Register should be examples of turn of the century logging camps removed or allowed to deteriorate naturally are in designated wilderness areas. unless they are deemed necessary to support public purposes of wilderness3 or serve Furthermore, wilderness does not mean administrative purposes4. that the area is in its original, unaltered state. Many of these areas have undergone significant Within the Forest Service, management alterations. “Wilderness,” as used in this direction for cultural resources eligible for the context, is a legal term defined by an Act of National Register is subject to compliance with Congress. It is not merely an esthetic Section 106 of the NHPA and the regulations description of a state of nature. Any close contained in 36 CFR 800. A decision to reading of the Wilderness Act and related remove, maintain, or allow a historic or legislation shows that Congress did intend for prehistoric structure to deteriorate naturally is cultural resources to be included in designated considered a Federal undertaking that will wilderness areas. The challenge, therefore, is affect the resources. Interpretation of cultural to determine how best these resources can be resources located in wilderness shall generally managed in ways that are compatible with be done outside the wilderness area; verbal preserving wilderness values. interpretive services by qualified wilderness rangers, volunteers, or permitted guides is acceptable. FOREST SERVICE GUIDELINES All federal land managing agencies have VALUE OF USE agency regulations or manuals which deal at least in part with cultural resource management One difficulty in dealing with cultural on their lands. The wilderness chapter of the resources in wilderness in a multiple-use Forest Service Manual is quite specific agency such as the Forest Service is the regarding the protection of historic and difficulty of quantifying the values of these
94 resources or, for that matter, of the wilderness life and development in order to give a sense itself. There is, indeed, no systematic method of orientation to the American people.” to assess the value and method of treatment of cultural resources within wilderness. Each archaeological site and historic structure offers unique information about the One way to deal with this is to include past. Thus each should be evaluated on its specific provisions in the authorizing legislation own merits, and not judged merely on whether for a wilderness area at the time it is or not it occurs in a wilderness area. This was designated, such as was provided for the River stated very lucidly by Rupert Cutler, former of No Return Wilderness in the Central Idaho Assistant Secretary of the Department of Wilderness Act. That Act states that resources -~Agricultum, who participated in 1980 in the management within the wilderness area.will k Societv for American Archaeologv’s annual have protection and interpretation of ‘meeting. He noted lessons that &r be learned archaeological sites as one- of its purposes. from prehistoric agricultural and conservation practices; knowledge of long-term climatic In addition, part of the comprehensive patterns based on archaeologically derived management plan should encourage scientific information; understanding of ancient Indian research, protect significant cultural resources, religious and cultural practices so that present provide public interpretation ,and report on the land management activities do not interfere location, significance, condition and with their modem observance; and ways that recommendations on any sites or structures. ’ historic structures can be reused for modem purposes. (Cutler 1980). Although there are many social and educational values for maintaining cultural resources, these are hard to quantify or CURRENT PROBLEMS GIVE FUTURE measure. Human beings have an intellectual DIRECTIONS curiosity about themselves and their past, and cultural resources help answer their questions. One of the major problems with the Knowledge gained from prehistoric and historic Federal agency cultural resource management sites and from archaeological excavation and in wilderness is the very lack of any historical interpretation can enable scientists to -affirmative management program and the address modem problems. Cultural resource subsequent lack of an expanding information preservation provides important information on base. This is in direct contrast to non- environment, geology, plant and animal wilderness land, where, prior to an undertaking, domestication, human health, and development all agencies are required to conduct a cultural of society to name a few. The long term resources inventory. It is not uncommon for effects of irrigation on soil formation, safe land inventories to end with archaeological site management practices, reintroduction of plants avoidance rather than excavation or mitigation, thought to be extinct, environmental changes which usually results in a list of sites which and natural disasters can be examined through need further evaluation and research. The list, the archaeological record. if evaluated properly, can aid land managers in making other decisions relating to sites, such Less tangible, but nevertheless real, is as which ones should be preserved in situ and the value that a great many people place on which need additional research to add to the preservation of a cultural resource for its own historical and archaeological record. sake. This is not mere rhetoric or wellrwishing; it is part of our national public policy. In Law enforcement and resource protection Section 1, the preamble of the National am also major problems. Vandalism, looting Historic Preservation Act, the Congress itself and pot hunting are destroying sites rapidly. found and declared that, among other, things, Although this occurs more frequently in roaded “the spirit and direction of the Natian are areas, wilderness designation does not of itself founded upon and reflected in its historic ‘assume site protection. Since federal agencies, heritage” and this heritage should be for the most part, have not developed a “preserved as a living part of our community complete site inventory, except in response to specific projects, many sites that are not
95 already identified are being damaged or site stabilization, interpretation and destroyed. The tragedy is that there is little enhancement of cultural resources for the control over the situation and often no concept public, This has been documented by Dr. of the extent of site loss. This is especially true Leslie Wildesen, Colorado state archaeologist. for wilderness areas in which cultural resource As former regional archaeologist for the Forest surveys are rarely done. Yet archaeological Service’s Pacific Northwest Region, Dr. sites are non-renewable resources; once Wildesen worked with wilderness managers destroyed they are gone forever. from 19 national forests in an effort to coordinate wilderness management and cultural According to the newly released General resource protection. Accounting Office report (1987) on cultural resource protection, the federal land managing In a landmark article, Wildesen noted agencies in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and that the complex relationship between cultural Colorado (the Four Comers) ‘I... manage about resources and wilderness values is complex and 104 million acres of land in the Four Comers said that “it is often difficult to strike a balance states, yet the agencies had surveyed less than between preservation of cultural resources in 6 million acres, or less than 6 percent of these wilderness areas and preservation of pristine lands, to identify archaeological sites... estimate wilderness.” She stressed that both the that there are nearly 2 million archaeological National Historic Preservation Act and the sites in the four states, of which only 7 percent Wilderness Act have similar focus, to preserve (about 136,000) have been recorded. Further, important resources for public enjoyment and most of the archaeological surveys performed enlightenment and for scholarly use. She in recent years have been done to obtain added, however, that wilderness designation, clearances for development projects and, “traditionally has been the death knell for therefore, are not necessarily directed at those affirmative cultural resource management on areas having the greatest archaeological millions of acres of federal lands. Conversely, resource potential.” (General Accounting Office the presence of historical and archaeological 1987). resources has been cited as a reason to prevent an area from being included in the Wilderness This points to another major problem -- Preservation System” (Wildesen 1985). lack of sufficient, trained personnel. According to one Forest Service archaeologist, Other problems occur when land for example, the five state Rocky Mountain managers discourage archaeological research in Region of the Forest Service has approximately wilderness by limiting access to it or when 26.5 million acres of multiple use national they assume that sites are protected merely forests and grasslands but only 8 archaeologists because no development will occur that might to provide protection and professional damage the resource. Managers may fail to judgement. How closely can 8 people monitor take into account the value of cultural 26.5 million acres? resources during wilderness planning. Too often, historical resources have been In the West, it is a particularly deliberately destroyed because of a perceived challenging task. Forests with several million conflict with the purposes of wilderness -- acres can contain several hundred thousand despite the fact that no such destruction is archaeological sites. Even to survey 10% of called for or condoned by the Wilderness Act. the sites which are primary looting targets would mean surveying approximately Unfortunately, cultural resource 20,000-30,000 sites. Public involvement has advocates have themselves sometimes been stressed as one way to help monitor large contributed to the conflict. Failure to identify expanses of land, but efforts thus far have been the cultural resource base in potential merely exhortative and largely ineffective. wilderness areas and not being persuasive in securing specific language in wilderness While federal land managing agencies legislation are some of the reasons there are respond reasonably well to their Section 106 problems (Wildesen 1985). responsibilities on non-wilderness lands, there have been problems meeting obligations for
96 Cultural resource professionals have felt a complete survey may, never be completed. the need to work for specific statutory Since the majority of federal land managing language, as in the Central Idaho Wilderness agencies are project based agencies, most of Act. That language was included as a result of the work is project related. Funds for cultural the efforts of Dr. Ruthann Knudson who resource surveys come from each specific proposed the specific provision requiring project budget such as timber, minerals, “affirmative management” of the historical and grazing, or recreation. Systematic surveys of archaeological resources within the wilderness existing wilderness areas are a low priority for boundaries and requiring preparation of a Federal agencies due to lack of funding for cultural resource management plan during the non-impacting program work, a heavy wilderness management planning process. em hasis on areas where impacts am occurring, anB misguided beliefs on the part of wilderness There is, moreover, an ethical issue that managers, cultural resources specialists and the is raised by the manipulation of wilderness for public that wilderness designation protects scientific ends, including the taking of artifacts, cultural properties. the very action of which may destroy some wilderness values. In a recent article on this Furthermore, the emphasis on compliance issue, it was noted that with federal regulations concerning the identification, evaluation, and nomination of , the apparent conflict with historic and prehistoric resources can often hi0bhg freely functioning natural result in little time available to devote to the conditions and basic ecological development of long-term planning and process to proceed in wilderness management strategies for cultural resources. with minimal human-induced Considerable quantities of data have been interference and disturbance. Can accumulated with little effort being spent in we indeed retain wilderness value developing techniques that would enable the and character while at the same prediction of the location and densities of time physically removing finite, cultural properties. This is especially true of non-renewable components? . . . non-wilderness lands and is perhaps a major Thus, the dilemma, does the reason why less attention and support is given wilderness manager allow to cultural resource management in wilderness. destruction of potentially “We have been attempting to keep one step significant scientific data in order ahead of the chainsaw and bulldozer with little to preserve wilderness values? Or time to look at where we are going or should does the manager allow the be going.” (Cordell 1984). removal of fossil and cultural materials to facilitate the preservation of scientific SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS knowledge at the expense of wilderness values? (Berger et al. Progress has occurred since the 1987). promulgation of many cultural resource regulations. The Forest Service for example However, to manage effectively a land states: “In reaching a decision, the long-term based resource, one must know where and needs of society and the irreversible nature of what it is. Inventory and evaluation are key to an action must be considered. The Department this, but in wilderness areas are rarely done. must act to preserve future options; loss of For example, the 3.5 million acre Superior important cultural resources must be avoided, National Forest has approximately 80,000- except in the face of overriding national 100,000 acres surveyed annually. Of this, only interest where there are no reasonable 300 to 500 acres are in wilderness, yet the altematives.“6 wilderness contains 1.2 million acres, or over one third of the entire forest (Peters 1987). The biggest stumbling block is to overcome the traditional tendency to view At this rate, and despite efforts by responsibilities for cultural resource archaeologists and cultural resource specialists, management as a stepchild to important
97 activities or as a constraint on the management adaptations - to environments that of other resources. Rather, it should be seen today we fiid too difficult, rugged, as an opportunity for broader service. One or isolated to try to “civilize.” It way to do this is by better integrating cultural follows that these resources may resources into the full spectrum of be the most informative of all multipleresource management. In this regard, about the history of human success there are a number of recommendations for and failure in these environments addressing specific needs. These include the over the past 10,000 years and that following: we should therefore be vigorous in our attempts to preserve them * Develop cultural resource inventory strategies (Wildesen 1985). which are more workable in wilderness areas; refine sampling techniques and improve Until Federal land managing agencies accuracy while reducing the time and cost; take more affirmative action for managing cultural resources in wilderness under existing * Improve the use of remote sensing and other authorities, the need remains to incorporate, in nondestructive technological methods to certain instances, explicit legislative language identify and protect cultural resource sites; to protect historic and archaeological resources in many new and existing wilderness areas. A * Develop better methods of data collection, specific requirement could be included to including dating techniques to establish the inventory, evaluate, and provide affiiative importance and value of archaeological sites management for significant resources. and better means of managing and exchanging Conflicts could therefore be resolved during data and other information; the early planning stages of wilderness management. * Improve methods for assessing and predicting potential impacts on cultural resources, and for understanding what CONCLUSION motivates cultural resource vandalism and theft; The national direction is in place. * Develop better means for cultural resource Federal law -- carried out through the agency interpretation to make cultural resource manuals and regulations -- mandates cultural programs relevant (Cutler 1980). resource management and protection. The long-term nature of management planning Another recommendation is use of allows sufficient time to build cultural consistent cultural resource protection language resources survey and protection into wilderness in all future wilderness legislation. It is management. Individual land managing units, unfortunate but true that without language such as national forests, have unit management which carries a specific inventory plans. Most do not, however, prepare plans responsibility, as in the case with the River of for the management of individual wilderness No Return Wilderness, cultural resources will areas generally or cultural resources remain largely unknown in these areas. specifically. This is an area which begs for Wildesen provided the framework and rationale further attention. for this in her article when she called for Federal agencies should have no a program of future research, difficulty integrating wilderness and cultural lx&ic interpretation, and historic resources into the context of multiple use preservation to be carried out as management, especially considering that they part of ongoing management of the have done so with other resources and other wilderness. The very concept of multiple use tasks. Wilderness and cultural “wilderness” implies that cultural resources may be separate, but they ate not resources found in these places are unalike. In the end, after all, their goals are the not routine, run-of-the-mill same --to save a part of our heritage for properties. Rather, they represent present as well as future generations to learn adaptation - or attempted from and enjoy.
98 REFERENCES Wilderness‘ Society. 1984. The Wilderness Act Handbook. The Wilderness Society. Berger, A.W., W.L. Overbaugh, G.H. Stankey. 1987. Extraction of Non-Renewable Wildesen, Leslie E. 1985. Dilemma: Should Resources from Wilderness: A Dilemma Wilderness Areas Preserve Historic and of Scientific Use. Archaeological Cultural Resources7 Colorado Heritage News, 5,7. Colorado Cordell, Linda S. and Dee F. Green, editors. Historical Society, Denver, CO. 1984. Stage I Site Locational Modeling in the Southwestern Region. Cultural Wildesen, Leslie E. 1986. Model Cultural Resources Management Report 5, US Resource Language for Special Areas Forest Service Southwestern Region. Designation. Cutler, M. Rupert. 1980. Cultural Resource Programs in the Department of Agriculture. Paper given at the Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting, May 2;1980. Philadelphia, PA. DeBloois, Evan I. 1984. Measuring Cultural Resource Management Accomplishments. Professional Development Program for Outdoor Recreation Management, Forest Service. DeBloois, Evan I. 1987. Personal Communication. Peters, Gordon. 1987. Personal Communication. Society for American Archaeology. 1987. Oversight Hearing on Forest Management Activities. Testimony before the House Agriculture Committee Subcommittee on Forest, Family Farms and Energy, June 17, 1987. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1987. Discover Your National Forests - An Information Guide for All Interested in America’s Outdoors. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. 1986. Title 2300 - Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource Management, Chapter 2320 Wilderness Management. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1987. Cultural Resources: Problems Protecting and Preserving Federal Archeological Resources.
99 APPENDIX ONE (E) comply with all Federal and State historic and cultural preservation statutes, regulations, guidelines, and standards. Central Idaho Wilderness Language (b)(l) Within two years from the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall Sec. 8 (a)(l) In furtherance of the cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior and purposes of the Wilderness Act, the Wild and with agencies and institutions of the State of Scenic Rivers Act, section 6 of the National Idaho in conducting an inventory of the ranch, Forest Management Act, the Archaeological homestead, trapper and other cabins, and Resources Protection Act, and the Historic structures within the River of No Return Preservation Act, the Secretary shall cooperate Wilderness and within the Salmon River with the Secretary of the Interior and with component of the National Wild and Scenic agencies and institutions of the State of Idaho, Rivers System designated by Section 9 of this in conducting a cultural resource management Act and submit to the Committee on Energy program with the River of No Return and Natural Resources of the United States Wilderness and within the Salmon River Senate and the Committee on Interior and component of the National Wild and Scenic Insular Affairs of the United States House of Rivers System ~1s designated in section 9 of Representatives a report on- this Act. (A) the location of these structures; (2) Such program shall have as its (B) their historic significance, if any; purposes the protection of archaeological sites (C) their present condition; and interpretation of such sites for the public (D) recommendations as to which of benefit and knowledge insofar as these these structures should be: activities are compatible with the preservation (i) stabilized; of the values for which the wilderness and (ii) restored; wild and scenic river were designated to (iii) maintained; or protect. (iv) removed; (E) the estimated cost of such (3) To carry out the cultural resource stabilization, restoration, maintenance, or management program required by paragraph (1) removal; and of this section, the Secretary shall, as part of (F) the suitability of any of these the comprehensive management plan required structures for inclusion in the National Register under subsection S(a) of this Act, develop a of Historic Places. cultural resources management plan for the wilderness and the river. Such plan shall - (2) Until such time as the study under this subsection is completed and the required report (A) encourage scientific research into submitted to the Committees, the Secretary man’s past use of the River of No Return shall not knowingly permit the destruction of Wilderness and the Salmon River corridor, significant alteration of any historic cabin or other structure on national forest land within (B) provide an outline for the protection the River of No Return Wilderness or the of significant cultural resources, including Salmon River component of the National Wild protection from vandalism and looting as well and Scenic Rivers System designated in section as destruction from natural deterioration; 9 of this Act. (C) be based on adequate inventory data, supplemented by test excavation data where appropriate; (D) include a public interpretation program; and
100 APPENDIX TWO (2) A schedule for the prompt completion of a detailed archaeological, historical and cultural resources management Model Cultural Resource Language for plan, which shall meet each of the following Wilderness as Proposed by Wildesen requirements; In order to protect the unique (a) The plan shall be based on adequate archaeological, historic, cultural, and other (e.g. inventory data and shall include a schedule for scenic, wilderness, recreation, geologic, timely implementation of intensive field wildlife, ecologic, scientific) resources of the , inventory (if needed). Inventory data shall be there is hereby established the (Wilderness; supplemented by archival research, oral history, National Park; National Monument; Wild, and archaeological test excavation data as Scenic, or Recreational River; National appropriate to enable evaluation of all Wildlife Refuge; etc.). inventoried resources for the National Register of Historic Places. ADMINISTRATION (b) The plan shall include a public e. interpretation program, and shall take into account the opinions of the public, including General appropriate agencies and scholars in the fields of archaeology, history, anthropology, historic The Secretary shall manage the name of preservation, and landscape architecture. area in a manner that will protect the archaeological, historic, cultural and other (c) The plan shall provide for the (listed as appropriate) resources and values of protection of significant cultural resources, the (type of area) and to provide for public including protection from vandalism and education about those resources and values. looting as well as destruction from natural deterioration or environmental degradation. Specific (d) The plan shall provide for long-term scholarly use of archaeological resources, and The Secretary shall permit the full use of for continued use or adaptive reuse of historic the (name of area) for scientific research and structures and buildings, insofar as possible scholarly study, subject to such restrictions as consistent with (name of managing agency) may be necessary to prevent degradation of the policy and the National Historic Preservation (list of resources) resources of the area. Act. (e) The plan shall develop data on the Management Plan past and present use(s) of the (name of area) by Indian [or other Native American, Eskimo, Within (time period) after the date of Aleut, etc.] people sufficient to ensure their enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall nonexclusive access for traditional cultural and complete a management plan for the (name of religious purposes in accordance with the area) in accordance with the requirements American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Such contained in (name of authorizing legislation - data shall be developed in consultation with FLPMA, NFMA, etc.). appropriate Indian tribes [or others--Eskimo, etc.]. Such plan shall include but not be limited to each of the following items: (f) The plan shall comply with all federal historic and cultural preservation (1) Specific measures for the preservation statutes, regulations, guidelines, and standards, of the known and potential archaeological, including but not limited to the National historic, and cultural resources of the (name of Historic Preservation Act and the area); Archaeological Resources Protection Act.
101 (g) The plan shall, to the extent possible, take into account the appropriate Statewide Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan(s) for the State(s) of (name), in which the (name of area) is located. (3) Such other resource-specific topics as may be necessary to comply with (name of authorizing legislation). ENDNOTES
The National Forest System has 339 wilderness units with a total of 32 444 737 acres rbmpared to 37 units with 36 7.54 980 acres at the National Park Service 20 units of 368 739 acres under the jurisdiction Bu;eau’of Land Management and 70 units containing 19,332,891 acres at the Fish and Wildlife. Service. 2. The Nationa? Forest Management Act, (16 USC. 1600 et seq.) proposes to manage the use oft demand for and supply of renewable resources through a comprehensive assessment of present and anticipated uses, including analysis of environmental and economic impacts and promotion of a sound technical and ecological base for efective management, use and protection.
3. As set forth in section 4(b) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1121 et seq.).
4. Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act.
5. The Central Idaho Wilderness Act (Public Law 96-312 July 23, 1980).
6. US Forest Service Manual, Title 2300 - Recreation, Wilderness and Related Resource Management, Chapter 2320 Wilderness Management.
102 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING IN WILDERNESS
Susan P. Bratton*
ABSTRACT way benefited monitoring efforts, and if present policies concerning monitoring in wilderness Wilderness legislation may interfere with can be improved. field execution of many types of monitoring studies, and confusion about management of scientific projects in wilderness has THE STRUCTURE OF discouraged many monitoring projects from ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING utilizing wilderness. Despite the inhibition of PROGRAMS monitoring, wilderness areas represent an important long-term investment in maintaining Environmental monitoring projects vary ecosystems with low levels of human in their complexity, managerial goals, and disturbance. The prqent paucity of monitoring scientific purposes. Environmental monitoring projects in wilderness may be allowing site may be undertaken in a wilderness area integrity problems to develop undocumented. because: Policy revision and clarification are needed to encourage monitoring for preservation of site (1) The integrity of the site itself is at integrity as well as for the purposes of the stake. The purpose of the monitoring is thus to scientific community at large. All agencies verify rates of change in ecosystem structure responsible for wilderness should consider and processes, or to verify the extent and scientific research and monitoring an impact of undesirable anthropogenic influences, important product of a well-organized such as human trampling or acid rain. wilderness management program. (2) The site is in a desirable geographic location or contains species or ecosystems of INTRODUCTION interest for a specific project. A wilderness area might be used for environmental Since World War II, human impacts on monitoring because it incorporates the highest natural ecosystems have increased at an elevations in a mountain range, for example, or alarming rate. Not only is direct human use, because it contains old-growth forest. such as clearing for agriculture, mining, and logging, disturbing an ever-increasing (3) The site is relatively pristine or free percentage of the Earth’s surface, but remote from human disturbances, and thus may serve human impacts, such as acid rain, pesticide as a control site in an impact study. Also, it contamination, nuclear fallout, ozone depletion, may act as a baseline for comparison with and global climate change, are affecting very other areas with greater human disturbance or isolated regions with little continuing human may provide information on background levels presence. Environmental monitoring, once rare of pollutants or other compounds. outside of urban and industrial zones, is now under way in the Antarctic and the Arctic, in The Wilderness Act incorporates lands the open oceans, in very arid deserts, and on that appear “to have been affected primarily by high mountain ridges. The purpose of this the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s paper is to discuss the present state and future work substantially unnoticeable” and that prospects of environmental monitoring in the “contain ecological, geological, or other National Wilderness Preservation System of the features of scientific, educational, scenic or United States. The paper will then attempt to historical value.” The wilderness system has determine if wilderness legislation has in any thus purposefully incorporated properties that
* Unit Coordinator, U.S. National Park Service Cooperative Studies Unit, Institute of Ecology, Athens, GA. 103 have high value for scientific research and are Thus nearly 80 times more zoology projects relatively undisturbed. The Wilderness Act, were conducted per site in NPS areas. There however, has only general provisions for were 13 times as many botany projects per scientific use. The act states ‘I. . . wilderness site, and 15 times the general ecology projects areas shall be devoted to the public purposes in NPS sites, while the Forest Service areas of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, had 3 times more recreation projects per site conservation, and historical use . . . .‘I and than the NPS. If recreational projects are does not in any specific way provide for counted, the NPS had 7 times as many establishment of scientific monitoring or other scientific projects per wilderness area as the types of scientific research. It should be noted Forest Service. If recreational projects are that the Wilderness Act does exclude certain deleted, the NPS had 14 times as many per uses, some of which are common elements of area. scientific monitoring projects. These include the “use of motor vehicles, motorized The present status of environmental equipment, or motorboats, . . . landing of monitoring reflects the overall research use of aircraft, . . . other form@] of mechanical wilderness areas as described by Butler and transport . . .‘I and “structure[s] and Roberts (1986). Comparing wilderness areas in installation[s].” The Wilderness Act has no the Southeastern United States, the most provisions for monitoring to maintain site diverse monitoring programs are on National integrity, much less for participation in other Park Service properties. The two best types of monitoring programs, and essentially developed efforts are in the Great Smoky leaves the scientific management of the site at Mountains and Everglades National Parks, but the discretion of the Federal agency responsible there are also developing programs in smaller for the area. areas, such as Cumberland Island and Gulf Islands National Seashores. The NPS is still in the process of expanding monitoring in the PRESENT DISTRIBUTION OF Southeast, and several additions to present MONITORING PROGRAM efforts are already planned for fiscal years 1988 and 1989. Many wilderness areas are covered by other legislation or participate in national or Within the NPS sites, those with international scientific or conservation Biosphere Reserve status often have the largest programs. Great Smoky Mountains, for programs or are better integrated with the example, has National Park enabling activities of other institutions and agencies. The legislation, and is also a Biosphere Reserve Man and the Biosphere program has tended to under a program sponsored by UNESCO. In foster information exchange and interaction reviewing the distribution of environmental between reserves, and has also drawn non-Park monitoring programs now in wilderness, we Service scientists into the parks. must first look at the overall pattern of legislation and other mandates and determine The trends apparent in the Southeastern which portions of present monitoring programs United States would seem to apply, with a few are forwarded by wilderness status and which exceptions, nationwide. For instance, in the are being promoted by other designations. “Proceedings--National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research” (meeting held According to a study by Butler and in Fort Collins, CO, July 23-26, 1985), a Roberts (1986). between 1970 and 1980 one- majority of the environmental monitoring half of the research projects in Forest Service papers (not those discussing recreational wilderness areas were on recreational topics impacts) concerned NPS sites. Forest Service (50 percent), whereas a majority of the projects scientific participation in the Biopshere Reserve in National Park Service wilderness areas were program has usually centered on the on biological topics (62 percent). For the 53 experimental forests rather than on the Forest Service areas included in the study there wilderness areas. Most of the larger, older was an average of 0.13 zoology projects per Forest Service wilderness areas do not have site. For the 22 NPS areas included there was long-term monitoring programs developed to an average of 10.3 zoology projects per site. evaluate site integrity concerns, whereas most
104 of the larger, older National Parks (with or conservation and production mode, the product without wilderness) have at least a small effort of wilderness areas has become recreation. In under way. the Forest Service, scientific research is often viewed as a means of either increasing or The reasons for these differences maintaining the productivity of timber between agencies are complex, but several producing sites. The Service has, of course, factors are probably operating nationwide. participated in hundreds of research projects First, The NPS began as an agency with a evaluating human impacts on forested and mission in preservation, whereas the Forest grassland ecosystems. Much of this work was Service began with a mission in conservation, economically motivated or aimed at providing The NPS has a very high concern for better services to the public. Research aimed maintaining ecosystems in a “natural” or even solely at native ecosystem preservation is less pre-Columbian state. Second, most parks had common in the Forest Service than in the NPS. long histories of supporting environmental Although the legislation indicates science is a research before they fell under wilderness potentially important product of wilderness, legislation. This is not true of many Forest Forest Service managers have not tried to Service wilderness areas. Third, most park increase scientific use of most wilderness areas. legislation includes mandates to protect “the This may be an artifact of long-term research native flora and faun$’ or the “scientific administrative policies of the agency where the values” of the areas. Fourth, the NPS sponsors research centers on the products of the systems extensive interpretive programs with onsite - in this case recreation - and ignores other staff and has been doing this for decades. concerns. (It should be noted that many NPS Although a majority of these programs are managers are antagonistic towards university aimed at “front country” visitors, they tend to based, and even Park Service based, research foster descriptive natural history studies and and in some cases will try to limit research the maintenance of park museums. Through the programs to projects addressing the immediate years this has helped to expand scientific managerial concerns of the park.) knowledge of the parks. Forest Service wilderness areas rarely have these programs From this comparison we can infer that and facilities. Fifth, the NPS has slowly wilderness legislation has done little to expanded the number of field laboratories for encourage environmental monitoring. The sites research use. Although small, very basic, and which have extensive monitoring programs outside the legislated wilderness, these work have them because of other legislation, or spaces greatly facilitate access to wilderness. because of management histories which have Sixth, most of the larger parks were traversed little to do with the Wilderness Act. We by major roads prior to wilderness legislation. therefore need to ask three new questions. All parks (outside of Alaska) with high First, if wilderness is not encouraging mountain ranges, have roads leading to the environmental monitoring, is it inhibiting it in upper elevations. This facilitates establishing any way? Second, does wilderness legislation monitoring stations along elevations and other have any potential benefits for environmental environmental gradients. Seventh, as a matter monitoring which are not being realized of national policy, the NPS has greatly because of agency policies? And third, since expanded its air and water quality monitoring. monitoring is often used to evaluate site Eighth, the Park Service has had several integrity, are the present monitoring programs programs to evaluate site integrity of both adequate for future wilderness management cultural and natural resources for all parks and needs? for all types of areas, wilderness and non- wilderness. One of these efforts, the “Threats to Parks” program which began in 1980, WILDERNESS AND FIELD EXECUTION generated dozens of monitoring projects OF MONITORING directed at defining anthropogenic changes. There can be little doubt that wilderness The Forest Service, in contrast, has been legislation restricts many types of monitoring much more oriented to the various user activities. Lack of roads makes access to study constituencies. Since the service operates in a sites difficult, and prohibitions on the use of
105 motorized transportation slow trips into the try to interpret the spirit of the Wilderness Act center of wilderness areas. For most types of for themselves. This leads to variability in monitoring projects, these problems can be what is allowed (enclosures permitted in one overcome by adding increased person power or park, but not in another for example), and in person time to compensate the time lost some cases has terminated monitoring reaching study areas. Use of wilderness may programs completely, at least within the therefore add substantially to a project budget. wilderness boundary. In some cases, the difficulties of wilderness access may double or triple sample collection This author, for example, has been effort and this is proportionately reflected in personally invoived in negotiations between personnel costs. researchers and wilderness site managers over: Looking at well-developed park (1) Construction of grazing enclosures. monitoring programs, we fiid much of the monitoring is not actually done in wilderness (2) Placement of pollution monitoring or is conducted a very short distance over the stations in wilderness. wilderness boundary. Weather and pollution monitoring stations are placed along roads to (3) Construction of protective fences for allow easy vehicle access. Some types of pollution monitoring stations. hydrologic and water-quality sampling are conducted where motorized boats am (4) Power sources for pollution permitted, often at the periphery of a terrestrial monitoring stations. wilderness area. In Southeastern wilderness, a majority of the scientific monitoring actually (5) Use of all-terrain vehicles to survey under way in the center of wilderness zones nesting sea turtles (at the edge of wilderness). (away from roads) consists of permanent vegetation plots which only need to be (6) Use of large bench marks. resampled on an extended cycle, i.e., annually, or every 5 or 10 years, or wildlife population (7) Establishment of vegetation plots monitoring undertaken once annually, or with numerous trees tagged or marked for conducted from the air. As a general rule, the relocation. shorter the sampling rotation, and the greater the distance to the study sites, the more (8) Use of gasoline-powered motors on difficult it is to use wilderness for monitoring. electro-shocking equipment for fisheries surveys. Another major problem area for environmental monitoring is the question of (9) Use of boats rather than trucks to structures (Franklin 1987). Many types of access coastal sites. pollution monitoring stations require protective fences and power sources. Scientific equipment (10) Construction of weirs for water may be visually intrusive, and even a solar- quality monitoring. powered station may stand out as 20th century technology in a “virgin” forest stand. Site (11) Low elevation aerial survey. markers, bench marks, and fences vary greatly in size and conspicuousness. In some cases, a (12) Delivery by helicopter of monitoring small “house” may be necessary, in others, hardware. equipment may be left exposed. Some sampling equipment looks very space-aged, (13) Use of sleds rather than wagons as while other items can appear quite rustic. horse drawn conveyances to move enclosure Grazing enclosures for large ungulates may materials. require fences 10 feet high, while a vegetation monitoring plot may require little more than an (14) Establishment of research base aluminum tree tag. Since there is no national camps in wilderness. policy on establishing scientific monitoring facilities in wilderness, site managers usually
106 (15) Use of steel drums or boxes to bank” as far as scientific monitoring is protect scientific supplies from bears. concerned, and its value will increase greatly through time. We should therefore be Some types of destructive or concerned about the low level of baseline experimental large-scale scientific research are information gathering in many wilderness areas certainly not in keeping with the intent of the today. Future monitoring projects will need Wilderness Act. Since the act itself commends background information, and, in some cases, an the sites for scientific use, however, it would established monitoring data base. seem that most types of nondestructive environmental monitoring would be appropriate. There is presently a large “grey MONITORING AND SITE INTEGRITY area”, where one site manager or one agency may decide against a certain type of project In general, there are several types of and another may decide in favor of it. Lack of monitoring and several levels of monitoring consistent policy discourages scientists from effort. A program may only concern the using wilderness for monitoring as does the wilderness area, or it may concern several history of argument between the Federal related areas; it may be part of a national agencies supervising the sites and the scientific network, or it may be part of an international research community. network. Although the value of a monitoring project to the national welfare isn’t directly Over all, wilderness legislation may be correlated to scale, the national level programs doing more to inhibit environmental monitoring are generally of high importance. In terms of than to encourage it at the present time. monitoring human impacts, projects in Working in wilderness often adds to project wilderness may concern primarily the effect of expenses. In some cases, site managers may wilderness recreationists. This may include prohibit monitoring projects entirely. It should campsite and trail erosion surveys, creel be recognized, however, that these trends may census, data from hunter check-in stations, and be more a result of general agency some types of water quality evaluation. management patterns and of how wilderness Researchers may also evaluate the impact of legislation has been interpreted than of the esthetic intrusions on wilderness users, This Wilderness Act itself. includes such items as noise monitoring from aerial overflights. The monitoring of human impacts may expand to evaluate the spread of FUTURE WILDERNESS BENEFITS FOR exotic species, the decline of a large carnivore, MONITORING or the population status of a fish endangered by hydroelectric projects outside the Although wilderness presently may wilderness. ln a well-developed program, inhibit monitoring to some extent, wilderness monitoring for variables of global legislation is a very good long-term investment environmental concern may be implemented, in site protection. At designation, many Forest including evaluation of such phenomena as Service wilderness areas were little different acid rain, climatic warming, and sea level rise. from the surrounding region, except that they were more remote or contained less disturbed Environmental monitoring does not have systems. As the decades pass, and the areas to address human impacts, and some programs around wilderness are repeatedly logged or may be initiated just to analyze natural developed, wilderness will become even more ecosystem processes. Although these projects unique and may offer relatively disturbance- are often the least favored by site managers free systems in regions where they have because they are of no immediate managerial disappeared elsewhere. Even within National use, the “pure science” projects are often Parks, which have enabling legislation among the best long-term investments, because prohibiting many forms of human exploitation, they are usually very sophisticated in design wilderness restricts the construction of new and describe how ecosystems function in a roads, thus preserving watersheds and natural state. These theoretical studies provide preventing fragmentation of natural ecosystems. a foundation for determining what constitutes Well-managed wilderness is “money in the undesirable change in wilderness.
107 and may soon lose thousands of large At the present time, wilderness status hardwoods to gypsy moths. Acid rain and tends to forward visitor impact and esthetic elevated ozone levels have probably had intrusion monitoring. Trampling, vandalism, numerous subtle impacts on park ecosystems. and wildlife harvest are of course very Dispersed anthropogenic disturbances to the threatening to site integrity, and efforts to Great Smokies have tended to increase through contain them are necessary to the long-term time, and legal protection, by itself, has not preservation of wilderness. Many of these types been effective in preventing unnatural of studies deal with very local areas, however, disintegration of native ecosystems (White and and do not tackle the larger scale threats. Most Bratton 1980). types of visitor impact monitoring do not require long-term placement of sampling The impacts of wilderness recreationists equipment or construction of small housings. are also less of a concern on Cumberland Nor do most of these types of studies Island National Seashore than a variety of encounter serious access problems, as they are broader scale human-initiated impacts. Hikers oriented towards main visitor routes and do not confined to designated campsites may disturb require heavy equipment. In some cases, such shore birds, wading birds, and occasionally sea as monitoring bacteria in lakes and streams turtles, but they do not compare to wild hogs, near campsites, getting the samples to the feral horses and a very large white-tailed deer laboratory quickly enough may be a problem, population in terms of total disruption to inter- but this is often resolved by use of small dune meadows, live oak forests and cordgrass coolers or holding media. marshes. U.S. Department of Defense dredging activities at the park boundary will probably The introduction of monitoring aimed at accelerate erosion of both beaches and broader scale processes or developed as part of marshes, and are changing water quality within a national network is less frequent in park estuaries. wilderness and often adds more complications. A pollution monitoring station, for example, Despite the potential for loss of species may have to meet nationally established and perhaps entire biotic communities, specifications, or may be part of a network wilderness status tends to encourage monitoring with a protocol developed for non-wilderness of more localized concerns. In areas like Great sites. Most types of air and water quality Smokies and Cumberland Island, wilderness monitoring have a short sampling rotation, status has precipitated trail and campsite and which means even automated stations need to visitor use and perception studies, but it is a be checked frequently. The more sophisticated very minor component in exotic species or and the more nationally oriented the program, dredging concerns. the more likely wilderness status is to be a problem. At the very least, there is a national need for basic environmental monitoring in The irony of the present situation is that wilderness, to establish baseline information the broader scale human impacts are the ones banks for attacking site integrity questions. most likely to damage seriously large areas of This effort needs to encourage basic ecological wilderness through time and to cause serious research, including all types of biological loss of site integrity. In the Great Smoky surveys and descriptive studies. The attitudes Mountains, for example, trail and campsite of the managing agencies toward science are erosion has displaced rare plant species and falling short of the needs of the scientific caused some sedimentation in streams. community and of the wilderness areas Campsites in old-growth stands may damage themselves. valuable botanical resources. These localized direct human impacts cannot compare, however, to the disturbances caused by non- THE FUTURE native species, including the European wild boar, the balsam woolly adelgid, and the Both the value of wilderness for rainbow trout over the last 30 to 40 years, The monitoring and the disturbance potential of park is also suffering from red spruce dieback broad-scale impacts will probably increase
108 through time. Concurrently, agency funding marking systems relatively useless, for for wilderness monitoring projects is likely to example. Dieback of high elevation forests in decrease on a per site basis. Recent additions several regions may warrant extensive pollution of large and relatively pristine areas in Alaska monitoring facilities. Special provisions should alone will strain the capabilities of present be made for cases where there are extreme agency science budgets. The structure of field threats to site integrity. research staffs is also liable to change. A number of Park Service monitoring projects in Because of the interest in recreation as a wilderness have relied heavily on volunteers to product and the relative lack of disinterest in assist with sampling or moving equipment. science, many wilderness areas have a double Due to economic and demographic factors, standard for allowable damage. (This is true in volunteers have become increasingly difficult both the Forest Sexvice and the NPS areas.) to recruit, thus the lack of “walking” field help Recreation often requires extensive trail and is further inhibiting research. Not just national campsite systems which disturb hundreds of but international economic conditions are likely hectares and crisscross watersheds. In building to have a major impact on wilderness trails, for example, it is common practice to monitoring, as will the availability of college remove surface soil and to cut through tree students and recent graduates who are willing root systems. Should a researcher suggest to work in remote areas. I doing this to establish a weir, the plan would be rejected by many wilderness managers - Several conceptual changes in wilderness despite the fact that the total disturbance to the science management would be very beneficial: watershed is a small fraction of that caused by a typical long-distance hiking trail. This (1) Science and education need to be author believes that many wilderness areas considered as legitimate products of wilderness allow more damage than they should from sites. Not all wilderness areas are equally recreational users and their facilities. The useful for these purposes, so not all wilderness restrictions on environmental monitoring, needs to support large numbers of projects. however, are often too strict. The decisions Some wilderness is extremely valuable, should be based on long-term impacts, as well however, and agency management policies for as immediate visual intrusion problems. If there these locations should foster scientific use. are 100 campsites in a wilderness area and 3 Policies concerning environmental monitoring monitoring stations, and all are causing the should be redrafted to require local site same amount of site disturbance, it would seem managers to facilitate non-destructive research. the monitoring stations are very reasonable The agencies managing wilderness should ask additions. New policies for environmental the scientific community which sites have monitoring would help to decrease special value for research and adjust their local discrepancies in recreational and scientific management plans accordingly. management. (3) All interested parties should open dialogue on appropriate scientific (2) The problems with placement of uses of wilderness. The managing agencies structures, fences, and other developments need should prompt discussion between scientific review and more careful analysis. Scientists and recreational users over problems of need to know what to expect before planning concern to both. Issues might include projects. Guidance in “grey areas” should be establishment of monitoring stations which are provided for local managers who may wish to visually intrusive, tagging and bench marking avoid conflict, and who may be afraid to systems, aerial overflights for research authorize projects with unusual equipment or purposes, establishment of grazing enclosures, site needs. the use of small generating stations to power sampling equipment, and reasonable action in Standards for scientific work should not the case of serious threats to site integrity. ’ be drafted to form a single national model but should incorporate methods for dealing with This dialogue might also open the issue specific pending problems affecting certain of when recreational users are willing to accept types of sites. Sea level rise on the coast along scientific intrusion into their wilderness with storm overwash makes lightweight bench experience; it might consider site closure
109 because of serious threats to site integrity by wilderness increases sample collection and disturbances which originate with the users. In transportation time so greatly. In some cases, the case of dieback of high elevation universities or colleges may be willing to coniferous forest, for example, would cooperate in facilities maintenance. backpackers consider it acceptable to erect visually intrusive pollution monitoring towers? With restricted agency budgets and the What if there were no dieback evident but problems of getting in and out of wilderness, pollution levels were thought to be increasing? further cooperation between groups would be highly desirable. University-based researchers (4) Standards should be set for all may be willing to find funding for wilderness wilderness in tern-6 of monitoring site integrity. projects themselves and some wilderness areas All agencies should identify major existing or could be used for nondestructive class projects. pending problems, on all scales. Even though Private research foundations and conservation the NPS has taken the lead in this area, it organizations such as Earthwatch and the should be noted that many of their properties Sierra Club may be willing to assist in have had major unnatural disturbances which integrity monitoring. As the nation tackles have gone undocumented for decades. Both federal budget deficits, the agencies’ funding the European wild boar and the balsam woolly may be too limited to carry the monitoring adelgid were in the Great Smokies for 20 years burden on their own. before any serious research on their impacts was undertaken. Many Park Service As of this writing, the U.S. National wilderness areas still do not have vegetation Park Service was in the process of redrafting monitoring systems or reliable census data for its wilderness management policies, and was endangered species. Although many parks have adjusting and standardizing policies on made great strides in pollution monitoring, wilderness monitoring (“Wilderness most are ill prepared to deal with climate preservation and management,” U.S. National change, and on the coast, with sea level rise. Park Service, 1988). These proposed new In “State of the Parks 1980: A Report to policies will shortly be available for public Congress” (NPS 1980) the Biosphere Reserve review: parks, which certainly have some of the best scientific data bases available, reported only 30 (1) Clearly encourage non-destructive percent documentation of exotic species threats, research within the management objectives of 7 percent documentation of air pollution the wilderness; threats, and 15 percent documentation of water quality threats (see also Mack and others (2) Allow hydrologic, hydrometeorologic, 1983). seismographic, and other research and monitoring devices to be placed in wilderness, Similar efforts need to be made to if the desired information is essential and the determine the extent of threats to the ecological proposed device is the minimum tool necessary integrity of wilderness, and then to expand to accomplish the objective; scientific research programs accordingly. (3) Directly instruct the parks to begin (5) The agencies should consider wilderness monitoring programs for expanding base operating facilities for scientists anthropogenic impacts and physical and desiring to work in wilderness. This might be biological change. the addition of simple base camps or covered shelters outside the wilderness, but with good These policies will tend to solve some of access to main trail systems or to valuable the difficulties surrounding the use of study areas (lakes, undisturbed stream valleys, structures and markers for permanent high elevations, old-growth forest). Scientists monitoring, and should encourage a more need places to keep supplies. Refrigeration, uniform program of site integrity monitoring. electrical power, and running water are also Although many parks are already undertaking helpful for processing samples. These facilities wilderness monitoring, the new policies should certainly do not need to be in wilderness, but expand these activities. they need to be close by since working in
110 The proposed policies may tend to integrity and how science is conducted in discourage certain types of basic research, isolated regions. The legislation assumes that however, because they require that: direct human impacts will be of the highest concern, and if activities such as logging are (1) A research project address a need stopped, the site will return to natural identified in a park’s resources management condition. Site management then has to plan; concentrate on the potential impacts of recreationists. Today, roblems originating (2) The project address a stated across a continent may damage distant wilderness management objective; wilderness. (3) There be no alternative to its being The legislation also seems to assume conducted in the wilderness. (there is no direct mention of this) that science will be conducted in a natural history mode. This author feels that wilderness status Simply excluding roads and human exploitation places enough restrictions on most projects to will make the site attractive. Today, many discourage casual efforts, and that forcing types of research necessary for protecting the science into a management framework tends to wilderness areas themselves require inhibit many descriptive and ecosystem sophisticated equipment and laboratory oriented efforts. Wilderness managers should analysis. Wildlife census, bird observation, and in some cases try to attract projects that could plant collecting are still very valuable, but we be done elsewhere so they obtain basic data on may also need high towers to trap pollutants, the wilderness site. Wilderness managers and special power sources to run sequential should consider the potential long-term benefits samplers. If we cannot adjust our wilderness of gathering scientific information, even if it management to meet today’s environmental does not appear to be immediately useful; we threats and today’s scientific methods, we will are, after all, frequently short-sighted about not only inhibit scientific progress, but we will what will be ecologically useful in two or three ultimately lose the wilderness. decades. Further, the Wilderness Act itself gives no indication that scientific research should be restricted only to that which must be REFERENCES conducted on the site, no more than recreation should be restricted only to those activities Butler, Lisa M. and Rebecca S. Roberts, 1986. which have to be undertaken in wilderness. Use of wilderness areas for research. Criteria concerning possible adverse research Proceedings - National WIldemess caused impacts to wilderness are more Research Conference: Current Research, appropriate. Admittedly, in some parks with a Fort Collins, CO, July 23-26, 1985. great deal of research use, a “carrying U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain capacity” might need to be established for Research Station, Ogden UT, Gen. Tech. basic research projects, because multiple Rep. INT-212, pp. 398-405. projects may cause excessive disturbance of sensitive ecosystems. It should be noted that Franklin, Jerry F., 1987. Scientific use of the proposed NPS policies do not consider wilderness. Proceedings - National research an important component of wilderness, Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, nor is there a formal statement of service to State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions, the scientific community. This author suggests Fort Collins, CO, July 23-26, 1985. that limiting research to present management U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain concerns and to projects that “must” be done Research Station, Ogden UT, Gen. Tech. onsite could discourage many desirable Rep. INT-220, pp. 42-46. research efforts. Mack, Alison, William, P. Gregg, Susan P. As a final note on conceptual problems, Bratton, and Peter S. White, 1983. A it is important to recognize that present survey of ecological inventory, wilderness legislation reflects a late 19th and monitoring, and research in U.S. early 20th century view of what threatens site
111 National Park Service Biopshere Reserves. Biol. Conserv. 26: 33-45. U.S. National Park Service, 1980. State of the Parks, 1980: A Report to Congress. Office of Science and Technology and i.t National Park Service, Washington, . . U.S. National Park Service, 1988. Wilderness preservation and management. Draft policies statement , mirmo. U.S. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. White, Peter S. and Susan P. Bratton, 1980. After preservation< Philosophical and practical problems of change. Biol. Conserv. 18: 241-55.
112 THE STATE OF ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN FOREST SERVICE WILDERNESS
Sarah E. Greene and Jerry F. Franklin*
ABSTRACT Many wilderness areas provide excellent laboratories for this kind of scientific research Research on natural processes within because they contain whole drainages where Forest Service wilderness areas is defined and land and water interactions can be studied on a discussed. Current wiiderness research, other range of scales; they often contain animal than recreation-oriented, is looked at in the populations whose entire range and habitat context of ecosystem research on natural needs are met within the wilderness; they are processes. Research needs are presented. The large enough to include a mosaic of vegetation apparent lack of ecosystem research on natural types and ages on comparable sites; and they processes is a result of regulations, attitude, frequently provide excellent areas to study the logistics, and funding- Recommendations for natural background levels of environmental dealing with these problems are made. pollutants (Franklin 198 1). Forest Service wilderness areas should be INTRODUCTION playing an important role in providing these natural laboratories but, unfortunately, they am The study of the natural processes of an not. Research as a valid use of wilderness has unaltered environment has become increasingly not been accepted and applied. Basic important as humankind’s effects are becoming ecological studies have generally not been more pervasive and apparent. Studies in encouraged or supported in wilderness. In this laboratories and on degraded ecosystems have paper we examine the present and potential value, but ecological studies that collect scientific use of Forest Service wilderness areas baseline data on and improve knowledge of as it relates to understanding ecological how natural ecosystems function is essential to systems and determining trends in appraising and mitigating adverse effects on environmental conditions. We also make some the environment. Large natural areas, such as recommendations on changes in present are provided by wilderness areas, National wilderness policy. Parks, and research natural areas, are needed to provide the laboratories or settings for the study of truly natural processes. TYPES OF WILDERNESS RESEARCH Our definition of the study of natural The goals and objectives of the Forest processes emphasizes research on how Service Manual (2320.2, 2324.4) concerning ecosystems function, on the relationship of scientific research in wilderness are aimed at natural biological processes to the abiotic protecting naturalness and diversity. This can environment, and to the collection of baseline involve two kinds of research--basic research data to describe the “natural” state. This in wilderness and applied management research information is generally gathered in a on wilderness. Basic research in wilderness nondestructive and non-manipulative way. has broad societal applications, in this case the What we learn is how nature functions in the generation of knowledge. The knowledge may absence of human interference. have no direct benefit to wilderness but uses wilderness as a control point. This kind of research, which includes providing adequate
* Research Forester, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR; Chief Plant Ecologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station and Bloedel Professor of Ecosystem Analysis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
113 baseline data, is frequently long-term in nature autecology of the gray-crowned rosy finch and expensive. (Leucostict~ gctoa), mountain lion (I%& concolor), and wolverine (Gulo luscus). The second type of research, applied management research on wilderness, is Studies relating to fii history, fire designed to help maintain and manage effects, fire-return intervals, etc., have been wilderness. This most often involves an done in numerous wilderness areas (Regions 1, assessment of effects, usually related to 2.3.5.8 [Northern, Rocky Mountain, recreational use of one kind or another, and Southwestern, Pacific Southwest, and leads to recommendations for mitigation Southern], and 9) with the purpose of hying to measures. Because baseline information on reintroduce fire into an ecosystem(s) where natural processes is needed to assess historically it has been suppressed. In the adequately effects on natural systems, basic early 1970’s an extensive fire history study was research is badly needed. begun in the Gila Wilderness in Region 3. Fire-return intervals in ponderosa pine (Pinus Donderosa) communities were determined and PRESENT RESEARCH USE the relationship of fire to succession and wildlife was studied. Fire studies are being Basic ecological research on natural used in the fire management plan for a processes and their response to environmental particular wilderness, but many questions change has been limited in Forest Service concerning air quality monitoring, such as wilderness. Butler and Roberts (1986) made a defining airsheds, still need answers. Other fairly exhaustive tabulation of research in this fire studies in wilderness include the fire wilderness and found at least 50 percent of it history of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in was recreation-related; earth science accounted Region 9, fire ecology of Coulter pine (Pin* for 26 percent (mostly U.S. Geological Survey coulteri), fire ecology of chaparral, and the reports on geology of wilderness areas); botany relationship of burning to several rare and and zoology accounted for 14 percent, other endangered plants. research for 5 percent, and general ecology for 4 percent. The category of general ecology Vegetation studies in wilderness areas relates most closely to our concern for research have been s risingly limited. Very little on natural processes and their response to general classurr&!’ cation of vegetation types has environmental change. been done within individual wilderness areas. Region 6 (Pacific Northwest), which has a The senior author spoke to personnel in strong vegetation classification program, has every Forest Service Region and many discouraged its ecologists from sampling in National Forests in the country to ascertain (1) wilderness. Permanent plots designed to what research, other than recreation-oriented, follow growth and structural changes in a has taken place or is ongoing in wilderness chronosequence of forest stands have been areas; (2) whether this research is ecosystem- established in several wilderness areas in oriented; and (3) what perceived research Region 6, but most of these studies were needs, other than recreation-oriented, exist. initially started in research natural areas that Most of the reported research can be were eventually included in wilderness. One categorized into six major topics: wildlife, extensive vegetation study was done in the fii, vegetation, geomorphology, Three Sisters Wilderness with support from the riparian/aquatic, and atmospheric deposition. Man and Biosphere Program. Cole (1982) classified vegetation in two drainages in the Most wildlife research is species-specific, Eagle Cap Wilderness, Oregon, and discussed with studies of habitat and patterns of the value of doing it. Several California movement most common. Studies include wilderness areas have been subjects of broad research on the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in vegetation classifications. Studies on Region 9 (Eastern Region); transplants of vegetation change in mountain meadows have California bighorn sheep (Q$ canadensis); taken place in Regions 5 and 6, but these have movements of deer (Gdocoileus & and elk generally been in response to human damage. (Cervus spp.) herds; feeding habits of elk,
114 Some of the most extensive research in In contrast, the National Park Service has wilderness areas is geologic, including studies been more accommodating in opening its of vulcan&m, glaciation, and geomorphic wilderness areas to gathering baseline processes. Much of this work is legislatively ecological data and studying natural processes. mandated assessments of mineral potential As an example, an ecosystem study on the conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. South Fork Hoh River in Olympic National Some studies on erosion and large landslides Park has provided useful information for have been done in Region 5. managed landscapes outside the park as well as for park management. One of the research Aquatic and riparian studies have been results on the South Fork demonstrated the mostly associated with fish rehabilitation importance of off-channel habitats to fish projects or fish introductions. Little work has production (Starkey and others 1982). This been done in the way of classification or has led to changes in attitude outside the park productivity. A National Science Foundation where anadromous fisheries and timber study, which looked at changes in aquatic harvesting occur together. Two large elk community composition, production, and enclosures erected in 1978-79 have provided energy flow, was conducted on the dramatic evidence of the effects of elk on River-of-No-Return Wilderness in Idaho. vegetation composition and structure, Additional ecosystem research has been added The final category, atmospheric to the Hoh drainage as part of the National deposition, has recently received much Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, attention. The U.S. Environmental Protection including quantitative studies of nutrient Agency’s survey of lakes included many lakes cycling. administered by Forest Service Wilderness. Regions 2, 4 (Intermountain), and 9 have Specific research needs were repeatedly studies in wilderness on air pollution and its mentioned by Forest Service personnel. effect on lichens, and very general air quality Everyone agreed that basic inventories of plant studies have been begun in Regions 1, 2, 4, and animal populations are needed. The most and 9. Some of these studies are only commonly mentioned topic was fire and its monitoring visual quality and have little role in natural ecosystem processes. This topic baseline data to precede them. has many aspects: vegetative structure and composition, successional processes, nutrient Most of the research being done tends to dynamics, and air quality. Most people be short-term and lacks a holistic emphasis. seemed to agree that we need to know more Although every study contributes to our overall about succession to understand the effects of understanding of ecological processes, baseline grazing and fire suppression. Several people information on a wider range of natural expressed interest in studies of other natural processes is needed. Such studies need to be perturbations such as insect epidemics. carefully designed to identify trends and Diversity was another topic that was often improve our understanding of natural mentioned. Although the term was not usually processes. A repeated series of measurements defined, the primary concern was lack of on permanent sample plots with certainty of knowledge about the effects of management funding is badly needed to identify trends. activities on diversity. Finally, air quality and atmospheric deposition were stated as major Most of the support for research in research needs. This topic is quite involved wilderness is coming from non-Forest Service and ranges from the complexities of acid rain sources. The U.S. Geological Survey studies to merely defining the ah-shed for a supported all the mineral classification work. particular wilderness. Overall, the discussion The Environmental Protection Agency, the with Forest Service personnel indicated Department of Energy, and the National consensus on the need to understand natural Science Foundation have supported much of processes occurring in wilderness and a the atmospheric deposition research. Funds for concurrent need to integrate this information most of the research work reported in into wilderness management. California wilderness areas have been provided by State universities.
115 TRENDS IN RESEARCH USE justification for maintaining and expanding the wilderness system will be hard to substantiate. Scientific use of Forest Service wilderness is minimal, especially as it relates Why, then, isn’t more wilderness research to the natural functioning of ecosystems. being done on Forest Service land? First, we Because there is no system to record what is must look at the formal limits imposed by taking place, trends in research use are Forest Service regulations and then at other extremely hard to discern. There does not limits. appear, however, to be any great increase in research use since the first wilderness areas were established. As discussed above, most Regulations and Non-Conforming Uses research tends to come about in reaction to an adverse effect on the environment. The Justification for the scientific use of wilderness areas most commonly used for wilderness is documented in numerous Federal research are: (1) in California, especially the statutes and has been discussed at length in heavily used areas near Southern California; articles and at symposia (Lucas 1986, 1987). (2) areas close to universities; and (3) The 1964 Wilderness Act, the 1969 National wilderness areas in Region 1 where most Environmental Policy Act, the 1974 Resources wilderness researchers in the Forest Service Planning Act, and the 1976 National Forest reside. Management Act all endorse the use of wilderness for scientific research, either in the Butler and Roberts (1986) found that context of an expressed use or for evaluation larger areas received greater research attention, of management practices. The Forest Service and that use increases from dry to wetland manual direction is more specific than the areas. They also state that wilderness legislative acts, and this specificity can be management concerns tend to dictate the restrictive in nature. The research must be dominant research topics. Because the Forest shown to be compatible with the preservation Service has managed its wilderness primarily of the wilderness environment; research for recreation, research has been primarily proposals should be reviewed to ensure that directed toward recreation although recreation areas outside the wilderness could not provide yields no direct benefit to wilderness. Finally, similar research opportunities; and exceptions people in Regions 1 and 5 feel that to the equipment restrictions are to be made inaccessibility of wilderness is a major only if the research is essential to meeting the deterrent to researchers. minimum requirements for administering the wilderness. These restrictions pertain to any kind of research. PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Wilderness legislation has allowed for There are serious long-term implications too many conflicting or non-conforming uses to society and to wilderness management that have created problems for wilderness because of the low level of ecosystem-based research. Jn some instances domestic livestock research. Though the wilderness system is grazing has compromised the naturalness of large and represents an impressive meadows and riparian zones to the point where commitment, society is not accumulating the the “natural” community no longer exists. knowledge necessary to understand the basic Hunting and trapping may detract from the processes operating in natural ecosystems and potential scientific value of studying natural how these processes are affected by populations of game animals, and may have environmental changes. This has several subtle effects on the populations of nongame consequences for wilderness preservation. animals. Fish stocking of previously barren First, management is not getting the kind of lakes has affected the trophic structure of many information it needs to identify threats to lakes. Human traffic has sometimes caused the wilderness and to develop management introduction of exotic species (Franklin 1987). practices consistent with the wilderness concept. Second, scientific values as a Regulations relating specifically to scientific use are also a problem. Marking of
116 I
permanent sample plots with stakes or re-bar, The latter category is usually thought to have essential for future relocation, has generally no direct benefit to wilderness, unlike a study been discouraged. Electronic equipment that is on user effects. Wilderness as a control site, necessary for many types of research but as a baseline ecosystem that can tell us requires a power source is prohibited. Shelters something about the world around us, is for meteorological equipment or temporary currently not what wilderness is perceived as gauging stations are generally discouraged. providing, if the level of support is any The inaccessibility and ruggedness of many indication. wilderness areas can make sampling much more difficult. Often heavy equipment use and Logistics is complicated in wilderness the need to expedite transportation of samples areas because of inaccessibility and ruggedness is prevented or inhibited by distance and of the terrain. Butler and Roberts (1986) prohibition of any kind of motorized found that the larger wilderness areas received equipment. However, in some instances the the most research use, but our telephone survey use of motorized equipment, for instance indicated that large size can also be a deterrent. helicopters, may have the least impact on the Many wilderness areas are in terrain that is wilderness resource. In essence the very best physically very difficult to get around in, equipment and methods of research on natural especially if you have to carry more than your processes often cannot be, currently used within own personal gear. wilderness boundaries under present policies. Funding is a perennial problem that severely restrains research programs. Other Problems Substantial research money is often spent on logistics, out of concern for maintaining the Three additional problems concerning the “wilderness character,” which then decreases lack of scientific use of wilderness are attitude, the amount available for actual research. With logistics, and funding. Attitude is, perhaps, the less money available for sampling, the scope of most serious problem and the hardest to deal the research is reduced and the level of with, To begin with, scientific research on uncertainty about one’s data often increases. natural ecosystem processes has not been Managers and scientists mi ht have differences highly valued as a part of management of opinion on what level ofuncertainty is planning. Managers have traditionally only acceptable. Who decides the balance? supported research to solve their immediate Equitability is also an issue. East coast problems. Such studies tend to be short-term wilderness managers believe that the vast and lack a holistic perspective. Long-term data majority of money that is available for research that do not serve their immediate needs are in wilderness goes to Western wilderness areas. viewed as too costly and too vague in When funding is limited, resources are objectives and likely results. Scientists, on the generally allocated to immediate, critical (a other hand, have traditionally been perception) problems. unappreciative of management’s problems or concerns, have viewed managers as only interested in short-term studies, and are often Recommendations ignorant of wilderness regulations. This mutual misunderstanding has done little to How, then, can these issues be dealt further scientific knowledge and has certainly with? Changing attitudes is the major done a disservice to wilderness management challenge. What is needed is a strong sense of and preservation. What is lacking is a strong advocacy, at national and regional as well as advocate for scientific research on natural individual forest levels, for scientific research systems and its relation to wilderness on natural ecosystems that includes wilderness management problems. management problems as part of an integrated package. Mechanisms need to be developed to In justifying ecosystem-based research in bring managers, at all three levels, together wilderness, one is often forced to define with scientists to determine research needs and whether this is applied management research options, and to formulate long-term plans. on wilderness or basic research in wilderness. Managers need to communicate to scientists
117 their needs and concerns, while attempting to to managers. At the same time, scientists need be more flexible in their regulations and time to adopt new techniques for data gathering. frames. Scientists need to educate managers to Perhaps specific areas within wilderness the potential benefits of long-term ecological might be designated for ecosystem research. research, while showing interest and concern In the West, research natural areas have been for managers’ immediate needs. Users need to identified in wilderness with this specific provide feedback and support to both groups. purpose in mind. Designated use does not run They need to make it clear that they care about counter to wilderness direction; wilderness the naturalness and integrity of the wilderness areas have many kinds of designated ecosystems, and they need to understand that uses--camping areas, grazing areas, stock-use they are also part of the problem. A possible areas, stocked lakes for fishing, etc. mode of advocacy has appeared in Region 1. Wilderness management zoning is not a new A wilderness ecosystem committee has been idea (Haas and others 1987). formed that includes managers and scientists from the Forest Service, National Park Service, Regarding the last issue, no one will be Fish and Wildlife Service, State Parks, State surprised to hear that more money is essential. Game Departments, Intermountain Forest and Scientists and managers need to educate Range Experiment Station, and the University decision makers about critical long-term of Montana. problems. Much can be learned from the National Park Service which has a much better A fresh look at wilderness regulations is record of research with an emphasis on in order. Grazing, hunting, trapping, and fish understanding natural processes. The NPS stocking of lakes needs to be reevaluated in the often has proportionately more research staff context of the need for monitoring of and money dedicated to this pursuit. For long-term baseline data and research on natural instance, Glacier National Park has 10 processes. The use of shelters, permanent scientists on its staff concentrating on sample plot stakes, and occasional motorized wilderness- ecosystem process research. Most equipment should be permitted after ecosystem research occurring in Forest Service considering the potential benefits of the wilderness has relied on outside support such research. A case in point involves a large as the National Science Foundation. The study done by the Rocky Mountain Forest and Service itself needs to provide more support Range Experiment Station. The study involved for research of this kind. Service support also developing guidelines to assess current needs to include more than just money. Ways conditions of wilderness ecosystems as part of of expediting National Science Foundation, a larger program to protect air quality as university, and other Federally funded research mandated in the Clean Air Act of 1977. The should be pursued, including changes in research was ultimately sited outside wilderness attitude as well as more flexible regulations. because of the resistance to power-driven instrumentation, instrument shelters, etc. In commenting on the problem of acquiring CONCLUSIONS exemptions from the regulations, the scientists state “In all likelihood, then, a request for an The Forest Service Manual (2320.2) lists exemption is likely to be refused unless it can five objectives for wilderness management. be demonstrated unequivocally (emphasis Number 4 states “Protect and perpetuate added) that the data to be gathered under the wilderness character and public values exemption are absolutely necessary, and all including, but not limited to, opportunities for possible alternatives to the exemption have scientific study, . . .‘I, and number 5 states been considered, and the data cannot be “Gather information and carry out research . . . gathered in any other manner” (Fox and others to increase understanding of wilderness 1987). Yet their research was supposed to ecology, . . .I’ Both statements stress scientific yield information on current conditions within study of ecological processes is both valid and wilderness ecosystems. Inflexibility in necessary. Such research involves regulations should be weighed against the measurement of long-term processes, whether it potential scientific information made available is changes in environmental conditions, ecosystem succession, or population dynamics
118 ecosystem succession, or population dynamics Franklin, Jerry F. 1987. Scientific use of of various organisms. Carefully planned and wilderness. IN Proceedings, National integrated, it can provide a holistic view of Wilderness Conference: Issues, wilderness ecosystems and improve State-of-Knowledge, Future Decisions. management for wilderness attributes. Very Fort Collins, CO. Intermountain Forest little of such work is being done. Quite and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, simply, Forest Service wilderness areas are UT. GTR-INT 220. p. 42-46. under-utilized for ecosystem research, considering the diversity of ecosystems and the Haas, Glenn E. , B. L. Driver, Perry J. Brown, vast acreage that is rarely used by and Robert G. Lucas. 1987. Wilderness recreationists. management zoning. Journal of Forestry. 58(12):17-21. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Lucas, Robert C., compiler. 1986. Proceedings, National Wilderness The authors thank P. Brown, D. Cole, B. Research Conference: Current Research. Ferrell, A. McKee, and S. McKool for Intermountain Forest and Range reviewing this manuscript. Their interest in the Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. topic and their thoughtful and incisive GTR-INT 212. 553 p. comments added substantially to the fii manuscript. Lucas, Robert C., compiler. 1987. Proceedings, National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, REFERENCES State-of-Knowledge, Future Decisions. Intermountain Forest and Range Butler, Lisa Mathis, and Rebecca S. Roberts. Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 1986. Use of wilderness areas for GTR-INT 220. 369~. research. IN Robert C. Lucas. 1986. Proceedings, National Wilderness Starkey, Edward E., Jerry F. Franklin, and Jean Research Conference: Current Research. W. Matthews. 1982. Ecological Fort Collins, CO. Intermountain Research in National Parks of the Pacific Research Station, Ogden, UT. GTR Northwest. National Park Service INT-212. p. 398-405. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, Oregon State University Forest Research Cole, David N. 1982. Vegetation of two Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 142 p.4. drainages in the Eagle Cap Wilderness, Wallowa Mountains, Oregon. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Missoula, MT, Research Paper INT-288. 42 pp. Fox, Douglas D., J. Christopher Bernabo, and Betsy Hood. 1987. Guidelines for establishing current physical, chemical, and biological conditions of remote alpine and subalpine ecosystems. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. GTR-RM 146. 148 p. Franklin, Jerry F. 198 1. Wilderness for baseline ecosystem studies. IN Proceedings of XVII IUFRO World Congress. p. 37-48.
119 SOCIAL RESEARCH IN WILDERNESS: MAN IN NATURE
Robert E. Manning*
ABSTRACT Human use of wilderness has been the subject of considerable study. From this study Wilderness’ has special value as a social it is apparent that wilderness can have many science laboratory for understanding man’s uses. The Wilderness Act itself is suggestive relationship to nature. This paper reviews where it states that “wilderness areas shall be human use of wilderness with the purpose of devoted to the public purposes of recreational, understanding this relationship better and scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and illustrating the value of wilderness for social historical use” (Wilderness Act 1964). The research. following is a brief survey of the multiple uses of wilderness in contemporary American society. INTRODUCTION ’ Like other authors in this colloquium, I Wilderness Recreation was assigned a topic. My topic was social research in wilderness. The colloquium Perhaps the most obvious or readily organizers went on to describe my task as apparent value of wilderness is for recreation. addressing research on human use of People use wilderness directly as the focus of wilderness. But this is a big topic; social and setting for outdoor recreation activity. In research is broad and diverse and invites many absolute terms the statistics are impressive. It interpretations. After puzzling over my is estimated that designated wilderness areas assignment, I concluded that the greatest value within the National Forests accommodated 12 of wilderness for social research is as a million visitor-days of recreation in 1985. laboratory to study man’s relationship to nature. Backcountry areas within the National Parks After all, wilderness represents the natural accommodated approximately 1.7 million environment in its most pure and unmodified overnight stays the same year (Stankey and form. What better way to study man and his Lucas 1986). Relative statistics, however, relationship to the natural world than to study present a somewhat different picture. man in the wilderness? Wilderness recreation accounted for only 5.3 percent of all outdoor recreation within the But this is still a broad topic. How National Forests in 1985 (Stankey and Lucas could it be operationalized for the purposes of 1986). Moreover, it is estimated that only 6 to this paper? I decided to focus on what I 15 percent of the U.S. population has ever believe is the key phrase in my assignment: visited a designated wilderness area (Opinion “human use of wilderness”. What does Research Corporation 1977; Wallwork 1984; research tell us about how we use and value Young 1980). wilderness? A review of the literature on this topic should provide important insights on But the value of wilderness for man’s relationship to nature while at the same recreation cannot be measured solely on the time illustrating the usefulness of wilderness to basis of the number of people who visit. social research. Much of its value lies as an anchor of the primitive end of a spectrum of recreation opportunities. Recreation research has revealed HUMAN USE OF WILDERNESS that there are many tastes in outdoor recreation and that there needs to be a corresponding
* Professor, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT. 120 diversity of opportunities to ensure a high undisturbed environments to practice the quality outdoor recreation system (Manning highest forms of these recreation pursuits. 1986). This concept has recently been Some writers refer to these forms of recreation operationalized formally as the Recreation as “wilderness-dependent” (Hendee and others Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (Brown and 1977). There is some limited empirical others 1978; Brown and others 1979; Clark evidence of this phenomenon. Evolution of and Stankey 1979; Driver and Brown 1978). recreation activity from novice to more Wilderness recreation is one specialized type of specialized forms has been documented for recreation opportunity emphasizing naturalness, samples of fishermen (Bryan 1977), white- solitude, and freedom.. As one type of water rafters (Munley and Smith 1976). and recreation opportunity it is inherently no more campers (Burch and Wenger 1967). In each nor less valuable than any other type that may case, preferences evolve toward more natural be found within ROS. Its value lies in its settings which provide greater challenge for distinct contribution to a greater system of enhanced skills and experience. recreation opportunities. ,I However, wilderness does hold special Spiritual Values in Wilderness recreation value to some people. Psychological research indicates that, like ,most other human Nature is such an imposing, powerful activity, outdoor recreation is goal directed: and all-embracing element of our world that its people participate in outdoor recreation to relationship to things spiritual or even religious satisfy certain motives. Driver and associates is inevitable. Symbolic of this relationship is have conducted extensive tests of recreation the fact that the word “wilderness” appears motives using Recreation Experience nearly 300 times in the Old and New Preference scales (Driver 1976; Driver and Testaments (Nash 1982). However, wilderness Cooksey 1977; Driver and Knopf 1976; Haas has been subject to conflicting spiritual and others 1980). A number of the motives interpretations. The Puritans of colonial found important to selected samples of America, for example, viewed wilderness as recreationists are closely associated with the antithesis of God. Within conservative wilderness (see, for example, Brown and Haas religious doctrine, wilderness was generally 1980; Driver and others 1987; Knopf and Lime interpreted as the physical and spiritual 1984; Schreyer and Roggenbuck 1978). opposite of the Garden of Eden (Nash 1982). Examples of such motives include enjoying Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in nature, physical fitness, reduction of tensions, the Book of Joel which, in recounting the story escaping noise/crowds, outdoor learning, of Adam and Eve, states that “The land is like independence, introspection, achievement, and the garden of Eden before them, but after them risk taking. Without wilderness recreation a desolate wilderness” (Joel 2:3). opportunities, people seeking to satisfy these motives may be unfulfilled. Following the early colonial experience, American religious interpretations of nature Wilderness also holds special value for became somewhat more benign, though their more “pure” or highly developed forms of outcome was no more favorable. Following recreation. Sax (1980), in reflecting on a the teachings of Genesis, man was instructed to recreation policy for National Parks, references “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the the philosophical writings of Frederick Law earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over Olmsted who emphasizes the need for the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the opportunities for “reflective” recreation. Some air, and over every living thing that moveth forms of recreation evolve to exercise the upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Wilderness “contemplative faculty” of participants where was seen simply as a storehouse of raw the emphasis is placed on technique and setting materials for man’s earthly use, Nature was without the distractions of technology or other exploited accordingly and wilderness societal intrusions. The philosophical literature diminished. of fishing (Waltin and Catlin 1925), hunting (Gasset 1972). and mountain climbing (Rowell More recently, nature, and its ultimate 1977) is suggestive of the need for natural, expression as wilderness, has been subject to
121 more favorable spiritual treatment. Beginning that of their European ancestors. Rather, one in the 19th century, the Concord intellectuals, of the qualities which made America led by Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David distinctive was the grandness and wildness of Thoreau, formulated their complex philosophy its nature. Many of America’s first of transcendentalism. Postulating a series of contributions to world culture celebrated its higher spiritual truths, transcendentalism wilderness heritage. William Cullen Bryant suggested nature as a setting or even metaphor was one of America’s first great poets to gain for such truths. “Nature is the symbol of the international recognition and his subject was spirit” wrote Emerson (Emerson 1883). the romantic American forests. James Thoreau went further, suggesting that nature Fennimore Cooper enjoyed a wide international was God’s purest creation and that the best following for his novels about adventure in the way to know God and divine revelation was to American wilderness. Thomas Cole, Frederick get as close as possible to nature. The wilder Church, Albert Bierstadt, Thomas Moran, and and purer was nature, the better. In fact, other American painters redefined the practice nature may even be the hysical manifestation of landscape art with their emphasis on the of God. “Is not nature, K‘ghtly read, that of power and sublimity of the American which she is commonly taken to be the symbol wilderness landscape. The image of America merely?” asked Thoreau (Thoreau 1893a). Enme;losely associated with its wilderness The transcendentalist interpretation of nature has been eagerly accepted by many Some suggest that wilderness shaped not wilderness enthusiasts. Notable among them is only America’s physical and mental image, but John Muir who viewed nature as “a window its personality as well. The most definitive opening into heaven, a mirror reflecting the treatment of this view is Frederick Jackson Creator” (Muir 1911). Defending the Hetch Turner’s “frontier thesis” (Turner 1920). Hetchy valley within Yosemite National Park Turner believed that the pioneers’ experience in from a proposed dam, Muir railed “Dam Hetch the wilderness of the American frontier marked Hetchy! As well dam for water tanks the them with a sense of independence, rugged people’s cathedrals and churches, for no holier individualism, and self-worth which defines a temple has ever been consecrated by the heart distinctive American personality. Moreover, of man” (Muir 1912). these characteristics developed out of the wilderness experience have been directly Today the transcendentalist tradition translated into our distinctive form of continues. Environmental degradation is often democratic government with its emphasis on described as “desecration,” a term with obvious maintaining personal freedom. “Out of his religious overtones. John Denver celebrates wilderness experience,” Turner wrote, “out of the “cathedral mountains” of the Rockies. the freedom of his opportunities, he fashioned Spiritual values and personal introspection are a formula for social regeneration--the freedom often cited as important motives for people of the individual to seek his own” (Turner who visit wilderness areas (Driver and others 1920). 1987). A recent book by Graber has even suggested that wilderness preservation might be More recently, Wallace Stegner has justified on the constitutional basis of given contemporary meaning to wilderness as a maintaining religious freedom (Graber 1976). museum of our cultural heritage. The wilderness of America presented an opportunity for a new beginning, a place to build a better Wilderness and Culture society. Preserving wilderness now and into the future celebrates our success and In the minds of many, wilderness has symbolizes our continued potential. As such, contributed to the distinctiveness of American wilderness is “a part of the geography of hope” culture. Nash, for example, notes that colonial (Stegner 1969). America, like most fledgling nations, was defensive about its lack of established culture (Nash 1982). Americans had no grand history, art, or architecture which might compete with
122 Wilderness as Therapy evidence to suggest that various therapeutic benefits from wilderness are real and Wilderness has long been thought to forthcoming. have therapeutic value in both a physical and mental sense. Robert Marshall was one of the fiit to write about these qualities in a serious Esthetics of Wilderness way. A prodigious hiker, Marshall’s own adventures in the wilderness in the early 1900’s Esthetics is another area in which convinced him of the physical benefits of wilderness has been subject to considerable wilderness use. “Toting a fifty-pound pack revision and reinterpretation. Mountains, for over an abominable trail, snowshoeing across a example, were once generally considered as blizzard-swept plateau or scaling some jagged “warts, pimples, blisters and other ugly pinnacle which juts far above timber,” he deformities on the Earth’s surface” (Nash wrote, “all develop a body distinguished by 1982). The scientific advances of the soundness, stamina and elan unknown amid Enlightenment first suggested that the wilder normal surroundings” (Marshall 1930). But the regions of the planet had some logic or order fact is that most people don’t visit wilderness to them. These places, in fact, must have been often enough to develop or maintain a true created and shaped by God’s own hand. This physical conditioning effect, Marshall also led to a more sympathetic and appreciative claimed that wilderness had psychological view of nature which flowered in the Romantic benefits. Marshall’s thinking was influenced movement of the 17th and 18th centuries. by Sigmund Freud and the developing science Edmund Burke formally expressed this new of psychology which suggested that mental esthetic of nature in his book “Philosophical dysfunctions were often caused by repressed Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the desires forced upon us by the constraints of Sublime and Beautiful” published in 1757. society (Nash 1982). Wilderness, argued Wild nature, or wilderness, was still steeped Marshall, provided an opportunity to release with horror and terror, but was beautiful at the those constraints and play out emotion and same time due to the awe and power it instincts (Marshall 1930). signified within us. Wilderness was sublime. It was this sublimity in nature that was first Therapeutic values of wilderness have captured and illustrated by the American received considerable attention of late. A landscape painters described earlier (Nash substantial industry has grown up around these 1982). potential values, led by Outward Bound and the National Outdoor Leadership School. It is Robert Marshall developed additional estimated that there are now over 300 such sophistication of wilderness esthetics. Marshall programs (Burton 1981). A large number of recognized that nature possesses unique esthetic studies have evolved at the same time which characteristics: it is detached from all temporal attempt to explore and document the relationships in that it is not rooted in any one therapeutic values of wilderness use’ Burton period of human history; it has an (1981), for example, reviewed 72 studies of encompassing physical ambience in that we Outward Bound-type programs. Most focused can be literally surrounded by its beauty; it has on participant reports or tests of self-concept or a dynamic beauty as it is always changing; it self-perception and most found a positive or has the potential to gratify all of the senses in beneficial effect. Driver and associates have that it can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and conducted extensive tests of more general felt; and it provides the best opportunity for wilderness recreationists using the Recreation pure or perfectly objective esthetic enjoyment Experience Preference scales described earlier. in that it is not created or affected by man Self-concept-related preference items, such as (Marshall 1930). Based on this philosophy of gaining a sense of self-confidence, are esthetics, Marshall emphasized the special consistently found to be important to a large contribution wilderness might make to the number of wilderness visitors (Driver and quality of life. Asked how many wilderness others 1987). Though many of the wilderness areas we need, Marshall replied “How many therapy studies have methodological Brahms symphonies do we need?” (Flint 1939). shortcomings, there is a growing body of Wilderness contributes to the quality of life
123 and we should have as many wilderness areas flowed to downstate residents (Nash 1982). as we can afford. This was one of the first actions of large-scale wilderness preservation. There is considerable evidence of the esthetic value of wilderness today. The The environmental movement of today is photographs taken by millions of visitors to the based largely on concern for ecological national parks and similar areas are symbolic relationships. Our current technological ability as are the calendars and coffee-table books to modify ecological relationships on a massive published by environmental groups and others. scale may threaten our long term existence by The Recreation Experience Preference scales of disrupting vital components of our environment Driver and associates are again instructive. such as clean air and water, fertile soil, and a The scale item “scenery” ranks as one of the stable climate. Setting aside large areas of our most important motives of wilderness visitors natural environment as wilderness is viewed as (Driver and others 1987). one way to protect our future well-being. Wilderness serves another ecological Ecology and Wilderkess value in conserving biological and genetic diversity. The number of species on earth is Ecology is a relatively new science. The unknown but generally estimated to exceed 10 very word "ecology" (was not coined until the million (Myers 1979). Although extinction of 1860’s by German evolutionist Ernest Haeckel species is a natural phenomenon, the rate of and means the study of living things and their extinction is believed to have increased sharply interrelation with their environment (Odum in recent years due to human modification of 1959). Ecology is a complex and emerging the environment (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981; science. Myers 1979; Myers 1983). The loss of biological and genetic diversity is of grave Rudimentary observations about concern because of its current and potential ecological relationships--and the meaning they usefulness to society. Plants and animals might have for wilderness preservation--were provide many benefits to society through their made in the United States in the early 19th use in medicine, industry, and agriculture, century. It was during this time that George Since most species are still unidentified or Perkins Marsh witnessed the large-scale unstudied, their extinction poses a great clearing of Vermont hillsides for agriculture potential loss to society. Wilderness helps (Curtis and others 1982; Lowenthal 1958). preserve habitat, thus protecting endangered Simultaneously he observed changes in species as well as providing for continued streamflow patterns--more flooding with evolution and speciation. snowmelt and spring rains, and streams tended to run dry more often in late summer. Marsh theorized that it was the roots of trees which Wilderness and Science helped bond the soil together and allow water to percolate down slowly through the soil and It was noted above that the science of eventually filter into streams. This mechanism ecology is relatively young. This means, provided a relatively constant source of stream among other things, that there is much more to flow. Without trees and their roots, water ran be learned. Only about 3 percent of the off the hillsides quickly, often washing the soil United States is designated wilderness. If away with it. Marsh published his certain types of scientific knowledge can be observations in 1864 in his important book obtained only from natural ecosystems, then ManBased andNature. on man’s tendency to wilderness holds special value for developing disrupt the interrelationships in nature, Marsh scientific theory and knowledge. Wilderness proposed keeping a large portion of “American provides the only place, for example, to study soil . . . as far as possible, in its primitive effectively large-scale ecological processes such condition” (Marsh 1864). His arguments were as forest succession and watershed function, influential in convincing the citizens of New and to study wildlife such as grizzly bears and York to set aside the Adirondack region to wolves which have large home ranges. Some protect the quantity and quality of water which suggest that we don’t yet fully appreciate the
124 knowledge that may be forthcoming from wilderness of the New World to find spiritual wilderness. In the words of one environmental freedom just as the Mormons went to the writer, wilderness “holds answers to questions deserts of Utah. Similarly Thomas Cole and man has not yet learned how to ask” (Nash his followers found artistic inspiration in the 1982). wilderness. More recently, wilderness has even been suggested as a source of political Evidence suggests that wilderness areas freedom. Abbey, for example, writes that are indeed used extensively as natural wilderness may someday be needed “not only laboratories. A recent study of only a sample as a refuge from excessive industrialism but of officially designated wilderness areas within also as a refuge from authoritarian government, the National Forest and National Park systems from political oppression” (Abbey 1968). Nash found over 800 scientific publications focused also notes that George Orwell’s police state on these areas (Butler and Roberts 1986). society of 1984 abolished wilderness because it Scientific disciplines covered included ecology, “supported freedom of thought and action” botany, zoology, and geology. (Nash 1982). Wilderness can also serve the interests of science as an environmental control or Wilderness as Moral and Ethical Obligation baseline. In living out our,day-to-day lives we must alter the environment around us. But Most of the wilderness values discussed what long-term effects are we having on that thus far focus on human use of wilderness and environment? Only through comparison to how we might benefit from such use. An environmental control areas--the natural emerging notion suggests that wilderness and environments we preserve in wilderness--can its component parts may have intrinsic value we be certain. Aldo Leopold was the first to that we have a moral and ethical obligation to suggest this use of wilderness when he wrote support, This notion stems from several that wilderness is “a base-datum of normality, sources. a picture of how healthy land maintains itself as an organism” (Leopold 1941). Aldo Leopold was the first to suggest a “land ethic.” As a scientist Leopold recognized that man was part of a larger Wilderness and Intellectual Freedom ecological community. Just as we express moral and ethical rights to other members of Nash (1982) makes an interesting case our human communities, so should we extend that wilderness is the ultimate source of such rights to members of our ecological intellectual freedom or creativity. Piecing community. “All ethics so far evolved,” wrote together the writings of a number of natural Leopold, “rest upon a single premise: that the philosophers, Nash suggests that wilderness individual is a member of a community of provides the purest form of objectivity from interdependent parts. The land ethic simply which original thoughts might be derived. enlarges the boundaries of the community to Unfettered by human influence, wilderness include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or inspires intellectual creativity and diversity. collectively: the land” (Leopold 1966). Thoreau, for example, saw wilderness as the “raw material of life” (Thoreau 1893b) while Extension of moral and ethical Leopold viewed the history of human thought considerations to the natural world is also as “successive excursions from a single supported by contemporary reinterpretation of starting-point” which was the “raw wilderness” Judeo-Christian teachings. Given that we have (Leopold 1966). The contemporary words seriously depleted many of our natural “pathfmding, ” “trailblazing,” and “pioneering” resources, White (1967) suggests that the associate creative thought and scholarship with scripture contained in Genesis, as described a wilderness context (Nash 1982). earlier in this paper, may suggest something Intellectual freedom inspired through different than it has traditionally. Man’s wilderness has been found in several dominion over other life forms may be more disciplines of human endeavor, including appropriately interpreted as expressing a religion and the arts. The Puritans came to the
125 stewardship responsibility rather than additional increment, or consumer surplus, is a indiscriminate or unlimited use. more accurate measure of actual value. Sorg and Loomis (1984) reviewed a number of The “rights” of natural objects have even willingness-to-pay studies of wilderness been tested in the court system. In the recreationists and found that most values landmark case of the Mineral King Valley, ranged from $13 to $20 per activity day, California, Supreme Court Justice Douglas adjusted to 1982 dollars. Additional economic wrote that a wilderness had a right to legal value of wilderness recreation includes the standing in the court (Stone 1974). His, contribution of this activity to national, local, however, was a minority opinion. and regional economies which provide related goods and services to wilderness recreationists Intrinsic rights of nature is a new and (Alward 1986; Walsh and Loomis 1986). evolving concept in the environmental community. A Journal of Environmental Some wilderness values are highly Ethics has been established and some of the tangible. The high-quality water that flows off most thoughtful writing of contemporary protected watersheds is used for drinking and environmental philosophers is focused on this irrigation. Compromises made in passing the subject (Elliot and Gare 1983; Regan 1983; Wilderness Act allow some wilderness areas to Rolston 1986; Rolston 1988; Stone 1987; be used for commercial grazing and mineral Wilson 1984). Some suggest that the production. Certainly the biotic and genetic environmental movement is evolving from its diversity preserved in wilderness is increasingly “shallow” anthropocentric traditions to a new used in a wide variety of commercial and “deep” biocentric philosophy (Devall 1980; medical applications. Little work has been Devall and Sessions 1985; Naess 1973). To done, however, to quantify these values in all those who believe in the intrinsic rights of economic terms (bland 1979). nature, preservation of wilderness is an expression of man’s moral and ethical Other wilderness values are less tangible. obligation to the environment. How do we value, for example, the vital ecological “services” provided by nature such as clean air and climatic stability? (Westman Economics of Wilderness 1977) Due to uncertainty, how can we value the future usefulness of biotic and genetic Though it may seem paradoxical at first, diversity? (Bishop 1978) The therapeutic, wilderness is seen by some as having cultural, intellectual, esthetic, and spiritual substantial economic value. Indeed, this paper values of wilderness may all benefit society has discussed many uses, values, or benefits through increased health and productivity, that wilderness might have to society and it sense of pride and self-worth, innovation, and seems reasonable to assume that such values pure enjoyment. But these values are difficult might be measurable, at least theoretically, in to quantify in dollar terms. traditional economic terms. As it turns out, some values are more readily measurable than Finally, it has been suggested that others. In any case, a substantial body of wilderness may have unique values involving economic literature has been developed that the preservation of natural environments. focuses on various aspects of wilderness Decisions to develop natural environments are valuation. often irreversible. By preserving such areas as wilderness we may be creating and capturing Some economic values of wilderness are option, existence, and bequest values (Krutilla relatively straightforward. Wilderness 1967). By avoiding the irreversible decision of recreationists, for example, incur certain costs development, wilderness remains available as for travel and equipment and these costs an option for those who do not now use constitute a minimum economic value of wilderness but may wish to do so in the future. wilderness for recreation (Clawson and Knetsch Alternatively, some people may have no 1966). Actual costs are considered a minimum expectation of using wilderness directly, but measure of value because recreationists may be value the knowledge that such areas exist. willing to pay more than required and this Finally, some people may be imbued with a
126 sense of social altmism and derive satisfaction extension, man’s spiritual relationship to nature, and value in knowing that future generations but there is a near total lack of empiricism. In have been endowed with or bequeathed contrast, research on economic values of wilderness. Empirical tests suggest that option, wilderness has tended to be highly quantitative, existence, and bequest values can be but lacks both breadth and depth. substantial, even outweighing more tangible wilderness benefits. A recent study of public It seems equally clear that research on support for wilderness preservation in human use of wilderness can be of Colorado, for example, found that the average considerable value in determining appropriate family would be willing to pay $14 per year to wilderness policy and management. Recent preserve the State’s wilderness areas as reviews of recreation research, for example, recreation reserves. These same families, present an impressive body of knowledge however, would be willing to pay even more-- which can be brought to bear on wilderness an additional $19 per year--to be comforted in management (Brown and others 1987; Cole knowing that such areas exist and are being 1987; Driver and others 1987; Hammitt and protected for future generations (Walsh and Cole 1987; Manning 1986; Roggenbuck and others 1984). Lucas 1987; Stankey and Schreyer 1987). We have developed profiles of wilderness visitors, for example, including their psychological WILDERNESS AS A LABORATORY FOR motives for wilderness recreation and attitudes SOCIAL RESEARCH toward management alternatives. We understand that crowding in wilderness settings Earlier in this paper it was noted that the is a normative concept and can be affected not Wilderness Act suggests that wilderness might only by the number of interparty encounters serve a number of values in contemporary but by the type and behavior of groups and the society. The survey of wilderness uses situation in which encounters occur. We know outlined in this paper confirms and even that recreation use causes environmental expands this expectation. Wilderness impacts and that these impacts tend to occur advocates, philosophers, and researchers have quickly even under relatively light levels of identified numerous and diverse ways in which use. From research we have developed a preservation of wilderness can serve the needs number of management concepts, such as of society now and in the future. carrying capacity, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Limits of Acceptable Change, Some wilderness uses are more direct or which assist in the effort to manage wilderness tangible than others. Wilderness recreation, for for both its recreational and ecological values. example, would seem to require one’s direct physical presence in wilderness. However, From this brief survey of wilderness use, maintenance of vital ecological services, such it is apparent that wilderness can be an as air and water purification, requires no direct important laboratory for social research. But human use and, in fact, may be more its importance lies more in its potential than in efficiently carried out under such conditions. results now achieved. Not enough social It seems clear that although only a minority of science research is occurring in wilderness. the population uses wilderness in the direct and Perhaps this is best illustrated in the narrow sense of the term, society can still find preliminary results of the Non-recreational great value in wilderness. Wilderness Use Telephone Survey conducted in preparation for this colloquium (Reed and Haas In preparing this summary of human use 1987). Only 14 percent of the wilderness of wilderness it became obvious that research areas studied supported any social research in this broad area of study is highly uneven. studies in 1987. Some wilderness uses, for example, are poorly documented in the scientific sense, relying Finally, it should be noted that human instead on classical philosophical writings or use of wilderness is clearly evolving. anecdotal evidence. There is a considerable Throughout this paper there is an historical body of literature, for example, regarding theme suggesting that wilderness values are spiritual values of wilderness and, by growing in type and intensity. Only through
127 social research will we be able to document wilderness: A state-of-knowledge and understand man’s changing relationship to review. Proceedings - National nature. Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions. USDA Forest Service General Technical REFERENCES Report INT-200, pp. 320-346. Abbey, E. 1968. Desert solitaire: A season in Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and the wilderness. New York: Ballantine recreational specialization: The case of Books. trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research g(3): 174-187. Alward, G. 1986. Local and regional economic impacts of outdoor recreation develop- Burch, W. and W. Wenger. 1967. The social ment. A Literature Review: President’s characteristics of participants in three Commission on Americans Outdoors. styles of family camping. U.S. Washington, D.C.! U.S. Government Department of Agriculture, Forest Printing Office, pp; V47-V58. Service Research Paper PNW-48. Barcus, C. and R. Bergenson. 1982. Survival Burton, L. 1981. A critical analysis of the training and mental health: A review. research on outward bound and related Therapeutic Recreation Journal 6( 1):3-7 programs. Ph.D. Dissertation. Rutgers University, Brunswick, N. J. Bishop, R. 1978. Endangered species and uncertainty: The economics of a safe Butler, L. and R. Roberts. 1986. Use of minimum standard. American Journal of wilderness areas for research. Agricultural Economics 60(1):10-18. proceedings - National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research. Brown, P., B. Driver, D. Bums, and C. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest McConnell. 1979. The outdoor Service General Technical Report INT- recreation opportunity spectrum in 212, pp. 398-405. wildland recreation planning: Development and application, pp. 1-12 in Clark, R and G. Stankey. 1979. The First Annual National Conference on recreation opportunity spectrum: A Recreation Planning and Development: framework for planning, management Proceedings of the Specialty Conference and research. U.S. Department of (Vol. 2). Washington, D.C.: Society of Agriculture, Forest Service Research Civil Engineers. Paper PNW-98. Brown, P., B. Driver, and C. McConnell. Clawson, M. and J. Knetsch. 1966. 1978. The opportunity spectrum concept Economics of outdoor recreation. in outdoor recreation supply inventories: Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Background and application, pp. 73-84 in Press. Proceedings of the Integrated Renewable Resource Inventories Workshop. USDA Cole, D. 1987. Research on soil and Forest Service General Technical Report vegetation in wilderness: A state-of- RM-55. knowledge review. Proceedings - National Wilderness Research Brown, P. and G. Haas. 1980. Wilderness Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, recreation experiences: The Rawah case. Future Directions. USDA Forest Service Journal of Leisure Research 12(3):229- 7;;~;~ Technical Report INT-200, pp. 241. Brown, P., S. McCool, and M. Manfredo. Curtis, J., W. Curtis and F. Lieberman. 1982. 1987. Evolving concepts and tools for The world of George Perkins Marsh. recreation user management in Woodstock, Vt.: The Countryman Press.
128 Devall, W. 1980. The deep ecology Emerson, R.W. 1883. Nature in nature, movement. Natural Resources Journal addresses and lectures, The Works of 20:299-322. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Standard Library Edition (14 vols. Boston) I, 31,38; as Devall, W. and G. Sessions. 1985. Deep cited in Roderick Nash. 1982. ecology: Living as if nature mattered. Wilderness and the American Mind (3rd Salt Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith ed.). New, Haven: Yale University Press. Books. pq 85. Driver, B. 1976. Quantification of outdoor Ewert, A. 1983. Outdoor adventure and self- recreationists’ preferences. research: concept: A research analysis. Camping and environmental education. University of Oregon, College of Human Pennsylvania State University HPER Development and Performance, Eugene, :;‘;‘“;8;‘“, 11, University Park, PA, pp. OK!. Flint, E. 1939 “Robert Marshal& the man Driver, B. and P. Brown. 1978. The and his aims”, Sunday Montana] opportunity spectrum, concept in outdoor Misoulian, Nov. 19; as cited in Roderick recreation supply inventories: A rationale, Nash. 1982. Wilderness and the pp. 24-31 in Proceedings of the an&can mind (3rd ed.). New Haven: Integrated Renewable Resource Yale University Press. p. 203. Inventories Workshop. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Gasset, J. 1972. Meditations on hunting. Technical Report RM-55 New Yorlr: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Driver, B. and R. Cooksey. 1977. Preferred Genesis l:28 psychological outcomes of recreational fishing. Catch and release fishing as a Gibson, P. 1979. Therapeutic aspects of management tool: A national sport wilderness programs: A comprehensive fishing symposium. Humbolt State literature review. Therapeutic Recreation University, Arcada, CA, pp. 27-49 Journal 13(2):21-33. Driver, B. and R. Knopf. 1976. Temporary Graber, L. 1976. Wilderness as sacred space. escape: One product of sport fisheries Washington, D.C.: The Association of management. Fisheries 1:21-29. American Geographers. Driver, B., R. Nash and G. Haas. 1987. Haas, G., B. Driver, and P. Brown. 1980. Wilderness benefits: A state-of- , Measuring wilderness recreation knowledge review in proceedings - ./ experience preferences. In: Proceedings National Wilderness Research of the Wilderness Psychology Group Conference: Issues, state-of-knowledge, Annual Conference, University of New future directions. U. S. Department of Hampshire, Durham, N.H., pp. 20-40. Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report INT-220, pp. 294-319. Hammitt. W. and D. Cole. 1987. Wildland recreation: Ecology and management. Ehrlich, P. and A. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction: New York: John Wiley and Sons. The causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. New York: Hendee, J,, G. Stankey and R. Lucas. 1977. Random House Wilderness management. U. S. Department of A&culture, Forest Elliot, R. and A. Gare (eds.). 1983. Service Miscellaneous Publication 1365. Environmental philosophy. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.
129 Irland, L. 1979. Wilderness economics and American Mind (3rd ed.). New Haven: policy. Lexington, Massachusetts: Yale University Press. p. 125. Lexington Books. Muir, J. 1912. The Yosemite (New York), Joel 2:3 pp. 261-262; as cited by Roderick Nash. 1982. Wilderness and the American Knopf, R. and D. Lime. 1984. A recreation Mind (3rd ed.). New Haven: Yale managers guide to understanding river University Press. p. 168. use and users. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Munley, V. and V. Smith. 1976. Learning- Technical Report WO-38. by-doing and experience: The case of whitewater recreation. Land Economics Krutilla, J. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. 52(4):545-553. American Economic Review 57:777-786. Myers, N. 1979. The sinking ark: A new Leopold, A. 1941. Wilderness as a land look at the problem of disappearing laboratory. Living wilderness 6:3; as species. Oxford, England: Pergamon cited in Roderick Nash. 1982. Press. Wilderness and the American Mind (3rd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. Myers, N.. 1983. A wealth of wild species: p. 198. Storehouse for human welfare. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Leopold, A. 1966. A sand county almanac with essays on conservation from Round Naess, A. 1973. The shallow and the deep, River. New York: Ballantine Books, p. long-range ecology movement. Inquiry 239. 16:95-100 i Levitt, L. 1982. How effective is wilderness Nash, R.. 1982. Wilderness and the american therapy? in Proceedings of the Third \ mind (3rd ed.). New Haven: Yale Annual Conference of the Wilderness University Press. Psychology Group, West Virginia l&riversity, Morgantown, W.V., pp. 81- Odum, E. 1959. Fundamentals of ecology (2nd ed.) Philadelphia, Penn: W.B. Saunders. Lowenthal, D. 1958. George Perkins Marsh: Versatile Vermonter. New York Opinion Research Corporation. 1977. The public’s participation in outdoor activities Manning, R. 1986. Studies in outdoor and attitudes toward national wilderness recreation: Search and research for areas. Princeton, N.J.: Report prepared satisfaction. Corvallis: Oregon State for the American Forest Institute. University Press. Reed, P. and G. Haas. 1987. Preliminary Marsh, G. 1864. Man and nature; or, physical results to the non-recreational wilderness geography as modified by human action. use. Telephone Survey. Unpublished New York. p.228; as cited in Roderick manuscript dated December 14, 1987. Nash. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind (3rd ed.). New Haven:’ Regan, T. 1983. The case for animal rights. Yale University Press. p. 105. Berkeley: University of California Press. Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of the Roggenbuck, J. and R. Lucas. 1987. ~~~emess. Scientific Monthly, 30, p. Wilderness use and user characteristics: A state-of-knowledge review. Muir, J. 1911. My first summer in the Sierra. Proceedings - National Wilderness (Boston), p. 211; as cited by Roderick Research Conference: Issues, State-of- Nash. 1982. Wilderness and the Knowledge, Future Directions. USDA
130 Forest Service General Technical Report Stone, C. 1974. Should trees have standing? INT-200, pp. 204-245. Toward legal rights for natural objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufman, Rolston, H. III. 1986. Philosophy gone wild: Inc. Essays in environmental ethics. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Stone, C. 1987. Earth and other ethics. New York: Harper and Row. Rolston, H. III. 1988. Environmental ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural Thoreau, H.D. 1893a. A week on the World. Philadelphia: Temple University Concord and Merrimack Rivers in the Press. writings of Henry David Thoreau. Riverside Edition. (11 ~01s. Boston) I, Rowell, G. 1977. In the throne room of the 504; as cited in Roderick Nash. 1982. mountain gods. San Francisco: Sierra Wilderness and the American Mind (3rd Club. \\ ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 85. Sax, J. 1980. Mountains without handrails: Reflections on the National Parks. Ann Thoreau, H.D. 1893b. “Walking” in The Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Writings of Henry David Thoreau, Riverside Edition (11 vols., Boston) 9, Schreyer, R. and J. Roggenbuck. 1978. The 277; as cited in Roderick Nash. 1982. influence of experience expectations on Wilderness and the American Mind (3rd crowding perceptions and social- ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. psychological carrying capacities. p. 88. Leisure Sciences 1(4):373-394 Turner, F.J.. 1920. The frontier in American Sorg, C. and J. Loomis. 1984. Empirical history. New York. estimates of amenity forest values: A comparative review. USDA Forest Wallwork, S. 1984. Montanans and selected Service General Technical Report RM- wilderness issues. Montana Business 107. Research Quarterly 22(4):15-18. Stankey, G. and R. Lucas. 1986. Shifting Walsh, R. and J. Loomis. 1986. Contribution trends in backcountry and wilderness use. of recreation to national economic Paper presented at the First National development. A Literature Review: The Symposium on Social Science and President’s Commission on Americans Resource Management, Oregon State Outdoors. Washington, D.C.: U.S. University, Corvallis, Ore. Government Printing Office pp. V35- V46. Stankey, G. and R. Schreyer. 1987. Attitudes toward wilderness and factors affecting Walsh, R., J. Loomis, and R. Gillman. 1984. visitor behavior: A state-of-knowledge Valuing option, existence and bequest review. Proceedings - National demands for wilderness. Land Economics Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, 60( 1): 14-29. State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions. USDA Forest Service General Technical Walton, I. and C. Catlin. 1925. The compleat Report INT-200, pp. 246-293. angler. London: Navarre Society. Stegner, W.. 1969. The sound of mountain Westman, W. 1977. How much are nature’s water. Garden City, N.Y., p. 153; as services worth? Science 197:960-964. cited in Roderick Nash. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind (3rd White, L. Jr. 1967. The historical roots of ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. our ecologic crisis. Science p. 262. 155(3767):1203-1207.
131 Wilderness Act, 1964. Public Law 88-577. Wilson, E. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Young, R. 1980. The relationship between information levels and environmental approval of the wilderness issue. Journal of Environmental Education 11(3):25-30.
ENDNOTES
1. Reviews of these tudies can be found in Barcus and Bergenson 1982; Burton 1981; Driver and others 1987; Ewert 1983; Gibson 1979; Levitt 1982.
132 THE WILDERNESS ENVIRONMENT: TRAINING WILDERNESS MANAGERS
Richard H. Spray and Paul D. Weingart*
ABSTRACT The second of these major action categories is of importance to us here today. A case is made that wilderness provides There were several subtopics under the the most appropriate place to train land and category of “Education and training of resource managers for the benefit of the managers.” They are: Wilderness Resource. Training in Wilderness for the benefit of the individual participants -- Institute and revitalize comprehensive can be accommodated but is of secondary in-service wilderness management training, importance. Wilderness as a training ground focused on the value of the wilderness for managers is further justified as the best resource, wilderness ethics, and low-impact location for the development of sensitivity, camping, utilizing expertise. skills and basic philosophy that will lead to better Wilderness management decisions. The -- Conduct workshops and other programs, interagency training aspect will lead also to nationally, regionally, and locally, as more consistency in understanding and cooperative ventures of agencies, educational management of the Wilderness Resource, institutions, and interest groups in order to across agency boundaries. share ideas, concerns, and techniques relating to wilderness management. INTRODUCTION -- Include wilderness management as a course in university natural resource curricula. From October 4-6, 1983, 300 managers Establish a basic course on wilderness as a and other people interested in wilderness resource, including management of visitors. management met in Moscow, Idaho, at the Encourage accrediting groups (such as the First National Wilderness Management Society of American Foresters) to include it in Workshop. After meeting in general sessions their curricula requirements. and small groups for three days, this group of 300 left the task of finishing an action plan to -- Each agency should systematically a small task force. They had done their work identify management personnel who would by arriving at five major action items that were benefit from additional training in wilderness seen as essential to the survival of the management. Wilderness System. Those five action items fell into the categories of: This is our charge for educating and training wilderness managers. It comes almost 1. Educating the public. 20 years after the passage of the Wilderness Act. It is surprising that coordinated and 2. Education and training of managers. systematic effort of this kind took this long. Let’s look at some of the past history that led 3. Capacity and concentrated use. to this action in 1983. 4. Interagency coordination and consistency. 5. Wilderness management practices.
* Assistant Director of Recreation and Director of Recreation, respectively. Southwestern Region of the Forest Service, Albuquerque, NM. 133 HISTORY OF WILDERNESS AS A is intended to be managed by the agency with “RESOURCE” jurisdiction. In the late 1950’s, the various versions of Immediately after the passage of the proposed wilderness legislation were being Wilderness Act, the Forest Service had 54 debated. At the same time the Forest Service areas totalling 9.1 million acres to manage and was nursing another bill through the legislative was the only Federal agency with wilderness. process, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act Today the National Wilderness Preservation of 1960. This act is significant to our System contains 465 wilderness areas totaling discussion here because it is the first 89 million acres which are managed by four legislative validation of wilderness as a Federal agencies. The need for trained resource. In the latter part of Section 2 of the wilderness managers is evident. act it states: “In the administration of the National Forest due consideration shall be In the Southwestern Region an Arizona given to the relative values of the various State University professor in the Department of resources in particular areas. The establishment Leisure Studies, Dr. Rachel Robertson, and maintenance of areas of wilderness are conducted a study of Southwestern National consistent with the purposes and provisions of Forest wilderness managers in 1984. Among the Act.” This validation of wilderness as a the six recommendations contained in Dr. resource is important to our consideration of Robertson’s 1986 report is one which states: education and training of managers for the “Wilderness schools, workshops, and training management of wilderness because in our conferences should continue to be a primary world of management, it is “resources” which means of technology transfer. “This followed require special skills. findings in the report that wilderness managers’ experience and training was, on the average, Let’s look at this in a little more depth. quite low, and that most managers’ background In 1964 the Wilderness Act came into being. before coming to the wilderness responsibility It is here that the definition of wilderness as a was either timber or range management, both resource is unmistakably strong and the charge resources which require a good deal of for management of wilderness as a resource is manipulation in their management. Turnover given. In Section 2. (a) of the act it states: ‘I. . rate in the wilderness management job was It is hereby declared to be the policy of the also quite high. Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring RESOURCE of wilderness . . .‘I HISTORY OF WILDERNESS (Emphasis added.) This is no mere EDUCATION implication. It is an unambiguous statement that wilderness, by definition of Congress, is a Education “In” Wilderness resource. The purposeful use of a wilderness Further along in the Wilderness Act in environment to help educate is not new. Section 2. (b) it states, “. . . the area shall Indians have used a wilderness environment in continue to be MANAGED by the Department one way or another for this purpose for as long and agency having jurisdiction . . .‘I as documentation is available. One of the best (Emphasis added.) In Section 4. (b) it says, ‘I. described instances is the Indian vision quest. each agency administering any area This was a male passage to adulthood which designated as wilderness shall be responsible used a wilderness solo to gain knowledge for preserving the wilderness character of the about nature on which the Indians depended area and shall so administer such area for other for their living. J. Donald Hughes describes purposes for which it may have been the process thus: established as also to preserve its wilderness character . . .‘I There are several other The vision quest took place for references in the Wilderness Act which several days alone in a special place substantiate that wilderness is a resource which chosen carefully for its natural setting, with fasting, thirsting, and
134 offering of the person’s own flesh cut objectives are benefits for the individual in small pieces from the body. At participants. some time during the retreat, the animal who was to be the Indian’s guardian spirit would appear and Education “For” Wilderness speak, giving a significant message, teaching a song, and designating a In 1965 a former Outward Bound special object or design to be used on instructor, Paul Petzoldt, saw a deficiency in a shield, a tepee, or painted on the the Outward Bound program and founded an body, that should always be kept as a alternative program called the National Outdoor talisman of the ‘vision and the Leadership School (NOLS). This new program guardian spirit itself, so that the resembled Outward Bound, but a different power could continue to be present major objective was not only to educate “in” with him . . . , Black Elk said, the wilderness but to educate “for” the “Lamenting (the vision quest) helps wilderness. Thus education to perpetuate the us to realize our oneness with all wilderness resource was begun and has since things, to know that till things are our been emulated by many other university and relatives.” private wilderness programs. In our culture Henry, David Thoreau was Coincidentally, at about the same time the one of the first to use a natural or wilderness Wilderness Act passed and Paul Petzoldt environment for educational purposes. His founded NOLS, the Pacific Northwest Region approach was straightforward. Thoreau, even of the Forest Service began educating in 1840, thought many people had lost touch managers in the wilderness “for” the with their roots in nature, so he took young wilderness. In 1964, 1965, and 1966. people who were under his care for their wilderness workshops were conducted in the education into the woods and showed them Eagle Cap Wilderness, the Mt. Jefferson around. Other educators after Thoreau also Primitive Area, and the Glacier Peak followed his lead. Thus summer camps have Wilderness, respectively. These workshops been established, and such youth groups as the were intended to bring managers up to speed Boy Scouts and CampFire Girls came into regarding implementation of the new existence leading to a well-established outdoor Wilderness Act. Each was attended by about education philosophy in American education 25 assorted Regional staff, Forest Supervisors, today. District Rangers, Forest staff, District staff and a few researchers. Camp locations were away This movement may have reached its peak from travel routes in the wilderness and were in 1962 when Outward Bound was founded in contracted with local outfitters and guides who Colorado. Up to this time outdoor education furnished the camp, meals, and transported nibbled around the edges of really using a full most of the personal gear. Participants were blown wilderness environment to its fullest restricted to foot transportation in order to degree for educational purposes. Outward reduce the numbers of stock. Bound changed that. This program uses wilderness environments of the most pristine The program format of these workshops kind to educate participants in mind, body, and was work in small groups in a specific, small spirit much in the manner of the Indian vision area within each wilderness (typically a small quest. Outward Bound is carefully and lake basin). Groups were to identify and deliberately programmed to obtain specific propose solutions to management problems desired results, but the wilderness environment using the new Wilderness Act and draft is a critical and indispensable part of the regulations and manual guidelines, and then to educational process. compare and discuss the consistencies and inconsistencies between the results of the Outward Bound also represents perhaps several groups. the culmination of what is called education “in” the wilderness where the primary These workshops were true education “for” the wilderness and were very popular and
135 well attended. Many graduates of these early have had slightly different modes of operation Forest Service wilderness workshops conducted due to differences between the Ranger in the wilderness are still around today and District/Forest personnel and the physical include Dr. John Hendee, then a young location of the school. researcher in Seattle and now Dean of the School of Forestry, University of Idaho; and The Gila school has evolved into a Jim Overbay, then a District Ranger in central, packed-in camp setup operated in a Southern Oregon and now Regional Forester of manner to demonstrate an ideal USDA Forest the Northern Region. Regardless of the Service, outfitter/guide, or permittee stock- success of the workshops, they were supported camp. Participants travel by foot on discontinued because of a perception that they day trips from the central camp. were too expensive, and an underlying feeling that the participants were having too much ffin. The Superstition school utilizes a camp on the edge of the wilderness in order to minimize To my knowledge, the end of the Pacific impact. This camp is a special use, permittee- Northwest Region wilderness management developed site and is organized and operated workshops led to a long period of inactivity in by the local Ranger District personnel. the use of wilderness environments to facilitate Participants travel by foot on several day trips the education of-wilderness managers. Many to areas of heavy recreation impact. wilderness workshops,, seminars, and symposiums were held throughout the 1970’s, The Pecos school has been conducted only but the record indicates that they were all once (but it is scheduled again for 1988), and conducted in the style of the Holiday Inn the camp and packing for that school was meeting room. contracted on the model of the Pacific Northwest Region workshops. The camp was In 1983 the Southwestern Region located in the wilderness in a location away conducted a wilderness workshop within a from travel routes. The success of this mode wilderness once again. Appropriately, it was of operation is difficult to assess because this held in the first wilderness, the Gila one example occurred in a very large storm Wilderness in Southwestern New Mexico. The that would have caused hardships regardless of intent of this workshop or school was to begin who was the host. a continuing education ‘effort for a small number of wilderness managers each year. The program for all of the Southwestern The focus of the school was on integrated Region schools has been similar. Participants management of the wilderness resource by have been restricted to about 20 with five or including topics and instructors dealing with more instructors. GeneraUy,if school’s total the several resources which together make up enrollment threatens to exceed 25, instructors the wilderness resource. It also aimed to give ate rotated in and out so the total attending the participants new wilderness skills and an will remain at that figure. The group has not appreciation of some of the more subtle values been broken into smaller groups, operating as of wilderness. The school has been conducted one large group for the most part. This has every year since 1983 and has rotated between been necessary because most of the instructors the Gila, Superstition, and Pecos Wildernesses are extremely skilled individuals whose to change environments, impact, and job load. knowledge could benefit the entire group. This difference also explains the language difference In contrast to the Pacific Northwest in the titles: The small group works best in a Region’s, workshops which relied on contracted “workshop” format while the large group services with outfitter/guides, the Southwestern works best when the format is a “school”. Region’s schools have used in-house and participant support (the Pecos school was an The Southwestern Region plans to exception). Horse and mule ,_packing continue their Wilderness School indefinitely in capabilities are greater in the Southwest and the future. The next is scheduled for the Pecos local Ranger District pride is such that the cam Wilderness in September 1988. and feeding of the participants has been kept in-house. Each of the three wilderness areas
136 TYPES OF WORKSHOPS AND SCHOOLS management education and training in the wilderness. Perhaps the intellectual phase of Here we will discuss advantages and learning can not be programed in wilderness as disadvantages of two basic types of wilderness easily as in a classroom. Certainly distractions management workshops and schools and are greater--a hawk in the sky or the work of a comment on a third type that is different squirrel--while an instructor is dealing with the enough to warrant special mention. complexities of Limits of Acceptable Change. On the other hand, these same complex concepts take on real meaning in the Classrooms or Conference Rooms wilderness, and while the numbers and details may not come across completely, they are The most common format for almost all usually forgotten anyway. The concepts, basic agency-conducted workshops is the classroom philosophy, and the workings of processes will or conference room setup, usually in a be remembered if learned in the wilderness; the hotel/motel but sometimes in an office manager will understand wilderness as a conference room. The primary advantage of resource far better. such arrangements is that they are easy to set up on short notice with little staff involvement. Another aspect of wilderness training that The hotel/motel industry has made it very is usually not addressed in classroom training, convenient to call their sales staff and have all is inadequately treated, is the physical aspect the physical arrangements made. This is no of a wilderness manager’s growth. Wilderness small matter for agency personnel who are is “wilderness.” It is untamed wild land, and it pressed for time and simply must turn such is the wilderness managers’ job to keep it that details over to someone else. way. This requires basic physical strength, flexibility, and skills to be able to travel and This kind of arrangement is also live comfortably in wilderness. As human convenient for participants. Our agency beings, our usual response to wilderness when cultures are oriented toward air travel to major we encounter uncomfortable conditions is to urban areas, adopting the businessman’s change the wilderness. Thus it is extremely lifestyle of motel living and conference room important that wilderness managers know their existence. We can virtually pack a bag in our strengths, correct their weaknesses, and have sleep with the necessary accouterments for a the skills to be confident and comfortable in a week at any hotel, and a mole-like existence in wilderness environment. These are things that some windowless conference room. It may not cannot be taught in a classroom very well, and be particularly pleasant, but it doesn’t take conversely can be taught extremely well in a much preparation. wilderness. A week in a wilderness, afoot and sleeping on the ground, is not something many Whether the meeting is going to be a agency managers are exposed to often, if at all. series of lectures/papers, or a truer form of This is a time individuals can assess their workshop with small groups actually engaging bodies relative to the stresses of wilderness in problem solving, the conference setup makes living. The usual result is gaining confidence it relatively easy to construct an agenda and in something that was already there but format a program. This “advantage” is also a untested, but it can also result in a disadvantage in certain respects. It is easy to commitment to correcting problems which format because the classroom or workshop come to light. nature only engages participants in a one- dimensional way. From a wilderness education These are individual, internal matters for point of view, classrooms can address only the participants of training conducted in a intellectual learning part of wilderness. wilderness environment. There are also some physical, external aspects of training that are programed right into the agenda. This is skills The Wilderness Environment training. Natural resource managers are not automatically knowledgeable about the skills of This leads to the most important wilderness travel and living. Nowhere in the advantage of conducting wilderness curricula of forestry, range, or soil science
137 colleges are these subjects taught. Natural philosophy for managers as a starting point in inclination may have stimulated some natural making management decisions concerning resource managers to learn some skills on their wilderness. “Start the decision recess from own, but even then, they are seldom viewing through Aldo LeopoldP s eyes.” knowledgeable in all needed aspects managers. Travel skills include orienteering, stock A final factor which should be discussed packing, horsemanship, general hiking, basic is cost. Field wilderness schools are frequently mountaineering, and even some skills in winter targeted for elimination because they are travel such as snowshoeing and ski considered too costly. A little thought about mountaineering., Living skills include the this, however, reveals that a field-based school basics of shelter, cooking, and most has a huge advantage over a conference room importantly, low impact techniques both of school. There is no dollar cost to using the travel and living. wilderness environment as there is to renting rooms in a hotel. The cost is all in physical The third dimension of wilderness training effort and caring, which most attendees at a or education can hardly be addressed in a field school are happy to contribute. In other conference room environment. This is the words, the cost of per diem and/or sustenance emotional or sp@tual aspect of wilderness in a wilderness is much less than in a education that a manager needs to know his hotel/motel. wilderness customers ‘and the resource properly. There are many values of Several years ago we began to finance our wilderness. Many are specified in the wilderness management school by charging Wilderness Act, and others are addressed in the tuition. To some that may sound strange, but intellectual phases of wilderness training we found ourselves in the position of not being whether, in the classroom or in the wilderness. able to keep sufficient funds in our Regional There are still other values extremely important Staff account to pay for things. By charging a to wilderness -- the reasons why American tuition of $150 per student we are able to pay society has decided to set aside 89 million for instructional materials plus the travel and acres of real estate. Nash in 1976 identified expenses of a couple of out-of-Region guest ten values of wilderness, many of which fit the instructors. No one has objected to this so far. spiritual category. They are: (1) Wilderness is a reservoir of normal ecological processes; (2) Wilderness is a nourisher of American culture; School in Wilderness, Living Outside (3) Wilderness is a sustainer of American character; (4) Wilderness is a historical This is a type of wilderness training document; (5) Wilderness is an ego trip; (6) environment that embodies a little of both of Wilderness is a setting for fear and pain; (7) the above formats. Participants live outside the Wilderness is a sustainer of human dignity and wilderness, either in a non-wilderness camp or diversity; (8) Wilderness is a church; (9) in more substantial housing, and day hike into Wilderness is a guardian of mental health; and wilderness for the actual wilderness training. (10) Wilderness is an aid to developing We use this format for the wilderness school in environmental responsibility . These concepts the Superstition Wilderness. This has some are not easily taught in the classroom, but are advantages and some disadvantages. It is more easily taught in a wilderness easier to prepare, as in the conference room environment. A participant in a workshop format, but lacks many of the physical and conducted in a wilderness first needs to be spiritual education advantages of the made aware of these things. Then through field-based school. This third format costs introspection during the session, the importance more than the field-based school only if of these values will become clear or lead to hotel/motel housing is used instead of a camp. further investigation. In brief, these values It may cost less if stock and packing are not make up the heart of what is described as a needed. Although it has advantages, a big loss “wilderness experience.” Participants of a is the full impact of the physical and spiritual wilderness school realize fully the importance education which may be the most critical of the factors contributing to that experience. aspect of a wilderness manager’s training. To sum up, we need to develop a basic
138 PROGRAMMING THE FIELD-BASED preparatory materials to aid participants in SCHOOL equipping themselves. A program or agenda must be created for Skills training can be integrated into a wilderness workshop or school. This is not virtually every aspect of a field-based school. an easy job, and our Southwestern Wilderness The trip into camp can include some basics on School is still developing. The three elements orienteering, foot care, hydration, referred to earlier need to be included in the acclimatization, day hiking, etc. Care should program, but in different ways. We will be taken that all of the skills training discuss the special characteristics of each information is presented in a way that is element. interesting and acceptable to participants of varying skills. Enlist the more experienced participants to help out. We have even found Resource Training ourselves with National Outdoor Leadership School graduates in some of our schools. Use This is the easiest of the three to deal every opportunity to encourage low-impact with and to present here. It is a more or less traveling and camping. The base camp itself traditional curriculum dealing with each of the must be a model of low impact. This should resources commonly found in wilderness and not be optional, but a requirement. Use with the wilderness resource itself. Help can contests and games wherever possible. We be found in agendas of other wilderness have had a crosscut saw contest and a workshops held around the country. Typically, mule-packing contest as part of our after-hours subjects dealing with range management, soil events. Utilize participants as helpers or and water management (engineering of trails), leaders whenever possible for packing, camp air management, fiie management, wildlife chores, and in leading groups for various management, recreation management, and the purposes. We haven’t done it yet, but it may wilderness resource as a whole need to be be a good idea to do a skills survey of addressed by resource experts in those subjects, participants before the school begins. relating each to the Wilderness Act and the overall support of the wilderness resource. We At an appropriate time in the agenda, have utilized specialists from the Regional formal sessions on backpacking, stock packing, Offtce, Forest staff, District staff, and or whatever the particular wilderness lends specialists from outside the Region for this job. itself to can be intermixed with less formal Since our school is conducted every year, the material to provide a break in intensity and to lesson plans have the benefit of continuity and take advantage of on-site opportunities. growth. It has become a practice to pass the instructor job around, usually to the host Forest, along with the lesson plan. In this Value Sensitivity way, many more people get the benefit of instructing and contributing to the growth of This is a topic often left to each the lesson plan. individual to cope with on his/her own. Many believe mere exposure to wilderness will accomplish value sensitivity. This is partially Skills Training true; probably most of us developed this kind of sensitivity or spiritual attachment over a Much can be done in advance to prepare period of years and many wilderness trips. for this element. Physical conditioning is an However, much can be done in the program to individual’s responsibility, but an impending facilitate this element of wilderness training. foot trip to a wilderness is a powerful incentive While we have much to learn and no doubt for action. Preparatory materials should could learn faster with expert help, we have contain information on conditioning as well as deliberately chosen not to because we wish to information on equipment needed and should grow slowly. We feel participants can easily give references for additional study. We feel “pushed” in this area and will push back, include outfitter mail order catalogs with our so probably it is best to go slowly here.
.39 As a way of preparation we furnish camp his personal contribution to the school reading references from some of the great and did an outstanding job. wilderness pioneers and philosophers such as Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, and Dick Contracting should be approached with Costley. During the session we always try to caution. Outfitter/guides usually have the include a person from outside the USDA experience and the equipment to do an Forest Service who is a current philosopher on excellent job. However, sometimes the wilderness such as Mike Frome or a local motivation or the money isn’t there. You must wilderness advocate. We had the opportunity know your outfitters and understand the to have a South African wilderness manager consequences of the “low bid” before tying the with us for an entire school. Everyone learned success of your school to the fortunes and a lot from this association. We must skills of someone else. I would recommend remember wilderness is a world-wide resource starting with something that is a strength of as evidenced by the broad participation in the your outfitters but not critical to the school, 4th World Wilderness Congress held in such as packing. If that proves successful, you Colorado in September 1987. We try to make can include furnishing the camp another year. sure the person we invite is a good speaker The last thing you might consider contracting and able to adjust his advocacy to our are the meals. We had a slight hitch in our circumstances. We also allow and encourage Pecos Wilderness School due to the meals -- time for introspection. This may be the most not enough quantity. It may have been poor important thing that we do to encourage a estimating, but we think it was due to the spiritual feel for wilderness values. extremely poor financial condition of the outfitter coupled with a low bid. This is also one of the jobs that students typically will PHYSICAL ARRANGEMENTS jump in and do, and do well. To prepare for each school, a preliminary We have a strict rule about travel in the trip is made several months in advance of the wilderness -- no horses. All travel, even by scheduled school by the school director, dyed-in-the-wool horse-oriented wilderness usually the person in the Regional Office with managers, is by foot. There are several wilderness management responsibility, the reasons. Lots of people would rather ride than Forest Staff, District Ranger, and District Staff. walk. We have to draw a line, so we exclude Others may be involved depending on how the horse transportation entirely (maybe an Forest and Ranger District operate. During exception for the host District Ranger!). We this trip all aspects of the physical needs of the keep travel distances short for travel into camp school are studied including a trip over the and for the day hikes. Even though everyone actual routes that will be traveled. Program must walk, we don’t want to cause so much matters are also discussed since physical pain they can’t absorb the messages being arrangements and programming are closely given. This limits camp selection intertwined. Probably the most important opportunities, but so far has not caused outcome of this meeting is agreement over insurmountable problems. individual responsibilities. Camp selection is important. The Typically, the Ranger District is campsite must be kept away from travel routes responsible for all the physical arrangements, both for privacy and so as not to disturb other and it is left to the District Ranger to decide if wilderness visitors. Camp is also selected to he will take on the actual work of packing, access as many examples of resources and camp making, and meal preparation or contract conditions as possible. Because it is close to out all or part of that job. Due to the the wilderness boundary and usually close to cooperative nature of the preliminary meeting, heavily used areas, this has usually been no the Ranger usually can expect a lot of problem. The campsite itself must be selected cooperation from the Forest, and the Regional to withstand the impact of the school for a Office, and helpful students, so s/he decides to week and rapidly recover thereafter. In one take on the job. During one school the Forest unfortunate instance many years ago, camp R&L Staff decided to make the model base selection was left to an outfitter, and when the
140 school arrived at the already setup campsite, The annual nature of our wilderness they found it in a wet meadow on a lakeshore school prevents us from oversubscribing the _- another reason for being careful when available. Supervisors who are unsuccessful contracting. In our dry Southwestern climate, getting a candidate to a school one year are we need to be prepared to pack all camp assured that they have future opportunities. water. However, even in more watered parts The research indicates that wilderness manager of the country it would be a good idea to training will be needed continuously in the consider packing water to camp. This will future due to turnover in the ranks. open up camp selection opportunities tremendously and may .be the key to selecting Instructors a camp that meets all the criteria. Instructors should be knowledgeable about their resource area as well as supportive of the PARTICIPANTS wilderness resource concept. We initially used resource instructors from the Regional office in order to convey to the representatives from Interagency Forests and Ranger Districts that wilderness management but an interdisciplinary approach Our schools are interagency. When we was critical to the best Wilderness management started we always reserved slots for Bureau of goals. We now have instructors from all Land Management and National Park Service managerial levels. participants; we’ve always filled them. We have also extended invitations and hosted State Park employees. The school has been so REFERENCES successful that we are now reserving 50% of the slots for BLM employees. In the very near Bloedel, Ed, “Managing Wilderness as a future we hope to rotate the location of the Resource”, World Wilderness Congress, school to BLM wildernesses. So far the Park 1987. Service has not participated to such an extent, but I suspect that they will when they see how Hendee, John C., George H. Stankey, and the BLM/FS cooperation is working out. The Robert C. Lucas, “Wilderness goal of interagency involvement in the schools Management”, U.S.D.A. Misc. Pub., No. is consistency in management of wilderness 1365, October 1978. regardless of management agency. Miles, John C., “Wilderness As A Learning Place”, Journal of Environmental Numbers of Participants Education. School slots are limited to 20 each Nash, Roderick, “Wilderness: To Be Or Not session. Our candidates are selected from To Be?“, Yale University Bulletin # 90, nominees sent in by District Rangers through 1976. Forest Supervisors. Since the school is almost always over-subscribed, decisions are made by Robertson, Rachel D., “Wilderness the Regional Office staff based on training Management in the Southwest”, January, needs in current assignment. Instructors are 1986. chosen in much the same way except that we usually are aware of good instructors and will Simer, Peter and John Sullivan, “National promote their availability. Many times Outdoor Leadership School’s Wilderness students can also instruct in their specialty. Guide”, Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1983. You need to keep in mind the multiple resources in wilderness and not form a Simer, Peter and John Sullivan, “Wilderness recreation bias in choosing students or Management--A Five-Year Action instructors. Program”, BLM, F&WS, FS, NPS, The University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center.
141 WILDERNESS AND SUBSISTENCE-USE OPPORTUNITIES: BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS
Robert M. Muth and Ronald J. Glass*
ABSTRACT it is often mistakenly believed that subsistence activities have all but disappeared in the United The term “subsistence” is used to denote States outside of Alaska. Most hunting and the customary use of wild, renewable natural fishing regulations in the United States, for resources by rural sub-populations dependent example, are designed to manage recreational on fish, wildlife, and plant species for physical and commercial uses of fish and wildlife, survival, economic and social well-being, or rather than to provide for users more for the maintenance of traditional culture. appropriately characterized by a subsistence Resource management agencies and orientation. This view has been subscribed to mainstream social-scientists commonly believe and incorporated into the operating assumptions that subsistence hunting, fishing, and gathering of resource management agencies; interest have all but disappeared in modern industrial groups such as conservation organizations, societies. Court suits over Native treaty rights sportsmen’s groups, and commercial and an emerging social science literature, associations; and social scientists within the however, suggest the existence of resource use mainstream of resource economics, cultural activities that are motivated by non- anthropology, and rural sociology. recreational considerations more appropriately referred to as subsistence objectives. Both de Studies of hunters, fishermen, and other facto and legally-designated wilderness, by’ recreationists who participate in consumptive maintaining conditions in which resource uses of natural resources indicate that, in populations can be naturally sustained, have addition to the opportunity to harvest fish and the potential to serve as a repository of many game, they are often primarily motivated by traditional subsistence values, activities, and factors such as communing with nature, lifestyles, as well as to preserve cultural observing wildlife, and interacting with close diversity within modern societies. At the same friends. On the other hand, earning a time, however, legally-classified wilderness livelihood is usually the paramount objective presents limitations to subsistence use as well. for engaging in commercial enterprises involving fish and wildlife resources, although lifestyle considerations are often important to INTRODUCTION people involved in these activities--commercial fishing or guiding, for example. Nevertheless, For thousands of years, human beings it is often quite difficult to differentiate sustained themselves through such activities as between recreational, commercial, and hunting, fishing, and other resource-gathering. subsistence users on an operational basis To this day, rural peoples in many areas of the because often the same equipment is used to world continue to provide for themselves harvest the same species in the same locations. through the subsistence harvest and use of Nonetheless, it is our view that significant natural resources for food, fuel, shelter, human sub-populations exist in many rural clothing, medicine, and barter. With the areas of industrialized North America whose advent of modem society, and its reliance on resource utilization strategies can most the market economy, high levels of industrial accurately be characterized as subsistence, development, and other technological advances, although their harvesting activities are managed
* Regional Social Scientist, Alaska Region, USDA. Forest Service, Juneau, AK; and Research Economist, Northeast Forest Experiment Station, U.S.DA. Forest Service, Burlington, VT. 142 under policy umbrellas governing recreational generally associated with small, self-sufficient, use, commercial use, or Native rights (Muth dispersed societies that have limited impacts on and others 1987). For many of these people, their environments. Traditional subsistence the primary benefits of fishing, hunting, and activities are usually self-contained within a gathering are supplementing income through kinship, tribal, or community group, or within fur trading, obtaining food and fuel, and the a geographic region (Ellen, 1982). manufacture and sale of handicrafts. In short, although some overlap exists, subsistence Subsistence desi bes a loosely defined practitioners ascribe a different array of social pattern of social and economic activities that meanings to renewable natural resources than may include some forms of hunting, fishing, do recreational and commercial users. gathering, herding, cultivating, trading, Furthermore, one of the important, but poorly tool-making, crafting, fuel production, trapping, understood, functions of both de facto as well and food processing and storage. Although as legally-designated wilderness is to serve as a most subsistence-based households existing geographic base capable of providing within industrial societies today are naturally-occurring sustained-yield levels of undoubtedly involved in the market economy resource populations for use by and benefit from publicly financed activities, subsistence-based households. subsistence activities most often provide for near-term consumption and are governed by It should be emphasized that there are personal use, in-kind barter, or minimal cash limited data on subsistence activities for the transactions, rather than a profit orientation or United States outside of Alaska. At the same large-scale commercial exchanges. time, there are significant socioeconomic similarities between rural residents of Alaska We do not mean to suggest that and sub-populations in rural areas of the rest of subsistence-based households are necessarily the country. In both cases, community primitive, socially isolated enclaves. economies represent mixed systems with Embedded as they are within modem society, market, public, and subsistence sectors that they have made many economic, social, and vary in importance by degree only. In fact, technological adaptations. For example, studies have indicated that some Alaskan chainsaws, gillnets, steel traps, fiberglass boats, communities have higher median household snowmachines, highpowered rifles, and incomes than the U.S. average (e.g., Glass, monofilament fishing line have replaced bows 1987). Through exploring the relationship and arrows, babiche snares, hand-held between wilderness and subsistence use, it is harpoons, and dugout canoes as principal the intent of this paper to stimulate discussion harvest mechanisms. Under the forces of and provide a basis for future research to modernization, subsistence has evolved from elucidate the complexities of renewable the sole source of support for traditional resource use and management in the United communities to an income-supplementing States. activity in a mixed economic system. In addition to customary subsistence resource use, What do we mean by “subsistence”? for example, wage labor, government transfer There are a variety of different legal, cultural, payments as well as other programs, and popular, and social scientific definitions and investment income are playing an increasing interpretations of subsistence. While none of role in traditional subsistence communi5es. these offers a precise or functional definition of But modem adaptations notwithstanding, the term (Albrecht, 1972; Schneider, 1982), it relative to other social strata, subsistence-based is commonly used in the absence of an households consume most of what they alternative terminology that captures the produce, sell little in the cash economy, rely meanings and behaviors characterizing primarily on family labor, employ particular resource user groups with specific labor-intensive practices, maintain a limited resource dependencies. In the social science economic standard of living, and often must literature, subsistence generally refers to I’. . . consider individual, family, and group survival the absolute minimum standard of physical and in decision-making (Glass 1987; Muth and mental survival and productive efficiency” others 1987). (Sharif, 1986). Subsistence lifestyles are
143 Finally, it is clear that subsistence, at Consequently, the administrative guidelines least as defined herein, is not culturally designed to implement statutory requirements dependent; rather, it transcends cultural and regarding subsistence are relevant only to ethnic groups. Many cultures within the Alaska. Although application of these United States depend on natural resources for guidelines is not germane to the public lands in ceremonial, religious, or other social functions. States other than Alaska, a brief summary of Tlingit Indians in the community of Angoon, legislative requirements and agency Alaska, for example, cortinue to distribute deer implementing regulations will illustrate meat and salmon at community potlatches. As Congressional intent regarding subsistence as a such, subsistence resources continue to play non-recreational use of public lands including vital roles in many cultures existing within the wilderness in Alaska. d<~minant industrial society. However, just as the distribution of deer meat at a Native The Alaska National Interest Lands potlatch may be one example of subsistence Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980 is the distribution, so too is the deer harvest of a principal law governing subsistence marginally employed logger in rural Idaho or management and use on public Federal lands, the fifth-generation farmer in Appalachia. The including Congressionally-designated families of both of those ‘workers may depend wilderness, in Alaska. In Title VIII of on deer meat as the major source of protein ANILCA, subsistence uses are defined, due to income limitations and the prohibitive subsistence rights are conveyed, and cost of substitutes available through the market subsistence management direction is provided. economy. Here, too, subsistence distribution As used in ANILCA, the term subsistence may occur beyond the immediate family. means the customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or The political context of resource family consumption as food, allocation in Alaska has resulted in legal shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or definitions of subsistence considerably different transportation; for the making and than the traditional image of small, self-reliant selling of handicraft articles out of villages providing for their own survival. non-edible byproducts of fish and During passage of both State and Federal law, wildlife resources taken for political realities dictated that legislatively personal or family consumption; designated subsistence rights be conveyed to for barter, or sharing for personal all rural Alaskans, both Native and non-Native or family consumption; and for alike, irrespective of income. Thus, customary trade (U.S. Congress subsistence uses on public lands in Alaska are 1980). viewed by Congress and the State of Alaska as customary and traditional activities In addition to defining subsistence uses, differentiated only by rural versus non-rural ANILCA recognizes the importance of residency, rather than by ethnicity , economic providing continuing opportunities for status, or length of residence. This has subsistence on public lands in Alaska. To resulted in rather anomalous situations in provide for the continuation of subsistence which extremely wealthy rural residents (both opportunities, Congress mandated that ‘I. . . the Native and non-Native) Ejossess subsistence utilization of the public lands in Alaska is to rights, while at the same time, urban cause the least adverse impact possible on rural residents--regardless of their material or residents who depend upon subsistence uses of cultural needs--have been denied subsistence the resources of such lands . . . .‘I (U.S. rights. Congress 1980) Finally, in a visionary attempt to ensure that subsistence opportunities are Nevertheless, Alaska has been in the maintained in perpetuity, Congress mandated policy forefront with respect to recognition and that I’. . . the taking on public lands of fish and protection of subsistence-use opportunities wildlife for non-wasteful subsistence uses shall through State and Federal statutes. be accorded priority over the taking on such
144 lands of fish and wildlife for other purposes.” planning and decision-making is contained in (U.S. Congress 1980) This section of the Forest Service (Alaska Region) handbook ANILCA has been interpreted to mean that 2609.25 (Subsistence Management and Use). subsistence users have priority access to fish Other guidance for managing subsistence uses and wildlife resources over recreational and is provided in Alaska Region Supplement 34 to commercial users during those times when it is Forest Service Manual (FSM), chapter 2320, necessary to restrict hunting and fishing in Wilderness, Primitive Areas, and Wilderness order to protect the continued viability of Study Areas. FSM 2320 defines subsistence resource populations. uses, reiterates the policy of causing the least adverse impact possible upon rural residents In an attempt to’ ensure consistent who depend upon subsistence uses, and implementation of the subsistence provisions of reaffirms the priority of subsistence uses over ANILCA, the Alaska Land Use Council other uses of fish and wildlife when it is (composed of representatives from selected necessary to restrict harvest in order to assure Native regional corporations and various State viability of fish or wildlife populations. and Federal resource management agencies) developed guidelines for incorporating In addition, FSM 2320 (p. 3) draws on subsistence considerations into Federal land-use other provisions of ANILCA in order to ensure decision-making processes in Alaska. These that continued access to subsistence resources guidelines have been integrated into the is available in wilderness: land-use planning processes and on-going land management programs of Federal agencies in e. Rural residents engaged in subsistence Alaska, such as the National Park Service, the uses shall have reasonable access to Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land subsistence resources. This is not tied to Management, and the Forest Service. historic use areas but to availability of Although the various Federal agencies having resources. Hence, the areas used for authority for wilderness management in Alaska subsistence may shift as the fish and wildlife have developed regulations implementing the populations or abundance shifts. provisions of ANILCA into their management programs, we will restrict our focus here to f. Snowmobiles, motorboats and other administrative guidelines developed by the means of surface transportation shall be Forest Service. permitted for subsistence purposes, subject to reasonable regulation to protect other resource In addition to the provisions of ANILCA, values. This does not foreclose the use of the Code of Federal Regulations, and new, as yet unidentified, means of surface guidelines of the Alaska Land Use Council, transportation, so long as such means ate key Forest Service directives concerning subject to reasonable regulation necessary to subsistence uses are contained in internal prevent waste or damage to fish, wildlife, or manuals and handbooks governing agency terrain (USDA Forest Service 1983). planning processes and management activities. Consistent with ANILCA, subsistence policies In summary, subsistence uses have been apply to all lands managed by the Forest formally recognized by law in the State of Service in Alaska, including wilderness. In the Alaska. Key Federal statutory and regulatory management of wilderness lands designated by guidance for managing subsistence uses on Congress, it is Forest Service policy that the both wilderness and non-wilderness public provisions of the Wilderness Act of 1964 apply lands is contained in the Alaska National in providing direction for wilderness Interest Lands Conservation Act, guidelines management unless specific exceptions are developed by the Alaska Land Use Council, provided by ANILCA. and agency procedures implementing ANILCA. Within the Forest Service, principal policies for In 1980, ANILCA created approximately managing subsistence in wilderness am 5,453,366 (net) acres of wilderness on Forest contained in FSM 2320. Service-managed lands in Southeast Alaska. Procedural guidance for incorporating subsistence considerations into land use
145 INVENTORY OF USE herbs, seed cones, mistletoe, insects, honey, snails, and tree boughs. They trap lynx, Outside of Alaska, subsistence has beaver, fox, muskrats, minx, and other received limited attention. Nonetheless, there is furbearers. What isn’t known however, is the an increasing body of research suggesting that extent to which these activities are motivated rural sub-populations, both Native and by economic, social, or cultural objectives non-Native, continue to rely on renewable more appropriately characterized as subsistence, natural rzsources for subsistence in rather than by commercial or recreational technologically-developed regions of North values. These distinctions remain unclear even America (Bush 1982; Lichens 1977; Rattner in Alaska, where considerable effort has been ts&?. c-“lctor md Burrell Research and undertaken to understand them. Additionally, c’oil:;~:li:~~g and others 1981). A study of we understand very little about the role of Nortii Fmida farm families by Gladwin and wilderness in providing for these uses. Butler (1982), for example, found that ‘I. . . 76% of the farmers surveyed raise their own meat and/or hunt and/or fish, providing the Subsistence Resource Use in Southeast average farm family with 55% of the meat and Alaska fish consumed.” Other studies indicate that obtaining food is a key motivational force in In Alaska, contrary to other rural areas of hunting and fishing by many rural residents. the United States, a substantial body of research has emerged that illustrates the In preparing for the National Wilderness importance of renewable natural resources to Colloquium held in 1988, the Colloquium rural communities. Since Alaska contains Executor, Patrick Reed, conducted an informal relatively few miles of road in an area telephone survey of wilderness managers in the one-fifth the size of the lower 48 States, a United States regarding a variety of wilderness significant proportion of subsistence use occurs management issues. Of those managers either in & m wilderness or in surveyed, it was perceived that 13 percent of Congressionally-designated Wilderness Areas. all wilderness areas are utilized by Native Americans for subsistence. Discussion Data from recent studies throughout indicated that subsistence included such things Alaska confirm the continuing participation in as the customary use of herbs and plants for fishing, hunting, and gathering activities by medicinal and religious purposes in rural households. Data from recent research Yellowstone National Park, access to in Southeast Alaska illustrate these patterns. In traditional hunting grounds by the Ute Indians 1979, State and Federal agencies cooperated in in the High Uintas Wilderness, and gathering conducting a research study referred to as the of cactus fruits in the Organ Pipe Cactus Alaska Public Survey. This survey, National Monument (Reed 1987). Systematic administered to a random sample of over 1,200 inventory will be necessary to verify and people in nearly all the communities in extend these findings. Southeast Alaska, asked questions about food-producing activities. Results indicate that While the records of State resource local fish and wildlife resources were used management agencies indicate that a large extensively by Southeast Alaskan residents. As variety of fish, wildlife, and plant species are reported by Alves (1980), approximately 80 harvested, little data are available on personal percent of the adult population in Southeast consumption, sharing (distribution and Alaska participated in hunting, fishing, and exchange), barter, or involvement in the market gathering activities. By means of these economy. We know, for example, that people activities, people directly procured for hunt big game, small game, waterfowl, upland themselves a sizable portion of their own food game birds, reptiles, and marine mammals. budgets: “Our data indicate that about 80 They harvest all manner of shellfish and percent of the households surveyed provided fiifish. They gather ginseng, wild vegetables, some of their own food; on the average, firewood, seaweed, mushrooms, berries, households in the region directly supplied 30 rosehips, and nuts. They collect bark, conks, to 40 percent of the meat, fish, and fowl burls, driftwood, ceremonial and medicinal consumed.” (Alves 1980)
146 In addition to resource harvest, resource harvested salmon for personal use, while sharing contributed to household food budgets two-thirds (67.8 percent) of non-Native as well. Again, according to Alves (1980), households harvested at least one of the five through a combination of harvest and sharing, species of salmon present in Southeast Alaska. 11 benefits of local food resources touch 90 Resource-sharing patterns also appear to have p&&t of all households . . .‘I in the region. retained their vitality. Slightly over one-third (36.1 percent) of the Native households gave More recently, community case studies salmon to households other than their own, cooperatively funded by the Alaska Department while 43 percent of the non-Native households of Fish and Game and the Forest Service in gave salmon to other households. In terms of 1984 and 1985 provide detailed, receiving, 44.3 percent of Native households resource-specific information on subsistence received salmon resources from other uses (Muth forthcoming). A random sample of households, while 55.8 percent of non-Native 148 households was surveyed in four remote households received salmon from harvesters Southeast Alaskan villages--Tenakee Springs, outside their own households. Angoon, Yakutat, and Klawock--regarding their household harvest and sharing activities. The In terms of total weight harvested, Sitka total population of the four communities during black-tailed deer is the principal land mammal the study period was 1,771. taken by hunters in Southeast Alaska. Native households had a mean harvest of about two The study validated the continuing deer, while non-Native households averaged reliance of rural households on a wide variety slightly over one deer per household. The of renewable natural resources including Alaska Department of Fish and Game has seaweed, berries, herring eggs, and marine established a conversion formula that ascribes mammals. Use data provided by respondents 80 pounds of usable meat, on the average, to indicate that, in terms of total weight each Sitka black-tailed deer. Using this harvested, deer and salmon--the two principal conversion ratio, Native households harvested a subsistence species in Southeast mean of 162.4 pounds of deer meat, while Alaska--continue to make substantial non-Natives averaged 87.2 pounds of deer meat contributions to household food budgets in the harvested per household. study communities (table 1). Although the residents of the four study communities harvested fewer pounds of usable Table 1. -- Estimated annual usable weight deer meat than pounds of salmon, they shared (lbs.) per household of selected resources it with friends, family, co-workers, and others harvested in four Southeast Alaskan at rates approaching those for salmon. On the communities (148 sample households), average, nearly one-third of all households 1984-1985 (29.5 percent of Native and 32.2 percent of non-Native households) gave deer meat to Mean Weight other households. At the same time, 36.1 (Lbs.) Per percent of Native and 35.6 percent of Species Household non-Native households received deer meat from households other than their own. All Edible Resources 889.4 While not comprehensive, these data All Salmon illustrate the importance of renewable natural (5 Species Total) 295.4 resources to remote villages in Southeast Sitka Black- Alaska. A considerable amount of harvesting tailed Deer 118.4 activity is concentrated on the limited road systems near those communities that have them. Examination of subsistence maps detailing resource-harvest locations, however, Data on participation in harvest activities indicates that subsistence users cover an indicate that three fourths (75.4 percent) of the extensive range that includes heavy use of Native households in the study communities undeveloped wilderness lands in Southeast
147 Alaska. This may be partly due to the fact widowed, or the infirm (Charnley 1983; Fall that old growth forests in Southeast Alaska and others 1983; Muth forthcoming). appear to provide more ideal habitat for key wildlife species than in other parts of the Cultural.--Harmon ( 1987) h& nation where earlier stages of vegetative convincingly argued that human cultural succession usually associated with non- diversity is a desirable social objective, and wilderness tend to support larger populations of that there is a definite relation between such desired wildlife species. diversity and protected lands in undeveloped status. He further contends that such lands can be sensitively managed to promote continued Benefits to Society subsistence opportunities by local resident populations dependent on them for physical Data cited above, as well as information survival and socioeconomic wellbeing. Use of from other subsistence studies conducted in wild, renewable resources contributes to the Southeast Alaska (e.g., Gmelch and Gmelch maintenance of traditional cultural and 1985; Mills 1982; Mills aiPd others 1984; sub-cultural systems within modem industrial Newton and Moss 1984), confimn the society as well as in developing countries. continuing existence of resource harvest and Natural resources are used in traditional rituals sharing patterns in the contemporary lifestyles and ceremonies, as well as to reinforce a of Southeast Alaskan residents. Further, it is variety of institutional aspects of social life evident that subsistence utilization has retained including norms of obligation, wealth and its value for a number of psychological, social, status hierarchies, and respect. Continued cultural, and economic reasons. access to subsistence resources by populations culturally dependent on them will help ensure Psychological.--Those resource managers the continued vitality of those cultural systems. and social scientists who acknowledge the existence of subsistence activities often Economic.--Cash income and social mistakenly assume that subsistence resources welfare programs are playing increasingly are important only as a supplement to cash important roles in traditional communities. By incomes. For many rural people, however, the supplying a variety of household needs, opposite may be true: cash serves as a means however, subsistence harvest supplements by which to supplement subsistence income and adds to the standard of living lifestyles--lifestyles that may be preferential to regardless of the level of monetary income and full-scale participation in the market economy. the benefits of public programs, In addition, From a psychological perspective, the homemade handicrafts made from indigenous opportunity to procure wild, renewable forest resources (e.g., spruce roots crafted into resources contributes to a sense of self-reliance, baskets, beaver-fur hats, etc.) are produced for independence, and the ability to provide for barter, or for sale in the commercial market. one’s self--values that social surveys indicate as reasons why many non-Native people migrate In addition to the obvious importance of to or remain in Alaska (Alves 1980). sustenance and income derived from personal or household subsistence use, anthropological Social.--From a social perspective, researchers (Drucker 1965; Oberg 1973) have subsistence harvest and sharing contribute to established that an important social function of the cohesion of kinship groups, as well as to subsistence sharing among the aboriginal the solidarity of occupational and friendship people of Southeast Alaska during the period networks. This cohesiveness is not unlike the prior to Euroamerican contact was as a form of bonding which takes place as reported by “social insurance.” Sharing of fish and game recreational sporthunters in numerous studies based on norms of mutual obligation and conducted in the lower 48 states. Additionally, reciprocity served to provide security during subsistence distribution and exchange networks periods of resource scarcity and uncertainty. may contribute to the stability of As the subsistence-based system gradually gave resource-dependent communities as resource way to economies containing a subsistence sharing extends to multiple households, some sector-private sector-public sector mix, of which may contain the elderly, the however, the contributions of subsistence
148 resources might be especially important during Usher (1976) concluded that “attempts to downturns in the contemporary market evaluate country produce in nonagricultural economy (Glass and Muth 1986; Wolfe 1984). subsistence economies have been few, and Muth (forthcoming) has suggested, for although the literature in some respects has example, that one reason for the continued been consistent, most is without theoretical reliance on subsistence resources in Southeast foundation.” This is lamentable, since failure Alaska may be due to their functional to assess the full economic value of importance as social insurance in the seasonal subsistence resources has often led to serious and cyclical resource-extraction-based economy underestimation of the contribution of of Southeast Alaska. traditional and customary resource gathering activities to the total regional economy. In modernizing communities, subsistence has become integrated into mixed economic Perhaps the most prevalent valuation systems in which cash income provides the approach used involves assigning monetary basis to procure more efficient subsistence measures based on competitive market prices factors of production, and in which public of substitutes in order to impute economic programs reduce the threat of disaster values to resources used for subsistence previously attributable to low resource harvest. purposes. Although this technique has a As a result, subsistence has undergone a variety of shortcomings (Glass and Muth transition from an activity necessary for 1987a; Glass and Muth 198713; Usher 1976). it physical survival to one in which is often used to estimate the monetary value of psychological, social, and cultural functions natural resources harvested for personal use. It may be paramount. As the following section should be emphasized that such estimates are on Value of Use suggests, however, the aimed at measuring the value of tangible potential economic benefits provided by outputs from specific subsistence activities in subsistence harvest are still often considerable. terms of additions to household income and do not attempt to measure the value of In summary, subsistence use of forest participation itself, which cannot be effectively lands in Southeast Alaska has shown expressed in monetary terms. Rather than considerable persistence and adaptability. undertake a comprehensive review of Subsistence harvest, distribution and exchange, subsistence valuation efforts here, we will and consumption serve a variety of present two illustrative examples--one from a psychological, social, cultural, and economic more traditional subsistence society, the functions that include social group cohesion, Canadian Arctic, and one located more firmly cultural diversity, and economic wellbeing. within modern industrial society, New York Resource management, sensitive to subsistence State. as an institutional element of social life, is needed to help ensure that subsistence uses of Methodological shortcomings renewable natural resources continue to serve notwithstanding, several attempts have been these vital social functions. made to assess the monetary value of domestically-produced food, fuel, and handicraft resources. In an insightful study VALUE OF USE examining the valuation of subsistence food in the Canadian North, Usher (1976) found that While it might be convenient to have all on a protein-equivalent basis, the value of wild values expressed in terms of a common ame such as caribou and moose approached denominator such as money, the nature of P4 to $4.50 per pound, birds were valued at valuation precludes conducting such an $2.50, and fish at $2. He states that: analysis. In fact, monetary values represent a mere subset within the framework of total Given the monetary values valuation (Glass and Muth 1987a). suggested, it becomes easier to see Unfortunately, little information is available on why native people are so the value (monetary or nonmonetary) of concerned about the continued subsistence uses of natural resources. In a availability of country food. A critical review of subsistence valuation studies, family primarily dependent on the
149 land which obtained, for example, the average household in the a dozen caribou, 60 geese and 500 study area generates about $1500 ounds of fish in a year, would gross value a year of resource t:ave obtained the equivalent of products. Low income non-farm $6,200 worth of meat. The total households produce about $700 on estimated volume of the meat average while the average value of harvest of [five communities in] non-low income household the Western Arctic . . . would, on production is about $1800. In the a substitution basis, probably be aggregate, the gross value of worth over a million dollars annual household resource annually (Usher 1976). production for home consumption and local markets for all In addition to the monetary value of households in Crown Point was subsistence foods, Usher (1976) also noted a estimated to be $910,780. This number of non-quantifiable intangible values. makes household resource “Country food has nutritional, social, and production the third largest source cultural values which cannot be replaced by of community income after wages any substitute andcannot be measured by and Social Security transfer market criteria or evaluated in cash. In short, payments (Rattner 1984). food is an integral part of a way of life.” Thus, in a total valuation framework, cash Unfortunately, data which might more value may be only a small part of the overall directly relate to subsistence resource use of social value of subsistence resources. In a wilderness areas in the United States are study perhaps more applicable to the purposes unavailable. These examples from Northern of this paper, Rattner (1984) examined the Canada and New York State illustrate the economic value of household production monetary value of subsistence resources to activities in the community of Crown Point, selected local, rural populations. These data New York. Crown Point is situated adjacent suggest that the use of natural resources for to Adirondack Park in upstate New York. The personal consumption or for sale at local Adirondack Park is comprised of lands 60 markets represents a significant contribution to percent privately-owned and 40 percent household incomes of rural residents. These publicly-owned; State-owned lands being additions to household income can be as preserved in the forever-wild status by critical to residents of economically depressed constitutional law. It is managed by the areas in the lower 48 states as they are in Adirondack Park Agency and the New York Alaska. That this would be true for elk State Department of Environmental harvested in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Conservation, whose management policies are Area, salmon or trout caught in the Great directed toward economic development outside Lakes, or berries and mushrooms harvested in of forest preserve lands in the context of the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area is perhaps protecting the Park’s environment. self-evident. In addition to raising gardens and domestic animals, resource-producing activities ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Crown Point residents on private lands included the use of forest products such as Although a considerable body of research firewood, fence posts, and maple syrup. Use literature has been developed regarding of resources that may have been taken from subsistence use of resources in Alaska and either private or forest preserve lands included Canada, use of renewable natural resources for fish, wild meats, wild plant materials, and non-recreational subsistence purposes by rural skins. In computing the economic value of populations in modem industrial societies is a household resource production based on retail poorly understood phenomenon. We know very values of similar commodities in local stores, little about the role of fish, wildlife, and plant Rattner found that species in the livelihoods and lifestyles of resource-dependent households. This is especially true of use that may occur in
150 wilderness areas. But an increasing body of subsistence resources contribute to the research suggests the existence of a separate socioeconomic wellbeing of resource-dependent set of values--subsistence values--that are rural populations. To what extent, for distinctly different from values associated with example, do subsistence activities (e.g., commercial or recreational activities. Given firewood gathering, hunting,) supplement this situation, it will be important to identify incomes earned through the cash economy or the extent to which wilderness serves as a through income-transfer programs? How can repository of subsistence use in an the overall benefits of subsistence be valuated ever-developing world. in terms comparable with other resource uses? To what extent do the nonedible byproducts of fish, wildlife, and plants contribute to A Program of Scientific Research handicraft articles developed for sale in local markets? If participation itself is the key Review of the current state of knowledge payoff, what fish and wildlife populations are with respect to subsistence opportunities in necessary to satisfy subsistence needs if other wilderness indicates that critical information economic sectors provide the necessities for gaps exist. Establishment of a program of physical survival? What is the magnitude of scientific studies will be necessary to identify resource-related cottage industries, and what is the nature and extent of subsistence use on the extent to which they contribute to the undeveloped public lands in the lower 48 regional economies? Should current States. The most basic need, perhaps, is to restrictions on motorized use and commercial develop measures which differentiate between activities in wilderness be relaxed to provide subsistence, recreational, and commercial users for barter opportunities and small-scale market on a functional basis. In our view, this will transactions (such as horse-logging, for involve identifying the array of social example)? meanings that people ascribe to natural resource use. In this way, it will be possible From a social perspective, what are the to distinguish between groups whose values magnitude and importance of resource sharing? and attitudes concerning natural resource use What are the patterns of resource distribution are oriented more toward sustenance, rather and exchange in local communities, and to than toward recreation, or solely as a what extent do those sharing networks commercial pursuit. contribute to physical survival, kinship cohesion, the solidarity of occupational and But a number of other research questions friendship groups, and community stability? Is suggest themselves. What are the resource sharing primarily expressive, or is characteristics of resource users who define there instrumental importance associated with their resource-harvesting activities as resource distribution activities? subsistence? Which species are harvested and what are they used for? What is the extent to From a cultural perspective, to what which both Congressionally-mandated and & extent does subsistence use of wilderness facto wilderness provide opportunities for rural resources contribute to the perpetuation of residents to engage in subsistence-related cultural values and institutions (e.g., Indian activities? Does wilderness, through its potlatches in Southeast Alaska)? Are local, protection of naturally-occurring conditions and rural sub-cultures in danger of extinction? processes, provide for lifestyle options--either How should wilderness management be engaged in by necessity or adopted by modified to provide human cultural diversity? choice--that would otherwise be precluded through other land-use designations? Or is A research program directed toward wilderness, because of use limitations and subsistence use of renewable natural resources maintenance of old-growth plant associations, may ultimately identify relationships between actually an inferior biophysical environment for wilderness and opportunities for subsistence use? subsistence-related activities. Answers to these and other research questions regarding From an economic perspective, it would subsistence use of renewable natural resources be important to know the extent to which in the United States, particularly in wilderness,
151 will provide information specifically focused overuse, and competition for available on resource users more accurately characterized resources often result when human use of an by a subsistence orientation. atea increases dramatically. A possible effect would be to displace subsistence users out of an area into alternative, less productive, less Management Sensitive to the Needs of desirable areas, perhaps foreclosing Subsistence Users opportunities for subsistence use altogether. As demands for intensive resource Another institutional barrier to management of public lands continue to subsistence use of wilderness may be access increase, potentially destructive effects on restrictions. In desiring to provide areas subsistence uses may occur. Intensive timber essentially untrammeled by man, the harvest, mineral extraction, recreation use, Wilderness Act disallowed road construction, these and other development activities threaten airplanes, snowmachines, powerboats, both subsistence activities themselves as well motorbikes, and other motorized uses in order as the resource species upon which subsistence to protect naturally-occurring wilderness users depend. Wilderness--with its conditions. At the same time that these access undeveloped status protected by law--may restrictions provide environmental protection, serve as a repository for subsistence species, however, they limit access to the subsistence thereby providing continued opportunities for resources that may be available in wilderness. resource harvest by economically and culturally While it is true that subsistence users would dependent user groups. continue to have the same access to wilderness as recreational and other users, subsistence But a biophysical environment capable of activity is often characterized by optimal providing subsistence species is only one foraging strategies dependent on efficient necessary condition for subsistence use to take means of harvest, processing, and place. A second necessary condition is an transportation. Packing deer meat out in a institutional arrangement sensitive to the needs backpack may contribute to a sporthunter’s of subsistence users. In addition to the sense of self-reliance or communing with beneficial effects of wilderness designation on nature. For many subsistence users, however, subsistence, wilderness status may present it would represent an inefficient use of time certain limitations to resource harvest as well. and labor, which could be more productively As Harmon (1987) has correctly perceived, employed elsewhere if only they could protected areas (such as National Parks and transport their deer home by jeep instead. wilderness) have the potential to present certain constraints for people who are dependent on Finally, wilderness presents one natural resources for their subsistence. These additional limitation on subsistence use. One of limitations must be recognized, and, in so the precepts behind the Wilderness Act was to doing, it must be acknowledged that other preserve natural processes including, protected-area designations may be more presumably, naturally-occurring cycles of fish suitable in providing for subsistence use. and wildlife populations. In addition to adequate habitat, the provision of It is a common perception that sustained-yield levels of fish and wildlife Congressional designation of wilderness results populations often depend on intensive in subsequent crowding and overuse. This management programs conducted by resource “designation effect” is believed to stimulate agencies. Consequently, many fish and increases in wilderness use through resource wildlife management activities--such as creating agency information programs, private desired species-age vegetative classes, creating marketing efforts, and word-of-mouth (h4cCool openings, fish stocking, waterfowl nesting 1985). Although there is limited systematic boxes, prescribed fire to enhance moose research empirically verifying this hypothesis, habitat, deer winter range improvements, in the event that wilderness classification predator control, etc.--are likely to be actually results in substantial use increases, the precluded in wilderness. Restrictions mandated impacts on subsistence users could be severe. by the Wilderness Act (or by implementing Overcrowding, resource degradation from regulations developed by the various resource
152 agencies) often do not allow for the intensive Alves, William. 1980. Residents and management programs necessary to provide the resources: findings of the Alaska public levels of fish and wildlife populations survey on the importance of natural sufficient to meet the needs of all user groups. resources to the quality of life in southeast Alaska. University of Alaska, More complete and dependable Institute for Social and Economic information is needed in order to define the Research, Anchorage, AK. appropriate role of wilderness in providing subsistence opportunities. As previously Barsh, R.L. 1982. The economics of a discussed, many subsistence activities are fully traditional coastal Indian salmon fishery. compatible with wilderness, but there may be Human Organization, 41: 170-176. others that are in conflict with wilderness designation for various reasons. This raises Charnley, S. 1983. Moose hunting in two difficult questions regarding whether wilderness central Kuskokwim communities: policy should be modified in some way to Chuathbaluk and Sleetmute. Technical accommodate subsistence use by local, rural paper No. 76, Alaska Department of Fish populations. and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK. CONCLUSIONS Ellen, Roy. 1982. Environment, Subsistence, and System. Cambridge University One of the features frequently used to Press, Cambridge, England. distinguish modern societies from developing countries is their respective orientations toward Drucker, Phillip. 1965. Cultures of the North renewable natural resources. In primitive Pacific Coast. Chandler Publishing Co., societies, household production strategies Scranton, PA. continue to involve direct procurement of renewable natural resources for subsistence. Fall, James A., D.J. Foster, and Ronald T. Use of natural resources in modem societies, Stanek. 1983. The use of moose and on the other hand, is more commonly believed other wild resources in the Tyonek and to involve only recreation or commercial upper Yentna areas: a background exploitation. Within rural areas of modem report. Technical Paper No. 74, Alaska societies, the existence of resource uses more Department of Fish and Game, Division appropriately defined as subsistence is rarely of Subsistence, Juneau, AK. acknowledged by natural resource policymakers and managers. The result has been a situation Gladwin, C.H. and J. Butler. 1982. in which subsistence users are being provided Gardening: a survival strategy for the for only incidentally--under regulations small, part-time Florida farm. designed to govern recreational and commercial Proceedings, Florida State Horticultural uses--rather than through sound, pro-active Society, 95:264-268. policy formation. The existence of subsistence users as a distinct clientele sub-group Glass, Ronald J. 1987. Subsistence as a possessing a separate set of meanings and component of the mixed economic base values needs to be recognized. To do in a modernizing community. Paper otherwise risks overlooking an important presented at the annual conference of the segment of the total set of values derived from American Association for the public sector natural resources. Advancement of Science, Arctic Division, Anchorage, AK, September 23-26, 1987. REFERENCES Glass, Ronald J. and Robert M. Muth. 1987a. Albrecht, H. 1972. The concept of Pitfalls and limitations in the use of subsistence. Zeitshrift fur Auslandische fisheries valuation techniques. Landwirtschaft, 11:274-288. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 116:381-389.
153 Glass, Ronald J. and Robert M. Muth. 1987b. Sociology, edited by Robert G. Lee, Inadequate payoff evaluation as a William R. Burch, Jr., and Donald R. deterrent to integrated resource Field, to be published by Westview management. Proceedings, 52nd North Press. American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pp. 101-111. Muth, Robert M., David E. Ruppert, and Ronald J. Glass. 1987. Subsistence use Glass, Ronald J. and Robert M. Muth. 1986. of fisheries resources in Alaska: Natural resource allocation decision- implications for Great Lakes fisheries making in Alaska: systematic evaluation management. Transactions of the of socioeconomic impacts on subsistence American Fisheries Society, 116:510-518. lifestyles. Paper presented at the First National Symposium on Social Science McCool, Stephen F. 1985. Does Wilderness and Resource Management, Corvallis, designation lead to increased recreational OR, May, 12-16, 1986. use? Journal of Forestry, 83(1):39-41. Gmelch, George and Sharon Bohn Gmelch. Newton, Richard and Madonna Moss. 1984. 1985. Resource use in a small Alaska The subsistence lifeway of the Tlingit city--Sitka. Technical Paper No. 90, people: excerpts from oral interviews. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Alaska Region, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK. Juneau, AK. Harmon, David. 1987. Cultural diversity, Oberg, Kalervo. 1973. The Social Economy human subsistence, and the national park of the Tlingit Indians. University of ideal. Environmental Ethics, Washington Press, Seattle, WA 9(summer):147-158. Rattner, Shanna E. 1984. Diversified Lichens, A.B. 1977. A case study in fish household survival strategies and natural management on the Deschutes River. In resource use in the Adirondacks: a case Schwiebert, E., editor, Columbia River study of Crown Point, New York, Salmon and Steelhead. ,American Masters Thesis, Cornell University, y;yly; Society, Washington, DC, pp. Ithaca, NY. Reed, Patrick. 1987. Personal communication Mills, Dave. 1982. The procurement and use with the senior author. of abalone in Southeast Alaska. Technical Report No. 40, Alaska Schneider, W. 1982. Subsistence in Alaska: Department of Fish and Game, Division a look at the issue over time. Pages of Subsistence, Juneau, AK 169-180 in P.G. Cornwall and G. McBeath, editors. Alaska’s Rural Mills, Dave, Valerie Sumida, Gabe George, Development. Westview Press, Boulder, and Matt Kookesh. 1984. Salmon use co. by residents of the Chilkat and Chilkoot river drainages, 1983. Technical Report Sharif, M. 1986. The concept and No. 95, Alaska Department of Fish and measurement of subsistence: a survey of Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, the literature. World Development, AK. 14555-577. Muth, Robert M. Forthcoming. Community United States Congress. 1980. Alaska stability as social structure: the role of National Interest Lands Conservation subsistence uses of natural resources in Act. P.L. 96-487, 94 Stat., U.S. Southeast Alaska. Accepted for pcvemment Printing Office, Washington, publication in a forthcoming textbook entitled, Community and Forestry: Continuities and Natural Resources
154 U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1983. Forest Service Manual, Chapter 2320-Wilderness, Primitive Areas, and Wilderness Study Areas (draft). Region 10 Supplement No. 34, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, AK. Usher, Peter J. 1976. Evaluating country food in the Northern Native economy. Arctic, 29(2):105-120. Victor and Burrell Research and Consulting, J.E. Hanna Associates, Inc., and Hough, Stansbury, and Michalski, Limited. 198 1. Methods for assessing the socioeconomic impact! of acid rain on Canada’s fisheries. Report prepared for Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Toronto, Canada. Wolfe, Robert J. 1984. Subsistence-based socioeconomic systems in Alaska: an introduction. Unpublished mimeo, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, AK.
155 THERAPEUTIC VALUE OF WILDERNESS
Lynn Levitt*
ABSTRACT Moreover, since most camping programs for emotionally disturbed children and chronic During the past fifty years, there has mentally ill adults do not take place in been growing recognition of the therapeutic backcountry wilderness, the term “therapeutic value of wilderness for individuals with camping” will be used throughout this paper.’ psychological, social, and physiological disorders. Camping in wilderness or Although camping programs for wilderness-like settings has resulted in emotionally disturbed children and adolescents personal, social, emotional, cognitive, and have existed for over 50 years, camping psychomotor benefts’for participants. These programs for chronic mentally ill adults have individual benefits in turn may lead to societal evolved more recently. The goals of therapeutic and economic benefits. Issues and camping programs for emotionally disturbed recommendations include: improved children and adolescents and chronic mentally experimental research designs, program ill adults are similar. They are to foster planning, expansion of and more government normal behavior patterns, emotions, and support for such programs, and networking attitudes by encouraging participants to interact among rehabilitative personnel and wilderness socially in an acceptable manner, to participate managers. in activities, to be independent, to show initiative, to acquire new skills, and to make individual and group decisions. (For other INTRODUCTION groups of exceptional children and adults such as the physically handicapped, enhanced Individuals with psychological, social and perceptual and motor skills and increased physiological disorders would be labeled physical stamina are also goals.) ‘exceptional” children and adults today. By definition, exceptional children are “those who When comparing therapeutic camping require special educational and related services programs, there is great diversity in the if they are to realize their fullest human duration of the camping period, type of potential” (Hallahan and Kauffman 1982). If outdoor setting, the patients/clients, the staff, this definition is extended to adults, such and the camper/staff ratios. Although some groups as the mentally retarded, emotionally camping programs are day camps (Bergan disturbed, physically handicapped, hearing or 1958; Lee 1983; Orbach 1966). most are short- vision impaired, learning disabled would be term camping programs with overnight stays included. Since the literature on camping ranging from a few days to a few weeks (Baer experiences for exceptional children and adults and others 1975; Banaka and Young 1985; is so vast over 500 studies (Vinton and others Herr 1975; Kaplan and Reneau 1965; Lowry 1978)-- this paper will focus primarily on those 1974; McCreary-Juhasz and Jensen 1968; individuals with psychological and social McFarland and others 1967; Reitman and disorders, i.e., emotionally disturbed children Pokomy 1974; Remar and Lowry 1974; Rerek and adolescents and chronic mentally ilI adults. 1973; Shearer 1975; Smith 1959; Weisman and However, many of the therapeutic benefits, others 1966). issues, and recommendations discussed in this paper are similar to camping experiences for Only a few therapeutic camping other groups of exceptional children and adults, programs took place in rugged, backcountry wilderness areas where participants camped in tents (Coffey and Ferree 1974; Collingwood
* Professor of Psychology, New York Institute of Technology, School of Humanities, Old Westbury, NY. 156 1972; Hobbs and Shelton 1972; Kistler and come from community mental health programs others 1977; Kole and Busse 1969; Ohio or private hospitals (e.g., George and Gibson Department of Mental Health and Mental 1959; Orbach 1966). Camping programs for Retardation 1979). Usually mountainous, mentally ill adults usually include chronic forested regions of this country such as schizophrenics or schizophrenics in National Parks and Forests, State parks, or combination with other diagnostic categories forest preserves are used (Ackerman and others (Acuff 1961; Banaka and Young 1985; Bergan 1959; Bergan 1958; Hobbs and Radka 1976; 1958; George and Gibson 1959; McFarland McDonald 1974; Neffiger and others 1984; and others 1967; Peterson and Acuff 1955; Reitman and Pokomy 1974; Shearer 1975; Shearer 1975; Whittekin 1967). Tuttle and others 1975). Typically camping sites with developed facilities such as cabins, a Participants are usually volunteers dining hall or recreational building are chosen selected for such programs by the staff (Ackerman and others 1959; Acuff 1961; involved (e.g., Lowry 1974; Orbach 1966; Barker and Weisman 1966;, Henke and Kuhlen Ramsey 1969; Stich and Senior 19084). While 1943; Herr 1977; McFarland and others 1967; criteria for selection/elimination are not always Middleman and Seever 1963.; Morse 1947; clearly stated, certain children and adolescents Ramsey 1969; Reitman and Porkomy 1974; ate eliminated depending on the nature of the Rerek 1973; Rickard and others 1971; Smith program. For example, one program 1959; Weisman and others 1966; Winter and eliminated delinquents with severe Winter 1968). psychopathology and a history of violent or assaultive behavior (Kelly and Baer 1969). Usually, small groups of less than 10 to Chronic mentally ill adults, those patients not midsize groups of up to 50 participants are able to care for their personal needs, those with taken camping (George and Gibson 1959; some physical and/or medical impairment, or Hobbs and Shelton 1972; Kistler and others those who could possibly be behavior problems 1977; McCreary-Juhasz and Jensen 1968; such as paranoid patients, homicidal patients, Neffmger and others 1984; Orbach 1966; or addicts in active withdrawal (Lee 1983; Rickard and others 1971; Stimpson and McNeil 1957; Ramsey 1969; Remar and Lowry Pederson 1970; Tuttle and others 1975; 1974; Stich and Senior 1984; Weisman and Weisman and others 1966). Camper/staff others 1966) have been eliminated as well. ratios range from approximately l/l (Jerstad and Stelzer 1973; McDonald 1974) to 3/l or The staffs of therapeutic camping 5/l (Neffiger and others 1984; Peterson and programs consist of a combination of Acuff 1955; Stoudenmire and Comola 1973). professionals and non-professionals such as clinical psychologists, rehabilitation therapists, Programs for emotionally disturbed recreational therapists, medical physicians, children and adolescents are usually restricted volunteer college students, cooks, and to all males or all females with most programs professional guides. While the importance of being all-male. The children and adolescents staff selection has been noted (Smith 1959), are usually referred to the programs by service the criteria for selection of the staff are usually organizations, schools, community mental not stated. The staff for certain programs were health centers, or state institutions. Programs chosen because of their experience in working for children and adolescents include individuals with young chronic patients, for their skills, with a wide variety of disorders such as backpacking experience, or interest and phobias, low school achievement, hostility, motivation to participate in such programs aggression, withdrawal, adjustment problems, (e.g., Lowry 1974; Neffinger and others 1984; delinquency, sociopathic behavior, etc. On the Ramsey 1969). other hand, programs for chronic mentally ill adults are invariably mixed-sex groups of different ages although a few programs limit their populations to geriatric patients/clients (Lee 1983; Rerek 1973). The mentally ill adults usually come from state mental hospitals or institutions (e.g., Rerek 1973), but some
157 INVENTORY OF USE In addition, since prejudice and discrimination exist against stigmatized groups 1987 Wilderness Use such as the mentally ill and physically handicapped exists in our society (Levitt and Information regarding the total acreage Viney 1973), having self-functioning citizens in and location of the wilderness areas in use for the community may lessen prejudices against therapeutic camping programs is not available. them because they may be viewed as more However, therapeutic camping programs for “normal.” Vinton and others (1978) list several exceptional children and adults exist in almost programs in which handicapped and non- all states in the United States. Although the handicapped children interacting at camp Minnesota Outward Bound School for the actually improved attitudes toward the Physically Disabled uses the Boundary Waters handicapped. Canoe Area, most of the therapeutic camping programs do not use wilderness areas formally Finally, through therapeutic camping designated by Congress but utilize other natural programs, exceptional children and adults may environments such as State parks or national come to appreciate the esthetic and spiritual forests. qualities of wilderness and hence contribute toward wilderness conservation efforts in their community and/or nation. Societal Benefits ’ Because individuals with psychological, VALUE OF USE social, and physiological disorders derive benefits from participating in therapeutic Experimental Design and Methodology camping programs (see Value of Use section), societal benefits should also accrue. Since Research on the effects of therapeutic results of some studies indicate that therapeutic camping programs has been conducted by camping can lead to discharge from mental professionals in a wide variety of disciplines hospitals/institutions, shorter hospital stays, and such as psychology, social work, criminal reduced recidivism rates, considerable financial justice, nursing, recreational therapy, and savings to taxpayers should result. Taxpayers education. When evaluating therapeutic will no longer have to pay for long-term camping programs, the majority of researchers custodial care of these persons in institutions. have used either Campbell and Stanley’s (1963) one-shot case study (Caplan 1967; George and Moreover, if participants can be Gibson 1959: Jerstad and Stelzer 1973; rehabilitated to the point where they can Kaplan and Reneau 1965; Kistler and others function competently in performing the 1977; Remar and Lowry 1974) or the one activities of daily living and/or obtain full-time group pretest-posttest design (Jensen and others or part-time employment, they can lead active 1968; Kelly and Baer 1968; McCreary-Juhasz and productive lives. The communities in and Jensen 1968; Orbach 1966; Stimpson and which they live and society in general benefit Pederson 1970; Stoudemire and Comola 1973; in terms of their economic productivity, their Tuttle and others 1975). In the one-shot case ability to pay taxes, and their increased study, participants are taken to some type of purchasing power. Thus, they reduce welfare natural environment and changes in their rolls and become less of a financial burden and behavior are assessed. In the one group drain on already taxed resources of the pretest-posttest design, measures are taken of government (Federal, State, and local). By the participants before and after the therapeutic helping to rehabilitate these individuals, camping program to assess any behavioral or therapeutic camping programs may perhaps physical changes resulting from the camping contribute to reducing the numbers of homeless experience. Some researchers added control or mentally ill and the crime rate in our cities. comparison groups (e.g., Banaka and Young Thus, the quality of life for all citizens is 1985; Kaplan and Reneau 1974; Kelly and enhanced. Baer 1968, 1971; Ritter and Mock 1980; Shniderman 1974; Stich 1983).
158 The data are usually observational or Pederson 1970; Weisman and others 1966; anecdotal in nature (e.g., Byers 1978; Caplan Winter and Winter 1968). 1967; Eells 1947; George and Gibson 1959; Goodrich 1947; Jerstad and Stelzer 1973; (3) Increased initiative (Weisman and Landes and Winter 1966; Lowry 1974; others 1966). McDonald 1974; Middleman and Seever 1963; Morse 1947; Neffinger and others 1984; (4) Increased atient enthusiasm and fun Peterson and Acuff 1955; Smith 1959; Stich (Kistler and others P977; Neffinger and others and Senior 1984). Some researchers have used 1984; Reitman and Pokomy 1974; Whittekin instruments such as personality tests, attitude 1967). and rating scales, questionnaires, daily journals, file data, or the Modified Bales Interaction (5) Improved school attitudes and Matrix (Baer and others 1975; Banaka and behaviors (Behar and Stephens 1978; Coffey Young 1985; Collingwood 1972; Katz and and Femx 1974; Rawson 1973; Rickard and Kolb n.d.; Kelly and Baer 1968, 1969; Mondell Dinoff 1967; Shnid&M! 1974)). and others 1981; Ritter and Mock 1980; Stich 1983; Stimpson and Pederson 1970; Tuttle and (6) Dischuge from hospitals, shorter others 1975). In analyzing the data, only a hospital stays, and reduced recidivism rates few researchers used statistical tests of (Acuff 1961; Baer and others 1975; Barker and significance (Baer and others 1975; Banaka Weisman 1966; Jerstad and Stelzer 1973; Kelly and Young 1985; Henke and Kuhlen 1943; and Baer 1968, 1971; Lowry 1974, Peterson Herr 1975; Hughes 1979; Kelly and Baer and Acuff 1955; Rerek 1973; Weisman and 1968; Mondell and others 198 1; Orbach 1966, others 1966; Willman and Chun 1973). Ritter and Mock 1980; Ryan and Johnson 1972; Shniderman 1974; Stimpson and (7) Changes in oup problem solving Pederson 1970; Tuttle and others 1975). Also, \R$l.$ud and others 1 f75; Rlckard and others very few researchers have conducted any . follow-up studies (Baer and others 1975; Banaka and Young 1985; Barker and Weisman (8) Fewer emotional problems and 1966; Jensen and others 1968; Kistler and pathological symptoms (Behar and Stephens others 1977; Ramsey 1969; Rickard and Dinoff 1978; Henke and Kuhlen 1943; Ritter and 1967; Ritter and Mock 1980). Mock 1980; Rosen 1959; Shearer 1975; Stoudenm$e and Comola 1973: Whittekin 1967; Winter and Winter 1966). Personal, Social, Emotional, and Cognitive Benefits of Therapeutic Camping Programs (9) Development of new interests and improved skills (Bar&a and Young 1985; The results of the majority of studies McCreary-Juhasz and Jensen 1968; Reitrnan indicate that therapeutic camping has beneficial and Polcomy 1974). effects for emotionally disturbed children and adolescents and mentally ill adults. The major (10) Establishment of friendships (Barker personal, social, emotional, and cognitive and Weisman 1966; Lee 1983; Remar and benefits include the following: Lowry 1974). (1) Improved physical health, fitness and (11) Increased quality and quantity of increased appetites (Caplan 1967; Collingwood social interactions (Ban&a and Young 1985; 1972; Reitman and Pokomy 1974). Herr 1977; Hobbes and Radka 1976; Hughes 1979; Kaplan and Reneau 1965; Kelly and (2) Enhanced self-concept, self-esteem, Baer 1968; Lowry 1974; McCreary-Juhasz and and self-confidence (Coffey and Ferree 1974; Jensen 1968; Rawson 1973; Reitman and Collingwood 1972; Hobbs and Shelton 1972; Pokomy 1974: Shearer 1975; Smith 1959; Hughes and Dudley 1973; Kelly and Baer Tuttle and others 1975). 1969; Kimsey and Frost 1971; McCreary- Juhasz and Jensen 1968; McDonald 1974; (12) Im oved patient-staff relationships Muller 1971; Shank 1975; Stimpson and (George and &ribson 1959; Herr 1975; Kaplan
159 and Reneau 1965; McFarland and others 1967; and Monahan 1977)? How does one put a Ramsey 1969; Reitman and Pokomy 1974; dollar value on the behaviors and attitudes that Rerek 1973; Smith 1959). change as a result of therapeutic camping? Can one place a dollar value on enhanced self- For other groups of exceptional children concept? Heller and Monahan caution the and adults, Shea (1977) reports that additional evaluation of social programs in purely psychomotor, diagnostic, placement, and financial terms and state that the human factors remedial benefits as well as benefits to family, side must also be considered in the benefits. teachers, counselors, volunteers and trainees result. Perhaps because of such difficulties or lack of funds and resources to conduct However, some studies indicate that evaluations, to date most researchers have not therapeutic camping can have negative effects reported anything about the cost-effectiveness including passive aggressive behavior, of therapeutic camping programs. While some regressive behavior, depression or suicide, or caution against the expense of such programs no effects on certain behaviors (Byers 1978; (Shea 1977), others claim that their programs Henke and Kuhlen 1943; McDonald 1974; am cost-effective. Banaka and Young (1985) Muller 1971; Orbach 1966; Polenz and Rubitz claim that their camping program was cost- 1977; Ritter and Mock 1980; Shniderman effective when one compares the cost of one 1974). Red1 (1974) even cautions against the month in a hospital with the costs of camp. psychopathic risks of camp life. Six months after camp, Banaka and Young state the control group had accumulated hospital costs at twice the rate of camping Economic Benefits program participants. Stich (1983) stated that participants in the Outward Bound Mental The economic benefits of therapeutic Health Program had shorter hospital stays camping should be looked at in terms of the which represent substantial savings. cost-effectiveness of these programs and the resulting economic savings to society. While Since calculating the costs of psychiatric these programs must demonstrate cost- care is complex (Bloom 1984), it is difficult to effectiveness to influence policymakers, it is estimate how much money taxpayers save if a difficult to determine the cost-effectiveness of patient is discharged from an institution, has therapeutic camping programs. Heller and shorter hospital stays or is readmitted less Monahan (1977) state that the three types of often. However, a nationwide study of the costs and economic benefits that must be taken costs of institutional cam for the mentally into account when analyzing community retarded and the developmentally disabled in programs include client costs (e.g., professional the United States between the Fiscal years salaries, administration, insurance); other public 1977 and 1984 gives us some clue as to the costs and benefits (impact on public agencies costs (Braddock and others 1986). These or the environment), and client-related costs authors state that for the first time the and benefits (e.g., nonfinancial benefits). In nationwide per diem exceeded $100 in 1984.2 evaluating the costs of therapeutic camping In another study, the cost of one hour of programs, the client costs (e.g., professional outpatient services at a community mental salaries, camping supplies, transportation) health and mental retardation center averaged would be relatively easy to compute. $53.15 for adults and $52.32 for children However, the other public and client-related (Gorin 1986). costs and benefits would be more difficult to assess. For example, if one prevents a juvenile While some individuals argue that delinquent from entering a life of crime, should services concerned with the rehabilitative one figure the costs that society would have process cost less outside the institution incurred in terms of crimes committed, costs (Albrecht 1976). others claim they cost more for reformatories or prisons, etc. (Heller and (Bloom 1984; Kirk and Therrien 1975; Smith Monahan 1977)? In addition to these and Hart 1975). Bloom (1984) cautions that problems, how does one measure the the extra costs for community care might be nonfinancial costs of a social program (Heller acceptable if the economic benefits of the care
160 (e.g., increased tax revenues, reduced welfare Thus, the trend is toward exposing more support) exceed the costs. In fact, results of and more groups of exceptional children and one study show projected benefits of adults to camping therapy in some wilderness community care over a lo-year period for 52 or wilderness-like setting. However, it has mentally ill or retarded individuals would been estimated that only 10 percent of the exceed the costs by $20,000 a patient (Murphy estimated 10 million handicapped children and and Date1 1976). The cost of mental illness is youth in the United States are now being rising and reached nearly $37 billion in the served by camp programs for handicapped United States in 1974, with $14.5 billion of individuals (Vinton and others 1978). this expended for direct patient services (Levine and Willner 1976). In the austere fiscal climate now imposed by the Graham, ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Rudman, and Hollings Bill and with an increasing share of the costs of Environmental and Social Implications institutionalization paid by the Federal government (Braddock and others 1986), With increasing groups of exceptional policymakers should consider funding for children and adults expected to use existing innovative programs. wilderness areas, parks, national forests, etc., further strain will be put on the already existing wilderness areas. Therefore, more TREND IN USE wilderness areas need to be set aside to accommodate the increasing needs and interests Camping for exceptional children was of these groups. While designation of more fiit recorded in the United States in 1888 wilderness areas will be a partial solution, in (Vinton and others 1978). Since the 1930’s, the future some difficult management decisions camping programs for exceptional children and will have to be made as to which areas should adults have grown tremendously. Today there provide necessary resources. Since results of a are over 225 camps for persons with special recent telephone survey of wilderness managers health needs (National Easter Seal Society for found that only 13 percent of wilderness Crippled Children and Adults 1973). These managers stated that there were any organized camps are located in all regions of the United programs for medical or therapeutic purposes States. (Reed and Haas 1987), it would seem that this is an area that certainly needs attention. Today backpacking in developed and wilderness areas via organized or independent camping is also gaining in popularity among Needed Research handicapped individuals (Vinton and others 1978). Groups such as Outward Bound Experimental Design and Methodology conduct wilderness trips for exceptional children. The Minnesota Outward Bound Although most research findings appear School has experimented with Outward Bound to support the contention that camping in schools for the handicapped, blind, hearing- wilderness or wilderness-like settings is indeed impaired, and persons with a variety of therapeutic for emotionally disturbed children physical disabilities (Godfrey 1980). Results and adolescents and chronic mentally ill adults, of these pilot programs have indicated that the validity of these findings needs to be people with severe disabilities are far more questioned due to weaknesses in experimental capable than previously supposed. Men design and methodology. Because most of the without legs have climbed a rock face and programs were evaluated without the use of portaged a canoe. The Federal and State parks control or comparison groups and subjects have expanded services in recent years to were not randomly assigned to treatment include not only accessible outdoor facilities conditions, the internal and external validity of but also total environment programming for the these designs is weak. handicapped (Vinton and others 1978). The internal validity of these designs is weak because the treatment, therapeutic
161 camping, may be confounded with other factors wilderness-like setting. Is it the flora and such as spontaneous remission, environmental fauna of wilderness, the uniqueness of change, increased perceived control, or other wilderness, the low level of stimulation of therapies used in conjunction with camping wilderness, the esthetic or spiritual value of therapy (Apter 1977; Clark and Kempler 1973; wilderness, the isolation of wilderness from the Hobbs and Radka 1975; Hughes 1979). stresses of the city, or the ability of wilderness to evoke coping behaviors that produce Since most of the observations were therapeutic gains? (Acuff 1961; Apter 1977; participant observation by the staff involved Bernstein 1972; Neffmger and others 1984; and only a few .researchers reported interrater Thomas 1981) Or is it some other confounding reliability (Banaka and Young 1985; Orbach factor (e.g., increased perceived control, 1966), biases could have resulted. In addition, environmental change) rather than wilderness the instruments used generally lacked reliability that is the therapeutic agent? and validity. Moreover, because statistical tests of significance were rarely used in Moreover, since the nature of camping analyzing the data, we do not know if the therapies differ widely (e.g., duration of the results of these studies are statistically camping period, the camp activities, the significant. ATso, because of the use of small, camper/staff ratios), it is unclear what aspects biased samples, it is unclear if the therapeutic of these programs contribute to the therapeutic camping benefits generalize to other gains or if it is the interaction of the program populations. For example, do the benefits that with the environment that produces these gains. male adolescents achieved from therapeutic Finally, it is not known if the beneficial effects camping apply to females? Since sex of therapeutic camping programs are dependent differences in response to therapeutic camping on the natural environment or if these same have already been found (Ryan and Johnson benefits could be achieved in other settings. 1972), this issue becomes more salient. Finally, it is crucial that short-term and Program planning long-term follow-up studies be conducted (Ben&e 1975; Hobbs and Radka 1976; Several questions need to be answered Mondell and others 1981; Perlman 1947). concerning the operation of therapeutic Without follow-up studies we do not know if camping programs (Gibson 1979). We need the beneficial effects of therapeutic camping information as to whether camping programs programs generalize from wilderness to non- should be designed differently for children wilderness settings or how permanent the and/or adults with different diagnoses, ages, effects are. Already there is evidence that chronicity, etc. It has already been suggested some benefits dissipate over time (Banaka and that different type programs are needed for Young 1985). adolescents, chronic mentally ill adults, and less disturbed adults (Remar and Lowry 1974). Therefore, if future research is to be Juvenile delinquents may need action-oriented, more acceptable to the scientific community challenging programs with periods of high and is to provide a stronger data base from excitement and real danger and therefore may which to argue for financial support of such be particularly well-suited for programs that programs, there must be improvements in emphasize camping in rugged, backcountry, experimental design and methodology. To wilderness areas. However, certain qualities of accomplish this, improvements in all of the Outward Bound may make it an inappropriate areas cited (e.g., use of control groups, reliable treatment for urban juvenile delinquents or for and valid measures, follow-up studies, students with psychological fears and statistical tests of significance) are needed. difficulties (Katz and Kolb n.d.). Programs for exceptional children should emphasize what they can do rather than cannot do, and must be Therapeutic aspects of camping flexible enough to meet the needs of each individual child (Vinton and others 1978). To date we still do not know what is More information is also needed concerning therapeutic about camping in a wilderness or programs in which patient and relatives, or
.62 handicapped and non-handicapped individuals permanent element of either a preventive or interact (Muller 1971; Rerek 1973; Vinton and rehabilitative program. others 1978). Criteria for selection and elimination of Additional Issues and Recommendations participants are needed. Usually the criteria are based on diagnosis, but other criteria such Three further issues and as psychosocial dysfunction or length of recommendations need to be made regarding hospitalization may be important (Ramsey the use of wilderness as therapy. First, since 1969; Stich and Senior.1984). In selecting the groups such as the physically handicapped can staff for the more rugged programs such as ride horses, boat, canoe, kayak, ski, and Outward Bound, selection is geared to those participate in the Special Olympics and have with the functionally relevant skills needed to an increased interest in backpacking, expansion implement the program (Collingwood 1972). of such programs into wilderness areas of this More information on camper/staff ratio for country should be made for exceptional various types of participants is also needed as children and adults (providing their personal staff can foster independence or can hamper limitations and problems of access to such growth and development (Vinton and others areas can be overcome). For example, Belshaw 1978). A l/l ratio for adolescents and 3/l or (1979) cites a two-day expedition where higher for chronic mentally ill adults has been individuals in wheelchairs used elbow crutches recommended (Remar and Lowry 1974). to get a taste of the remote upland terrain of the countryside. These individuals should be Since negative effects of therapeutic given the opportunity to experience wilderness camping on patients and staff have been firsthand, something their handicaps may have observed, research is needed on the nature of caused them to miss. workshops and/or meetings for the participants and staff both before and after the camping Second, more government financial experience. In particular, more information on support and resources should be allocated for the negative effects of camping programs on the development of innovative programs that the staff is needed. have possible economic and societal consequences as well. Elpers (1986) suggested What should the duration of the camping an increase of at least 1 percent for research period be? It has been suggested that one or into the treatment of the mentally ill. two days may be too short to expect desired behavior changes necessary for normal Third, some type of networking of functioning (Shea 1977; Turner 1976). rehabilitative personnel, wilderness managers, Research on the effects of repetitive camping and personnel in the USDA Forest Service, experiences is also needed. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Management is needed if programs like these Other aspects of therapeutic camping am to succeed. programs not ordinarily looked at, such as the esthetic and spiritual value of wilderness or In conclusion, it is hoped that this paper changing attitudes and/or behaviors regarding exposes more individuals to the therapeutic nature and conservation, should be explored. value of wilderness or wilderness-like settings Vinton and others (1978) state that camping for individuals with psychological, social, and experiences for children and youth stimulate physiological disorders and that the issues and lifelong interests in camping and outdoor recommendations raised in this paper are recreation. addressed. Finally, a cost-effectiveness analysis of each program needs to be conducted and disseminated to other professionals. Cost- effective programs are a prerequisite if therapeutic camping is to be integrated as a
163 REFERENCES Bernstein, A. 1972. Wilderness as a therapeutic behavior setting. Therapeutic Recreation Ackerman, 0. R., Mitsos, S. B., & Seymour, Journal, 6: 160-161,185. M. A. 1959. Patients go camping in Indiana. Mental Hospital, 10: 16-17. Berube, P. 1975. Survival camping: A therapeutic modality. Journal of Acuff, S. H. 1961. Camping: Transition Leisurability, 2: )4-20. between hospital and home for the adult mentally ill. Journal of Health, Physical Bloom, B. L. 1984. Community mental health: Education and Recreation, 32: 24-2562. A General introduction (2nd Ed.), California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Albrecht, G. L. 1976. Social policy and the management of human resources. In G. Braddock, D., Hemp, R., and Howes, R. 1986. L. Albrecht (Ed.) The Sociology of Direct costs of institutional care in the Physical Disability and Rehabilitation. United States. Mental Retardation, g;; IJiversity of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 24( 1): 9-17. - . Byers, S. E. 1978. Counselor skill-training in a Apter, S. J. 197’7. Therapeutic camping: An year-round therapeutic wilderness camp: alternative strategy for troubled children. Effect on camper and counselor Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, behaviors during problem solving Winter: 73-75. sessions, Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(3-B), 1469. Baer, D. J., Jacobs, P. J., & Carr, T.E. 1975. Instructors’ ratings of delinquents after Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. 1963. Outward Bound survival training and Experimental and Quasi-experimental their subsequent recidivism. designs for research. Chicago: Rand Psychological Reports, 36: 547-553. McNally College Publishing Co. Banaka, W. H., & Young, D. W. 1985. Caplan, R. B. 1967. Tent treatment for the Community coping skills enhanced by an insane--An early form of milieu therapy. adventure camp for adult chronic Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 18: psychiatric patients. Hospital and 145-146. Community Psychiatry, 36(7): 746-748. Clark, J., & Kempler, H. L. 1973. Therapeutic Barker, B., & Weisman, M. 1966. Residential family camping: A rationale. Family camping: Imaginative program helps Coordinator, 22: 437-442. chronic mental patients. Journal of Rehabilitation, 32: 26-27. Coffey, J. V., & Ferree, J. 1974. Buddies, backpack and blisters. School Behar, L., & Stephens, D. 1978. Wilderness Counselor, 21: 230-232. camping: An evaluation of a residential treatment program for emotionally Collingwood, T. R. 1972. Survival camping disturbed children. American Journal of with problem youth. Rehabilitation Orthopsychiatry, ,48: 644-653. Record, 13: 22-25. Eells, E. P. 1947. From the Sunset Camp Belshaw, P. 1979. Accent on adventure: an Service League: Camp as a therapeutic account of outdoor pursuits. In L. community. The Nervous Child, 6: 225- Groves (Ed.) Physical Education for 231. Special Needs, London: Cambridge University Press, 81-98. Elpers, J. R. 1986. Dividing the mental health dollar: The ethics of managing scarce Bergan, J. F. 1958. Day camp in Connecticut. resources. Hospital and Community Mental Hospital, 9: 12-13. Psychiatry, 37(7): 671-673.
164 George, G. R., & Gibson, R. W. 1959. Hobbs, T. R., & Shelton, G. 1972. Patient-staff relationships change with Therapeutic camping for emotionally ;r$ronment. Mental Hospital, 10: 18- disturbed adolescents. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 23: 298-301. Gibson, P. M. 1979. Therapeutic aspects of Hughes, H. M. 1979. Behavior change in wilderness programs: A comprehensive children at a therapeutic summer camp as literature review. Therapeutic Recreation a function of feedback and individual Journal, 13: 21-33. versus group contingencies. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 7(2): 211- Godfrey, R. 1980. Outward Bound Schools 219. of the Possible, New York: Anchor Books. Hughes, A. H., & Dudley, H. K. 1973. An old idea for a new problem: Camping as Goodrich, L. 1947. How ,much decentralized a treatment for the emotionally disturbed camping can do for the child. The in our state hospitals. Adolescence, 8: Nervous Child, 6: 202-210. 43-50. Gorin, S. S. 1986. Cost-outcome analysis and Jensen, S. E., McCreary-Juhasz, A., Brown, J. service planning in a CMHC. Hospital S., & Hepinstall, E. M. 1968. Brief and Community Psychiatry, 37(7): 696- communications and clinical notes: 701. Disturbed children in a camp milieu. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. 1982. 13: 371-373. Exceptional children: Introduction to special education, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Jerstad, L., 8z Stelzer, J. 1973. Adventure experiences as treatment for residential Heller, K. & Monahan, J. 1977. Psychology mental patients. Therapeutic Recreation and community change, Illinois: The Journal, 7: 8-11. Dorsey Press. Kaplan, H. K., & Reneau, R. F. 1965. Young Her&e, M. W., & Kuhlen, R. G. 1943. patients enjoy therapeutic camping. Changes in social adjustment in a 235-237. summer camp: A preliminary report. Journal of Psychology, 15: 223-231. Katz, R., & Kolb, D. Outward Bound and education for personal growth. Herr, D. E. 1975. Camp counseling with Unpublished. Office of Juvenile emotionally disturbed adolescents. Delinquency, HEW Grant No. 66013. Exceptional Children, 41(S): 331-332. Katz, A. H., & Martin, K. 1982. A handbook Herr, D. E. 1977. Institutionalized of services for the handicapped, COM.: adolescents’ perceptions of a summer Greenwood Press. camp program. Adolescence, 12(47): 421-431. Kelly, F. J., Baer, D. J. 1969. Jesness Inventory and self-concept measures for Hobbs, T. R., & Radka, J. E. 1975. A short- delinquents before and after participation term therapeutic camping program for in Outward Bound. Psychological emotionally disturbed adolescent boys. Reports, 25: 719-724. Adolescence, 10: 447-455. Kelly, F. J., & Baer, D. J. 1968. Outward Hobbs, T. R., & Radka, J. E. 1976. Bound Schools as an Alternative to Modification of verbal productivity in Institutionalization for Adolescent shy adolescents during a short-term Delinquent Boys, Boston, Mass: Fandel camping program. Psychological Press, Inc. Reports, 39: 735-739.
165 Kelly, F. J., & Baer, D. J. 1971. Physical McDonald, M. C. 1974. Adventure camping challenge as a treatment for delinquency. at Oregon State Hospital. In T.P. Lowry Crime and Delinquency, 17: 437-445. (Ed.) Camping therapy: Its uses in psychiatry and Rehabilitation, Illinois: Kirk, S. A., & Therrien, M. E. 1975. Charles C. Thomas, pp. 16-31. Community mental health myths and the fate of former hos ita$d patients, McFarland, F. W., Martin, R. C., & Williams, Psychiatry, 20838: . T. A. 1967. Staff attitudes and patient behavior than e on a camping trip. Kimsey, L. R., dc Frost, M. 1971. m term H$?g and fommumty Psychiatry, 18: camping for emotionally disturbed boys. - . Diseases of the Nervous System, 32: 35- 40. McNeil, E. B. 1957. The background of therapeutic camping. Journal of Social Kistler, K. S., Bryant, P. M., Bt Tucker, G. J. Issues, 13: 3-14. 1977. Outward Bound - providing a therapeutic experience for troubled Middleman, R., & &ever, F. 1963. Short-term adolescents.& Ho#$t&tnd Community camping for boys with behavior Psychiatry, 28( 11): 807,812. problems. Social Work, 8: 88-95. Kole, D. M., & Busse, HI 1969. Trail Mondell, S., Tyler, F. B., 8z Freeman, R. W. camping for delinquents. Hospital and 1981. Evaluating a psychotherapeutic day Community Psychiatry, 20: 150-153. camp with psychosocial competence and goal attainment measures. Journal of Landes, J., & Winter, W. 1966. A new $ical Child Psychology, lO(3): 180- strategy for treating disintegrating . families. Family Process, 5: l-20. Morse, W. C. 1947. From the University of Lee, J. A. 1983. The group: A chance at Michigan Fresh Air Camp: Some human connection for the mentally problems of therapeutic camping. The impaired older person. Social Work with Nervous Child, 6: 211-224. Groups, 5(2): 43-55. Muller, D. J. 1971. Post-camping depression: Levine, d. S., BE Willner, S. 0. 1976. .T%e A lethal possibility. American Journal of cost of mental illness. NIMH Statistical Psychiatry, 128(l): 141-143. Note 125. Wash., D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Murphy, J. G., & Datel, W. E. 1976. A cost- benefit analysis of community vs. Levitt, L., 8z Viney, W. 1973. Inhibition of institutional living. Hospital and aggression against the physically Community Psychiatry, 27: 165-170. disabled. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36: 255-258. National Easter Seal Society for Crippled Children and Adults. 1973. The Easter Lowry, T. P. 1974. Camping as a short term Seal Directory of resident camps for private psychiatric hospital. In T.P. persons with special health needs (8th Lowry (Ed.) Camping Therapy: Its uses Ed). Chicago, Illinois: National Easter in psychiatry and rehabilitation. Illinois: Seal Society for Crippled children and Charles C. Thomas, pp.59-62. Adults. McCreary-Juhasz, A., & Jensen, S. E. 1968. Benefits of a school camp experience to emotionally disturbed children in regular classrooms. Exceptional Child&n, 34: 353-354.
166 Neffinger, J. W., Schiff, J. W., Jr Abrams, S. Natural Resources, Colorado State 1984. The wilderness challenge: An University, Ft. Collins, Colorado. adjunctive treatment. In B. Pepper and H. Ryglewicz (Eds.) Advances in Reitman, E. E. & Pokomy, A. D. 1974. Treating the Young Chronic Patient. Camping at a psychiatric day center. In New Directions for Mental Health T. P. Lowry (Ed.). Camping therapy: Its Services, no. 21, March, San Francisco: uses in psychiatry and rehabilitation, Jossey-Bass, pp. 99-102. 99-102. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, pp. 63-67. Ohio Department of Mental Health and Remar, M. E. & Lowry, T. P. 1974. Retardation. 1979. Camping program Camping therapy in the commonwealth therapy for youth. Mental Horizons. 7. of Massachusetts. In T.P. Lowry (Ed.) Camping therapy: Its uses in psychiatry Orbach, C. E. 1966. Camping experiences for and rehabilitation, Illinois: Charles C. psychiatric patients from a day care Thomas, pp. 13-15. hospital. Journal of Psychiatric Nursing, 4: 57 l-585. Rerek, M. D. 1973. Senior citizen camping: An innovative program in community Perlman, J. 1947. Camps for maladjusted psychiatry. Journal of the Bronx State children. The Nervous Child, 6: 155- Hospital, 1: 85-87. 160. Rickard, H. C., & Dinoff, M. 1967. Behavior Peterson, B. F., & Acuff, S. H. 1955. An change in a therapeutic summer camp: experiment in living. Mental Hospital, A follow-up study. Journal of Genetic 6: 8-9. Psychology, 110: 181-183. Polenz, D., & Rubitz, F. 1977. Staff Rickard, H. C., Serum, C. S., & Forehand, R. perceptions of the effect of therapeutic 1975. Problem-solving attitudes of camping upon psychiatric patients’ affect. children in a recreation camo and in a Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 22: 70- therapeutic camp. Child C&e Quarterly, 73. 4(2): 101-107. Ramsey, G. V. 1969. Sociotherapeutic Rickard, H. C., Serum, C. S., dz Wilson, W. camping for the mentally ill. In A.J. 197 1. Developing problem solving Bindman & A.D. Siegel (Eds.) attitudes in emotionally disturbed Perspectives in Community Mental children. Adolescence, 6: 451-456. Health, Chicago: Aldine, pp 324-334. Ritter, D. R., & Mock, T. J. 1980. Carryover Rawson, H. E. 1973. Residential short-term effects of a summer therapeutic daycamp camping for children with behavior program on children’s classroom problems: A behavior modification behavior: A one-year follow-up. Journal approach. Child Welfare, 52(8): 51 l- of School Psychology, 18(4): 333-337. 520. Rosen, H. 1959. Camping for the emotionally Redl, F. 1974. Psychopathologic risks of disturbed. Children, 6(3): 86-91. camp life. In T. P. Lowry (Ed.) Camping therapy: Its uses in psychiatry and Ryan, J. L., & Johnson, D. T. 1972. rehabilitation. Illinois: Charles C. Therapeutic camping: A comparative Thomas, pp. 76-88. study. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 6: 178-180. Reed, P., & Haas, G. 1987. Preliminary results to non-recreational wilderness use Shank, J. 1975. Therapeutic recreation telephone survey. Department of through contrived stress. Therapeutic Recreation Resources and Landscape Recreation Journal, 9: 21-25. Architecture, College of Forestry and
167 Shea, T. M. 1977. Camping for special Thomas, J. C. 1981. Treed? Bushed? Stoned? children. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Implications of cognitive psychology for co. wilderness therapy. Presented at the Second Annual Convention of the Shearer, R. M. 1975. Camping as a Wilderness Psychology Group, Missoula, therapeutic experience for depressed and Montana. schizophrenic patients. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 26: 494,497. Tuttle, L. P., Terry, D., 8z Shinedling, M. M. 1975. Note on increase of social Shniderman, C. M.. 1974. Impact of interaction of mental patients during a therapeutic camping. Social Work, 19: camp trip. Psychological Reports, 36: 354-357. 77-78. Smith, B. K. 1959. Patients go camping in Turner, A. L. 1976. The therapeutic value of Texas. nature. Journal of Operational Psychiatry, 7: 64-74. Smith, W. G., & Hart, D: W. 1975. Community mental health: A noble Vinton, D. A., Hawkins, D. E., Pantzer, B. D., failure? Hospital and Community 8z Farley, E. M. 1978. Camping and Psychiatry, 26: 581-583. environmental education for handicapped children and youth, Wash., D. C.: Stich, T. F. 1983. Experiential therapy. Hawkins and Associates, Inc. Journal of Experiential Education, Winter: 23-30. Weisman, M. N., Mann, L., & Barker, B. W. 1966. Camping: An approach to releasing Stich, T. F. & Senior, N. 1984. Adventure human potential in chronic mental therapy: An innovative treatment for patients. American Journal of psychiatric patients. In B. Pepper & H. Psychiatry, 123(2): 166-172. Ryglewicz (Eds.) Advances in Treating the Young Adult Chronic Patient, New Whittekin, R. G. 1967. Imaginative themes Directions for Mental Health Services, no enliven day camp. Hospital and 21, March, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Community Psychiatry, 8: 237-238. pp 103-108. Willman, H. C., & Chun, R. Y. F. 1973. Stimpson, D. V., & Pederson, D. M. 1970. Homeward Bound: An alternative to the Effects of a survival training experience institutionalization of adjudicated juvenile upon evaluation of self and others for offenders. Federal Probation, 37: 52-58. underachieving high school students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 31: 337- Winter, L. M., & Winter, W. D. 1966. 338. Therapeutic camping: An experience in group-living. Corrective Psychiatry, 12: Stoudenmire, J., & Comola, J. 1973. 449-459. Evaluating Camp Climb-Up: A two week therapeutic camp. Exceptional Children, Winter, L. M., dz Winter, W. D. 1968. 39: 573-5 Clinical experiences with therapeutic camping. Adolescence, 3: 203-216. ENDNOTES
1. However, other terms such as wilderness therapy, camp, challenges (Banaka and Young 1985; Nefinger and others 1984; Thomas 1981), experiential therapeutic camping (Stich 1983; Stich and Senior 1984), sociotherapeutic camping (Ramsey 1969), camping therapy (Remar and Lowry 1974) and psychiatric camping therapy (Lowry 1974) have also been used. 2. Per diem in this study referred to the cost figure derived from dividing the total annual institutional expenditures in a given State by the number of average daily institutional residents in that State and then dividing by 365 (366 for leap years). 168 THE ROLE OF WILDERNESS IN HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Daniel R. Williams, Lois M. Haggard, Richard Schreyer*
ABSTRACT use, products, and symbols. Opportunities to express and affirm one’s self-identity through Wilderness is a place where people may wilderness related behaviors and symbols may develop their sense of competence through in the long run facilitate individual growth and meeting the challenges of nature, but it is also development by giving the person a wider much more. The wilderness is a fundamental repertoire of competencies through which to symbol of our national heritage, our biological anchor their day-to-day identity. and evolutionary heritage as, members of a natural ecosystem, and personal identities that Though it is difficult to distinguish may be affirmed by its mere existence, in between human development values associated addition to the challenges posed by facing it. with the personal use of the wilderness In this paper, we characterize the human (recreational, educational, or therapeutic) and development functions of wilderness as the the values of wilderness apart from actual result of individuals actively seeking self- visitation, we begin with an important definition. Because the wilderness is a rich distinction between selfdefInition and self- and potent source of personal, nationallcultural esteem The human development value of and biological identity information, it plays a wilderness has typically been viewed in terms significant and valuable role in self-definition of narrowly defined benefits, such as enhanced on all three levels of human functioning. self-esteem, and self-actualization resulting from personal contact with the natural environment, usually in a recreation context. INTRODUCTION Therapeutic uses of wilderness (Gibson 1979; Levitt 1988), and benefits associated with Wilderness is often thought of as a place structured programs designed to specifically where humans can confront nature on its own enhance self-awareness and efficacy such as terms, as a place where humans might test Outward Bound are examples of this school of themselves, and as a consequence, gain a thought. greater sense of personal competence, develop leadership skills in helping others to meet these At present, research has not examined the challenges, and to the extent that such role wilderness may play in self-definition as activities are carried out in a group context, opposed to self-esteem enhancement. This develop social interaction abilities. While restricted perspective is unfortunate in terms of these types of human development benefits understanding the value of wilderness for have often been attributed to wilderness use, human development because when people are the focus of this conference is the non-recrea- given freedom to describe themselves, fewer tional values of wilderness, and our charge to than 10 percent of their thoughts actually deal address human development benefits of with self-evaluation (McGuire and Padawer- wilderness within a non-recreational context. Singer 1978) of the kind that might be We have chosen to address the various associated with self-esteem Apparently, most developmental benefits - personal competence, thoughts about the self deal with descriptive leadership, and social interaction - under the information (what we ate like) as opposed to broader aegis of self-concept, and the ways in evaluative information (how good we are). which self-concept may be linked to wilderness Self-definition is one of the most fundamental
* Assistant Professor, Dept. of Recreation and Leisure; Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Utah; and Professor, Dept. of Forest Resources, Utah State University. We would like to thank Irwin Altman, Alan Ewert, and Carol Werner for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. 169 requirements for human development. It has significance of the wilderness and frontier to implications for our interactions with other the development of American cultural identity. people, our success in adapting to the rigorous demands of modem society, as well as our Wilderness environments function to sense of competence and worth. One of the provide individuals with a sense of who they first distinctions an infant learns to make is the are through their use as symbols. In terms of distinction between “me” and “not me,” and self-definition, the wilderness acts as the the process develops and continues throughout physical object or environment that represents one’s entire life-span. abstract human values, beliefs, and characteristics. During wilderness recreation, Selfdefinition can take the form of the opportunities for self-definition are virtually clarification we seek for our own sake, when limitless. There are mountains to be climbed, we are uncertain of who we are or what values rivers to be forded, cliffs over which to rappel, we stand for. Self-definition can also take the and climatic conditions to be dealt with, all of form of defining, or interpreting ourselves to which provide the individual with a wealth of others, so that the people in our social information about him or herself as being more environment have a clearer understanding of or less rugged, self-sufficient, adventurous, who we are. Both forms of self-definition hardy, appreciative of scenic beauty, and a require constant maintenance; affirming our virtually unlimited list of other attributes. The identity is as important to growth and more pervasive use of the wilderness for self- development as is enhancing our feelings of definition, however, does not arise from self-worth. We continuously strive to interaction with the wilderness directly, but understand ourselves better, as well as to through its use as a symbol of personal and insure that those around us are interpreting our cultural values. The actual number of people actions and words in ways that are consonant who make pilgrimages to wilderness areas is with our preferred identity. We derive self- minute compared to the number that use the definition in almost every activity we perform, wilderness for its symbolic content. every symbol of ourselves we present to the world, and a signilicant proportion of our In the following sections, we examine private thoughts. the nature of the self-concept. We will then review some of the literature that exemplifies Wilderness environments serve identity the use of the wilderness in the cultivation of functions through their ability to provide our personal, cultural, and biological identities, information and meaning to individuals about and finally address some issues and how they are situated with respect to other implications pertinent to the assessment of individuals, cultures, and species. The notion wilderness values within the Resource Planning that physical objects and environments provide Act framework. for self-definition is not new (Proshansky and others 1983). Knopf (1987; 1983) has made the same point with specific reference to the On the Nature of Self-Concept role of nature in self-identity. In the first half of the twentieth century, the sociologist George Implicit in our formulation of the self- Herbert Mead (1938) suggested that people, concept is that the self is multidimensional. animals, objects and environments can make us Much of the clinical psychology and recreation “self-conscious,” or aware of who we are as and leisure literature focuses on a single individuals, and thus develop our sense of self dimension of the self, that of self-esteem, or or personality. More recent examples of the evaluative (good-bad) dimension. Current physical environments providing self- trends in the field of psychology view the self definitional functions include Rivlin’s (1982) in terms of cognitive processes and information evidence of this phenomenon on the level of structures. From the cognitive perspective, the an urban neighborhood, Appleyard’s (1979) preoccupation with a unidimensional self- vivid example of a “city-wide” identity esteem seems overly simplistic. One of the threatened by the “Manhattanization of San founding fathers of psychology, William James Francisco,” and Nash’s (1969) discussion of the (1890) wrote of the self as being comprised of a multiplicity of selves. Similarly, the current
170 orientation toward the self positions it as a rich cognitive dimensions or self-images, many of and highly-organized network of beliefs about which arc human values, beliefs, and ourselves, including who we are, our likes and characteristics which may be symbolized by dislikes, and our goals and aspirations. We wilderness environments. There is also a view the self as a complex phenomenon motivational, or dynamic aspect of the self that composed of self-esteem (the affective or actively searches for, and creates opportunities evaluative dimension); an infinite number of for self-definition. In the course of human self-images (such as self-as-mother, self-as-an- development, we strive to understand ourselves, honest-person, and self-as-a-naturalist); and, in as well as to be understood more clearly by a broader context, aspects of the self that others. This motivational aspect is significant motivate us to activelv seek out and create because it makes human development less of a opportunities for self-affirmation. It is wtion to one’s environment and more of an primarily through the self-images that a linkage active transaction with one’s social and is provided between the mere existence of a physical environments, wilderness, its symbolic utility as a representation of an abstract!human value, and the benefits derived in terms of self-definition. BENEFITS TO SELF-CONCEPT What the wilderness means to us -- symbolizes THROUGH WILDERNESS * to us -- becomes incorporated into our self- definition through changes in relevant self- What does this self-definition process cognitions, or, self-beliefs. mean for wilderness as a contributor to human development? What evidence exists that The motivational aspect of self- wilderness, either through its recreational use affirmation is particularly important to or mere preservation, provides these self- understanding the non-recreational value of concept benefits? As we noted earlier, human wilderness for human development. We act in growth and development occurs through ways that organize and activate beliefs about cultivation of beliefs about one’s self, and ourselves, that allow specific self-definitions to wilderness may be a potent facilitator of be derived from our everyday environment. human development through this enhancement Csikszentmihalyi and Rochberg-Halton (1981) of our understanding of ourselves, and through observed that the motivational aspects of the an enhanced ability to communicate who we self allow us to “cultivate” identities, as are to others. opposed to having our social and physical environments impose a given identity upon us. Specifically, the self-defining potential of Researchers such as Swarm (1983) and wilderness contributes to self-identity in terms Schlenker (1984) have proposed several of three types of beliefs. First, individual specific mechanisms people use to maintain identities may be tied to wilderness such that their self-images, such as displays of signs and the use of wilderness (actual, vicarious, or symbols of the self, selection of tasks or symbolic) affii important beliefs about the hobbies that permit identities to be built and personal self or who we are as an individual. maintained, and interpersonal behaviors We may exhibit certain behaviors related to designed to elicit appropriate feedback from wilderness that give us feedback that we ate others. An individual who is motivated to adventurous, self-reliant, independent, maintain wilderness related self-images will do physically fit, and mote generally competent. so by infusing their everyday environment with Secondly, wilderness and national parks can, as reminders of desired self-images using many have suggested (Nash 1982; Wellman mechanisms such those Schlenker and Swarm 1987). give us feedback of our cultural self or propose. These mechanisms may serve as a who we ate as Americans. In Nash’s view framework for research on the motivational wilderness is an important symbol of American aspects of the self in wilderness and other society. Historically, wilderness has served to environments. give Americans a cultural identity, when we have felt inferior to our European cousins who ln summary, the self is a complex entity, had a much richer cultural heritage. Finally, consisting of an affect or esteem dimension, as and more speculative and philosophical, is that well as practically infinite numbers of wilderness provides identity feedback in terms
171 of our biolow self or who we are as human as opposed to self-enhancement. Furthermore, beings. By this we are suggesting that understanding the value of wilderness in terms wilderness may enhance a person’s “human” of self-definition is particularly relevant to the development by allowing that person an non-recreational use of wilderness. The non- opportunity to discover or affm who he/she is recreational value of wilderness to self-identity as a member of the human species among the may be observed in terms of the self-defining many natural creatures in the world. Each of mechanism of displays of signs and symbols. these three aspects of wilderness and self- Knopf (1987; 1983) has written extensively of concept has been examined to some extent in the rich symbolic value of nature and its the wilderness benefits literature. The personal capacity to affirm self-identity. Thus, the level has been the focus of the empirical symbolic values inherent in wilderness can literature9 the cultural level, the province of become a major source of self-concept expres- historical ‘and policy analysis, and the sion. Identification with wilderness through biological the exclusive estate of philosophy. symbols such as those embodied in books, art work, membership in wilderness organizations, and perhaps most immediate and prominent, Personal Identity the types of clothing a person wears, make convenient vehicles for self-concept expression A potential de;elopmental benefit of wilder- and affirmation. ness-is its capacity ti help people to achieve self-definition through affirmation of specific Finally, persons may seek to structure the identities. The major line of research is nature of social interaction to affirm exemplified by a number of scientific and conceptions of self. One of the ways this may conceptual works (Ewert 1986; 1983; Gibson be accomplished is through the evolution and 1979; Kaplan and Talbot 1983) addressing adoption of norms of wilderness and recreation participants of formal or structured wilderness behavior in general. An entire lifestyle may be challenge/adventure programs such as Outward created around the norms and values expressed Bound and their potential to improve self- in the appreciation and manifestation of concept (Burton 1981; Gibson 1979). This appropriate behavior in wilderness and about topic is examined under the aegis of wilderness. This process of learning and “therapeutic” values within these proceedings displayin behavioral norms has been (Levitt 1988). In addition, some research has suggestJ to account for the process examined developmental benefits of general developing specialized styles of participation wilderness participants (Young and Crandall (Bryan 1977) and may account for the 1984; 1986). In either case the results diffusion of formerly exclusive and elite examining the potential to enhance self-concept activities to a wider constituency (West 1984). are far from conclusive. Burton concludes Continued interaction with others who share from a review of 72 studies that structured similar values and norms is the essence of programs do appear to report positive effects what these authors are describing to account on self-concepts, but adds that the quality of for participation dynamics and the increased these studies is poor and there is little tangible sense of commitment and competency that evidence that these perceptions have a lasting goes with acquiring and displaying the norms impact. Schreyer and others (1987) discussed and symbols of their sport and the a number of conceptual issues that plague this development of social reference groups. From area of research. The most important issues the perspective of self-definition, a social are the degree to which these self-concept reference group functions to affirm an improvements are maintained over the long individuals self-definition by reflecting back to term, especially in the absence of recurring the that person the images he or she desires. participation, and the extent to which benefits Such reference group interaction, which can be attributed to wilderness per se or the probably occurs more frequently in everyday social interaction and formal process encounters than specifically within wilderness, established by the program. becomes a powerful means of self-concept definition. At present, little research has examined the role wilderness may play in self-definition
172 National/Cultural Identity scenic wonders of the Western wilderness was an opportunity demonstrate our cultural identity While the beliefs about one’s self as an to our European cousins. individual are defined largely through wilderness use and symbolic products linked to At the same time, the vast and available its use, beliefs about the cultural self are natural resources to be developed were also a affirmed independent of use, through mere source of national identity (Wellman 1987). In existence and preservation of wilderness. contrast to Europe, the abundance of natural Appleyard (1979) observed that the resources and the absence of a rigid social environment in general functions to symbolize class structure made America a place where individual and group identity and suggested anyone could achieve identity and status, that environmental conflict is as much over primarily through settlement and development symbols as substance. As he puts it, of the wilderness (Wellman 1987). “environmental decisions are not only value- based, but identity-based.” Wilderness and natural landscapes seem to be a particularly Biological Identity rich and powerful source of national identity symbols (Nash 198z). Indeed, the American As with the cultural self, the biological self character of freedom and democracy is is not dependent on the use of wilderness, but symbolized by wilderness. As Driver and its preservation. Wilderness serves to affirm others (1987) observed, wilderness has always beliefs about who we are as homo saniens. been a refuge of the religiously and politically We value wilderness in part because it reminds oppressed from the Puritans and Mormon us of our biological and earthly heritage. pioneers to the modem political “freedom “Wilderness . . . may be the best place to learn fighters” in Central America and Afghanistan. that we are members, not masters of the life community sharing a common habitat” Wilderness has played a prominent (Rolston 1986b). Paraphrasing Rolston political role in this country because of the (1986a), Driver and others (1987) suggest that way the American character is linked to it. As preserving wilderness is a “gesture of planetary a result, protecting wilderness serves to protect modesty” and an expression of humility, grati- America’s identity. As Nash (1969) observed, tude, and admiration for powers greater than “Our national ego is fed by both preserving our own. Wilderness symbolizes biological and conquering wilderness.” Nineteenth roots easily forgotten in the “high-tech” century Americans, out of a desire for cultural modem world. At this level the bio/ecological independence to accompany their new-found heritage we encounter in wilderness places our political independence, sought to identify personal and social identity in the perspective something that was different and impressive of humanness. Expressions such as “becoming about their country: “sustenance for their one with nature” reflect a kind of unity, a national ego” (Nash 1969). That something belief about how our self is connected to the was the untamed wilderness and abundant whole of the earth or even the universe. natural resources. America lacked the refined cultural symbols of art, architecture, literature, Rolston (1986b) describes this as natural history, and traditions that Europe possessed. history benefits. “Humans are relics of . . . In addition, the commercial exploitation of [the natural] . . . world, and that world, as a Niagara Falls, which drew. the greatest number tangible relic in our midst, contributes to our of European visitors in the mid-1800’s, was a sense of duration, antiquity, and identity.” He national embarrassment. The development of goes on to say “Without an appreciation of this our national ego demanded that America take evolutionary past, Americans cannot understand steps to preserve the “crown jewels” (as they who and where they are.” There is ample were described) in the form of national parks evidence that the human species can adapt to a and wilderness. Natural wonders as cultural life largely without direct contact with nature symbols coupled with the emergence of the (Knopf 1987; 1983), but at what cost? romantic movement in literature and religion, Without wilderness and the natural processes endowed wilderness with spiritual and esthetic embodied within, we lose part of our self; uniqueness. Setting aside as national parks the
173 personally, culturally, and perhaps most more likely to be affirmed. One could make significantly, biologically. the case that a country with a strong national identity, built on a connected self-identity (like that which may exist in Japan) is better ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF equipped to compete in the global market WILDERNESS economy; thus suggesting national economic FOR HUMAN GROWTH AND benefits of national identity. While little DEVELOPMENT research has attempted to provide a value for such benefits, Walsh and others (1984) have Issues in Measurement done research to assess option, existence and bequest values for wilderness. They suggest, In order to address the notion of value, as we have suggested, that such values some semantic clarification is in order. Value nationwide far exceed the recreation is presumed to be the worth, or willingness to participation values of wilderness. pay or make resource trade-offs in order to obtain a benefit (Brown ‘1984). However, this The nature of these benefits may be presumes the benefit is in fact known and measured in a variety of ways (Schreyer and demonstrated to be a consequence of the Driver 1988). They may be identified through behavior undertaken (e.g., wilderness expert panels, using “Delphi” techniques or participation or preservation). As we have people may be questioned concerning their seen the human development benefits of own perceptions of benefits. However, such wilderness are not easily molded into subjective inquiry may not be reliable, as cause/effect analysis especially benefits people may not be aware of or able to associated with cultural and biological heritage. articulate such benefits. As a result, indirect To the extent to which we believe that methods such as obtaining self-reports of developmental benefits are indeed forthcoming reasons for engaging in wilderness activities from wilderness, there is also the question of have been used to imply the nature of the magnitude of the benefits produced, in wilderness benefits. This is where the largest relation to their value (Driver and Peterson body of empirical research currently exists. 1987). Are two units of self competence Another approach has been to administer enhancement worth twice as much as one unit? standard psychological scales related to various Is such a relationship in magnitude difference dimensions of self-esteem, usually in a pre-test even recognized and/or responded to in a post-test format, and to assess the nature of market? differences resulting from participation, if any (Schreyer and Driver 1988; Schreyer and Little research has been carried out in others 1987; Burton 1981; and Ewert 1983 assessing the value of wilderness benefits to discuss the limitations of these approaches). individuals. The only indirect indicator would Finally, more objective behavioral data may be be the total expenditure by persons who buy used. Benefits such as economic productivity wilderness programs of one sort or another. It as it is related to national identity are difficult would be difficult to use expenditures of link to wilderness and require time consuming persons visiting wilderness in general, as it is and expensive studies, which is why little of not known what proportion of those this type of research has been carried out expenditures could be attributed to self- (Driver in press). concept. Values for cultural and biological self-identification are even more difficult to tap. Sampson (1988), in his discussion of Indicators of Value individualism, addresses the efficacy of individualism for fostering success in the The extent of use of wilderness for self- global economy. Sampson argues that “when a concept benefits is hard to assess as no person’s sense of self is defined through comprehensive effort at evaluation has ever relationships and connections,” rather than the been attempted. For structured programs, a self-centered individualism which dominates considerable body of research exists, but there American culture, core cultural values of is little sense of how much benefit is provided, freedom, responsibility, and achievement are and to whom, let alone establishing the value
174 of that benefit. A potential indirect indicator is exist concerning such increases through time. the number of programs that exist. Driver and Assessments that such uses am increasing are others (1987) cite Burton’s research (1981) as more subjective than empirical. Other indirect estimating over 300 such programs nationwide. indicators exist, such as the increase in formal wilderness experience courses in colleges and As mentioned above, unstructured universities (Greenway 1987). There are also visitation has been studied indirectly through no agency statistics concerning the magnitude time in studies of visitors’ motivations for of such use. However, we have noted an participation in wilderness. These studies increasing tendency for Forest Service examine visitors’ reasons for wilderness personnel with wilderness management visitation. Inferences may be made to the authority to mention that “perhaps something benefits which such persons are seeking as a should be done” to regulate or control the part of that visitation. While this is not numbers of wilderness training programs, conclusive evidence, it provides information which again serves as an indirect indicator of concerning visitors’ self-pemeptions of potential the fact that such programs are growing in benefits. A variety of such studies use popularity. The notable lack of trend data in standardized measures of such potential this area suggests that this is a major future benefits, such as Driver’s (1977) Recreation research need. Experience Preference scales. This allows for comparison across studies. However, such research usually involves one-time studies of DISCUSSION visitors. It is therefore impossible to ascertain whether such benefits are linked to ongoing participation, or to the single episodic event in Environmental/Social Implications which they were measured. The value of wilderness for providing Interestingly, as noted above, many of opportunities for self-concept maintenance these studies do not show a self-concept through participation would be maintained by benefit as being a particularly major reason for the current status quo. It is unclear the extent participation. Across 12 studies, Driver and to which a growing demand for such types of Brown (1987) found that experience opportunities may be frustrated if such preferences related to personal efficacy opportunities am not increased. The principal (introspection, achievement, and teach/lead concerns here surround the tendency for others) ranked in the middle to lower half in agencies to seek control over users’ behaviors importance among 16 scales compared. Of for fear of impact to the resource, and whether course, this could be due to the fact that the growth in wilderness opportunities might be benefits to self-concept derive from being able met with increasing restriction on the part of to engage in such behaviors and to act out administrators. one’s sense of self, whether the pursuit is conscious or not. Other reasons, such as the The capacity to engage in wilderness desire to experience nature, may thus be the activities for reasons of personal competence rationale for acting out the nature of self in and leadership can only be hindered by that particular place (Schreyer and others regulation. By definition, if such activities 1985). require the opportunity to demonstrate personal autonomy, then actions which curtail that autonomy will reduce the opportunity. The Trends in Use key issue concerns the value of the benefit to the individual. Any use causes impact, and Use of wilderness for self-concept benefits human uses of wilderness are tolerated, even at may be assessed only indirectly through the cost of that impact. There comes a point tracking participation rates for wilderness when the impact may be too great and human activities motivated by such purposes, or by use must be curtailed. However, there are the increase in attendance at formal programs currently few empirical indicators of how much such as NOLS or Outward Bound. use is too much use in wilderness. Such Unfortunately, readily accessible data do not indicators must be developed through
175 subjective human judgment using systematic for national identification independent of size processes such as the “Limits of Acceptable (within limits, of course -- 10 acres of Change” method (Stankey and others 1985). wilderness in the nation would not provide When the resource is used for its symbolic much benefit in this regard). content, even subtle changes in the resource, or the way it is perceived by other members of The biological identification component society, can have an impact on its utility for is another matter. Such identification is self-definition. The “Limits of Acceptable instrumentally related to the maintenance of Change” method of public involvement, then, viable ecosystems reflecting natural processes, involves not only the limits of acceptable gene pools, and biological diversity. These are change in the resource, but the limits of all related directly to the size of the wilderness acceptable change in one’s self-definition, as resource and to its management. The greater well. the size of the wilderness system, the greater the likelihood that such processes are fostered Another related concern is the extent to and such identification values are enhanced. which wilderness is unique in providing these opportunities. Wilderness areas are seen as There are also substantial indirect values particularly fruitful areas for testing the self related to size, as the symbolic significance of because of the prevalence of natural challenges. such biological identification is tied directly to -Of course, any reasonably natural setting, the moderation of human activity. Such regardless of its wilderness status, may provide moderation represents a commitment to similar benefits. Further, nonnatural settings partnership in the global ecosystem rather than may also provide many opportunities for self- dominance. Moderation of human activity testing, such as playing the stock market, means making tradeoffs between such acts and climbing up the World Trade Center, or commodity production. As we have no sense driving on L.A. freeways. Because of human of the magnitude of such values, we have little diversity, however, not all individuals are able to gauge the nature of such trade-offs, which is to employ nonnatural settings as effectively as why they are invariably made in the political natural settings for competence testing. The sector. It is also likely that the public has unique symbolic content of the wilderness little direct knowledge of the nature of such provides more compelling avenues for self- tradeoffs, though it may value considerably the definition for these individuals. Furthermore, identification with nature and the environment. and perhaps more importantly, natural settings At any rate, such benefits are enhanced by have associated with them a set of meanings greater wilderness designation; they also point that nonnatural settings lack. By altering the to the need for greater articulation of such resource, we alter its symbolic value, and we values. alter the identities of those people who find self-definition through wilderness symbols. Through changing the wilderness, we risk Issues, Concerns and Recommendations changing the character of the American people. One of the greatest concerns related to The more abstract components of this topic is the recognition of the value of wilderness benefits, national identity and wilderness for non-commodity uses. Few biological identity, have more indirect would argue that such outputs are likely to be relationships to the wilderness resource. derived from wilderness. However, that National identity is probably not as greatly recognition has virtually no functional impact impacted by current wilderness management on decision making. The underlying policies, nor by the total size of the National implication is similar for most wilderness Wilderness Preservation System as it is by values -- they are important because people are American attitudes reflected in wilderness willing to act politically to set wilderness policy. It is likely that if the amount of aside, but compared to the demonstrated impor- acreage under wilderness designation were to tance of commodity values of resources in the be halved or doubled, it would not impact the market sector, they do not appear to have identification value of wilderness. The fact tangible significance. The ultimate challenge that wilderness exists and is protected provides of documenting these types of benefits is to
176 achieve a substantive change in the premises of that through the adoption of ever more resource management. This change will sophisticated research and management ultimately require the recognition that non- techniques (computer models and the like) we market, non-quantifiable values are substantive can accommodate these changes. However, we and important, and in fact should affect want to do that within the same quantitative, decisions about national resource policy. This objective models of management, losing sight does not reduce the significance of commodity of the fact that the system is changing resource production, so much as it underscores aualitatively. These changes cannot be broken the need to broaden the perspective of resource down by Region, or by unit of commodity management. production. We appear to be at a point in our This is where the real challenge for the resource history in which such changes are Forest Service lies in the future. It is not a becoming increasingly apparent, but in which matter of fitting changing societal values into we have neither the moral/philosophical nor the formal planning frameworks. Rather, it is a administrative rhetoric to accommodate the matter of fitting agency decision making into significance of such phenomena. If anything, the changing values of society. Of course, this such forces translated into the political arena wilI not occur without considerable resistance. have been denigrated by association with cult, We all want the world to remain the same fringe or extremist groups/philosophies. forever, even though we know that, just as we However, the legislation of the past twenty grow, so does the world around us. That years exists as a testament to the power of friction is inevitable, but so are the processes those philosophies in affecting resource policy. of change, and we must seek to understand how as professionals dedicated to the public Our point is underscored by the welfare we can adapt and accommodate to that guidelines for the desired structure of the change. papers for this conference. We were not only to cover the state of knowledge related to a One of the key concerns with respect to given resource use (meaning an attempt to the topic of this paper is the need to be able to hammer such benefits into the commodity articulate more clearly and cogently the nature model -- X units of self-concept output per Y of the values of wilderness for human units of management input), but we were to development. One reason why it is difficult to break that down by standard Federal Regions, break that down by standard Region or by unit as if the sum total of human knowledge about of output is the total lack of any systematic personal growth and development could be data on this type of resource use. There is a reduced to regional units. The tremendous need to articulate the relevance of inappropriateness of this mandate is an these types of benefits to our culture, as weIl indicator of the internal conflict which is as to generate reliable, useful, and systematic occurring among resource professionals who data on the actual benefits provided by have been trained to apply “rational” (i.e., wilderness for these purposes. We operate in a objective unit production criteria) resource situation of primarily anecdotal information. management techniques that are poorly suited Perhaps more significantly, there is little if any to understanding complex processes such information that is framed in ways in which personal growth and self-definition. persons who are committed to resource decisions based solely on commodity These concerns are structural, in that production unit outcomes can understand. This they involve an organizational approach to is where future research and writing on the resource management which has been topic is most needed, as will be addressed in institutionalized through 90 years of the following section. bureaucratic activity. People are trained in schools that emphasize these more “objective” (and, by implication, fair) means of allocating Research Needs resources. But as with any bureaucracy, such dogmas are inherently resistant to change, and We have an intuitive belief that human to the development of society. We assume development values are a major benefit derived
177 from wilderness. Unfortunately, there is little agency, and how much public strife is information resulting from empirical studies, necessary to make the transition. beyond structured training programs, which can document such a benefit. This underlies the (5) Finally, there needs to be an content of our recommendations for future increased emphasis on the psychological research: processes involved in achieving wilderness benefits, in addition to the nature of the (1) There needs to be a data base on the benefits, themselves. It is possible that an nature and extent of formal training programs understanding of the process through which in wilderness, oriented toward human natural environments are transformed into development and identity needs, as well as “improved conditions” or human development information tracking the changes in the number benefits will improve our ability to understand and nature of those programs through time; the & of natural environments for human development. Once it is understood how (2) There need to be investigations of the people use the wilderness to affirm their benefits of long term paiticipation in personal, national, and biological identities, we wilderness in general, independent of formal will be closer to understanding how certain training courses. What is it that people derive, management actions may enhance or degrade how does this compare to other aspects of life, peoples’ ability to derive identity benefits from and how valuable is it to people? This the land. underscores the need for more longitudinal studies, as opposed to single, time-dependent studies; REFERENCES (3) There needs to be a more systematic Appleyard, D. 1979. The environment as a consideration of the benefits of such social symbol: Within a theory of participation. We have a vast body of indirect environmental action and perception. and/or anecdotal knowledge on the set of American Planning Association Journal. benefits for the use of wilderness. However, 45143-153. we have not been able effectively to capture the relative value of such benefits in systematic Brown, T.C. 1984. The concept of value in ways. In the past this has been tied to resource allocation. Land Economics. economic value, which has resulted in attempts 60(3):231-246. to transfer these values into a standard metric. However, we have yet to develop means which Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and adequately express these values in non-market recreational specialization: The case of terms which have substantive impact on policy trout fishermen.. Journal of Leisure making. Research. 9: 174-187. (4) There needs to be increasing scrutiny Burton, L.M. 1981. A critical analysis and of the agencies that provide for public benefits review of the research on Outward through the management of these resources. Bound and related programs. New There is a growing gap between the premises Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. PhD upon which people are trained in resource dissertation. disciplines, based primarily upon models developed in another era, and contemporary Csikszentmihalyi, M. and E. Rochberg-Halton. societal needs to which those persons have to 198 1. The meaning of things: Domestic respond. We need to explore models of symbols and the self. New York: resource management and decision making that Cambridge University Press. can accommodate the non-commodity, non- market values of resource uses. This Driver, B.L. 1977. Item pool for scales adjustment will occur whether policymakers designed to quantify the psychological want to see it happen or not. The question is J outcomes desired and expected from merely how much pain is encountered by the recreation participation. USDA Forest
178 Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Univ. Paper presented at the Fourth Range Expt. Stn. Ft. Collins,CO. 31 p. World Wilderness Congress, Estes Park, co. Driver, B.L. In press. Benefits of river and trail recreation: The limited state of James, W. 1890. Principles of Psychology. knowledge and why it is limited. In S. New York: Hall. Seguire, ed., Proceedings, First International Congress on Trail and River Kaplan, S. and J.F. Talbot. 1983. Recreation. Vancouver, B.C.: Outdoor Psychological benefits of a wilderness Recr. Council of British Columbia. experience. In I. Altman & J. Wohlwill, eds., Behavior and the Natural Driver, B.L. and P.J. Brown, 1987. Probable Environment, pp. 163-203. New York: personal benefits of outdoor recreation. Plenum Press. In President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors -- A Literature Review. Knopf, R.C. 1983. Recreational needs and Washington, D.C.: U.S.’ Govt. Printing behavior in natural settings. In. I. Off., pp. 63-70. Altman 8z J. Wohlwill, eds., Behavior and the Natural Environment, pp. 205 Driver, B.L. and G. Peterson., 1987. Benefits 240. New York: Plenum Press. of outdoor recreation --An integrating overview. In President’s Commission on Knopf, R.C. 1987. Human behavior, Americans Outdoors -- A Literature cognition, and affect in the natural Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. environment. In D. Stokols and I. Printing off., pp. l-10. Altman, eds., Handbook of Environmental Psychology. New York: Driver, B.L., R. Nash and G.E. Haas. 1987. Wiley. Wilderness benefits: A state-of- knowledge review. In R. Lucas ed., Levitt, Lynn 1989. Therapeutic value of Proceedings--National Wilderness wilderness (this volume). Research Conference: Issues, State-of- knowledge, Future Directions. USDA McGuire, W.J. and A. Padawer-Singer. 1978. Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Report INT- Trait salience in the spontaneous self- 220, pp. 294-319. Ogden, UT: concept. Journal of Personality and Intermountain Research Station. Social Psychology. 33:743-754. Ewert, A. 1983. Outdoor adventure and self- Mead G.H. (1938) The Philosophy of the Act. concept: A research analysis. Eugene, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. OR: University of Oregon, College of Human Development and Performance. Nash, R. 1969. The cultural significance of the American wilderness. In M. Ewert, A. 1986. Values, benefits, and McCloskey & J. Gilligan, eds., consequences in outdoor adventure Wilderness and the Quality of Life, pp. recreation. In A Literature Review 66-73. San Francisco: Sierra Club. Appendix to the Report to the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. Nash R. 1982. Wilderness and the American Washington, DC: US Government Mind. Third Edition. New Haven, CT: Printing Office. Yale University Press. Gibson, P.M. 1979. Therapeutic aspects of Proshansky, H.M. 1978. The city as self- wilderness programs: A comprehensive identity. Environment and Behavior. literature review. Therapeutic Recreation 10:147-189. Journal. 13(2):21-33. Rivlin, L.G. 1982. Group membership and Greenway, R. 1987. A psychology of place meanings in an urban wilderness “program” at Sonoma State
179 neighborhood. Journal of Social Issues. Range Expt. Sm. Gem. Tech. Rpt. INT- 38:75-93. 176. 37 p. Rolston, H., III. 1986a. Philosophy Gone Swarm, W. 1983. Self-verification: Bringing Wild. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls and A. Greenwald, eds., Rolston, H., III. 1986b. Beyond recreational Psychological Perspectives on the Self. value: The great outdoors preservation- $:2. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, pp. related and environmental benefits. In A - . Literature Review Appendix to the Report to the President’s Commission on Walsh, R.G., J.B. Loomis and R.A. Gillam. Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC: 1984. Valuing option, existence and US Government Printing Office. bequest demands for wilderness. Land Economics, 60(l): 14-29. Sampson, E.E. 1988. The debate on individualism. American Psychologist. Wellman, J.D. 1987. Wildland Recreation 43:15-22. Policy. New York: Wiley. Schlenker, B. ib84. Identities, identification West, P.C. 1984. Status differences and and relationships. In V. Derlaga, ed., interpersonal influence in the adoption Communication, Intimacy and Close outdoor recreation activities. Journal of Relationships. New York: Academic Leisure Research. 16:350-354. Press. Young, R. and R. Crandall. 1984. Wilderness Schreyer, R. and B.L. Driver. 1988. The use and self-actualization. Journal of benefits of outdoor recreation Leisure Research. 16:149-160. participation, Paper presented at Benchmark 1988: A National Outdoor Young, R. and R. Crandall. 1986. Self- Recreation and Wilderness Forum. actualization and wilderness use: A Tampa, FL. panel study. In R. Lucas eds., Proceedings--National Wilderness Schreyer, R., D.R. Williams and L.M. Research Conference: Current Research Haggard. 1987. Episodic vs. continued USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Report wilderness participation - Implications for INT-212, pp. 385-388. Ogden, UT: self concept enhancement. Paper Intermountain Research Station. presented at the 4th World Wilderness Conference, Estes Park, CO. Schreyer, R., R. Knopf and D.R. Williams, 1985. Reconceptualizing the motive/environment link in recreation choice behavior. In G.H. Stankey and S.F. McCool, eds., Proceedings - Symposium on Recreation Choice Behavior. USDA Forest Service Genl. Tech, Rpt. INT-184. Ogden, Utah: F;8mtn. For. and Range Expt. Stn., pp. - . Stankey, G.H., D. Cole., R. Lucas, M. Peterson and S. Frissell. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service Intermm For. and
180 THE NON-TRADITIONAL PUBLIC VALUATION (OPTION, BEQUEST, EXISTENCE) OF WILDERNESS
Richard G. Walsh and John B. Loomis*
ABSTRACT travel patterns or expressed willingness to pay of wilderness recreationists. ’ In the past, we tended to view wilderness as primarily a recreation resource. More While this paper also is concerned with recently, the contingent valuation method has the benefits of wilderness recreation, it differs been applied to the problem of estimating the from earlier work by introducing non- demands for wilderness preservation by the traditional public values to the analysis of general public. The results provide an wilderness designation. This is consistent with empirical test and confirmation of the guidelines of the Federal government which hypothesis that the general population is recommend that agencies establish wilderness willing to pay for the preservation of unique programs consistent with the benefits to users natural environments, and that their option, and the general public. To Max Peterson, existence, and bequest values should be added former Chief of the Forest Service, this means to the consumer surplus of recreation use to that “first, we must establish the true value . . . determine the total economic value of to the American people, and then recognize wilderness to society. It is proposed that the that value in our planning and our politics.” current benefit estimating procedures of Wilderness managers and the public need to Federal agencies be enlarged to include these have an understanding and appreciation of the non-traditional public values. specific values for protecting wilderness. Haas, and others (1986) summarize the INTRODUCTION results of a household survey designed to show how values of people who visit wilderness The purpose of the Wilderness Act (P.L. areas differ from people who do not. The 88-577 Section 2 a) is to secure “for the question asked was: American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring Many reasons have been proposed for resource of wilderness.” ln the past, two valuing existing or potential myths evolved relating to the act: first, these wilderness areas. For each of the American people are solely recreation&s who possible reasons below, check the box have the time and money to visit such areas; which best describes how important it and second, the values or benefits derived from is to you. wilderness are solely recreation-related. Haas, and others (1986) discuss reasons for the The 13 reasons are based on provisions of the myths as follows. A vast majority of the Wilderness Act. Each is rated on a 5point popular literature focused on the recreation use scale of preference ranging from not important and enjoyment of wilderness. Federal land to extremely important. management agencies included wilderness administration within their recreation programs. Table 1 compares the mean scores of Moreover, these agencies reported wilderness recreation users and the general public of use as recreation visits or visitor-days. Finally, nonusers. A t-test of mean scores for each of resource economists attempted to develop a the 13 values indicates that the two groups are dollar value for wilderness by studying the not significantly different. The three most important motivations relate to biophysical
* Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO; and Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, University of California, Davis, CA.
181 resources--protecting water quality, wildlife of protecting a natural area from irreversible habitat, and air quality. The next two are the loss. Weisbrod (1964) first discussed what has option values of possible future recreation use become known as option value: that people by current and future generations. Providing were likely to be willing to pay some premium current recreation opportunities is next, ranking over and above their expected recreation fii and sixth (including ties) in importance to benefits to maintain the option of possibly recreation users and the general public, visiting a natural area in the future. Arrow respectively. Providing income from the and Fisher (1974) demonstrated that there tourist industries is of least importance to both exists a quasi-option value to society for groups, although still considered moderately maintaining future options when considering an important. The provision of recreation irreversible investment that would foreclose opportunities is most relevant to the two myths forever preservation of a natural area. Krutilla previously mentioned. While providing (1967) and Krutilla and Fisher (1985) recreation opportunities is important, it is not discussed the likelihood that many persons who the most important reason users and the may never visit or intend to visit a unique general public value wilderness. natural area might still gain satisfaction from knowing that the area exists and is protected. Krutilla (1967) suggested that the current TOWARD A DiFINITION OF TOTAL generation might be willing to pay something ECONOMIC VALUE to bequest a unique natural area to future generations. As these concepts have evolved As early as the mid-1960s, economists in the economics literature, they are now began to recognize that on-site recreation commonly though not universally referred to as values did not capture the full social benefits option, existence, and bequest values. Table 1. -- Comparison of the mean scores of wilderness users and the general public when asked to rate the importance of wilderness areas General public t-test Reasons for Wilderness Users’ non-users (Ztail) Protecting water quality 0.60 Protecting wildlife habitat :*; :*; 0.18 Protecting air quality 4:1 4:2 0.51 Knowing that future generations will have wilderness areas 4.1 3.9 0.46 Knowing that in the future you have the option to go there if you choose 0.19 Providing recreation opportunities :*: Se: 0.23 Providing scenic beauty 4:o 3:8 0.19 Preserving unique plant and animal ecosystems and genetic strains 3.9 3.6 0.06 Conserving natural areas for educational and scientific study 0.01 Knowing that wilderness areas exist ;:: ::: 0.73 Providing spiritual inspiration 0.81 Providing income for tourist industry ::: ;:; 0.41 l On-site wilderness users were those people who indicated that they had visited an existing or potential wilderness area in Colorado (N=l56). Nonusers had never visited such areas (N=58). Mean scores were based on a five-point scale: (1) not important, (2) somewhat important, (3) moderately important, (4) very important, and (5) extremely important.
182 This and related literature has evolved into allocation decisions, the manager needs to a concept of the total contribution of know how social benefits change when the wilderness resources to national economic level of a resource is increased or decreased development. Included in the total value from the current amount, concept are the: (1) direct consumption benefits of on-site recreation; and (2) indirect The question of how much wilderness to consumption of (a) the flow of information protect in a single Western State is illustrated about these activities and resources in books, in figure 1. It shows the marginal benefits of periodicals, and videos consumed as indoor wilderness in the State of Colorado compared recreation, and (b) preservation benefits,2 i.e., to the marginal costs of wilderness protection willingness of citizens to pay for the including management and opportunity costs. knowledge that wilderness resources are The marginal curves are simply the changes in protected (option, existence, and bequest total value resulting from changes in the values). This knowledge may be experience- amount of wilderness protected. They may be based or education-based. Individuals either more familiar as demand and supply curves, have visited wilderness (direct use) or they with maximum benefits occurring where the have learned about it (indirect use). Based on two intersect, i.e., where supply equals this knowledge, individuals report a willingness demand. to pay an amount roughly equal to the dollar value of that satisfaction rather than forego it. Figure 1 shows the present value of marginal benefits and costs. Present value is estimated for a planning period of 50 years and AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF PUBLIC a discount rate of 7-3/8 percent to conform VALUES with Federal procedures. The present value of the sum of consumer surplus from recreation The preservation value of wilderness has use and public preservation benefits was been measured by the contingent valuation compared to the present value of the sum of method (CVM) approved by federal agencies management and opportunity costs of (U.S. Water Resources Council 1979, 1983; wilderness designation. For example, the U.S. Department of Interior 1986) as providing expected marginal benefit from adding 1 an acceptable procedure for estimating the million acres to the present 2.6 million acres economic value of recreational and was estimated as $148 per acre, compared with environmental resources. Interagency marginal costs of $36 per acre. Without committees have established procedures for preservation values, marginal benefit from surveying a sample of the affected population adding 1 million acres would be only $78 per about maximum willingness to pay contingent acre, but still more than twice the marginal on changes in the availability of an costs. Designating additional wilderness would environmental amenity such as wilderness. be warranted on grounds of economic benefits to the people until marginal benefits with Willingness-to-pay equations have been preservation values equal marginal costs of developed using dollar values derived from the $100 per acre at approximately 9.6 million CVM that allow decision-makers to determine acres. These results are relatively insensitive how benefits change with a small increase or to changes in the variables because of the decrease in society’s stock of wilderness extreme flatness of marginal cost over most of protection. These incremental and site-specific its range. Thus, even without preservation issues are the ones that are relevant to values, marginal benefits equal marginal costs management. While society as a whole values of $67 per acre at nearly 9.5 million acres. wilderness (according to information from Even if opportunity costs should double, the opinion surveys), the US. Congress does not optimal amount of wilderness would equal 9.2 debate whether to have wilderness or not, but million acres with preservation values vs. 7.0 rather how many areas and where. The same million acres without. The latter is nearly is true of State managers of natural areas. The three times the 2.6 million acres currently issue is not whether to have any natural areas designated. This relative insensitivity to or not, but what are the benefits of more or changes in the variables may be unique to the less. To make these types of resource study area, which has little or no commercial
183 Figure 1. Present Value of Marginal Benefits and Costs per Acre of Wilderness Designation, With and Without Nontraditional Values
MC’
A II , 4 5 6 I 8 9 10 Million Acres of Colorado Wilderness
MB1 - Marginal benefits wihut prrsewation vahes.
MEt2 - Marginal values with preservation values.
MC’- Marginal costs.
i Costs included the net benefits of timber harvest, range improvements, mineral, energ , and motorized recreation foregone less the costs of managing for these uses, as reported in LARE II U.S.D.A., 19781. Also included were wilderness management costs of $1.75 per acre in 1977 kased on Guldin [1980] and a survey of Colorado wilderness areas. Costs were updated to 1980, based on a 36.6 percent increase in the producer price index.
Table 2. -- Total Annual Consumer Surplus from Recreation Use and Preservation Value to Colorado Households from Increments in Wilderness Designation, Colorado, 1980
Value Categories Recreation Use Value Per Visitor-Day $l# $;$y $;$p Total, Million %:Fl Preservation Value to ’ Colorado Residents Per Household 18.75 Total, Million :z2 20.6 %O %3. %?$%old &4 9.23 Total, Million Z:? Z4 10.2 Existence Value Per Household Total, Million Z7 ?Z6 F ii::” Bequest Value Per Household 6.75 9.10 11.46 Total, Million Z’ 7.4 10.0 12.5 Total Annudpye$yn Use * Va ue and ese at o Va$e to Colorado House- holds, Million $28.5 $41.6 $60.9 $93.2
184 timber value in most roadless areas and wilderness resources such as the Grand Canyon excludes a number of sites with known mineral (Cummings and others 1986) and Colorado or energy development potential. wilderness areas (Walsh and others 1984). For less unique wilderness resources with regional These results, reported in Walsh and rather than national significance, the proportion others (1984), am based on a sample of 218 of the population that holds preservation values resident households that participated in a mail appears to be a declining function of the survey during the summer of 1980. distance that they live from the resource Respondents were asked to make a series of (Barrick 1986; Pope and Jones 1987; four budget allocation decisions based on total Sutherland and Walsh 1985). In addition, annual benefits received from increments in there are important differences among the three wilderness designation, i.e., to report the types of preservation value. Option value maximum amount of money they would be appears to be positively related to income and willing to pay annually for protection of the probability of direct use of recreation current wilderness, and for hypothetical resources. It is negatively related to the increases in wilderness depicted on four maps. availability of substitutes. Indications are that Once this budget allocation question was existence value is related to altruistic completed, respondents.were asked to allocate motivations of individuals to preserve natural the highest amount reported among the four scenery and ecosystems. Also, it is related to categories of value: recreation use, option, the knowledge gained from direct recreation existence, and bequest demands. use. Studies have shown that bequest values are higher for retired persons who, motivated Table 2 shows that the non-traditional by benevolence, receive satisfaction from the public (option, bequest, existence) values of interpersonal transfer of natural areas to future wilderness increased from about $14 per generations. Apparently, all income groups household for 1.2 million acres to $19 for 2.6 value existence and bequest demands million acres, $25 for 5 million acres and $32 approximately equally. for 10 million acres. These public preservation values represent a substantial part of the total value of wilderness, with onsite use value of VALIDATION OF PUBLIC VALUES $14 per recreation visitor day. The values reported in the initial study The total value estimates omit should be considered a first approximation nonresidents of the State who are expected to subject to improvement with further research. have some positive values for Colorado No approach can measure the actual benefits wilderness designation, although much less associated with environmental quality. AI1 than instate residents. It is indicative that estimates are limited by assumptions and residents of the State reported they were judgments affecting questionnaire design and willing to pay an additional $21 per household data analysis. However, the reasonableness of annually to protect 125 million acres of the public value obtained in the initial study wilderness in other States. Extrapolating this has been tested by replication. In 1983, 198 sample value to the general population of the households representing a subsample of the United States results in a willingness-to-pay population of the State were interviewed in estimate of approximately $1.50 per household their homes. The study design followed annually for protection of 10 million acres of Randall and others (1981) in most respects, wilderness in Colorado. Given the large particularly the introduction of possible number of households involved, even this low regional substitution among wilderness areas value would result in substantial aggregate and between wilderness and other nonresident values for wilderness. environmental resources. Group t-tests showed no significant difference at the 0.05 level Attempts to measure the proportion of the between the average public values reported for population that consumes preservation values designation of 10 million acres of wilderness of natural areas find a substantial majority of in the two studies. This suggests that the citizens throughout the United States report method used in the initial study produced they do so. This is the case for unique
185 results consistent with those of more advanced Prince (1988) applied the CVM in a mail study design. survey of onsite users of Ramseys Draft Wilderness Area in George Washington The Colorado studies also have been National Forest, Virginia. It is reported to be replicated in the adjacent Rocky Mountain the nearest wilderness area to Washington, States of Utah and Wyoming, and in the D.C. Preliminary results indicate that Eastern State of Virginia. Pope and Jones consumer surplus of recreation users averaged (1987) applied the CVM in a telephone survey $12 per day and that their willingness to pay of 280 resident households in Utah during the for non-traditional values (option, bequest, fall of 1986. The research method followed existence) was equivalent to about the same the initial Colorado study in most respects. amount. Although no information was Respondents were asked to make a series of obtained on the non-traditional values of the four budget allocation decisions based on total general population of nonusers, these findings annual benefits received from increments in suggest that consumer surplus estimates of wilderness designation. Table 3 summarizes direct use value understate the total value of the preliminary results’!of the study, where the users by half. total values include both consumer surplus of recreation use and non-traditional value In a closely related study, Walsh, and (option, bequestrexistence) of Utah others (1985) measured the non-traditional households. These results are comparable to valuation (option, bequest, existence) of wild total values per household reported for and scenic river protection in the State of Colorado (bottom line of Table 2), adjusted for Colorado. Most of the study rivers are located 33 percent inflation and dividing by 1.1 million in existing or potential wilderness areas. A households in the State. For example, with an representative sample of 214 resident increase in wilderness to 2.7 million acres, the households participated in a mail survey in the willingness to pay per million acres would be spring of 1983. Sample size was satisfactory $19.53 per household in Utah compared to based on recommendations of the United States $18.84 in Colorado. Clearly, the value of Water Resources Council (1983) for recreation wilderness to people living in Utah is not and environmental quality studies. Response significantly different. rate was 51 percent to three mailings. The characteristics of the sample were very similar Barrick (1986) applied the CVM in mail to the population of the State, closely surveys of on-site use values and non- approximating income level and income traditional valuation (option, bequest, existence) distribution, age of household head, household for the Washakie Wilderness Area adjacent to size, occupations and education. A random Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. He subsample of 10 percent of the non- also sampled the population of the United respondents were contacted by phone. A States with mail surveys of urban residents in substantial majority favored river protection four cities and surrounding rural areas: Salt and were willing to pay for it. Thus, non- Lake City, Portland, Nashville, and Orlando. response cannot be equated to lack of interest The cities are located 300 miles, 600 miles, or value from river protection. 1,300 miles, and 1,900 miles, respectively, from the study site. He reported average Figure 2 shows that for the first river, annual non-traditional public values (option, total household willingness to pay with non- bequest, existence) of $46 for onsite users traditional valuation (option, bequest, existence) compared to $9.70 for the urban residents and is high because of scarcity value. With further $8.40 for the rural residents of the four cities. increases in the number of rivers protected, the Although public values tended to decline with willingness to pay for each additional river distance, the mean values reported in the four decreases. As demand for river protection is cities were not significantly different. He fully satisfied, marginal benefits fall to zero at concluded that the relevant population when 15 rivers. Statewide, the Cache la Poudre is estimating the benefits of wilderness the most valuable river (designated in 1986), designation is the entire United States.4 followed by the Elk, Colorado, Gunnison, Green, Yampa, etc., none of which have been designated. Without
186 Table 3. -- Total Annual Willingness to Pay for Wilderness Protection in Utah, 1986 Percent of the State Variables 5% 10% 15% 30% Acres of wilderness (million) 2.7 5.4 8.1 16.2 Willingness to pay per household (dollars) $53 $64 $75 $92 Aggregate annual value (million dollars)’ $26.7 $32.5 $38.0 $46.7
l With 506,000 households
Figure 2. Annual Benefits per Household for Protection of Wild and Scenic Rivers, With and Without Non-traditional Values
16
E Demand Curve or h4arninal Benefit Function ti = 13 - 0.88 (Q)
Number of Rivers Protected (Q)
187 information on non-traditional values, the Second, there may be long-run ecological demand for designation appears to be about values of protecting wilderness resources that one-fifth as much as with them (Figure 2). In am not included here. It is difficult for the future, these rivers may be restudied for biologists to predict what these might be, let possible designation. Krutilla and Fisher alone measure and incorporate them into (1985) have shown that future benefits from psychological and economic value. For this protection are expected to rise compared to reason, it seems that economic values represent benefits from alternative uses. This is due to a conservative estimate of the total benefits to the fixed supply of natural rivers and the effect society from protecting wilderness resources. of technological change which increases The inability of economics to place a dollar productivity and introduces substitutes for value on unknown ecological values should be alternative uses. recognized in making decisions about wilderness protection programs. Unfortunately, it is not possible to compare the CVM estimates of non-traditional public benefits to the travel cost method CONCLUSIONS (TCM) or other behavior-based measures of value. Howevercthe CVM estimates of the The study results provide an essential test dollar value of public benefits can be compared and confirmation of the hypothesis that the to psychological preferences using standard general population may be willing to pay for procedures. In the 1983 replication in the preservation of unique natural environments Colorado, Thurston’s method of paired and that their option, existence, and bequest comparison is applied to half of the sample, values should be added to the consumer with wilderness protection paired against each surplus of recreation use to determine the total of six other environmental programs, and economic value of wilderness to society. The respondents indicate which they prefer to see values reported should be considered first improved. The fractionization method is approximations subject to improvement with applied to the remaining sample, with each further research. No approach provides the respondent assigning 100 points to the most actual benefits associated with wilderness important program, and indicating the relative protection. All empirical methods provide importance of other programs by assigning estimates limited by their respective values from 0 to 100. The statistical assumptions. It is important to acknowledge correlation of the rank order of these that judgment affects the CVM approach in the psychological preference measures to dollar questionnaire design, data analysis, and in the values is a highly significant 0.88. While there specification of a decision model. The remains some difference between the findings of these studies could, however, be of psychological and economic measures of the use in the preparation of indicators of social importance of wilderness protection programs, net present value of alternative forest plans as there is a high degree of similarity. mandated by the RPA program review, Apparently, the CVM can provide a close particularly if the results were replicated in approximation of the social welfare effect of larger, more detailed surveys using a sample wilderness programs. more geographically representative of the U.S. population. The total value concept represents There are two additional points that should an important direction for future research. be made about this comparison. First, there may be psychological values associated with During the 1985 and 1990 RPA program wilderness protection that exceed the economic reviews, it was not possible to measure all of measure of values reported here. The demand the benefits and costs of alternative forest for protection, and therefore the economic plans, in particular the nontraditional (option, benefit estimate, is constrained by limited existence, bequest) values. Therefore, it was consumer income, availability of leisure time, assumed that the partial measures would be and other variables. However, psychological satisfactory indicators of economic efficiency values may not be so constrained, i.e., as long as the benefits and costs not included satisfaction from preservation may be worth are either constant over alternative plans or more than people are willing and able to pay. vary in direct proportion to the values that are
188 measured. This assumption can be tested, in Forest Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, part, with the information available for non- Ogden, Utah. pp. 412-422. traditional values. With respect to recreation use and environmental protection programs, the Cicchetti, Charles, and Smith, V. Kerry. 1973. assumption appears to be reasonably accurate: Congestion, quality deterioration, and Information is not available on the proportion optimal use: wilderness recreation in the of net economic benefits omitted from RPA Spanish Peaks Primitive Area. Social estimates of the value of other output such as Science Research 2(Mar.):15-31. grazing and timber. However, it is likely to be much less than for wilderness owing to the Cicchetti, Charles, and Smith, V. Kerry. 1976. nature of the supply of timber and livestock The cost of congestion. Ballinger forage. Thus, it seems that the RPA Publishing Co., Cambridge, Mass. assumption of constant or proportional omission of benefits and costs would not be Clawson, Marion, and Jack L. Knetsch. 1966. correct. ) Economics of outdoor recreation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. The results of the Rocky Mountain studies are sufficient to demonstrate that measuring the Cummings, Robert G., David S. Brookshire, non-traditional valuation (option, bequest, and William B. Schulze. 1986. Valuing existence) of increments in wilderness public goods: An assessment of the designation would represent a substantial contingent valuation method. Rowan & contribution to the present value of benefits Allenheld, Totowa, New Jersey. estimated by the travel cost method. In the absence of information on the willingness to Deyak, Timothy A., and Smith, V. Kerry. pay for preservation values, insufficient public 1978. Congestion and participation in land would be allocated to wilderness outdoor recreation: a household protection in States where future water, production function approach. Journal of mineral, energy, and other development may Environmental Economics and irreversibly degrade natural environments. Management 5(Mar.):63-80. Thus, it is proposed that the benefit estimation procedures of Federal agencies be enlarged to Fisher, Anthony C., and Krutilla, John V. consider preservation values. There is a need 1972. Determination of optimal capacity for State-specific studies in each of the Forest of resource-based recreation facilities. Regions. In the interim, estimates could be Natural Resources Journal 12(July):417-44. prepared for each State based on the Colorado equation. The value of variables such as acres, Freeman, A. Myrick, III. 1979. The benefits population, income, education, household size, of environmental improvement. The Johns etc. could be set at the appropriate level for a Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. sample of States in each Region. Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago REFERENCES Press, Chicago. Arrow, Kenneth, and Fisher, Anthony C. Guldin, Richard. 1980. Wilderness costs in 1974. Environmental preservation, New England. Journal of Forestry Uncertainty and irreversibility. Quarterly 78(Sept.):548-52. Journal of Economics 88312-319. Haas, Glen E., Hermann, Eric, and Walsh, Barrick, Kenneth A. 1986. Option value in Richard G. 1986. Wilderness values. relation to distance effects and selected Natural Areas Journal 6(2):37-43. user characteristics for the Washakie Wilderness, Northeast Wyoming. National Kneese, Allen V., and Brown, F. Lee. 1981. Wilderness Research Conference: Current The Southwest under stress: National Research. General Technical Report INT- resource development issues in a regional 212, Intermountain Research Station,
189 setting. The Johns Hopkins University Department of Economics, James Madison Press, Baltimore. University, Harrisonburg, Va. Krutilla, John V. 1967. Conservation Randall, Allan, Hoehn, John P., and Tolley, reconsidered. American economic review George S. 1981. The structure of 57(Sept.):777-86. contingent markets: some results of a recent experiment. Paper presented at the Krutilla, John V., and Fisher, Anthony C. Annual Meeting of the American 1985. The Economics of Natural Environ- Economic Association, Washington, D.C. ments. Johns Hopkins University Press, December. Baltimore. Randall, Allan, and Stoll, John. 1983. Leuschner, William A., Cook, Phillip S., Existence value in a total valuation Roggenbuck, Joseph W., and Oderwald, framework. In Managing Air Quality and Richard G. 1987. A comparative analysis Scenic Resources at National Parks and for wilderness user’!fee policy. Journal of Wilderness Areas (R. Rowe and L. leisure research 19(2):101-l 14. Chestnut, eds.). Westview Press, Boulder, Cola. Low, Christophe;‘R. 1979. The option value for Alaskan wilderness. Ph.D. Smith, V. Kerry, and Kopp, Raymond J. 1980. Dissertation, University of California, Los The spatial limits of the travel cost Angeles. recreation demand model. Land Economics 56(Feb.):60-74. Menz, Frederic C., and Mullen, John K. 1981. Expected encounters and willingness-to- Sutherland, Ronald J., and Walsh, Richard G. pay for outdoor recreation. Land 1985. Effect of distance on the economics 57(Feb.):33-40. preservation value of water quality. Land Economics 61(Aug.):281-91. Milton, William J. 1975. National forest roadless and undeveloped areas: develop Tyre, Gary L. 1975. Average costs of or preserve. Land economics recreation on national forests in the South. Sl(May):139-43. Journal of Leisure Research 7(2):114-20. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Commission. 1962. Wilderness and Colorado state supplement to roadless Recreation: a report on resources, values area. Review and Evaluation (RARE II). and problems, study report 3. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1987. Pope, C. Arden III, and Jones, Jeffrey W. Resource pricing and valuation guidelines 1987. Value of wilderness designation in for the 1990 RPA Program. Report to the Utah. Unpublished paper. Department of Chief’s Technical Coordinating Committee Agricultural Economics, Brigham Young on Resource Values for the 1990 RPA, University, Provo. Forest Service, Washington, DC. Porter, Richard C. 1982. The new approach U.S. Department of Interior. 1986. Natural to wilderness preservation through benefit- resource damage assessments: final rule. cost analysis. Journal of Environmental Federal Register 51(148):27674-27753. Economics and Management 9(Mar.):59- 80. U.S. Water Resources Council. 1979. Procedures for evaluation of national Prince, Raymond. 1988. Estimating recreation economic development (NED) benefits and benefits under congestion, uncertainty, and costs in water resources planning. Federal disequilibrium. Unpublished paper, Register 44:242(Dec. 14):950-65.
190 U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Walsh, Richard G., Sanders, Larry D., and Economic and environmental principles Loomis, John B. 1985. Wild and scenic and guidelines for water and related land river economics: Recreation use and resources implementation studies. U.S. preservation values. Department of Government Printing Office, Washington, Agricultural and Natural Resource D.C. Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Walsh, Richard G. 1986. Recreation economic decisions: Comparing benefits Weisbrod, Burton. 1964. Collective- and costs. Venture Publishing, Inc., State consumption services of individual- College, Penn. consumption goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics 78(Aug.):471-7’7. Walsh, Richard G., and Gilliam, Lynde 0. 1982. Benefits of wilderness expansion Wetzstein, Michael E., Green, Richard G., and with excess demand for Indian Peaks. Elsner, Gary H. 1982. Estimation of Western Journal of Agricultural Economics wilderness use functions for California: 7(July):l-12. an analysis of covariance approach. Journal of Leisure Research 14(1):16-26. Walsh, Richard G., Loomis, John B., and Gillman, Richard S. 1984. Valuing option, existence and bequest demand for wilderness. Land Economics 60(Febr.):14- 29.
ENDNOTES
1. Several studies have estimated aspects of the demand for wilderness recreation (Leuschner and others 1987; Smith and Kopp 1980; Walsh and others 1984; We&stein and others 1982), particularly the effects of congestion on willingness to pay (Cicchetti and Smith 1973, 1976; Deyak and Smith 1978; Fisher and Krutilla 1972; Menz and Mullen 1981; Prince 1988; Walsh and Gilliam 1982).
2. The preservation value hypothesis appears to be related to an insight by Clawson and Knetsch (1966). They suggest that the total consumption of wilderness is more than the on-site recreation activity. The authors define the recreation experience to include five phases: anticipation, travel to the site, on-site recreation activity, return travel, and recollection. The anticipation phase would include the option value of possible future recreation use. The recollection phase would include both the existence value of knowing that the resource is protected and the bequest value of endowing future generations with the resource.
3. The USDA Forest Service also uses a 4 percent discount rate. To convert the 7-318 percent discount rate to 4 percent, multiply present value of benefits and costs by roughly 1.5.3.
4. Low (1979) employed. the contribution of time, money, and services by members of Alaskan conservation organizations in support of the Alaska Lands Bill to estimate willingness to pay for the wilderness option. Members were willing to pay an average of $218 to $846 per year, with the value of time in the lower estimate based on the wage value of services provided and the higher estimate based on income of the donor. It appears that members of special interest groups are willing to pay substantially more for preservation or option demand for wilderness, at least in support of a campaign of a few years’ duration, than the general public would pay annually in the long run.
191 5. Non-traditional values for resident Colorado households range from a high of 7.5 percent of total value for wilderness protection to a low of 60 percent for air quality protection programs. For maintenance of standard recreation facilities, non-traditional values are two-thirds of total value (Walsh 1986). Moreover, non-traditional values do not appear to vary appreciably with recreation output. For example, as the recreation use value of wilderness increases, the proportion of total value attributed to non-traditional values does not change significantly.
192 THE SPIRIT IN THE WILDERNESS: THE USE AND OPPORTUNITY OF WILDERNESS EXPERIENCE FOR SPIRITUAL GROWTH
Barbara McDonald, Richard Guldin, G. Richard Wetherhill*
ABSTRACT spiritual growth has not been advanced in recreation research, therefore spiritual growth Spiritual growth as a motivation for or has not been measured or even adequately value of wilderness has not been widely addressed in the literature. Our goal is to researched. A paradigm does not currently present a rationale for the importance of exist to examine the appropriateness of an wilderness for spiritual values, to present area for such growth. We ekamine some of the paradigms from related fields wilderness experience in four categories: that might be applied to wilderness settings, sacred places and things, cultural heritage, and to suggest further awareness for organized groups, and individual experiences. additional research in this area. The value of spiritual growth is presented in expanding spheres of communiry benefits, Before discussing the use, capability, indicating personal and social value, and opportunity, and constraints of wilderness for possibly biocentric value. Management spiritual reverence and growth, we first define challenges are presented. We conclude that the concept of spiritual growth for this paper. while spiritual growth is subjective, there are indications that management guidelines could Some have suggested that spiritual be developed to enhance the opportunity for growth is the encounter between self and spiritual growth. God. While helping to place the term into a context of meaning outside the day-today experiences of normal consciousness, this INTRODUCTION definition seems to require some agreement on the idea of God. Rather than move into a Spiritual rowth as a motivation for, or discussion of religious definitions and value or bene!lt of wilderness has been meanings, it may be more helpful to deiine largely unexplored by researchers, or spiritual broadly, and to allow each reader to recognized through the laws establishing further interpret the implications according to public outdoor recreation or culturally their own religious beliefs. This approach significant lands. This dearth of attention has its shortcomings, but will facilitate a results from a variety of reasons, of which discussion of wilderness-based spiritual two seem paramount. First, the connotation opportunities without becoming mired in a of spiritual growth suggests a religious discussion of wilderness-based spiritual association. The United States Constitution opportunities without becoming mired in a empowers separation of church and state. In discussion of religious definitions and practice this clause discourages government meanings. Only very general definitions of involvement in promoting religious practices “spirit” and “spiritual” are given in and use of public resources fo? reli$ous dictionaries, however. Spiritual is defined as purposes. Second and more important to OUT relating to or consisting of spirit. Spirit is thesis, a concise operational definition of defined as the moral part of man, which is
* Authors are respectively Outdoor Recreation Planner, Institute of Behavioral Research, University of Georgia, Athens, GA; Assessment Coordinator, Resources Program and Assessment Sta#, U.S.DA. Forest Service, Washington, DC; and Management Analyst, OfJie of Management Planning and Analysis, U.S.DA. Forest Service, Washington, DC.
193 separated from the body at death. A second, theologians who puzzled about how God more useful definition of spirit is: “animating, could exist eternally and yet be creator of ail fundamental, or vital principle;” and things, concluded that He must have created “religious, mental, or emotional part of man’s Himself. God must be a self-moved mover. nature” (MacMillan 1979). These definitions So biology mimics theology. The force of are not operational, and therefore are not nature is in this respect Godlike; the earth’s specifically useful to researchers. How might community of life is a self-moved mover.” spiritual be more pragmatically defined? T.H. Watkins (1987) writes, “We humans are related in life to all the life around us...The To early Native Americans, spirituality species that produced the typewriter reaches was “pervasively present and was in adulthood through the same process by which complex interrelationships with all aspects of the spider grows, shares in the same peoples’ life-ways” (Brown 1982). mysterious spark and dance of creation. Traditional Native American Indians live their Biologist E.O. Wilson has dubbed this religion; religion is part of their lifestyle relatedness biophiliq- the brotherhood of life.” (McDonald, Kimla 1987). Borrowing this concept and extending it outside the Native Spirituality is a human concept. The American community, a more useful sense of human species is therefore very much a part spirituality may be expressed in the idea of of the concept of spirituality. It has been interrelationships. Taoism, one Chinese suggested that spiritual growth should not be philosophy, is based largely on this concept described in a personal or social context, but of interrelatedness. Central to Taoism is “its that spiritual growth is something welI notion of the relativity of all values” (Smith beyond healthy personal growth. While that 1958). One definition of spiritual growth, may be true, it seems more useful to describe therefore, may be the development of a the wilderness experience as primarily a mental or emotional awareness of personal discovery, and second, a discovery fundamental or vital interrelationships, of relationships. The deeper meanings and particularly between a universal force interpretations are a third part of this manifested in human and non-human life experience, but these meanings must be left forms. This may occur suddenly (and be to individual interpretation. Wilderness called a spiritual experience) or may develop spirituality may be defined as the sudden or over a period of time (and be called spiritual gradual awareness of self-other growth). The sudden awareness experience interrelationships. “Self” may be personal or may be similar to the mystical experience, it may represent the human species, and embracing such characteristics as ineffability, “other” may be the sacred, or God, or other a feeling of knowledge, a short-lived systems that are “not-self.” It is this “not- experience, and a feeling of abeyance (James self” that some would define as God, 1936). Spiritual growth, on the other hand, necessarily having as a characteristic a occurs over a period of time, but may include universal energy of life. It is here that sudden experiences of insight and personal beliefs about God shape one’s understanding. In the wilderness setting, definition of spiritual. Buckminster Fuller, spirituality may be defined as the sudden or for example, defined God (for himself) as a gradual awareness of interrelationships among verb, not a noun. It is the interaction of plants, animals, the landscape, and indeed all “self’ and “other” within the wilderness naturally- occurring things within a totally context that defines (solely on a personal natural environment, one that is level) the true meaning of wilderness “untrammeled by man.” The wilderness spirituality. environment provides unique conditions which enhance an awareness of This interaction and awareness impact environmental and “self-other” individuals to the degree that their view of interrelationships. their “life-world” is changed, reflecting the new awareness we labeled “spiritual growth”. In support of a notion of the Spiritual growth, by definition, requires a similarity between the natural environment change in awareness, which is rarely planned and God, Norton (1987) suggests, “Medieval or calculated. Often it is only noticed after
194 the fact, and in fact, may never be recognized preservation of some tag-ends of as such. Further, people may have a spiritual wilderness...” experience but find it difficult to verbalize what they have felt. Consequently, even if During Congressional hearings on the measurable, the occurrences of spiritual establishment of the National Wilderness growth in or because of wilderness Preservation System, much evidence for the environments are not easily discernable. spiritual value of wilderness was documented. Thus, it remains largely a speculative and Mrs. William F. Unsoeld testified, “The value philosophical venture to discuss the spiritual to our nation of these expansive solitudes is uses of wilderness. impossible to measure in concrete terms. Statistical surveys of man-day usage simply fail to encompass the re-creative value to ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES society of the primitive adventure or spiritual inspiration which natural solitude so The United States Code does not strikingly stimulates” (Hearings before the widely recognize the benefitiof spiritual Sub-committee on Public Lands, November 6, experience or growth on wilderness lands, or 1961). on any public lands. The code identifies the need for special management on public lands Wilderness areas were set aside by to protect, among other values, “historic, Indo-Europeans as sacred groves or cultural, or scenic values” (43U.S.C.1702). sanctuaries, in an implicit recognition of their The National Historic Preservation Act intrinsic value (Vest 1987). In his discussion (16U.S.C.470) mentions specifically the of wilderness solitude, Vest states, “Religion, enrichment and maintenance of “cultural, then, is at the core of wilderness solitude.” aesthetic, and inspirational benefits,” and the Even though the language creating the legal Act establishing the Hells Canyon National basis for American wilderness does not Recreation Area adds the caveat,“...and other specifically discuss its religious roots, the values contributing to the public benefits,” cultural and historical background of the Wilderness Act suggests the important role it The Forest Service Manual, section played. “Hence, the act is not a scientific 2321, states, “The qualities of wilderness and statement of managerial technology, but a wild areas are expansive solitude and Congressional mandate reflecting a rich unspoiled natural environment. These large heritage of value.” (Vest 1987). areas in the national forest invite adventure, provide a refuge from civilization, give spiritual comfort, and preserve the flora and MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES fauna for inspiration, enjoyment, and scientific study.” Spiritual or inspirational growth is not subject to management regulations, although Specific documentation in the U.S. management philosophy and action may Code not withstanding, much of the activity impact the opportunity of or likelihood for surrounding the protection and preservation of those types of experiences. The U.S. Code wild lands has had its foundation in the of Federal Regulations states that in carrying spiritual and inspirational value afforded by out such purposes, “National Forest those lands. In A Sand County Almanac, Wilderness resources shall be managed to Leopold (1949) recommends the preservation promote, perpetuate, and, where necessary of wilderness: “To the laborer in the sweat of restore the wilderness character of the land his labor, the raw stuff on his anvil is an and its specific values of solitude, physical adversary to be conquered. So was and mental challenge, scientific study, wilderness an adversary to the pioneer. But inspiration, and primitive recreation” (36 CFR to the laborer in repose, able for a moment to 1986). cast a philosophical eye on his world, that same raw stuff is something to be loved and The cultural foundations of society cherished, because it gives definition and may influence spiritual experience and growth meaning to his life. This is a plea for the through symbolic representation. For
195 example, the sight of a soaring Bald Eagle relating to land exchanges is available from may be inspirational in part due to its the Chippewa National Forest. The software association with the United States as a is available to all U.S. Forest Service units, national symbol, or for others as a triumph but the total extent of its use cannot be over its endangered status. Managers may determined without contacting all of the more enhance Bald Eagle habitat and protection, than 900 computer sites in the Forest Service. thus enhancing the opportunity for an Another example from the U.S. Forest inspirational experience. But it remains for Service is the extensive Inventory of Native the individual to have that experience, American Religious Use, Practices, Localities interpret it, and recognize it as a benefit. and Resources (Institute of Cooperation Research, 1981) conducted on the Mt. Baker- Regulations influencing the visual Snoqualmie National Forest in the state of integrity of an area, its level of water Washington. This report divided its pollution, air quality, and other standard inventory of religious sites on the forest into setting regulations may undoubtedly influence five major categories: spirit sites, ceremonial the inspirational characteristics of the area. flora sites, cedar sites, legendary sites and But inspiration and spiritual growth lie cemeteries and archaeological sites. beyond the possibility of external or legal regulation. In the case of wilderness In general, however, a paradigm does designation and management, it is perhaps the not exist to measure the relative fitness of an recognition and preservation of spiritual area for spiritual growth. Therefore, it is not opportunity inherent in different ecosystems yet possible to make independent estimates of that is important. the “spiritual carrying capacity” of a particular tract--wilderness or not. The Spiritual growth may occur in any pragmatic approach is to observe use and use setting, indoors or out, urban, rural, or rates, and from them infer the relative fitness primitive. Places of worship seem to mimic of an area for spiritual growth. m some ways the characteristics of nature: large, cathedral-like open spaces with large, Use of wilderness for spiritual growth vertical dimensions, and a pleasing design may be examined in four interrelated levels: among other characteristics. It a pears likely 1) Sacred laces and things, 2) Cultural that the more natural, unconfuse B, and heritage, 3P Organized group experience, and peaceful the setting, the more likely it is that 4) Individual experiences (Figure 1). an individual may reflect on self-other interrelationships, and be influenced by them. Wilderness environments may provide 1. Sacred Places and Things outstanding opportunities for politicians, planners, and managers to promote the setting Sacred places and things are sites or for inspirational outdoor experiences. objects that hold special (and usually religious) significance to individuals, groups, cultures, or societies. Sacred space is INVENTORY OF USE described by Graber (1976): “Some parts of space are wholly different from others. The literature on inventory of use of When the sacred reveals itself in space, man wilderness areas for spiritual purposes is, in gains a fixed point of orientation in the most cases, of the “fugitive” variety. Bits chaotic relativity of the profane world. and pieces may be found among agency files, Sacred space is the site of power, and makes research monographs, oral histories, and the itself known by the effects of power like. In large, specific documentation on repeating themselves there, or by the effects selected sites is known to only a small cadre of power being repeated in ritual by man.” of persons whose work is related to the The United States has recognized some of subject and tied to the location. Some work these sites through preservation in the does surface, however. A software system National Park System, National Recreation for building and maintaining a data base of Areas, National Monuments, and the National cultural resource survey data specifically Wilderness Preservation System, among other
196 types of recognition and preservation (Page 1982). Sub-cultural significance may mechanisms. Native American societies, also be assigned to areas such as battlefields, particularly before the invasion of cemeteries, individual giant sequoia trees, and Europeans, lived in “geopiety” (Graber 1976), to sites like Walden Pond. a life centered around the natural world and oriented in physical space. These societies Another example of attention to the identified physical locations for certain sacred is the reverence placed on ecologically purposes, many of which served religious or or otherwise significant things, such as spiritual functions. Some of these sites are wildlife, plant species, and specific minerals. well known today, such as the Black Hills in Thus, Native Americans ascribed special South Dakota or the “sun daggers” and significance to totems, often animals such as accompanying petroglyphs that dot the Four the bear. Americans today may feel inspired Comers area. A rough rule-of-thumb for by the sight of eagles, dramatic rock identifying such sites is, “look to the high formations, or even less spectacular but still places”. Unique physiographic elevations meaningful naturally occurring life forms or provided and still provide and Native systems. A new focus by some groups on Americans with ceremonial places, and as crystals ascribes that these minerals possess was the case of the N@ah Waiya mound certain energies and powers, and some along the Natchez Trace in Mississippi, they crystals may have special significance over sometimes had to construct ‘such high points others. themselves. In a recent article, Kimla McDonald 2. Cultural and Religious Heritage (1987) described the concept of geopiety: “Freedom of religion is for some people an Prior to the Industrial Revolution (1810- environmental issue. Tribal religions are 1840), American culture was based on the land-based theologies, and reli ious activity land and spiritual beliefs were related, in part, in specific places [is] insepara %le from to a dependence on favorable physical religious practice.” conditions. Until the 1930s and the advent of mass communications media (radios, In 1986, the Lakota (Sioux) Tribe television) the cultural heritage of a society testified before the U.S. Senate Select was still tied closely to geographic places and Committee on Indian Affairs to reaffirm the experiences. But in recent decades, cultural boundaries of their reservation, and to secure heritage was changed for many people, additional Black Hills lands from the federal becoming much less dependent upon places. government. The testimony focused on the Material goods have become much more Black Hills as sacred in the traditional Lakota prominent in the culture of many people. religion. Testimony of Lakota beliefs Thus, the sacred places or things of an earlier interpreted by Charlotte A. Black Elk society may change in their significance to included this statement, “Any segment of later societies. An example of this change is creation cannot be isolated from any other, an area currently identified as Indian Springs however there are some parts of creation and State Park in Georgia. The springs were the earth that have a special and unique considered sacred by early Native Americans. character. The Black Hills is always They visited the site annually to collect the presented as the part essential for existence of sacred water. When white settlers moved the Lakota” (Hearing before the Select close to the springs, the Native Americans Committee on Indian Affairs 1986). Places moved away. Finally, the springs began to may hold special significance for cultures, lose their sacred character for the natives even those not ascribing to a land-based (personal communication, Lucy Lawliss). religion. The Great Salt Lake and Today, this site is preserved as a culturally surrounding area holds special meaning for important site in Georgia history, and may Mormons. Unique natural areas such as once again take on spiritually significant Yosemite and the Grand Canyon offer characteristics to visitors. A similar pattern inspiration to visitors as well as serving as of events can be found relating to the focal religious sites for Native Americans extraction and use of crystalline quartz in
197 Figure l.---Levels for examining the use of wilderness for spiritual growth
\l WILDERNESS n AA cl
Organized Group 0 Individual * Sacred Place Sacred Thing
Figure 2.--Possible relationship of outdoor oriented groups to the wilderness experience.
______--_--_------il er e s s ___------_-______-_ ___ _- ---_------0Croup; Fxp ULO.s cd o?pllisAuaM/Gro
Non-affiliates
198 West-Central Arkansas by the Caddo tribes, World Wilderness Congress (Brown 1987): and by the preservation of numerous burial “This paper describes an outdoor retreat mounds in the Southeast U.S. program the author has been conducting since 1976. [The paper] describes methods which can be employed to develop human resources 3. Group Process and Organizations such as imagination, intuition, inspiration, and insight; tap the transformative potential of, Figure 2 describes the placement of and facilitate the process of self-actualization these groups in relation to wilderness on wilderness and back country trips.” experience. As the size of organized groups gets Small group experiences may have a larger, it is less likely that the spiritual value formal or informal organization. An informal of wilderness for the aggregate group lies group may be a family group or a group of directly in the actual wilderness visit. There friends. A more formal structure includes may be many who never set foot in a group outings such as church youth groups or wilderness area, yet are committed to the the Boy Scouts. For these more formal values of wilderness. The concept of option, groups, wilderness trips are usually structured existence, and bequest value are relevant to provide certain benefits. Putward Bound here. An organizational commitment to groups, for example, are structured to provide wilderness is similar to a cultural and the opportunity for tangible and intangible community value, since many of the same benefits, such as skill development, outdoor values and symbols are shared by the knowledge, perseverance, and commitment. members individually and the organization The Outward Bound AM& Report (1986), collectively. Graber (1976) states, “The states: “Outward Bound has since evolved striking uniformity of wilderness purists’ into a modemday program for self-discovery beliefs, their memberships in conservation and personal development.” The Boy Scouts organizations, their sense of identity, and program hopes to develop “American citizens their degree of emotional commitment who are physically, mentally, emotionally, suggest the emergence of something like a and spiritually fit” (Chaplain’s Information, p. sacred community”. Therefore, the possibility 2). Table 1 gives an example of some well- of spiritual benefit of wilderness may exist known organized outdoor groups, indication even for those individuals and groups who of whether spiritual benefits are implied in infrequently or never experience the their mission or purpose, and estimates of wilderness directly. 1986 membership. 4. Individual Experiences Small group experiences are only one type of societal structure through which Individual spiritual experiences and wilderness may be experienced. Most larger growth may occur during solo wilderness organizations are composed of smaller state, visits, but solo experiences are probably not regional, and local membership groups, necessary for individual spiritual growth. It therefore, small group dynamics and is difficult to identify and measure the experiences are important even in national individual spiritual uses of wilderness, due organizations. As an example, the Sierra largely to difficulties with operational Club offered outdoor adventures to 3,794 definition of both wilderness and spiritual individuals in the National Outings program value. Attributes closely related to personal (Annual Report 1985). It is estimated that spiritual growth in outdoor recreation have over 400,000 additional individuals been explored in some studies. These studies participated within one of the 58 local Sierra provide some indication of the relative Club chapters across the US. in 1987 importance of the intangible benefits of (personal communication, Jim Absher, outdoor experiences to the individual. November 10, 1987). Another example of how small groups can be structured for Market Opinion Research (MOR), in a wilderness experiences is described in an report prepared for the President’s abstract from a paper presented at the 4th Commission on Americans Outdoors
199 Table 1 .--Selected Outdoor/Conservation Groups Spiritual or related Estimated benefits recognized 1986-87 Group in stated purpose? Membership’
’ Bov- -, Scouts Yes 4.754.479 Girl Scouts Yes 2,871,OOO Sierra Club Yes 349,797 Outward Bound Yes 15,300 (students) Camp Fire, Inc. Yes 400,ooo Audubon Society No 550,ooo Wilderness Society Yes’ 190,ooo American Wilderness No 4,(-)0 AlIiance/Adventure ‘> l Compiled from the Endyclooedia ef Organization& 1986-87. 2 land ethic as a philosophy
Table %.--Driver & Brown’s seventeen recreation experience preference domains and scales 1. Enjoy Nature 8. Family Kinship A. Scenery 9. Introspection B. General Nature Experience A. Spiritual C. Undeveloped Natural Areas B. Personal Values / 2. Physical Fitness 10. Be With Considerate People 3. Reduce Tension 11. Achievement/Stimulation A. Tension Release A. Reinforcing Self-Confidence/Self- B. Slow Down Mentally Image C. Escape Role Overloads B. Social Recognition D. Escape Noise C. Skill Development 4. Escape Noise & Crowds D. Competence Testing A. Tranquility, Solitude E. Seeking Excitement/Stimulation B. Privacy F. Self Reliance C. Escape Crowds 12. Physical Rest D. Escape Noise 13. Teach/Lead Others E. Isolation A. Teaching/Leading Skills 5. Outdoor Learning B. Leading Other A. General Learning 14. Risk Taking B . Exploration 15. Risk Reduction C. Learn Geography of Area A. Risk Moderation D. Learn About Nature B. Risk Prevention 6. Share Similar Values, 16. Meet New People A. Be With Friends A. Meet New People B. Be with People Having Similar B. Observe New People Values 17. Nostalgia 7. Independence A. Independence B. Autonomy C. Being in Control
200 classifies American adults as having five Americans Outdoors, listed 17 recreation types of motivations for outdoor recreation: experience preference domains and related scales, Table 2. 1. fitness 2. social Introspection (#9), as an experience 3. excitement preference domain, consists of scales 4. experience self and nature identified as spiritual and personal values. 5. conformist/space cramped Baaed on these domains, some indication of a more recent research concern with inspiration Those individuals with the motivations to and personal growth is evident. experience self and nature are probably the most receptive to an experience involving In a theoretical model of commitment spiritual growth in the outdoors. The fact and community awareness presented at the that this dimension even emerged in the National Recreation and Park Association MOR study is an indication of the importance Annual Congress (McDonald 1987), spiritual this type of outdoor experience has as a growth was theorized to be a possible motivator for Americans. The MOR report outcome of committed outdoor/skill challenge also depicts a clustering of individuals with activities (Figure 5). like motivations, Figure 3. , Spiritual growth was defined by “Getaway Actives” consider outdoor McDonald as an increasing awareness of recreation as a chance to be alone and study community or of the interrelationships among nature, but they are not anti-social. They increasingly larger systems. If this model participate in all kinds of sports, but like could be successfully applied to wilderness quiet, in-the-woods-and-waters sport. They experience, then spiritual growth as a benefit are not into competition. Their median age is could be considered a part of a process that 35, 50% male, 50% female (Market Opinion includes such ex erlences as the sharing of Research 1987). The “getaway actives” similar values, pRysical fitness, escaping would seem to be the most likely group to noise and crowds, enjoying nature, risk visit wilderness areas for spiritual growth taking, and achievement, as well as although probably only a small proportion introspection (these ex riences are all would specifically admit to this as a primary included in Driver & Frown’s list of reason for the visit. These data help us to recreation experience preference domains, and broadly classify the motivations of possible all would likely be part of a wilderness visit). wilderness users, and give some indication In fact, it is difficult to describe spiritual that spiritual growth (broadly defined) is a growth as an independent variable. It may be possible benefit for some users. better viewed as a dependent variable, having as its independent variables a variety of The 1982-83 National Recreation Survey conditions or experiences, many of which are conducted by the National Park Service asked listed in the Driver and Brown Experience respondents why they enjoyed their favorite Preference Domains. outdoor activities. Several selected reasons am closely associated with spiritual growth, In the Driver-Brown paper, 16 of the Figure 4. 17 domains are ranked by mean scores for eight designated wilderness areas and four Sixty-eight percent of the respondents said non-designated wilderness areas. The average that they enjoy nature and the outdoors, and ranks for the 16 domains across the 12 areas 47% mentioned the quiet and peaceful aspects am shown in Table 3. of the site as reasons for enjoyment. These data give some idea of the spiritually related If the community model can be applied aspects of outdoor recreation benefits. to wilderness experience, and the assumption However, the data give little explicit evidence of commitment to the experience (repeated of the presence or magnitude of spiritual performance) is fulfilled, then five out of the benefit. Driver and Brown (1987). in a paper first eight domains, including the top two, prepared for the President’s Commission on may be viewed as part of a process leading
201 Figure 3.--Market opinion research classification of motivations of American adults, by percentage
Healthy Sociables
Exciting/Competitive 16%
Get Away Actives 33% Fitness Driven 10% Unmotivated 8%
Figure 4.--Selected reasons why favorite outdoor recreation activities were enjoyed.
Percent 80
70 60
50 40 30 20 10
0 - Enjoy Nature Exercise Escape Social Peace\Quiet Reasons For Enjoyment
202 Figure S.--The corn-model (model of community)
u Challenge/Experience
Commitment
community
Table 3. -- Average Rank of Experience Domains Across 12 Wilderness Areas Experience Preference Average Rank Enjoy Nature Physical Fitness ;?t Reduce Tensions 2:9 Escape Noise/Crowds Outdoor Learning ::: Sharing Similar Values Independence 2-z Introspection 6:6 Family Kinship Considerate People ;:(: Achievement/Stimulation Physical Rest :*; Teach/Lead Others 9:8 Risk Taking 10.5 Risk Reduction 11.8 Meet New People 12.0
203 to greater community awareness and possibly spiritual/introspective benefits, and to assess to spiritual growth. their role in recreation experience. However, the occurrence of spiritual growth may have The implication of the community model social and environmental value well beyond process is that spiritual growth may be a the individual, as depicted in Figure 6. multi-dimensional construct, and may be manifested without either anticipation nor Spiritual growth is probably similar to immediate recognition in the course of other many other cultural values in that its wilderness experiences. manifestation is rooted in cultural norms. For example, a Christians’s view of spiritual growth is different in many ways from a A PARADIGM FOR CONSIDERING Hindu’s, However, some of the values of VALUE spiritual growth are universal; for example, a concern for a relationship to the omnipotent, The value of spiritual growth seems on omnipresent uniting force, whatever it is the surface to be primarily a personal value, perceived to be. but the measurement of this value has not been widely explored in research methodology. Arlie Hochschild (1979) WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT describes what she calls “feeling rules”, social IMPLICATIONS guidelines that tell us how we think we should feel. Examples of feeling rules are: a Land managing agencies have attempted to feeling of reverence in church, sadness .at identify the “isolation potential” of an area as funerals, sympathy at misfortune, etc. a measure of its fitness for solitude. The Spiritual growth shares some characteristics USDA Forest Service listed physical with the notion of feeling rules. Outdoor components of wilderness isolation to assist recreation and wilderness experiences, like in its inventory including, for example, size church-going experiences, ma culturally and of area, topographic screening, vegetative socially prime individuals andygroups to feel screening, and size of area, While these are spiritually uplifted. Hochschild reports that sincere attempts to inventory areas suitable feeling rules do not apply to action but rather for certain types of wilderness experience, are a precursor to action. Spiritual growth on they lack a depth of insight into the solitary the other hand, is more likely the result of experience, and the historical-cultural some action, whether it be activity or passive foundations of spiritual and inspirational thought. For both concepts (feeling rules and wilderness experiences. spiritual growth), “they tend to be latent and therefore resistant to formal codification” An inventory-like attempt to measure (Hochschild 1979). It is this characteristic of wilderness solitude is incomplete, however. latency that obscures the identification and Spiritual experiences need not be totally measurement of the value of spiritual growth. solitary, and spiritual opportunities and settings are undoubtedly infinite. However, If spiritual growth can be defined as an wilderness managers may consider such awareness of self-other interrelatedness that attributes as proximity to wildlife or becomes part of the individual’s life-style and opportunities to view and contemplate world-view, and the wilderness setting wildlife, auditory protection from man-made provides outstanding examples of this (mechanical, etc.) sounds, outstanding interrelatedness, then the value of spiritual aesthetic opportunities, and either open and growth may be viewed within perceptual expansive or closed-in and protected natural zones of community structures and areas, high places, water resources, and environments. environmental quality and integrity. Based on the Driver and Brown Wilderness areas provide a unique Recreation Experience Preference Domains, it environment for contemplation of universal is apparent that some recent efforts have been life exemplified in nature. Wilderness areas’ made to identify individual unique character lies in their unaltered natural
204 Figure 6.--Expanding Spheres of Continuity
state (or one which is perceived by the user uses, experiences, and physical integrity of as being unaltered). If an individual were wilderness areas. seeking a spiritual experience, to be truly alone with God or with nature, that individual A recent Supreme Court Case (October, would find few places for refuge. As world 1987) examined the relationship between the population continues to grow and Free Exercise (of religion) Clause of the First metropolitan areas expand along Amendment and the government’s authority to transportation corridors like the spokes of a manage the public lands. At issue was a wheel, fewer untouched natural areas will be tract of land in the Six Rivers National available for the spiritual pilgrim seeking true Forest. Three tribes, the Yurok, Karok, and solitude. For those who come to their Tolowa, claimed that Forest Service plans for spiritual growth accidentally, the wilderness logging would destroy the religious and setting provides important opportunities for spiritual quality of the area, and infringe on serendipitous discovery that is conducive to their freedom of religion. The Forest Service such growth and awareness. Therefore, a management plan was upheld by the court, paradox emerges. If the wilderness system on the grounds that the Free Exercise Clause remains as it is, a growing population that guarantees the right of the individual to shape will be consciously or unconsciously seeking their own religious conduct free from its spiritual growth in wilderness will visit the coercive government action. and the Forest areas mote frequently, creating more crowded Service plan could not be considered coercive conditions, which will be less conducive to action. What is important to this paper, provide the spiritual benefits all seek. Some however, is the recognition that if public land spiritual opportunities will likely be management actions may impair, prohibit, or destroyed. In a spiritual sense for some destroy spiritual experience, the corollary cultures and some places this has already must also be considered: Management may occurred. Perhaps most individuals and also enhance, promote, and preserve such cultures will adapt, and be content with experience. finding their spiritual attunement with nature in more developed settings, such as backyards The spiritual questions and quest of man or metropolitan parks and zoos. It is have seemingly changed little over the inevitable that the population of the United centuries. Herman Hesse, writing in 1929, States will increase, bringing social and explored man’s spiritual quest through the environmental change that will impact the development of Steppenwolf, his main
205 character in the book of the same name. During a conversation with his new-found REFERENCES “spiritual guide,” she says to Steppenwolf: Absher, James. Personal Communication, “It has always been so and always November 10, 1987. will be. Time and the world, money and power belong to the Annual Report, National Audubon Society. small people and the shallow 1986. New York: National Audubon people. To the rest, to thereal men Society 32 pp. belongs nothing. Nothing but death...[and] eternity.” Annual Report. 1986. Outward Bound USA. Greenwich, Connecticut. 17 pp. It seems reasonable to assume that the quest for spiritual understanding and Brown, Joseph E. 1982. The Spiritual Legacy experience will remain as critical in the of the American Indian. New York: The future as it is today a&l has been in the past. Crossroad Publishing Co., 135 pp. Yet, with fewer places for refuge from modem “intrusions”, such as technology, man Brown, Michael. 1987. Wilderness Vision may fiid that many of his spiritual questions Quest: Exploring the Frontiers in Human must remain unanswered. Resource Development. Paper presented at the 4th World Wilderness Congress. Spiritual growth is primarily, “in the eye Estes Park, Colorado. September 14-18. of the beholder.” Can land managers really enhance opportunities for spiritual growth? If Chaplain’s Information, Boy Scouts of spiritual growth is also related to cultural and America. Irving, TX. religious norms, then broad guidelines may be established. Native Americans, in their Driver, B. L. and Perry J. Brown. 1986. minimal management of the land and in the Probable Personal Benefits of Outdoor design of their villages, integrated spiritual Recreation. & President’s Commission on beliefs into all aspects of their lifestyle, e.g. Americans Outdoors: A Literature the thousands of Kivas (some in use today) Review. Washington, D.C. that may be found in the Southwest. With a recognition of the possible spiritual value of Graber, Linda H. 1976. Wilderness as Sacred wilderness areas and other public lands, Space. Washington, D.C., The resource management actions may be guided Association of American Geographers. by social, cultural, and environmental Eighth in a Monograph Series. 124 pp. principles that enhance or promote the spiritual characteristics of the environment. Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs. 1986. United States Senate. Research is needed to explore and Ninety-ninth Congress, second session, on identify the universal characteristics of S.1453. July 16. Washington, D.C. p. environments conducive to spiritual growth 204. and awareness. Perhaps a research partnership with departments of philosophy Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Public and religion, landscape. architecture, social Lands of the Committee on Insular sciences, and natural resource management Affairs, House of Representatives, 1962. could address the question in an Eighty-seventh Congress, First Session on interdisciplinary manner. More specific S. 174, H.R. 293, H.R. 299, H.R. 496, attention should be given to the unique and H.R. 776, H.R. 1762, H.R. 1925, H.R. critical role that wilderness areas play in the 2008, and H.R. 8237. Serial No. 12, Part spiritual growth and awareness of Americans. III. Washington, D.C. pp. 980, 1033, and For only as we begin to understand these 1942. topics better will we understand more fully ourselves.
206 Hochschild, Arlie Russell. 1979. Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. United States Code of Federal Regulations. 36 American Journal of Sociology. pp. CFR Ch. 11 (July 1, 1986 Edition). Part 551-574; p. 563, 566. 293- Wilderness-Primitive Areas. Paragraph 293.2 p. 205. Institute of Cooperative Research. 1981. Inventory of Native American Religious United States Department of the Interior, Use, Practices, Localities and Resources: National Park Service. 1986. 1982-1983 Study Area on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Nationwide Recreation survey. National Forest, Washington State. Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Seattle: Institute ‘of Cooperative Documents, U.S. Government Printing Research. 743 pp. Office. 96 pp. James, William. 1936. The Varieties of U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Religious Experience. New York: The Handbook Chapter 2310, Recreation Modem Library. pp. 371-372. System Planning. October 1967. Lawliss, Lucy. Personal Communication. Vest, Jay Hansford C. 1987. “The November 5, 1987. Philosophical Significance of Wilderness Solitude,” Environmental Ethics. The Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County University of Georgia, Environmental Almanac. Oxford University Press. Philosophy, Inc. Vol. 9, p. 307, 327, 304. New York. Ballantine books, A Division of Random House, Inc. 295 Watkins, T. H. 1987. The arachnid PP. connection, Wildemess:Spring:l 1; 1987. Market Opinion Research. 1986. Participation in Outdoor Recreation Among American Adults and the Motivations which Drive Participation. McDonald, Barbara. 1987. Enhancing Community Awareness and Spiritual Growth Through Recreation Participation. Paper presented at the National Recreation and Park Association National Congress, New Orleans, Louisiana. McDonald, Kimla. 1987. Sacred Land in Environmental Planning. The Environmental Professional. Vol. 9, No. 1, 1987. pp. 27-32. Norton, Bryan G. 1987. The Spiral of Life: How it all Works, with Examples. Wilderness, Spring, 1987. The Wilderness Society. Page, Jake. 1982. Inside the Sacred Hopi Homeland. National Geographic (November): 606-629. Smith, Huston. 1958. The Religions of Man. Harper and Row. p. 211.
207 THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION VALUES OF WILDERNESS
Terence Yorks*
ABSTRACT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN My target is to address the use, capability, In the interim, there are some important opportunities, and constraints of wilderness to points which can be made with logic, which produce renewable resources such as fish, should be at the heart of a good scientific wildlife, and water within wilderness for undertaking, including observations that might eventual consumption outside of wilderness. help uncover some of the funding needed to To go beyond theory will require an increase begin the job aright. First is clarifying some in specifically targeted funding. Meanwhile, it of the underlying reasons why wilderness has can be suggested that three basic laws drive the capability to produce far more renewable all production: (1) as biological diversity resources than most people expect. In this increases, so does-the presence of materials of especially, numbers alone are not the whole use to humans, (2) pollution is absolutely story; the context of wilderness is related to energy use, (3) as energy use indispensable. Accordingly, this sketch will increases, diversity decreases. Since follow how the very constraints that make management as wilderness requires least wilderness areas require special management energy use, it is actually ,in the best potential actually allow maximizing any land’s overall position among land optimization strategies to productive potential. The conclusion projects a support our economic as well as our psychic rather unique framework in which to organize needs. Concentrating on exceptions and a more complete analysis of that potential now management errors in the past has left us blind and in the future. to this more general rule. Social, rather than practical considerations, hold back these YORKS’ FOUR LAWS OF hypotheses most sharply, including our failure PRODUCTIVITY: to separate inappropriate use of machines from potentials for commercial production. (1) In the long run, as biological diversity increases, so does the production of materials of use to humans. A CAVEAT (2) Pollution is absolutely and unalterably I am in absolute agreement with the related to energy use. This puts limits on importance of hard numbers, and the utility of machinery in a most interesting light. the requested scheme for organization of papers in this group. Unfortunately, useful (3) As energy use increases, diversity numbers always have been available only in decreases. Production losses follow. This is exchange for dollars, despite a mystique among the reason for the two first rules’ importance to salaried scientists that they should simply be wilderness and to economics. given. The following paper was prepared without financial support,to allow the full use (4) For each rule, many exceptions can be of the powerful tools, techniques, and collected found, but three questions should follow. Does information already available for the task. the argument using the exception obscure the This is reflected in the lack of reference overall truth? Could the exception be citations. In assessing wilderness survey work, sustained for a million years? If a million one should begin by musing on the meaning of years seems irrelevant, how long should human “professional,” by definition work that is paid society last? for, with quality related to price.
* Consultant on Natural Resource Issues, Great Barrington, Massachusetts. 208 THE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING managers have concentrated too long on the OF WILDERNESS CAPABILITY historically familiar, and failed to catch the overall drift of ecosystem development and The primary positive implication of these natural cycling. Just extending the logic of the controversial laws is that Buckminster Fuller’s cattle-antelope-bison equation through the oft-misused suggestion to “do more with less” variety of national plant and animal types helps can bear some surprising fruit, with wide prove the first law: the longer the term and applications that even its author did not expect. the larger the area, and the more potential products of value to humans that are included An oversimplified example of the first law in the survey, the more strongly diversity at work can be found on the high plains of correlates with productivity. Wyoming and Montana. There, most of the land is too dry to farm, and livestock grazing The second law is one engineers have is a principal industry. One scheme of made great profits from overlooking, and classification for analysis has three basic forms represents the inverse side of production of plants: grasses, forbs (that!& those with potential from wilderness or wilderness-like broad leaves often thought of as weeds--or landscapes. Pollution, in its broadest flowers), and shrubs. Because competition for definition, comes in many forms, from toxic the region’s limited rain fall is usually the first chemicals to too much sediment to noise. restricting plant growth here, ‘any one type has Industry has bamboozled us into thinking that its ability to grow reduced by grazing that puts some form of control is possible for any form another selective pressure it. Cattle concentrate of waste. Unfortunately, it is only how much on grasses. Hence, shrubs and forbs tend to energy we use, not how it is used, that increase over time where cattle are the only eventually determines final impacts. We were grazing animal. The more cattle, the greater easily misled by local anomalies, such as the effect. As shrubs enlarge in response to highly toxic stuff that didn’t seem to take much reduced competition, they further limit grass energy to make, or clean-ups that seemed to be reproduction through shading and chemical effective. The general rule is that it takes secretions. They also limit the usefulness of effort to become really nasty. The more what grass remains because the cattle can no energy used, the greater the overall pollution longer reach through the brush canopy. that results. Period. However, if antelope are added to the Sticking to the long term, large-scale, livestock, these native animals browse shrubs, vision, all that control technologies accomplish thereby aiding grass growth. More antelope is to move problems around. In a crude (up to a point, of course) mean more grass, example, many people switched to electricity just as cattle in increasing numbers mean more for cooking or heating so smells and dirt shrubs and less grass. Hence, not only can would move out of their houses. Indeed, some one harvest more meat by having antelope as minor noxiousness did move away from the well as cattle on the land, but one can, individual home, so we were encouraged to use surprisingly, keep more cattle on a given piece ever more energy, though meanwhile the of land by having antelope there as well. As inevitable by-products of combustion became each other animal type is added, the advantage concentrated at central electric plants. We then from maintaining plant balance is widened became offended by those generating units’ through similar, though often more subtle, acrid smoke, so we built tall stacks, after interactions. Bison, for example, can break precipitating out the blackest part. Now we through even heavy shrubs to reach grass that are learning that the rest of the smoke, freed of cattle cannot, as well as survive winters its basic ash, didn’t just go away, but continued without supplementation. to build in the atmosphere to come down increased in acidity many miles away, where it There are a plethora of legal, historical, is just starting visibly to kill huge areas of and statistical anomalies which have obscured trees and water-borne life. the ought-to-be obvious overall superiority through their complex adaptation of mixtures It is here that wilderness comes to the of native animals over our domesticates. Land point. Pollution producing devices, of which
209 the internal combustion engine and as opposed to just (possibly) survive, in this high-tension electricity are central examples, humandominated world. Luckily, for us and are already illegal in a wilderness. So am all for them, the direction of all natural systems is forms of energy-intensive toxic chemicals. to produce a surplus against adversity and to spread themselves. This surplus is one that we The third law starts here and reflects still humans, with wisdom in seeing to the systems’ more kinds of disturbance from energy use. replacement needs, may harvest to mutual While natural systems are robust, they simply benefit. cannot survive mechanized intrusion if all their needed parts are t.o remain intact. An elk will not come willingly within a quarter of a mile COMMERCIAL USE VERSUS of a highway. Sugar maples cannot survive MECHANIZED INTRUSION acid rain. Many, if not most, critical natural pieces in the system are even more delicate. I do confess to bias when talking about With each loss, the overall productive potential wilderness. The few remaining truly natural declines as well. Whatrmakes a natural system places should be held sacred, honored by quiet especially efficient lies precisely among the within them. Some of this feeling was mutualistic effects of its constituents. The nice reflected by Congress in the 1964 Wilderness part of the third law is that if present levels of Act through a prohibition, within formally mechanized disturbance are reduced, the designated areas, of the use of machines of any declines in productive potential already sort, or any commercial harvest. The need for occurring may be reversed. This is true if, and stillness in the woods remains, but it now only if, more complex natural systems are should be questioned whether the assumption restored, and if energy use levels are kept that machines and harvests are unalterably compatible with the natural flows. However, intertwined is actually appropriate, and what only complete systems am self-healing, and difference separating the two might make to completeness requires quite large areas. our thinking and subsequent practice. In counterpoint, we must eat to live, so Most of us agree that some use of the best providers of food will be given the products from the land is essential for human most room on a crowded planet. Hence, the survival, and also that mechanization is only way to have geese in the sky or bison on incompatible with wilderness for both spiritual the plains is to assure its value on the plate. and practical reasons. Amidst this, there is an Only then will they be given sufficient habitat; alternative receiving little talk and less action: only then will they be assured protection from commercial use of natural systems kept as overuse or other abuse. Humanity watches out natural systems, but without bringing in fossil for what we consider most, not least, valuable. fuel-driven machines. Given that commercial Cattle rustling was not stopped by prohibiting harvests from most lands are needed by trade in beef or leather, after all. The same humans, only this forgotten alternative can principle applies to producers of fiber or other allow expanding wilderness character into areas special human wants. now used for mechanized production; it could also help us protect those many diminishing In the example of the return of the habitats now faced by imminent human need. American bison, it is paradoxical that the very eating or other use of an animal or plant Certainly, there is a real place for fully allowed it to grow again in numbers. Only undisturbed areas within the rigorous when the selling price of bison rose did these conception of the current Wilderness Act, both native animals in any number displace cattle for scientific reference and for recreation. The for whom land was taken 100 years ago. fight for these should continue unabated. Otherwise, American buffalo would have Many low productivity areas now formally remained isolated curiosities in a few zoos and protected can tolerate relatively limited export parks. It may seem unfortunate, but it is true use. However, here I am suggesting reaching that only by having sufficient economic value out to far larger blocks of land than through sustainable consumption can commercial use prohibitions could ever endangered species be given places to thrive, contain. More respect for an expanding “less
210 formal wilderness” could come from our own come to the wilderness ideal. I chose to attack needs for survival as well as for the chainsaws because they are among the hardest requirements of the soil and its creatures. This to deduce an alternative for, and just a approach could give us far more than what hypothetical solution to illustrate the kind of even the most convinced purest-wilderness innovative thinking that is so badly needed. enthusiast could foresee as retaining or The same kind of logic applies to regaining any semblance of wildness, from transportation and virtually every harvest or recreating prairies to full-scale Eastern forests, management problem. If we can make a solar as well as saving jungles and the veldt. powered word processor, we can carry off the rest of our material tasks without needing a Where our affection for energy intensive drop of (imported) polluting oil. machines came from can be typified in a single example. I’m among those who cut more than As well as new ways, we should look enough wood with a human-powered cross-cut more seriously at the recent economic studies saw. It ain’t fun for long, and takes too much concluding that by far the most profitable time if any quantity is needed. The “normal” agricultural operations in the U.S. are those of response is a chainsaw. However, from the the Amish and others who have eschewed systems point of view, if one builds or refits a “progress” by retaining their horse-powered house in a more respectful fashion, as Wendell equipment. In either event, we need to think Berry suggests, the need becomes only a small more carefully about the inevitability of seeing fraction of the wood now used, either in commercial use and mechanized intrusion as construction or keeping the place warm once inseparable. built. The related techniques are essential for the future, without doubt, and should give us both quieter and more comfortable places to SO WHAT NUMBERS DO WE NEED? live, including reducing that need to go into the woods with greed in our hearts. But, in Have we fully thought out exactly what it cutting the wood still necessary, could there be is we are looking for? In thinking about another choice? multiple use, have we come close to looking for all of the potential outputs of more natural At least one possibility has not yet been ecosystems? followed far enough. I once worked a little with electron microscopy. There, one has to Have we bothered before to count the cut things incredibly thin to look at them, and mushrooms, in time and space, that could be the tool of choice is called a microtome. A desired by a gourmet market? The few now microtome uses a knife blade made of finely sought already draw impressive prices even broken glass, not some magic material. without fixed distribution channels. Potential Nevertheless, we were warned that if we medicinals are in an exceedingly crude state of dropped the thing, it would neatly slice off our analysis, understanding, and development. feet. Now, glass can be environmentally rather Decorative plants and flowers are a major benign, if used in reasonable quantities, and greenhouse industry. How many new and cutting rather than sawing saves a great deal of impressive ones could be safely harvested from material that would otherwise become sawdust. the wild, if they were taxed and protected by Not making sawdust also saves a considerable the proceeds of those taxes? How much more amount of energy, which in turn makes things habitat could be created for them then? quieter, as well as leaving a cleaner surface for joints, along with more wood to work in the With the evolving techniques for subtle first place. Interestingly, quiet (not muffling) chemical, genetic, and mechanical tagging of is the direction of true efficiency. animal products to avoid poaching, how many more furs, leathers, feathers, and high priced l The upshot is that there is no harvest task meats could be sustainably harvested from our that cannot be done, and done better, without forests and our prairies? We already have the use of our current assumption of a heavy plenty of evidence that the general interest machine to do that job. Correspondingly, the market, both here and abroad, will pay a less energy intensive our tools, the closer we substantial premium for bison, elk or other
211 game meat, whenever it is available. Then, those who consider the bears as pests might too, what about specialty woods or other expect. In this, I do not mean to imply a fibers? We must remember, as a central point return to a gatherer culture, but rather an in approaching this kind of analysis, that it is enlightened harvest, utilizing low-impact in looking for the UNfamiliar actual progress is storage and distribution techniques unavailable made. to our distant ancestors. Therefore, if we are to step beyond the valuable recreational uses of wilderness, or From this standpoint, I would like to beyond the more familiar products of the land, suggest our next generation of measurements and fully consider what wilderness has in its include total amino acid nitrogen, fats, and stores, we must expand our inventories to what carbohydrates that are produced by various we never considered before. Why not begin ecosystems. These are the literal basis of our by sending in teams of bright young (or old) food needs. In my doctoral training as a food people with blank pieces of paper to look, to technologist, I was thoroughly introduced to record, to discuss everything that they see and the practicality of taking virtually anything and how it might be of use to humans? The making it more or less edible, if the nutrients broader the diversity of background of these were there at the beginning. This might seem next-generation explorers, the greater the distasteful, but if we do not work fast and potential for new discoveries. For example, more effectively to limit our human numbers, something called “pine straw” is a significant we are going to need a lot more food in a industry in North Carolina. To a scientist from surprisingly short time. Even more than is Wyoming, that was quite a surprise. Less presently the case, natural environments are unexpected, but even more important to the only going to survive if they seem productively present case, I recently visited a restaurant in competitive. Idaho that quickly sold out a shipment (at $20 for four ounces) of legal moose meat. There Relatedly, if we were able to list the must be literally millions of cross-cultural totality of the available nutrients, we could connections to be made for otherwise have the underlying basis of biological growth unexpected but useful, yet even more valuable, cycles within the system, as well as our own goods. potential uses. From this, we should be able to demonstrate conclusively whether natural I am among those who prefer to eat what systems more efficiently harness their resources already has a track record for desirability, but I than do artificial systems as I have suggested. also know that we have overlooked some Cellulose and lignin summaries would give a really good stuff that is already ready for bottom-line indication of the available fiber harvest from the wilderness. The kiwi fruit is and miscellaneous chemicals that are the a recently commercialized example. David eventual source of our clothing, renewable Arkcoll, a friend in Brazil, spent several years shelter, and regrowable fuels. looking at Amazon rainforest fruits, working under the assumption that if jungle were seen From this data scheme, we could begin a as more valuable for the products already more effective comparison among alternative there, those forests would no longer be land uses. Current agricultural statistical threatened with clearcutting. After surveying thinking cannot even compare a two-acre field more than 500 possibilities, he found at least with both corn and beans on it to two one-acre 50 with full commercial potential, meaning at fields, one with corn and one with beans. We least as tasty as a kiwi or a papaya. have abundant proof that a combination of crops gives more overall in both the short and We have never analyzed American the long run, especially since combining wilderness for its total edibles, either for those reduces fertilizer requirements and soil erosion, of known goodness, like native raspberries and but the statistics of reporting cannot cope with strawberries, or for unexpected potential. more than one crop at a time. The corn is Perhaps following grizzly bears, who tend to slightly more dispersed in the mixed case, so it sham human tastes, to have a look at what looks like it is giving less per acre in our they are eating might have more virtues than books, even though each plant is more
212 effective, and the space between them is against poaching than can absolute prohibition producing beans. For wilderness accounting, of that trade. This is especially true where we should go further, and also list the toxic control efforts must compete for funding chemicals which would NOT be dispersed and against bread subsidies or spending by the the soil that would NOT be lost, as well as the military. Such taxes and targeted enforcement more direct gains. were quite critical to the growth of the domestic animal and fiber industries. The size Clean water is a value of increasing of an enforcement fund that could be generated importance. There is no better essential from furs, from sale of game meat, and from fiitration and purification system than an any other products should be among wilderness undisturbed wilderness, although Girardia (and statistics. other naturally occurring parasites or problem organisms), no matter what their actual source, Fur will always remains an expensive often require some follow-up filtration. resource in many ways, since several deer or Nevertheless, at $1 per gallon plus prices now sheep may be needed to maintain one wolf. paid for bottled water, one can imagine a vast But, seen from a more complete view, profit potential for wilderness generated water fur-bearing predators tend to concentrate on in an increasingly polluted world outside. The smaller herbivores. These small herbivores value will vary, depending on the calculation often corn ete directly with the larger game or tool and the inventiveness of entrepreneurs, but livestock Por food and tend to be animals (such there is a very large market here. as rats) that we are not willing to eat ourselves. The furbearers serve, therefore, to Furbearers and large native ungulates are increase the carrying capacity for the higher worth spending a bit of time with, since they value ungulates (from our perspective), even if are particularly valuable, but at the same time they do eat one of them every now and again. a socially controversial product best grown in Land managers need to remember that it takes wilderness. They are also especially likely to just seventeen jackrabbits to consume as much stray beyond boundaries and cause immediately grass as one cow. It is more difficult to see apparent problems among their less visionary what coyote (or wolf) control of rabbits and human neighbors. rodents gives to the sheep in the form of extra grass than to relate to a gnawed-upon carcass, Landowners will tolerate a lot more deer, but more thorough wilderness record keeping beaver, or wolves, if they see a notable return could be a place to begin. for the presence of those creatures. Otherwise, they will continue dynamiting beaver dams to Furbearers unequivocally provide quality keep their roads from being muddy, and control for disease in large animal herds; this poisoning predators because the sheep are is also a very real use, and one that is the worth more. The same increased toleration opposite of competition with human harvest. could be true for National Forest managers, if Furs last a long time, too, once harvested. portions of funds gained by harvest were While the absolute number of furbearers may returned to the land from which they came. be low, the effective number of coats which What needs to be bluntly repeated to the fur or can be produced is larger than might at first game use opponents is, “how many native seem, since each should last at least a human animals do you want to live at all?” The lifetime. At $100 per pelt, even a few of these purpose of the statistics of Wilderness should animals can make a lot of difference to a be in part to illustrate how many more native wilderness value balance sheet. animals there could be if their harvests were considered important enough. Fish and waterfowl fall even more into the grey area of recreation utility versus absolute As a social constraint in the world at food and by-product value than do large large, hunting and trapping did, of course, ungulates. Because there are so many hunters exterminate species when no effective and fishermen who will pay more than the regulation existed. However, a tax on a animals’ value as a food source alone to collect valuable trade, properly channeled, can provide them, the total economic value of the animals for a much more effective regulatory police is heavily shifted toward the recreation sector.
213 An important potential tool in commercial totality of what we might reap without the use wilderness management lies in employing of a plow, we would finally begin to see why sportsmen who will pay just for being able to the Creator was pleased with Creation, and did participate in the chase. If native fish and not hand us the planet with the intent to see it waterfowl could go to the gourmet trade at turned under or paved over. high prices, there are harvesters who will pay well for the privilege of going on foot to do the work. Already outfitting is allowed as a PRACTICALLYANDFORTHE commercial enterprise even in formally PRESENT designated wilderness areas. It is an activity with considerable room for commercial One way to begin is with a comprehensive expansion. literature review. I have collected many more than 1,000 particularly cogent references on the The Nature Conservancy, probably the comparison of wilderness versus other land most successful pure preservation organization, use, with strengths and weaknesses on each has started recently to broaden its operations side, a great many of which would have added by selling the native products of its lands (in depth and scientific credibility to the tale just the first case, surplus bison). They have found sketched, if they could have been cited that with a more complete ecosystem, there is effectively. These and many others need to be valuable surplus that literally needs harvesting. tied together in an “idea data base.” The By reinvesting that recovered surplus value, structure of the data base would include as their acreage can continue to grow. categories all the points thus far raised, along with others such as the health benefits and By far the biggest wilderness use potential dangers of game meat. Even restrictions lie in the social sphere. We all cataloging the potential products from hear so many false promises that it is difficult wilderness management has never been done in to believe in something better, especially if the thorough detail. payback is not always immediate on that investment. There am many faster ways to When these ideas are structured and make a buck than learning to work with supplemented from other data bases, a natural systems. Longer term costs of current side-by-side system comparison model should mechanized ways appear always pushable just be constructed for several representative areas. a bit further off. Management of lands for Potential primary, secondary, and tertiary costs wilderness values requires large contiguous and benefits should be laid out and evaluated. areas. This demands cooperation, and There are many existing computer-based reevaluation of concepts of private land “shells” within which such a comparison could ownership. Any changeover requires both time be handled. The target would be the and vision. What the right set of statistics construction of a theoretical land management could establish is that there have been vast plan, which would be weighed against current readjustments during the past 50 years in land management strategies. Creatively handled, management. Then, there might be less reason computers are amazingly flexible beasts. to doubt that there could be even more in the next fiiy. Social barriers to changed wilderness use will also need to be examined in more detail, In the context of a group of scientists, it along with historical literature containing may seem out of place to suggest that suggestions on how these barriers, once wilderness is truly Eden, in the Biblical sense, discovered, have been successfully overcome in where the products we desire most are the past. produced free for the asking. But, if we begin surveying our wildernesses from that Once a management plan has been perspective--subject to our careful stewardship sketched, practical questions such as in limiting our take and the manner in which “What is the minimum size for a land that take is made, we almost certainly will get management unit?“, “How to minimize a better idea of the richness that actually is out fencing?“, and “How to make maximal use of there. If we expand our vision to look for the migration characteristics?” must
214 be answered, and the missing data elicited through research. These are all tasks that cost money. The wisdom to begin spending is what I have tried to suggest.
215 APPENDIX
OPTIMIZING NON-RECREATIONAL WILDERNESS USES AND VALUES:RECOMMENDATIONS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS
Patrick C. Reed, H. Ken Cordell, and Helen R. Freilich*
ABSTRACT Because an end is no better than the means to achieve it, thoughts on specific programs and The 1988 National Wilderness Colloquium policies necessary to implement the desired brought together professionals from a variety changes were also elicited at the Colloquium. of federal agencies, non-governmental organizations and univefsities to review the In order to maximize the synthesis of stutus of non-recreational uses and values of information and exchange of ideas among the wilderness. Part of the colloquium was invited representatives of federal agencies, non- devoted to nominal group sessions and the governmental organizations (NGOs) and generation of a variety ,of recommendations universities, the Colloquium included a day and strategies for optimizing non-recreational devoted to the structured collection of wilderness use over the next ten years. Among individual opinions using the “nominal group” the highest priority recommendations were an technique. increased attention to funding, research, management direction and training, and the THE NOMINAL GROUP PROCESS acquisition of underrepresented wilderness areas. Developed by Delbecq and Van de Ven in 1968, the “nominal group” process was One of the primary reasons for holding the developed to improve group decision-making 1988 National Wilderness Colloquium was to by (1) assuring that different and appropriate improve our understanding of the non- processes are used for each phase of creativity, recreational uses and values of the nation’s (2) balancing participation among members, wilderness for the upcoming 1989 Forest and and (3) incorporating mathematical voting Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act techniques in the aggregation of group (RPA) Assessment. Accordingly, the nearly judgement (Delbecq et al. 1975). two dozen papers found in these Colloquium proceedings were commissioned to present Briefly, the nominal group process facts on the nature, extent, trends, and issues generally involves the following steps: of existing no-recreational wilderness uses. 1. Division of individuals into small But, equally important for the RPA groups. Assessment are informed professional ideas on what changes should occur during the next 10 2. Silent generation of ideas by each year RPA planning cycle in order to optimize individual. the status of non-recreational wilderness uses.
* The authors are respectively Faculty Aflliate in the Department of Recreation Resources and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University; Project Leader and Outdoor Recreation Planner, Recreation and Wilderness Assessment Research, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. The authors wish to thank the following for facilitating nominal group sessions at the National Wilderness Colloquium: Don English, Larry Phillips, and Allen Rowe11 (Forest Service). Thanks also go to Dr. Ed Krumpe (University of Idaho) for sharing his experience with nominal group processes and Dr. Elwood Shafer (The Pennsylvania State University). 216 3. Round-robin recording of ideas by facilitator. In the afternoon session the same group members then addressed a second question 4. Serial discussion for clarification of related to the top five changes, conditions, or ideas. events identified at the end of the morning session: 5. $nrdual ranking (prioritization) of “What specific programs, policies, and management strategies should the 6. Group ranking (prioritization) of Forest Service adopt to improve non- ideas. recreational values and uses af wilderness? ” 7. Group summaries. The responses of each of the three groups The nominal group pro ess was chosen to were tallied and reported to the persons systematically and objectiver: y capture the attending the Colloquium before the end of the diversity of opinions for several reasons. First, day. The overall combined results of the three it is a proven methodcapable of synthesizing groups were later tabulated to produce a master the range of fields represented at the list or recommendations and strategies. colloquium. Second, it has been rather successfully used in a similar context at a previous wilderness management conference in 10 PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 1984 (Krumpe 1985). AND STRATEGIES At the colloquium, three different groups More than 50 different changes or events of approximately eight persons were formed. that would improve non-recreational wilderness Each group was given a question to work on uses were recommended by the three nominal for two hours in the morning. Later, the same groups during the morning sessions. Nearly as groups were given a second question to work many specific program and policy strategies on for another two hours in the afternoon were then recommended in the afternoon relating to the results of the first question. session to implement the changes or events. Listed below, in order of importance as THE QUESTIONS determined by the three groups, ate the 10 highest priority recommendations and The questions posed to the nominal groups implementation strategies for optimizing non- were designed to focus-in on ideas and issues recreational wilderness uses and values in the that are most relevant to needs for the 1990 National Wilderness Preservation System RPA Assessment discussion of non-recreational (NWPS) and elsewhere (in most cases the wilderness use, including major supply-demand original language has been retained). Several of findings, opportunities for improvements, and the recommendations have more than one part, potential barriers to implementation as well as recommended programs. Recommendation: Increase research into non-recreational uses of wilderness For the morning session three groups were Develop a wilderness research initiative for formed and asked to respond to the following non-recreational benefits and values, including question: definitions. Mandate a mission statement for long-term social, cultural and ecological “What changes, additions, and/or research. To achieve this, establish guidance events do you think should occur in for such studies, including the maintenance of the next ten years in order to long-term studies, types and uses of optimize the recreational uses and wilderness-compatible technologies, means of values from wilderness (eg. scientific, access into the wilderness. educational, and ecosystem preservation values)?”
217 Fund research for baseline data Increase the wilderness sham of federal development for non-recreational wilderness dollars. To achieve this, provide greater values. To achieve this, develop partnerships flexibility for local managers in allocating with other organizations who can use data. funding. Establish a line item in the budget Develop challenge grants for research. for wilderness. Get authority to allow permittees to “work off’ fee in lieu of dollars Recommendation: Acquire additional payment (e.g., pack out litter, any physical wilderness work, monitor overflights, etc.). Review and inventory roadless areas for non- recreational wilderness values, and additions Recommendation: Develop explicit into the NWPS, for areas with high densities wilderness management implementation of non -recreational wilderness values (use schedule or plan geographic information systems, landform and To achieve this, guidelines need to be ecosystem data). To achieve this, develop a developed for both natural and cultural national database on non-recreational resource management plans. Develop designs wilderness values in roadless areas during the for prioritizing quantitative and qualitative non- next ten years. With the next round of forest recreational values. plans, do proposa$ for wildernesses with high densities of non-recreational values. Tie into Recommendation: Increase awareness of existing legislative efforts. non-recreational values to non-traditional users, managers, and decision-makers Establish more wildernesses and more To achieve this, establish interagency policy “wilderness-like” recreation opportunities on review of non-recreational values and benefits. non-wilderness public and private land. To Develop training courses and public outmach achieve this, establish more de facto wilderness programs to increase the awareness of non- (special interest areas). Develop cooperative recreational values, and examine programs with NGO’s; increase public interdependencies in them. involvement. Recommendation: Require the Forest Insure that opportunities exist for the Service to complete “Levels of Acceptable NWPS to include 13% of the United States Change (LAC)” studies for each wilderness land base (5% coterminous). Acquire or To achieve this, develop uniform standards otherwise insure protection of “missing” for areas with some similarities. Develop tools ecotypes. To achieve this, protect roadless to assess non-recreational wilderness values. Forest Service land. Identify and protect Increase the rate of technology transfer. sensitive ecotypes from human impact. Place Develop prototypes for non-recreational LAC’s greater emphasis on non-recreational values in (eg. water quality, exotic species intrusion, wilderness allocation/designation. Establish habitat alteration). Each area should have an policy to represent all biogeographic provinces LAC study for specific problem targets. May in wilderness. be workable for collecting baseline data, or for specific items or problems. Recommendation: Increase wilderness funding Recommendation: Establish a national Funding needs to be adequate to manage register of vital data for each area in the existing wilderness, acquire inholdings, and do National Wilderness Preservation System research. Provide budget increases to support To achieve this, inventory current efforts and high priority items. To achieve this, have available data. Flag known discrepancies. Forest Service request additional funding. Design database elements, data sources, and a Have NGO’s, wilderness fees, etc., support prototype. Organize a working group; seek agency budget. Earmark Land and Water budget funding and legislative responsibility. Conservation Fund monies for purchasing Keep annual reports up-to-date and in a inholdings. Use S & PF budget to support standard place. uses on non-wilderness land.
218 Recommendation: Create a “pro-active” federal, state, regional, and private de facto rather than If re-active” state-of-mind wildland preservation systems over the next 10 To achieve this, have NGO’s publish years. descriptions and information on non- recreational wilderness values to inform/educate REFERENCES publics. Mandate better education and training of professionals and agency staff, including Delbecq, Andre L., Andrew H. Van de Ven certification X-118 standards and curricula at and David H. Gustafson. 1975. Group all levels. Do not limit wilderness managers to Techniques for Program Planning: A foresters. Develop job classification for Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi wilderness managers. Build bridges between Processes. Scott, Foresman & Company: government agencies and constituencies Glenview, Illinois. (partnerships). Give recognition for achievement/service for outstanding efforts. Krumpe, Edwin. 1985. Moving to Action. In: Frome, Michael, ed. Issues in Wilderness Recommendation: Incorporate non- Management. Westview Press: Boulder, recreational values into wilderness Colorado. management plans__ To achieve this, include a greater emphasis on non-recreatiohal values in RPA, Forest Plans, and other program documents. Incorporate a biodiversity element into the wilderness element of Forest management plans. Recommendation: Conduct an assessment of threats to wilderness To achieve this, conduct a threats analysis and amelioration strategy. Define legally appropriate non-recreational activities for wilderness.
CONCLUSION It was a very large responsibility for colloquium participants to attempt to represent all other views from their particular disciplines during the nominal group sessions. There is no doubt that another group of experts might have come up with a different set or priority of composite recommendations and strategies than those above. However, the diversity of disciplines, interests, and groups represented at the colloquium probably minimized the range of other unrepresented views. The general context of these and other recommendations will be included in the wilderness portion of the 1990 RPA Assessment. It is hoped that other federal agencies and non-governmental organizations alike will also consider, cooperate with or adopt these strategies for optimizing the non- recreational use of wilderness and other
219 NON-RECREATIONAL USES OF THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM: A 1988 TELEPHONE SURVEY
Patrick Reed, Glenn Haas, Frank Beum, and Lois Sherrick*
ABSTRACT In an attempt to supplement information from the papers, Colloquium planners In connection with the 1988 National conducted an independent nationwide Wilderness Colloquium, a telephone survey of nonscientific telephone survey of all NWPS non-recreational wilderness uses was units in the fall of 1987. conducted in the fall of 1987. Wilderness managers of all units of the National Wilderness Preservation System were polled SURVEY RATIONALE AND regarding the nature, extent, and trends of METHODOLOGY various non-recreational uses. The results of the survey suggest ?hat, in general, a wide The principal objectives of the informal variety of non-recreationnl uses are occurring telephone survey were to gather current and in wilderness and that increased attention to consistent data on (1) the nature and extent of their management is becoming increasingly non-recreational wilderness uses and (2) necessary. whether the trend in those uses has been increasing or decreasing over the past three Our knowledge of the current state of non- years. In addition, other questions were recreational uses of the National Wilderness included to better identify specific elements of Preservation System (NWPS), such as the use and to better understand the preservation, scientific, educational, and relationships between non-recreational and spiritual uses, is limited. In many cases we recreational uses, management practices, and have yet to begin to seriously explore the other land uses. There were two overriding values and inter-relationships of these and concerns in the design of the telephone survey. other non-recreational uses. Even basic First, information on 100 percent of the information on the type, number and wilderness areas was desired. Second, the distribution of non-recreational uses of survey should minimize the amount of time wilderness today is generally less available that respondents needed to answer questions. than comparable information on the Consequently, individual questions were recreational use of wilderness. designed so as not to require respondents to refer to specific quantitative information from The 1988 National Wilderness Colloquium files or other records to answer. Rather, was conceived of as a foundation for respondents answered in general from their improving our understanding and monitoring of personal knowledge. For consistency, the same non-recreational uses of wilderness. A number wording was used for all four agencies. of research papers were commissioned for the Colloquium to describe the variety of these From September to November, 1987, two uses. Preliminary reviews .of existing research Colorado State University graduate students indicated that, for the most part, there was interviewed “wilderness managers” by little existing information for reference. Many telephone in each national forest, park, wildlife of the papers were able to draw upon only refuge, and Bureau of Land Management very limited data that was in any way current, (BLM) district with designated wilderness’. consistent or comprehensive. Additional telephone interviews were again conducted in January, 1988, for 12 wilderness units added to the NWPS in late December,
* The authors are respectively Faculty Aflliate, Department Chairman, and graduate students in the Department of Recreation Resources and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University. 220 1987. Data for every unit in the NWPS-- 1) There are indeed a wide variety of both current through the end of 1987--were well-recognized and little researched non- collected in the more than 200 hours of recreational uses occurring in the NWPS, with interviewing. nearly all units accommodating a number more than type of non-recreational use; Interviewers contacted national forests, parks, and wildlife refuges, and BLM districts 2) For most of the non-recreational uses administering wilderness and asked to speak the trend over the past three years seems to with that person who was most familiar (i.e., have been fairly stable, with slightly more “wilderness managers”) with the different uses types of non-recreational uses increasing than and activities in each wilderness. Respondents decreasing; were then asked to identify uses and provide general descriptions without looking up 3) With the exception of outfitting and detailed information. Answers were limited to guiding services (which are apparently growing one of several pre-defined descriptions. markedly), traditional nonconforming uses such as grazing and mining appear to be declining; Due to the limitations in the survey methodology, several sources of error were 4) A number of non-recreational uses may possible.’ Foremost was the fact that the be coming into increased conflict with beliefs of the wilderness managers may not recreational wilderness use; and accurately reflect the actual conditions. Similarly, some respondents may not have had 5) Most wilderness areas do not have their current responsibilities for the past three completed separate management plans, years and consequently might not have direct especially as they address non-recreational uses experience of changes and trends. However, in (although many are in progress). many cases such information may not have been available even if respondents had tried to As much as anything, the results of the locate it in files or records. Interviewers telephone survey probably suggest that we estimated that more than 90 percent of all don t know enough about the state of non- questions were answered with apparent recreational wilderness uses to ask the most confidence. appropriate questions. We recommendation that a more refined, detailed and coordinated Another problem was that some of the nationwide survey (written or telephone) survey questions used in the survey may have been be conducted annually to monitor non- rather broad in definition and scope, leaving recreational wilderness uses and trends. some room for personal interpretation. Certain terms inadvertently may have been more relevant to some agencies than others. In SURVEY RESULTS nearly all cases though, interviewers were able to assist respondents to their satisfaction in The following are the questions as they understanding the intent of the questions. were asked in the telephone survey. Below each question are the pre-selected answers which were possible and the percent of MAJOR FINDINGS wilderness areas falling into each category. All percents represent combined Forest Service, While the survey does not provide the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife, and definitive study of non-recreational wilderness Bureau of Land Management wilderness. use, it does provide some insight into the general status of such uses in the NWPS in As evident by the annotations for the 1987 (and over the past three years). In light results, the understanding, concepts, and of the following major findings of the survey, terminology for non-recreational wilderness is however, it is doubtful whether the federal not well-defined and developed. This was true agencies can afford not to actively manage not only among the four different agencies but non-recreational uses of wilderness: also within the agencies, particularly between eastern and western wilderness areas.
221 1. Are there any environmental research studies regarding fish, wildlife, vegetation, soils, geology, air, water, or ecological processes being conducted in the wilderness this year? Response for 1987 (%) Trend ove east three Years (%) Yes ...... 37.43 Itrcreasingr . . 20.7 No...... 60.9 Decreasing , . 4.1 Don’t know . 1.6 Same 73.6 Don’t l;nb;v’ : .1,6 2. Are there any social research studies regarding the public use or users being conducted in the wilderness this year? Response for 1987 (%) Trend over nast three years (%) Yes . . . . . 13.7 4 Increasing . . 7.0 No IILclclasing * 4.9 Don’; Ib’dw’ ’ ;6$ 87.1 Don’t I;nb;v’ : 1.0 3. Are there any special resource management training programs being conducted in the wilderness this year? Response for 1987 (%1 Trend over past three years (%) Yes . . . . . 11.9’ Increasing . 7.4 No Decreasing . 0.4 Don’t’6;oi * g3 Same Don’t I;nb;v’ : ?.\O 4. Are there any organized environmental or conservation education programs--such as Boy Scouts, church groups, secondary schools, or colleges--being conducted in the wilderness this year?6 Response for 1987 (%I Trend over past three years (%) Yes ...... 38.7’ Increasing . 11.5 No 59.1 Decreasing . . 2.0 Don’t’Ih;o’w’ ’ 2.2 Same Don’t l;nb;r’ : if;” 5. Are there any organized environmental or conservation education programs--such as Boy Scouts, Vision Quest, or Big Brothers for leadership, self-confidence, team-building, and decision making-- being conducted in the wilderness this year? Response for 1987 (%) (%) Trend ove pa t three years (%) Yes . . . . . 17.6 Increasingr . ‘5.9 No IIITasing , 2.0 Don’t lkdw’ ’ ?k6 87.9 Don’t lorow’ : 4.1 6. Are there any organized programs for medical or therapeutic proposes--such as for the rehabilitation of physical handicaps, mental disturbance, juvenile delinquency, or alcoholism--being conducted in the wilderness this year?g Response for 1987 (%I Trend over past three vears (%) Yes ...... 12.1 Increasing . 5.1 No 86.3 Decreasing . . 0.0” Don’t.Ih;o’w’ ’ 1.6 Same . 93.5 Don’t l&;ok’ , 1.4
222 7. Are there any active cattle or sheep grazing allotments in the wilderness this year? Response for 1987 (%I Trend over past three years (%) Yes ...... 35.2 Increasing . 0.8 No Decreasing . 6.5 Don’t’ knoi ’ g8 Same Don’t Low : k$’ 8. Are there any active ‘surface or subsurface mining claims in the wilderness this year? Response for 1987 (%I Trend over past three years t%l Yes 11 Increasing . . fi No..::::: &63 Don’t know 3.1 3, ::m:asmg ’ 92 8 Don’t l&o; : 3.1 9. Are there any active’ producing oil or natural gas wells in the wilderness this year? ResDonse for 1987 (%) Trend over nast three Years (%) Yes ...... 0.6 Increasing . . 0.6 No Decreasing . . 0.2 Don’t* l&o; ’ $’ Same 98.4 Don’t l;nb;v’ : 0.8 10. Are there any active commercial outfitting or guiding services--such as hunting, fishing, boating, horse packing, or air taxi--being conducted (permitted) in the wilderness this year? ResDonse Trend ove past three years t%) Yes ...... 43.8 Increasingr . * 15.5 No...... 55.8 Decreasing . . 4.7 Don’t know 0.4 Same Don’t I;nb;r’ : :!b7 11. Is there any legislatively authorized non-recreational “subsistence” hunting, fishing, or gathering permitted in the wilderness this year? Response for 1987 (%) (%) Trend over past three years (%I Yes ...... 14.7 Increasing . . 1.6 No...... 83.8 I$C$raslng . . 0.2 Don’t know . 1.4 Don’t ko;v’ : ?i3 12. Are there any known or probable threatened and endangered species of plant or animal protected in the wilderness? ResDonse for 1987 (%) Tvoe of T & E s_pecies (o/o) Yes ...... 58.7” Plant only , , 11.5 No...... 33.9 Animal only 27.2 Don’t know . 7.4 Both . . . , . . 20.0 Neither . . . . 41.3
223 13. Is there any habitat which is critical for the propagation--such as rearing, migration, or wintering--of commercially important species of fish or wildlife--such as salmon, elk, or deer--in the wilderness? Response for 1987 (%) Commercial species (%l Yes ...... 38.413 Fish only . . . 10.8 No...... 57.1 Wildlife-only 14.1 Don’t know . 4.5 Both...... 13.5 Neither . . . . 61.6 14. Are there any’designated or probable cultural resource sites--such as prehistoric camp and burial sites or historic cabins--protected in the wilderness?” Response for 1987 (%I CulturaI site type Yes ...... 72.4 Prehistoric only 17.4 No...... 22.9 Historic only 11.7 Don’t know . 4.7 Both . , . . , , 43.4 Neither . . . 27.6 15. Are there any known or probable sites of specific religious or spiritual significance to Native American or other groups in the wilderness?
Yes ...... 20.0” No...... 71.8 Don’t know . 8.2 16. Are there any designated “research natural areas” in the wilderness? Response for 1987 (%I Yes ...... 11.9 No ...... 85.7 Don’t know . 2.5 17. Are there any private land inholdings in the wilderness? mnse for 1987 (%1 Yes . . . . . , 38.016 No...... 60.9 Don’t know , 1.0 18. Would you estimate that the total recreational use in the wilderness this year is, or will be, closer to 1000, 10000, or 1OOOOO recreation visitor days (RVDs)? Response for 1987 C%) Trend over past three Years (%I 1,000 RVDs 50.1 Increasing , . 52.1” 10,000 RVDs 39.1 D$r$sing . * 3.3 100,000 RVDs 10.6 . 42.7 Don’t know . 0.2 Don’t knbk’ . 1.8
224 19. Is the public recreational use regulated--such as through permit systems, stay lengths, or designated camp sites--in the wilderness this year? Response for 1987 C%) Trend ove east three years (%j Yes ...... 28.218 Increasingr . . 3.7 No...... 71.6 Decreasing . . 1.6 Don’t know . 0.2 Same Don’t kno;v’ : it3 20. Are there any “significant” conflicts between recreational use and non-recreational uses--such as preservation, scientific, education, cultural, subsistence, or therapeutic--in the wilderness this year? &sponse for 1987 C%j Tre d ove past three years (%1 Yes ...... 17.0 IncrZ?asingr , . 11.2 No ...... 82.8 :, l3kc&ashg . . 2.2 Don’t know . 0.2 84.5 Don’t knok’ : 2.0 21. Is there legally authorized motorized access in the wilderness? Resoonse for 1987 (%I Type of motorized acces Yes ...... 27.219 Aircraft . . . , 3.7 No ...... 71.4 Land or water 1.6 Don’t know . 1.4 Both 7.8 Neither’ : : 1 : 69.7 Don’t know . 1.0 22. Are there any national recreational trails in the wilderness? Response for 1987 (%I Yes ...... 17.820 No ...... 81.0 Don’t know . 1.2 23. Are there any darns, reservoirs, or water conveyances--such as ditches, canals, or pipelines--in the wilderness? Response for 1987 f%) Yes ...... 15.7” No...... 83.0 Don’t know . 1.2 24. Are there any administrative structures--such as cabins or lookouts--in the wilderness? Response for 1987 (%I Yes ...... 21.9 No...... 78.1 Don’t know . 0.0 25. Are there any navigation or communication stations or equipment in the wilderness? Resoonse for 1987 C%) Yes ...... 9.6 No ...... 89.8 Don’t know . 0.6
225 26. Are there any weather or snow monitoring stations or equipment in the wilderness? &soonse for 1987 t%\ Yes ...... 14.725 No...... 81.6 Don’t know . 3.7 27. Are there any utilities--such as transmission lines or pipelines--in the wilderness?
No . : : : : : : 9i.o Don’t know . 2.7
28. Is there a completed and approved wilderness management plan for the wilderness? Response for 1987 (95) Yes ...... 38.2a No...... 61.6 Don’t know . 0.2 29. Is management zoning used--that is, division into different uses or capabilities--in the wilderness? Response for 1987 (%I Yes ...... 29.7* No...... 70.1 Don’t know . 0.2 30. Are quantifiable standards below which changes would be unacce table--such as standards developed through the “limits of acceptable change” process-set for tRe wilderness? Response for 1987 (%\ Yes ...... 29.P No...... 70.3 Don’t know . 0.6 31. Is there a full-time person on your staff whose primary responsibility is wilderness management this year? &gQ,onse for 1987 MQ Yes ...... 26.0 No.. , . . , . 73.8 Don’t know . 0.2 32. Ate there any volunteers assisting in management this year? Response for 1987 (%I Yes ...... 69.5 No ..a.... 30.5 Don’t know . 0.0
226 33. Did any of your employees visit schools or other community programs to discuss wilderness this year? ResDonse for 1987 (%I Yes ...... 59.3% No...... 34.6 Don’t know . 6.1 34. Are there any wild and scenic rivers in the wilderness? Response for 1987 (%I Yes ...... 8.2 No ...... 91.2 Don’t know . 0.6 35. Is any portion of the wilbemess located on an ocean coastline? Response for l-987 C%) Yes . . . . . , 1O.627 No...... 89.4 Don’t know . 0.0 ENDNOTES
1. The authors would like to thank the Amenity Resource Valuation Project of the US Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station in Fort Collins, Colorado for their cooperation and use of facilities.
2. Survey results have been annotated where they are open to possible interpretation.
3. May include some routine wilderness resource monitoring programs, especially air, water quality, and acid rain studies.
4. May include routine wilderness visitor monitoring programs.
5. Does no-t include programs conducted outside the wilderness. 6. Such programs are actively discouraged in many wilderness areas because they are not considered wilderness-dependent activities.
7. Such programs are not conducted by agencies but by the groups themselves.
8. Such programs are actively discouraged in many wilderness areas because they are not considered wilderness-dependent activities.
9. Such programs are actively discouraged in many wilderness areas because they are not considered wilderness-dependent activities.
10. The number of allotments may no-t be decreasing but total animal-unit- months (AUMs) are decreasing.
11. May include routine maintenance of patented claims.
227 12. Includes migratory species and state designated species. 13. Definitions of “critical” and “commercially important” were subject to very diflerent interpretations among agencies. 14. Does not refer solely to active measures. 15. Actual total is certainly higher because of poor inventories and reluctance of Native American groups to divulge sensitive information. 16. May include Ratented mining claims. 17. Most commonly described as “slight”. 18. May include agency’s Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) standards and special administrative orders. /
19. May include emergency uses for search and rescue. 20. Includes national scenic trails. 21. May include some historical structures which are no longer maintained. 22. Includes both temporary and permanent equipment. 23. May include larger forest, -park, refuge, or district management plans. Many wilderness plans were described as “in progress”. 24. May include standard Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications in Forest Service wilderness. 25. Many L&T (or comparable) standards were described as “in progress. ” 26. Often in context of other program about the entire forest, park, refug 27. Actual lands below mean high water generally are property of states.
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTINCOFFICE:~ 9 8 9 -6 3 3 - 1 4 7/
228 -----_---___------1 I I
I Freilich, Helen R., camp. 1989. Wilderness benchmark 1988: I I Procbedings of the national wilderness colloquium: 1988 January I 13-14; Tampa, FL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-51. Asheville, NC: U.S. I I - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest I Experiment Station. 228 p. I I Twenty papers addressing the wilderness resource and its I I nonrecreational values and benefits to the American people are 1 presented in six categories: Overview, Preservation Values, Scientific 1 Values, Education Values, Social Values, and Commercial Values. 1 I Also presented, in an Appendix, are a short summary of the ] discussions and the results of a national telephone survey.
I______J
Example for citing article in this proceedings: Spray, Richard H.; Weingart, Paul D. 1989. The wilderness environment: training wilderness managers. In: Freihch, Helen R., camp. Wilderness benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the national wilderness colloquium. 1988 January 13-14; Tampa, FL Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-5 1. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station:133-141.