Wildlife Conservation and Wilderness: Wishful Thinking? Author(s): Vernon C. Bleich Source: Natural Areas Journal, 36(2):202-206. Published By: Natural Areas Association DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3375/043.036.0213 URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3375/043.036.0213
BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.
BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. C O N S E R V A T I O N I S S U E S ABSTRACT: Wilderness management objectives and wildlife conservation objectives often conflict with each other, despite conservation being one of six basic reasons for which wilderness is established. Most wilderness areas appear to have been established as the result of political or societal desires, but in the absence of critical ecological thought. In an era of increasing anthropogenic impacts to wildlife populations and to wildlife habitat outside of wilderness, those ostensibly “pristine” areas in and of themselves will become less and less effective as conservation tools, particularly for large, vagile mam- • mals. Impacts occurring outside of wilderness areas have ramifications for wide-ranging animals that use those areas during portions of their annual cycles, thereby affecting wilderness character. Similarly, impacts occurring inside of designated wilderness also have ramifications for large, vagile mammals that also utilize proximate lands. There is a need to re-ignite the debate over the value of wilderness, both in the context of its societal role, as well as that of a conservation strategy. It is essential that wildlife Wildlife conservation be elevated to the same level of importance that is accorded solitude and other subjective attributes of wilderness.
Conservation and Index terms: connectivity, conservation, management, social issues, wilderness, wildlife Wilderness: Wishful INTRODUCTION and mule deer (Holl and Bleich 2010; Holl Thinking? et al. 2012). Bighorn sheep are classified as Many individuals recently celebrated the a sensitive species by the US Forest Service golden anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness (USFS 2013), and decisions regarding habi- Act (Act). Some have opined that the 50- tat enhancement for large mammals also year-old Act has been nothing but positive affect habitat for dozens of other species 1,2,3 for wildlife conservation and that it, “may dependent on similar ecological conditions Vernon C. Bleich be even more important today” (Kurth (Loft and Bleich 2014). Moreover, failure 1Department of Natural Resources and 2014) than it was at the time it became to re-establish a natural fire regime in the Environmental Science law. It is becoming more and more evident, San Gabriel Mountains has had cascading University of Nevada however, that wild lands, and not neces- effects on prey of mountain lions (Puma Reno, NV 89557 sarily legislated wilderness, are important concolor L.), the apex predator in that and necessary for conserving wildlife and, system (Holl et al. 2004, 2012; Holl and in particular, large mammals that often Bleich 2010). 2Eastern Sierra Center for Applied range over vast areas. Although the Act Population Ecology has protected thousands of square kilome- In other examples, wilderness designation 5546 Falconer Dr. ters of wildlife habitat from exploitation has confounded or prevented efforts to Bismarck, ND 58504 (Kurth 2014), in the absence of extensive restore bighorn sheep to historical ranges suitable habitat adjacent to legislatively or to enhance survival or connectivity of protected areas, many populations of large populations through the development of mammals are unlikely to persist within reliable sources of surface water (Bleich • legislated wilderness alone (Salwasser et 2005, 2009). This has occurred despite al. 1987; Krausman et al. 1992; Bleich strong evidence that reliable surface water 2005). Wildlife conservation activities is an important factor explaining the persis- proposed to occur inside of designated tence of populations of bighorn sheep (Epps wilderness areas are, unfortunately, among et al. 2004). This factor could become even the most controversial of issues (Czech more important pending climate change and Krausman 1999; Krausman and Czech and could profoundly affect the distribution 2000; Mattson and Chambers 2009). For and population structuring of that species example, wilderness has precluded the use (Epps et al. 2006). Further, provision of 3 Corresponding author: vcbleich@gmail. of prescribed fire to maintain habitat for reliable surface water has the potential to com; (760) 937-5020 large mammals in the San Gabriel Moun- mitigate the onerous effects that freeways tains of California, despite the reliance of (Epps et al. 2005), or other anthropogenic bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis Shaw) barriers, have had on gene flow among and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus formerly connected subpopulations of Rafinesque) on early successional stages bighorn sheep (Bleich 2009). of coastal chaparral in that mountain range. Coastal chaparral is a fire-dependent shrub Wilderness provides some habitat protec- Natural Areas Journal 36:202–206 community and fire dynamics therein have tion, but the presence of livestock and feral enormous implications for bighorn sheep equids in many such areas affects large
202 Natural Areas Journal Volume 36 (2), 2016 mammals through forage competition, large terrestrial mammals. Unfortunately, statement carries a strong endorsement of habitat alteration, or disease vectors. De- it appears that many (if not most) wilder- the recreational value of wilderness. Leo- spite good intentions, wilderness—or any ness areas were established in the absence pold (1949) also noted the importance of otherwise protected areas—does not alone of ecological forethought (Bleich 2005), wilderness as a “laboratory for the study guarantee viable wildlife populations in the without regard to (1) juxtaposition and of land health,” but realized that many long term (Soule et al. 1979; Krausman connectedness; (2) increased use result- protected areas (in this case, national et al. 1992; Burkey 1994). In the absence ing from their “protected” status (Wallace parks ranging up to a million acres in of certain resources, including seasonal 1992; Klein 1994); (3) increased impacts size) were not large enough to retain their ranges and birthing areas, and access to outside of those protected areas as opportu- natural predators, or to preclude diseases them—as well as migration or movement nities for use by the public are constrained contracted from domestic livestock. Ironi- corridors—large mammals cannot depend within wilderness; and (4) the synergistic cally, long before the publication of some exclusively on wilderness areas to meet impact of all of the above on movements contemporary ecological principles (e.g., their life history needs (Bleich 2005; of large mammals between “islands” of island biogeography, metapopulation dy- Owen-Smith 2013). Further, generalizing fully protected habitat (Schwartz et al. namics), Clarke (1913) opined that, “An about the benefits of wilderness to wildlife 1986; Bleich et al. 1990, 1996) or critically ideal system [for game or wildlife refuges] is hazardous, because benefits to one spe- important seasonal ranges. would be to create such reservations all cies can simultaneously be detrimental to over the State [of California], in close another (Schoenfeld and Hendee 1978). As an example, the California Desert Pro- enough proximity that game could pass tection Act (CDPA; US Congress 1994) from one reservation to another. Such a Wilderness designation does not ensure designated as wilderness much habitat commingling of individuals is apt to be the persistence of many wildlife species traditionally viewed as essential for bighorn of the greatest necessity in the future, to or wild components of our land. Indeed, sheep (i.e., steep, rocky slopes in insular prevent the natural outcome of inbreed- while acknowledging the value of “wil- mountain ranges) in the Mojave and So- ing, which might result among isolated derness,” Spurr (1966) characterized it as noran Deserts. However, the CDPA also groups of animals.” Later, Leopold (1949) a sociological, rather than an ecological, contributed to additional fragmentation of cautioned that, “many animal species … phenomenon. Many wilderness areas have bighorn sheep habitat through the prolifera- do not seem to thrive as detached islands been delineated by special interest groups tion of pipelines, roads, recreational activi- of population.” Those forward-thinking and then approved by Congress for pri- ties, and solar energy projects proximate to individuals recognized the need to avoid marily political reasons, analogous to the those islands of wilderness (Leitner 2009; isolating protected areas from one another process described by Williams (2014). Lovich and Ennen 2011). Had ecological long before passage of the Wilderness Act Further, Haufler et al. (1996) noted that, or evolutionary processes been considered, in 1964 and, in particular, the California “designation of wilderness is an opportu- the outcome could have been much differ- Desert Protection Act of 1994; had some nistic political process.” ent. Of paramount importance would have basic ecological principles been included been concern for linkages among areas oc- in either piece of legislation, concerns Many proponents of wilderness have cupied by bighorn sheep. Instead, biologists voiced herein might have been avoided. argued that wilderness areas are essential and other conservationists are now fighting Although bighorn sheep occur in natu- to maintaining wildlife populations. While battles that should have been resolved prior rally fragmented populations (Bleich et that might be true for some species in some to creation of those wilderness areas. al. 1990), their persistence at a landscape- places, it is not widely applicable to the level is contingent upon opportunities for role of wilderness in the conservation of Defenders of wilderness have emphasized demographic or genetic rescue, consistent most large, vagile mammals. Indeed, “the “naturalness” or “solitude” (e.g., Briggs et with metapopulation theory (Schwartz et home ranges of such animals … encompass al. 2011) and even “spirituality” (Ashley al. 1986; Bleich et al. 1990, 1996; Epps lands that are under widely different man- 2012 [and references therein]; Tin 2012) et al. 2007). agement goals, ranging from full protec- as primary attributes of such areas, despite tion to intensive agriculture and minerals conservation being one of the six manage- My intent is not to demean wilderness; extraction” (Salwasser et al. (1987). Any ment objectives of wilderness (US Con- rather, this is a plea for recognition that argument that wilderness designation is the gress 1964). Proponents also contend that in many cases management intervention solution to the persistence of many species “wilderness is good for wildlife” because in legislated wilderness, whether from is wishful, but misleading. it prevents habitat destruction, but con- the standpoint of habitat management or servation of wilderness and conservation population management, is in the best Cronon (1995) argued that, “a hands-off of wildlife are not necessarily compatible interest of wildlife conservation, and my approach to wilderness poses a serious objectives (Bleich 1999). Leopold (1949) hope is that Congress will, eventually, threat to responsible environmentalism.” noted that “wilderness areas are, first of all clearly emphasize that point. Spurr (1966) Further, Leopold (1949) questioned the [emphasis added], a means of perpetuating articulated the need for more science in value of wild areas absent some of their … the more virile and primitive skills, in general, and more ecology in particular, in indigenous fauna, with an emphasis on pioneering and subsistence.” Clearly, that the [wilderness] management and decision
Volume 36 (2), 2016 Natural Areas Journal 203 process, and Frome (1984) criticized the 1999, 2006a, 2007). Ironically, Senator stipulates restraint in human activity and absence of an ecosystem-level approach. I Feinstein’s California Desert Protection has no specific requirements that ensure the add that, as one of the foundations of wil- Act (US Congress 1994) created three persistence of wildlife or habitat.” derness, conservation warrants more than wilderness areas occupied by bighorn sheep lip service, and intervention is sometimes with which the Lazy Daisy Allotment over- CONCLUSION necessary to restore or maintain ecosys- lapped (Table 1). The allotment has since tem function, even in wilderness (Holl been reduced in size (BLM 2006a, BLM More than 40 years ago, Hendee and et al. 2012). Moreover, opportunities to 2006b); nevertheless, pending legislation Stankey (1973) emphasized that “Now mitigate for impacts occurring outside of (Feinstein 2015) stipulates that the Lazy is the time for the issue of wilderness wilderness, but affecting wildlife popula- Daisy Allotment will remain active despite management philosophy to be debated tions that occupy wilderness on a sea- partial inclusion in the proposed Mojave in scientific, professional, and political sonal or temporary basis, are sometimes Trails National Monument as well as its circles.” I conclude that the debate must be best implemented within wilderness or overlap with those wilderness areas (Table resurrected, and even expanded, because, other protected areas—such as national 1)—potentially to the detriment of wildlife in the words of Kurth (2014), that debate parks—because those areas potentially can conservation efforts. For example, that is “even more important today” than it was provide the greatest return to conservation portion of the allotment that includes the objectives (Bleich 2012a, b). Piute Mountains (erroneously referred to as 40 years ago. the Piute Range by Weaver and Hall 1971) The literature is replete with papers, books, has been identified as an area in which a ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and legal documents addressing wilderness permanent population of bighorn sheep in sociological or ecological contexts, could be established pending appropriate This essay had its origin as a letter (Bleich but it is impossible to consider them all management actions. 2014) submitted in response to an editorial here. Nevertheless, some authors (e.g., (Kurth 2014), but from which the editor se- Schoenfeld and Hendee 1978; Kelson and It is essential that wildlife conservation be lected snippets due to constraints on space; Lilieholm 1999) have emphasized that what elevated to the same level of importance this essay constitutes the full thoughts and occurs outside of wilderness has potentially accorded to solitude and other purposes background information contained in my profound influences on what goes on within for which wilderness areas are established. original commentary. I thank J.A. Bailey, wilderness, and even suggested that buffers Until that occurs, personal philosophies D.L. Hughson, E. Menges, and G. Wright be established to lessen outside influences and divisive agendas obstruct wildlife con- for thoughtful comments on the manu- on wilderness. Those authors failed to ac- servation—as illustrated by recent articles script, all of which yielded improvements knowledge, however, that activities that are describing legal challenges to (Goth 2014; to this essay. This is Professional Paper either precluded inside wilderness—or that Kreutz 2014), and the subsequent denial of 109 from the Eastern Sierra Center for are specifically allowed within such areas, (Tuell et al. 2015), the use of helicopters Applied Population Ecology. such as the grazing of livestock and the to support conservation of bighorn sheep presence of feral equids—can profoundly in wilderness administered by the Tonto influence those species of wildlife whose National Forest in Arizona. As emphasized distributions overlap wilderness and non- recently, agencies, organizations, academic Dr. Vern Bleich has worked for nearly wilderness areas. institutions, and Congress all work under 40 years in the deserts of southeastern various missions, objectives, and capaci- California, with a primary focus on the As an example, livestock grazed on the ties (Vickerman and Kagan 2012). As a conservation of large mammals inhabit- Lazy Daisy Allotment in the Old Woman result, I fear that interagency competition ing that arid region. He advocates for Mountains, San Bernardino County, Cali- or bureaucratic inertia (sensu Grumbine meaningful alternatives to a “hands-off” fornia, potentially compete with bighorn 1990) will continue to fuel the debate approach to wilderness management in sheep for water and serve as sources of over the potential value of wilderness order to ensure the conservation of large, viral diseases to which bighorn sheep are to wildlife, and the role of wilderness in vagile mammals that generally are depen- exposed (Wehausen 1988). A decision was wildlife conservation. Further, there is a dent upon larger areas than the typically made (BLM 1980) to convert that allot- pressing need for consistency in the ways small and geographically isolated areas ment from perennial to ephemeral, and to that wilderness legislation is interpreted by “protected” by legislation in the south- preclude cattle grazing in bighorn sheep agency personnel, as the absence of such western United States. habitat in an effort to enhance bighorn consistency remains a major shortcom- sheep in that range. Within a year of that ing and a primary hindrance to wildlife decision, the allotment was reclassified conservation in wilderness (Bailey 1992; LITERATURE CITED as perennial/ephemeral. As a result, graz- Bleich 1999). Parigi (2011) articulated ing of livestock in bighorn sheep habitat clearly that, “we need to have policies Ashley, P. 2012. Confirming the spiritual value continues, and the allotment persists and that allow for management intervention. of wilderness. International Journal of Wil- has been authorized repeatedly (BLM The U.S. Wilderness Act for instance … derness 18:4-8.
204 Natural Areas Journal Volume 36 (2), 2016 Table 1. Wilderness areas that include mountain ranges occupied by bighorn sheep and overlap the Lazy Daisy Grazing Allotment, San Bernardino County, California. These mountain ranges and the Old Woman Mountains, in particular, previously had been identified for enhancement of bighorn sheep populations.
Name of Wilderness Area (ha) of Wilderness Area (ha) of Allotment Percent Overlap Old Woman Mountains 66,260 41,474 62.6 Piute Mountainsa 20,366 20,366 100.0 Turtle Mountains 4,690 71,714 6.5 aThe Piute Mountains (identified incorrectly as the Piute Range by Weaver and Hall [1971]), support occasional use by bighorn sheep. Weaver and Hall (1971) noted that with proper management, the Piute Mountains would be an appropriate location to reestablish a permanent population of bighorn sheep.
Bailey, J.A. 1992. Managing bighorn habitat Conservation. Island Press, Covelo, CA. Accessed 9 December 2014
Volume 36 (2), 2016 Natural Areas Journal 205 to the 114th Congress, first session. United in the southwestern United States. Wildlife 19 December 2014
206 Natural Areas Journal Volume 36 (2), 2016