FORUM Assist in Planning a Renewed Program of Community-Centered Collaborative Con- Servation Focusing on the 47 U.S

FORUThe George Wright M volume 20 number 3 * September 2003

Trie (Challenge of VViiaerness Origins Founded in 1980, the George Wright Society is organized for the purpos es of promoting the application of knowledge, fostering communication, improving resource management, and providing information to improve public understanding and appreciation of the basic purposes of natural and cultural parks and equivalent reserves. The Society is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and management of cultural and natural parks and reserves through research and education.

Mission The George Wright Society advances the scientific and heritage values of parks and protected areas. The Society promotes professional research and resource stewardship across natural and cultural disciplines, provides avenues of communication, and encourage public policies that embrace these values.

Our Goal The Society strives to be the premier organization connecting people, places, knowledge, and ideas to foster excellence in natural and cultural resource management, research, protection, and interpretation in parks and equivalent reserves.

Board of Directors

DENNIS B. FENN, President • Flagstaff, Arizona

ABIGAIL B. MILLER, Vice President • Alexandria, Virginia

DWIGHT T. PrrCAlTHLEY, Treasurer • Rcston, Virginia

GILLIAN BOWSER, Secretary • College Station, Texas

JERRY EMORY • Mill Valley, California

BRUCE M. KlLGORE • Pocatello, Idaho

DAVID J. PARSONS • Florence, Montana

JOHN J. REYNOLDS • Castro Valley, California

RICHARD B. SMITH • Placitas, Mew Mexico

STEPHEN WOODLEY • Chelsea, Quebec

Executive Offjce DAVID HARMON, Executive Director ROBERT M. LINN, Membership Coordinator EMILY DEKKER-FIALA, Conference Coordinator P. O. Box 65 • Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA 1-906-487-9722 • fax 1-906-487-9405 [email protected] • http://www.georgewright.org

The George Wright Society is a member of US/ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites—U.S. Committee), IUCN-The World Conservation Union, and The Natural Resources Council of America

Society News, Notes & Mail 3 Renewing the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program President Bush’s decision that the United States will rejoin UNESCO has inspired efforts to renew the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program. A reinvigo- rated U.S. program, and active participation in the UNESCO international network of biosphere reserves, can make an important contribution to human welfare. The UNESCO biosphere reserve program, which representatives from the U.S. helped to design in the early 1970s, has enabled nations to improve the management and protection of the planet’s important representative ecosystems. The importance of this program was clearly indicated in the summit meeting of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. in 1974, when President Nixon and General Secretary Brezhnev signed an agreement and joint communiqué to “[d]esignate certain natural areas as biosphere reserves for protecting valuable plant and animal genetic strains, and ecosystems, and for conducting scientific research needed for more effective actions concerned with global protection.” Today there are 425 biosphere reserves in 95 countries voluntarily partici- pating in programs of scientific research and education to sustain irreplaceable natural ecosystems and the plant and animal life they support. President Bush’s decision to rejoin UNESCO has significant long-term consequences because it will enable the U.S. to participate, once again, in a program that fosters peaceful international relations and makes an important contribution to human welfare. An indication of the importance of the biosphere reserve program is expressed in the following resolution of 450 scientists and managers of protected areas who met recently at the SAMPAA Conference in Canada: “Participants at the Fifth Conference of Science and the Management of Protected Areas Association (SAMPAA), held in Victoria, B.C., Canada, May 12–16, 2003, acknowledge the value of the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Program as a practical means to achieve collaborative conservation of biodiversity, through integrated ecosystem-based management with the participation of local communities and indigenous cultures. We recognize that efforts to strengthen a network of biosphere reserves in North America have been initiated at this meeting by biosphere reserve representatives from the three North American countries of Mexico, the USA, and Canada. We, the participants at SAMPAA 5, hereby resolve to support these efforts for the timely establishment of an effective and functional North American network.” Steps are being taken now to plan the renewal of the U.S. biosphere reserve program. A United States Biosphere Reserves Association has been chartered to 2 The George Wright FORUM assist in planning a renewed program of community-centered collaborative conservation focusing on the 47 U.S. biosphere reserve areas. For further information about the U.S. Biosphere Reserves Association, contact: Vernon C. Gilbert SAMAB Foundation 314 Conference Center Building Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 Phone: 1-865-974-4583 [email protected]

(Ed. note: Vernon C. “Tom” Gilbert was the first president of the George Wright Society, in 1980.)

Lecture Series on Conservation at the Landscape Scale Adrian Phillips’ paper “Turning Ideas on Their Head: The New Paradigm for Protected Areas,” published in the last issue of The George Wright Forum, was first presented in February 2003 as part of the lecture series “Conservation at the Landscape Scale: Emerging Models and Strategies,” sponsored by the National Park Service Conservation Study Institute and the University of Vermont. The series also included lectures by Reed Noss, conservation biology professor at the University of Central Florida, and Nancy Bell, Vermont director for The Conservation Fund. This fall, a second lecture series on this topic includes Brenda Barrett (NPS national coordinator for heritage areas, on October 14, 2003) and Jeffrey McNeely (chief scientist, IUCN, on November 11). McNeely’s presentation will be followed by a panel discussion that will be part of a distance learning broadcast on November 12, 2003. You are invited to join this interactive broadcast and to view lectures at www.uvm.edu/conservationlectures, or contact Daniel Laven, CSI fellow at the University of Vermont ([email protected]), for more information.

GWS Co-Publishes Yellowstone Science Proceedings Partnering with the Yellowstone Center for Resources, the Society recently co-published Yellowstone Lake: Hotbed of Chaos or Reservoir of Resilience?, the proceedings of the 6th Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, held in October 2001. The volume contains a variety of scientific and cultural resource papers focused on the lake: its hydrology, ther- mophilic organisms, archeology,history,influence on artists, limnology,wildlife, and much more. The 307-page softbound volume can be purchased for $15 ($10 CD) or you can download individual papers for free in PDF format from the GWS website. For more information, go to: www.georgewright.org/01yell- proc.html.

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 3 GWS Members Contribute to New Book on Park Values A number of Society members were involved in creating The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible (Rowman & Littlefield, July 2003), the first comprehensive review of the range of values associated with parks and other protected areas. Chapters from around the world examine the recreational, spir- itual, cultural, identity,aesthetic, educational, scientific, peace-promoting, thera- peutic, and economic values of parks. GWS executive director Dave Harmon co- edited the volume along with Allen D. Putney, the chair of IUCN’s Task Force on Non-Material Values of Protected Areas. GWS members Brad Barr, Gary Davis, Dave Graber, and Mike Tranel authored or co-authored chapters. The book is a contribution to the World Parks Congress. For a table of contents and ordering information, go to www.rowmanlittlefield.com and type in “Full Value” in the search box. 3

4 The George Wright FORUM MISSION STATEMENTS Where We Need to Go—Lessons from Septima Clark

Dwight T. Pitcaithley

am deeply honored to have been asked to speak today as we dedicate this fountain, this plaza in the name of liberty and Septima Clark. It is altogether fitting and proper that we dedicate a fountain in memory of a civil rights sol- Idier of the twentieth century in a park dedicated to America’s Civil War of the nineteenth century. The connections between the two are many and direct. The threads of history tightly bind the Civil War and this country’s search for civil rights. The Civil War ended, as every embrace and defend this “New birth school child knows, with the passage of Freedom.” The flowering of and ratification of three constitutional American citizenship for black amendments that profoundly changed Americans was, as we also know, short the face of democracy in this country. lived. After only a decade during None would have predicted on the which freedom and citizenship were occasion of South Carolina’s leaving exercised, the darkness of Jim Crow the Union that only a few years later, and black codes and debilitating seg- slavery would be abolished and former regation descended upon the country. slaves would become citizens and The racism that Septima Clark given the right to vote. Neither side in fought against had its roots in the the conflict, observed Lincoln in his American institution of slavery. And second inaugural, “anticipated that while the Civil War was able to abolish the cause of the conflict might cease slavery, it was unable to abolish its with, or even before, the conflict itself underlying motivation. Septima should cease. Each looked for an easi- Clark’s contributions to this country er triumph, and a result less funda- were bound up in her belief that the mental and astounding.” United States Constitution had mean- It was astounding, indeed, and dif- ing for all the people of the country, ficult for this country to absorb the that the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fif- expansion of freedom these amend- teenth amendments to the ments represented. Neither side was Constitution meant what they said and prepared, neither side was ready to should not be ignored and subverted.

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 5 It is also fitting and proper that we (Petersburg, Fredericksburg, Vicks- dedicate this monument to Septima burg); to present the contribution of Clark in this place because the women, black and white, and the con- National Park Service has, over the tributions of the United States past ten years, reaffirmed its responsi- Colored Troops. These efforts have bility as an educational institution and produced several new publications as a publicly funded agency, one that and exhibits. One of the finest, in my needs to respond to and reflect all the estimation, is the exhibit on the com- people of the United States. To that ing of the war which stands behind end, it has become more inclusive in you in the Fort Sumter visitor center. the stories that it tells at these special For too long this country has places and more expansive in its think- avoided public discussions about the ing about what constitutes American causes of the war. Writing from the history, what voices should be heard, perspective of the 1980s, Gaines how histories are constructed. It has Foster, a professor of history at moved away from presenting park sto- Louisiana State University,argued that ries from only one perspective and as Americans glorified the war, they begun using different voices, different failed to address the underlying causes views in developing interpretive narra- of the war and to recognize the war’s tives. At Devils Tower in northeast relationship to basic human freedoms. Wyoming, for example, the National “Rather than looking at the war as a Park Service until only a few years ago tragic failure and trying to understand interpreted the volcanic monolith as a it, or even condemn it,” he wrote, geologic phenomenon and as a great “Americans, North and South, chose place for rock climbing. The tradition- to view it as a glorious time to be cele- al and religious relationship the park brated. Most ignored the fact that the held for several tribes of Plains Indians nation had failed to resolve the debate was ignored. Today, the National Park over the nature of the Union and to Service embraces the Indian narrative eliminate the contradictions between in its interpretive programs as it con- its equalitarian ideals and the institu- tinues to present the geologic story. tion of slavery without resort to a Perhaps no other field of NPS bloody civil war. Instead, they cele- effort better represents this expansion brated the war’s triumphant national- of thinking than Civil War parks. ism and martial glory.” This exhibit, Beginning five years ago, the superin- and others like it, will encourage visi- tendents of the Civil War battlefields tors to confront the causes of the war decided that telling only the story of through the social, political, and eco- the battle, while important, limited nomic context of those times. public understanding of the war and Additionally, we hope, through this its significance to the country today. effort, to prompt a discussion of the They launched an effort to include the connections between then and now, to causes of the war in their interpretive understand the consequences of the programs; to discuss the role commu- war and of the failed Reconstruction. nities played in the war effort To that end, the changing/evolving

6 The George Wright FORUM nature of freedom in this country is evident,” he wrote, “that all men are not only an appropriate subject, but an created equal, that they are endowed essential subject if we are to under- by their Creator with certain unalien- stand the overpowering role the Civil able rights, that among these are life, War played in shaping the social and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” political environment in which we The Constitution of the United States, exist today. which followed the Declaration by a Coincidentally, the Congress real- decade, began with similar intentions, ized that the aggregate of national but could not sustain them. “We the parks should also become more inclu- people of the United States, in Order sive and represent more aspects of the to form a more perfect Union, estab- American past. During the decade of lish justice, insure domestic the 1990s, Congress expanded the Tranquility, provide for the common collection of your national parks by defence” and welfare and the blessings adding Manzanar, a Japanese intern- of Liberty, it begins. The Constitution ment camp during World War II; and was unable to provide justice and lib- Washita Battlefield, the site of a mas- erty to all the people of the United sacre of Cheyenne Indians by George States. Its recognition of slavery in Armstrong Custer. It also added sites three places (without mentioning the associated with the modern civil rights word), established a fundamental con- movement, places such as the Monroe tradiction between the ideals of the School in Topeka commemorating the nation as represented in Jefferson’s Supreme Count’s Brown v. Board of Declaration and the legal framework of Education decision; Central High the nation as represented in the School in Little Rock, to commemo- Constitution. That contradiction rate the 1957 desegregation of that would ultimately be settled by school; Martin Luther King, Jr., 620,000 deaths and the emancipation National Historic Site in Atlanta; and of 4,000,000 slaves. the Selma to Montgomery National With the conclusion of the war, Historic Trail, which includes the liberty, justice, and equality existed in Edmund Pettus Bridge. Along with this country for one brief shining the North Bridge in Concord and moment before the “Great Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Reconciliation” of 1877 refocused the Edmund Pettus Bridge is arguably federal interest away from implement- one of the most powerful icons to free- ing the three amendments designed to dom and liberty this country has to create that “more perfect Union.” For offer. decades, white America was satisfied Septima Clark sought, in her with a status quo that excluded a large words, “simple justice.” Freedom, percentage of American citizens from equality, liberty, and justice are words enjoying even basic human and civil that have defined this nation from its rights taken for granted by the rest of inception, growing from those power- the population. And then slowly and ful phrases penned by Jefferson in gradually a mighty army gathered itself 1776. “We hold these truths to be self- and launched a thousand fronts:

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 7 against unequal schools, against bias country often contracts and has in public transportation and accom- repeatedly over the course of its histo- modations, against long odds, and for ry. We must be ever mindful that the the right to vote. Septima Clark and maintenance of the high ideals we live Bob Moses and Myles Horton and by takes effort, takes constant effort. Virginia Durr and Rosa Parks and We must also understand our history countless others forced this country to and how it has shaped and continues face the inequality that had come to to shape our lives. We must under- define life in America. Collectively stand the relationship between past they changed the meaning of citizen- and present. John Lewis, ship, they redefined equality, they cre- Congressman from Georgia and ated “a more perfect Union.” This another veteran of the modern Civil country is not where it wants to be in Rights movement, understands this. the area of civil rights, it is not where it He concludes his wonderful memoir, should be, but it has come so much Walking with the Wind (as I will con- closer to realizing Jefferson’s vision of clude my remarks), by writing, “Know equality, and it has done so because of your history. Study it. Share it. Shed a the efforts of warriors like Septima tear over it. Laugh about it. Live it. Act Clark. it out. Understand it. Because for bet- We are gathered today to dedicate ter or worse, our past is what brought this place in the name of liberty. As we us here, and it can help lead us to do this, let us not forget that freedom where we need to go.” This place, this and equality and liberty, in spite of the fountain, these exhibits serve as pledge our children make each morn- reminders of the journey this country ing that concludes, “with liberty and has made from then to now, and will justice for all,” will not and do not help lead us to where we need to go. expand naturally. Freedom in this

Dwight T.Pitcaithley is chief historian of the National Park Service and a member of the Board of Directors of the George Wright Society. He delivered these remarks on June 14, 2003, at the dedication of the Septima Clark Fountain, Liberty Square, Fort Sumter National Monument, Charleston, South Carolina.

“MISSION STATEMENTS” is a new occasional column that presents compelling statements of values and ideals that are important to the people, places, and professions that the Society serves. We are looking for inspirational and insightful writings that touch on close-to-the-heart issues that motivate us to do what we do as park professionals. We invite readers to submit their own Mission Statements, or suggest previously published essays that we might reprint in this column. Contact GWS executive director Dave Harmon at dharmon @georgewright.org, or by phone at 1-906-487-9722. 3

8 The George Wright FORUM Science, Emotion, and Advocacy An Interview with Richard Leakey

s part of the events associated with the opening of the Draper Museum of Natural History at the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming, Kenyan scientist and conservationist Richard ALeakey was invited to deliver several addresses, including the keynote speech during the opening ceremony on June 4, 2002. Dr. Leakey, son of the renowned paleoanthropologists Mary and Louis Leakey, was born in Kenya in 1944. His remarkable early fossil discover- ies, funded by the National Geograph- ic Society, led to his appointment, at the age of twenty-five, as director of the National Museums of Kenya, a position he held for about twenty years. In 1989, he was appointed director of Kenya’s Department of Wildlife and Conservation Manage- ment (later the Kenya Wildlife Ser- vice), a position he held until 1994, and again from 1998 to 1999, followed by a two-year term as head of civil service and secretary to the Cabi- net. He continues to be embroiled in Dr. Leakey. BBHC photo. Kenya’s stormy political scene, and has survived beatings, relentless polit- Scottish Geographical Society, the ical intrigues, and a plane crash in Hubbard Medal of the National Geo- which he lost both lower legs; many graphic Society, and numerous hon- still believe this crash was an assassi- orary doctorates. His books include nation attempt. Origins; The Origin of Humankind; Dr. Leakey’s scientific achieve- The Sixth Extinction; and most ments, his leadership in fighting polit- recently, Wildlife Wars: My Fight to ical corruption and the destruction of Save Natural Treasures. Kenya’s natural resources, and his This interview was conducted by prominence as a global spokesman for former Yellowstone Science editor Paul conservation have resulted in many Schullery and Yellowstone chief of awards, including Gold Medals from public affairs Marsha Karle, at the Buf- the Royal Geographic Society and the falo Bill Historical Center following

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 9 the opening ceremonies for the Drap- from the outset to do that task. er Museum. It originally appeared in Yellowstone Science,Volume 10, Num- YS: But the Draper Museum is excep- ber 3 (summer 2002). tionally well designed to do it.

Museums in Greater Yellowstone RL: I find this museum [the Draper YS: Let’s start with where we are Museum of Natural History] exciting today, at this outstanding new natural in that it appears that in the last four history exhibit. To newcomers, it years a group of people have come might seem odd that the Greater together and thought about the value Yellowstone Ecosystem should be of having something like this. But I’ve blessed with so many fine museums, said to Chuck [Charles Preston, cura- and now we have the Draper Museum tor of the Draper Museum], and I’ve of Natural History to add to the list. said it to a number of people, I think With so many wonders of nature avail- you’ve done a great job getting this far able, why are museums important in but the tough work is ahead. Can you this region? In other words, why now provide the continuing excite- should people visiting this extraordi- ment of the facility and make sure that nary region go into a museum—espe- the awe of Yellowstone and the ecosys- cially a natural history museum— tem continues to be pushed at people when they can stay outside and expe- who are coming through? Have you rience the real thing instead? got the energy and the money to keep the place doing that job? And I think RL: To me, as a former museum per- this is relevant to say: can you person and educator and writer, there is suade people on a different turf, that is an initial “Wow!” value to a canyon or the park people, that you’re a comple- a forest or a bear or an elephant. And ment not a competitor? And no, this then the wow-value is quickly dissipat- can’t replace the real thing, but the real ed. To really understand what it is that thing can’t give what this gives to the wowed you, and to give it context and average visitor.... depth, is very rarely possible for somebody looking at the real thing, because YS: Perhaps you will also be reas- they’re generally not with people who sured to know that, though it is true have the time [to explain it all]. And that on the higher political level, the yet if you can understand the wow, the management leadership of the nation- drama, the awe, through displays and al park and of the community of Cody interactive information kits and things are sometimes at odds, the specialists of that kind, the life of the wow,the life in education in the park and the spe- of the awe, is automatically increased cialists here at the museum almost and becomes deeper.... So I think that always are on good terms. there is a role for museums, but the museums are very seldom tied to RL: Yes, and that’s the important something as specific as one ecosys- thing. The politics of administration tem. They’re very seldom designed and leadership of institutions and

10 The George Wright FORUM communities is in part a turf issue of still tend to like their natural world to course, and I’ve played that game too. be tidy and well-mannered, and natu- I know what that’s about. One of the ral violence often shocks them. But points I try to make is that I come at that is what wild nature is about. If these questions [only] partly as a sci- nature decides that this adorable little entist. I’m a farmer; I’ve put quite a bit elk calf, or that baby bison, is going to of money into land. I’ve been a politi- be eaten by a grizzly bear, then so be it. cian, and I’ve been an administrator at If nature decides that the forest must the highest level you get, so I’ve seen burn, that is what we in Yellowstone this sort of issue from every corner of would like to have happen. National the box. And I understand the difficul- park management has come a long way ties. I think it’s very challenging. from the time, only a few decades ago, when American national parks were Yellowstone and the portrayed as peaceable kingdoms. Can Perception of Nature you offer us any words of encourage- YS: During the speeches you’ve given ment, from your African experience, this week, you’ve said that when you on how to address these issues so peo- were young you heard of Yellowstone ple understand them better? and found a certain inspiration in knowing that Yellowstone was this RL: I would have thought that the formative force in the early conserva- exposure of predator-prey interaction tion movement. We think it is signifi- and the kills that predators make and cant that Yellowstone now often bene- people watch—the tearing apart of fits from other parks in return. carcasses and flesh—this surely is Yellowstone’s role has changed. something that if any visitor goes to an Where once, other nations referred to African park, that’s what they want to their premier park as their see. They want to see a cheetah kill. I “Yellowstone,” now Yellowstone is think basically that’s easy. sometimes referred to as the I think the problem with percep- “American Serengeti.” As another tion is in the role of fire. I think there example, for the past several years are plenty of arguments around as to Yellowstone has been getting advice whether parks should be burnt or from Costa Rica in the legal and polit- allowed to burn, or what is the man- ical complications of bioprospecting. agement regime policy that you want to adopt. And I think those are going RL: There are some very interesting to be issues that will continue to raise licensing agreement questions, I’m sentiment. But I think it is quite clear aware. that a very good argument can be made for the beneficial effects of fire YS: Right. And we also imagine we on certain habitats. can learn from the African parks. In Yellowstone we deal constantly with YS: We’ve made it, or at least tried to. the very emotional issue of death in the natural world. Many Americans RL: Yeah, and I think one of the

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 11 points that needs to be made, and I tioning machine. Yellowstone has think now it is beginning to happen been teaching us otherwise, and it has more than it was twenty years ago is been a hard lesson for many people to that clearly Yellowstone National Park learn. as an entity needs a little extension in terms of area, particularly in winter RL: As you well know, the idea of foraging [lands], which are currently nature being a balance is nonsense. If taken up by irrigated agriculture and we had [balance] there would be no ranchers. I think the fact that organiza- nature. It is the imbalance that pro- tions such as The Nature vides the dynamic for diversity. Conservancy are beginning to get into negotiating easements and next-gener- Yellowstone as a Global Asset ation property rights is very positive, YS: Yellowstone is constantly em- because you will make it easier for broiled in what might be called prop- people to understand that a fire can be erty issues. These are not so much the beneficial and there are other places issues involving private property hold- these animals can move to as these ers near the park, as they are issues places regenerate. involving the very idea of who owns Yellowstone. In other words, who gets YS: But it is only part of the equation to decide what’s “best” for the park, we face in reconciling the public to the and what management direction realities of nature. In 1988, we had should be. It is a long-standing com- enormous fires. They were within the plaint of the park’s national con- known size range of historical fires stituencies that the regional con- here, but they were shocking. Then, stituency has too much say, and the the following winter was the first rea- locals always feel put upon by the sonably severe winter in several years. more remote interests. The grazing animals lost forage to the fires, then, after several easy winters RL: Yes, but I think if you step away were faced with more severe winter from Yellowstone being the sort of conditions that they were not physio- property of the people who live logically prepared for. Ecological cir- around it and you see that Yellowstone cumstances kind of ganged up on the is in fact the property of America, the wildlife. The winter mortality turned United States. And indeed it is part of into almost as ugly a controversy as the the globe’s assets. And it would be, fires had been. It wasn’t our finest you know, understandable but hour in trying to celebrate the deeper nonetheless very selfish to perpetuate beauties of wild nature. the myth that this is a local activity,any more than the Serengeti is. There are RL: Of course. This happens in many obligations. countries. And the constituency is not your ranchers. They are part of your con- YS: Most of us in America were raised stituency, but the people in Nairobi, to think of nature as a smoothly func- who probably are entitled to feel that

12 The George Wright FORUM Scientific debate continues over the ecological similarities and differences between African wildland parks and Yellowstone, but they have become almost interchangeable as sym- bols of the conservation of large predator-prey systems. Above: Amboseli National Park, Kenya, Darren Ireland photo. Below: Hayden Valley, Yellowstone National Park, Renée Evanoff photo.

they are part of the same constituency, thinking.... It is a hard shift. I can you see, are ensuring that this ecosys- understand people getting upset if tem is sustained. That’s a shift in wolves eat their stock, but you know,at

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 13 the end of the day,isn’t it more impor- onto your property, they can destroy tant to have wolves running free, and everything. Fast. And then you talk accommodate the people whose about a herd of elephants, and it’s stock’s being eaten? hopeless.

YS: By the way, you have contributed YS: That leads back to this matter of to making that shift. In your speeches how the national park gets along with this week you have offered such hearty its neighbors, and for that matter with congratulations to the regional people its former tenants. In one of your who constructed this wonderful muse- speeches, you brought up the long tra- um—a museum that interprets dition of guilt that plagues many Yellowstone as part of a globally signif- national parks. Either there is guilt icant ecosystem—that you have almost because the land was originally stolen certainly helped some skeptical people from Native Americans, or it was better rationalize the museum’s mes- stolen from white people who them- sage, when up to now they may not selves stole it from Native Americans, have been sure they agreed with it. or in some other way someone is believed to have suffered loss for the RL: Several people have said that to sake of creating the park. me. On the other hand, you seem to be agreeing with the people who, though YS: Yellowstone’s problems often they acknowledge those past sins, say seem irresolvable, and vast amounts of it’s too late to keep punishing our- energy and money go into trying to selves about them. These people say, settle them. But at least some of the “That’s all true; those things hap- people who have listened to you pened and they were wrong. But it describe the problems and issues fac- doesn’t matter any more because these ing Kenyan parks must have paused to places, these last few wild enclaves and wonder: we must seem like real whin- their wild inhabitants, are so impor- ers to you. The luxuries we’ve got, not tant as global ecological baselines that only in the wealth of wild lands and we can no longer afford to feel guilty wild animals but also in the economic about what happened long ago.” and legal wherewithal to care for these things, don’t seem reflected in the con- RL: Absolutely right. And it doesn’t stant bickering we do over problems help policymaking if you’re doing it on that are trivial compared to what you a defensive starting point. If you look face in Kenya. An occasional group of at what’s happened to the rest of the bison or wolves cross a boundary or country, and it has been taken over by kill some livestock, but most of the motor bikes and trail riders and agri- trouble they cause is social and politi- culture and irrigation, etcetera, cal. etcetera, thank goodness somebody said, well it’s not going to happen RL: It is very true. Yeah. I mean, you here. Because that’s for the good of know, if a troop of baboons comes everybody.

14 The George Wright FORUM YS: So, if things have reached a state reverse the clock. It’s a pity. But cer- that we just have to come to terms with tain people say, well the Maasai have past mistakes in dealing with the lived with wildlife for centuries; why native people, how about the current are you telling them they can’t inter- local communities, which in act? Well, of course they have, and Yellowstone’s case are mostly com- indeed the wildlife survived because posed of Euro-Americans? Where they didn’t interfere with it. They did- should they fit in the deliberations n’t interfere with it because they didn’t over park management? How does need to. They didn’t have to put chil- that work in Africa? How much say dren through college, and buy medica- do your border towns have in how the tions for their mother-in-law,and run a parks are managed? vehicle, and insure it. But once you get into a modern economy, once you get RL: Well,it’s certainly very much part into the dynamics of being part of a of the debate in Africa, the role of com- twenty-first century economic enter- munities adjacent to parks as stake- prise state, you can’t any longer live holders. I would take a tougher line with the values you had before. Sadly. than I used to and say that, yeah, I It used to be sufficient for people to understand they’re stakeholders, but harvest the forest. But there were less the people who live around a nuclear than a tenth of the people wishing to reactor are theoretically stakeholders, harvest it, and they weren’t harvesting and the people who live around a it to sell hardwood timber to make hydroelectric dam setup are stake- coffins for people on the west coast of holders. Why is it that national parks America. Now, cutting down one tree have to bend over backwards to give per person per year doesn’t pay the the local community greater rights, or bills. They need to cut down a hun- access, or benefit, when none of the dred trees. And there are a hundred other national enterprises that benefit times more people than there were the whole country are similarly taxed then. So you can’t change one side of with a double level of involvement? the equation and not the other. And I think it’s this guilt thing. I think that it’s different here [in the United YS: In the past ten years or so, we’ve States], but perhaps not that different. witnessed a heartening political and I mean, we clearly wouldn’t have kept social process in greater Yellowstone, this environment as it is if it hadn’t in which Native American tribes have been the park. been re-enfranchised in the dialogues over the management of the park. But YS: It seems certain that without the it has also pointed up what you have federal reservation, the Yellowstone just described, that the economic con- Plateau would now be settled and its ditions and human population levels various resources intensively and com- are so different that so far there seems mercially developed. Long ago. to be no equitable or politically palat- able way to “restore” those cultures to RL: Yeah. You know, you can’t now this landscape.

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 15 RL: It can’t be done. It’s a pity, but it colleagues? Has their activism affect- can’t be done. ed their professional standing?

YS: A challenging element of the rela- RL: I don’t think there is any doubt at tionship between parks and native all that there is a role for everybody. peoples in this country is subsistence Take Jane Goodall. She hasn’t done hunting. You certainly have subsis- any science in chimpanzees for many, tence hunting in Kenya. many years. And yet her advocacy— the desperate state of wild chim- RL: But not in national parks.... panzees and the need to consider ways in which the great apes can be secured The Role of Scientists for the future—I mean, it’s been enor- in National Parks mously powerful. YS: The scientific community,if there is such a thing, has always been divid- YS: The world seems to agree that ed on the question of advocacy. Some she’s a hero of the highest order. scientists insist that their role is to stay aloof of political controversy, while RL: And I think the scientists may others engage in it. Is it like that in have looked down on her when she Kenya? For example, in your book, started her advocacy, but I think today Wildlife Wars,you talk about several Jane is widely respected for having biologists you’ve worked with who made an enormous contribution to have made the choice to become advo- changing the status of the chimps and cates. How are they perceived by their other great apes to a point where the

Wildlife (such as this lioness on a zebra kill in Masai Mara National Reserve, Kenya) kill hundreds of humans in Kenya each year. Such extensive loss of human life is a significant difference between African and North American national parks. Darren Ireland photo.

16 The George Wright FORUM politics of their conservation are actu- by law to know a great deal about cer- ally being discussed by politicians, tain animal species, in order to manage which is how it should be. them according to legislative man- And I think people like Cynthia dates. This often involves attaching Moss and Joyce Poole [elephant some pretty substantial technology to researchers in Kenya] and others are the individual animals. As long as doing the same thing in other areas, so there have been radio collars and other I think one has to be very careful. I tags and markers in Yellowstone, there wouldn’t want to criticize those scien- has been debate over their appropri- tists who are simply committed to try- ateness. Is this an issue in Kenya? ing to understand systems and pro- duce evidence upon which policy can RL: Oh, yes. The debate is equally be made. That is a very valuable and heated and I’m very ambivalent. I significant role. But at the same time, think the research has to be done and they [scientists] are human, and they I think it’s important for us to know are constituents, and they may have at the answers to a lot of these questions times a point of view,and I think those that do require intervention. What I’m who do go into advocacy are to be not sure is whether a lot of this scien- encouraged. tific work has to be done on the same I think where people go wrong is “patch” [of land] as your prime that they often suggest that their [sci- wildlife photography and tourism. entists’] advocacy should be more rel- And I think that in some of the larger evant because they are scientific. I parks a little more effort could be don’t agree. You don’t have to be sci- made to tag animals that are not going entific to be relevant. And so we tend to be seen every day by hundreds of to be a little more polarized than is visitors. necessary. And I think some of the I mean, there’s no question that African scientists have done tremen- people do get annoyed if they photo- dous things for the good of wildlife. I graph a rhino and it’s got an orange don’t look down on them. I strongly collar on it. They didn’t come all that encourage them. But you know, it’s way to do that. And yeah, it is impor- very rare that you have time to do both tant that the rhino’s movements be for very long. You have to do one or understood, but I think there needs to the other. Without being in any way be a little more sensitivity about the putting it down, I mean there is a cer- value of the public appreciation. tain cynicism in it, if you look at the Because we’re in a market. I think if skills of writing grant applications. I you’re watching a group of wild dogs mean, even the purest scientist is hav- and some scientist comes over the ing to be quite skilled at advocacy. horizon and starts shooting them with darts, [you are right to say] what the YS: Let’s move from the philosophi- hell’s going on here, I came from the cal to the more immediately practical. other side of the world to see these As in most American national parks, animals, and what are you doing? Go managers in Yellowstone are required and do it somewhere else. So there are

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 17 both sides to the story. quainted with specific animals. Does that happen in your parks? YS: In Yellowstone, a fundamental guideline is that research shouldn’t be RL: I think much less so. We have conducted here if it can be conducted very few repeat visitors in our national just as well outside the park, perhaps parks; so many of our visitors are over- on lands where there are fewer com- seas tourists who come once. peting interests. But often the legal and research needs leave managers no YS: But your guides probably know choice. And on the positive side, visi- some animals more specifically? tors could easily encounter several researchers in the course of their visit, RL: Guides may know. and with a little luck may come away with a heightened understanding of YS: In a way,those animals that are so the animals, or of why the information well known, even if they are still living matters so much here. entirely without human assistance (such as feeding), are kind of the sacri- RL: But you don’t [want to] do it to ficial animals in the population. Their death. There is always a danger, [and social role is to be habituated enough I’m speaking] as a previous adminis- to make it possible for us to get this trator, that we’re so busy gathering extraordinary glimpse into the life of data that we don’t actually ever under- the wild, but any time an animal is stand what the data is telling us as placed in that position it seems that managers. We lose sight of the core some of its wildness—its remoteness business. And I think it’s always from us—might be compromised. important to try to keep a balance. RL: I think that’s true, but ultimately, Experiencing Wildlife in Parks you know, a modern state has to have YS: One of the most interesting soldiers and politicians and doctors, aspects of wildlife appreciation in and some of these animals are con- Yellowstone involves what might be tributing to the good of their species. called a personality cult of the wild animal. Ever since the early days of YS: It is true that they are serving roadside bear feeding, visitors have rather like emissaries from their come to know a surprising number of species to ours. Yellowstone animals as individuals. Today, there are grizzly bears and RL: That’s right. One has to be real- wolves that park visitors have in some istic, you know? They’re part of the cases literally watched grow up. Many team. (General laughter). of our most serious wildlife watchers know these animals by name, or, more YS: Another element of the visitor often, by their research number. Some experience of wildlife involves profes- of our most devoted visitors come here sional photographers and filmers. in good part to observe and get reac- Everybody has a camera any more, but

18 The George Wright FORUM we’re talking here about the commer- then we make them pay for that. cial enterprises that are attracted to YS: So do we. Another interesting national parks for ease of access to complication of managing large wild remarkable wildlife viewing. How do animals is human safety. One of the you deal with that use in Kenyan most dramatic differences in North parks? American and Kenyan wildlife experiences is that we rarely have someone RL: Again, in Kenya it is slightly dif- killed by an animal, especially in the ferent. I think we’ve been slightly too parks. mercenary in putting a financial price on access and I think we often forget RL: I think we have much more, that good photographs and good films absolutely, not necessarily photogra- sell the product and we are dependent phers, but the number of people killed on visitors, and we should not under- by wildlife incidents is I should think estimate the advantages we’re getting 150 or 200 a year—buffalo, rhino, and without just the money. so on. It’s very common. Perhaps a second aspect is [that] some of these [Kenyan park] areas are YS: In your book, Wildlife Wars,you for those who want to drive off-road. describe the revelation you experi- They create precedents and a lot of enced in Amboseli National Park in photographers want to do things that southern Kenya, when elephant are possibly more dangerous than they researcher Joyce Poole drove you into would be here. There are many more the midst of a family of elephants. By dangerous species in an African park, introducing you to the animals as indi- and it does require a degree of knowl- viduals, and explaining their little edge and experience to get away with quirks, she revealed just how complex walking in some of these areas on foot their family and social world was. You to get the buffalo, rhino, elephant. At were director of the Kenyan Wildlife the end of the day,bad publicity arises Service (KWS) at the time, and were from somebody getting trampled or engaged in stopping the catastrophic gored and so one is careful. slaughter of elephants by poachers, But we do make concessions. I but you said you had never had the don’t know if you take the National kind of sympathetic close encounter Geographic, but there was a Mzima that would allow you to understand Springs article [November, 2001] what elephants really were. Poole was with underwater pictures of hippo and being criticized by other ecologists for different fish. They had special access introducing too much “sentiment” to one of the springs that the public into her scientific study, and treating can’t visit, and were there for a year her study subjects too much like they and a half. And so we do facilitate that were people. Here is what you said: sort of thing. [But] if someone wants For the first time, though, I realized that to make a commercial ad for a four- my job involved far more than merely ensuring that a certain number of elephants continued wheel drive vehicle against a backdrop to exist in our parks. KWS was doing much of spectacular wildlife and scenery, more than that: we were protecting sentient creatures with babies and sisters and fami-

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 19 lies. I fell asleep laughing at myself. In the it is. But it doesn’t mean that I don’t space of one hour, I had become a “senti- have a far greater appreciation in the mental” convert. way I conduct my life and my job That statement resonates powerful- when it comes to looking after my ly in today’s Yellowstone. Old-time responsibilities to know that an ele- ecologists, old-time biologists and phant is much more than simply a managers complain that the new con- four-legged chunk of meat. stituents of wildlife are perceiving But this is true of civil right, you these animals as furry people. This know. There were those people who returns to the rise of personality had the temerity to suggest the slaves appeal in individual animals, men- should be slaves—that there was tioned earlier. As that kind of sensitiv- something fundamentally wrong in ity increases, do you think it’s likely putting people in servitude and that we’ll reach the point in national bondage. But others said, where are parks that we will value the animal’s we going? [They asked] Where is this lives as much as human lives? Will we leading? Then you want good race get to the point where we will come relations—where’s that taking us? I out and say that a human’s life in don’t think it’s just an increasingly greater Yellowstone is worth no more enormously valuable storehouse of than this grizzly bear’s life? knowledge that successive generations of humans are gaining. RL: I wouldn’t have thought so. I am [Saying these wild animals have] sure people come out and say that, but “personality” is wrong. They have it doesn’t mean it’s true. character. They have a degree of cog- It’s very different to say that an ani- nition that we never suspected. Now, I mal’s life has no value and only a think that it is quite clear that a bison human life does have value. I don’t has sentimental feeling, but perhaps think there’s any question that if we less humor than some of the social pri- were a group of people together, and mates. we were given an opportunity to help somebody, we would choose to help YS: Or than the wolves. our family first. It doesn’t make them any more valuable. You do something RL: Or than the wolves. But you to save your child or your wife or your know, as we learn more we can put cousins, before Joe Doe over the hill. some of these things in better perspec- I also think this is possibly a conse- tive. I’m not sure if you shoot a bison quence of the Judaeo-Christian theol- that the rest of the troop feels the loss. ogy to have dominion over the earth, But I’m pretty sure that if you shoot and to have that great chasm between out a wolf in a pack you have a far big- us and them. I think what we do is say ger impact than with bison. And I that it’s not a chasm, it’s part of a con- think with elephants it’s more certain, tinuum, but it’s not going to drive me and with chimpanzees it’s much more to only eating lettuces. I can tell you, significant. With humans it is even I’m part of the food chain. I enjoy more significant. So I don’t think we being part of the food chain, and there

20 The George Wright FORUM should be ashamed of being aware [of missed the corrupt people—turn it it]. into a vital, productive agency that did And yes, the old timers don’t want its job with energy and a great deal of any sentimentality and they accuse pride. There are many in the National you of anthropomorphism. Well, Park Service today who could use a anthropomorphism isn’t a package boost. What would you say to this you get from somewhere else. It’s a agency’s leadership that might help concept. And our behavioral traits get us through a difficult period? we’re beginning to see in other creatures. I think it’s a little arrogant to RL: I think everybody works for think [these observations are] anthro- somebody somewhere. And I think it pomorphic, but that’s the only way we behooves those who have people can describe them. Our vocabulary is working under them to make every- tied to our own experience. You know, body feel part of the team and to what humans have done to humans is appreciate other people’s efforts. I outrageous, [as is] what we continue think it’s when the hierarchy of man- to do to our environment, including agement [honors] the individual sacri- the other species who live in it. I’m not fice and commitment that people are sure it’s equally outrageous. What is making, and when people are reward- equal? ed for that commitment—not necessarily financially but by the right Parting Advice words and the right actions—that you YS: It’s clear from the story you tell in can build a much stronger team that Wildlife Wars that as director of will go through much greater difficulty wildlife management in Kenya you than if everybody’s just punching a were able to take a thoroughly disen- number. That’s what I would say. It is chanted and discouraged government a collective effort. department and—after you’d dis- 3

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 21 David J. Parsons and David N. Cole The Challenge of Wilderness Stewardship

he 1964 Wilderness Act and subsequent wilderness legislation have resulted in the designation of over 106 million acres of the United States as wilderness. Charged with the responsibility of protecting a Tsignificant portion of federal lands as wilderness, the federal land management agencies with responsibility for wilderness stewardship (Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and National Park Service) have often struggled with how to translate legislative direction into policy and management practices. The direction to manage wilderness in a manner that protects natural ecosystems and minimizes interference with natural processes provides a huge challenge for those who often feel their first priority is to fulfill the more specific missions of their individual agencies (e.g., management for healthy wildlife populations, provision of opportunities for recreation, or maximization of multiple use of forest or range lands). When coupled with rapidly changing environmental, social, and technological conditions (Vitousek et al. 2000; Stankey 2000; Watson 2000), wilderness managers are faced with immense challenges. In recent years there have been a same time protecting natural condi- number of accounts of the manage- tions, and the difficulties of trying to ment challenges faced by those maintain an unmanipulated, or wild, charged with the stewardship of our condition while also protecting, or wilderness heritage. A recent report by restoring, natural conditions. Graber the Pinchot Institute for Conservation (1995) has detailed some of the chal- (2000) provides a thorough review lenges of managing to perpetuate and critique of the challenges of man- native ecosystem elements and aging federal wilderness lands as a processes in national parks. Others “system”—the National Wilderness have focused on specific threats to the Preservation System that was estab- wilderness system (Wolke 2003) or lished by the 1964 Wilderness Act. have detailed how individual agencies, That report elaborates on the difficul- such as the National Park Service, ties the wilderness management agen- have struggled to fully embrace their cies have had in developing and wilderness stewardship mandate implementing a common set of guide- (Sellars 1999). The importance of sci- lines for wilderness stewardship. Cole ence to the resolution of difficult man- (2001) has articulated the need to agement challenges has often been address two major management dilem- articulated (e.g., Pinchot Institute for mas: providing for access while at the Conservation 2000) but investment in

22 The George Wright FORUM science has seldom been adequate. that while compromises may be Several conferences focusing on sci- advantageous to individual wilderness ence and wilderness have attempted to areas, they can reduce the overall value both highlight quality research and of the National Wilderness address the challenges of effectively Preservation System. He calls for applying scientific findings to policy improved cooperation, planning, and and management issues (Lucas 1986; policy development between the agen- Cole et al. 2000). cies as necessary to preserve the full The intense interest that the chal- intent of wilderness as a system. lenges of wilderness stewardship have Cole describes two dilemmas fac- generated in recent years led the ing wilderness managers, one of which National Park Service’s National is the need to often choose between Wilderness Steering Committee to restoring the naturalness of wilderness organize three symposia for the April ecosystems or intentionally trammel- 2003 George Wright Society / ing wilderness ecosystems (by inten- Cultural Resources 2003 Joint tionally manipulating them). David Conference, “Protecting Our Diverse Graber’s paper discusses this issue in Heritage: The Role of Parks, more depth, coming to the conclusion Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites.” that there is nothing in legislation or Wilderness science and management National Park Service policy that pre- clearly was a dominant theme at the cludes active ecological restoration. conference, with a number of addi- Further, the paper advances Graber’s tional sessions and individual presen- personal view that the values to be tations organized or presented by oth- gained through ecological restoration ers. The sessions were well attended far exceed those that would be lost. and generated stimulating discussion Peter Landres and others outline and interaction. This obvious interest the challenges that face those propos- in wilderness led us to propose that ing to do science in wilderness as well selected conference papers addressing as those assigned the responsibility of wilderness issues be combined into a judging what kind of science is appro- special theme issue of The George priate in wilderness. They build the Wright Forum. The papers in this case, based on historical, legal, and issue represent the results of that policy perspectives, for the need for a effort. better process for evaluating the In the first paper, David Cole appropriateness of scientific activities addresses the importance of recogniz- in wilderness. Jack Oelfke and collab- ing the uniqueness of wilderness as orators build on the issue of doing sci- well as the need for increased commit- ence in wilderness with a case study of ment, attention, leadership, and finan- the long-term research on wolf and cial resources from the federal wilder- moose populations at Isle Royale ness agencies. He is concerned that National Park. They review the long the current management environment history of this rich data set and encourages compromise between address the conflicting values the park divergent purposes and values, and had to face in deciding whether to

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 23 allow continued manipulation of the relevant direction and that neither cul- wolf population to facilitate the clear tural resources nor wilderness should scientific values of continuing these trump the other. He argues that studies. increased dialogue and understanding Brian Glaspell and cooperators between cultural resource specialists report on research into the wilderness and wilderness managers is both experiences of recreational users at desirable and necessary. Gates of the Arctic National Park and Finally, Wes Henry and Steve Ulvi Preserve in Alaska, which are often describe recent National Park Service considered to represent the wildest efforts to provide more effective direc- end of the spectrum of conditions in tion to wilderness management in the wilderness. Their work attempts to agency through the activities of the better understand these experiences, National Wilderness Steering as part of an effort to inform manage- Committee. This group, which ment designed to preserve these expe- includes representatives from across riences. Steve Lawson and his collabo- the agency, has made significant rators report on a developing technol- progress in reporting on the state of ogy—computer simulation model- Park Service wilderness as well as pro- ing—that can be a valued tool for viding guidance on wilderness plan- wilderness recreation management. ning and a variety of difficult wilder- Simulation models can help wilderness management issues. The com- ness managers monitor recreation mittee is in the progress of developing more cost-effectively, as well as fine an action plan that will provide addi- tune their management programs. The tional direction for NPS wilderness case study in Lawson’s paper shows managers. how simulation models were used to Management of wilderness in the develop realistic alternatives for man- National Park Service, as in the other aging campsite use at Isle Royale federal agencies, requires the balanc- National Park. ing of numerous purposes and values. Gary Somers’ paper addresses the It is a challenge. We hope that the often contentious relationship papers in this issue of the Forum pro- between cultural resource specialists vide a broad context for better under- and wilderness managers in the standing wilderness stewardship chal- National Park Service. He details the lenges and some of the efforts being various cultural resource and wilder- made to address them. We also hope ness laws and policies that direct Park that these papers illustrate how sci- Service activities. He concludes that ence can contribute to our under- park managers must fully consider all standing of wilderness issues.

References Cole, David N. 2001. Management dilemmas that will shape wilderness in the 21st century. Journal of Forestry 99:1, 4–8. Cole, David N., Stephen F. McCool, Wayne Freimund, and Jennifer O’Loughlin, comps. 2000. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. 5 vols. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vols.1–5. Fort Collins, Colo.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

24 The George Wright FORUM Graber, David M. 1995. Resolute biocentrism: the dilemma of wilderness in national parks. In Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction. Michael E. Soulé and Gary Lease, eds. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 123–135. Lucas, Robert C., comp. 1986. Proceedings—National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of- Knowledge, Future Directions. General Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Sellars, Richard West. 2000. The path not taken: National Park Service wilderness management. The George Wright Forum 17:4, 4–8. Stankey,George H. 2000. Future trends in society and technology: implications for wilderness research and management. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Vol. 1: Changing Perspectives and Future Directions. David N. Cole, Stephen F. McCool, Wayne Freimund, and Jennifer O’Loughlin, comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol. 1. Fort Collins, Colo.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 10–23. Vitousek, Peter M., John D. Aber, Christine L. Goodale, and Gregory H. Aplet. 2000. Global change and wilderness science. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Vol. 1: Changing Perspectives and Future Directions. David N. Cole, Stephen F.McCool, Wayne Freimund, and Jennifer O’Loughlin, comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol. 1. Fort Collins, Colo.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 5–9. Watson, Alan E. 2000. Wilderness use in the year 2000: societal changes that influence human relationships with wilderness. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Vol. 4: Wilderness Visitors, Experiences, and Visitor Management. David N. Cole, Stephen F. McCool, Wayne Freimund, and Jennifer O’Loughlin, comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol. 4. Fort Collins, Colo.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 53–60. Wolke, Howie. 2003. National Wilderness Preservation System: under siege. Wild Earth 13:1, 15–19.

David J. Parsons, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807; [email protected] David N. Cole, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807; [email protected] 3

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 25 David N. Cole Agency Policy and the Resolution of Wilderness Stewardship Dilemmas ilderness preservation is strongly supported by the American people (Cordell et al. 1998) and a substantial portion of the public domain has been allocated to wilderness. The Wilderness Act of W1964 and more than 135 subsequent wilderness bills have created a National Wilderness Preservation System of 661 wilderness areas with a total acreage that exceeds 106 million acres. The proportion of the United States currently designated as wilderness is 4.5%. Designated wilderness constitutes more than 16% of lands owned by the federal government, 57% of National Park Ser- vice lands, 22% of Fish and Wildlife Service lands, 18% of Forest Service lands and 2% of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Moreover, wilderness acreage is likely to increase substantially in the future. America’s investment in wilderness Wilderness is Unique management has never been commen- When the Wilderness Act was pro- surate with its investment in wilder- posed, federal land management agen- ness allocation, however. Unless ade- cies were united in their opposition to quate attention is given to the quality the bill. They viewed it as a threat to of conditions within wilderness their administrative discretion and as boundaries, the establishment of a unnecessary (Hession 1967; Sellars large National Wilderness Preser- 1997). Since passage of the act, official vation System will fail to preserve an agency opposition has disappeared enduring resource of wilderness but subtle opposition continues, par- (Lucas 1973; Hendee and Dawson ticularly in the form of personal beliefs 2002). If wilderness character that wilderness is not unique, that degrades substantially,wilderness may wilderness management does not continue to exist as lines on a map but require special skills, and that it can be not as vestiges of the wild American a collateral duty.The Pinchot Institute landscape. A recent report by the for Conservation report questions the Pinchot Institute for Conservation adequacy of wilderness leadership in (2001), commissioned to assess the all four wilderness management agen- quality of wilderness management by cies but notes that “the BLM and the federal agencies, concluded that Forest Service are best staffed by peo- there is a need for stronger leadership, ple with specific responsibilities for more consistent policy, and an wilderness stewardship” (2001:8). increase in the financial resources The report implies that inadequate invested in wilderness stewardship. recognition of the unique characteris-

26 The George Wright FORUM tics and challenges of wilderness is wilderness requires as diverse an array most problematic in the National Park of information and skills as any land Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, management job (Cole 1990). where it is not uncommon to hear Wilderness managers must maintain leaders argue that wilderness is no dif- ecological conditions and processes, ferent from park backcountry or that as well as provide outstanding oppor- wilderness designation should not tunities for solitude and primitive influence refuge management objec- recreation. They must develop a good tives. Sellars (1997:191) notes the understanding of the conditions and prevalence of the belief that wilderness processes that make up the wilderness designation is “redundant” within the resource—air and water quality, National Park Service leadership. wildlife, recreation, and much more. Such beliefs are barriers to effective They need to develop quantifiable wilderness stewardship and reflect a objectives for the conditions wilder- poor appreciation for wilderness val- ness is to provide, monitor these con- ues and the support of the American ditions to see if objectives are being people for those values. met, and develop and implement management strategies and action plans for Wilderness Stewardship is dealing with situations where objec- Challenging and Requires tives are not being met. Moreover, Financial Resources management challenges are exacerbat- Funding for wilderness manage- ed by the remoteness of many wilder- ment is meager in all four management ness lands, the scale and complexity of agencies. For example, the Forest the systems involved, provisions for Service spends less than 1% of its nonconforming uses, conflict between annual allocation of about $4 billion competing goals and, particularly, by on wilderness management, despite the need to manage with a light hand the fact that 18% of Forest Service (Pinchot Institute for Conservation lands are designated wilderness. 2001). Investment in wilderness science is even more anemic. The Forest Service Wilderness provides the vast majority of funding Management Dilemmas devoted to developing a scientific Inadequate funding and limited basis for wilderness management, and recognition of what distinguishes yet Forest Service research invests less wilderness from other land classifica- than 0.5% of its annual budget on tions are two obvious problems result- wilderness management science. The ing from “a lack of official attention to other agencies invest considerably sound wilderness stewardship” less. (Pinchot Institute for Conservation Inadequate funding might be 2001:4). Lack of attention by agency explained by a perception that wilder- leadership also has resulted in confu- ness management is a simple business. sion regarding how to resolve several Nothing could be further from the fundamental dilemmas of wilderness truth, however. Management of stewardship. This is particularly true

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 27 of two dilemmas that face wilderness es are preserved, where conditions are managers. little different from what they would The first of these involves the con- have been in the absence of post-abo- flict between providing access to riginal humans. Wilderness is also to wilderness for its “use and enjoyment” be “untrammeled,” which means not and protecting the biophysical condi- controlled or intentionally manipulat- tions and visitor experiences that are ed by modern humans. I have referred unique to wilderness but can be to this attribute as “wildness” (Cole degraded by recreational use. 2000, 2001). At one time, hands-off Recreation use of wilderness contin- management was sufficient to keep ues to increase (Cole 1996a) and wilderness both natural and wild. As Congress exacerbates this problem by the human imprint on the globe designating heavily used lands adja- increases and is better understood, cent to metropolitan areas as wilder- however, it is clear that wilderness ness. How do we balance the needs of conditions have been altered by such society for periodic escape from hectic human agents as global warming, inva- lifestyles to places of personal renewal sions of exotic species, and fire sup- with the mandate to protect wilder- pression. For example, whitebark pine ness conditions from degradation? In forests in the Rocky Mountains are National Park Service wilderness, this being decimated by an exotic is mostly a day-use issue. Overnight pathogen (white pine blister rust). visitation is usually limited, while day- This threatens grizzly bear popula- use goes unmanaged and usually tions that are dependent on whitebark unmonitored. Hundreds of people per pine seeds for a significant proportion day hike popular wilderness trails in of their diet (Tomback et al. 2000). parks such as Yosemite and Should we breed rust-resistant white- Shenandoah, seeking respite from the bark pines and plant them in wilder- crowded city and reunion with nature. ness to protect natural ecosystems and Should this be allowed or should most grizzly bears or is manipulation of day visitors be turned away? Such a genes and populations unacceptable question is even more difficult to in wilderness? To compensate for answer for a wilderness such as Pusch anthropogenic impact, should we Ridge, with boundaries immediately intentionally manipulate wilderness adjacent to suburban backyards in ecosystems in some cases but not in Tucson, Arizona. Should we allow others, or in some wildernesses but heavy use in some places or in some not in others? wilderness areas but not in others? The second dilemma concerns the Reasons These Dilemmas Exist appropriateness of manipulative The proximate reasons why these restoration in wilderness. This dilem- dilemmas have never been resolved are ma is subtle and has only recently ambiguity in the language of the come to light (Graber 1995; Cole Wilderness Act and insufficient policy 1996b). Ideally, wilderness is a place and direction from agency leadership. where natural conditions and process- Consequently, different wilderness

28 The George Wright FORUM advocacy groups interpret the trasts profoundly with the more recent Wilderness Act in different ways, opinion of ecologist Dan Janzen advancing those wilderness values (1998) that the “gardenification” of they hold most dear. Some groups wilderness is necessary and desirable. interpret the Wilderness Act as a man- The primacy of these motivations date for not allowing heavy recreation did not result from ecological igno- use anywhere in the National rance or inadequate appreciation of Wilderness Preservation System and the value of ecological preservation; for not manipulating wilderness rather they reflected the fact that the ecosystems even where there are pro- Ecological Society of America was nounced human impacts. In contrast, working simultaneously to establish a other groups believe it is inappropri- representative system of areas protect- ate to restrict recreational access ed in their natural condition. Sutter where recreation use has traditionally quotes a letter written in 1940 by Aldo been heavy (except perhaps to avoid Leopold, which states that “the excessive biophysical impacts). Other [Wilderness] Society ... is mainly groups believe it is appropriate to interested in wilderness recreation. manipulate wilderness ecosystems, Another group, the Ecological using prescribed fires or herbicides for Society, is interested in wilderness example, to compensate for human study” (2002:280). impact and protect native ecosystems While the stream of thinking that and biodiversity. led directly to the language and pas- The roots of these dilemmas can be sage of the Wilderness Act was traced to the divergent purposes for focused on primitive recreation in which wilderness has been designat- large undeveloped areas that were to ed. In Driven Wild, Sutter (2002) be “untrammeled,” these same people offers new and enriched perspectives recognized the value of other types of on the motivations of some of the ear- land preservation. In 1932, Bob liest and most influential wilderness Marshall wrote the recreation sections advocates. He makes a compelling of a congressionally commissioned case that the primary motivations for report on the nation’s forests (U.S. wilderness preservation originally had Congress—Senate 1933). He recom- more to do with keeping automobiles mended the preservation of seven and recreational developments out of types of recreational areas, including wilderness than with protecting both “wilderness areas” (which would wilderness from too many people. emphasize primitive recreation) and They also had more to do with primi- “primeval areas” (which would pro- tiveness and the absence of human vide representative examples of control than with a concern for pris- ecosystems in their natural state). tine ecological conditions. As Howard Sutter describes the initial (1935) plat- Zahniser (1963), the primary author form of the Wilderness Society, which of the Wilderness Act, famously said, identified the need for five “Types of stewards of wilderness should be Wilderness” (2002:246–247). Three “guardians not gardeners.” This con- of these types seem relevant to the

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 29 stewardship dilemmas we face today. wilderness both lands valued because “Extensive Wilderness Areas” were to they are large, uncrowded, and primi- be large areas free from mechaniza- tive and lands valued because they are tion, devoted to primitive recreation primitive but provide easy access to and with substantial symbolic value as city-dwellers. The naturalness vs. reflections of human humility and wildness dilemma results from restraint. “Primeval Areas” were to be Congress designating as wilderness tracts preserved in their natural state both lands valued because they are for scientific and aesthetic values, and free from human control and lands val- “Restricted Wild Areas” were to be ued because they are representative of free from the sights and sounds of natural ecosystems. mechanization and near concentrated areas of population. The founders of Policy Needs to be Developed the Wilderness Society recognized the In seeking resolutions to manage- need to preserve wilderness for at least ment dilemmas, the traditional three somewhat divergent purposes: approach has been to consider the primitive recreation in wild land- merits of each situation on a case-by- scapes with symbolic value (their pri- case basis to arrive at an acceptable mary interest), preservation of natural compromise between competing ecosystems, and recreational escape goals. Given the decentralized deci- from the city. Moreover, they recom- sion-making tradition of land manage- mended that lands devoted to these ment agencies, such decisions are typ- purposes be designated as different ically made independently and repeat- types of wilderness. edly by mid-level officials, buffeted by The management dilemmas we face the polarized arguments of opposing today result primarily from Congress sides. In this environment, most deci- ignoring this recommendation. sions are likely to be made in similar Regardless of the purpose of designa- fashions everywhere, causing the tion, areas are simply referred to as wilderness system to gravitate toward “wilderness” and are managed accord- homogeneity and mediocrity (Cole ing to the language of the Wilderness 2000, 2001). Act, language that came largely from At a recent wilderness science con- the tradition of the extensive wilder- ference, Foreman (2000) used “The ness area, where the primary motiva- River Wild” as a metaphor for the con- tions were primitive recreation and servation movement. The movement freedom from modernization and grows in power and diversity as indi- human manipulation. No similar land- vidual tributaries join together in the management system has been devel- effort to preserve wilderness. Different oped to adequately provide the bene- tributaries include the three purposes fits of a system of natural ecosystems for wilderness noted above—the inter- or of scenic, natural-appearing lands est in protecting opportunities for accessible to urban populations. The extended primitive recreational trips, access vs. preservation dilemma the interest in preserving natural sanc- results from Congress designating as tuaries, and the interest in providing

30 The George Wright FORUM places for crowded city-dwellers to stewards of individual wildernesses recreate in a primitive, undeveloped, make decisions about access and and largely natural environment. This preservation, about naturalness and is an apt metaphor for demonstrating wildness. Only from this perspective is that new streams (purposes and values it possible for local decisions to opti- of wilderness preservation) do not mize rather than dilute the values of replace old streams. Each stream adds the National Wilderness Preservation to the overall power of the river, result- System (McCool and Cole 2001). ing in the large National Wilderness Preservation System we have today. The Policy of Non-degradation The implication of this metaphor Non-degradation provides an that Foreman does not explore is what example of how policy options could happens when tributaries with diver- be assessed and decisions could be gent characteristics are joined, blend- made that would have a profound ing waters and diluting the original effect on the future benefits of our purity of each tributary.The mixing of wilderness system. Some argue that divergent purposes within wilderness- the Wilderness Act mandates non- es muddies the waters, leading to loss degradation of wilderness, that actions of many of the values wilderness des- must be taken to ensure that wilder- ignation was meant to preserve. ness conditions (e.g. natural, wild The primary recommendation of ecosystems and opportunities for soli- the Pinchot Institute for Conservation tude) not be allowed to degrade fol- (2001) is that wilderness be managed lowing wilderness designation (Worf as a system. Most of the authors’ 2001). Worf (2001) asserts that, with- emphasis, however, is on integration in the Forest Service at least, non- and collaboration between the four degradation has always been official wilderness management agencies. policy. However, there are numerous Inadequate interagency collaboration examples where research and moni- is a problem, but inconsistency toring have shown increases in bio- between agencies may actually pro- physical impacts and in crowding in mote diversity and enhance the value Forest Service wilderness since desig- of the wilderness system. Inadequate nation (e.g., Cole 1993, 1996a). This policy and decentralized decision- suggests that we in the Forest Service making may be greater threats to the are not currently managing wilderness preservation of quality within the according to the principle of non- wilderness system. Policy is needed degradation. It also begs the question, that will maintain the purity of wilder- should we do so? ness lands designated for divergent This is the question at the core of purposes—to avoid the muddied the access vs. preservation dilemma. It waters and loss of values that occurs is my opinion that educational pro- when competing wilderness purposes grams, such as Leave-No-Trace, and are compromised on a case-by-case other management actions have basis. A regional and national perspec- already reduced per capita impact tive needs to be developed to help almost as much as might be expected.

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 31 If so, further increases in recreational ence, as well as wilderness manage- use will inevitably cause further degra- ment, particularly by agencies other dation of wilderness. Therefore, if we than the Forest Service. Equally pursue a policy of non-degradation, important is the clarification of polices we must immediately limit recreation regarding the purposes of wilderness use everywhere in the wilderness sys- designation. Currently, wilderness tem (in fact, a strict interpretation stewards facing management dilem- would require reductions in use across mas have little option other than to the system). Our choices and their compromise between divergent pur- implications are clear. In my opinion, poses and values. Compromise is the we need to use clarifying concepts best way to optimize the value of an such as non-degradation to assess individual wilderness. However, com- costs and benefits and to debate the promise does not optimize the value of merits of alternative policies. These the National Wilderness Preservation hard but decisive choices carry such System. Ironically, to preserve diver- profound long-term implications that gent values within the system, individ- they should be made at the highest ual managers should choose between levels of the land-management agen- competing values. The need I envision cies instead of being delegated to mid- is for a referendum on the legitimate level management. purposes and values of designated wilderness. Then wilderness manage- Conclusion ment agencies must cooperate and The stewardship needed to pre- develop the institutional capacity to serve wilderness values in perpetuity preserve wilderness values in perpetu- depends on increased recognition of ity. To the degree that legitimate the uniqueness of wilderness and wilderness values conflict, coopera- increased commitment, attention, tion and institutional capacity has less leadership, and financial resources. to do with making consistent deci- Given the uniqueness of wilderness sions and more to do with planning to and the complexity of wilderness preserve the purity of varied streams stewardship, increased attention of wilderness purpose. needs to be given to wilderness sci-

References Cole, D. N. 1990. Wilderness management: has it come of age? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45, 360–364. ———. 1993. Campsites in Three Western Wildernesses: Proliferation and Changes in Condition over 12 to 16 Years. Research Paper INT-463. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. ———. 1996a. Wilderness Recreation Use Trends, 1965 through 1994. Research Paper INT-RP-488. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. ———. 1996b. Ecological manipulation of wilderness: an emerging management dilemma. International Journal of Wilderness 2:1, 15–18. ———. 2000. Paradox of the primeval: ecological restoration in wilderness. Ecological Restoration 18, 77–86. ———. 2001. Management dilemmas that will shape wilderness in the 21st century. Journal of Forestry 99, 4–8.

32 The George Wright FORUM Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, B. L. McDonald, and J. C. Bergstrom. 1998. How the public views wilderness: more results from the USA survey on recreation and the environment. International Journal of Wilderness 4:3, 28–31. Foreman, D. 2000. The real wilderness idea. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 1: Changing Perspectives and Future Directions. D.N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W. Freimund, and J. O’Loughlin, comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-1. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 32–38. Graber, D. M. 1995. Resolute biocentrism: the dilemma of wilderness in national parks. In Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction. M. E. Soulé and G. Lease, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 123–135. Hendee, J. C. and C. P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values.3rd ed. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum. Hession, J. M. 1967. The legislative history of the Wilderness Act. Thesis. San Diego State University,San Diego, Calif. Janzen, D. 1998. Gardenification of wildland nature and the human imprint. Science 279, 1312–1313. Lucas, R. C. 1973. Wilderness: a management framework. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 28, 150–154. McCool, S. F., and D. N. Cole. 2001. Thinking and acting regionally: toward better decisions about appropriate conditions, standards, and restrictions on recreation use. The George Wright Forum 18:3, 85–98. Pinchot Institute for Conservation. 2001. Ensuring the stewardship of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Unpublished report. Washington, D.C.: Pinchot Institute for Conservation. Sellars, R. W. 1997. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Sutter, P. S. 2002. Driven Wild: How the Fight Against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness Movement. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Tomback, D.F., S.F. Arno, and R.E. Keane, eds. 2000. Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration.Washington, D.C.: Island Press. U.S. Congress—Senate. 1933. A National Plan for American Forestry.2 vols. 73rd Cong., 1st sess., March. S. Doc. 12. Worf, B. 2001. The new Forest Service wilderness recreation strategy spells doom for the National Wilderness Preservation System. International Journal of Wilderness 7:1, 15–17. Zahniser, H. 1963. Guardians not gardeners. Living Wilderness 83:2.

David N. Cole, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807; [email protected] 3

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 33 David M. Graber Ecological Restoration in Wilderness: Natural versus Wild in National Park Service Wilderness

Introduction he Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) derived substantially from ideas first proposed by Howard Zahniser in the 1940s when he was executive director of the Wilderness Society (Brower 1964). It was Ta piece of legislation that, by the time of its enactment into law,had been intensely discussed, reviewed, and edited both by the wilderness community and by Congress. Unlike many laws, its final language was carefully crafted, including its ambiguities. However, like many other laws, it is a prisoner of its time: It is limited to an understanding of the world that existed in 1964. Both the degree of our understanding and the world itself have changed substantially since then. Two key elements of the omnipresent. Transportation systems Wilderness Act are the phrase have transplanted organisms of all “wilderness character,” and the word kinds to all but the remotest corners of “untrammeled.” This paper proposes the planet, where they have not infre- that ecological restoration,which is quently decimated some of the native defined here as human activities inhabitants. Nonetheless, McKibben intended to take landscapes toward a would have been more accurate had he more natural condition, is often both conceded that nature still exists, but appropriate and legal in designated that it is, to varying degrees, less wild. wilderness within the National Park It was an important organizing System. However, the nature of that principle of America’s national parks, restoration and the means by which it as well as of the American wilderness is achieved are constrained by the system, that they had captured Wilderness Act. primeval landscapes unaltered by human activities (Leopold et al. Wildernesses are 1963). It is now generally accepted Wild to Varying Degrees among both ecologists and anthropol- In The End of Nature,Bill ogists that human beings began mak- McKibben demonstrated that no ing wholesale alterations in their new places on Earth are entirely free of North American home shortly after anthropogenic influence (McKibben they arrived more than ten thousand 1989). Industrial gasses, and their years ago (e.g., Martin 1986; Martin effects on climate and radiation, are and Klein 1987). These changes

34 The George Wright FORUM included the extirpation of some large while the lights of large cities alter the mammal species, and the modification night sky for scores of miles around of vegetation over large areas by the them. Lastly,wildernesses, like the rest use of fire (Stewart 1963). of the planet, are being altered—in Moreover, the traditional notion some cases radically—by anthro- that wild landscapes were stable or pogenic climate change. homeostatic over millennia, even in the absence of human beings, has been Ecological Restoration: replaced, in ecology, by the paradigm An Increasingly Critical Tool for of change, often catastrophic, induced Nature Conservation by change in climate or the arrival of At a time when wildlands continue new species that change competitive to be converted to human use, and relationships. Fire, or less commonly those that remain become progressive- volcanism or seismic activity, regularly ly more compromised, the restoration “reset” some wild landscapes. of ecosystems has become an impor- Wildernesses, like other reserve tant tool in nature conservation. lands, are parts of larger systems. They Removing alien elements, reintroduc- lie within a landscape matrix that is, to ing extirpated species, aiding the varying degrees, altered, and which in recovery of native ecosystem processes turn affects the functioning of ecosys- (e.g., fire and hydrologic regimes) to tems in wilderness. Organisms, chem- more natural parameters, restoring icals, light, sound, and many ecosys- native landforms, and mitigating tem processes such as fire move into anthropogenic stressors where possi- wildernesses from those adjacent ble are all actions that potentially lead landscapes. Many of the smaller to more natural ecosystems and better wildernesses in the eastern United preservation of native biodiversity. States are merely ecosystem frag- The National Park Service (NPS) has, ments. in recent decades, increasingly turned Many wildernesses have lost native to taking compromised lands and species, particularly large carnivores. returning them to more natural and— Non-native plants and animals have often more homeostatic—conditions. become established nearly everywhere This is well represented in the alien except the polar regions. Many wilder- plant and animal removals from ness areas contain pre-existing hydro- Hawaii Volcanoes and Haleakala logical diversions, or are downstream national parks to restore native forest of them. Fire regimes continue to be systems, and the removal of roads, altered both by suppression and by restoration of landforms, re-vegetation anthropogenic ignition from sur- of stream banks, and thinning of rounding areas, and often by the polit- recently cut-over redwood forests in ical or practical necessity of control- Redwood National and State Park. On ling fire on the wildernesses them- a broader scale, programs to restore selves. The sounds of aircraft and native fire regimes or their surrogates, motor vehicles penetrate deeply into and teams that identify and remove many — even large — wildernesses, invasive alien plant species, are now

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 35 widespread in the National Park nature, with the imprint of man’s System. work substantially unnotice- Restoration activities, because of able....” their manipulative nature, have the These words clearly reflect an earli- potential for unintended conse- er, romantic notion of scenic primeval quences less desirable than the pre- landscapes, with the importance of restoration condition. Some widely present appearance perhaps greater accepted attributes of a successful eco- than the reality of past land use and logical restoration project are that it: natural history (Franklin and Aplet • Is based on accepted scientific 2002:272). The Wilderness Act principles; specifically permits hunting and graz- • Utilizes place-based information; ing except where otherwise prohibit- • Selects a clear, rational, and accepted: The degree of “trammeling” ed target condition; imposed by intense cattle and sheep • Is attainable and sustainable; grazing in many (non-NPS) wilder- • Acknowledges that it is experimen- nesses of the Pacific and tal; and Intermountain West is profound both • Builds in monitoring and adaptive ecologically and visually. management. Section 4 (a)(3): “... the designation of any area of The Wilderness Act any park, monument, or other unit With regard to both the activities of of the national park system as a ecological restoration and the long- wilderness area pursuant to this term outcomes of those actions, the Act shall in no manner lower the Wilderness Act has a number of rele- standards evolved for the use and vant passages. Some of its most impor- preservation of such park, monu- tant language includes the following ment, or other unit of the national (emphasis added): park system in accordance with Section 2 (c): the Act of August 25, 1916, the “A wilderness, in contrast with statutory authority under which those areas where man and his the area was created, or any other own works dominate the land- Act of Congress which might per- scape, is hereby recognized as an tain to or affect such area....” area where the earth and its com- This language concedes that munity of life are untrammeled by wildernesses in the National Park man.... An area of wilderness is System are nonetheless governed by further defined to mean ... land the same statutory authorities as other retaining its primeval character NPS lands, and that NPS lands typi- and influence, without permanent cally benefit from a higher level of improvements ... which is protect- preservation than those of the other ed and managed so as to preserve three wilderness management agen- its natural conditions and which ... cies. The arguable (or litigable) point, generally appears to have been however, is whether that higher stan- affected primarily by the forces of dard indicated would call for interven-

36 The George Wright FORUM tion into disturbed wilderness ecosys- This section speaks directly to the tems, or refraining from such activity. means by which ecological restoration Section 4 (b): may or may not be achieved. Yet if the “Except as otherwise provided in purpose of the act includes conserva- this Act, each agency administer- tion and its administration, and if that, ing any area designated as wilder- in turn, requires otherwise unsanc- ness shall be responsible for pre- tioned devices or structures, to what serving the wilderness character extent is such restoration activity per- of the area and shall so administer mitted? Ultimately, such determina- such area for such other purposes tions are made through agency policy, for which it may have been estab- and sometimes litigation. lished as also to preserve its The National Park Service is guid- wilderness character. Except as ed in this area by Director’s Order 41: otherwise provided in this Act, Wilderness Preservation and wilderness areas shall be devoted Management. The reference manual to the public purposes of recre- for DO-41 says the following: ational, scenic, scientific, educa- 6.3.7 Natural Resources tional, conservation, and historical Management: use....” “The principle of non-degradation Here there is an apparent conflict will be applied to wilderness man- between the agency’s responsibility agement, and each wilderness for preserving wilderness character area’s condition will be measured (which was defined earlier) and devot- and assessed against its own ing wilderness to conservation as one unimpaired standard. Natural of its public purposes. Taken as a processes will be allowed, in so far whole, however, it would appear that as possible, to shape and control wilderness character takes precedence wilderness ecosystems. Manage- over conservation. ment should seek to sustain natural distribution, numbers, popula- Section 4 (c): tion composition, and interaction “Except as specifically provided for of indigenous species. Manage- in this Act ... there shall be no per- ment intervention should only be manent road within any wilderness undertaken to the extent neces- area designated by this Act and, sary to correct past mistakes, the except as necessary to meet mini- impacts of human use, and the mum requirements for the admin- influences originating outside of istration of the area for the pur- wilderness boundaries. Manage- pose of this Act ... there shall be no ment actions, including restora- temporary road, no use of motor tion of extirpated native species, vehicles, motorized equipment or altered natural fire regimes, con- motorboats, no landing of aircraft, trolling invasive alien species, no other form of mechanical trans- endangered species manage- port, and no structure or installa- ment, and the protection of air and tion within any such area.” water quality, should be attempted

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 37 only when the knowledge and wounded nature, are wildernesses in tools exist to accomplish clearly name only. They require urgent inter- articulated goals.” vention and long-term maintenance This policy language very clearly simply to preserve what remains—and supports ecological restoration. There often what remains is quite irreplace- is no legal nor regulatory barrier to able. To put it another way, their value ecological restoration, at least in prin- as managed reserves of biodiversity ciple. On the other hand, a reference exceeds their value as “wilderness.” to appropriate vs. inappropriate tools One of the largely unintended flaws is not provided. in the Wilderness Act is its ecological naiveté from a 21st-century perspec- Can Unnatural be Wild? tive (a naiveté shared by most legisla- It has been popular in recent years tion and even much science of the to contrast “natural” with “wild.”Both period viewed with today’s hindsight). Cole (2000) and Landres et al. (2001) The appearance (Sec. 2[c])of wild- find a significant difference between ness is in the eye of the beholder: An these words, particularly as applied to ecologist or scientifically educated wilderness, while Turner (1996) naturalist sees anthropogenic alter- unapologetically and passionately ation where someone not so schooled argues that “wild” precludes inten- does not. The reality is that the land- tional human intervention. On the scape is compromised. The elegant other hand, the author has argued use of “untrammeled” in the act refers (Graber 1985, 1995), as did to intentional control or manipulation McKibben (1989), that the pervasive of the “community of life” (Zahniser and insidious magnitude of human 1963; Scott 2001). But ecological con- activity has largely rendered the dis- sequences are the same regardless of tinction moot. This is particularly true the degree or distance of intention. In in many of the small, eastern lands that his passionate polemic, Guardians not Congress has set aside as designated Gardeners, Zahniser both failed to wilderness. There is, for example, very understand how altered many of his little that is wild about Cumberland beloved wildernesses already were, Island Wilderness on Cumberland and failed to recognize that walling Island National Seashore, which them off with a law would not protect includes roads, motor vehicles, many them from further deterioration. In his introduced species, and several key powerful and beautiful essay, species extirpated. Yet through time, if “Thinking Like a Mountain,” Aldo this were desired, alien species could Leopold (1949) discussed the loss of be removed, natives species reintro- wildness on a mountain when the last duced, a natural fire regime re-started, wolf had been shot. Surely he would and human construction removed. have approved of putting it back. Surely the product would be closer to The pace of landscape change in the wild Cumberland Island that its the United States and the rest of the first European settlers saw. Similarly, world is accelerating. So is human other small pockets of nature, albeit appropriation and alteration of the

38 The George Wright FORUM very air and water that is the stuff of Franklin and Aplet (2002). life. Yet locally, and perhaps only tem- Class I: Short-term wilderness porarily, those changes can be largely disturbance, long-term wilderness stopped, even reversed, with sufficient character enhancement. This class knowledge and effort. includes: It is likewise important to remem- •Reintroduction of self-sustaining ber that wilderness landscapes have native species; always been subject to both natural • Extirpation of invasive alien and anthropogenic changes. The dis- species; turbances introduced by ecological • Restoration of natural fire regimes; restoration—the loss of wilderness and character—need not represent perma- • Restoration of natural hydrologic nent loss. regimes. This class of activity entails one-time A Way to Think About Ecological reversals of anthropogenic changes Restoration in Wilderness that, once accomplished, are self-sus- In wilderness, appearances do mat- taining. Users of wilderness might well ter. There are some real trade-offs on encounter restoration activities that NPS lands between the conservation would typically result in impacts to of nature and the intent of the wilderness character lasting a season Wilderness Act. Both have value and to perhaps several years. Some of this, importance to humanity and the future such as dam removal, might require of planet Earth. Determining how to heavy equipment. Upon completion, reconcile the two can be assisted by a however, traces of the restoration cost/benefit analysis. I have attempted activity would be extinguished over a to classify common kinds of ecological short period of time, while the benefits restoration activities into three groups, of “re-wilding” to wilderness charac- representing the degree—in magni- ter would be long-term. tude and longevity—to which wilder- Class II: Long-duration or ness character is compromised. None recurring entry, with benefits and of these activities, in my opinion, is costs to wilderness character. This necessarily precluded by statute, regu- class includes: lation, or policy. However, by the time •Periodic control of persistent intro- one is considering the activities listed duced species; in Class III, one must carefully weigh • Indefinite extent of planned igni- the benefits against the significant tions; impacts on wilderness character, and • Reintroduced species requiring consider whether the proposed continuing support; and restoration activity is sufficiently bene- • Mitigation of acidified waters. ficial to outweigh the impacts on Many ecosystems that include wilder- wilderness character. An excellent and nesses suffer anthropogenic distur- far more comprehensive discussion of bances for which we lack the knowl- the management and restoration of edge, the legal authority, or the finan- wilderness ecosystems is provided by cial resources to correct permanently

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 39 at the present time. For example, intro- • Habitat modification for endan- duced weedy plants often invade natu- gered species; ral areas from adjacent lands, and • Regulation of predator or prey require regular removal and frequent numbers when an area is too small monitoring. Periodic liming of some for natural regulation or natural eastern streams mitigates acid precipi- controls have been lost; tation and permits continued survival • Control of native pests or danger- of native fish and amphibians that oth- ous species to protect life or prop- erwise would be entirely eliminated erty outside wilderness; and from the ecosystem—at least until the • Removal of native organisms in source pollution is eliminated. support of restoration elsewhere. Pyrophytic ecosystems that lie adja- These activities represent severe cent to developed lands may no longer impacts on wilderness character. They receive sufficient natural fire ignitions, clearly violate the intent of the or those ignitions are no longer politi- Wilderness Act. Some of these, such cally acceptable; however, periodic as control of pests, reflect the incapac- managed ignitions may accomplish ity of some landscapes designated as most of the objectives of maintaining wilderness to function as such either the natural structure and composition ecologically or politically.On the other of the native biological community. hand, some severe interventions, such Small, anthropogenically isolated pop- as the removal of native organisms for ulations of large mammals, such as restoration elsewhere, illuminate the mountain sheep, may lack the demo- fundamental and unavoidable con- graphic or genetic size for long-term nectedness between many wilderness- viability. However, periodic infusions es and their surrounding, more modi- of additional animals can help assure fied landscapes. Ultimately, decisions survival. These nature-maintenance in this category must move to a public activities reflect the sad reality that forum for their ultimate resolution. many designated wildernesses, and Wilderness is a (profound) social other kinds of nature reserves, are sim- construct. Nature simply is. Cultural ply too small or isolated to sustain expectations of wilderness will contin- their full suite of ecosystem functions ue to evolve. A personal interaction without intervention. The National with wild nature may or may not con- Park Service manager must ultimately tinue to be an important component of weigh the restoration benefits to the human life. But for the indefinite ecosystem against the impacts to future, aggressive actions will be wilderness character. required to preserve even a semblance Class III: Support of laws or NPS of the elements that comprise natural policies; don’t directly enhance ecosystems. Let’s not throw away any wilderness character. This class parts. includes: References Brower, David. R., ed. 1964. Wildlands in Our Civilization. San Francisco: Sierra Club. Cole, David N. 2000. Paradox of the primeval: ecological restoration in wilderness. Ecological Restoration 18:2, 77–86.

40 The George Wright FORUM Franklin, Jerry F., and Gregory H. Aplet. 2002. Wilderness ecosystem. In Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values. 3rd ed. John C. Hendee and Chad P. Dawson, eds. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum, 263–285. Graber, David M. 1985. Managing for uncertainty: national parks as ecological reserves. The George Wright Forum 4:3, 4–7. ———. 1995. Resolute biocentrism: the dilemma of wildness in national parks. In Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction. Michael E. Soulé and Gary Lease, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 123–135. Hendee, John C. and Chad P. Dawson, eds. 2002. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values. 3rd ed. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum. Landres, Peter, Mark W. Brunson, and Linda Merigliano. 2001. Naturalness and wildness: the dilemma and irony of ecological restoration in wilderness. Wild Earth 10:4, 77–82. Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York. Oxford University Press. Leopold, A. S., S. A. Cain, C. M. Cottam, I. N. Gabrielson, and T. L. Kimball. 1963. Wildlife management in the national parks. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 28, 28–45. Martin, Paul S. 1986. Refuting late Pleistocene extinction models. In Dynamics of Extinction. D. K. Elliot, ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1073–1130. Martin, Paul S., and Richard D. Klein, eds. Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. McKibben, Bill. 1989. The End of Nature. New York: Random House. Scott, Douglas W. 2001. “Untrammeled,” “wilderness character,” and the challenges of wilderness preservation. Wild Earth 11:4, 72–79. Stewart, Omer C. 1963. Barriers to understanding the influence of use of fire by aborigines on vegetation. Proceedings: Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, March 14-15. Tallahassee, Fla.: Tall Timbers Research Station, 2:117–126. Turner, Jack. 1996. The Abstract Wild. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Zahniser, Howard 1963. Guardians not gardeners. The Living Wilderness 83, 2.

David M. Graber, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Three Rivers, California 93271-9651; [email protected] 3

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 41 Peter Landres Judy Alderson David J. Parsons The Challenge of Doing Science in Wilderness: Historical, Legal, and Policy Context

ands designated by Congress under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Pub- lic Law 88-577) offer unique opportunities for social and biophysical research in areas that are relatively unmodified by modern human Lactions. Wilderness designation also imposes a unique set of constraints on the methods that may be used or permitted to conduct this research. For example, legislated restrictions on mechanical transport potentially make access difficult in large and remote wildernesses, while restrictions on motorized equipment and installations may prevent use of certain tools, data loggers, standard monumentation methods, and other routinely used scientific techniques. Wilderness is also managed by four federal agencies in two departments (the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior) that may interpret wilderness legislation differently,and have different policies regarding scientific activities in wilderness (Butler and Roberts 1986). Legal restrictions and agency differences, combined with a general lack of effective communication between managers and scientists, have led to increasing concern among wilderness managers (Bayless 1999; Barns 2000) and scientists (Franklin 1987; Bratton 1988; Peterson 1996; Eichelberger and Sattler 1994; Stokstad 2001) over lost opportunities for advancing science and improving wilderness protection. Differences in perspective and manage wilderness, nor the impacts motivation between scientists and their activities may cause to a wide managers are well known (e.g., range of social and experiential values Huenneke 1995; Bradshaw and in wilderness (Underwood 1995). Borchers 2000; Wilson and Lantz Commenting on these problems, 2000), and may cause each to not con- Franklin (1987) suggested that “scien- sider the context, needs, and con- tists can be arrogant and cryptic in straints of the other. For example, nat- their relations with managers and ... ural resource scientists may not fully some may feel that research gives them understand the philosophical and a license to do whatever they please.” legal basis, or policies, that are used to Similarly, wilderness managers may

42 The George Wright FORUM not fully understand or consider the (2000), and Graber (2002). This potential benefits of a proposed activi- mutually beneficial relationship was ty to the local wilderness, or to the recognized early on by Albright broader system of natural areas nation- (1933), who described the contribu- wide and to society at large. tion of science to improving manage- The purpose of this paper is to ment of the national parks, as well as improve the understanding of both the “incalculable value of the national managers and scientists about scientif- parks and monuments as research lab- ic activities in wilderness by selective- oratories.” Several of Aldo Leopold’s ly reviewing key aspects of the histori- writings speak to the importance of cal, legislative, and policy and manage- science in wilderness (Nash 1982). ment context for conducting scientific For example, Leopold (1941) com- activities in wilderness. Throughout mented that “all wilderness areas ... this paper, we refer to “scientific activ- have a large value to land science.... ities” as all activities related to the col- [R]ecreation is not their only or even lection of natural, cultural, and social their principal utility.” resource data, including research or Howard Zahniser, principal author inventory and monitoring activities, of the Wilderness Act of 1964, conducted by academic, private, or demonstrated his support for the sci- agency personnel. While the legal entific value of wilderness in several mandate for wilderness is unique, the ways. He wrote that “the wilderness challenges and concerns discussed in has profoundly important scientific this paper may also apply to other values” for both education and areas similarly managed for their natu- research, and that wilderness provides ral values. This paper is based on the two research uses: “they afford the premise that mutual understanding scenes for fundamental investigations will lead to improved communication of the natural world of living creatures between managers and scientists, in unmodified by man” and “they afford turn improving the likelihood that sci- also ‘check’ areas where none of the ence will be one of the “principal tools factors being compared in a particular in assuring the future preservation of study (land-use research, for example) wilderness” (Parsons and Graber have been operative” (Zahniser 1956). 1991)—a goal common to both Zahniser also expressed concern that groups. the scientific purposes of wilderness might be compromised by recreation Historical Context use (Leopold 1960). In congressional for Science in Wilderness hearings on the proposed Wilderness The contribution of natural areas Act, Zahniser (1962) commented that such as national parks and wilderness “the scientific potentials in wilderness to science, and the contribution of sci- preservation should be strongly ence to the long-term preservation and emphasized. This was well done in the stewardship of these areas, is reviewed statement presented by Ernest by Stankey (1987), the National Dickerman.... I should like to be asso- Research Council (1992), Parsons ciated with his brief but urgent presen-

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 43 tation of the scientific, or research, val- or in other wilderness legislation, lead- ues of wilderness.” In these hearings, ing to different criteria used by differ- Dickerman (1962) stated that “it is ent people in different situations for entirely possible that the sort of scien- defining which types of scientific tific study which can be conducted activities are appropriate in wilder- only in wilderness ... will yield knowl- ness. Anderson (1999) offers an exam- edge concerning the laws of nature ple of how this phrase from the 1964 that will become one of the greatest Wilderness Act was interpreted in values derived from wilderness.” evaluating a proposal for theoretical Later, Zahniser (1963) commented geological research in Death Valley that “it may be that the scientific val- Wilderness in California. In this case, ues will come to be considered the the administering office determined greatest of all the values of wilderness that the project fulfilled the “necessary and wildland natural areas.” for the administration of the area” mandate of the Wilderness Act, and Legislative Context negotiations with the researcher led to for Science in Wilderness extensive modifications in the pro- The Wilderness Act of 1964 recog- posed methods to protect the wilder- nizes the scientific value of wilderness ness resource. in two ways: by defining wilderness in The phrase “for the purpose of this Section 2(c) as an area that may also Act” in Section 4(c) is also interpreted contain scientific value, and by stating differently by different people. Some in Section 4(b) that wilderness “shall consider the “purpose” of the be devoted” to a variety of “public Wilderness Act to be the protection purposes,” including scientific use. In and preservation of the “wilderness Section 4(c), the act also lists specific character” of the area. This notion is activities that are prohibited in wilder- reinforced by the testimony before ness, stating that “except as necessary Congress of Zahniser (1962), who to meet minimum requirements for the stated that “[t]he purpose of the administration of the area for the pur- Wilderness Act is to preserve the pose of this Act ... there shall be no wilderness character of the areas to be temporary road, no use of motor vehi- included in the wilderness system, not cles, motorized equipment or motor- to establish any particular use.”Others boats, no landing of aircraft, no other consider this “purpose” to be much form of mechanical transport, and no broader: to secure “the benefits of an structure or installation within any enduring resource of wilderness,” and such area.” In other words, if a pro- that these benefits are “recreational, posed activity is “necessary” for the scenic, scientific, educational, conser- “minimum requirements for the vation, and historical use” (Sections administration of the area for the pur- 2(a) and 4(b), respectively, of pose of this Act,” then these prohibi- Wilderness Act of 1964). This broad- tions may be relaxed. However, “nec- er view considers scientific activities to essary” and “minimum requirement” be an integral part of wilderness. are not defined in the Wilderness Act Recent wilderness legislation, such as

44 The George Wright FORUM the California Desert Protection Act of of the other agencies have agency-wide 1994, supports this latter interpreta- guidelines, leaving evaluation proce- tion by stating that one of the goals of dures to the individual, often local, this Act is to “retain and enhance administrative offices. While such opportunities for scientific research in practice allows local flexibility, incon- undisturbed ecosystems” (Public Law sistent evaluation procedures may lead 103-433, Section 2(1)E). to the perception of arbitrary and capricious decisions in approving or Policy and Management Context denying proposals for scientific activi- for Science in Wilderness ties in wilderness. Eichelberger and In keeping with the broad legisla- Sattler (1994), for example, discuss tive intent of the Wilderness Act of their frustration with the administra- 1964, the four wilderness agencies tive process for reviewing their pro- developed policies that generally sup- posal, which took three years and cost port the conduct of scientific activities $1 million, to study volcanic features in wilderness. These policies also con- in the Katmai Wilderness in Alaska. tain specific constraints on research They conclude that the review process and other scientific activities (Parsons was so difficult because “there is no 2000). The Forest Service manual clear policy on research in parks and (Section 2324.4), for example, states wilderness,” and that “although it was that Forest Service policy is to clear from the outset that [our] pro- “encourage research in wilderness that posal raised major policy issues, these preserves the wilderness character of were not addressed until years into the the area,” and then directs managers to [review] process.” “review proposals to conduct research Despite differences in interpreting in wilderness to ensure that research legislative intent and policies among areas outside wilderness could not and within agencies, the following provide similar research opportuni- three questions, in various forms, are ties.” These policies and constraints common to nearly all evaluations of have been translated into a few formal proposed scientific activities in and many informal procedures for wilderness: evaluating whether scientific activities • Is the scientific activity necessary should be approved or denied. for the management of the area as Currently, only the National Park wilderness? Service has a formal agency-wide per- • Is it necessary to conduct the scien- mit system for research and collecting tific activity in wilderness? specimens (Bayless 1999). This per- •Will the scientific activity cause mit system (accessible over the inter- unacceptable impacts to wilder- net; National Park Service 2003) con- ness? tains guidelines to researchers for submitting proposals, asking them to The first question is based on describe how the project adheres to wording in Section 4(c) of the wilderness “minimum requirement” Wilderness Act (“except as necessary and “minimum tool” concepts. None to meet minimum requirements for the

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 45 administration of the area for the pur- sition, structure, and functioning of pose of this Act”) and has already relatively unmodified natural ecosys- been discussed. tems, and that scientific activities The second question is largely clearly fit under the “recreational, sce- based on the assumption that scientif- nic, scientific, educational, conserva- ic activities are an intrusion and some- tion, and historical” uses described in times a threat to wilderness, and if the the Wilderness Act of 1964. activity could be conducted outside The third question is perhaps the wilderness, then it should be. While a most difficult since nearly all human valid consideration, exclusive empha- activities cause impacts to wilderness. sis on minimizing impacts may also Acceptability of this impact, however, lead to a lack of information about bio- varies from one activity to another, physical conditions, the meanings from one situation to the next, and people derive from their wilderness from one person to another, often with experiences, and the effectiveness of little consistency and without ade- management decisions and actions. In quately defining what is meant by the long term, this lack of information “acceptability” or “impact.” may hinder protection and steward- Acceptability can also change over ship of wilderness, and make it more time. For example, relatively pristine difficult to plan for its future. wilderness conditions are increasingly Both Graber (1988) and Bratton unique, and many scientists believe (1988) argue that scientific activities that ecological and social science that cause no more harm to wilderness activities within wilderness are of than permitted recreation activities increasingly greater value beyond the should be allowed. Bratton goes on to boundaries of the wilderness to socie- suggest that “wilderness managers ty at large. Many managers, however, should in some cases try to attract are unwilling to accept impacts to an projects that could be done elsewhere individual wilderness from scientific so they obtain basic data on the activities that provide only broad-scale wilderness site. Wilderness managers and more loosely defined or potential should consider the potential long- societal benefits. term benefits of gathering scientific In addition, agency policies may information, even if it does not appear direct managers to consider wilder- to be immediately useful; we are, after ness values first and foremost in decid- all, frequently short-sighted about ing what types of activities are appro- what will be ecologically useful in two priate. For example, Forest Service or three decades.” In other words, Wilderness Manual direction (Section what information might be lost if the 2320.6) states that “where a choice proposed activity was not conducted must be made between wilderness val- inside the wilderness? Graber’s and ues ... or any other activity, preserving Bratton’s arguments are based on the the wilderness resource is the overrid- premise that designated wilderness ing value.Economy, convenience, provides an increasingly unique commercial value, and comfort are not opportunity to learn about the compo- standards of management or use of

46 The George Wright FORUM wilderness” (emphasis added). Under ing the information. this policy, it is appropriate for management staff to question all scientific Conclusions activities that may adversely affect the The clash between the cultures of ecological or social values of wilder- management and science presents a ness, and to place wilderness values formidable obstacle to using science to above other values. its maximum potential in protecting This question about unacceptable wilderness and in developing new impacts may lead to further questions knowledge about the functioning of about the appropriateness and accept- natural and social systems in wilder- ability of the methods used in the sci- ness. The historical context shows entific activity. Scientific activities may that two leaders of the wilderness be done in a variety of ways, each with movement, Aldo Leopold and specific trade-offs. Fire chronologies, Howard Zahniser, clearly supported for example, are needed to understand the scientific value and the scientific if current fire activity is within the nat- use of wilderness. The legislative con- ural fire regime of the wilderness. A text codifies this support for science in fire chronology may be derived using a the Wilderness Act of 1964. The chain saw, but this approach clearly Wilderness Act also allows scientific violates the motorized equipment pro- activities that would otherwise be prohibition of the 1964 Wilderness Act, hibited in wilderness, if these activities and likely violates visitors’ sense of are “necessary to meet minimum what is appropriate in wilderness. On requirements for the administration of the other hand, chain saws allow more the area for the purpose of this Act.” precise cuts which damage the tree Based on this historical and legislative less, and a greater number of high- context, we conclude that there is an quality samples can be taken allowing active and positive role for science in more accurate and precise under- wilderness. The policy and manage- standing of historic fire regimes. Hand ment context, however, shows that saws are more appropriate in wilder- there are several opportunities for ness, but typically hand saws result in ambiguity and differences in interpre- more tree damage and fewer, lower- tation, and therefore confusion and quality samples resulting in less frustration regarding the conduct of understanding of historic fire regimes. scientific activities in wilderness. Oelfke et al. (2000) discuss these To help reduce confusion and frus- trade-offs regarding wolf research in tration, and improve communication the Isle Royale National Park wilder- between managers and scientists, we ness, asking whether the ends (in this suggest that guidelines be developed case, the restoration of wolf popula- for evaluating proposals for scientific tions) justify the means (the handling activities in wilderness. These guide- and radio collaring of wolves). In such lines would explicitly address the con- cases as this, decision-makers must textual issues raised in this paper, and weigh their need for information provide a structured process to com- against the impacts caused by gather- prehensively and systematically evalu-

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 47 ate the benefits and impacts of pro- use such a process, there is strong posed scientific activities. Such guide- incentive for both to communicate and lines would provide the means for negotiate with one another: for the sci- documenting the many assumptions entist, to improve the likelihood of the and judgments inherent in the evalua- proposal being approved; for the man- tion process. Importantly, a structured ager, to maximize benefits and mini- process would provide managers the mize impacts of the proposed study. means to explain and defend their Adopting such guidelines across all decision regarding a proposed scien- four wilderness-managing agencies tific activity.Such a process would also would be a small, yet important step provide scientists the means for towards greater integration and con- understanding how their proposal sistency in stewardship across all units would be evaluated. When both man- of the National Wilderness Preserv- agers and scientists understand and ation System.

References Albright, H.M. 1933. Research in the national parks. The Scientific Monthly 36, 483–501. Anderson, R.L. 1999. Research administration in wilderness: defining the “minimum requirement” excep- tion. In On the Frontiers of Conservation: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands. D. Harmon, ed. Hancock, Mich.: The George Wright Society, 415–417. Barns, C.V.2000. Paleontological excavations in designated wilderness: theory and practice. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change, Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific Inquiry. S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, comps. Proceeding RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research, 155–159. Bayless, J. 1999. Regulating National Park Service research and collecting: a fifty-year search for a legal, flexible, and standardized approach. In On the Frontiers of Conservation: Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands. D. Harmon, ed. Hancock, Mich.: The George Wright Society, 418–422. Bradshaw, G.A., and J.G. Borchers. 2000. Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science–policy gap. Conservation Ecology 4:1, 7. [On-line: http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art7.] Bratton, S.P. 1988. Environmental monitoring in wilderness. In Wilderness Benchmark: Proceedings of the National Wilderness Colloquium. General Technical Report SE-51. Asheville, N.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, 103–112. Butler, L.M., and R.S. Roberts. 1986. Use of wilderness areas for research. In Proceedings—National Wilderness Research Conference: Current Research. R.C. Lucas, comp. General Technical Report INT- 212. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 398–405. Dickerman, E.M. 1962. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior Affairs, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd sess., May 7–11, serial no. 12, part IV. Eichelberger, J., and A. Sattler. 1994. Conflict of values necessitates public lands research policy. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 75, 505–508. Franklin, J.F. 1987. Scientific use of wilderness. In Proceedings—National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions. R.C. Lucas, comp. General Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, UT.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 42–46. Graber, D.M. 1988. The role of research in wilderness. The George Wright Forum 5:4, 55–59. ———. 2002. Scientific values of public parks. The George Wright Forum 19:2, 63–66. Huenneke, L.F. 1995. Involving academic scientists in conservation research: perspectives of a plant ecologist. Ecological Applications 5, 209–214. Leopold, A. 1941. Wilderness as a land laboratory. The Living Wilderness 6, 3. Leopold, L.B. 1960. Ecological systems and the water resource. In The Meaning of Wilderness to Science. D. Brower, ed. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 32–45. Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. 3rd ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. National Park Service. 2003. Research collecting permit guidelines. On-line at:

48 The George Wright FORUM science.nature.nps.gov/permits.html/intro.jsp. National Research Council. 1992. Science and the National Parks. Committee on Improving the Science and Technology Programs of the National Park Service. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Oelfke, J.G., R.O. Peterson, J.A. Vucetich, and L.M Vucetich. 2000. Wolf research in the Isle Royale wilderness: do the ends justify the means? In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change, Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific Inquiry. S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, comps. Proceeding RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research, 246–251. Parsons, D.J. 2000. The challenge of scientific activities in wilderness. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change, Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific Inquiry. S.F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, comps. Proceeding RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research, 252–257. Parsons, D.J., and D.M. Graber. 1991. Horses, helicopters and hi-tech: managing science in wilderness. In Preparing to Manage Wilderness in the 21st Century. P.C. Reed, comp. General Technical Report SE- 66. Asheville, N.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, 90–94. Peterson, D.L. 1996. Research in parks and protected areas: forging the link between science and management. In National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role in Environmental Protection. R.G. Wright and J. Lemmons, eds. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Science., 417–434. Stankey, G.H. 1987. Scientific issues in the definition of wilderness. In Proceedings—National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions. R.C. Lucas, comp. General Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, UT.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 47–53. Stokstad, E. 2001. Utah’s fossil trove beckons, and tests, researchers. Science 294, 41–42. Underwood, A.J. 1995. Ecological research and (and research into) environmental management. Ecological Applications 5, 232–247. Wilson, M.V., and L.E. Lantz. 2000. Issues and framework for building successful science-management teams for natural areas management. Natural Areas Journal 20, 381–385. Zahniser, H. 1956. The need for wilderness areas. The Living Wilderness 59 (winter–spring), 37–43. ———. 1962. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior Affairs, House of Representatives, 87th Congress, 2nd sess., May 7–11, serial no. 12, part IV. ———. 1963. Wildlands, a part of man’s environment. In A Place to Live: The USDA Yearbook of Agriculture of 1963. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 346–354.

Peter Landres, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807; [email protected] Judy Alderson, National Park Service, 240 West Fifth Avenue, Room 114, Anchorage, Alaska 99501; [email protected] David J. Parsons, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807; [email protected] 3

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 49 Jack Oelfke Rolf Peterson John Vucetich Leah Vucetich Wolf Handling at Isle Royale: Can We Find Another Approach?

Introduction he Wilderness Act of 1964 lists “scientific use” as one of the public purposes of wilderness, yet it is evident that the recognition and/or acceptance of this wilderness use varies within those federal agencies Tthat administer wilderness lands. Parsons (2000) discussed the legislative history that clearly supports the role of the scientific use of wilderness while at the same time noting the differences in agency philosophies and policies regarding the management of scientific activities within wilderness. In general, there is no common approach for managers to address the typical concerns associated with research activities in wilderness, such as requests to use motorized equipment or to conduct manipulative research. The resulting inconsistent responses by wilderness managers to research requests can lead to frustration for both parties. Graber (1988) and Parsons (2000) wildlife and waters (Kaplan and argue for the values of scientific activi- Tischler 2000; Swackhamer and ties within wilderness. In the case of Hites 1988) are but a few examples of Isle Royale National Park, scientific a wide range of important research activities have significantly enhanced activities that have contributed to the the public appreciation of the wilder- management of this island wilderness. ness character of the park and/or Each of these research projects, how- aided park management in managing ever, involved debate and considera- for wilderness values. Such varied tion of how to minimize the opera- research projects in the park as the tional impacts of the research to long-term study of wolf–moose rela- wilderness values while still accom- tionships (Peterson 1977; Peterson et plishing the research objectives. al. 1998), common loon productivity What follows is a case study from related to recreational use impacts Isle Royale that describes the formal (Kaplan et al., in press), social science thought process that park managers research to identify the wilderness val- and external researchers went through ues sought by park visitors (Pierskalla to address concerns about ecological et al. 1997), an inland lakes fishery and social impacts related to continu- inventory (Kallemeyn 2000), and the ing the long-term wolf–moose presence of contaminants in park research program in the park.

50 The George Wright FORUM Particular aspects of this research However, the needs of these two project provided an opportunity to programs—the highly popular wolf discuss the values of a specific research program and wilderness research program within the broader management of the park—occasionally context of managing the park as come into conflict (Oelfke and Wright wilderness. Although elements of this 2000). The natural tension that can case study have been described else- exist between research methods and where (Oelfke and Wright 2000), this tools and minimizing their interven- paper reports on the continuing evolution on wildlife populations within tion of that story. wilderness requires thoughtful consideration of alternatives to balance Background the needs of each program’s values. The wolves of Isle Royale National Park, Michigan, have been the subject The Isle Royale Landscape of an intensive research and monitor- Although the dual Isle Royale icons ing program since 1958. The benefits of wolves and wilderness are found of this long-term project have been elsewhere in North America, the set- widespread and enduring, ranging ting in which they are found repre- from influencing park management sents a unique wilderness resource. practices and regulations (particularly Isle Royale lies a minimum of 25 kilo- in relation to visitor use of this island meters from the mainland of Ontario, park) to the dissemination of natural Canada, across the cold, deep waters history information on the species— of Lake Superior. This separation has information that played an influential protected Isle Royale from excessive role in reversing anti-wolf sentiment in development and recreational use, North America beginning in the including a lack of roads and hunting, 1960s. The study has been a model both of which often impact wolf popu- research program within the National lations. The lack of adjacent land Park Service (NPS), highlighting the boundaries largely eliminates the values of a commitment to long-term issues of habitat fragmentation com- research and its value to park manage- mon to other protected areas and the ment. political issues and ecological influ- On equal footing with the impor- ences associated with terrestrial tance of the wolf in this park is the per- wildlife emigration/immigration, ception of the park as a unique wilder- which can often heighten the need for ness resource, as a remote island archi- active management of wildlife pelago where many of the direct influ- resources. Although certainly there ences of modern-day civilization are have been human influences on park absent. Congressional designation of wildlife, the relative isolation of these 99% of the land base of the park as populations permits consideration of wilderness in 1976 legislated this per- managing wildlife for that elusive ception into law and NPS policy, wilderness characteristic of “wild- necessitating management of the land ness,” as a baseline of wilderness base for wilderness values. wildlife management at one end of the

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 51 wildlife management spectrum. the “hands-off” research approach Whereas the “hands-off” approach to employed from the beginning of the wildlife management today has less research program in 1958, combined usefulness in many other parks and to make the wolf population and the wilderness areas, the unique charac- research program immensely appeal- teristics of this landscape permits the ing for both their scientific and aes- consideration of this approach at Isle thetic values. The idea of an Royale primarily because of these val- “untouched” wolf population became ues of wildness. a hallmark feature. Documentation of the status and trends of the wolf popu- The Wolf Research Program lation was adequately gathered Now in its 45th year, the wolf and through aerial surveys in the winter, moose research program at Isle Royale and for the first 30 years of the pro- has chronicled the rise and fall of these gram that was enough intrusion into populations, and park management, their world. Wilderness management the public, and the research communi- policies direct that the minimum ty have appreciated the on-going requirement or tool be used when reporting of that story (Figure 1). The completing any action (including unique landscape previously research) within wilderness, but the described, which has effectively isolat- desire to perpetuate the aura of the ed the wolf population, coupled with untouched wolf population also con-

Figure 1. Comparison of wolf and moose population trends, Isle Royale National Park, 1959–2003

52 The George Wright FORUM Table 1. Wolf and moose populations, Isle Royale National Park, 1959–2003

MOOSE MOOSE YEAR WOLVES (est.) YEAR WOLVES (est.) 1959 20 556 1984 24 1,041 1960 22 576 1985 22 1,062 1961 22 591 1986 20 1,025 1962 23 612 1987 16 1,380 1963 20 656 1988 12 1,653 1964 26 675 1989 12 1,397 1965 28 720 1990 15 1,216 1966 26 865 1991 12 1,313 1967 22 1,002 1992 12 1,590 1968 22 1,207 1993 13 1,879 1969 17 1,222 1994 17 1,770 1970 18 1,348 1995 17 2,422 1971 20 1,416 1996 22 1,178 1972 23 1,395 1997 24 500 1973 24 1,430 1998 14 700 1974 31 1,337 1999 25 750 1975 41 1,268 2000 29 850 1976 44 1,117 2001 19 900 1977 34 976 2002 17 1,100 1978 40 1,010 2003 19 900 1979 43 912 1980 50 862 Avg. 23 1,090 1981 30 811 Max. 50 2,422 1982 14 972 Min. 12 500 1983 23 900 tributed to this research approach. the wolf population remained in the By 1980, the island’s wolf popula- low teens despite an apparently ample tion stood at 50, a density (one wolf food base, it was clear that something per every four square miles) that was was awry in the population. Park man- not sustainable. The population agement sought advice from both crashed, dropping to 14 animals by within the NPS and the external 1982. Expectations were that the wolf research community, and a peer- population would rise again to more reviewed proposal in 1988 recom- stable levels. Indeed, the wolf popula- mended the need to handle wolves on tion did rise over the next two years, the island to assess the persistent wolf but a sharp, prolonged decline population decline and the high mor- occurred thereafter. By 1988, when tality rate. The practice of handling

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 53 wolves continued following a meeting research program and prevent harass- of specialists that reviewed the first- ment of the wildlife through winter year findings. During that period, no recreational activity; (2) prohibition of “end-date” for how long the handling overnight camping in approximately was to continue was discussed; rather, 50% of the park to protect wolf den- most experts involved believed that ning sites and to keep visitors from answers to the questions of the wolf coming into close contact with wolf decline would be gained quickly and pups, thus preventing habituation to resolve the issue. Ultimately, disease humans; and (3) a prohibition of was implicated as a major factor in the mammalian pets on the island to island’s persistent wolf decline reduce the potential for disease intro- (Peterson et al. 1998). ductions. Although the key focus of wolf han- Other recognized values of the dling was to assess the population research program have included the decline, the insight gained into the wide dissemination of natural history population’s genetic decline was information on the wolf and moose quickly recognized for its scientific populations of the park, particularly as value on a broader scale (Wayne et al. it has described these populations in 1991; Lehman et al. 1991; Peterson et an environment free of human harass- al. 1998). The island’s wolf popula- ment and interference. The public and tion offered an unprecedented oppor- scientific communities remain keenly tunity to examine the significance of interested in the annual updates of genetic losses for long-term viability in these populations. a small, isolated population. Finally, as an example of the value Wolf handling has continued to the of long-term data that will be sought present, with 20 wolves having been through the developing NPS handled from 1988–2002. The wolf Inventory and Monitoring Program, population remained low until a sig- the 30 years of wolf population data nificant upturn started in 1994; by provided a compelling argument that 2003 the population was only slightly significant change had occurred with- below the study period’s long-term in the population. This change, recog- average of 23 animals. nizable in good part because of the length of the population dataset, Values of the helped convince park management Wolf Research Program that more intensive investigation was There have been several substan- warranted, ultimately leading to the tive decisions made by park manage- decision to begin the intensive han- ment that are the direct result of the dling of the wolf population. wolf research program. Several of these decisions significantly affect vis- Assessing the Issue of itor use in the park, including (1) a Wilderness Values and Wolf complete park closure to visitor use Research Program Needs from November 1 through April 14 of By the late 1990s, with the wolf each year, largely to facilitate the population numbers back to the long-

54 The George Wright FORUM term average and the question of the and recommend a course of action to wolf decline largely settled, it was the NPS. It was felt an outside panel appropriate to examine the reasons for could provide an objective and scien- continued wolf handling in the park. tifically valid opinion on the merits As noted above, information from the (and impacts) of continued handling. wolf research program had enabled The scientific review followed the sug- park management to make several sci- gestions outlined by Meffe et al. ence-based decisions in support of (1998). The panel convened in April resource protection, and offered the 1999, and consisted of three experts: scientific community and the public a two from the U.S. Geological Survey fascinating look into the life history of Biological Resources Division this wolf population. Some of this (USGS-BRD) and one from the inter- insight was possible only through the agency Aldo Leopold Wilderness live-capture and handling of individ- Research Institute, along with partici- ual wolves. At the same time, as under- pation from NPS employees and the standing of the specific wolf decline project’s principal investigator, Rolf episode became clearer, a timely argu- Peterson. Panel members were select- ment to again examine the rationale ed based on expertise in wolf research for wolf handling was voiced. and wildlife management and/or famil- Admittedly, that voice came largely iarity with wilderness and wildlife from park staff (as opposed to the pub- management in the NPS. lic or external wilderness advocacy The expert panel reviewed perti- community), but it was appropriate nent information on the Isle Royale that preservation of the wildness of the wolf population and the wilderness park’s wildlife populations receive full values associated with the park. The consideration. The suite of character- panel was then asked to provide a rec- istics that define the wilderness ommendation to park management on essence of Isle Royale—the isolated whether it was necessary to continue island landscape within the vastness of to handle wolves in the park or if the Lake Superior, a highly charismatic research program could return to a carnivore species with a history of “non-handling” approach. minimal human influence, and the minimal developed nature of the Review Panel Findings island—all contribute to a unique The panel reviewed the relevant wilderness personality of the park that information and identified the advan- established the seriousness of this tages of handling and not handling debate. It was obvious that compelling wolves as a means to determine a rec- arguments for and against continued ommendation. That information, with wolf handling could be made; there a recommendation, was submitted to simply was the need and desire to park management in a summary report objectively address the issue. (Isle Royale National Park 1999). Thus, park management brought Although there are numerous together an independent scientific advantages of handling wolves in panel to assess the wolf handling issue terms of the quality and quantity of

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 55 information that can be obtained, the Preliminary Findings of most important advantage identified the Wolf Fecal-DNA Work was that handling permitted the on- Seventy-two scat samples from the going assessment of genetic change 2001 winter research program were within a small population. This analyzed for microsatellite DNA. Of assessment is considered to have these, DNA could be amplified in 38 broad regional or global application (53%) of the samples. From these sam- and significance for understanding the ples, 18 unique genotypes were genetics of isolated populations. The detected, implying a population of 18 key advantage to not handling wolves, wolves. Aerial surveys conducted dur- aside from the obvious removal of pos- ing the 2001 winter research program sible trapping injury or mortality to detected 17 wolves. It is not clear them, was the value of minimizing which estimate is correct; it is possible human influence on the population. to miss a wolf during aerial surveys, Ultimately, a consensus was but unlikely to overcount the popula- reached that the scientific value to be tion. It is possible to misidentify a gained from tracking the loss of genet- wolf’s genotype, and thereby over- or ic diversity of this population warrant- undercount wolves. However, this pre- ed the continued handling of the pop- liminary analysis indicates that fecal- ulation. The panel recommended that DNA provides a very useful tool for handling should continue for the next monitoring the genetic diversity of the five years (2000–2004), which was island’s wolf population. Other esti- considered an adequate period to seek mates from the fecal-DNA, such as the other methods for obtaining the genet- sex ratio within the population, ics information. The park and revealed less conclusive results based researchers were also challenged to on the 2001 samples. aggressively pursue other data gathering techniques that would not require What is Next? handling, with wolf fecal-DNA as a Wolf research at Isle Royale is source of genetic material identified as unquestionably a valued activity with- a possible technique to consider. in the park (to the point of being high- Both recommendations were fol- lighted in the park’s 1998 general lowed, and research into the use of management plan), in particular for wolf fecal-DNA as a source of genetic monitoring and reporting on the material was initiated in 2001 through genetic diversity within the population NPS and USGS-BRD funding and (as recommended by the expert review effort, with field collection of scat sam- panel in 1999). The ability to return to ples occurring in 2001–2002 and a research program that does not analysis continuing in 2003. include wolf handling to track that Researchers were specifically asked to diversity appears feasible through the evaluate wolf fecal-DNA as a useful non-invasive fecal-DNA method. source of genetic material for monitor- However, such an approach would ing genetic diversity within the come at the cost of readily tracking island’s wolf population. disease concerns within the popula-

56 The George Wright FORUM tion, presently only obtainable effort will be reported on following the through blood samples—which 2003 analysis period. Perhaps more requires wolf handling. The advan- importantly, we believe the expert tages of tracking radio-collared wolves panel review approach offers the in terms of quantity and quality of opportunity for an objective assess- observational data are also lost if han- ment of an issue that can be difficult dling is discontinued, but it is worth for the principal parties to sort noting that high-quality observational through (in this case, Isle Royale park data were obtained for the first 30 management and the principal investi- years of the study through purely non- gators) due to their long-term connec- invasive observational means. tion to the park and project. Although Preliminary answers to the specific there is significant value in the inti- question asked of the recent wolf fecal- mate knowledge that both the DNA research appear to provide the researchers and park managers have of park with critical information for an the park-specific issues of wolves and important issue: that of balancing wilderness, there is also much to gain research methods with wilderness val- from consulting the objective minds of ues. It is not a simple issue to resolve, those with no direct or close ties to the as is true for many wilderness/mini- issue. mum requirement issues in a park. Finally, it is somewhat ironic that Further, this particular issue of wildlife the wolf research program, lauded for handling is fairly specific to Isle providing so much information that Royale, in the sense that such a restric- has aided park management in the tive view of wildlife handling is largely past, has been called upon to provide available for debate because of the new information that may make the unique landscape characteristics that continued operational aspects of the are rarely found elsewhere. program a more difficult task. But That said, there are broader impli- resolving that question may ultimately cations of this case study that should come to this: is the enhancement of be of use in other wilderness areas. the wildness of the island’s wolf popu- The specific non-invasive research lation, so closely linked to the wilder- methods employed in the Isle Royale ness character of the island, worth wolf fecal-DNA project hold great enough to warrant returning primarily promise for their applicability else- to the research methods last employed where, and complete results of that some 15 years ago?

References Graber, D.M. 1988. The role of research in wilderness. The George Wright Forum 5:4, 55–59. Isle Royale National Park. 1999. Internal memo, report on review of wolf handling. Houghton, Mich.: Isle Royale National Park. Kallemeyn, L.W. 2000. A comparison of fish communities from 32 inland lakes in Isle Royale National Park, 1929 and 1995–1997. USGS-Biological Resources Division Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR2000-0004. Columbia, Mo.: Columbia Environmental Research Center. Kaplan, J.D, K.B. Tischler, D.L. McCormick, and J.A. Vucetich. In preparation. Canoe use in a wilderness park and its effects on loon productivity. Houghton, Mich.: Michigan Technological University. Kaplan, J.D., and K.B. Tischler. 2000. Mercury exposure in the common loon (Gavia immer) at Isle Royale National Park. Houghton, Mich.: National Park Service. Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 57 Lehman, N., A. Eisenhawer, K. Hansen, L.D. Mech, R.O. Peterson, P.J.P. Gogan, and R.K. Wayne. 1991. Introgression of coyote mitochondrial DNA into sympatric North American gray wolf populations. Evolution 45:1, 104–119. Meffe, G.K., P. D. Boersma, D.D. Murphy, B.D. Noon, H.R. Pulliam, M.E. Soulé, and D.M. Waller. 1998. Independent scientific review in natural resource management. Conservation Biology 12, 268–270. Oelfke, J.G., and R.G. Wright. 2000. How long do we handle wolves in the Isle Royale wilderness? Park Science 20:2, 14–18. Parsons, D.J. 2000. The challenge of scientific activities in wilderness. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific Inquiry. S..F. McCool, D.N. Cole, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 252–257. Peterson, R.O. 1977. Wolf Ecology and Prey Relationships on Isle Royale. National Park Service Monograph Series no. 11. Washington, DE.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Peterson, R.O., N.J. Thomas, J.M. Thurber, J.A. Vucetich, and T.A.Waite.1998. Population limitation and the wolves of Isle Royale. Journal of Mammalogy 79, 828–841. Pierskalla, C.D., D.H. Anderson, and D.W. Lime. 1997. Isle Royale National Park 1996 Visitor Survey Final Report. St. Paul: Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Minnesota, College of Natural Resources. Swackhamer, D.L., and R.A. Hites. 1988. Occurrence and bioaccumulation of organochlorine compounds in fishes from Siskiwit Lake, Isle Royale, Lake Superior. Environmental Science and Technology 22, 543–548. Wayne, R.K., D.A. Gilbert, N. Lehman, K. Hansen, A. Eisenhawer, D. Girman, R.O. Peterson, L.D. Mech, P.J.P. Gogan, U.S. Seal, and R.J. Krumenaker. 1991. Conservation genetics of the endangered Isle Royale gray wolf. Conservation Biology 5, 41–51.

Jack Oelfke, North Cascades National Park, 810 State Route 20, Sedro- Woolley, Washington 98284; [email protected] Rolf Peterson, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan 49931; [email protected] John Vucetich, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan 49931; [email protected] Leah Vucetich, School of Forest Resources and Environmental Sciences, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan 49931; [email protected] 3

58 The George Wright FORUM Brian Glaspell Alan Watson Katie Kneeshaw Don Pendergrast Selecting Indicators and Understanding Their Role in Wilderness Experience Stewardship at Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve

Introduction he Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) and other indicator-based planning frameworks (e.g., VERP, Visitor Experience and Resource Pro- tection; VIM, Visitor Impact Management) have been widely adopted Tby wilderness managers. A central feature of these frameworks is the selection of indicators of conditions that influence experience quality,and which managers can efficiently monitor. However, identifying meaningful influences on visitor experience quality and selecting appropriate indicators remains a persistent challenge. Managers often have little knowledge of which indicators are most significant at their respective areas, and, as a result, they sometimes choose indicators simply because they have been used elsewhere (Watson and Roggenbuck 1997). Moreover, research designed to support the selection of indicators has often failed to uncover the predictable relationships between social setting conditions and experiences that the notion of an indicator presupposes (Cole 2001). At Alaska’s Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve (“Gates” for short), unique conditions exacer- bate this challenge and highlight the need for a better understanding of the nature of wilderness experiences and the various factors that threaten or facilitate them. Wilderness visitor studies have typically focused on participants’ evaluations of pre-determined dimensions (such as solitude) by using surrogate measures (such as perceived crowding). In contrast, the project described here began with a qualitative investigation that allowed

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 59 visitors to describe in their own words 1986:3). the important dimensions of their Consistent with those purposes, experiences and the factors that influ- Gates is currently managed as a single enced them. A second phase of the vast wilderness area. The park encom- project measured the distribution and passes over 8 million acres of rugged saliency of those dimensions across mountains and Arctic tundra. There the Gates visitor population, and the are no roads leading into it, no main- significance of various potential fac- tained trails or campsites, and no per- tors of influence. Results from this manent NPS facilities located on park study point toward experience indica- lands. Beyond the park boundaries to tors that managers at Gates may the east and west is a series of other choose to monitor, and they also pro- protected areas. With Gates in the vide insight into the role of indicator- middle, these areas form an almost based planning frameworks with contiguous collection of undeveloped respect to protecting wilderness expe- wildlands stretching from the rience opportunities. Canadian border westward to the Arctic Ocean. For visitors, primary Gates of the Arctic access is by air, and travel within the National Park and Preserve park is by foot, raft, canoe, or kayak. Gates represents the culmination of Most visitation occurs during the four- a long history of wilderness advocacy month period from June through in northern Alaska. The region first September, with July and August began to receive national attention being the busiest months. Overall when Robert Marshall identified two recreation use numbers have been peaks on the southern flanks of the assumed to be fewer than 2,000 visi- Brooks Range as the “gates to the arc- tors per year. A recent attempt to sys- tic” in his 1933 book, Arctic Village tematically estimate 2002 summer use (Glover 1986). In 1980, after almost (as part of the study reported here) 50 years and numerous proposals for produced a 95% confidence interval of permanent protection of its wilderness between 336 and 424 visitors emplan- character had come and gone, Gates of ing in Fairbanks (the primary park the Arctic National Park and Preserve portal) and between 64 and 174 visi- was finally established with passage of tors entering from the Dalton the Alaska National Interest Lands Highway (a secondary portal). Visitors Conservation Act (ANILCA). are encouraged to practice minimum Referring to the park’s unique history impact camping techniques, but there and founding purposes spelled out in are no regulations regarding camp- ANILCA, the 1986 Gates general fires, campsites, or length of stay. management plan states: “Within the At present, Gates represents what broad spectrum of resources and some people consider to be a nearly opportunities reserved in national ideal setting for visitors to enjoy parks, only Gates of the Arctic was wilderness experiences. The challenge established with such strong emphasis for managers is to describe those expe- on wilderness purposes” (NPS riences in sufficient detail to know

60 The George Wright FORUM when they are at risk of changing or mentioned in the philosophical or degrading, and to develop methods popular wilderness literature, it has for monitoring conditions and assur- been the most studied aspect of ing that unacceptable changes do not wilderness experiences. Hypothesized occur. crowding influences, such as inter-visitor encounter rates, are regarded as Approaches to Understanding being among the primary threats to Wilderness Experiences and wilderness solitude, and have been Selecting Indicators of Quality widely adopted as indicators of expe- The 1964 Wilderness Act famous- rience quality. ly defines wilderness as a place where Studies of crowding and crowding “man is a visitor who does not influences have yielded useful find- remain” and where “outstanding ings, but they have significant limita- opportunities for solitude or a primi- tions with respect to developing a tive and unconfined type of recre- deeper understanding of the overall ation” exist. From these phrases, soli- nature or quality of wilderness experi- tude has emerged as the dominant cri- ences. (To be fair, many of these stud- terion for evaluating wilderness visitor ies were never intended to address the experiences. Few studies, however, overall nature of experiences.) It is have attempted to measure solitude important to note that solitude is only directly; instead, most researchers one of many potential dimensions of have focused on surrogate measures wilderness experiences and crowding such as perceived crowding. Although may, in fact, influence other dimen- crowding (or the lack thereof) is rarely sions in complex ways (Watson and

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 61 Roggenbuck 1997). Borrie and places, which are geographic spaces Roggenbuck (2001) suggest that the imbued with personal and cultural writings of wilderness philosophers meanings (Williams and Patterson reference numerous important experi- 1999). Researchers adopting this per- ential dimensions other than solitude, spective usually gather, analyze, and including primitiveness, timelessness, report on data in qualitative (narrative) oneness, humility, and care. They fur- form. ther suggest that “[t]he ideas of these The goal-directed perspective on writers not only heavily influenced the experience is understandably attrac- authors of wilderness legislation, but tive because it purports to link the also continue to play a guiding role in nature of wilderness experiences to the management of wilderness; they objective setting conditions, some of likely also influence how current users which might be easily monitored and construct the meaning of the wilder- manipulated by managers. However, ness” (2001:211). with respect to crowding influences in The last part of the preceding quo- particular, research has so far shown tation points toward a second limita- few consistent relationships between tion of previous wilderness-experi- setting conditions and visitors’ evalua- ence studies. Those investigations tions of the overall nature or quality of have typically viewed wilderness expe- their experiences (Cole 2001). It may rience as a kind of response by a goal- be that further methodological refine- directed individual to a collection of ments will tease out these relation- objective setting attributes. A common ships, but it might also be argued that, purpose of research adopting this per- in order to understand the full range of spective is to identify and quantify lev- wilderness experience dimensions, a els of setting attributes (e.g., visitor wholly different perspective is called density, encounter rates) that elicit for, one capable of capturing “the consistent responses from visitors depth and durability of the meaning of (e.g., perceived crowding, behavioral wilderness in [visitors’] lives” (Dustin responses). Emphasis on generalized 2000:55). An expanded perspective site attributes and consistent respons- on wilderness experience research es may obscure or simply fail to cap- seems particularly appropriate at a ture what is uniquely valuable about a place like Gates, where extremely low particular wilderness place or an indi- use numbers mean that crowding is vidual’s experience of it. In the alter- unlikely to be a salient experience native perspective implied by Borrie dimension for most visitors, and a long and Roggenbuck, wilderness experi- history of wilderness advocacy has ences are viewed as windows into par- resulted in a rich layering of landscape ticipants’ on-going constructions meanings. (emergent stories) of the world and Unfortunately, qualitative knowl- their places in it. Rather than respond- edge from studies of the deeper meaning in predictable fashion to site attrib- ings of wilderness experiences has not utes, wilderness visitors in this latter typically been incorporated into man- perspective are understood to relate to agement planning efforts. Almost by

62 The George Wright FORUM definition, a perspective that empha- via a mail-back questionnaire. sizes the emergent and deeply personal nature of experiences is at odds with Study Methods indicator-based planning frameworks, Thirty-two separate interviews which call for “knowledge that is pre- were conducted with a total of 94 visi- scriptive and predictive” (Borrie and tors during the 2001 summer season Birzell 2001). However, the study (June–August). Visitors were pur- described in this paper was developed posefully selected to represent differ- from the perspective that the applica- ent combinations of several stratifying tion of multiple approaches can yield variables (exit location, guided/inde- greater understanding, and ultimately pendent travelers, activity, time of sea- better stewardship, of wilderness and son) in an effort to capture a range of wilderness experiences (Borrie et al. different types of experiences. All 2001; Watson and Roggenbuck interviews were conducted in one of 1997). three park access points, immediately Qualitative approaches are useful following the completion of partici- for exploratory research, when little is pants’ trips. Interviews were open- known about the nature of experi- ended and flexible. However, the ences or significant influences on interviewer employed a written guide them. More importantly though, qual- that included a series of themes and itative approaches can be used to lead-in questions to assure that inter- understand the meanings that visitors views produced relevant and compa- associate with a given place and the rable information (Patterson and experiences they receive there, and Williams 2002). All interviews were how wilderness and wilderness expe- tape-recorded and transcribed verba- riences fit into the larger context of tim. A rigorous interpretive analysis their lives. Traditional quantitative produced a list of experience elements approaches, on the other hand, have and factors of influence that were typically focused on the events of a prevalent within the collection of trip—what visitors encounter, rather interview texts. The experiential ele- than what they take home with them. ments were then organized into While qualitative approaches are hypothesized dimensions of visitor important for understanding the experiences to facilitate discussion nature and significance of experi- and presentation. ences, quantitative approaches are The experience elements and fac- invaluable for developing the kind of tors of influence identified in the first generalizable, predictive knowledge phase of research were used to devel- that indicator-based planning frame- op a questionnaire, which was the pri- works call for. With these respective mary data collection tool used in strengths and weaknesses in mind, the Phase II of the study. Two hundred Gates study was conducted in two forty-two questionnaires were mailed separate phases: the first relying on to the homes of visitors who had been qualitative visitor interviews, and the contacted in park gateways at the second on quantitative data gathered beginning of their visits. A total of 201

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 63 Kobuk River at Walker Lake. questionnaires were completed and assessed via a scale created from six mailed back (83% response rate). questionnaire items—was examined as Common factor analysis was used to a potential factor of influence on expe- identify dimensions (factors) of rience dimensions at Gates. Next, a wilderness experiences at Gates, series of regression models was used based on visitors’ indications of agree- to assess the relationship between spe- ment with each of 41 experience state- cific dimensions of visitors’ experi- ments (responses could range from ences, and grouped factors of influ- “strongly disagree” (-2) through “not ence. Finally, results from the factor applicable” (0) to “strongly agree” and regression analyses were used to (+2)). Common factor analysis was inform the discussion of potential also used to identify general groups of experience indicators. factors of influence from a list of 26 potential influences on visitors’ expe- Study Findings riences that was included in the ques- Phase 1. Over 1,000 pages of tran- tionnaire. In addition to these items, scription were produced from the trust in the National Park Service— Phase I qualitative interviews. In the

64 The George Wright FORUM process of analyzing these texts, a G: Out here, the few experiences we number of prevalent experience ele- had with other people had kind of like a ments were identified (Table 1). caring aspect. Like, are you doing OK? Do Visitors described their experiences in you need anything clean or dry? terms that reflected some of the central themes within the Wilderness Act, but Like solitude, relative freedom from the exact nature of the themes they management influence (“unconfined described, and the relationships recreation”) is often interpreted from between them, are not wholly cap- the Wilderness Act as an important tured in that legislation. For instance, element of wilderness experiences. solitude was not a prevalent theme in Visitors at Gates enjoyed the lack of visitors’ narratives, but the related feel- access restrictions, and their many ing of remoteness was frequently opportunities to freely make and described. Seeing few other people change plans, and practice self- was clearly important to visitors’ expe- reliance. However, as the following riences of remoteness, but at the same interview excerpt illustrates, they did time, actual encounters were often not always view the lack of manage- mediated by the perception of shared ment influence in a positive light. values, and some visitors described their encounters with others as high- Troy: Most places we’ve ended up lights of their trips. For example, Paul going I’ve noticed that the Park Service and George had this to say: at least keeps track of how many people go in or out, as a minimum [by requiring P: And the human encounters were visitor registration]. That was not appar- actually very much more pleasant and ent here ... it was unclear to me whether personable and even intimate than you Gates was well enough watched over. would have with a stranger in the city....

Table 1. Prevalent experience elements identified within Gates of the Arctic visitor interviews

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 65 Space limitations preclude a more Regulations” (93.5%) dimension as complete discussion of the various well. Just over half of respondents experience elements that emerged (58.5%) agreed with having experi- from the visitor interviews. However, enced the “Challenge of Access” the preceding short excerpts illustrate dimension, and one-third of them a few of the complexities inherent to (32.5%) agreed with having experi- wilderness experiences, and the ways enced the “Risk and Uncertainty” that visitors embed their experiences dimension. in the larger context of their lives. For After the broad experience dimen- Paul and George, encounters were sions were identified, mean influence highly positive precisely because of scores were calculated for each of the the contrast they offered to daily life in different potential items of influence. the city. Similarly, Troy’s experiences Visitors were asked to indicate how at other parks influenced his interpre- each item affected their Gates experi- tation of regulations as signs of good ence, and responses were converted to stewardship rather than as restrictions a metric three-point scale with values on his personal freedom. of (-1) representing “negative,” (0) for Phase II. Common factor analysis “both negative and positive” or “no with oblique Varimax rotation was influence,” and (1) for “positive.” used to assess patterns across visitors’ Common factor analysis with orthogo- responses to the experience state- nal Varimax rotation was used to ments that were included in the Phase assess patterns across visitors’ II questionnaire. Five underlying fac- responses to the influence items. Five tors (dimensions) of visitors’ experi- general factors of influence were iden- ences were identified. All of the items tified, and are presented with their sig- (experience statements) within each of nificant component items (factor load- the five dimensions loaded significant- ing scores >0.40) and mean influence ly on only that dimension. The five scores in Table 3. dimensions and the statements they With the addition of the trust scale represent (verbatim from the ques- that was also included in the question- tionnaire) are presented in Table 2. naire, a total of six factors of influence The remoteness, similarity of val- (out-group interaction, management ues, and stewardship themes briefly interaction, wildlife presence, air described in the preceding section are flight, human behavior, trust) and five all captured within the “Taste of experience dimensions were identi- Gates” experience dimension. Almost fied. Regression modeling showed the entire sample of visitors (98.5%) that the “Taste of Gates” experience agreed or strongly agreed that they dimension was significantly influ- experienced this particular dimen- enced by the factors “management sion. Similarly, the vast majority of interaction” and “trust in the NPS.” respondents agreed that they experi- The “Freedom” dimension was also enced the “Untrammeled Wildlife” significantly influenced by “manage- dimension (94.5%), and the ment interaction.” At current levels, “Freedom from Rules and management interaction and trust

66 The George Wright FORUM Table 2. Factors (dimensions) of visitor experiences at Gates of the Arctic, with corresponding significant items (factor loading scores >0.40) Factor and Itemsa Factor Loading Factor 1: “A Taste of Gates” The managers at Gates are doing a good job. 0.644 Most Gates visitors are concerned about limiting their impacts. 0.545 The landscape felt big. 0.489 Management practices at Gates are effective at protecting wilderness 0.489 qualities. I felt a sense of discovery. 0.488 My visit says a lot about my personal values. 0.477 I felt that I was free from the clock. 0.446 In some places I felt like I might have been the first 0.430 visitor. I felt that I was far from civilization. 0.413 Factor 2: “Freedom from Rules and Regulations” I did not feel constrained by park management practices. 0.916 I did not feel constrained by regulations. 0.616 Factor 3: “Challenge of Access” It was difficult to find information about the destination or travel route I 0.777 had planned. It was difficult to find information about Gates. 0.749 Getting to Gates was difficult. 0.424 Factor 4: “Untrammeled Wildlife” I saw a lot of wildlife. 0.798 I saw a lot of evidence of wildlife. 0.683 I enjoyed seeing animals in their natural habitat. 0.518 The animals were not used to seeing people. 0.494 Seeing animals in Gates was different than seeing them in 0.419 other places. Factor 5: “Risk and Uncertainty” I often felt my safety was at risk. 0.614 I was frequently uncertain about what would happen next . 0.508 I encountered challenging weather conditions. 0.461 a. Common factor analysis with generalized least squares extraction and oblique Varimax rotation was used to identify experience factors (dimensions). both influence these dimensions in a tive influence on this dimension. The positive manner. There were no major “Untrammeled Wildlife” dimension factors of influence that significantly was significantly influenced by the affected the “Challenge of Access” “wildlife presence” factor. Lastly, the dimension; however, the “air-flight” “Risk and Uncertainty” dimension factor combined with the individual was significantly influenced by “man- item “physical development by agement interaction” and “out-group humans” did have a significant nega- interaction.” For the one-third of visi-

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 67 Table 3. Factors of influence on visitor experiences at Gates of the Arctic, with corresponding significant items (factor loading scores >0.40) and mean influence scores

Factor and Itemsa Factor Loading Mean Influenceb Factor 1: “Out-group interaction” 0.30 Encountering groups of more than 6 people 0.909 0.13 Encountering guided commercial groups 0.882 0.16 Being aware of other visitors camping nearby 0.637 0.01 Number of other visitor groups encountered 0.537 0.39 Factor 2: “Management Interaction” 0.41 Receiving a backcountry orientation from a park 0.923 0.34 ranger Registering with the Park Service 0.685 0.40 Receiving information about Leave-No-Trace 0.644 0.49 techniques Interaction with park employees in the office or town 0.544 0.65 Availability of free bear-barrels from the Park Service 0.444 0.45 Factor 3: “Wildlife Presence” 0.90 Observing behavior of wildlife 0.988 0.90 Seeing animals in their natural habitat 0.803 0.92 Seeing evidence of wildlife 0.601 0.93 Factor 4: “Air Flight Influences” -0.21 Seeing or hearing scheduled commercial planes 0.878 -0.27 Seeing or hearing other types of aircraft 0.772 -0.18 Seeing or hearing bush planes 0.736 -0.13 Factor 5: “Human Behavior Influence” 0.16 Behavior of other visitors 0.724 0.16 Encountering subsistence activities 0.537 0.05 a. Common factor analysis with generalized least squares extraction and orthogonal Varimax rotation was used to identify factors of influence. b. Means represent influence on overall experiences, based on a metric three-point scale with values ranging from (-1) to 1. Both the direction and magnitude of influence may differ for specific experience dimensions. tors who experienced this dimension, were allowed to describe their experi- the effect of management interaction ences in their own words, and what was positive and the effect of out- they described were events made group interaction was negative. meaningful by comparison and contrast with a variety of other life situa- Discussion and Conclusions tions. Findings from the first, qualita- This study began with an expand- tive phase of this study allow managers ed perspective, one that was relatively to see beyond mere trip characteristics unconstrained by the Wilderness Act to understand the deeper nature of or previous research that has typically Gates visitor experiences, as well as focused on a few selected aspects of their own stewardship roles relative to the wilderness experience. Visitors those experiences.

68 The George Wright FORUM In the second, quantitative phase of the first, qualitative phase of investiga- this study, certain experience dimen- tion, knowledge generated from this sions were found to be widely distrib- quantitative work provides managers uted across the Gates visitor popula- with a solid foundation for selecting tion. Any attempt to select indicators indicators that are both relevant and that are relevant to current experi- efficient. Actual selection of indicators ences at the park clearly needs to might occur as follows. address these dimensions, described Regression modeling determined here as “A Taste of Gates,” “Freedom that the multifaceted “Taste of Gates” from Rules and Regulations,” and experience dimension was positively “Untrammeled Wildlife.” While not as influenced by the “management inter- broadly distributed, “Challenge of action” factor. A closer examination of Access” and “Risk and Uncertainty” the items included in this factor shows are also important dimensions of cur- that the highest-loading item was rent park experiences that managers “receiving a backcountry orientation may choose to protect. In fact, these from a park ranger” (Table 3). From dimensions may represent what is the qualitative interviews, it is known most unique about the experience that at least some visitors regard man- opportunities available at Gates. agement actions and interactions as Measuring the distribution of expe- signs of good stewardship. Therefore, rience dimensions is useful for assess- it makes sense that this item would ing the relevance of potential indica- positively influence visitors’ experi- tors, but relevance is just one of the ences—or, conversely, that lack of numerous desirable characteristics of management interaction could nega- indicators that have been identified. tively affect experiences. The high fac- Previous literature (e.g., Stankey et al. tor-loading score indicates that this 1985; Merigliano 1990) has suggested item is strongly correlated with the that indicators also be measurable, other items in the group. In other reliable, cost-effective, significant, sen- words, it could serve reasonably well sitive, responsive, and efficient. as a surrogate for any of the other Roggenbuck et al. (1993) focused on items. Therefore, based on Phase I the efficiency criterion (ability to cap- qualitative data and this quantitative ture or reflect multiple conditions in analysis, “the proportion of visitors order to reduce the number of param- receiving a backcountry orientation” eters that must be monitored) by using would be a relevant and efficient indi- factor analysis to group items that may cator of the “Taste of Gates” experi- influence wilderness experiences. The ence dimension. This indicator would study reported here builds on that differ from more common LAC-type work by similarly determining groups indicators in that it calls for setting of influence items (factors), and then some minimum standard (e.g., “at going a step further to link those fac- least xx percent of visitors receive an tors with experience dimensions that orientation”) rather than establishing are specific to Gates. Combined with a standard of maximum acceptable the deep understanding developed in impact as a means of balancing con-

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 69 flicting objectives. beyond the spatial and temporal This potential indicator, and any boundaries of an individual wilder- others selected in a similar manner, ness visit. Expanded conceptual and would all share the desirable charac- methodological approaches to study- teristics of relevancy and efficiency. ing wilderness experiences are clearly However, it is important to remember useful for informing the selection of that monitoring indicators such as indicators, but their real value may be these would tell only part of the story found in helping managers to identify about wilderness experiences at what is uniquely valuable about Gates. The LAC and other indicator- wilderness experiences and to under- based planning frameworks focus stand the emerging and evolving rela- attention on visitor responses to on- tionships that visitors share with site conditions, but, as visitors’ own wilderness places. words reveal, the full story of a wilderness experience necessarily extends References Borrie, W.T., and R. Birzell. 2001. Approaches to measuring quality of the wilderness experience. In Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience Proceedings.W.A. Freimund and D.N. Cole, eds. Proceedings RMRS-P-20. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 29–38. Borrie, W., W. Freimund, M. Davenport, and R. Manning. 2001. Crossing methodological boundaries: assessing visitor motivations and support for management actions at Yellowstone National Park using quantitative and qualitative research approaches. The George Wright Forum 18:3, 73–83. Borrie, W.T., and J.W. Roggenbuck. 2001. The dynamic, emergent, and multi-phasic nature of on-site wilderness experiences. Journal of Leisure Research 33, 202–228. Cole, D.N. 2001. Visitor use density and wilderness experiences: a historical review of research. In Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experience Proceedings.W.A. Freimund and D.N. Cole, eds. Proceedings RMRS-P-20. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 11–20. Dustin, D.L. 2000. Mapping the geography of hope. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 2: Wilderness within the Context of Larger Systems. D.N. Cole, S.F. McCool, W.A. Freimund, and J. O’Loughlin, comps. RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 55–57. Glover, J.M. 1986. A Wilderness Original: The Life of Bob Marshall. Seattle: The Mountaineers. Merigliano, L.L. 1990. Indicators to monitor the wilderness recreation experience. In Managing America’s Enduring Wilderness Resource: Proceedings of the Conference. D.W. Lime, ed. Minneapolis: Tourism Center–Minnesota Extension Service, and Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station–University of Minnesota, 156–162. National Park Service. 1986. General Management Plan/Land Protection Plan/Wilderness Suitability Review: Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve.Fairbanks, Ak.: United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Patterson, M.E., and D.R. Williams. 2002. Collecting and Analyzing Qualitative Data: Hermeneutic Principles, Methods, and Case Examples. Chicago: Sagamore. Roggenbuck, J.W., D.R. Williams, and A.E. Watson. 1993. Defining acceptable conditions in wilderness. Environmental Management 17, 187–197. Stankey, G.H, D.N. Cole, R.C. Lucas, M.E. Peterson, and S.S. Frissell. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Watson, A.E., and D.N. Cole. 1992. LAC indicators: an evaluation of progress and a list of proposed indicators. In Ideas for Limits of Acceptable Change Process: Book Two.L.Merigliano, ed. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Recreation, Cultural Resources, and Wilderness Management Staff, 65–84. Watson, A.E., and J.W.Roggenbuck. 1997. Selecting human experience indicators for wilderness: different 70 The George Wright FORUM approaches provide different results. Pp. 264-269 in Wilderness and Natural Areas in Eastern North America: Research, Management, and Planning. D.L. Kulhavy and M.H. Legg, eds. Nacogdoches, Tex.: Stephen F. Austin State University, Center for Applied Study in Forestry, 264–269. Williams, D.R., and M.E. Patterson. 1999. Environmental psychology: mapping landscape meanings for ecosystem management. In Integrating Social Sciences with Ecosystem Management. H.K. Cordell and J. Bergstrom, eds. Champaign, Ill.: Sagamore, 141–160.

Brian Glaspell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; [email protected] Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807; [email protected] Katie Kneeshaw, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P.O.Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807; [email protected] Don Pendergrast, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, 201 First Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701; [email protected]

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 71 Steven R. Lawson Ann Mayo Kiely Robert E. Manning Computer Simulation as a Tool for Developing Alternatives for Managing Crowding at Wilderness Campsites on Isle Royale

Introduction ince the establishment of the National Wilderness Preservation System in 1964, recreational use of wilderness has grown steadily and continues to be on the rise today, particularly in the national parks (Cole S1996). In the face of burgeoning public demand for outdoor recreation, national park and wilderness managers must make decisions that integrate a broad array of public values. For example, wilderness recreationists value, to varying degrees, opportunities for solitude, pristine resource conditions, and recreation opportunities unconstrained by management restrictions. Decisions about how to integrate these diverse values are complex and involve trade-offs among potentially competing values (Lawson and Manning 2002b). This study uses computer simula- in the northwest corner of Lake tion modeling to quantify trade-offs Superior, approximately 75 miles from associated with management options Houghton, Michigan, and 20 miles for improving backcountry camping from Grand Portage, Minnesota. conditions at Isle Royale National Approximately 99% of the park’s land Park. The results of this study are base is designated wilderness. The assisting park managers in under- park has a system of 36 campgrounds, standing current crowding-related with a total of 244 designated tent and conditions in campgrounds, compar- shelter sites dispersed along ing current conditions to proposed lakeshores and a network of 165 miles standards of quality for camping-relat- of trails. Primary recreation activities ed indicators, testing the effectiveness at the park, which is open to visitors and implications of alternative man- from mid-April until the end of agement strategies, and informing the October, include hiking and camping. public about the implications of vari- During the 1990s, visitation to Isle ous management alternatives. Royale National Park grew at a rate of 4–5% annually, and, on a per-acre Isle Royale National Park basis, the park has one of the highest Isle Royale National Park is located number of backcountry overnight

72 The George Wright FORUM stays in the National Park System campsite sharing (Manning 1999). As (Farrell and Marion 1998). park staff attempt to identify an appro- Visitors interested in backcountry priate and feasible standard for camp- camping at Isle Royale National Park site sharing, they are faced with a num- are required to obtain a permit. As ber of difficult questions. For example, part of the permitting process, visitors to what extent would use limits or are asked to report their anticipated fixed itineraries need to be imposed in itinerary, identifying the number of order to reduce sharing to achieve nights they plan to be in the park and alternative standards? Could efforts to the campground they intend to stay at provide public access, visitor free- each night of their camping trip. doms, and reduced campground However, visitors are not required to crowding be optimized by redistribut- follow their proposed itinerary and ing use temporally and/or spatially? there are no restrictions on the num- Could alternative standards for camp- ber of permits issued for camping in site sharing be achieved by adding the park. While visitors do have the new campsites to the park, rather than option to obtain special permits for by limiting use? If so, how many addi- off-trail hiking and camping, the vast tional campsites would be needed, majority choose to camp at the desig- and where would they need to be nated campground sites (Farrell and located? Answers to these questions Marion 1998). can assist managers in more precisely Isle Royale National Park’s describing what the alternatives are approach to backcountry camping and how they affect visitor freedoms, management is designed to maximize spontaneity of visitor experiences, public access to the park and to main- public access, facility development, tain visitors’ sense of spontaneity and natural resource protection, and freedom. However, recent research opportunities for camping solitude. suggests that this management This paper shows how computer sim- approach, coupled with increased ulation modeling of visitor travel pat- backcountry visitation at the park, has terns can assist managers in answering resulted in campground capacities such questions. commonly being exceeded during peak periods of the visitor-use season. Methods Campers who arrive in full camp- Data collection. Backcountry grounds are asked to share campsites camping permits issued by park staff with other groups, and most campers during the 2001 season provided the surveyed indicated that having to dou- primary source of data needed to con- ble-up with other camping groups struct the travel simulation model. detracted from the quality of their Information from the permits con- experience (Pierskalla, Anderson, and cerning the starting and ending date of Lime 1996, 1997). each group’s trip, camping itinerary, Park managers have decided to and group size were used as inputs to address this backcountry camping the simulation model. Data needed to issue by formulating a standard for test whether the simulation model out-

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 73 puts are valid estimates of on-the- throughout the simulation period. ground conditions were gathered Model runs. Simulation runs were through a series of campground occu- conducted to estimate the extent of pancy observations conducted campsite sharing in the park under throughout the park’s 2001 visitor-use status quo conditions. Model runs season. (For a more detailed discus- were also conducted to estimate the sion of the data collection and valida- effectiveness of various management tion processes, see Lawson and actions at reducing or eliminating Manning, in press.) campsite sharing, including imposing Computer travel simulation a permit quota, requiring fixed itiner- model. The travel simulation model aries, and increasing the number of developed in this study was built using campsites on the island. In addition, a Extend software (Imagine That 1996; workshop was conducted to instruct Lawson and Manning, in press; park staff how to use and modify the Lawson et al., in press; Wang and simulation model to continue meeting Manning 1999). The structure of the their planning needs. The park staff’s simulation model consists of objects use of the simulation model is on- called “hierarchical blocks” that simu- going, allowing them to evaluate man- late various aspects of the park’s agement strategies as new ideas camping system. Entrance blocks gen- emerge throughout the park’s back- erate simulated visitor groups and country and wilderness planning assign values for a set of attributes to process. groups (e.g., group size, camping itinerary) designed to direct their travel Results through the simulated backcountry Backcountry camping permit camping trip. The model contains data. All 3,810 backcountry camping entrance blocks for each of the pri- permits issued by the park during the mary entry points to the park. 2001 season were used as inputs to the Entrance blocks allow the user to con- computer travel simulation model. trol the simulated amount and spatio- These data include permits issued to temporal distribution of backcountry backpackers, kayakers, canoeists, camping use by specifying the simulat- power boaters, and sail boaters. Data ed average daily number of trips start- reported in Table 1 indicate that, on ing from each of these locations. average, 27 more permits were issued Routing blocks direct simulated visi- per day during July and August than tor groups to the next (or first) camp- during the remainder of the season ground on their itineraries, at the (hereafter referred to as the beginning of each simulated day, and July/August peak and the low-use direct groups that have completed period of the season, respectively). their itineraries to exit the park. The permit data indicate that substan- Campground blocks record the num- tially more visitor groups started their ber of groups camping at each camp- backcountry camping trips on a week- ground and the number of groups end than on a weekday. Most visitors sharing campsites on each night access the park by commercial boat,

74 The George Wright FORUM Table 1. Mean number of permits issued per day, by trip starting location—2001 visitor-use season. Windigo Rock Harbor All Other All Locations Locations Combined

July/August, 12.8 19.0 2.3 34.2 weekdays

July/August, 17.9 29.8 4.3 52.1 weekend days

July/August, 14.2 22.0 2.8 39.1 all days

Low-use period, 2.4 5.0 1.4 8.7 weekdays

Low-use period, 6.4 9.5 2.6 18.5 weekend days

Low-use period, 3.6 6.3 1.7 11.6 all days landing at either Windigo (on the west managing backcountry camping to end of the park) or Rock Harbor (on maintain status quo conditions. Under the east end). Consequently, the vast this alternative, an average of about 39 majority of backcountry camping trips permits would be issued per day,there started at Windigo or Rock Harbor. would be no new campsite construc- Model output. Table 2 summarizes tion, and visitors would not be the results of simulation runs conduct- required to follow prescribed itiner- ed to estimate the current extent of aries. Simulation results for the campsite sharing in the park and the “Status Quo” alternative suggest that effectiveness of alternative strategies under the park’s current management for reducing or eliminating campsite approach, an average of about 9% of sharing. The alternatives outlined in groups are required to share campsites Table 2 were selected for analysis with per night during July and August, with the simulation model because they 24% sharing during the busiest two reflect a range of management weeks of this period. Less than 1% of approaches that emphasize campsite groups are estimated to share sites solitude, visitor freedoms, public during the low-use period of the sea- access, and facility development to son. varying degrees. Simulation runs were conducted to Park managers have the option of assess the effectiveness of a permit

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 75 Table 2. Management alternatives quantified based on simulation model output

Wilderness Status Quo Permit Fixed Campsite Temporal Values Quota Itineraries Construction Redistribution

Public Access Current use 22% 30% increase Current use Current use reduction in in (shift 22% of July/August July/August peak) use use

Facility No new No new No new 13 new No new Development campsites campsites campsites campsites campsites

Visitor No fixed No fixed Fixed No fixed No fixed Freedom itineraries itineraries itineraries itineraries itineraries

Camping 9% of 5% of groups <1% of 7% of groups 5% of groups Solitude, groups share groups share share share sites/night July/August share sites/night sites/night1 sites/night sites/night

Camping 0.4% of 0.4% of <1% of <1% of groups 1.4% of groups Solitude, groups groups share groups share share share sites/night Low-Use share sites/night sites/night1 sites/night Period sites/night

1Assumes permits are issued to achieve 80% occupancy rate to adjust for non-compliance. quota at reducing or eliminating allowing for greater camping solitude campsite sharing. Under the “Permit than the status quo for those groups Quota” alternative, there would be no able to obtain a permit. However, new campsite construction and visi- some individuals who wanted to take a tors would not be required to follow backcountry camping trip during July prescribed itineraries. However, the or August would not be able to obtain average number of permits issued per a permit to do so. The simulated day during July and August would be “Permit Quota” alternative suggests reduced to ensure that an average of that the park would need to reduce no more than 5% of groups share visitor use during July and August by campsites per night (a standard for nearly 25% to ensure that an average of campsite sharing that the park is con- no more than 5% of groups share sidering). Such an approach would campsites per night. continue to emphasize visitor free- Decisions to limit public use of doms and place limits on facility national parks and wilderness are development in wilderness, while inherently controversial. To avoid this

76 The George Wright FORUM controversy, park managers could campsite sharing during the low-use institute a fixed itinerary system, period of the season. Further, results rather than a permit quota, to reduce of the “Permit Quota” alternative sug- or eliminate campsite sharing. Under gested that park managers would need this approach, everyone who wanted to reduce the number of permits to take a backcountry camping trip issued during July and August by would be able to obtain a permit to do about 25% to ensure that an average of so and no new campsites would be no more than 5% of groups share sites constructed. However, visitors would per night. However, rather than turn- potentially have fewer choices of itin- ing those visitors away completely, eraries and would lose the freedom to park managers could shift “surplus” spontaneously alter their camping itin- peak-season use to the low-use period erary during the course of their trip. of the season. This “Temporal The results of the simulated “Fixed Redistribution” approach would allow Itineraries” alternative suggest that, by managers to maintain season-wide vis- requiring visitors to follow prescribed itor-use levels, reduce campsite shar- camping itineraries, the park could ing during July and August, avoid issue approximately 30% more per- building new campsites, and maintain mits than they did during the 2001 visitors’ freedom with respect to visitor-use season, while at the same camping itineraries. Results of the time virtually eliminate campsite shar- simulated “Temporal Redistribution” ing. alternative suggest that campsite shar- Rather than institute a permit ing would increase from an average of quota or require visitors to follow pre- approximately 0.4% of groups per scribed itineraries, park managers night during the low-use period of the could try to reduce or eliminate camp- season, to just over 1% of groups per site sharing by building new camp- night. sites. The park’s recently adopted gen- Simulations conducted to estimate eral management plan allows for con- the effect of redistributing visitor use struction of up to 13 additional camp- evenly across the two primary starting sites in specific campgrounds. If the locations for backcountry camping park were to adopt this “Campsite trips (Windigo and Rock Harbor) or Construction” alternative, the simula- evenly across the days of the week sug- tion results suggest that, without insti- gest that neither strategy would reduce tuting any limits on use, the park could campsite sharing. Therefore, the reduce campsite sharing by about 2%, results of these simulations are not resulting in an average of approximate- included in Table 2. ly 7% of groups sharing campsites per Results of simulation runs con- night. ducted to test the validity of the model As the results of the simulated indicated no statistically significant “Status Quo” alternative indicate, differences between observed camp- campsite sharing is a problem primari- ground occupancies collected by park ly during the months of July and staff during the 2001 season and trav- August, while there is virtually no el simulation model output. More

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 77 importantly, there were no substantive Discussion and differences between the observed Management Implications campground occupancies and the cor- The findings from this study have responding model output. This sug- implications for management of back- gests that the travel simulation model country camping use at Isle Royale accurately represents backcountry National Park in particular, and for camping conditions at the park during management of visitor use in parks the 2001 season. (For more informa- and wilderness in general. Isle Royale tion about the validation of the simula- managers have made a commitment to tion model see Lawson and Manning, adopt campsite sharing-related indica- in press.) tors and standards of quality and to Park staff’s use of the simulation develop and implement strategies to model is on-going. For example, park improve social conditions in camp- staff have used the model to estimate grounds while also protecting park the effect of shifting some use to sec- resources. To do this in an informed ondary entry points; differentially manner, park managers not only need altering the visitation levels of hikers, to identify feasible management paddlers, and powerboaters; and set- options, they must also understand ting alternative standards for campsite the effects of alternative options on a sharing at different times of the sea- diverse array of wilderness values son. In addition, park staff have used (Cole 2002). This study assists park the model to estimate where and how managers in defining and assessing many new campsites would need to be management alternatives not only in added to the park to eliminate camp- terms of how effective they are at site sharing during peak-season reducing or eliminating campsite shar- demand. Using simulation results as a ing, but also in terms of their conse- guide, park staff conducted site visits quences with respect to visitor free- to determine the feasibility and desir- doms, public access, and resource ability of campground development impacts associated with facility devel- needed to meet peak camping opment. Consequently, the simulation demand, based on considerations of modeling results aid managers in bet- physical constraints of wetlands, frag- ter informing the public of the costs ile habitats, and topography as well as and benefits of different management appropriate size of campgrounds in options, resulting in more effective different areas of the park. In Isle public involvement in the planning Royale’s case, the number of new sites process. the simulation model estimates would Results from this study are consis- be needed to accommodate peak tent with findings from previous demand is greater than the number of research at Isle Royale National Park, sites that could be added to the park, suggesting that campsite sharing is given the constraints listed above. prevalent during certain periods of the However, the new sites could mitigate visitor-use season. Although it would campsite sharing to some extent. be possible to reduce campsite sharing through backcountry camping use

78 The George Wright FORUM limits alone, results from the travel the public’s interest to limit backcoun- simulation model suggest that the park try camping use during the peak peri- would have to issue approximately od of the season in order to minimize 22% fewer permits during July and campsite sharing? If so, to what extent August to ensure that an average of no should use be limited to achieve a more than 5% of groups share camp- greater degree of camping solitude? Is sites per night. it acceptable to shift a percentage of The outdoor recreation literature peak-season use to the low-use period generally suggests that use limits of the season, or does the historically should be considered a last resort for low-use period of the season offer a managing crowding, and that less type of wilderness experience that intrusive alternatives should be con- should be preserved? While these sidered first (Behan 1974, 1976; judgments must ultimately be made by Dustin and McAvoy 1980; Hall 2001; managers, a growing body of recre- Hendee and Lucas 1973, 1974). The ation research has been conducted to computer simulation model devel- provide managers with a more oped in this study helps managers informed basis for making such judg- identify effective management actions ments (Lawson and Manning 2001a, with relatively low “costs” to visitors 2001b, 2002a, 2002b; Manning and and avoid those that are less effective Lawson 2002). or that come at a relatively high “cost” The simulation results from this to visitors. In Isle Royale’s case, mod- study formed the basis of a visitor sur- eling suggests that the extent of use vey conducted at Isle Royale National limits necessary to achieve certain Park during the 2002 visitor-use sea- standards for campsite sharing could son (Lawson and Manning, in press). be minimized by also redistributing The visitor survey was designed to use and/or modifying campground assess public attitudes toward man- capacities. agement alternatives derived from the Although this study provides man- simulation model. Results of the visi- agers with descriptive information tor survey provide managers with esti- related to backcountry camping at Isle mates of the proportion of current vis- Royale National Park, managers are itors that support alternative strategies still faced with difficult judgments for managing backcountry camping concerning the most appropriate (Table 3). Each alternative in Table 3 strategies for managing backcountry is defined in terms of the amount of camping. These judgments require backcountry camping use permitted, managers to reconcile trade-offs the number of new campsites con- among potentially competing wilder- structed, whether visitors are required ness values. For example, do the costs to follow a prescribed itinerary, and in visitor freedoms and spontaneity the extent of campsite sharing during associated with a fixed itinerary sys- July and August. The last row of Table tem outweigh the benefits of increas- 3 reports the proportion of visitors ing use and eliminating or substantial- estimated to support each alternative. ly reducing campsite sharing? Is it in The results suggest that the great-

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 79 Table 3. Preference proportions for management alternatives

Status Quo Permit Quota Fixed Itineraries Campsite Construction

Current use 22% reduction in use 30% increase in use Current use (39 permits/day) (31 permits/day) (52 permits/day) (39 permits/day)

No new campsites No new campsites No new campsites 70 new campsites

No fixed itineraries No fixed itineraries Fixed itineraries No fixed itineraries

9% of groups share 5% of groups share <1% of groups share <1% of groups share campsites/night campsites/night campsites/night1 campsites/night

36% 39% 6% 19%

1Assumes permits are issued to achieve 80% occupancy rate to adjust for non-compliance. est support among visitors is for the sequences and benefits of alternative “Status Quo” and “Permit Quota” management strategies, and the visitor options, with 36% and 39% of visitors survey assists managers in evaluating estimated to support each of these public acceptance of those conse- alternatives, respectively. While the quences and benefits. “Campsite Construction” alternative This paper describes how simula- is less popular than the “Status Quo” tion modeling can be used as a tool to and “Permit Quota” alternatives, near- contribute to improved management ly 20% of visitors are estimated to sup- of parks and wilderness. In particular, port this option. The “Fixed simulation modeling can more pre- Itineraries” alternative is substantially cisely describe the “packages” of less favorable to visitors than any of attributes (social, environmental, man- the other alternatives, with just over agerial) that are the real management 5% of visitors estimated to support alternatives from which one future this option. These findings suggest must be selected. The simulation that visitors would prefer to tolerate results can be used to focus visitor sur- some amount of campsite sharing in veys and other public input processes order to ensure that the park does not on assessing public support for real build a large number of new campsites management options. In these ways, or require visitors to follow pre- simulation modeling can be a very scribed, fixed itineraries. In this way, effective way of communicating with the simulation model provides man- the public and informing decisions agers with information about the con- throughout the planning process.

80 The George Wright FORUM Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the following people for their assistance with various aspects of this study: Marilyn Hof, Denver Service Center, National Park Service; Jack Oelfke and Mark Romanski, Isle Royale National Park; and David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. References Behan, R. 1974. Police state wilderness: a comment on mandatory wilderness permits. Journal of Forestry 72, 98–99. ———. 1976. Rationing wilderness use: an example from Grand Canyon. Western Wildlands 3, 23–26. Cole, D. 1996. Wilderness Recreation Use Trends, 1965 through 1994. Research Paper INT-RP-488. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. ———. 2002. Simulation of recreational use in backcountry settings: An aid to management planning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. A. Arnberger, C. Brandenburg, and A. Muhar, eds. Vienna: Bodenkultur University, 478–482. Dustin, D., and L. McAvoy. 1980. Hardining national parks. Environmental Ethics 2, 29–44. Farrell, T., and J. Marion. 1998. An Evaluation of Camping Impacts and Their Management at Isle Royale National Park. National Park Service Research/Resources Management Report. Houghton, Mich.: Isle Royale National Park. Hall, T. 2001. Use limits in wilderness: assumptions and gaps in knowledge. In Visitor Use Density and Wilderness Experiences: Proceedings. W. Freimund and D. Cole, comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-20. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 29–38. Hendee, J., and R. Lucas. 1973. Mandatory wilderness permits: a necessary management tool. Journal of Forestry 71, 206–209. ———. (1974). Police state wilderness: a comment on a comment. Journal of Forestry 72, 100–101. Imagine That. 1996. Extend 3.2.1 (computer software). San Jose, Calif.: Imagine That. Lawson, S., and R. Manning. In press. Research to inform management of wilderness camping at Isle Royale National Park. Part I–Descriptive research; Part II–Prescriptive research. (Each part to be published separately.) Forthcoming in Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. ———. 2001a. Crossing experiential boundaries: visitor preferences regarding tradeoffs among social, resource, and managerial attributes of the Denali wilderness experience. The George Wright Forum 18:3, 10–27. ———. 2001b. Solitude versus access: a study of tradeoffs in outdoor recreation using indifference curve analysis. Leisure Sciences 23, 179–191. ———. 2002a. Integrating multiple wilderness values into a decision-making model for Denali National Park and Preserve. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas. A. Arnberger, C. Brandenburg, and A. Muhar, eds. Vienna: Bodenkultur University, 136–142. ———. 2002b. Tradeoffs among social, resource, and management attributes of the Denali wilderness experience: a contextual approach to normative research. Leisure Sciences 24, 297–312. Lawson, S., R. Manning, W. Valliere, and B. Wang. In press. Proactive monitoring and adaptive management of social carrying capacity in Arches National Park: an application of computer simulation modeling. Forthcoming in Journal of Environmental Management. Manning, R. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Manning, R., and S. Lawson. 2002. Carrying capacity as “informed judgment”: the values of science and the science of values. Environmental Management 30, 157–168. Pierskalla, C., D. Anderson, and D. Lime. 1996. Isle Royale National Park 1996 visitor survey: final report. Unpublished report. St. Paul: Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Minnesota. ———. 1997. Isle Royale National Park 1997 visitor survey: final report. Unpublished report. St. Paul: Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Minnesota. Wang, B., and R. Manning. 1999. Computer simulation modeling for recreation management: a study on Carriage Road use in Acadia National Park, Maine, USA. Environmental Management 23, 193–203.

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 81 Steven R. Lawson, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405; [email protected] Ann Mayo Kiely, Isle Royale National Park, 800 East Lakeshore Drive, Houghton, Michigan 49931; [email protected] Robert E. Manning, School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont 05405; [email protected] 3

82 The George Wright FORUM Gary F. Somers Cultural Resource Management in National Park Service Wilderness Areas: Conflict or Cooperation?

he National Park Service has a clear, and long-standing, mandate to preserve, protect, and manage cultural resources in all units of the Nation- al Park System. The legal mandates include, but are not limited to, the TAntiquities Act of 1906, the National Park Service (Organic) Act of 1916, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, and the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998. There are regulations pursuant to these laws, as well as National Park Service policies, especially Management Policies 2001 and Director’s Order 28, Cultural Resource Management and its accom- panying guideline. The agency also has a legal mandate that is almost 40 years old to preserve, protect, and manage wilderness areas within National Park Sys- tem units. This mandate is the result of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and Nation- al Park Service policies, specifically Management Policies 2001 and Director’s Order 41 and Reference Manual RM 41, Wilderness Preservation and Manage- ment. No one can question the validity of either of these mandates, yet when the two come together they seem to generate more conflict than cooperation, more strife than common sense, and more strongly held opinions than legally supported positions. As a result, the presence and appropriate treatment of cultural resources in wilderness areas within units of the National Park System has been an issue of considerable and, at times, contentious debate within the agency for a number of years. This paper will examine some of the underlying reasons for this conflict, explore whether or not there is a basis in law and policy for the conflict, and make recommendations on how to move from conflict to cooperation. As stated in Sections 1(b)(2), (3), management in the National Park and (4) of the National Historic Service generally involves five types of Preservation Act, “the historical and resources and six different profes- cultural foundations of the Nation sions. The resources are archeological should be preserved...”; “historic sites, ethnographic resources, muse- properties significant to the Nation’s um collections, historic structures and heritage are being lost ... with increas- cultural landscapes. The professions ing frequency”; and “the preservation are archeologist, cultural anthropolo- of this irreplaceable heritage is in the gist, museum curator, historian, his- public interest....” Pursuant to these torical architect, and historical land- guiding principles, cultural resource scape architect. The resources sit on

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 83 or under the ground or in a museum coordinator position, but only those and largely behave themselves. It is the that have the necessary training and practitioners, the professionals, who experience. What is it about wilder- have conflicts with one another, not ness managers that could lead to con- the resources. What is it about cultur- flicts with cultural resource managers? al resource managers that could lead Like cultural resource managers, to conflicts with wilderness managers? wilderness managers have standards Regardless of the profession, all and beliefs that guide their approach cultural resource managers have many to their jobs. Those standards and years of training in areas of study that beliefs tend to be rooted in the have well-developed and often explicit Wilderness Act and the relevant litera- codes of conduct and professional ture that exists both before and after standards. Those standards tend to passage of the act. One of the guiding pertain to a particular type of resource principles, as expressed in the and not necessarily to the entire uni- Wilderness Act Handbook, is “to pre- verse of cultural resources. This leads serve some of the country’s last to a high degree of specialization, remaining wild places in order to pro- which doesn’t always lend itself to an tect their natural processes and values open mind when it comes to differing from development” (The Wilderness points of view regarding how a Society 2000:1). This reflects the part resource, especially a resource within of Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act that area of specialization, should be which states that wilderness is “an treated. This can result in highly pro- area of undeveloped Federal land fessional work that is important to the retaining its primeval character and preservation and protection of the influence, without permanent resource in question, but which does improvements or human habitation, not necessarily entertain a great deal of which is protected and managed so as flexibility when new and different con- to preserve its natural conditions.” straints, e.g., the requirements of the The preservation of cultural resources Wilderness Act, are thrown into the does not fit neatly into such standards. mix. On top of this double set of seem- Wilderness management consists ingly mutually exclusive standards and of much less clearly defined profes- beliefs, is the all-too-human tendency sions, but is no less professional and to have tunnel vision when it comes to specialized. The National Park reading and interpreting laws, regula- Service Resource Careers Initiative, tions, and policies. Cultural resource implemented by the director in managers tend to know the laws and December 1999, included a bench- policies very well, but only in their mark position description for an inter- fields of expertise or responsibility. disciplinary wilderness coordinator Wilderness managers tend to know position, which was to be either a biol- the parts of the Wilderness Act and ogist or a physical scientist. Clearly relevant policies that support their not every biologist or physical scien- own standards and beliefs, but not tist would qualify for a wilderness necessarily the parts that allow actions

84 The George Wright FORUM in wilderness they do not support. Service cultural resource manager in This tendency for selective interpreta- Alaska prepared to justify the use of tion of the laws and policies, com- helicopters to conduct archeological bined with narrowly defined profes- site identification and evaluation field- sional standards and beliefs, creates an work in a very large area of wilderness. environment that is ripe for conflict While his justifications are sound and when managers from cultural resource well reasoned, he felt the need to go and wilderness perspectives come well beyond a minimum requirements together armed with what they per- analysis and justification and to attack ceive to be mutually exclusive man- the concept of wilderness and its dates. advocates. “Just as the experiential A few examples may help to illus- concept of wilderness is falsely trate this point. At a national park unit assumed to protect the naturalness of in the Pacific Northwest an outside areas, so too is it frequently and incor- organization is taking the National rectly assumed that primitive meth- Park Service to task for not protecting ods, if employed by all users, will best the wilderness adequately. To quote preserve the ‘wilderness resources’ of from their own web page: “[Park offi- ‘wilderness areas’. This notion is root- cials] think aging ... structures are cul- ed in several 18th and 19th century tural treasures, more significant than philosophical trends.”Continuing this the wildlands they were built to pro- line of thought, “in many places today, tect.” Additionally, “the park needs to ‘primitive tool’ use in wilderness has demonstrate precisely the overwhelm- been elevated to ceremonial practice, ing cultural significance of these struc- believed to be essential for transcend- tures that cause them [to] trump ing to a natural condition and justified wilderness protection.” The over- in an empty rhetoric of environmental whelming sentiment is that cultural protection.” resources do not belong in wilderness What seems to be lost on many of and somehow having them there the “combatants” in this “feud” is that threatens wilderness protection. This there is no basis in law and policy for same sentiment resulted in park offi- this conflict. The Wilderness Act cials in an Alaskan park with over clearly directs our stewardship of cul- 2,000,000 acres of wilderness decid- tural resources in wilderness areas. In ing to let a historic structure go to ruin its definition of wilderness in Section because its presence somehow 2(c), the act states that “an area of “threatened” the wilderness. These wilderness ... may also contain ecolog- attitudes and actions on the part of ical, geological, or other features of sci- wilderness advocates and managers entific, educational, scenic or histori- have resulted in cultural resource cal value.” The act further addresses advocates and managers becoming cultural resources in Section 4(b) more combative, instead of coopera- when it clarifies the use of wilderness tive. areas. That sections states, “[W]ilder- A good illustration of this is a 17- ness areas shall be devoted to the pub- page document that a National Park lic purposes of recreational, scenic,

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 85 scientific, educational, conservation, ments to wilderness. It is important to and historical use.” recognize that laws ... intended to pre- For National Park Service wilder- serve our cultural heritage, are appli- ness areas Section 4(a)(3) is even more cable in wilderness.... [A]ctions specific. Not only does it state that involving all cultural resource types in “nothing in this Act shall modify the wilderness must comply with cultural statutory authority under which units resource laws, such as compliance of the national park system are creat- actions and inventory requirements ed,” but goes on to state that designa- mandated by NHPA [the National tion of wilderness areas “shall in no Historic Preservation Act]” (National manner lower the standards evolved Park Service 1999a:C4). In addition, for the use and preservation of such “[h]istoric properties eligible for the park, monument, or other unit of the National Register of Historic Places national park system in accordance that have been included within wilder- with the Act of August 25, 1916 [the ness will be protected and maintained Organic Act], the statutory authority according to the pertinent laws and under which the area was created, or policies governing cultural resources, any other Act of Congress which using management methods that are might pertain to or affect such area, consistent with preservation of wilder- including, but not limited to, the Act ness character and values. These laws of June 8, 1906 [the Antiquities Act] include the Antiquities Act of 1906 ... and the Act of August 21, 1935 [the and the Historic Sites Act of 1935, as Historic Sites Act].” It is significant well as subsequent historic preserva- that Congress specifically mentioned tion legislation, including the National the Antiquities Act and the Historic Historic Preservation Act, the Sites Act because in 1964 they were Archeological Resources Protection the foundation of the historic preser- Act, the Native American Graves vation/cultural resource programs. Protection and Repatriation Act, and They have since been expanded by the American Indian Religious the Archeological Resources Freedom Act” (National Park Service Protection Act of 1979, as amended, 1999b:sec.6.3.8). and the National Historic Preservation The Wilderness Act does not Act of 1966, as amended. supersede or override historic preser- National Park Service policies pro- vation laws, such as the National vide further elaboration on the inclu- Historic Preservation Act and the sion of cultural resources in wilder- Archeological Resources Preservation ness. As stated in Director’s Order 41: Act. Section 4( a) of the Wilderness “There has been extensive prior Act states: “The purposes of this Act human use in most areas now desig- are hereby declared to be within and nated as wilderness, resulting in arche- supplemental to the purposes for ological sites, historic structures, cul- which national forests and units of the tural landscapes and associated fea- national park and wildlife refuge sys- tures, objects and traditional cultural tems are established and adminis- properties that are contributing ele- tered....” As declared in the 1916

86 The George Wright FORUM National Park Service organic act, “the that way with the human imprint sub- purpose [of National Park System stantially unnoticeable. A landscape units] is to conserve the scenery and can have hundreds of prehistoric and the natural and historic objects and historic archeological sites on it and the wild life therein....” As stated still appear to have been affected pri- above, for units of the National Park marily by the forces of nature. Even a System this idea of being “within and maintained historic structure could be supplemental” was reinforced in substantially unnoticeable if it were Section 4(a)(3) and the historic surrounded by many acres of land that preservation laws were specifically did not contain other structures. cited. In addition, as declared in Section At the same time historic preserva- 2(a) of the act, the intent of Congress tion laws do not supersede or override was to stop the “increasing popula- the Wilderness Act. Managers must tion, accompanied by expanding set- comply with all of the historic preser- tlement and growing mechanization” vation laws in all areas in all units of from “occupy[ing] and modify[ing] all the National Park System, whether areas within the United States.” As they are wilderness or not. If the cul- noted above, Congress also clearly tural resources are in a wilderness included historic resources within area, however, the provisions of the wilderness areas. With this under- Wilderness Act must also be complied standing, the prohibition on struc- with when conducting cultural tures and installations in wilderness resource activities, such as inventory, areas in Section 4(c) clearly refers to monitoring, treatment, and research. modern, not historic, structures. This Since Congress specifically includ- does not mean that all historic struc- ed cultural resources as part of wilder- tures in wilderness areas have to be ness, historic structures and other cul- maintained, but it also does not justify tural resources do not need to be the assertion that they all have to be removed from wilderness areas to pro- removed. tect wilderness values. In Section 2(c), The National Historic Preservation Definition of Wilderness, Congress Act does not require that all historic stated that “an area of wilderness is structures be preserved, whether in further defined to mean in this Act an wilderness or not. They can be area of undeveloped Federal land ... removed, but it is not a quick or easy which (1) generally appears to have process. As stated in National Park been affected primarily by the forces Service policies for wilderness man- of nature, with the imprint of man’s agement, maintenance or removal of work substantially unnoticeable” [ital- historic structures will additionally ics added]. The qualifiers in this por- comply with cultural resource protection of the sentence are significant. tion and preservation policies and The area does not have to be “pris- directives (National Park Service tine” or “pure.” It does not have to 1999b:sec.6.3.10). As stated in have no imprint from human activities. National Park Service policies for cul- Simply put, it only needs to appear tural resource management, “demol-

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 87 ishing a historic structure or deliber- National Park Service policies ately allowing it to decay naturally is properly and accurately incorporate justifiable only when all alternatives cultural resource stewardship require- have been determined infeasible in the ments into the management standards planning process” (National Park for wilderness areas. They accurately Service 1997:123). No historic struc- reflect the requirements of the ture can be removed or deliberately Wilderness Act as well as numerous neglected without review by cultural pieces of cultural resource legislation. resource specialists and approval by The ongoing controversy and debate the regional director. If removal or about how stewardship of cultural deliberate deterioration is approved, resources fits in wilderness seems to documentation of the structure must stem mainly from personal values and be recorded according to law and pol- selective interpretation of parts of the icy before that happens. Wilderness Act, the National Historic In addition, removal would also Preservation Act, and National Park have to comply with the minimum Service policies. requirement aspect of the Wilderness The Wilderness Act and all of the Act. The same is true of cultural historic preservation laws are part of resource activities, including research the National Park Service’s steward- and resource treatment actions. ship mandate and we must put our Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act efforts into making them work in con- states: “[E]xcept as necessary to meet cert with one another, even when they minimum requirements for the admin- appear to be in conflict. Director’s istration of the area for the purpose of Order 41 contains a requirement that this Act ... there shall be no temporary needs to be emphasized and followed road, no use of motor vehicles, motor- more closely. In Section B4, Cultural ized equipment or motorboats, no Resource Management in Wilderness, landing of aircraft, or other form of it states that “cultural resource special- mechanical transport, and no struc- ists shall fully participate in the devel- ture or installation within any such opment of a park’s wilderness man- area.” Reference Manual 41 states that agement plan” (National Park Service scientific activities—which Director’s 1999a). Failure to include cultural Order 41 (National Park Service resource specialists as full participants 1999a) specified as being both natural in the development of wilderness and cultural—“must also be evaluated management plans has contributed to using the minimum requirement con- the present level of controversy and cept and include documented compli- debate. An example of this is the ance which assesses impacts against development of the Wilderness benefits to wilderness. This process Stewardship Plan Handbook, also should assure the activity is appropri- known as the Generic Wilderness ate and utilizes the minimum tool Management Plan, by a sub-commit- required to accomplish project objec- tee of the National Wilderness tives” (National Park Service Steering Committee. Cultural 1999b:sec. 6.3.6.1). resource specialists were not full par-

88 The George Wright FORUM ticipants in the early stages of the wilderness polices and values. Since development of the handbook and the all wilderness areas contain cultural quality of how it dealt with cultural resources, all wilderness managers resources in wilderness suffered should receive training in cultural accordingly. Once cultural resource resource values and management. In specialists became engaged in the addition, all cultural resource man- process, the treatment of cultural agers in parks that contain wilderness resources in the document improved areas should receive training in wilder- significantly and it is now close to ness values and management. This being finalized. may not change anyone’s personal val- The flip side of this situation also ues, but hopefully it will increase the needs to be improved. Cultural understanding and appreciation of the resource specialists prepare many dif- differing sets of values and enable the ferent kinds of plans for conducting various wilderness and cultural research, inventory, monitoring, and resource managers to more effectively treatment studies and actions in park work together to accomplish the stew- areas throughout the National Park ardship mission of the National Park Service. When the resources and areas Service. in question are in wilderness, it is Representatives from the National incumbent upon the cultural resource Park Service National Wilderness specialists to engage the wilderness Steering Committee and the Arthur managers so they can participate in the Carhart National Wilderness Training preparation of those plans. Neither Center are working together to devel- “side” can expect the other to support op a cultural resource training module any final plan if they did not have the that can be inserted into existing opportunity to participate in its devel- wilderness training classes and a opment. wilderness training module that can Simply putting wilderness man- be inserted into existing cultural agers and cultural resource managers resource training classes. These mod- in the same room and telling them to ules should be ready for use within the work together is not going to solve the next year. As they become implement- problem, however. Each will continue ed and increased cross-pollenization to have his or her strongly held values between cultural resource and wilder- and beliefs and will tend to view one ness managers occurs, working rela- another with suspicion and distrust. It tionships should improve. Hopefully, is a common human trait to fear or dis- this will enable us to move from con- trust what you don’t understand or flict to cooperation so we can spend appreciate. It is clear that that not all more of our efforts working to achieve wilderness managers understand or our daunting resource stewardship appreciate cultural resource laws, poli- mandates and less time working to cies, and values, and not all cultural push a one-sided (pick your side) resource managers understand or agenda. appreciate the Wilderness Act and

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 89 References National Park Service. N.d. Cultural resource management guideline release no. 5. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. National Park Service. 1999a. Director’s Order 41: Wilderness Preservation and Management. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. National Park Service. 1999b. Reference Manual RM 41: Wilderness Preservation and Management. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service. The Wilderness Society.2000. The Wilderness Act Handbook. Washington, D.C.: The Wilderness Society.

Gary F. Somers, Shenandoah National Park, 3655 U.S. Highway 211 East, Luray, Virginia 22664; [email protected] 3

90 The George Wright FORUM Wes Henry Steve Ulvi Securing an Enduring Wilderness in the National Park System: The Role of the National Wilderness Steering Committee

he National Park Service (NPS) can take great pride in the fact that it is responsible for the stewardship of more designated wilderness than any other federal land management agency.Since the passage of the Wilder- Tness Act in 1964, 46 separate units have been established in national park areas. These 44 million acres of designated wilderness comprise nearly 53% of the total NPS-managed acreage. Most of the legislation establishing NPS wilderness was passed during the 1970s and 1980s. The Alaska National Inter- est Lands Conservation Act in 1980 set aside an astounding 33 million acres in eight large park units. In addition, past presidents have recommended an additional 19 wilderness areas to Congress for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and the NPS has formally proposed wilderness for another 20 parks. By NPS policy no actions that would diminish the wilderness suitability of these proposed or recommended areas will be taken until after the president and Congress have made their decisions on wilderness designation. Although the modern era of wilderness stewardship began with the legislative establishment of designated NPS wilderness following the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the administrative commitment to wilderness as a supplemental responsibility for managers lagged, and the agency was frequently criticized for its short- comings. Similar criticism continued well into the 1990s (Sellars 2000). In response, the National Park Service convened several national task forces beginning in the mid-1980s in an attempt to identify its major wilder- the recommended solutions for the ness stewardship issues and to recom- issues identified by these task forces is mend solutions. the challenge of providing leadership Central to implementing most of for wilderness stewardship across the

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 91 National Park System. It is a challenge although it is possible in the other because National Park Service wilder- agencies to do programmatic budget- ness is fundamentally different, espe- ing for wilderness management, it is cially when compared with wilderness more realistic for the National Park managed by agencies such as the U.S. Service to budget its resources by park Forest Service and the Bureau of Land rather than by program. Management (BLM). All of these factors point toward the In other agencies, wilderness is the likelihood and need for different outcome of an allocation decision approaches to providing leadership among largely consumptive uses, for wilderness stewardship in these whereas wilderness in the National agencies. Centralized program man- Park System is more about an alloca- agement and budgeting fit wilderness tion among largely non-consumptive stewardship in the Forest Service and uses. Moreover, where there is wilder- BLM, but are not functional in the ness in a national park, most of the National Park Service, where a differ- park becomes designated wilderness, ent approach has evolved. which is not correspondingly true of After the passage of the Wilderness wilderness in a national forest or BLM Act in 1964, the National Park Service district. The result of this is that most response was to establish a centralized national park staff members are program within the Planning Office to involved in some manner in wilder- conduct the mandated 10-year study ness stewardship, in contrast to the of national parks for the purpose of other agencies where more limited and making recommendations on their specialized staff are involved. And suitability for designation as wilder-

92 The George Wright FORUM ness. The National Park Service had other things, called in general terms largely completed this planning effort for several activities relating to man- by 1978, when recommended wilder- agement of legislated wilderness areas. ness in over thirty parks was designat- The action plan for implementing the ed, and on-ground assessments and 12-Point Plan called specifically for studies were complete in more than 40 ensuring that designated, potential, other parks where wilderness propos- and proposed wilderness areas in the als and recommendations were devel- National Park System were managed oped. according to the principles of the As this wilderness study program Wilderness Act and, for Alaska, of the wound down, many of its staff and Alaska National Interest Lands resources were channeled into the Conservation Act. It also called for special studies in Alaska that helped to specific steps to improve coordination influence wilderness decisions that and consistency in management of all were made in the Alaska National wilderness areas; to monitor human Interests Land Conservation Act use, air quality, and noise trends in (ANILCA) of 1980. But there is no wilderness areas; to develop an initia- evidence that the agency had yet tive on interpretation and public infor- begun to think systematically about mation regarding wilderness areas; wilderness management in the nation- and to develop a systematic resource al parks. management strategy for such areas. And wilderness studies did not To implement these action steps, entirely disappear even after ANILCA the National Park Service convened a because many pieces of park legisla- task force of wilderness specialists tion in the 1980s created new parks from eight regions, key headquarters with “wilderness study” provisions. staff, representatives from the other Furthermore, some members of wilderness management agencies, and Congress supported wilderness stud- wilderness constituent groups. In the ies because they viewed wilderness as process of developing recommenda- the best means of ensuring that nation- tions, the task force systematically al parks in their states or districts reviewed management policies, major would be kept in their current natural wilderness management issues, and state without further development the intent of the Wilderness Act as (e.g., Cumberland Island National applied to the overall National Park Seashore, Guadalupe Mountains Service mission. The task force devel- National Park, Sleeping Bear Dunes oped six major recommendations National Lakeshore, etc.) together with implementation steps to But wilderness studies do not be completed over five years. These address the problems associated with were related to (1) designation of managing wilderness, and this was national and regional wilderness coor- becoming apparent within and with- dinators; (2) management techniques out the agency. In 1986, the NPS appropriate for wilderness; (3) wilder- director developed a 12-Point Plan for ness uses and capacity determination; the National Park Service that, among (4) education and training of wilder-

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 93 ness management personnel; (5) edu- Wilderness Training Center and the cating the public; and (6) interagency Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research coordination and consistency. The Institute. primary recommendation for address- As a result, the NPS established a ing wilderness management leader- National Wilderness Steering ship in the agency was the establish- Committee (NWSC) in 1996, comment of wilderness coordinator posi- prising four superintendents together tions at headquarters and the regional with representatives from Alaska, nat- offices. ural resources, cultural resources, Despite this impressive program maintenance, interpretation/educa- management plan and agency efforts tion, and rangers (Figure 1). In addi- to implement it, including the naming tion, NPS established a collateral-duty of regional wilderness coordinators, wilderness coordinator position and agency efforts faltered after several funded an NPS position at the Carhart years and had largely dissipated by Training Center. Since that time, the 1989. This happened essentially NWSC has evolved into an increasing- because critical measures were never ly effective organizational entity for institutionalized and staff and funding improving wilderness stewardship in commitments were inadequate for sig- the National Park System. Task Force nificant progress to be made in imple- recommendations continue to be used menting the action plan. by the NWSC in development of their This lack of progress lead to the on-going work plans. The effective- formation of a second task force in late ness of the NWSC is evidenced by 1993 charged with revisiting wilder- some of the major actions it has taken: ness management issues across the • Development of Director’s Order 41: National Park System. The recom- Wilderness Preservation and Management mendations of this task force dealt • Development of Reference Manual 41: with wilderness leadership, conveying Wilderness Preservation and Management the wilderness message, developing •Participation in the Carhart Training partnerships, investing in NPS Center, including inauguration of on-site employees, improving wilderness wilderness training in parks planning, improving resource manage- • Establishment of the Director’s Order 41 ment and understanding, and address- Survey Database ing the backlog in the wilderness •Inauguration of an annual NPS wilderness review process. Major leadership rec- report • Development of a wilderness education ommendations focused mainly on the plan for the National Park System establishment of interdisciplinary • Completion of a wilderness planning wilderness steering committees at the handbook national and regional levels, establish- •Development of a wilderness resource ment of an interagency wilderness pol- book for NPS interpreters icy council, maintenance of a strong • Development of internet and intranet NPS wilderness coordinator in headquar- wilderness websites ters, and participation in the intera- •Inauguration of a White Paper Series on gency Arthur Carhart National wilderness management issues for inclusion in Reference Manual 41

94 The George Wright FORUM Figure 1. National Wilderness Steering Committee members and park staff discuss proposal for ecological restoration in wilderness to protect cultural resources at Bandelier National Monument. Photo by Jim Walters, National Park Service. • Making the new wilderness management ning, facilities, and lands (Sue Masica) text available on-line for issues related to wilderness science • Development of servicewide performance and planning. And in a promising goals development, the NWSC now has The reorganization of the NPS that committee liaisons from natural began in 2001 has also led to other resources and science, park planning opportunities to improve the agency’s and special studies, cultural resources, wilderness stewardship. The program and the associate regional directors for now has a full-time wilderness pro- operations. Further improvements in gram manager who reports directly to relationships with training and inter- the new associate director for visitor pretation programs are being and resource protection, Karen explored. The evolution of the NWSC Taylor-Goodrich. Under the reorgani- as an effective force for improving zation, this associate director now wilderness stewardship in the shares program leadership responsi- National Park System has been aided bilities with the associate directors for by the commitment of such able lead- natural resources, science, and stew- ers as Maureen Finnerty, Dick Ring, ardship (Mike Soukup) and park plan- Karen Wade, Doug Morris, Ernie

Volume 20 • Number 3 2003 95 Quintana, and Don Neubacher. stewardship issues. The new White The associate directors for visitor Paper Series may be an excellent way and resource protection and for natu- to address critical stewardship issues, ral resources, science, and steward- and a number of them are now in the ship also sit as the National Park process of being developed. And final- Service representatives on the ly,at the request of Director Fran Interagency Wilderness Policy Mainella, the NWSC is developing a Council that was recently established wilderness action plan to strategically to address the full suite of interagency guide the agency’s course over the wilderness issues. next five years. The highest priorities for the The National Wilderness Steering NWSC will continue to be in ensuring Committee welcomes comments on its that wilderness stewardship training is effort to become an increasingly effec- available to Park Service managers and tive advisory body focused upon staff, to make wilderness stewardship achieving consistency in NPS wilder- information available to park staffs, to ness management objectives, tech- aid in the development of educational niques, and practices on both an materials for park visitors, and to be agency and interagency basis. responsive to field staff on wilderness

Reference Sellars, Richard West. 2000. The path not taken: National Park Service wilderness management. The George Wright Forum 17:4, 4–8.

Wes Henry, National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW (10th Floor, Room 40), Washington, D.C. 20005; [email protected] Steve Ulvi, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve and Yukon–Charley Rivers National Preserve, 201 First Avenue, Fairbanks, Alaska 99701; [email protected] 3

96 The George Wright FORUM Submitting Materials to THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM

The Society welcomes articles that bear importantly on our objectives: promoting the application of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to policy-making, planning, manage ment, and interpretation of the resources of protected natural areas amd cultural sites around the world. THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is distributed internationally; submissions should minimize provincialism, avoid academic or agency jargon and acronyms, and aim to broaden international aspects and applications. We actively seek manuscripts which represent a variety of protected area perspectives. Length and Language of Submission. Manuscripts should run no more than 3,000 words unless prior arrangements with the editor have been made. Articles are published in English; we welcome translations into English of articles that were originally prepared in another language. In such cases we can publish an abstract of the article in the original lan guage, where possible. Form of Submission. We now accept articles in two formats: in manuscript (double- spaced) accompanied by computer disk, or by e-mail. We operate on Macs, and can translate most files from their original format; please indicate the version of the software. If submitting by e-mail, use the e-mail text as a cover letter. Do not embed the document—send it as an attachment. Again, note the version of the software used to create the attachment. For all sub missions, give complete contact details (including e-mails) for each author. Citations. Citations should be given using the author-date method (preferably following the format laid out in The Chicago Manual of Style). Editorial Matters; Permissions. Generally, manuscripts that have been accepted are edit ed only for clarity, grammar, and so on. We contact authors before publishing if major revisions to content are needed. THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is copyrighted by the Society; written permission for additional publication is required but freely given as long as the article is attrib uted as having been first published here. We do consider certain previously published articles for republication in THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM. Authors proposing such articles should ensure all needed copyright permissions are in place before submitting the article for consid eration. Illustrations Submitted in Hard-Copy. Submit original (not photocopied) line draw ings, charts, and graphs as nearly "camera-ready" as possible. If submitted in a size that exceeds THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM'S page dimensions (6x9 inches), please make sure the reduction will still be legible. Color prints and slides are also acceptable; half-tones and pho tocopies are not. We particularly welcome good vertical photos for use on the cover, either in black-and-white or, preferably, in color. Please provide captions and credits and secure copy right permissions as needed, and indicate whether you wish materials to be returned. Illustrations Submitted Electronically. We accept illustrations on floppy or Zip disk, on CD-ROM, or as e-mail attachments. All graphics must be in TIFF or EPS format (not JPG, GIF, or PICT). Scans must be at 300 dpi or higher. If in doubt, please ask for complete guide lines. Send all correspondence and submissions to: The George Wright Society, ATTN: Editor, THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM, P.O. Box 65, Hancock, MI 49930-0065 USA.

^ 1-906-487-9722. Fax: 1-906-487-9405. E-mail: [email protected] P. O. Box 65 GEORGE Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 WRIGHT USA

SOCIETY www.georgewright.org

Dedicated to the Protection, Preservation, and Management of Cultural and Natural Parks and Reserves Through Research and Education