INTERNATIONAL Journal of Wilderness

AUGUST 2000 VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2

FEATURES Future Roles 23 The Social Value of Wilderness 3 Editorial Perspectives A Forest Service Perspective Issues in the Quality of U.S. Wilderness BY KEN CORDELL AND JERRY STOKES Management 25 Of What Avail Are Forty Freedoms? BY PERRY BROWN, WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY The Significance of Wilderness in the 21st Century JOHN HENDEE, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF BY DANIEL L. DUSTIN AND LEO H. MCAVOY 5 Soul of the Wilderness STEWARDSHIP Natural, Wild, Uncrowded, or Free? BY DAVID N. COLE 27 The Eagle Cap Wilderness Permit System A Visitor Education Tool BY TOM CARLSON SPECIAL SECTION 9 COMPILED BY ALAN EWERT Wilderness in the 21st Century: SCIENCE AND RESEARCH Visitors, Activities and Technology, 29 Encounter Norms for Backcountry and Future Roles Trout Anglers in New Zealand BY CARL WALROND 9 INTRODUCTION BY ALAN EWERT Visitors 34 Perspectives from the Aldo Leopold 10 Wilderness Visitors in the 21st Century Diversity, Day-Use, Perceptions, and Preferences Wilderness Research Institute BY DEBORAH J. CHAVEZ Science for Wilderness, Wilderness for Science BY DAVID J. PARSONS 12 Wilderness Use in the Next 100 Years BY WILLIAM E. HAMMITT AND RUDY M. SCHUSTER 14 Meanings of Wilderness Experiences INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE in the 21st Century 35 Issues Surrounding Entrance Fees as a BY JOSEPH W. ROGGENBUCK Suitable Mechanism for Activities and Technology Financing Natural Areas in Australia 17 Gearheads and Golems: Technology and BY GAMINI HERATH Wilderness Recreation in the 21st Century BY JOHN SHULTIS WILDERNESS DIGEST 19 Wilderness Activities in the 21st Century A Commentary 40 Announcements & Wilderness Calendar BY LES WADZINSKI 44 Letters to the Editor 20 Technology and Wilderness in the 21st Century 46 Book Reviews BY DOUG KNAPP Front cover photo of pink Lady Slipper orchids and inset photo of Kahshahpiwi A More Pristine Wilderness 21 Lake, Quetico, Ontario, Canada, both © 2000 by Kevin Proescholdt. BY GLENN HAAS AND MARCELLA WELLS International Journal of Wilderness The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interested citizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning, management, and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship. EXECUTIVE EDITORS Alan W. Ewert, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., USA Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Ojai, Calif., USA Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada PRODUCTION EDITOR Kurt Caswell, Cascade School, Whitmore, Calif., USA

WEB MASTER Wayne A. Freimund, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA EDITOR-IN-CHIEF/MANAGING EDITOR John C. Hendee, Director, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho ASSOCIATE EDITORS—INTERNATIONAL Gordon Cessford, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; Karen Fox, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Les Molloy, Heritage Works, Wellington, New Zealand; Andrew Muir, South African Wilderness Leadership School, Durbin, South Africa; Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal, Republic of South Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea; Anna-Liisa Sippola, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Pamela Wright, Bamfield Marine Station, Bamfield, B.C., Canada; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy. ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATES Greg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; Liz Close, U.S. Forest Service, Washington D.C.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; Chad Dawson, State University of New York, Syracuse, N.Y.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; Troy Hall, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Va.; Dr. William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. Forest Service, Mesa, Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Steve Hollenhorst, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Ariz.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Chris Monz, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Bob Muth, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions and the Wilderness Guides Council, Ross, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Mitch Sakofs, Outward Bound, Garrison, N.Y.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Jerry Stokes, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) publishes three issues per year Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide are (April, August, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication. solicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptions Manuscripts to: University of Idaho, Wilderness Research Center, of key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and Moscow, ID 83844-1144, USA. Telephone: (208) 885-2267. Fax: environmental education; wilderness-related science and research from (208) 885-2268. E-mail: [email protected]. all disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilderness; and international perspectives describing wilderness Business Management and Subscriptions: WILD Foundation, P.O. worldwide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book Box 1380, Ojai, CA 93024, USA. Fax: (805) 640-0230. E-mail: reviews, announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are [email protected]. encouraged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is available from the editors. Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are in U.S. dollars only—$30 for individuals and $50 for organizations/ Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are libraries. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $10; outside North encouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signed America, add $20. Back issues are available for $15. by the author. All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright World Wide Website: www.ijw.org. © 2000 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation. Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make Printed on recycled paper. fair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS • Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Indiana University, Department of Recreation and Park Administration • National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outward Bound™ • The WILD® Foundation • The Wilderness Society • University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center • University of Montana, School of Forestry and Wilderness Institute • USDA Forest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDI National Park Service • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Inquiry • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)

2 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 FEATURES

Editorial Perspectives Issues in the Quality of U.S. Wilderness Management BY PERRY BROWN

Introduction

Few topics are of greater concern to the IJW than wilderness stewardship. U.S. wilderness management agencies, their practices and policies, are under increasing scrutiny. Are our agencies willing and able to handle the new millennium challenges of wilderness stewardship? The wilderness agencies are struggling to respond to increased demand for access by commercial outfit- ters, private visitors, and not-for-profit and educational groups. At the same time, the ecological integrity of wilderness is at risk from increasing use, trespass by ATVs, noxious weeds, global warming, and unnatural fuel buildups from fire protection and the associated risk of conflagrations. Wilderness solitude and wildness are threatened by a plethora of insidious impacts from civilization including global positioning systems, microcom- puters, and visitors who buffer their experiences with cell phones, thereby feeding demand for invasive satel- lites and repeater towers. Further complicating stewardship is an escalating battle over the designation of additional wilderness areas and a demand for weaker restrictions. The list could go on. In response to these and other concerns, current U.S. wilderness management agencies are undergoing rigorous evaluation by a select committee of experts. This process is a precursor to hearing the concerns of all wilderness stakeholders and addressing possibilities for renewed efforts and/or policy changes. IJW will be following this process closely. In this issue we welcome comments by Dr. Perry Brown, chair of the Select Panel to Evaluate the Quality of U.S. Wilderness Management, on the initial efforts and processes of the committee’s inquiry. —John Hendee, Editor-in-Chief

n November 1999 the Pinchot Institute for Conserva- Wilderness Society; Joe Sax, professor of environmental tion (PIC) announced the formation of a select panel regulation at the Boalt Hall Law School of the University of I to examine the quality of management of the U.S. Na- California–Berkeley; Norman Christiansen, dean of the tional Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). The panel, Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University; led by Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck, is developing Hanna Cortner, professor in the School of Renewable Natu- background information that will help support a new stra- ral Resources of the University of Arizona; Deborah Will- tegic agenda to “. . . strengthen and insure that proper wil- iams, executive director of the Alaska Conservation derness stewardship occurs . . .” and to “. . . bring together Foundation; Stewart Udall, former U.S. secretary of interior; government and nongovernmental interests to strengthen George Siehl, retired member of the Congressional Research trust among players and identify wilderness actions that Service; William Reffalt, retired chief of refuges for the U.S. can be successfully addressed through collaborative efforts” Fish and Wildlife Service; and Thomas Kiernan, president of (see Dombeck, IJW, December 1999). the National Parks and Conservation Association. Building on the 1995 Wilderness Strategic Plan adopted The Panel and Its Approach by all the wilderness managing agencies (see Barnes, IJW, I am honored to have been selected to lead this distinguished March 1997), the purposes of the panel are to (1) assess panel. Its members include: Bill Meadows, president of the the management of the NWPS in contemporary society;

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 3 and (2) to make recommendations regarding the future of bring about important structural changes and therefore wilderness management and the sustainability of the sys- improvements in the quality of wilderness management. tem. The panel has interpreted these purposes as under- We will make recommendations later; first we wanted standing how the system currently is managed and then to assess current management. recommending how it should be managed as we enter the Some of the key issues emerging from our initial dis- 21st century. cussions include The panel first met in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1. The degree of importance of wilderness in the four December 1999 to gather background information on the federal land management agencies—is wilderness current state of NWPS management and research from a being taken seriously enough? variety of federal managers and researchers and selected 2. The organizational location and level of wilderness wilderness interests. The wilderness coordinators from the management in the agencies—is it properly positioned four federal wilderness management agencies offered their for real strength? perspectives on the state of the system. Dr. David Parsons, 3. The level of funding and staffing allocated to wilder- director of the interagency Aldo Leopold Wilderness Re- ness management—are enough resources being com- search Institute, and Dr. Ken Cordell of the Southern For- mitted to wilderness? est Experiment Station of the USDA Forest Service, reviewed 4. The degree of collaboration, cooperation, and consis- wilderness statistics, public perceptions, and research needs. tency in wilderness management across the agencies— Historical perspectives on the wilderness system were of- is everyone working together toward the same kind of fered by Bill Worf of Wilderness Watch, Dick Sellers of the management? National Park Service, and Ted Zukoski of the Land and 5. The kind and level of service being provided to wilder- Water Fund of the Rockies. Wilderness specialists from all ness users—are wilderness clients being well served? the agencies also attended to provide additional support- 6. The quality and topics of wilderness management train- ing information. ing and research being provided in support of wilder- A second meeting of the panel is planned around the ness management—can training of managers and May 17, 2000, National Wilderness Summit in Washington, wilderness research be improved and better focused? D.C., convened by the PIC on behalf of the four federal wilderness managing agencies. The panel will use the Over the next several months the panel will consider and summit as a listening session to hear the issues and con- debate these issues and others prior to making recommen- cerns of many of the voices interested in the future of the dations for future management of the NWPS. We will com- wilderness system. plete our work in early 2001. IJW readers with ideas, suggestions, or opinions for the panel to consider are in- Wilderness Management Issues vited to submit them to me (see below). IIIJJJWWW

We had wide-ranging discussions at out first meeting in search PERRY BROWN is chair of the Select Panel to Evaluate the Quality of a few broad wilderness management concerns that might of U.S. Wilderness Management and dean of the School of Forestry impact the quality of management. We wanted to identify at the University of Montana, Missoula. FAX: 406-243-4845. those concerns with high leverage that, if addressed, might E-mail: [email protected].

4 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 FEATURES

Soul of the Wilderness Natural, Wild, Uncrowded, or Free? BY DAVID N. COLE

Abstract: The most important and desirable attributes of wilderness are that it is natural, wild, uncrowded, and free. However, these attributes come into conflict with each other as society faces difficult decisions about wilderness management. This article discusses these attributes, ultimately suggesting that the value of wilderness might be optimized by embracing a diverse wilderness system, a system in which wilderness values are maximized or minimized in different areas.

mages of wilderness are as diverse as the value systems of uncrowded, and free. However, those who hold wilderness dear. Yet different people find changes in scientific understand- I different attributes important in their ideal image of wil- ing, societal values, and the wilder- derness. A wilderness landscape is natural, retaining its pri- ness system itself suggest that these meval character and influence. Wilderness is wild, a contrast goals have become contradictory. to the rest of the world, and is not intentionally controlled To keep wilderness from being and molded to human purposes. Wilderness is uncrowded, a crowded, some managers deny ac- place where human presence and evidence is localized and cess to visitors and severely restrict subtle. Finally, wilderness is free. People seeking appropriate behaviors. Other managers, to kinds of wilderness experiences should ideally be free to visit avoid restrictions, have allowed wilderness, with a minimum of behavioral restriction. wilderness to become quite Each of these four desirable attributes of wilderness is crowded. Should wilderness be codified in the language of The Wilderness Act (TWA). The uncrowded or should it be free? Article author David Cole. word “natural” is used several times, as in wilderness is to The need to make this tragic choice has been aggravated by be “managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.” Natu- continual increases in wilderness recreation use and by so- ral is usually taken to mean that the influence of post- cietal decisions to designate lands popular with Columbian peoples should be generally absent. The notion recreationists (often near metropolitan areas) as wilderness. of wild is conveyed by the word “untrammeled,” frequently Recently designated wilderness, rather than being remote and misinterpreted as meaning something similar to natural. conducive to the “two-week pack-trip” ideal of Aldo Leopold Instead, untrammeled is synonymous with unfettered and and Bob Marshall, is primarily used for short day-trips by unrestrained. It suggests freedom from human control rather proximate urbanites with little free time. In such places, the than lack of human influence. The idea that wilderness conflict between uncrowded and free is pronounced. should be uncrowded is implicit in the definition of wil- We face a similar conflict between natural and wild derness as a place that “has outstanding opportunities for wilderness. Several decades ago managers and policymakers solitude.” Finally, the desire for wilderness to be free is clear assumed that natural conditions could be perpetuated by leav- in statements that it should “be administered for the use ing nature alone. Today, this assumption is untenable. Con- and enjoyment of the American people,” and is a place for temporary human activities and influences (fire suppression, an “unconfined type of recreation.” climate change, and much more) are altering conditions in all wilderness areas. Some wilderness managers have adopted Wilderness Attributes in Conflict restoration programs to compensate for this loss. Yet restora- There is little reason to think that the framers of TWA saw tion, despite its admirable intent, is a form of control over substantial conflict between wilderness as natural, wild, wilderness conditions. Other managers, to avoid this

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 5 experience as well as benefits that longer be any unmanipulated land, no accrue from preservation of natural “controls” for assessing the success of conditions and processes. This would wilderness restorations. More impor- be a reasonable decision if these latter tant, humans will lose their ability to benefits are relatively less important or experience life as part of a biological can be provided elsewhere. For each at- realm that is self-willed and self-or- tribute, let’s examine benefits that might dered, rather than human controlled. be lost and the potential for those ben- It is hard to imagine lands beyond wil- efits to be provided elsewhere. derness where such selfrestraint will be exercised. Wilderness in Alaska is relatively uncrowded and unaffected by human activities. Even here, however, choices must be made Losing Naturalness between naturalness and wildness, lack of crowding and At the time TWA was passed, few rec- Losing Uncrowdedness freedom. Photo courtesy of David N. Cole. ognized that naturalness would be lost Uncrowdedness is not entirely satis- if wilderness ecosystems were not in- factory as a descriptor of the wilderness “trammeling” of wilderness, have es- tentionally manipulated. There was condition that is conducive to solitude, chewed hands-on management, leaving surprisingly little discussion of the de- contemplation, personal challenge, wilderness wild and untamed but allow- sirability of preserving representative and communion with nature. Oppor- ing human influence to expand and examples of all ecosystems in wilder- tunities to experience wilderness in intensify.Again, choosing between natu- ness or of the importance of preserv- these ways diminish as more people ral and wild wilderness is aggravated by ing biotic diversity. Today biotic visit wilderness areas. Although many demands for more wilderness and for conservation is widely considered to wilderness trails and popular destina- wilderness to serve more purposes. In- be among the most important values tions are already crowded, it is unlikely creasingly, societal voices are asserting of wilderness. Designated wilderness that the most remote, inaccessible the need for a wilderness system that areas are the “building blocks” of re- places will ever be crowded. It is includes representative samples of all serve networks that maintain viable equally unlikely that all nonwilderness biotic communities and is managed to populations of native species. Wide- land, much of which is unattractive preserve native species and processes. spread and severe erosion of the natu- to most recreationists, will become Such values differ from those that led ralness in wilderness areas would crowded. The problem with increased early wilderness advocates to preserve reduce their scientific value. For some crowding, then, is that people lose the sublime landscapes. Many recently des- native species and processes, small na- ability to experience solitude in ignated wilderness areas are small, frag- ture reserves will suffice, but for ani- recreationally attractive, relatively ac- mented, substantially altered, and mals that require large areas, there is cessible locations. Since most people surrounded by threats to their integrity. no substitute for wilderness. seek out these opportunities, this rep- In such places, the conflict between the resents a significant loss. natural and the wild is pronounced. Losing Wildness Wilderness represents “self-imposed Losing Freedom Tragic Choices restraint in a society that generally The ability to benefit from wilderness Since we cannot simultaneously maxi- seeks to dominate and control all of experiences when people need and de- mize naturalness and wildness, or nature” (Noss 1991). TWA can be in- sire them is among the foremost values uncrowdedness and freedom, we must terpreted as an attempt to declare some of wilderness. Another value is the free- choose between these attributes. How lands to be off-limits to human engi- dom to behave spontaneously with few should we do this? One option is to neering. Ironically, we are now think- of the shackles of daily life. Such free- emphasize one or the other. The obvi- ing about reversing our decision to be doms are lost when access to wilderness ous drawback to this approach is that self-restrained and molding the last is limited and behavioral restrictions are society must forgo the other attribute. unengineered lands into our image of implemented. Anyone wanting to float If we decide to emphasize uncrowd- naturalness. If we do so, the wildness the Selway River through the Selway- edness and wildness, for example, so- of wilderness will be diminished. The Bitterroot Wilderness, for example, ciety will lose important benefits that scientific value of wilderness will be must apply for a permit with only a 3% can only be obtained from a wilderness compromised, because there will no chance of success (unless they go with

6 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 an outfitter). To spend a week hiking a trail in the Mount Rainier Wilderness, . . . choosing between natural and wild wilderness is one must reserve a campsite each night of the trip and camp adjacent to other aggravated by demands for more wilderness and for hikers. Again, it is unlikely that use lim- wilderness to serve more purposes. its and behavioral restrictions will be necessary in unattractive, inaccessible places. But loss of freedom will dimin- likely outcome of the conflict between lative restoration, in some wilderness ish benefits for wilderness visitors who attributes will be a compromise in but not in others. Obvious candidates prefer more attractive and accessible which each attribute is diminished, a for emphasizing naturalness would be locations. system in which most wilderness ar- small wildernesses surrounded by de- Some argue that demand for recre- eas are substantially altered, frequently veloped lands, representative ex- ation experiences should be provided manipulated, crowded in some places, amples of every ecosystem type, and on lands outside wilderness (Lucas and restricted in others. places that harbor critical species or 1980). A “backcountry” land designa- We are already well down this path. ecosystems endangered or threatened tion could provide the benefits of free Consider places where controlled burn- by human disturbance. Large remote access, making it possible to emphasize ing has been used to reduce fuel buildup wilderness areas would be good can- uncrowdedness in designated wilder- and thin dense thickets of trees result- didates for emphasizing wildness. We ness. Proposals for such complementary ing from fire suppression. Management could plan for a broad range of recre- land designations, including one by Bob goals may refer to restoring naturalness. ation use levels and allow heavy visi- Marshall (1933), have fallen on deaf However, fires typically are not ignited tation in selected wilderness locations, ears. Consequently, there is no system with the frequency or timing needed to while ensuring that use levels remain of nonwilderness lands capable of ac- restore natural conditions. Rather, low on most wilderness lands. Such commodating demand for wilderness- enough fire is applied to reduce the fuel an approach would maintain most of like recreation experiences. Instead, we loadings and the risk of wildfire. The the wilderness system in an un- have a wilderness system that is twice result is wilderness that is neither very crowded state, while being responsive as large as the “outside maximum” of natural nor very wild. to increasing demand for wilderness 50 million acres mentioned by Howard Consider the places where manag- experiences. Zahniser, the principal architect of TWA ers have dealt with heavy recreation (U.S. Congress, Senate 1961). For the demand by limiting the use of popu- Conclusion most part, wildernesslike recreational lar trails and destinations. One result Much has changed in the decades benefits must be provided by designated is that spontaneity and freedom of ac- since TWA was passed. The popula- wilderness or not be provided at all. cess are reduced. Often, use limits in tion of the United States has grown in popular places have displaced visitors size and diversity as has the wilder- Compromise to locations that had not been crowded ness system and the demands placed between Attributes before. Unless limits are set at low lev- on that system. Now we must decide To me, each of these four attributes is els, crowding problems grow without how to respond to the conflicting vitally important. I cannot imagine the significant alleviation of crowding in loss of any of them, nor can I imagine the most popular places. The result is how they could be compensated for wilderness that is neither very un- outside wilderness. Some colleagues crowded nor very free. suggest my all-or-nothing arguments are too rigid. There is some truth to Embracing Diversity their complaint. Indeed, none of these How might we preserve a diversity of attributes will be entirely lost, regard- wilderness values? The alternative to less of what we do. Nor is it possible, compromising every attribute every- in the pluralistic society we live in, to where is to compromise different at- Backpackers in Alaska, which has some of the most natural, avoid compromise between compet- tributes in different places. We could wild, uncrowded, and free wilderness in North America. Photo courtesy of David N. Cole. ing value systems. In fact, the most emphasize naturalness, using manipu-

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 7 demands of conservation biologists, decisionmaking. Society should de- REFERENCES humanists, recreationists, educators, bate the pros and cons of different at- Kahn, A. E. 1966. The tyranny of small deci- sions: market failures, imperfections and the and therapists. If we continue with tra- tributes and plan for a system that limits of economics. Kyklos 19: 23–47. ditional, site-specific, decentralized optimizes legitimate wilderness values. Lucas, R. C. 1980. The “backcountry concept”: decisionmaking, the future wilderness This might mean deciding on a a positive viewpoint. Montana Outdoors 11(6): 24–25. system will be the result of countless systemwide emphasis on one or an- Marshall, R. 1933. The forest for recreation. Sen- independent decisions made over other of these opposing values. Alter- ate Doc. No. 12, Sep No. 6. Washington D.C.: many years by hundreds of different natively, it might mean allocating United States Government Printing Office. individuals—a classic example of “the separate lands to each opposing value Noss, R. F. 1991. Sustainability and wilderness. Conservation Biology 5: 120–122. tyranny of small decisions” (Kahn and embracing diversity. IIIJJJWWW U.S. Congress, Senate. 1961. A bill to estab- 1966). The likely result is a relatively lish a National Wilderness Preservation Sys- homogeneous system of wilderness DAVID N. COLE is a research biologist with tem for the permanent good of the whole that is neither highly natural, wild, un- the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research people and for other purposes. Hearings Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, before the committee on interior and insular crowded, or free. th st Missoula, Montana 59807, USA. Telephone: affairs. 87 Congress, 1 session. Feb. 27, 28, 1961. “Statement of Howard Zahniser I suggest, instead, that we take a 406-542-4199. Email: [email protected]. proactive, coordinated approach to on behalf of Trustees for Conservation.”

Blooming

If it weren’t for the wildflowers, I wonder if I’d begin life anew, find the strength to stretch like a child upon waking, to extract the damp fingers that cling, try to root me.

In this dazzle of petals and bees and sweet pungent flood I vision my reveries realized: me floating just above everything more heart-filled and moon-fed each blooming.

Once I marked the passing of my dreams. Now my dreams mark me. Yarrow and tiger lily cloak my shoulders, the meadow rises from the center of a soul which whispers the lessons it longs to live with a passion resplendent, crazy, free, and here. Undeniably here.

—Sharon Brisolara

8 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 SPECIAL SECTION

WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Visitors, Activities and Technology, and Future Roles

COMPILED BY ALAN EWERT

The richest values of wilderness lie not in the days of Daniel Boone, nor even in the present, but rather in the future. —Aldo Leopold Introduction by Alan Ewert

Most of us have heard the cliché that the only thing constant is change, and in some ways the concept of wilderness epitomizes this idea. All ecologically based systems relatively uncontrolled by humans undergo both periodic and random transformations, usually at micro and meso levels (e.g., changes in vegetative structures), but also at macro levels (e.g., large-scale land transformations through fire, floods, etc.). But it is also true that wilderness represents continuity and stability. For much of the public, the wilderness environment is a place that remains unchanged and unaffected by human actions. Thus, it represents an antithesis to the urban setting, the place most of us live. Within that framework, wilderness becomes a place the individual can depend on. Whether wilderness is a place of change, continuity, or both, there are a number of major trends and potential changes that will impact the wilderness resource in the 21st century. This issue of theIJW brings together a broad spectrum of researchers, scholars, and wilderness managers to address the role of wilderness in the new century. This special section has been divided into three parts: Visitors; Activities and Technology; and Future Roles. In the first section, Debbie Chavez of the USDA Forest Service (USFS); Bill Hammitt and Rudy Schuster of Clemson University, and Joe Roggenbuck of Virginia Tech. comment on who wilderness visitors are and will be, their perceptions and desires, and what values they hold regarding wilderness. In the second section, John Shultis of the University of Northern British Columbia, Les Wadzinski, a recre- ation and wilderness program manager with the USDA Forest Service, Doug Knapp of Indiana University, and Glenn Haas and Marcella Wells from Colorado State University address the impact of technology on wilder- ness experiences and activities likely to engage 21st-century wilderness visitors. Another important question— how will these activities and technologies impact the wilderness and wilderness management? In the final section, Ken Cordell and Jerry Stokes of the USFS, Dan Dustin of Florida International Univer- sity, and Leo McAvoy of the University of Minnesota look at the future roles of wilderness in society. Of primary consideration is how wilderness values will be integrated into the larger mosaic of our culture. The authors were asked to comment on these issues from a personal point of view rather than strictly a management or scientific perspective. Not surprisingly, these commentaries may generate more questions than they answer. Readers may disagree with some of the opinions here, but this disagreement can be positive if it helps open dialogue about the role of wilderness in the 21st century. IIIJJJWWW

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 9 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

VISITORS Wilderness Visitors in the 21st Century Diversity, Day Use, Perceptions and Preferences BY DEBORAH J. CHAVEZ

The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams. —Eleanor Roosevelt

Two of the most important questions and uses wilderness. However, they noted a significant amount of day use wilderness managers ask are: Has rec- suggest that social class may not be (Chavez 1993b; Cole 1996; Cole et al. reational use of individual wilderness the sole or even primary determinant 1997; Cordell and others 1990; Ewert areas increased in the past, and is it likely of wilderness use, that gender, life- 1998; Roggenbuck and Watson 1989; to increase in the future? According to cycle stage, and ethnicity may affect Watson, Cole, and Roggenbuck 1995). Cole (1996), the answer to both ques- wilderness use even more. But, will it continue? The literature sug- tions appears to be “yes.” Other ques- We know very little about wilder- gests that time is a factor (Lucas and tions that managers should ask are: Who ness visitors outside this “semi-au- Stankey 1988). People want recre- will visit wilderness areas in the 21st tonomous class.” To learn more we ational destinations that are accessible century? What will their recreation pat- need to examine what is known from and close to home (Chavez 1993b, terns be? And will their perceptions and other studies about racial and ethnic 1999; Cole et al. 1997; Ewert 1998), preferences for wilderness be different groups, people with disabilities, older so it appears we can expect this day- from current visitors? people, women, and at-risk youth and use trend to continue. apply those findings to wilderness use. Why is this important? Day users are Diversity For example, Hispanics (one of the more likely to be repeat visitors than Despite population growth in urban fastest growing groups in the U.S.) overnight campers (Chavez 1993b; Cole areas and increasing diversity nation- prefer the social aspects of recreation et al. 1997). They typically have visited wide, there appears to be little diver- (Hutchison 1987), tend to travel with more wilderness areas in their life, spent sity among wilderness visitors in the family and friends (Chavez 1993b; more days in wilderness during the past United States. Frequent users are al- Parker and Winter 1998), and wish to most exclusively white (Chavez participate in more outdoor recreation 1993a; Ewert 1998; Hendon 1991; activities (Chavez 1999), including Parker and Winter 1998), male those appropriate to wilderness such (Chavez 1993a, 1993b; Ewert 1998), as horseback riding, camera safaris, between 30 and 40 years of age on and natural history hiking. However, average (Chavez 1993a; Cole et al. there is no indication of demand for 1997; Ewert 1998), well educated use of designated wilderness by people (Chavez 1993a, 1993b; Hendon 1991; from diverse groups, thus use of wil- Parker and Winter 1998; Roggenbuck derness could decrease in the future and Watson 1989), and from urban as demographics shift. areas (Roggenbuck and Watson 1989). According to Walker and Kiecolt Day Use (1995), the “semi-autonomous class” While backpacking is expected to grow (educated white males) predominantly 155% by 2040 (Cordell et al. 1990), it Preparing to catch big northern pike in the Boundary defines the meaning of wilderness, is day-hiking that may define wilderness Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Photo courtesy of works to obtain designated wilderness, use in the 21st century. Several studies John Roggenbuck.

10 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆ year, and make more wilderness visits per year (Cole et al. 1997). We need to educate the country’s diverse population

Perceptions and Preferences about wilderness. Studies indicate that current wilderness visitors go backpacking, observe wild- DEBORAH J. CHAVEZ is a research Hutchison, R. 1987. Ethnicity and urban recre- ation: whites, blacks, and Hispanics in life (Chavez 1993a), day-hike, and go scientist with the USDA Forest Service based in Riverside, California, USA. Chicago’s public parks. Journal of Leisure sightseeing (Chavez 1993b). They pre- E-mail: dchavez/[email protected]. Research 19(3): 205–222. fer pristine areas with beautiful scenery, Lucas, Robert C., and George H. Stankey. 1988. want to be close to nature, and desire Shifting trends in wilderness recreation use. REFERENCES In Outdoor Recreation Benchmark1988: an absence of human-made objects benShea, Noah. 1999. Parks and recreation: proceedings of the National Outdoor Rec- (Chavez 1993a; Ewert 1998). They A role as old as it will be new. The Millen- reation Forum, January 13–14, Tampa, FL, nium Vision, a supplement to Parks and Rec- want to slow down the mind, escape comp. By Alan E. Watson. General Techni- reation Magazine: 6–12. the routine, and have freedom from cal Report SE-52. Asheville, N.C.: U.S. De- Chavez, Deborah J. 1999. Demographic shifts: partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, rules (Ewert 1998). Will this continue? potential impacts for outdoor recreation Southeastern Research Station: 357–367. As Noah benShea notes, “People climb management. In Outdoor Recreation: A Parker, Julia D., and Patricia L. Winter. 1998. A Reader for Congress Prepared for the Com- mountains because mountains are there. case study of communication with Anglo and mittee on Energy and Natural Resources, Hispanic wilderness visitors. Research brief, As long as there are mountains, folks 105th Congress, 2nd Sessio: 155–160. Journal of Interpretation Research 3(1): 55–56. will want to climb them” (1999, p. 12). Chavez, Deborah J. 1993a. Pilot study of chang- Roggenbuck, Joseph W., and Alan E. Watson. Some visitors say they would like ing urban wilderness recreation use on the 1989. Wilderness recreation use: the current Cleveland National Forest phase I: past wil- to have more information about situation. In Outdoor Recreation Bench- derness users. Unpublished draft available mark1988: proceedings of the National nearby areas and other recreation sites from the author. Outdoor Recreation Forum, January 13-14, (Chavez 1993b). Where do people get Chavez, Deborah J. 1993b. Pilot study of chang- Tampa, FL comp. By Alan E. Watson. Gen- ing urban wilderness recreation use on the their information? Some seek family eral Technical Report SE-52. Asheville, N.C.: Cleveland National Forest phase II: on-site and friends, others may use second- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, wilderness users. Unpublished draft avail- Southeastern Research Station: 346–356. ary sources, including malls and the able from the author. Walker, Gordon J., and K. Jill Kiecolt. 1995. Internet. People may use resources like Cole, David N. 1996. Wilderness recreation in Social class and wilderness use. Leisure Sci- the United States: trends in use, users, and the American Wilderness Experience ences 17: 295–308. impacts. IJW, 2(3): 14–18. Watson, Alan E., David N. Cole, and Joseph (located in the Ontario Mills Mall in Cole, David N., Alan E. Watson, Troy E. Hall, and W. Roggenbuck. 1995. Trends in wilderness Ontario, California) where they can David R. Spildie. 1997. High-use destinations recreation use characteristics. In proceed- “hike the redwood forest, trek the high in wilderness: social and biophysical impacts, ings of the Fourth International Outdoor visitor responses, and management options. Sierras, and come ‘whisker to whis- Recreation & Tourism Trends Symposium, Research Paper INT-RP-496. Ogden, Utah: May 14–17, St. Paul, Minnesota, comp. by ker’ with native critters in the re-cre- U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- Jerrilyn L. Thompson, David W. Lime, Bill ation of their natural ecosystems” vice, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 30. Gartner, and Wayne M. Sames. St. Paul, Cordell, H. Ken, John C. Bergstrom, Lawrence (American Wilderness Experience bro- Minn. University of Minnesota, College of A. Hartmann, and Donald B.K. English. chure 1996), all within the mall Natural Resources and Minnesota Extension 1990. An analysis of the outdoor recreation Service: 68–71. boundaries. They may “travel” to an and wilderness situation in the United States: electronic wilderness in cyberspace 1989–2040. General Technical Report RM- 189. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Depart- (Walker and Kiecolt 1995). However, ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky “virtual reality may soon be a fact of Mountain Research Station: 113. life and still have nothing to do with Ewert, Alan W. 1998. A comparison of urban- the facts of life” (benShea 1999, p. 10). proximate and urban-distant wilderness us- ers on selected variables. Environmental We need to educate the country’s Management 22(6): 927–935. diverse population about wilderness. Henderson, Karla A. 1997. Diversity, differences Managers should provide staff train- and leisure services. Parks and Recreation November: 24–35. ing on diversity (Henderson 1997) and Hendon, William C. 1991. The wilderness as a involve diverse participants in source of recreation and renewal. Ameri- decisionmaking. The future of wilder- can Journal of Economics and Sociology Many people prefer to travel to nearby destinations with family and friends. USDA Forest Service photo. ness depends on it. IIIJJJWWW 50(1): 105–112.

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 11 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

VISITORS Wilderness Use in the Next 100 Years BY WILLIAM E. HAMMITT and RUDY M. SCHUSTER

The density and diversity of wilderness 72% of the population is white; less than ized activities. As a result of this pro- use will increase during the next 100 50% will be white in 100 years. Ameri- cess, day use will continue to increase, years. However, these increases will not cans, Asians, Hispanics, and others who and more involved wilderness activities, be uniform throughout areas and activi- were previously unaware of wilderness, such as overnight use and extended ties. The three primary influences will as well as international recreationists, trips, will have a delayed increase. be (1) a shift in the type of wilderness will account for a larger portion of wil- user (2) diverse and efficient recreation derness users. These new users will Wilderness Use/Intensive uses, and (3) niche/experiential use. bring epistemologies that are incongru- ent with the “American Wilderness Management Wilderness Users Ethic” that was originally used to found The perceptions and desires of wilder- ness users will change considerably Will Change the Wilderness Preservation System. In- creased cultural pluralism will result in over the next 100 years. Users will Demographic shifts forecast that the an expanded Wilderness Ethic. While demand more efficient use of their lim- U.S. population will double within the “purists” will maintain the Wilderness ited time when visiting wilderness and next 100 years and that immigration will Ethic, new users will adapt the ethic to more intensive management of re- account for a large portion of it. Today, be congruent with their epistemologies. sources to facilitate that use, resulting New user groups with varying demands in easier accessibility and less effort will attempt to (1) pressure administra- and self-reliance. tors to ease wilderness regulations (2) Users will maximize leisure time de-list some existing wilderness areas, through extensive trip-planning meth- and (3) enact less rigorous regulations ods, including computer/Internet in future areas added to the system. sources (e.g., topographic maps on CD- The structure of the average work ROM, National Park websites, BWCA week is changing in the United States. trip planning sites), guidebooks, videos, “Rising competitiveness … with low job and a fast-expanding telecommunica- security provides a powerful incentive tions network of wilderness informa- Will the future wilderness visitor venture only as far as Video for workers to acquiesce to employers’ tion. Wilderness trip planning, and Adventure? Photo by Alan Ewert. demands for long hours … this results actual trips, may take on the efficiency in less time for other pursuits” (Bell, of “pseudo AAA—planned for you” vis- 1998, pp. 57–58). As a result of in- its in the future. The decrease in leisure creased popularity of wilderness activi- time, increase in wilderness informa- ties and a decrease in time to pursue tion, and accessibility will interact re- leisure activities, day use will account sulting in users opting for more for the largest increase in wilderness use structured wilderness adventures. by volume. A certain portion of the new Wilderness users will increasingly users engaging in day use of wilderness rely on outfitters, guides, and outdoor will be short-term participants and education services to facilitate eco- quickly replaced by other new users. tourism and wilderness adventures. Llamas and other pack stock may serve more and more visitors Other new users will continue to par- Facilitated wilderness adventures that in the wilderness of the 21st century. Photo by Alan Ewert. ticipate and move toward more special- are “sold” using photographs, detailed

12 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆ accounts of what will be encountered, and other marketing techniques will be High-adventure, high-risk experiences in wilderness a significant factor altering the charac- ter of the traditional wilderness experi- may be as dominant in the next 100 years as back- ence. Senior citizens, day users, families, and organized groups will find these packing solitude is today. aided, userfriendly wilderness trips de- sirable. These “wilderness clients” will gaging in high-adventure, high-risk find it difficult to differentiate between activities. These adrenaline related ac- experiences provided by outfitters and tivities require certain niche resources guides and more traditional, self-reliant in wilderness. They are valued by their wilderness experiences. Users engaging users, may be genetically motivated, in this type of wilderness recreation will and will only increase in the future. have high and specific expectations of High-adventure, high-risk experiences what they will receive for their money. in wilderness may be as dominant in In addition, the effort required to gain the next 100 years as backpacking the experience necessary to participate solitude is today. Some of the finest solitude in the NWPS is now found in the in specialized wilderness activities will In conclusion, the density and di- desert wilderness in the Southwest. Photo by Marilyn Riley. decrease as access to facilitated experi- versity of wilderness use will change ences increases. Traditional socialization during the next 100 years. The chal- methods for novices to acquire knowl- lenge for wilderness managers and edge and skill will continue, but in- policymakers will be to meet the needs creased outfitter and guide socialization of these new users, while ensuring the and facilitated experiences will produce health and protection of wildlands. a quantitatively and qualitatively differ- IIIJJJWWW ent wilderness user. WILLIAM E. HAMMITT and RUDY M. Niche/Experiential Use SCHUSTER work in the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management and Forest More wilderness users desire to en- Nothing beats the beauty and solitude of the wilderness. Photo Resources Department at Clemson by Alan Ewert. hance the “wild” in wilderness by en- University. E-mail: [email protected].

Signs and posted regulations are increasingly common in wilderness areas. Photo by Alan Ewert.

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 13 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

VISITORS Meanings of Wilderness Experiences in the 21st Century

BY JOSEPH W. ROGGENBUCK

The way in which Americans learn change, especially among its youth and about and relate to nature (especially young professionals. The change ap- wild nature) is changing in the 21st pears to be less shaped by living on the century. Demographic trends, such as land and science, and more by the vir- an aging population and increased eth- tual reality of television, the mall, Disney, nic diversity, will affect the kinds of and the web. More American homes to- people who visit wilderness, as well day have TV sets than indoor plumb- as what they expect, what they bring, ing (Price 1999). Television watching is how they behave, and what experi- the number-one use of leisure time in ences they have in wilderness. Ulti- America (33% of our free time). And mately, all these changes will alter the nature sells on TV; its proliferation on meaning of wilderness itself. Wilder- TV in recent decades amounts to a green

ness policymakers and managers have revolution (Price 1999). TV magnifies Dinnertime on Little Saganaga Lake in the Boundary little control over these changes, but and accelerates nature. It captivates us Waters Canoe Area. Photo courtesy of John their actions in response to them will before we change channels. For ex- Roggenbuck. help redefine the National Wilderness ample, lions on TV are shown tearing Preservation System in the 21st cen- apart wildebeest after wildebeest, even is a primary means to build, test, and tury. The wilderness community needs though lions mostly sleep, sniff, and augment self-identity. For many to talk about the most appropriate re- scratch. people in America, the mall is more sponses to these forces of change. Disney and megamalls have become than a place to shop, it’s a place to The meaning of nature changes in symbols of the United States. Interna- hang out and create identity. This is all cultures, and the United States is no tional tourists from Australia and Japan not lost on the designers and entre- exception. The definition of wild nature list Disney as their number-one desti- preneurs of the mall, nor is it lost on in the United States is undergoing rapid nation. For many families in America, a the sellers of nature. For example, the journey to Disneyland has become more Mall of America in Minneapolis re- important than a trip to Yellowstone. ceives more visitors than the Grand Children (and parents) encounter a na- Canyon and Disneyland combined. It ture at Disney that is carefully has a Nature Company store; a theme “imagineered ” for leisure and aesthetic park with a Minnesota woodland consumption (Archer 1996). Charis- motif; and a “wilderness hut” and a matic fauna are lured by feeding, the rainforest café with live animals, a risk of a stumble or bite is virtually elimi- waterfall, fog, and even a “star-filled” nated, and the role of human manage- sky. The mall has become a teacher of ment is hidden. nature, providing an opportunity to Nothing matches the solitude and freedom of paddling a For many, shopping is now a domi- purchase a piece of it for home dis- wilderness lake. Photo by Alan Ewert. nant leisure activity, and consumerism play and worship.

14 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

The New Nature new nature control its flow. Hiking But what kind of nature does TV, the trails are short, strategically sprinkled web, the mall, and Disney teach, and with scenic vistas. Stores attract us how will these entities shape wilder- with the smell and music of nature. ness visits and visitors in the future? I Arousal and attention are manipu- believe that the new nature is pack- lated through vertigo, interpretive aged and convenient (above all else, signs, or mysterious, curving trails. Americans want their leisure and na- The new nature has the proper level ture to be convenient), and divorced of stimulation and arousal; the new from time and place. Free time for lei- nature is entertaining. But if by Getting ready for a trip into the wilderness. Photo by Alan Ewert. sure and learning in America is avail- chance science and technology get able in smaller and smaller chunks. If it wrong, or the experience becomes the simulation of nature, another will we have no time to travel somewhere, too crowded, too cold, or too bor- be provoked to try out the “real thing.” we travel nowhere. We click through ing, we just click the mouse. And The wild is still deeply ingrained in TV channels or explore the ima- this is another descriptor of our new the American spirit. gineered nature of Disney or the nature: We can leave it. Nature is But I do think future visitors will megamalls. separate from humans. expect and ask for quite different ex- The new nature of the masses is Finally, nature and the nature ex- periences in wilderness and make very clean, comfortable, safe, and sanitized. perience have become increasingly different demands on wilderness man- It is not messy. It has no sting. Nature commodified. A family today can agers. To be sure, a few John Muir in the mall or at Disney doesn’t bite. spend thousands of dollars at Disney types will still go to the wilderness There are no real mosquitoes or lions. World. We purchase TV nature at alone, with only a sleeping bag and a Bears don’t rob us of our dinner in the home for a monthly fee. At malls, we bag of beans in a pack. But an increas- night. If we start to sweat, we can rest purchase mementos of nature. At ing number will want to buy a “wil- on a convenient bench, or better yet, bookstores, we find nature adventure derness experience package.” Tour pop into the store behind the bench, stories and scenic calendars. At operators in “somewhere” places such buy some deodorant, and quench our superstores, “gearheads” purchase ex- as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Balti- thirst with bottled water from a “natu- pensive outdoor paraphernalia to more, or in “nowhere” places on the ral spring.” smooth the bumps, soothe the itches, web, will compete to meet the new Nature is increasingly vivid and ex- and light the darkness of wild nature. market demand. Entrepreneurs will citing. The human designers of the All they ask is that these products or services be convenient, comfortable, offer wilderness experience packages, and exciting, and that the goods en- each tweaked at the edges for distinc- hance their identity as nature lovers. tion from its competitors. But I’m guessing the prototypical wilderness experience will likely be Wilderness Use one that can be bought and sold at in the 21st Century the spur of the moment. It will be long How will this redefinition of nature on image and identity-formation po- affect wilderness use and users in the tential, so the Bob Marshalls and the 21st century? I’m guessing first of all Boundary Waters will remain popu- that the easy access to virtual nature lar. But repeat visits will likely drop will only increase the demand for wil- drastically, as the new wilderness cli- derness protection. Second, I don’t entele struggles with the slow rhythms believe it will cause a decline in ac- of nature and seeks ever more novel tual wilderness visits, at least not in and adventurous experiences. With the foreseeable future. I’m guessing few returning visitors, wilderness will Mountain biking is one of the relatively new technological threats to wilderness areas. Photo by that for every potential wilderness become less and less a place of attach- Alan Ewert. visitor who gets lost and fulfilled in ment imbued with personal history.

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 15 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

The new nature of the masses is clean, comfortable, safe, and sanitized. It is not messy. It has no sting. Nature in the mall or at Disney doesn’t bite.

Expectations of quickest escape if boredom, danger, Future Wilderness Visitors or disappointment strikes. Clients may even rent global positioning systems In part because the future wilderness so they know where they are, and per- visitors will pay for nature, they will haps even where the bears are. likely demand greater service quality. And what will the new nature lovers demand? They probably will want The Role of convenient, fast, and efficient care. Outfitters and Guides Gone will be the days when outfitters In the 21st century, adventure programs, rummage through storage rooms to outfitters, and guides will likely lead a Alan Ewert on the trail. Photo courtesy of Alan Ewert. put together food packs, find back- greater and greater percentage of wil- derness visitors through the experience. packs or paddles, or blow up rafts pioneers lived in nature. Adventure This permits visitors to find their de- while customers wait. The outfitter schools will teach greater and greater sired experience most quickly. Visitors will provide menus and vacuum- numbers of people to live comfortably coming from the mall, TV, and Disney packed food, conveniently packaged in the woods. Nature stores will sell will want picturesque nature; they will in individual meal bags, just like the food containers so that bears and li- have little interest in ecological or evo- mall, and all before the visitor arrives. ons don’t rob people in the night. They lutionary nature. So trip guides will lead New wilderness visitors will also might even sell bear-proof containers them to waterfalls, grizzly bears (at a safe expect their tour operator, leisure to sleep in so that visitors will be safe! distance), and sunsets, and lead them counselor, outfitter, or guide to medi- The power of the forces of change away from nature’s wrath. The guides ate or interpret wild nature. Potential are all but irresistible. People want will also mediate their clients’ adven- clients will access this information on nature. It’s aesthetic. It’s healthy. It sells. ture. They will assess their clients’ in- the web, discovering when the fish The market will respond not only to terests and abilities, match challenges bite, the flowers bloom, or the lions meet demand, but advertise, promote, with their competencies, and lead them mate. At base camps at the edge of and further redefine nature. The mar- beyond boredom and anxiety. wilderness, outfitters and rangers will ket will increasingly demand quick, Finally, the nature experience of suggest possible routes that avoid the convenient, intense, scenic, and sani- wilderness in the 21st century will be scars of past fire and storms, that offer tized experiences in wilderness. Pub- clean, comfortable, and safe. In the the best views, and that permit the lic land managers will tend to respond name of Leave No Trace (LNT), out- to the market by charging fees, pro- fitters will put down carpets in wil- moting LNT, and cleaning up when derness to catch crumbs during dinner nature or people leave a mess. and protect feet from biting ants. Wil- derness visitors will minimize the size of campsites and remove fire rings Should the Market rather than “improve” the sites through Define Nature? human ingenuity. The art of building But should management be guided by a cook fire may be lost, giving way to polling? Should we allow the market the ecological lessons of what critters to decide the ideal or normative wild Paddlers load a canoe in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. live in and under firewood, what wood nature experience? Or should we re- Photo courtesy of John Roggenbuck. burns best, and how ancestors and sist the market trends and return to

16 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆ the romantic ideals of solitude and tivism, and the sublime, but this view JOSEPH W. ROGGENBUCK is professor of primitivism advocated by Thoreau, of the wild nature ideal is coming un- natural resource recreation, Department of Muir, and Olson? Should we advocate der increasing criticism (e.g., see Forestry, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA. Telephone: the “living in the woods” skills advo- Cronon 1995; Callicott and Nelson 540-231-7418. Email: [email protected]. cated by Leopold and Marshall? Should 1998). I agree with recent wilderness we slow down the wilderness experi- critiques that any change or revision REFERENCES ence and encourage Muir’s meditation in wilderness ideals should recognize Archer, K. 1996. A lighter shade of green: re- on the slow rhythms of a flower? and promote nature as evolutionary producing nature in central Florida. The Florida Geographer 27: 4–21. A new or revised wilderness ideal and ecological. Humans should im- Callicott, J. B. and M. P. Nelson, eds. 1998. may be needed to serve as a guide for merse themselves deeply in nature. The New Great Wilderness Debate. Athens, the future management of wild nature How future recreational visitors de- Ga.: The University of Georgia Press: 697. experiences. The wilderness commu- velop deeper ecological and evolution- Cronon, W., ed. 1995. Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. New York: nity needs to actively engage in a dia- ary connections with nature in W.W. Norton & Company. logue about its qualities. I have long wilderness is a matter the profession Price, J. 1999. Flight Maps: Adventures with valued the ideals of solitude, primi- must discuss and debate. IIIJJJWWW Nature in Modern America. New York: Ba- sic Books: 325.

ACTIVITIES AND TECHNOLOGY Gearheads and Golems Technology and Wilderness Recreation in the 21st Century

BY JOHN SHULTIS

The Issue innovation producing a classic love- national parks in North America. But The Golem is a mythological creature hate relationship. An often forgotten automobile proponents won the day, in the Jewish faith/culture magically paradox is that wilderness is embed- arguing that automobiles facilitated created from clay and water to help ded within a similarly ambiguous re- park use and generated demand, pub- human beings in their work and pro- lationship with technology: While lic support, funding, and even new tect them from enemies. In stories, the wilderness recreation is about living a parks. Golem becomes more powerful and simpler life unencumbered with the These old battle lines may soon be clumsy every day, turning into “a lum- trappings of “civilization,” we increas- drawn again. The rate of technologi- bering fool who knows neither its own ingly require technology to enjoy wil- cal change in outdoor recreation is strength nor the extent of its clumsi- derness. Further, the appearance of the growing exponentially, and recreation ness and influence” (Collins and Pinch cultural constructs of wilderness and 1998, p. 1), and ultimately threaten- parks are reliant upon the technologi- ing to destroy the very creatures it was cal innovations. created to protect: human beings. Wilderness managers have been Society has long feared the possible relatively silent on the impacts of rec- power of technology to destroy hu- reation technology on (1) backcountry mankind or the Earth itself (e.g., recreationists (2) outdoor recreation nuclear weaponry). This fear is a fa- activities, (3) the wilderness setting, vorite theme in science fiction. Para- (4) wilderness experiences, and (5) doxically, humans have also embraced wilderness management. Years ago, almost every form of technological the automobile was briefly opposed in Entering the John Muir Wilderness. Photo by Alan Ewert.

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 17 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

…wilderness managers will be increasingly called upon to control and limit the growth of recreation technology.

managers are becoming frustrated to identify the specific activities that with new technology. From the irre- are allowable (too many new activi- sistible vantage point of the year 2000, ties will appear), but to further clarify it seems safe to assume that wilder- the range of experiences suitable for ness managers will be increasingly specific settings. Yet technology may called upon to control and limit the have already changed the very essence Solitude can be found in wilderness. Photo by Alan growth of recreation technology. Tech- of the wilderness experience and set- Ewert. nology drives too many cumulative ting, so even this approach may not impacts on recreationists, the setting, be an appropriate long-term solution. nology affects their wilderness expe- wilderness experiences, and manage- “No technology” or “low-technology” rience and then identify optimal ment practices for neutral decision zones, such as the previously suggested management strategies. making. “no rescue” zones (McAvoy and Dustin Change is inevitable, and as the However, the rate of technological 1981), do not yet appear to have wide- complexity and range of technologi- change makes controlling the use of spread public or political support. But cal advances in recreation equipment recreation technology extremely diffi- as environmental and social impacts increases, these new technologies will cult. Perhaps the only solution is not from recreation technology accumulate affect the experiential and biophysi- in wilderness, will support for these cal attributes of wilderness and its types of zones be far behind? It is inter- management. Whether recreation esting that technology has become so technology becomes another Golem, pervasive in outdoor recreation that a destroying the wilderness it is de- counterculture of “low-tech” or “no- signed for, or it helps create a new, tech” recreationists is emerging. One more temporally and culturally rel- recent example is Swedish climber evant form of wilderness is not yet Goran Kropp, who cycled unassisted known. It behooves us to work harder from his home in Sweden to Mount to understand technology’s past, Everest, climbed the world’s highest present, and future impacts on wilder- peak solo without oxygen, and then ness and outdoor recreation. IIIJJJWWW Mining equipment operating in a wilderness area in British cycled back home. Columbia, Canada. Photo by Alan Ewert. JOHN SHULTIS is an associate professor in What Is Needed? the Resource Recreation and Tourism Program at the University of Northern While a growing number of authors British Columbia, Prince George, British are discussing the impacts of technol- Columbia, Canada V2N 4Z9. Telephone: ogy on wilderness recreation, most 250-960-5640. E-mail: [email protected]. studies use an intuitive approach be- cause little empirical information is REFERENCES Collins, H., and T. Pinch. 1998. The Golem at available. Both quantitative and quali- Large: What You Should Know about Tech- tative approaches are needed to ex- nology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge pand knowledge on this subject. For University Press. example, we need to ask recreationists McAvoy, L. H. and D. L. Dustin. 1981. The right to risk in wilderness. Journal of Forestry A wilderness sign vandalized by ungrateful visitors. Photo by to share their understanding of how 79(3): 150–152. Alan Ewert. the use and nonuse of recreation tech-

18 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

ACTIVITIES AND TECHNOLOGY Wilderness Activities in the 21st Century A Commentary

BY LES WADZINSKI

What will people be doing in wilder- laws altogether. A simple vote and sub- ness in the next century? Will wilder- sequent stroke of the pen by an elected ness activities stay the same as they are official could allow future forms of today because the wilderness concept motorized travel in wilderness. We doesn’t change, or will we see new ac- have already seen examples where spe- tivities because of a change in public cial exemptions have been written into sentiment and perceptions about wilderness legislation for airstrips and wilderness. Picture these two scenarios: outboard motors. October 23, 2098: Bill hits the On the other hand, as long as wil- trail in the long established derness laws remain intact in the A paddler finds solitude on Crooked Lake in the Boundary Waters Charles C. Deam Wilderness United States, one could speculate that Canoe Area Wilderness. Photo courtesy of John Roggenbuck. with his new “wilderness certified” magnetic compass. activities would not change drastically. He thanks his lucky stars After all, the wilderness laws basically Congress recognized the value dictate what folks can and can’t do. activities. I see the wilderness concept of wilderness and finally My hope is that recreation activities as a way to not change wildlands, ex- prohibited electronics and all will remain simple because facilities cept for the way nature changes it, one other technology less than 100 will be forever minimal and new tech- millenium at a time. Walking will still years old. Nothing like a quiet hike among the trees to get nology won’t be allowed. New activi- be walking 100 years from now, and close to nature. ties coming along, such as extreme hopefully it will still be possible in sports, often require some sort of gad- special places called wilderness. IIIJJJWWW October 23, 2098: Bill hits the getry and infrastructure that I feel trail in the recently designated should continue to be prohibited in LES WADZINSKI is recreation program Central Park Wilderness on his wilderness. manager with the USDA Forest Service, laser board. He thanks his If the wilderness concept and its Hoosier National Forest, 811 Constitution lucky stars that Congress Avenue, Bedford, Indiana 47421, USA. laws work, maybe wilderness protec- finally got with the 22nd Telephone: 812-277-3595. Email: century and lightened up on tion will outweigh new recreational [email protected]. those silly restrictions. Nothing like an 80 mph glide between the trees to get close to nature. I see the wilderness concept as a way to not change Ridiculous? Who knows. But it is pos- wildlands, except for the way nature changes it, one sible that future generations will in- terpret wilderness laws differently, or millenium at a time. public sentiment could change the

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 19 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

ACTIVITIES AND TECHNOLOGY Technology and Wilderness in the 21st Century

BY DOUG KNAPP

It was 3:00 A.M., and I had a couple of Still, my fondest camping memory they encourage. The newer the tech- inches of water in my tent. The light- is that fateful night 20 years ago and nology, the higher the price. ning had subsided and the storm had the three steel tent poles that bent from We are cut off from our wildlands passed, but it would be a long while the force of the rain. That damp expe- by gadgets, gizmos, and outerwear. before I dried out from the downpour. rience still gives me feelings of deep The Wilderness Act of 1964 enabled This was day three of my trek into the attachment to that place and time. It us to protect our natural treasures from Pintlar Wilderness in southwestern is difficult to recall the events of my “an increasing population, accompa- Montana. I was 21, poor, and this was warm and comfortable nights out in nied by expanding settlement, and my first solo backpacking trip. I bought the Beartooth. The truth is clear: The growing mechanization.” I would add my supplies at the Sears store in Dillon, comforts of technology have deadened to this landmark legislation that wil- Montana, including my $40.00 nylon my experiences with the wilderness. derness not be entered if accompanied tent. I walked out of the wilderness the The notion of technology and wil- with any piece of equipment that has next day, a bit worse for wear, but grate- derness seems a paradox. The idea that more than three technology patents. ful for the experience. we must exist in the most primitive of My perception of technology and Twenty years later I traveled to the environments with the most futurist wilderness in the 21st century are two Beartooths to wander through the technology demeans the experience. separate ideas. As my colleague Les Wad- myriad mountain lakes and streams. I It seems to me an odd notion that we zinski suggests in his commentary, “Wil- was 41 and financially secure. It rained attempt to get away from it all by en- derness Activities in the 21st Century,” the entire last night of my trip, but I tering the wilderness wrapped in lay- the wilderness is not a place to change was dry and warm in my $300.00 Si- ers of Polartec microfleece. As I grow or to be a witness to change. It is a place erra Designs ventilating mesh, swift older (and hopefully wiser), I have that remains primitive, no matter what clipped, Meteor Light CD tent, and my more respect for the Paul Petzdolts of unfolds in our high-speed society. Mountain Hardware, Polarguard HV the world who will just as well climb Stepping into wilderness requires high void continuous filament sleep- the Tetons in cowboy boots and a a new approach that sheds technol- ing bag. Stetson hat. Foam gripped antishock ogy at the trailhead. So take back that staff be damned! Taslan Gore-Tex gear and head for the As our Mountain Dew generation nearest Army-Navy store to grab a can- takes to the trails, I sometimes think vas bivouac. Disrobe the technologi- that the wilderness was actually a cal veil that protects us all from the grand scheme developed by the North touch of the Earth. Forward trekkers! Face company so people will buy Go into the past! IIIJJJWWW transversely bored sleeping pads and DOUG KNAPP is an assistant professor in ABS polymer food containers (with the Department of Recreation and Park stainless steel locks). This cynicism Administration at Indiana University, USA. stems from the absurdity of these prod- Telephone: 812-855-3094. E-mail: Signs and posted regulations are increasingly common in wilderness areas. Photo by Alan Ewert. ucts and the societal discrimination [email protected].

20 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

ACTIVITIES AND TECHNOLOGY A More Pristine Wilderness

BY GLENN HAAS and MARCELLA WELLS

Our system of parks, wilderness, and The public reaction to these events protected lands and waters in the will stir action by the “environmen- United States will be different in the tally educated generation.” The envi- 21st century. We speculate here about ronmental movement of the 1960s and three major forces that will bring about 1970s began a nationwide environ- a more pristine and highly prized wil- mental education effort consisting of derness. thousands of curricula, teacher train- ing programs, wilderness courses, lit- A Reordering erary works, television specials, nature of Wilderness Values centers, friends groups, and projects. Wilderness solitude high in the mountains. Photo by Dave A large segment of our youth have had Mennitt. The decline of the wilderness recre- environmental education exposure ation patriarchy is underway. The easements. In Colorado, a state rich and will respond. wilderness system, as with all land with federal lands, the Great Outdoors The major unknown in the reorder- classification systems, is a socio- Colorado Trust allocates approxi- ing of wilderness values will be ethnic political delineation of public values. mately 40 million dollars annually to parity by 2050 and the neutralizing Historically, most have equated wilder- land acquisition and stewardship. Ur- of Euro-American domination. What ness solely with recreation. Yet re- ban and regional riverways, open values will Hispanics, Asian Ameri- search on the nonrecreational values space networks, community and state cans, and African Americans bring to of wilderness found that the public parks, natural areas, farms, ranches, support wilderness? Will the “Puritan recognizes other values as more im- restored landfills, and trails are ex- work ethic” and Christianity’s “domin- portant than recreation (e.g., oppor- panding the supply of outdoor recre- ion over nature” be balanced by other tunities for future generations; ation opportunities within a short perspectives? Is the low visitation by protection of air, water, and wildlife; distance of urban America. These lo- ethnic minorities to the outdoors a sig- etc.). Furthermore, animal protection cal experiences with nature will sat- nal of detachment and disinterest, or interests, biomedical discoveries, pre- isfy some of the wilderness demand. is there a latent demand that will serving biodiversity, and new concepts In the future, we will increasingly emerge with ethnic parity? such as ecosystem management will view the “real” wilderness experience elevate the scientific, educational, hu- Recreation Supply to be outside the continental United man health and wellness, and intrin- States. Today’s wilderness recreation- sic values associated with wilderness. Is Expanding, ists will be tomorrow’s adventure trav- The reordering of these values will and Demand Will Follow elers and ecotourists. This global be propelled by a continuation of Popular literature implies a static sup- industry is exploding, and the ability “Chernobyls.” Environmental disas- ply of public outdoor recreation lands of Americans to experience the wild- ters, both natural and human caused, and waters in the United States. The ness of northern Ontario, Peru, China, will continue to raise the ire of human- data do not support this perspective. Antarctica, Greenland, old Soviet Rus- ity toward environmental ignorance In 1998, some 200 public referenda sia, and many other locales will also and greed and will heighten the re- across the United States resulted in 7.5 reduce wilderness demand in the U.S. spect and value for wilderness. billion dollars of land acquisition and Advances in air transportation, low air

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 21 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

ment would restrain their recreational There will be a new awakening for lands and waters liberties and rights. In 1905, five Penn- sylvania game wardens were killed we have forgotten, the lands we never viewed as because of the tension. Demand ex- ceeded supply, and values associated recreation resources, and lands we exploited and can with wildlife clashed. The destiny of restore. wilderness recreation may be similar, yet hopefully more civil. Public recreation planning and fares, Internet marketing, and the in- Restraint of Wilderness management will move to a multi- ternational tourism infrastructure will Freedoms Will Sustain jurisdictional and regional systems further propel this worldwide wilder- approach (e.g., southern Appalachia, ness market. Wilderness Experience Four Corners canyon country, greater There will be a new awakening for Without restraints on recreation liber- Yellowstone). Local, state, and federal lands and waters we have forgotten, the ties, our national wilderness commons recreation agencies will inventory, lands we never viewed as recreation re- will be lost. Restraints will help ensure manage, and coordinate their supply sources, and lands we exploited and can a sustained supply of high-quality wil- of recreational opportunities to better restore. These lands include prairies, derness experience. More recreationists help the public match their desired grasslands, deserts, caves, wetlands, are visiting wilderness; more types of experiences with available opportuni- underwater resources, wildlife refuges, recreationists want to have their own ties. Agencies will have measurable tribal reservations, military lands, inter- unique experience; more communities management objectives that clearly coastal zones, and desecrated urban riv- and private businesses are dependent define the recreation experience and ers, lakes, and harbors. on wilderness tourism; more non- area, quality standards for biophysi- Finally, virtual reality and new recreational values and uses are increas- cal and sociocultural attributes, a pre- technologies will expand the supply of ingly important; more publics and scribed carrying capacity, and a recreation opportunities. Virtually ex- professionals are concerned about the corresponding management program. periencing wilderness will satisfy some integrity of wilderness. Wilderness managers will clearly de- enthusiasts. Likewise, new technology fine their recreation supply or market will allow us to experience wilderness Demand Is Exceeding niche and then manage with appro- from the air, underground, under wa- Supply, without Restraints priate restraints to assure quality ex- ter, and galactic travel will open an en- periences and resources. tirely new wilderness frontier. We Lose Supply In conclusion, three forces (an in- Wilderness is moving into an era of crease in biocentric values associated allocation. This is most apparent to- with wilderness, an expanding supply day among the commercial outfitters, of global and techno-wilderness expe- guides, and educational permittees. riences, and recreational capacity re- More than 100 years ago, recreational straints) favor a more pristine and hunting managers began to determine highly prized wilderness system by hunter capacities, number of hunting 2050. IIIJJJWWW days, number of kills, type of equip- ment, how to hunt (no large game GLENN HAAS and MARCELLA WELLS are drives), when to hunt (no spring or faculty members in the Department of Sunday hunts), licensing and training Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism Though located near millions of people, this site gets little certification, fees, and so forth. Some at Colorado State University, USA. overnight use. USDA Forest Service photo. people were outraged that the govern- Telephone: 970-491-5126.

22 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

FUTURE ROLES The Social Value of Wilderness A Forest Service Perspective

BY KEN CORDELL and JERRY STOKES

The 21st century is here. The human ecosystems that define wilderness are population of this country, and the priceless in comparison to managed world, is exploding. For many of us, landscapes, where human judgment more people in more places makes substitutes for the wisdom of nature. those few places yet protected as natu- Wilderness will likely serve more and ral preserves ever more valuable and more as a “laboratory” for learning special. As places for personal wilder- how to sustain natural systems in an ness experiences and to appreciate increasingly unnatural world. natural scenery, there is little doubt that protected wilderness on our pub- Wilderness Has Backpacking into the snowy backcountry. Photo by Alan Ewert. lic lands is more and more appreci- ated by U.S. society. Multiple Values The study of wilderness values helps this system contains approximately 35 Wilderness Is More us better understand the importance million of the total acres, and 400 of Than a Recreation of wilderness in U.S. society. Research the 628 individually designated areas. centering on the benefits humans de- These 400 areas are scattered across Opportunity rive from wilderness shows that 39 states. Although the FS manages Wilderness is far more than a patch- Americans value our wild area protec- only 33% of the total NWPS acreage, work of places where one can go for tion system. Among the multiple val- it manages 62% of the acreage in the backcountry recreational experiences. ues that wilderness provides, people 48 contiguous states. Many of these It is more than majestic natural scen- put some above others in importance. areas are near portions of the country ery to be viewed in the distance from where high densities of population high mountain roads. The role of wil- National Forest exist, all of which are growing rapidly. derness in modern society increasingly Obviously, close proximity to popula- emphasizes clean air and water, havens Wilderness tion growth and land development for threatened wildlife, and sanctuar- The United States National Wilderness puts strains on the natural systems ies for undisturbed ecosystems from Preservation System (NWPS) includes within wilderness areas. which we can learn about natural pro- 628 congressionally designated areas cesses. Increasingly wilderness pro- (about 105 million acres) on lands vides places to study the structure and managed by the Forest Service (FS), Importance in function of natural systems and to the National Park Service, the Fish and Air Quality Monitoring monitor changes occurring naturally, Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of While offering recreational, aesthetic, and indirectly as a result of the hu- Land Management. The FS portion of existence, and ecological values, FS man alteration of climate. In our ef- forts to better understand the legally mandated concept of sustainability in Clearly, Americans value wilderness more for its natural resources management, we are natural value than for its use value. finding those naturally functioning

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 23 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

amples where air quality deterioration future, and just knowing we have pre- over and around wilderness is occur- served some of our natural heritage as ring. For example, the Alpine Lakes the four next most highly rated val- and Goat Rocks Wildernesses in ues. Least rated in importance were the Washington State, which are adversely more utilitarian values including use affected by pollution from a coal-fired for scientific study, recreation, places power plant in Centralia. Other ex- for spiritual inspiration, and attrac- amples are the San Gorgonio Wilder- tions for the tourism industry. Clearly, ness near Los Angeles, affected by air Americans value wilderness more for particulates from the surrounding ur- its natural value than for its use value. The Charles C. Deam Wilderness on the Hoosier National Forest. Photo by Alan Ewert. ban area; the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness in The ranking our society has placed Colorado, which is affected by a power on wilderness values must play a very plant in Hayden; and the James River prominent role in our agency’s deci- wilderness also offers enormous po- Face and St. Mary’s Wildernesses in sions about management of this irre- tential as a national system for moni- Virginia, impacted by industrial pol- placeable system of natural places. toring environmental health. Of lutants from the Ohio Valley. NSRE 2000, the most current of the particular significance is the role FS ongoing national surveys, is underway wilderness can play in the implemen- and will sample 50,000 people. Wil- tation of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Multiple Values of derness values, knowledge of the Amendments to the CAA passed in Wilderness NWPS, attitudes toward land preser- 1977, designated 88 wilderness areas We asked a sample of Americans to vation, wilderness use, and public in the National Forest System as Class tell us how important each of 13 val- feedback on a number of other key I Areas for special protection for clear ues of wilderness are to them. These wilderness issues are featured in this visibility. Along with these specially values were included in the National comprehensive survey. Combining designated Class I Areas are all other Survey on Recreation and the Environ- peoples’ values and knowledge of wil- wilderness areas for air quality moni- ment (NSRE), the ongoing survey se- derness with lifestyle, demographic, toring. Reduced visibility is an excel- ries begun in 1960 to track Americans’ and environmental attitudes, will en- lent lead indicator of the existence of use of the outdoors and their attitudes able us to segment the American pub- particulate and gaseous pollutants about the environment. Of those 13 lic relative to the role of wilderness in their lives. This process will provide Wilderness will likely serve more and more as a information for more effectively ex- tending opportunities for involvement “laboratory” for learning how to sustain natural in the future of the NWPS in the United States. IIIJJJWWW systems in an increasingly unnatural world.

KEN CORDELL is scientist and project leader for recreation, wilderness and transported over long distances and values, approximately 75% selected demographics research with the Southern impacting vegetation, soil, and water. protection of water quality (the top- Research Station in Athens, Georgia, USA, Air pollution impacts can include rated value), wildlife habitat, air qual- USDA Forest Service. unnatural changes in plant commu- ity, and endangered species, along with nities and associated micro and macro protecting wilderness so we can pass JERRY STOKES is assistant director for fauna. They can also include alter- it on to future generations, as the top wilderness management with the Recre- ation, Heritage and Wilderness Manage- ations of water chemistry, which in five values of wilderness. Between 50% ment Staff in the Washington Office, USDA turn can severely impact dependent and 75% selected preservation of natu- Forest Service. For more information about fish and wildlife populations, and even ral ecosystems, scenic beauty, having NSRE 2000, go to www.srs.fs.fed.us/ species survival. There are many ex- the option to visit wilderness in the trends.

24 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

FUTURE ROLES Of What Avail Are Forty Freedoms? The Significance of Wilderness in the 21st Century

BY DANIEL L. DUSTIN and LEO H. MCAVOY

It has been almost 20 years since we recent Social Aspects and Recreation first proposed the idea of no-rescue Research (SARR) Symposium in wilderness (McAvoy and Dustin Tempe, Arizona, Alan Ewert demon- 1981). The impetus for our proposal strated several new technological came from an article in the Sierra Club “breakthroughs” that have been de- Bulletin by William Leitch entitled signed to make outdoor recreation en- “Backpacking in 2078” (1978). Leitch’s vironments more accessible and story read like science fiction. He en- hospitable while, at the same time, visioned a future when heavy recre- making outdoor recreationists more ational use of the public lands coupled comfortable and safe. There are even The technology that takes us into nature can also separate us with an “insurance mentality” would compact discs now that preview from it. Photo by Rob von Adrichem. force resource managers to employ backcountry trails so “adventurers” every technological weapon in their ar- can see beforehand exactly what’s in may no longer be anyplace left on senal to protect the environment from store for them (Ewert, Shultis, and Earth that is really free from the im- people and people from the environ- Webb 2000). pact of human hands. Guided by the ment. But to us, the prospect of Big It’s hard to argue against comfort overarching values of comfort, conve- Brother looming over outdoor and convenience. To do so goes against nience, and economic efficiency, we recreationists, however good the in- the grain of most everything our cul- busily go about insulating ourselves tentions, was horrifying. We wanted ture holds dear (Dustin 1999). It is also from the very ground of our being. Left to create an alternative to Leitch’s sce- hard to argue against providing in- unchecked, the application of these nario, a place where people would be creasing amounts of information to values and their corresponding tech- free to interact with nature on its own recreationists in advance of their out- nological manifestations to wilderness terms, a place where privacy and soli- door pursuits. Yet these are the exact may soon elevate Leitch’s cautionary tude would hold sway. Wilderness was arguments that must be made if we tale to the level of prophecy. the perfect place. are to safeguard the idea of wilderness. To our way of thinking, it is more In retrospect, Leitch’s story now We are a species intoxicated by our important than ever that wilderness reads less like science fiction than sci- own ability to change the nature of retain its aura of remoteness and ence fact, and our no-rescue wilder- things, and, as Bill Mckibben laments unpredictability, that it stay a land- ness proposal is more timely than ever. in The End of Nature (1989), there scape of question marks, that it be In the intervening years, the impact of advancing technology has pen- etrated our lives from home to work- Wilderness must be seen as a sanctuary within which place to recreation setting. By and we take refuge from the relentless advance of our large, there is no escaping it. From com- puters to cellular phones, from biome- own tools, from everything modern and mechanical chanics to bioengineering, our lives are increasingly wired. For example, at the that we have created in the name of progress.

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 25 ◆ WILDERNESS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ◆

in, relationship to, and responsibility Wilderness will be for thinking uninterrupted for the larger living world. Indeed, for this purpose, for this humbling, in- thoughts, for reflecting upon our place in, relationship sightful purpose, wilderness remains to, and responsibility for the larger living world. our last best hope. IIIJJJWWW DANIEL DUSTIN works at Florida International University, USA. E-mail: treated, in Aldo Leopold’s words, as a we dream” (Whipple 1930). Increas- [email protected]. “blank spot” on the map. Wilderness ingly, wilderness will be called upon to must be seen as a sanctuary within serve as a mirror to ourselves. It will be LEO MCAVOY works in the University of which we take refuge from the relent- for looking in as well as looking out. Minnesota’s Division of Recreation, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. less advance of our own tools, from In The Transparent Society (1998), everything modern and mechanical David Brin predicts that advancing REFERENCES that we have created in the name of technology will soon force us to Brin, D. 1998. The Transparent Society. Read- progress. It must continue to be a re- choose between privacy and freedom. ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. spite from technology. Wilderness We cannot have it both ways, he says. Dustin, D. 1999. The Myth of Comfort. The Wil- must also remain that special place we Our lives will be increasingly open for derness Within: Reflections on Leisure and Life, D. Dustin and Larry Beck. Champaign, visit when we feel the need to remind others to see, and if we value freedom Ill.: Sagamore Publishing: 15–18. ourselves of our human frailty, a place we must learn to welcome this open- Ewert, A., J. Shultis, and C. Webb. 2000. Out- to which we return again and again to ness. The best we can hope for, he door recreation and technologies: a Janus- gain a healthier perspective on our suggests, is a “reciprocal transparency” faced relationship. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Social Aspects and lives. Historian T. K. Whipple said, “All that allows us to look back at Big Recreation Research. Tempe, Ariz.: Arizona America lies at the end of the wilder- Brother even as Big Brother looks at State University. ness road, and our past is not a dead us. If this future comes to pass, wil- Leitch, W. 1978. Backpacking in 2078. The Si- erra Club Bulletin, 3, (1): 25–27. past but still lives in us … Our fore- derness will be one of the last domains McAvoy, L., and D. Dustin. 1981. The right to bears had civilization inside themselves, where we can experience a sense of risk in wilderness. Journal of Forestry 79 (3): the wild outside. We live in the civiliza- privacy and solitude that eludes us in 150–152. tion they created, but within us the wil- the rest of our lives. Wilderness will McKibben, W. 1989. The End of Nature. New York: Random House. derness still lingers. What they be for thinking uninterrupted Whipple, T. 1930. Study Out the Land. Berke- dreamed, we live; and what they lived, thoughts, for reflecting upon our place ley: The University of California Press.

26 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 STEWARDSHIP

The Eagle Cap Wilderness Permit System A Visitor Education Tool

BY TOM CARLSON

he Eagle Cap Wilderness on the Wallowa-Whitman The permit was de- National Forest in northeastern Oregon is the state’s signed by Kevin Cannon of T largest wilderness at 365,000 acres. It attracts an the Gifford Pinchot Na- average of 33,000 people annually, and yet it is one of tional Forest for the Pacific Oregon’s most pristine landscapes with its long forested Northwest Region of the valleys, subalpine lakes, and spectacular peaks. The visitor National Forest System. It permit system is now one of the tools Eagle Cap Wilderness consists of a two-part car- managers use to help educate visitors about wilderness bonless tag with an elastic conduct and stewardship. loop for attaching to a backpack or saddle. Con- Eagle Cap Permits for Data solidated ordering with The permit system was implemented in the Eagle Cap in other wilderness areas the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Forest Service required keeps the cost down to Article author Tom Carlson and Lou the llama. Photo courtesy of Tom Carlson. visitors to obtain a free permit through an agency office or $0.05 per permit. Other at trailhead entrance stations operated by volunteers. The costs include a trailhead information board with posters permit did not limit use. It was a valuable visitor contact describing the permit system and a permit box providing and educational method for wilderness managers and pro- blank permits and a depository. The boxes are serviced once vided valuable use data. or twice per week, depending on use levels. Permit data is In 1983 the permit system was discontinued because coded and entered into a database at a cost of about $3,000 the number of wilderness visitors had leveled off, or at least per year. the rate of increase had slowed, while camping ethics and The permit system worked well for three years (1994– skills had improved (Hendee et al. 1990). Studies conducted 1996). Managers used the data to determine where capac- in 1965 and 1993 indicate that knowledge and awareness ity and Limits of Acceptable Change standards were being of impact minimizing techniques had improved in the Eagle exceeded and to establish patterns of use, origin of visitors, Cap (Watson et al. 1995). In 1993 the Wallowa-Whitman began work on a new management plan for the Eagle Cap Wilderness. Accurate The visitor permit system is one of the visitor use data had not been collected since the permit system was discontinued, so the forest implemented a new tools Eagle Cap Wilderness managers mandatory permit system that requires one person from use to help educate visitors about each party to obtain a self-issued, free permit at a trailhead. The permit does not restrict where and when visitors travel wilderness conduct and stewardship. in the wilderness, but any party without one may be cited.

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 27 agement goals, as well as the words “Leave No Trace,” visitors are better in- formed and can help protect the wilder- ness from unnecessary impact. Wilderness rangers say that contact with visitors is easier and more effective with the per- mit system because visitors have no ex- cuse for not knowing the regulations.

Eagle Cap Permits Now The Eagle Cap Wilderness on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in northeast Oregon. Photo by Tom Carlson. for Education The benefits of retaining the permit and group size information. Follow- system far exceeded those of discon- ing completion of the Eagle Cap Wil- tinuing it, so the system is still in op- derness Stewardship Plan, some eration in the Eagle Cap Wilderness. managers felt that the permit system had Today the system is mostly noncon- served its purpose and was no longer troversial because it is free, easy to use, The free Wilderness Use Permit (shown from the needed. Others found the system a valu- and nonrestrictive. Average compli- front). Photo courtesy of Tom Carlson. able visitor education and information ance rates over a three-year period tool to help implement the new plan. (1995–1997) are 78% for hikers, and The plan implemented 13 regula- 62% for visitors with recreation live- tions designed to be as light-handed as stock. Compliance with wilderness possible, while still protecting the re- regulations has steadily improved de- source. Admittedly, it is challenging for spite reductions in management bud- visitors to remember and comply with gets and staff. The permit system will all these regulations. But since the free help educate visitors and protect the permits have the regulations printed on Eagle Cap for years to come. IIIJJJWWW them with brief descriptions and man- TOM CARLSON is Eagle Cap Wilderness manager on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in Enterprise, Oregon, USA. Telephone: 541-426-5536. E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCES Hendee, John C., George H. Stankey, and Rob- ert C. Lucas. 1990. Wilderness Manage- ment. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing. Watson, Alan, John C. Hendee, and Hans Zaglauer. 1996. Human values and codes The back of the Wilderness Use Permit with printed of behavior: changes in Oregon’s Eagle Cap A young backpacker issues himself a Wilderness Use Permit regulations to help educate visitors. Photo courtesy of before entering the Eagle Cap. Photo courtesy of Tom Carlson. Wilderness visitors and their attitudes. Tom Carlson. National Areas Journal 16(2): 89–93.

28 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 SCIENCE & RESEARCH

Encounter Norms for Backcountry Trout Anglers in New Zealand

BY CARL WALROND

Abstract: Roving creel surveys on the Greenstone and Caples rivers in the New Zealand backcountry document tolerable encounter levels of three anglers per day and preference for one angler per day. Compari- sons with other studies suggest that encounters are more important to trout than salmon anglers. The study documents that low-density encounter levels are important to backcountry anglers on these rivers, suggesting that such experiences may be important to backcountry management in New Zealand.

Introduction criteria: (1) remoteness, (2) lack New Zealand’s backcountry trout fisheries are world re- of road access, (3) beauty and nowned, and demand for this recreational experience solitude, and (4) low usage has increased over the past two decades. Potential over- (Teirney et al. 1982). crowding makes it important to develop sustainable tour- Leisure researchers have long ist and fisheries management plans. Managers now recognized that encounters im- understand that angling is a multidimensional activity pact many recreational experi- with numerous factors (apart from catch) contributing ences, especially in backcountry to the quality of the experience (Driver and Knopf 1976; settings (Vaske et al 1986; Shelby Martinson and Shelby 1992; Fedler and Ditton 1994; and Herbelein 1986). The Hunt and Ditton 1997). present study explores appropri- Research has shown that on low-density, low-impact ate angler encounter levels for wilderness rivers, encounters are particularly important to New Zealand backcountry river user satisfaction, and more so to anglers than to other trout fisheries by measuring ac- recreationists (Shelby 1981; Shelby and Vaske 1991). On tual, tolerable, and preferable levels of encounter on two Article author Carl Walrond fishing in a four rivers in Vermont, Manning (1979) found that trout backcountry river. Photo by Daniel Agar. anglers had lower tolerance for encounters than other river backcountry trout rivers, the users such as boaters and swimmers. On the Brois Brule Greenstone and Caples in Otago, New Zealand. River in Wisconsin, Herbelein and Vaske (1977) also found that trout anglers were less tolerant of encounters with other Methods river users (primarily canoeists and float tubers) than with Study Areas other anglers. Based on research on New Zealand wilder- The upper Greenstone River in Otago flows through a large ness fisheries, user satisfaction is classified on the following open valley. Anglers must walk at least three hours from a

(PEER REVIEWED)

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 29 their actual encounters. A “don’t New Zealand’s backcountry trout fisheries are world know” option was included. Statistical methods developed in renowned, and demand for this recreational experience previous studies (Shelby 1981; Vaske et al. 1986; Martinson and Shelby has increased over the past two decades. 1992) are used to present data in sev- eral ways. There is some debate in the road to access the upper valley. The use when salmon are running. The literature as to what measure of cen- Caples is the main tributary and can Rakaia and Waimakariri also receive tral tendency should be used to de- be accessed in an easy half-hour walk. high levels of use during salmon runs. fine norms (or if measures of central Some anglers also gain access by heli- The upper Rakaia gorge is undeveloped tendency can be used to define group copter. There is little sign of develop- and accessible by boat or walking. norms). The median has been chosen ment in the valleys. Department of here as the mean can be skewed by Conservation huts and track systems Roving Creel outliers and the mode only represents follow the valley floors. Angling pres- Survey Methods the greatest consensus for one value sure is highest for residents at the start Anglers were interviewed on the river (Shelby and Vaske 1991). of the season (November) when at the end of their angling day on the At the median, 50% of anglers postspawning rainbow trout are most Greenstone (1994–1995) and Caples would tolerate that number or higher abundant. Brown trout are also (1996–1997) valleys over the entire levels of encounter, but 50% of anglers present, although they typically make November 1 to May 30 fishing season. would also not tolerate that number up less than 10% of the population Roving creel surveys are rarely used or higher levels of encounter. It is dif- (Kroos 1997). Nonresident anglers for social surveys. Their main advan- ficult to synthesize individual norms dominate use in the summer months, tage is the high capture and response into a group norm, as any measure of January through March (Kroos 1997). rates due to personal contact (Pollock central tendency will be reflective of Fishing occurs along the length of the et al. 1994). only a portion of the samples. It is upper Greenstone River with some 16 important to view the distributions. kilometers (17.49 miles) of fishable Survey Design Encounter norms are represented here water, and 12 kilometers (13.12 The questionnaires addressed actual as curves showing the cumulative per- miles) in the Caples. encounters that occurred and norms centage of anglers that would tolerate Martinson and Shelby’s (1992) re- for tolerable and preferable levels of each encounter level. In Figure 1 (see search on the salmon rivers, the Klamath encounters compared to actual encoun- page 31) a median line is drawn at in northern California, and Rakaia (up- ters. Up to eight questions explore an- 50%, and the points where this inter- per and lower) and Waimakariri on the gler demographics, motivations and cepts the cumulative percent curves South Island of New Zealand, is pre- expectations, preferences, and toler- are median values. sented in this article to illustrate dif- ances for encounters, based on ex- ferences in encounter norms for trout amples of similar research in North Results and Discussion and salmon anglers. Easy access on the America by Shelby and Herbelein When asked for a tolerable number of Klamath River promotes a high level of (1986). encounters before their experience was For reported encounters, anglers significantly downgraded (see Table 1 were asked how many other people page 31, Figure 1), the majority of an- they saw on the river during their fish- glers said more than zero encounters ing day. Tolerances for encounters, or per day and tolerance dropped off encounter norms, were determined by quite steeply (see Figure 1). Reported asking anglers the number of encoun- encounters on backcountry trout riv- ters they would tolerate before their ers are much lower than on the salmon experience was “significantly down- rivers with medians of two and one graded.” For preferred encounters, on the Greenstone and Caples, respec- anglers were asked how many encoun- tively (see Table 1). Tolerable limits are The quarry—wild brown trout. Photo by Carl Walrond. ters they would prefer compared to also much lower, the median being

30 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 three on both rivers, while preferred Figure 1—Tolerance encounter norms levels are lower still at one for both rivers. Salmon anglers showed less agree- ment (flatter, wider distribution) on appropriate encounter norms than trout anglers (see Figure 1), referred to as low norm crystallization (Martinson and Shelby 1992). Statis- tical testing between the Caples and Greenstone and Upper Rakaia and Klamath rivers was not possible due to different methods of measuring en- counters. Interestingly, preferences for en- counters were universally low (see

Table 1), indicating that anglers toler- Figure 1—Tolerance encounter norms for high-use density salmon anglers (Klamath, Lower Rakaia, Waimakariri), low-use ate much higher encounters than they density salmon anglers (Upper Rakaia) and low-use density backcountry trout anglers (Caples and Greenstone). prefer, and that optimal angling den- sities are low for all the rivers. For the anglers in backcountry settings. First, to 10 anglers at one time, and 13 per salmon rivers actual encounters were encounter norms for trout anglers ap- day for the Klamath River. For the higher than preferred and tolerated pear to be lower than for salmon an- Greenstone and Caples, the median levels, while on the two backcountry glers. This confirms earlier studies that was three per day, while the upper trout rivers actual encounters were indicate that for trout anglers, toler- Rakaia was three to four per day. In- similar to preferred levels. able levels of encounter are less than terestingly there wasn’t a large differ- seven per day (Herbelein and Vaske ence between salmon anglers in the Discussion 1977; Manning 1979). For salmon more remote upper Rakaia River and Angler Encounter Tolerances anglers on the Waimakariri and lower trout anglers on the Greenstone and The results suggest several conclusions Rakaia rivers, median-tolerable en- Caples. This suggests that setting may regarding encounter norms for trout counter values were approximately 7 have stronger influence on encounter

Table 1—Number of encounters considered tolerable or preferred.

Species: Salmon Trout

Landscape: Developed Undeveloped Backcountry

Encounters Klamath Waimakariri Lower Upper Greenstone Caples Rakaia Rakaia

Reported 15.5 (51) 46.6 (119) 28 (68) (69) 2 (154) 1(178) Tolerable (27) (73) (46) (45) 3 (146) 3 (171) Preferred / 3.6 (86) 3.5 (43) 1 (56) 1 (153 1 (172)

Encounters on the Waimakariri and Lower Rakaia were measured as “anglers visible at one time.”

Table 1—Number of encounters with bank anglers that salmon and trout anglers considered tolerable or preferred. Numbers are medians, meaning that 50% of the anglers considered that number tolerable, or preferred fewer encounters per day. Numbers of angler responses for each category are in parentheses.

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 31 stone and Caples is not universal, there other anglers are competition. In con- is definite evidence of low tolerable trast, salmon angling involves fishing encounter levels for backcountry trout turbid water with heavy spin fishing anglers and even lower encounter pref- tackle. The high concentration of an- erence levels (see Table 1). Trout an- glers motivated by harvest is a highly glers appear to be more sensitive to sociable experience. Arguably, the con- encounters than other recreational us- sequences of encounters for trout an- ers. Why is this so? glers are greater than for salmon anglers, hikers and other backcountry Helicopter access is one of the major issues facing backcountry Differences in the Trout users. trout fisheries in New Zealand. Photo by Carl Walrond. Fishing Experience and Consequences of Encounter Conclusions and norms than species sought, although Social norms define the boundaries of many other factors such as difficulty acceptable encounter levels for an ac- Implications of access, level of demand, stream size, tivity. This range is affected in part by The lower preferences (medians of one harvest availability and catch rate the consequences the encounter has per day) for encounters when com- could also influence encounter norms. on the group’s ability to achieve its pared to actual encounters on the Martinson and Shelby (1992) propose desired goals. Encounters between Greenstone and Caples illustrate that that the lower encounter tolerance in trout anglers on New Zealand optimal preferred levels are well be- the upper Rakaia gorge is due to the backcountry rivers can greatly reduce low tolerable levels. Current levels of relatively remote, undeveloped setting their ability to achieve their desired use result in median encounter levels and traditional low-use levels, condi- goals. For example, on a small wilder- equal to preferable levels of one per tions that fit New Zealand’s ness river an encounter may totally day on the Caples and above the me- backcountry trout fisheries. displace fishing opportunities because dian of two per day on the Greenstone. The latest research from North angling activity disturbs the fish for This illustrates that these rivers are America shows that not all back- arriving anglers. But if the river has possibly at optimal levels of use. country users can specify norms, or plenty of fishable water, anglers can Backcountry trout angling is a wil- there is not sufficient consensus re- informally make room for each other. derness-dependent activity in that the garding appropriate encounter levels Compare this to an encounter on a resource and social conditions define (Williams et al. 1992; Patterson et al. trail, which usually lasts a few seconds the experience as much as the activ- 1990; Hamitt et al. 1991; Hamitt et as hikers pass by. Crowding conjures ity. That is, these experiences are al. 1995). However anglers in New images of anglers standing shoulder to largely setting and solitude dependent. Zealand have normative agreements shoulder. This occurs on the lower Research such as this is useful as it regarding appropriate encounter lev- reaches of Canterbury salmon rivers (1) gives managers an understanding els on less developed, more isolated (Rakaia and Waimakariri) and on the of use and encounter levels, (2) pro- rivers. Use-densities in these studies Tongariro (a winter trout river). How- vides insights into what factors make of backcountry users were medium to ever, as fly anglers on backcountry riv- up quality angling experiences, and (3) high. While consensus on the Green- ers move upstream, fish are either provides information for fisheries and caught or spooked, thus affecting the tourist resource managers for use in water behind them for several hours, strategic planning processes. or possibly even days (Hayes et al. 1997). “Anglers also look ahead to the Acknowledgments next good fishing hole; someone dis- Research was supported by grants turbing that spot may also encroach from Fish and Game New Zealand. I on their activity” (Shelby and thank Dr. John Hayes of the Cawthron Herbelein 1986, p. 141). When an- Institute and Alan Watson of the Aldo glers meet, there is not only the psy- Leopold Wilderness Research Institute chological impact of another person for comments on earlier drafts of this A helicopter is readied for flight. Photo by Carl Walrond. in the wilderness, but also the fact that manuscript. IIIJJJWWW

32 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 CARL WALROND is a freshwater fisheries social scientist studying encounter norms Backcountry trout angling is a wilderness-dependent for backcountry trout anglers at Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand. E-mail: activity in that the resource and social conditions [email protected]. define the experience as much as the activity. That is, REFERENCES Driver, B. L., and R. C. Knopf. 1976. Tempo- rary escape: one product of sport fisheries these experiences are largely setting and solitude management. Fisheries 1(2): 21–29. Fedler, A. J., and R. B. Ditton. 1994. Under- dependent. standing anglers’ motivations. Fisheries Management 9(4): 6–13. Hammitt, William E., and William M. Rutlin. Manning, R. E. 1979. Behavioral character- Shelby, B., and T. Herbelein. 1986. Carrying 1995. Use encounter standards and curves istics of fishermen and other recreationists capacity in recreational settings. Corvallis, for achieved privacy in wilderness. In Lei- on four Vermont rivers. Transactions of Oregon. Oregon State University. sure Sciences, ed. by Daniel R. Williams. the American Fisheries Society 168: 536– Shelby, B., and J. J. Vaske. 1991. Using nor- Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis, 541. mative data to develop evaluative standards 17(4): 245–262. Martinson, K. S., and B. Shelby. 1992. Encoun- for resource management: a comment on Hammitt, William E., and Michael E. ters and proximity norms for salmon anglers three recent papers. Journal of Leisure Re- Patterson. 1991. Coping behavior to in California and New Zealand. North search 23(2): 173–187. avoid visitor encounters: its relationship American Journal of Fisheries Management Teirney, L., M. Unwin, D. Rowe, E. Graynoth, and to wildland privacy. Journal of Leisure 12: 539–567. R. McDowall. 1982. Submission on the draft Research 25(3): 225–237. Patterson, Michael E., and William E. Hammitt. inventory of wild and scenic rivers of national Hayes, J., N. Deans, and C. Walrond. 1997. 1990. Backcountry encounter norms, actual importance. Fisheries Report No. 28. Christ- Angling pressure on backcountry rivers. Fish reported encounters, and their relationship church, New Zealand: Fisheries Research & Game New Zealand, 16:32-39. to wilderness solitude. Journal of Leisure Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Herbelein, T., and J. Vaske. 1977. Crowding and Research 22(3): 259–275. Vaske, J., A. Graefe, B. Shelby, and T. Herbelein. visitor conflict on the Bois Brule river. Techni- Pollock, K., C. Jones, and T. Brown. 1994. An- 1986. Backcountry encounter norms: theory, cal Report OWRTA-006-WAS. Madison: glers survey methods and their application method and empirical evidence. Journal of University of Wisconsin, Water Resources in fisheries management. American Fisher- Leisure Research 18: 137–153. Center. ies Society Special Publication 25. Bethesda, Williams, Daniel R., Joseph W. Roggenbuck, Hunt, M., and R. Ditton. 1997. The social con- Md.: American Fisheries Society. Michael E. Patterson, and Alan E. text of site selection for freshwater fishing. Shelby, B. 1981. Encounter norms in backcountry Watson. 1992. The variability of user-based North American Journal of Fisheries Man- settings: studies of three rivers. Journal of social impact standards for wilderness man- agement 17: 331–338. Leisure Research 13: 129–138. agement. Forest Science 38(4): 738–756.

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 33 SCIENCE & RESEARCH

PERSPECTIVES from the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute

Science for Wilderness, Wilderness for Science

BY DAVID J. PARSONS

cience provides knowledge upon which to make elsewhere, a baseline for comparison with more human- informed decisions about the protection and manage- altered ecosystems. The importance of wilderness to sci- Sment of wilderness. In addition, wilderness provides ence was clearly recognized at the Sierra Club’s 1959 Sixth opportunities for scientific understanding that is often not Biennial Wilderness Conference, titled “The Meaning of available in other, less protected areas. Thus, science is Wilderness to Science.” Following a presentation by Luna important to wilderness and wilderness is important to Leopold (son of Aldo Leopold) on the value of the pro- science. posed wilderness system for hydrological research, Howard The protection of wilderness requires understanding of Zahniser, chief architect of the Wilderness Act, cautioned wilderness ecosystems, the biological and social impacts that the increased recreational use expected to follow wil- of human activities on those ecosystems, and the effects of derness designation might “interfere with the establishment different policy and management alternatives. The value of … installations for scientific purposes.” Zahniser clearly of science in understanding wilderness is well documented sees science as an important value of wilderness. in the literature. Programs to restore fire to wilderness are The 1964 Wilderness Act established “scientific use” as guided by scientific understanding of fire history and plant one purpose of wilderness. The 1994 California Desert Pro- succession coupled with the use of scientific models of fire tection Act reinforced this, stating that a primary purpose behavior. The management of visitor access, use of wilder- of wilderness is to “retain and enhance opportunities for ness for therapy and personal growth, restoration of dam- scientific research in undisturbed ecosystems.” Recent stud- aged recreation sites, and the removal of exotic or ies of the effects of global change have clearly benefited reintroduction of extirpated species are other examples from baseline information derived from wilderness, and we where science provides the basis for wilderness manage- now also realize that wilderness is a valuable laboratory for ment actions. The importance of science to wilderness man- studying human behavior. The value of wilderness to sci- agement decisions will only increase as our remaining ence will only increase as an expanding population infringes natural areas become increasingly influenced by human on our remaining natural areas. activities. The relative lack of human disturbance and the protected DAVID J. PARSONS is director of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, an interagency program providing leadership in status of wilderness provide unique opportunities to learn developing scientific knowledge to sustain wilderness ecosystems about the natural world. Wilderness provides a laboratory and values. He can be reached at the Institute, P.O. Box 8089, for understanding natural processes that have been disrupted Missoula, Montana 59807, USA. Telephone: 406-542-4190.

34 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Issues Surrounding Entrance Fees as a Suitable Mechanism for Financing Natural Areas in Australia

BY GAMINI HERATH

Abstract: Australia’s national parks, nature reserves, and wilderness areas protect biodiversity and other ecosystem values while offering opportunities for ecotourism and recreation. Tourism and recreation demands have increased dramatically, while land managers struggle with inadequate staff and funds, thereby jeopar- dizing the economic and social value of these protected areas. The growing use of user fees in Australia has increased revenues and improved management, but it raises questions about distributive justice and commer- cialization of Australia’s natural areas.

Introduction on the use of new land re- User fee systems, although controversial, have been adopted sources, and settlers cleared by most nature conservation agencies in Australia. Fees are much of the virgin forest for charged for entry to protected areas, campgrounds, recreational agriculture. By 1920, exploi- facilities, use of interpretive services, and other facilities and tation, along with the intro- services. Opponents of fees argue that conservation of natural duction of exotic plant and resources is a community service obligation, and access to animal species changed the natural areas should be available to all socioeconomic groups composition of the country’s at no cost. Proponents say that public agencies restrict access flora and fauna (Common and and control visitor numbers to reduce environmental dam- Norton 1992). age. Declining budgets require agencies to explore alternative The first national park in sources of funding, and entry fees provide one such source Australia was south of Sydney (Driml and Common 1995; ANZECC 1998). established in 1879. The early Article author Gamini Herath. Photo courtesy of Gamini Herth. The objectives of this article are to (1) review the history movement to create national of development of natural areas in Australia, (2) review ex- parks was motivated by the isting Australian fee programs, and (3) evaluate the issues need to preserve native forests for forestry enterprises pertinent to entry fee controversies. (Dargarvel 1987). Some areas were simply declared national parks because there was no competing land use. This was known as the “Worthless Lands” approach (Hall 1989). History of Protected Areas in Australia Since the 1960s, Australia’s natural environment has Europeans first settled along the east coast of Australia about become a major tourist attraction (Hall 1994). In the year 200 years ago. Economic progress was dependent solely 2000, 5.8 million international tourists are expected to visit

(PEER REVIEWED)

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 35 servation Foundation, the Australian market. Table 1 (see page 37) shows Wilderness Society, and the Victorian the diversity of use fees to national National Parks Association, pressured parks in Australia based on mode of the government for better legislation. travel and their capacity. Visitors can As a result, Australia’s nature reserves buy a daily pass, and in some cases rose to about 30 million hectares, or annual passes are available. Different 4% of the country’s total land area. By fees are charged for adults and chil- 1993, 10.6% of the total land area was dren, and concessions are made for reserved under national parks. Dis- certain disadvantaged visitors. Table 2 putes occurred where nature conser- (see page 38) shows fees collected vation objectives conflicted with from several World Heritage Areas in alternative land uses. For example, in Australia. In three of these sites, fees the 1970s environmental groups covered less than 5% of management fiercely opposed a proposal by the Hy- expenditures. In Kakadu, fees covered droelectric Commission of Tasmania less than 10% of expenditures. Only to flood Lake Pedder. The environ- in Uluru do use fees constitute upward mentalists lost Lake Pedder, but the of 65% of the management budget issue was a turning point for Tasma- (Driml and Common 1995). Neither nia and the conservation movement efficiency nor cost recovery is achieved (Kellow 1989). in existing fee programs.

Dorrigo National Park, Australia. Photo by Geff Bennett. The Rationale Demand/Supply Analysis

Australia, and that number will rise to behind Entry Fees for Natural Areas in some 8.8 million by the year 2006 to Natural Areas Australia: The Status Quo (Tourism Forecasting Council 1997). The rapid growth of Australia’s tourist Quantitative assessments of the supply- The number of Japanese visitors alone industry coupled with fiscal conserva- and-demand parameters for natural increased from 352,300 in 1988 to tism has pressured management agen- areas are critically important to 670,900 in 1993 (Bureau of Tourism cies to generate revenue. The desired achieve optimal pricing schemes. The Research 1994). More than 50% of all outcomes of user-fee systems are cost- estimation of demand for resources international tourists visit national effectiveness, improved park manage- such as national parks and wilderness parks and other natural areas (Blamey ment, better visitor facilities, and a areas is not direct since these goods 1995). Domestic demand for recre- positive attitude toward protected areas are not marketed. Economists have ation and ecotourism grew rapidly in management (ANZECC 1998). developed several techniques, which the 1970s. A survey in 1988 and 1990 Public opinion remains divided on include the Travel Cost Method in Tasmania shows that hiking has use fees. The arguments favoring fees (TCM) and the Contingent Valuation risen from 59.7% of the total recre- are that they achieve efficiency in re- Method to estimate demand. Ulph ational activities in 1988 to 75.8% in source allocation, alleviate congestion, and Reynolds (1981) used the TCM 1990. and help recover costs and provide to estimate the recreation use value of In the early history of Australia’s revenue for maintenance, thereby the Warrumbungle National Park to parks and reserves, little attention was mitigating adverse environmental ef- be around $100/ visitor day. Knapman paid to the overall status of the eco- fects (Cullen 1985). Those against fees and Stanley (1991) measured the rec- systems. By the 1950s progressive con- argue that they can create adverse dis- reation value of Kakadu National servation efforts led people to value tributional consequences, and that Parks. Beal (1995a) studied the de- nature beyond commodity produc- public resources should allow equal mand for the Girraween National Park tion, and by the 1970s preservation access for all. Use fees, opponents say, in Queensland and estimated a choke had become a legitimate and valuable constitute double taxation. price of $47.23. Beal (1995b) also land allocation. Several conservation Use fees are often determined studied the Carnarvon Gorge National groups, such as the Australian Con- administratively rather than by the Park in Queensland. These studies

36 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 provide demand curves that can be used in determining optimal pricing Use fees raise unresolved equity concerns, but equity in conjunction with the supply curve. The inadequacy of formal demand is a matter of personal and philosophical values. studies is obvious here. In Australia, demand studies are Economists can suggest ways of achieving efficiency more numerous than supply studies. and describe equity considerations, but ultimately For estimating supply functions, in- formation on variable costs such as what is fair must be determined by political process. compliance checking, garbage collec- tion, implementing use fees, user-in- duced maintenance, and clean-up are city of supply studies constrains a for- National Park to be highly inelastic. required. Beal and Harrison (1997) mal evaluation of existing pricing In Australia, the demand elasticity var- estimated the supply function for the schemes. ied between 0.033 and 0.041, with Carnarvon Gorge National Park in 0.07 being the typical elasticity of de- Queensland, which, in conjunction Revenue Argument mand. Beal (1995a) also found the with the demand curve, yielded a Another argument for use fees is to elasticity for day visits and camping market clearing price of $3.17 for day enhance revenue. The total revenue to be 0.055 and 0.087 respectively, visitors and $15.00 for camping visi- collected depends on the price elas- both highly inelastic. Bennett (1996) tors. They found the optimal prices ticity of demand. If demand is price estimated the demand elasticity for for day and camping visits to be $1.13 inelastic, increasing the price will lead recreation in the Dorrigo and Gibraltar and $8.00 for the Girraween National to higher revenues. Knapman and Range National Parks to be around Park in Queensland. In some cases the Stoeckl (1995) estimated the price 0.0842 and 1.693 respectively. Over- cost of collection could not be cov- elasticity of demand for Kakadu Na- all, Australian studies indicate that ered by the use-fee program. The pau- tional Park and Hinchinbrook Island demand is generally inelastic, suggest-

Table 1—Magnitude of entry fees for selected parks in Australia (in Australian dollars).

STATE PARK BUS CAR MOTORCYCLE PERSON

NEW SOUTH WALES Kosciusco 4.00 (adult) 12.00 3.50 NA (daily) 2.00 (child) Kosciusco NA NA (annual) 60.00 30.00

VICTORIA Selected parks 21–44 4.50–9.50 1.50–2.00 NA (daily) (30 seats 14–25 3.00 (29 seats) 8.00 (adult) Point Nepean NA NA NA 4.00 (child) (daily) 18.00 (family)

Mt. Buffalo 130.00 33.00 NA (annual) (30 seats) Off-season 75.00 (29 seats)

Source: Compiled by the author from data in ANZECC 1997.

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 37 Table 2—Management budgets and revenue from user fees for selected locations in Australia, 1991–92 (in millions, Australian dollars).

World Heritage Area Total Management Total Fees Collected Fees as Percent Expenditures of Expenditure Great Barrier Reef 18.1 0.79 4.0 Wet Tropics 12.1 0.30 2.5 Kakadu 10.8 1.02 9.4 Uluru 2.9 1.85 63.8 Tasmanian Wilderness 4.8 0.20 4.2 Total 48.7 4.16 8.5

Source: Driml and Common 1995.

ing that higher prices would lead to Equity Argument termined by application of market higher revenues. But empirically the Equity is an important concern in Aus- mechanisms and bear no relationship question is whether pricing is too high tralian society. Economists often pay lip to either supply or demand. or too low and whether any variation service to equity in pursuing efficiency Use fees raise unresolved equity of price leads to an increase or de- goals. The main objection is that fees concerns, but equity is a matter of crease in total revenue. Again, the discriminate against low-income personal and philosophical values. paucity of elasticity estimates for most groups. Governments often attempt to Economists can suggest ways of natural areas in Australia constrain redress equity issues through conces- achieving efficiency and describe eq- answers to this question. sions to needy groups and families uity considerations, but ultimately through fee structures that charge per what is fair must be determined by vehicle or per campsite rather than per political process. person (ANZECC 1998). Recreation Concern about fees and commercial- areas in Australia are highly subsidized, ization of natural areas ignores the es- and only 30% of costs are recovered sential basis upon which a protected through user fees. Further studies on area system is established. Still, fund- equity will reveal its importance to the ing issues are important and cannot be financing of natural areas. Recent em- ignored. If economists are to obtain a phasis on sustainable development has more receptive audience for their effi- encouraged the need to recognize ciency concerns, more work is neces- intergenerational equity. sary on equity and issues of social justice. The guidelines for 2000, which Concluding Remarks set fees on a full cost recovery basis and introduces the goods and services tax Continuous changes in management from July 1, 2000, will have significant structure and reductions in budgets implications in Australia. Fees help raise present difficulties for managers of revenue that supports the protection of natural areas in Australia. Among these natural areas, but alone they are not suf- difficulties are a reduction in resource ficient to provide all the needed funding. protection and maintenance and an

increase in personnel workload. The GAMINI HERATH is senior lecturer at the government encourages use fees pri- School of Business, La Trobe University, marily to generate revenue, yet they Albury/Wodonga Campus, Wodonga Rock outcropping in Gibraltar Range National Park, Australia. cover a small percentage of manage- Victoria, Australia. E-mail: Photo by Geff Bennett. ment expenses. The fees are not de- [email protected].

38 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 REFERENCES Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council. 1998. Report of the The desired outcomes of user-fee systems are cost- ANZECC Working Group on National Parks and Protected Areas Management, effectiveness, improved park management, better Canberra. Beal, D. J. 1995a. Estimating the elasticity of visitor facilities, and a positive attitude toward demand for camping visits to a national park in south-east Queensland by the travel cost protected areas management. method. Australian Leisure 7(3): 21–26. Beal, D. J. 1995b. A travel cost analysis of the value of Carnarvon Gorge National Park for recreational use. Review of Marketing and agement, 21(1 ): 213–224. Kellow, A. 1989. The dispute over the Franklin Agricultural Economics 63 (2): 292–303. Dargarvel, J. 1987. Problems in Australia’s River and South West Wilderness Area in Beal, D. J., and S. R. Harrison. 1997. Efficient mixed forest economy. Journal of Australian Tasmania. Natural Resources Journal 29(1): pricing of recreation in national parks in Political Economy 21: 36–48. 129–146. Queensland case study. Paper presented to Driml, S., and M. Common. 1995. Economic Knapman, B., and N. Stoeckl. 1995. Recreation the Australian Agricultural and Resource and financial benefits of tourism in major user fees: an Australian empirical investi- Economics Conference, Gold Coast. protected areas. Australian Journal of Envi- gation. Tourism Economics 1(1): 5–15. Bennett, J. 1996. Estimating the recreation use ronmental Management 2(2): 19–29. Knapman, B., and O. Stanley. 1991. A travel values of national parks. Paper presented Hall, C. M. 1994. Ecotourism in Australia, New cost analysis of the recreation use value of to the Annual Conference of the Australian Zealand and the South Pacific, appropriate Kakadu National Park. Resource Assessment Agricultural and Resource Economics Soci- tourism or a new form of ecological imperi- Commission. Canberra, Australia: The Eco- ety, Melbourne. alism? In Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option, nomics of Recreation and Tourism Blamey, R. 1995. The nature of ecotourism. ed. by E. Cater and G. Lowman. New York: Consultancy, Canberra. Occasional Paper, No. 21. Canberra, Aus- John and Sons: 137–157. Tourism Forecasting Council. 1997. The sixth tralia: Bureau of Tourism Research. Hall, C. M. 1989. The “Worthless Lands Hy- report of the Tourism Forecasting Council. Bureau of Tourism Research. 1994. Australian pothesis” and Australia’s National Parks Forecast 3: 1–5. tourism data card, Canberra, Australia: BTR. and Reserves in Australia’s Ever Chang- Ulph, A. M., and J. K. Reynolds. 1981. An eco- Common, M. S., and T. W. Norton. 1992. ing Forests. Special Publication No. 1, ed. nomic evaluation of national parks. Center Biodiversity: its conservation in Australia. by K. J. Fawley and N. Semple. Depart- for Resource and Environmental Studies Ambio 21(3): 258–265. ment of Geography and Oceanography, Monograph 4. Canberra: Australian Na- Cullen, R. 1985. Rationing recreation use of Defence Force Academy, Campbell ACT: tional University. public land. Journal of Environmental Man- 441–458.

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 39 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcements & Wilderness Calendar

Environmentalists Sue power. This is a critical time for Canada’s parks system and to Stop Military Overflights its role in the ecological integrity of the Earth. Anyone who has ever been buzzed in wilderness by a low- Env. Groups Demand Reduction flying Air Force jet will tell you the experience was deafen- ing and intimidating. Environmentalists and ranchers from and Regulation of ORVs on Public Lands nine western states teamed up in January to file suit against More than 100 environmental groups called on federal agen- the Defense Department to end such low-level training cies to dramatically reduce off-road vehicle use of national flights until their environmental impact is determined. The parks and forests. The coalition reported that “off-roading” lawsuit states that in the West alone the Air Force conducts is destroying and polluting those lands. Another 85-group training flights over more than one million square miles of coalition, led by The Wilderness Society, petitioned the open country, most of it public land, at speeds up to 645 USDA Forest Service to end off-road vehicle use on the miles per hour and at altitudes as low as 100 feet. The suit national forests unless they implement a system for stricter charges the Air Force with intentionally underestimating regulation. And another 66 environmental groups asked the environmental impact of such flights. the National Park Service to ban off-road access to national parks all together. Panel Finds Canada’s Australia Ranks among National Parks System Near Collapse Top Five Land-Clearing Nations The Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National The Australian Conservation Foundation reported that Parks recently reported that Canada’s national parks ser- Australia is clearing its forests faster than any other indus- vice must make radical changes if it is going to avoid a total trialized nation. In three years alone it cleared about 2.5 collapse of the nation’s entire parks system. At least 22 of million acres of forested land. The country now ranks as Canada’s 39 national parks face severe environmental dan- the fifth largest land-clearing nation in the world. gers. But the state of Canada’s parks is less about global environmental problems and more about the failure of the managing body. Panel Chairman Jacques Girin said that Roadless Areas on Lolo National Forest the situation is so serious that increasing budgets will do Protected from Snowmobilers little or nothing for Canada’s protected areas until the orga- Montana’s Lolo National Forest recently closed 400,000 nization makes profound changes in the way it operates. roadless acres to motorized access in response to the threat Failure to implement planning, poor organization and of a lawsuit by the Montana Wilderness Association if the management, and a lack of scientific knowledge were among forest did not enforce a 1986 management plan. the panel’s major criticisms. Out of 2,100 staff members The Montana Snowmobile Association along with the working for Parks Canada, only 11 hold Ph.D.s and 40 Blue Ribbon Coalition (an Idaho motorized recreation have masters degrees. The panel also found that park staff group) and the town of Superior, Montana (which depends often did not understand the definition of environmental on snowmobiler dollars), challenged the closure charging integrity and commonly ignored the health of park ecosys- that the Forest Service failed to hold public hearings before tems in decisionmaking. The panel strongly supports hir- implementing the ban. But Judge Donald Molloy ruled that ing more scientists and placing at least one in a position of snowmobilers attended public hearings during preparation

40 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 of the 1986 plan, and that the Forest [email protected]. Adapted which demands protection for another Service was overdue in enforcing the from Central and Southern Sierra Wil- 4.9 million acres of roadless areas in ban. The decision means that, follow- derness Education Project’s winter 1999/ Oregon’s national forests. The cam- ing public input, national forests must 2000 newsletter. paign is working on a proposal for the enforce their land management plans. state’s congressional delegation. Or- Africa Losing Forests egon currently has 2.1 million acres Clinton Administration to Due to a Combination of designated wilderness. Propose New Category of of Factors Great Grizzly Search Protected Lands—National The U.N. Food and Agriculture Orga- Underway in Landscape Monuments nization reported that between 1980 Salmon-Selway-Bitterroot Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt an- and 1995, Africa had an annual de- nounced that the Clinton Administra- forestation rate of 0.3%, or twice the Ecosystem tion plans to create a new category of world average, losing an estimated A group of scientists and conservation- protected public lands called a Na- 10.5% of forest land. Logging, over- ists have joined efforts to search for tional Landscape Monument. Some 4 grazing, clearing land for agriculture, grizzly bears in the Salmon-Selway- million acres in the West are under and civil unrest have all contributed. Bitterroot Ecosystem in Idaho and consideration, including Oregon’s The report found that in many coun- Montana. The group believes that griz- Steens Mountains, parts of Montana’s tries, forest management and national zlies do live in this vast area, and that Missouri River, and Colorado’s Can- parks programs have been disrupted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service yon of the Ancients. If Congress does by political and military conflicts, should document their numbers and not protect these areas, President while firewood needs are increasing in habits before proceeding with any griz- Clinton could declare them National sub-Saharan Africa due to the growth zly recovery plan. The group offers an Landscape Monuments. The Bureau of of both population and poverty. observation booklet to help the pub- Land Management will manage these lic identify grizzlies and document new protected areas. Study Says Saving sightings. For more information or to World’s Species Is Not report a sighting, write to Great Griz- Leave No Trace Principles zly Search, P.O. Box 8983, Missoula, a Losing Battle Montana 59807, USA. Take Root in Germany A British-American research team re- Anne-Katrin Henkel is helping to ported in the journal Nature that a third Albertan Environmentalists build a national outdoor ethic in Ger- of the world’s plant and animal species Disappointed with many. Last April, Henkel gathered live on only 1.4% of the Earth’s land public relations specialists, preserve mass. The team concluded that by fo- Chinchaga Protection Plan rangers, and staff in Germany’s Rhon cusing on 25 “hot spots,” it is possible The Alberta Wilderness Association Biosphere Reserve to discuss the Leave to save a large portion of the world’s (AWA) joined the Canadian Parks and No Trace Program (LNT) in the United species from extinction. These “hot Wilderness Society to announce its States. Some LNT principles were spots” include tropical rainforests in disappointment with the province’s readily accepted, such as “Pack It In, Brazil, Madagascar, the Andes, Borneo, decision to protect some 800 square Pack It Out.” However, despite the Sumatra, the Caribbean, and other kilometers of a proposed 5,000 square human waste problem in many natu- Southeast Asian islands. IJW—Could kilometer area in the Chinchaga wil- ral areas in Germany, participants wilderness be part of this strategy? derness region of northeastern Alberta. would not discuss proper disposal and Environmentalists argue that the area is too small and is mostly peatland and sanitation. Henkel said she was labeled Oregon Campaign “crazy” for packing out her toilet pa- unproductive, burned-over deciduous per on backpacking trips in the States. Calls for More Wilderness forest. The area is home to important Still, Henkel affirms, every initiative The Oregon Natural Resources Coun- nesting sites for trumpeter swans as begins with small steps. For more in- cil is leading dozens of organizations well as at-risk woodland caribou and formation contact Barbara Miranda at: in the new “Oregon Wild” campaign, grizzly bears. The AWA denied reports

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 41 that it intends to “go radical” in its ef- greatest investment in conservation the Snake River to help recover threat- forts to protect more of the Chinchaga. ever by a private organization. ened salmon runs. For the second con- For more information or to voice your secutive year, the organization has opinion, write to AWA, P.O. Box 6398, Two Listserves declared the Snake the most endangered Station D, Calgary, Alberta, T2P 2E1, Help Environmental river in the United States. Activists sup- Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. porting dam breaching delivered Organizations Share 120,000 letters and cards to Vice Presi- BLM Rangers Attacked Information and Resources dent Al Gore’s office. The four dams in in Algodones Dunes Grassroots organizations are a tremen- question provide only 5% of the region’s dous tool for shaping U.S. environ- electric power, while destroying 90% of BLM rangers were attacked by an “un- mental policy in the 21st Century. the salmon. The federal government is usually unruly” crowd in southern That’s why Steve Holmer and Stu completing its study and plans to make California’s Algodones Dunes during the Dalheim started “americanlands-list,” a recommendation later this year. Seems 1999 Thanksgiving weekend. Rangers an extensive computer network of the future of salmon runs in western observed illegal off-road vehicle (ORV) more than 2,500 activists and organi- rivers depends not on high-tech fish lad- activity in Areas of Critical Environmen- zations who share information over e- ders, but on restoring waterways to free tal Concern (ACEC) and wilderness ar- mail to help them be as effective as flowing states. eas in Imperial County. Reports of possible in their efforts to protect the 60,000 to 110,000 holiday campers and United State’s natural heritage. Mem- ORV enthusiasts flooded Algodones National Mountain bers are encouraged to post informa- Dunes, and a local newspaper reported Conference in Golden, tion and alerts as well as receive drunken driving, alcohol and drug vio- information from other individuals Colorado lations, riots, and attacks on law enforce- and organizations. Holmer and “Stewardship and human powered ment officers. Vehicles repeatedly Dalheim strongly believe that each in- recreation for the new century” is the ignored, removed or destroyed BLM dividual voice makes a real difference, theme of the National Mountain Con- signs restricting motorized travel in and that collectively environmentally ference to be held September 14–16, ACECs and “Limited Use Areas.” minded groups are having a very “sig- 2000, in Golden, Colorado. Registra- Adapted from Desert Survivors Monthly nificant cumulative impact” on the tion is $110.00. For more information, Discussion Group Report. health of the natural world. For more contact National Mountain Confer- information, please contact American ence Coordinator, c/o AMC Research New Study Reports Two Lands at [email protected], Department, P.O. Box 298, Gorham, Times as Many Species in or call 202-547-9105. New Hampshire 03581, USA. Tele- U.S., but One-Third Wilderness Watch! maintains a phone: 603-466-2721, x184. E-mail: similar listserve called WILDNET. The [email protected]. Imperiled organization encourages subscribers to A new study by the Nature Conser- share information toward building a Sierra Club Files Suit vancy (touted as the most comprehen- better wilderness system. To subscribe, against Shopping Mall at sive study of biodiversity ever address a message to: wildnet@ undertaken in the United States) re- wildrockies.org. For information, contact Grand Canyon ports that the country is home to more the list administrator, Glenn Marangelo, The Sierra Club filed suit to stop de- than 200,000 native species of living at: [email protected]. velopment of Canyon Forest Village, things, double the number previously a 330-million-dollar project that thought. To temper that figure, the American Rivers would include up to 1,140 hotel study says that at least a third of all rooms, 2,375 housing units, and these species are imperiled. In re- Presses for Dam Breaching 250,000 square feet of commercial sponse to this crisis, the Nature Con- on the Snake space at the main entrance of Grand servancy will launch a 1 billion dollar The environmental organization Ameri- Canyon National Park. The group con- campaign over the next five years to can Rivers is pressuring the Clinton tends that building “Arizona’s largest protect wildlands. It is, they say, the Administration to breach four dams on shopping center at the entrance to

42 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 Grand Canyon” is a bad idea. Beyond and formulate a wilderness agenda for people spending an entire year (Au- spoiling one of the most beautiful the next century. Conference organiz- gust 2001 to July 2002) on the Nor- landscapes in the world, of primary ers say they want to broaden the kinds wegian Island of Svalbard. The concern is the development’s demand of people advocating for wilderness expedition is administered by Brit- for groundwater. For more informa- protection and so encourage atten- ish Schools Expeditions. Svalbard, tion, contact the Sierra Club at 85 Sec- dance by nontraditional allies such as often described as Europe’s last wil- ond Street, Second Floor, San artists, writers, musicians, religious derness area, is far from a pristine Francisco, California 94105, USA. groups, business leaders, hunters, an- environment. Converging air and Telephone: 415-977-5500. Website: glers, and young people. For more in- water masses transport pollutants to www.sierraclub.org. formation or registration, write to Sara the area, and scientists have recently Scott at The Wilderness Society, 7475 discovered polar bears with levels of National Wilderness 2000 Dakin Street, Suite 410, Denver, Colorado pollutants 20 times that of bears in 80221, USA. Telephone: 303-650-5818, Alaska. Later this year, lesson plans Conference in Denver, x107. E-mail: [email protected]. for teachers will be added to the Colorado website to encourage young people Celebrate wilderness at the National Website Follows worldwide to consider the threats Wilderness 2000 Conference, Septem- Expedition of Young facing Svalbard and the value of wil- ber 8–10 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel derness. For more information, con- in Denver, Colorado. Under the con- People Promoting tact Mark Evans, British School, P.O. ference theme, Protecting America’s Wilderness Awareness Box 85769, Riyadh 11612, Saudi Wild Places in the 21st Century, ac- A new wilderness-based education Arabia. tivists will find opportunities to ad- website, www.arcticyear.org, will dress present and future challenges follow an expedition of young

Michelle Mazzola Leaves Kurt Caswell Joins IJW as Production Editor IJW Managing Editor and Kurt Caswell, chair of the English department at Cascade School near Production Editor Whitmore in rural northern California, is IJW’s new production editor. Caswell will work with the editor-in-chief to copyedit and organize all IJW materials Positions for submission to Fulcrum Publishing. Michelle Mazzola, who has been IJW’s Caswell, age 30, grew up in a Forest Ser- production editor since its inception vice family in the Cascade Mountains of Or- in 1995, and managing editor for the egon and on the Snake River Plain in southern past two years, is leaving the journal Idaho. He holds a bachelor’s degree in En- to focus on new professional chal- glish from Boise State University, and a lenges. Director of the Foster Creek master’s degree from the Bread Loaf School Conservation District in Washington of English at Middlebury College in State, Mazzola recently received a Middlebury, Vermont. He has taught in major grant from the National Fish Hokkaido, Japan, on the Navajo Reservation, and Wildlife Foundation to develop and on a working cattle ranch in Arizona. At a model habitat conservation project. Cascade School Caswell specializes in teach- IJW Production Editor Kurt Caswell in Editor-in-chief John Hendee will re- southern Utah’s Grand Gulch. Photo by ing Shakespeare, Native American literature, Sunny Weir. assume the position of managing edi- and Romantic poetry. He leads wilderness tor, and Kurt Caswell (see below) will trips for students during the summer. He has published stories, articles, and become production editor. IJW will essays in numerous magazines and journals, including Left Bank, Boise Maga- miss you, Michelle. Thank you for zine, West Wind Review, and the Orion Society’s anthology Stories in the Land. your many and steady contributions. A frequent contributor to the Chico News and Review, he lives with his wife, Good luck in your future endeavors. Suzanne. Welcome aboard Kurt!

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 43 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Letters to the Editor

Use Fees Constitute Wilderness for Sale Medberry Supports Roadless Area Policy

Dear International Journal of Wilderness, Dear IJW, Congress is pushing federal agencies to institute user fee pro- Jay O’Laughlin and John Freemuth oppose the proposed For grams. To increase the incentive, congress is telling managers est Service policy to protect the remaining 40 to 60 million they can keep all or a portion of the fees collected to run the acres of national forest roadless lands from road construction program. Congress launched the Recreation Fee Demo pro- and logging (see “Roadless Area Policy, Politics, and Wilder- gram in 1996 to test this concept. At first glance, this makes a ness Potential,” IJW, April 2000). They argue for current plan- lot of sense. However, I have some very serious concerns. ning processes and assert that the proposed roadless policy Proper stewardship of public lands (especially wilder- ignores people’s opinions by being the centerpiece of a politi- ness) often requires limitation of use. My 33 years in the cally driven agenda. I disagree! U.S. Forest Service tells me exactly what will happen if you The roadless issue has a long history of active, public say to any bright manager, “Sell the resource and you can debate. In the 1970s and 1980s the Forest Service performed and keep the proceeds to enhance your program!” This is two major roadless area studies (RARE I and RARE II). In exactly how the Recreation Fee Demo Program works. It the 1980s and 1990s, wilderness legislation was proposed, provides a powerful incentive for managers to avoid any- debated, and passed or killed, and these debates continue thing that will limit use, because the more use they can today, sometimes in policy wrangling over forest health, generate the greater their budget. Raising money soon drives salvage logging, fire policy, endangered species, and water the program instead of proper resource stewardship. quality, all of which affect roadless area management. But it In addition to wilderness users, wilderness benefits mil- is in project level decisions (such as timber sales) where lions of Americans who will never set foot there, millions the fate of many roadless areas are settled. It is in the ar- of Americans yet unborn, and millions of animals great and cane, jargon-packed, convoluted, policy never-never lands small. How do you collect user fees from them? How do of passionless, mind-numbing, bureaucratic documents you put a price on outstanding opportunities for solitude? where many roadless areas meet their fate. In Idaho, we’ve Any fees that are collected must go directly to the treasury lost a million acres of potential wilderness through “exist- and there must be no relationship between fees and the ing policy processes.” Enough is enough! The proposed funds appropriated for stewardship. policy would protect roadless areas in their current condi- Congress must provide the funding to maintain and pro- tion while the long-term debate over each area continues. tect our wilderness treasures for future generations. It should Is that political? Of course it is. not tell wilderness stewards they must sell the resource to The agency has heard from more than half a million pay their salary. people at its many hearings and open houses, and current Bill Worf public opinion polls show overwhelming support for pres- President of Wilderness Watch ervation of roadless areas. This time the Forest Service is in 6315 Hillview Way sync with the public. Missoula, Montana 59803 406-251-6210

44 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 This old debate descends from John Muir and Gifford Pinchot’s arguments over preservation versus multiple-use and development of the nation’s forests. Now that we Americans have developed the vast majority of our land—and less than 5% remains wild—it is certainly time for more creativity, humility, and restraint. It is time to adopt Muir’s approach and preserve the forests that remain most native, most untrammeled, and most wild. Mike Medberry American Lands Alliance E-mail: [email protected]

O’Laughlin’s Response to Medberry Freemuth’s Response to Medberry

Dear IJW and Mike Medberry, Dear IJW, President Clinton said 40 million acres will be preserved. Mike Medberry has, as usual, written a passionate defense Forest Service leaders he appointed are solidly behind this of the need to protect the remaining roadless lands in the done deal (see www.house.gov/resources/106cong/forests/ United States. I do not question Mike’s passion, and cer- staffreportroadlessinfluence.htm). To help establish Clinton’s tainly think that a case can be made for the protection of public lands protection legacy, 20% of national forest lands the remaining roadless areas in the United States. My con- would become quasi-wilderness without going through the cern is with process, and how we make decisions in our contentious struggle among competing interests our law- system of democracy. We must make them with delibera- makers intended for permanent wilderness protection. tion, discussion, and thought. In a political sense, there is Perhaps (as Mr. Medberry claims) one of every nine acres nothing new about the Clinton move—it is strategic poli- of roadless national forest in Idaho has been developed since tics as it has always been practiced. Yet, when Mike says RARE II. Identifying these lands as lost potential wilderness “enough is enough,” I fear he is more accurate than he illustrates why Idahoans cannot agree on the roadless/wilder- knows. I worry that we are close to the time when “enough ness issue. Some groups want it all. The president obliges is enough” is everyone’s cry, and we sink into the morass of them. After-the-fact public input satisfies only the letter, not gotcha politics, and nothing else. Maybe there is still room the spirit, of the law. Do we want a public policy process to move here. where the rule of law matters less than interest group influ- John Freemuth ence and opinion polls? I hope not. Enough is enough, Mike. Senior Fellow, Andrus Center for Jay O’Laughlin Public Policy Director of the Idaho Forest, Professor of Political Science Wildlife and Range Policy Boise State University Analysis Group E-mail: [email protected] University of Idaho E-mail: [email protected]

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 45 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Book Reviews BY JOHN SHULTIS

Nature: Western Attitudes Since Ancient Times by Peter Coates. 1998. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 256 pp., $29.95 (hardcover).

Peter Coates’s book Nature: Coates discusses Greek and Roman society in chapter 2, Western Attitudes Since An- and medieval attitudes toward nature in chapter 3. Coates cient Times brings to mind suggests that the Renaissance era may be the crucible of many great books about the “modern” concepts of nature (chapter 4), and then he re- history of Western attitudes views the controversial idea of whether indigenous people’s toward nature: Clarence concepts of nature may have reflected “ecological sainthood” Glacken’s Traces on the in Chapter 5 (p. 82). Rhodian Shore; Raymond In chapter 6, Coates describes how the concept of na- Williams’s The Country and ture as “scenery” and “landscape” relates to the creation of the City; Roderick Nash’s Wil- the eighteenth century British landscape park, the direct derness and the American antecedent of urban and, later, national parks in the New Mind; Hans Huth’s Nature World. He also notes how these first parks, as well as the and the American; and Max early national parks in the United States, reflect the distri- Oelschlaeger’s The Idea of bution of power and class within society. The important Wilderness. Cumulatively, impacts of Romanticism, the concept of ecology (chapter these and other books cre- 7), and twentieth-century socialism (chapter 8) on mod- Book review editor John Shultis. ated the field of environmen- ern concepts of nature are also reviewed. The final chapter tal history by the 1970s, assesses “the future of nature” by looking at recent devel- allowing the study of nature and wilderness to take their opments including cloning. rightful place among more traditional historical subjects. What differentiates this book is that more recent time Like the books above, Nature explores the tangled his- periods are incorporated: Coates’s discussion ranges from tory of Western society’s concepts of nature. While the word primordial to postmodern. For example, the book in- “nature” has an astounding range of definitions, Coates’s corporates the impact of the contemporary Green move- book concentrates on five meanings of the term: nature as ment and the Third Reich era of Germany on attitudes (1) a physical place, particularly unmodified or threatened toward nature. He does not offer new perspectives on environments (i.e., wilderness); (2) the collective phenom- the historical human relationship with wilderness, nor ena of the world, either including or excluding humans; does he break new ground. The strength of this book is (3) an essence, quality and/or principle that informs the that it provides a current, well-written, succinct review workings of the world; (4) an inspiration and guide for of the myriad meanings the term “nature” has had people to govern human affairs; and (5) the opposite of throughout human history. culture. Throughout the book, Coates explores the origin Coates’s writing style is clear and fluid (it would make of human control over wilderness, human separation from an excellent college textbook). While it doesn’t reach the the natural world, and the ideas and actions that might be lofty heights of the seminal books noted above, Nature is to blame for our current “ecological crisis”. for all those fascinated by how humans have viewed “na- After outlining the five major categories of meaning un- ture” throughout history. derlying past and present concepts of nature in chapter 1,

46 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa by Roderick P. Neumann. 1998. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 271 pp., $35.00 (cloth).

George Catlin’s original vision of “a tion for aesthetic consumption (i.e., from the reluctance or inability of Nation’s park” included both indig- recreation and tourism). In this criti- managers to be included in such com- enous peoples and wildlife. Despite cal shift, kinship-based tenure systems munal relationships, as it would force this early inclusionary vision, the ex- that had controlled land for centuries the state to relinquish some control clusionary “Yellowstone model” be- were replaced by private or state-con- over land and resources. While the came the standard for most trolled systems that restricted or ex- lives of park staff, and community subsequent protected areas. In this tinguished local access to critical members are forcibly intertwined, model, humans were not considered resources. state policies and regulations deliber- part of wilderness, but were separate Neumann provides a fascinating, ately discourage such relationships. In from it, cast out to protect the wilder- scholarly account of the spatial, tem- such an atmosphere, notes Neumann, ness from human exploitation. poral, and social patterns of illegal ac- neither the residents nor wildlife can Despite sustained opposition from tivities, such as firewood collecting thrive, and the goals of the nation, indigenous groups throughout the and hunting, from both the villagers’ park staff and community cannot be New World, their forced displacement and managers’ perspectives. The met. from parks became the norm. The analysis of daily confrontations be- While based in Africa, Neumann’s strength of the myth of wildlands as tween the two groups is the most pow- analysis is relevant to both develop- primeval, “untouched” nature was too erful section of the book. Neumann ing and developed nations and chal- strong to allow for human settlement suggests a moral justification for lenges traditional, deeply rooted in these areas, even after it became crimes such as theft and grazing tres- beliefs about the relationship between evident that indigenous peoples had pass based on ancestral and custom- indigenous peoples and protected ar- lived in these areas from approxi- ary claims to land and resources: eas. At the heart of Neumann’s book mately 2000 years (New Zealand) to “Simultaneously and inseparably, these is a question receiving increasing de- 10,000 years (North America) to more acts defend a set of locally recognized bate: If protected areas had been ac- than 60,000 years (Australia). symbols and an idealized history in the tively managed over long periods of Roderick Neumann’s Imposing Wilder- land—an ancestor’s homestead, a time by indigenous peoples, should ness is a provocative case study of the meeting place, a battle site, a commu- their descendants continue to occupy historical tensions between local nal salt lick” (p. 175). The battle be- and utilize the resources in their tra- populations and protected area man- tween villagers and managers is both ditional homelands? agers in Tanzania’s Arusha National a contest between land rights and the The maps, figures, and photo- Park region. Neumann powerfully symbolic meaning of the land itself. graphs do not match the quality of the documents the past and present Village economies in Africa are writing or analysis in Imposing Wilder- struggles of community residents with based on social arrangements among ness, but Neumann provides a park managers and the state. He de- community members, including reci- thought-provoking read for those who scribes the tensions between the origi- procity, forced generosity, communal wish for deeper understanding of the nal African appropriation of land for lands, and work sharing. Interestingly, tensions between indigenous peoples material production and the nine- Neumann argues that tensions be- and protected areas throughout the teenth-century European appropria- tween villagers and managers stem world. More book reviews on page 48

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2 47 Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management (second edition) by William Hammitt and David Cole. 1998. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 364 pp., $80.00 (hardback).

Recreation Ecology: The Ecological Impact of Outdoor Recreation and Ecotourism by Michael Liddle. 1997. London: Chapman & Hall. 664 pp., $107.00 (hardback).

Despite the attention to the issue of $80, it’s expensive, but provides up- reation from an ecological/scientific (as the environmental impact of outdoor dates of research findings, new per- opposed to practitioner) perspective, recreation, there are few full-length spectives, and includes two new Liddle’s book is important reading. books dealing with this subject. Wild- chapters. Together, these two books provide land Recreation and Recreation Ecology Michael Liddle’s Recreation Ecology an excellent overview of the research are two books helping to fill this need. focuses on ecological aspects of out- published on the ecological impacts This second edition of Wildland door recreation impacts, but ignores of outdoor recreation. Recreation is a valuable tool for wil- management perspectives. However, derness recreation researchers. Writ- Liddle’s book contains more informa- JOHN SHULTIS is an associate professor at ten by two well-known wilderness tion on a wider scope than Wildland the University of Northern British Columbia, scientists, the text is clear and concise, Recreation, and will have greater ap- Canada and is IJW’s executive editor handling book reviews. Telephone: and outlines management strategies to peal for wilderness researchers than 250-960-5640. E-mail: [email protected]. mitigate environmental impacts. At practitioners. For those studying rec-

Must we always teach our children with books? Let them look at the stars and the mountains above. Let them look at the waters and the trees and flowers on Earth. Then they will begin to think, and to think is the beginning of a real education.

—David Polis

48 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2000 • VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2