Sky Islands Reducing Campsite Impacts Carpathian Mountains Canada, Europe INTERNATIONAL Journal of Wilderness

APRIL 2009 VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1

FEATURES SCIENCE and RESEARCH, cont’d EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES 26 Climbers’ Attitudes toward Recreation 3 Fish and Wildlife Service Wilderness Resource Impacts in the Adirondack Park’s Stewardship Policy Giant Mountain Wilderness BY CHAD P. DAWSON BY CHRISTOPHER A. MONZ

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO 4 Canada Increases Wilderness Protection and LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH Policy Goals INSTITUTE BY HARVEY LOCKE 34 Learning from Wilderness The Social Dimension of Fire Management STEWARDSHIP BY ANNE E. BLACK 9 The Sky Islands of North America A Globally Unique and Threatened Inland Archipelago INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES BY MATT SKROCH 37 The Carpathian Mountains The Wild Heart of Europe 15 Artificial Water BY MICHAEL C. BALTZER, DAVID When Is It Justified in Desert STROBEL, and VLADO VANCURA Wilderness? BY CRAIG DEUTSCHE WILDERNESS DIGEST 42 Announcements SCIENCE and RESEARCH 47 Book Reviews 20 A Relatively Nonrestrictive Approach to 47 Arthur Carhart: Wilderness Prophet Reducing Campsite Impact BY TOM WOLF 48 A Wild Life: Adventures of an Caney Creek Wilderness, Arkansas Accidental Conservationist in Africa BY DAVID N. COLE and THOMAS E. BY DICK PITMAN FERGUSON 48 State of the Wild 2008–2009 BY WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY

Disclaimer

The Soul of the Wilderness column and all On the Cover invited and featured articles in IJW, are a forum for controversial, inspiring, or especially FRONT: Black Coral (order Antipartharia), The informative articles to renew thinking and Passage, Rajah Ampat, near Kri Island, Indonesia. dialogue among our readers. The views Photo © David Doubilet expressed in these articles are those of the INSET: Underwater photographer Dan Baldocchi authors. IJW neither endorses nor rejects photographs a group of young villagers from the them, but invites comments from our readers. island of Pura, near Alor, Indonesia. Photo © Sterling —John C. Hendee, IJW Editor-in-Chief Zumbrunn

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 1 International Journal of Wilderness The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interested citizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning, management, and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship.

EDITORIAL BOARD Perry Brown, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA H. Ken Cordell, Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Athens, Ga., USA Lisa Eidson, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Boulder, Colo., USA Rebecca Oreskes, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, N.H., USA John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF John C. Hendee, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho, USA

MANAGING EDITOR Chad P. Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—INTERNATIONAL Gordon Cessford, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; Andrew Muir, Wilderness Foundation Eastern Cape, South Africa; Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal, Republic of South Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea; Anna-Liisa Sippola, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATES Greg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; Joseph Flood, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Gary Green, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Greg Kroll, El Rito, N.M.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Yu-Fai Leung, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Christopher Monz, Utah State University, Logan, Utah; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Goshen College, Wolf Lake, In.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Keith Russell, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, USGS, Fort Collins, Colo.; Michael Tarrant, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Dave White, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) publishes three issues per year Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide are (April, August, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication. solicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptions of key Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, One programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and environ- Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA. Telephone: (315) 470-6567. mental education; wilderness-related science and research from all Fax: (315) 470-6535. E-mail: [email protected]. disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilder- ness; and international perspectives describing wilderness worldwide. Business Management and Subscriptions: The WILD Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book reviews, Foundation, 717 Poplar Ave., Boulder, CO 80304, USA. Telephone: announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are encour- (303) 442-8811. Fax: (303) 442-8877. E-mail: [email protected]. aged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is available from the website: www.ijw.org. Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are in U.S. dollars only—$35 for individuals and $55 for organiza- Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are tions/libraries. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $10; outside encouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signed North America, add $20. Back issues are available for $15. by the author.

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright © Website: www.ijw.org. 2009 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation. Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make Printed on recycled paper. fair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Conservation International • National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outward Bound™ • SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry • The WILD® Foundation • The Wilderness Society • University of Idaho • University of Montana, School of Forestry and Wilderness Institute • USDA Forest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDI National Park Service • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa) FEATURES

EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES

Fish and Wildlife Service Wilderness Stewardship Policy

BY CHAD P. DAWSON

he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published those policies and directions: Do they support the intent in November 2008 (73 FR 222: 67876-67882) an and goals of the 1964 Wilderness Act or not? Evaluating Tupdate of their 1986 policy on wilderness steward- wilderness stewardship actions and outcomes of the four ship to direct implementation of the U.S. Wilderness Act of agencies over time will tell us the answer. 1964 within the refuge system. The draft of this new policy In this issue of IJW, Harvey Locke relates the exciting had been first announced in Federal Register in January progress in extending protected areas and wilderness policy 2001 (66 FR 3708), and more than 4,130 people sent in goals in Canada, especially related to the initiative to pro- comments and suggestions during 2001. The FWS staff tect at least 50% of the boreal forests in northern Canada. considered the information and various suggestions and Two articles on ecology in the southwestern United States recommendations for changes, and responded with a new and northern Mexico relate to some of the challenges in policy on November 17, 2008. The lengthy review process understanding and planning for protecting the ecology of since 2001 and the final policy have stirred some contro- the inland archipelago mountain islands, or what Matt versy, especially related to national refuge system lands in Skroch refers to as “sky islands,” and Craig Deutsche pon- Alaska that are reportedly exempt from wilderness reviews ders the need to provide artificial water sources for wildlife (see related Digest item in this issue of IJW). that have become isolated from surface water sources The revised FWS policy means that all four federal wil- needed for survival. derness management agencies (including the National Park David N. Cole and Thomas E. Ferguson outline the Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management) management approach used in the Caney Creek Wilderness have revised their wilderness stewardship policies since 2000 to reduce campsite impacts, and Christopher A. Monz to be in compliance with policy changes within their agen- reports on the perceptions of rock climbers on recreation cies and other legislative changes related to implementing resource impacts in the Giant Mountain Wilderness of New the 1964 Wilderness Act. The public documentation of each York State. The second IJW article in a series on the agency’s policies related to wilderness stewardship and man- Carpathian Mountains is presented by Michael C. Baltzer, agement provides a mechanism by which to review the David Strobel, and Vlado Vancura who tell the story of “The direction of the agencies in their work within the 107-mil- Wild Heart of Europe” in a historic context. lion-acre (43.3-million-ha) National Wilderness Preservation System. Whether we agree or disagree with the FWS or CHAD P. DAWSON is the managing editor for IJW, and a professor other federal agency policies on wilderness, we now have of recreation resources management at the SUNY College of written documentation by which we can interact in any of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse, New York, USA; the three branches of government to support or challenge email: [email protected].

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 3 FEATURES SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS

Canada Increases Wilderness Protection and Policy Goals

BY HARVEY LOCKE

he years 2007 and 2008 have seen major advances Because Canada is the second largest country on Earth, and in wilderness protection in Canada at the level of at least 90% of it has some aspect of public ownership, such Tboth policy and outcomes. Led by the Canadian an agenda is of global significance. Boreal Initiative and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, calls for protecting at least half of Canada’s public Protect “At Least Half” of the Boreal Forest lands and waters are starting to take hold in public policy. The public goal of protecting at least half of Canada’s vast

Figure 1—Cirque of the Unclimbables in the Nahanni Park expansion area. Photo by Harvey Locke.

4 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 boreal forest was first articulated in 2003 through the Boreal Conservation Framework led by the Canadian Boreal Initiative. Its founding signatories were conservation groups (Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, World Wildlife Fund—Canada, and Ducks Unlimited), some First Nations, and a few enlightened industrial players. To give a sense of scale, Canada’s boreal forest is 6 million square kilometers (2.3 million sq. mi.) in size and con- tains 25% of the world’s remaining intact primary forest (Bryant et al. 1997). It contains enormous blocks of roadless wilderness bigger than many countries, vast free-flowing rivers, mil- lions of acres of wetlands, and is home Figure 2—Dumoine River in Quebec. Photo by Harvey Locke. to grizzly bears and caribou, as well as millions of migratory songbirds and waterfowl. About 600 aboriginal com- Co-op, Canada’s largest outdoor resentation of natural ecosystems. munities are located in it (many retailer, joined forces with CPAWS to Representation is the basis of the fed- without year-round road access), and launch “the Big Wild,” a public eral government’s plan to complete many people pursue traditional subsis- engagement project designed to pro- Canada’s national park system. In tence harvesting activities. It is also mote the idea of protecting at least 1990, the Endangered Spaces cam- home to some of the largest hydroelec- half of Canada’s areas with wilderness paign set a goal of representing at least tric projects on Earth (e.g., province of characteristics. 12% of each of Canada’s natural Quebec), the world’s second largest oil Canada is a country with provin- regions by the year 2000. The cam- deposit (Alberta’s tar sands), a large cial control over large areas of natural paign did not meet its goals forestry industry, and globally signifi- resources and federal control over nav- everywhere, but made material prog- cant mineral deposits ranging from igable waters and oceans and some ress in British Columbia, Alberta, nickel to iron ore to diamonds. In lands in the north. In addition, there Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia 2003, there were only a few really large are variety of different title arrange- and was successful moving the national protected areas present in the boreal ments relating to aboriginal groups level of protection up from 2.9% to forest, such as Wood Buffalo National and their use and ownership of lands. 6.8% of the land area in 10 years Park, Alberta and Northwest Territories Thus, nature conservation is done by (MacNamee 2008). (44,802 sq km; 17,298 sq. mi.), and different levels of government, However, during the same period, the Muskwa Kechika Management depending on where the areas are and conservation science demonstrated that Area in northern British Columbia who has jurisdiction. representing natural systems was only (6.3 million ha; 15.5 million acres). This target of “at least half” is one of the components that effective In 2005, the Canadian Parks and materially more ambitious than protected area systems need to consider. Wilderness Society (CPAWS) adopted previous conservation targets that Protected area systems also need to be the goal of protecting at least half of were set with a view to achieving rep- connected in order to protect Canada’s public lands and waters, which includes not only the boreal Calls for protecting at least half of Canada’s forest, but also Arctic, freshwater, and marine areas in the north and other public lands and waters are starting to take hold natural ecosystems farther south. In in public policy. 2008, the Mountain Equipment

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 5 On November 25, 1992, the Ministers of the Environment of every province and the Canadian federal government (no matter what their political affiliation) signed a declara- tion entitled a “Statement of Commitment to Complete Canada’s Networks of Protected Areas,” which included the following language: On the occasion of Canada’s 125th anniversary, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the Canadian Parks Ministers’ Council, and the Wildlife Ministers’ Council of Canada have come together to recognize that: Canada’s natural heritage—its

Figure 3—Otoskwin River in northern Ontario. Photo by Harvey Locke. wildlands, waters and wildlife— unites and defines us all as Canadians. Canada has a special wide-ranging species, to provide secure Canada has centred on the wilder- global responsibility to protect its breeding and rearing areas for wildlife, ness. ... This is because wilderness to natural heritage given that Canada is and to be of sufficient size to absorb us is more than just empty space out steward of almost 20% of the natural disturbance events such as fire there: it is part of every Canadian’s planet’s wilderness (excluding and flooding without losing all existing idea of himself and his country. Even Antarctica), 20% of its fresh water, habitat (Locke 2009). By the 21st cen- if he has never been out of down- and 24% of its remaining wetlands. tury, it was clear that the level of town Montreal or suburban (Canadian Council of Ministers of protection needed to be moved up to Vancouver, in his imagination he the Environment, Canadian Parks the landscape scale with interconnected belongs to a place of thundering Ministers’ Council, Wildlife networks of protected areas containing rivers, untrodden forests, spacious Ministers’ Council of Canada. 1992) at least half of the natural systems plains, sublime icefloes, and untamed (Schmiegelow et al. 2006). Interestingly, animals. Without the land, what Although Canada is very urban- this scientific research corresponded to would we be? (1972, pp. 13–14) ized, it also has many one-industry public research findings that showed towns with resource extraction econo- Canadians wanted even more than half Canada’s visual arts have strong mies based on logging, mining, or oil of the boreal forest protected ties to the wilderness and the vastness and gas. At the same time, there is a (McAllister Opinion Research 2008). of the land is a point of national pride. large wilderness outfitting industry in Political leaders often refer to the spe- Canada. The Canadian relationship Canadian Relationship with cial role wilderness plays in the with wilderness is complex and Wilderness Canadian psyche. For example, Liberal ambiguous. Canadians have a deep and nuanced Pierre Elliot Trudeau, who was Canada’s Canadians tend to equate any relationship with the wilderness. prime minister in the 1970s and a pas- form of protected area designation Wilderness experiences of high quality sionate wilderness canoeist, wrote in with wilderness protection and biodi- are available close to every major city 1944: “I know a man whose school versity conservation. In Canada, there except Toronto (and even there it is could never teach him patriotism but is not a wilderness act of broad national only three to four hours of travel who acquired that skill when he felt in application, although there are some away). James Polk in Wilderness his bones the vastness of his land, and specifically designated wilderness areas Writers wrote: the greatness of those who founded it” under specific laws. Certain landscapes From the beginning writing in (Trudeau 1970, p. 5). such as Banff National Park and

6 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 Algonquin Provincial Park are national icons. In 2004, CPAWS and the Dehcho First Nations mounted a high visibility national campaign calling for the protection of another iconic land- scape—the South Nahanni watershed. The heightened global public con- cern about climate change in 2006 provided a major catalyst for wilder- ness conservation in Canada. This is due, in part, to the fact that Canada’s boreal and Arctic biomes are huge storehouses of terrestrial carbon (Luyssaert et al. 2008) and more sig- nificant for carbon storage than tropical forests (Mackey et al. 2008). Leaving the wetlands, peatlands, and tundra intact is both a first order climate change mitigation and an adaptation strategy. Canada’s performance on meeting its environmental targets under the Kyoto protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has been very poor because it is a globally significant pro- ducer of oil and gas, has vast coal reserves, and has a very large automo- bile industry. Nature conservation is one way for Canada to get closer to its environmental targets.

Increased Public Policy to Protect Wilderness The net result of these combined fac- tors has been a major surge in wilderness conservation in Canada in 2007 and 2008, and there are exam- ples from various jurisdictions across the country. • The first area to achieve protec- Figure 4—Grizzly bear and wolf tracks along the Snake River in the Yukon. Photo by Harvey Locke. tion of at least half of its land area was the Queen Charlotte Islands, the traditional territory of the comanagement. Many years of agreement, the Great Bear Haida people. Half of the vast campaigning by NGOs bore fruit Rainforest in a conservation temperate rain forests of these in 2007 when the federal govern- matrix that covers an area of 8.75 Pacific Islands are receiving pro- ment joined the province of million hectares (21.6 million tection through a combination of British Columbia, First Nations, acres) and created 110 “conser- national park and provincial des- and some philanthropists to pro- vancies” in about one-third of the ignations that involve aboriginal tect, through a complex written area. Steps remain to fulfill all

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 7 aspects of the agreement, such as 18,000 sq km (6,950 sq. mi.). minster Stephen Harper’s speech at the conservancy management plan- • Manitoba finally moved in 2008 Bonn 2008 meeting of the Convention ning, the enactment of biodiversity to eliminate all logging from its on Biological Diversity reflect the cur- areas, and establishing a regional considerable park network (with rent national mood in Canada: plan for conservation outside of one exception). I’d like to conclude with a protected areas (www.savethegreat- • The most spectacular wilderness quotation by the Pulitzer Prize– bear.org). conservation event was the winning author Wallace Stegner. • After years of work by NGOs, the announcement by Premier Stegner evoked the beauty and federal government, with the Dalton McGuinty of Ontario in tranquility of the Canadian Prairies agreement of aboriginal commu- July 2008 that at least half of in a way that in my opinion has nities, moved to protect on an that province’s vast Far North never been surpassed. In 1960, long interim basis several very large would be protected. A land use before environmentalism became a areas in the Northwest Territories, planning process is being devel- galvanizing public issue, Stegner including almost all of the spec- oped with that policy at the urged us to conserve and protect tacular watershed of the South center and with a goal of about biodiversity in a famous tract called Nahanni River (36,400 sq km; 225,000 sq km (86,873 sq. mi.) his Wilderness Letter. Let me quote 14,054 sq. mi.), the Ramparts of boreal forest, wetlands, and from it. He said: “We need wilder- Wetlands (15,000 sq km; 5,792 tundra being protected. ness preserved—as much of it as is sq. mi.), the East Arm of Great • In November 2008, during the still left and as many kinds—because Slave Lake (26,350 sq km; 10,174 provincial election campaign, it was the challenge against which sq. mi.); and Sahoyue Ehdacho which his party won, Quebec pre- our character was formed.” Ladies was also permanently protected mier Jean Charest promised to and gentlemen, the preservation of (5,550 sq km; 2,143 sq. mi.). protect at least half of Quebec our wilderness today and into the future is the challenge against which Wilderness conservation has tended to come in our character will be measured. (Harper 2008) waves that correspond strongly to periods when civil society has been engaged in advancing a Alas, not all governmental juris- dictions in Canada are performing at public agenda in favor of conservation. an acceptable level when it comes to wilderness conservation. Noted lag- • The province of Nova Scotia north of the 49th parallel. This gards in adopting new policy and passed a law in 2007 requiring area would amount to 70% of the initiatives are the Yukon Territory, protection of at least 12% of the province, and the area protected Nunavut, and New Brunswick; the province, it created a new wilder- would cover an area about the size federal government’s record in marine ness area near Halifax, and it of France. conservation is also very poor. appropriated funds to buy private Wilderness conservation in forestlands for public wilderness Perhaps the most encouraging Canada does not happen solely at the protection. aspect of the recent surge in wilderness behest of enlightened governments. • The federal government protection in Canada has been a fairly Wilderness conservation has tended to announced plans to make a very broad public consensus that landscape come in waves that correspond strongly large “marine” conservation area conservation at a major scale needs to to periods when civil society has been in Lake Superior. be implemented. In the 2008 federal engaged in advancing a public agenda • Quebec moved from less than 1% election campaign, both the Liberals in favor of conservation (Locke 2009). protection in 2000 to more than and Greens adopted the goal of pro- Whether all these recent announce- 6% protection (mostly on an tecting at least 50% of the land area, ments will result in permanent interim basis) in 2008. Quebec is and the Conservatives committed to protection of these vast areas of Canada almost as big as Alaska, and each completing the national park system. percentage point of Quebec is about These words from Conservative prime Continued on page 14

8 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 STEWARDSHIP

The Sky Islands of North America A Globally Unique and Threatened Inland Archipelago

BY MATT SKROCH

rom atop a Biogeography of the Sky Islands mountain peak One hundred miles northeast of Tucson, Arizona, the Fin southeastern southern terminus of the Rocky Mountains and Colorado Arizona, one’s gaze falls Plateau jut into central Arizona and western New Mexico upon a folded fabric of with iconic snow-capped peaks and montane rivers. These earth that strikes awe, thick forests and deep canyons form the Mogollon Rim, resonates beauty, and where the last bulwark of neartic species reside before min- hosts one of the most gling with the increasing neotropical elements to the south. biologically diverse cor- The Gila, Apache, and Coronado National Forests of ners of the world. It is a this northern Sky Island region played host to a young for- place of subtropical ester named Aldo Leopold, who arrived there to survey oaks, soaring pine-clad timber in 1909. Fewer than 20 years later, Leopold jump- cliffs, and undulating Author photo: Matt Skroch. started the U.S. conservation movement by successfully hills of grassland and setting aside almost a million acres (404,858 ha) of the Gila forest (see figure 1). National Forest as the first official wilderness area. Today, The Madrean Archipelago of the North American more than 1.5 million acres (607,287 ha) of congressionally continent is a globally unique region where several major designated wilderness exists across the region in addition to biological provinces overlap, creating an explosion of life 1.5 million acres (607,287 ha) of inventoried “Roadless found nowhere else. Commonly referred to as the Sky Island region, this territory of isolated, forested mountains surrounded by seas of grassland tells a fascinating story of evolutionary convergence and unparalleled diversity. Its native inhabitants include an unusually rich assemblage of mammals and birds, including jaguars (see figure 2), thick- billed parrots (see figure 3), ocelots, Mexican gray wolves, and, though now extirpated, grizzly bears. In addition to its rich biological diversity and wildland qualities, the Sky Island region is renowned for its human his- tory and culture as well. The famed battles of Apache legends Geronimo and Cochise played out upon the plains and can- yons of the Sky Islands, and Mexico’s revolution incubated in Cananea just south of the present border. Although divided today by international borders, the Sky Island Frontera is Figure 1—Southeastern Arizona landscape. Photo courtesy of Matt Skroch. ecologically and culturally firmly united with its past.

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 9 A large floristic division occurs on an east-west axis in the Sky Islands. Spanning the lower elevations of western Arizona and northwestern Mexico, the Sonoran Desert and its iconic towering saguaro cacti extend eastward into the higher elevations. The cities of Magdalena, Sonora, and Tucson, Arizona—which both sit at the eastern edge of the Sonoran Desert—mark the relatively firm tran- sition zone from Sonoran to Madrean biotic divisions (Brown 1982). East from there, the Sky Island landscape bridges the lowest gap in the continental cordillera between northern Canada and the Isthmus of

Figure 2—Jaguar. Photo courtesy of Matt Skroch. Tehuantepec before the Chihuahuan Desert to its east. Areas.” Conservationists have identi- the international boundary. Here, an These two major bioregional con- fied more than 1 million acres (404,858 entirely different set of biological rela- vergences—the north-south span of ha) of additional public land that are tionships have evolved over the the temperate and subtropical, and the suitable for permanent protection. millennia, adapting to warmer tem- east-west overlap of the Chihuahuan Southward, along the Sonora- peratures and strong connections to and Sonoran Deserts—bring together Chihuahua border of northern Mexico, the Western Hemisphere’s tropical lati- life-forms that have significantly dif- the Rocky Mountain’s sister spine of tudes. Elegant trogons, gray hawks, ferent evolutionary histories. The North America—the mighty Sierra and military macaws squawk along unique and almost bizarre floral and Madre Occidental—rises up with sub- streams, challenging U.S. traditional faunal associations that exist tropical forests of pines and parrots notions of the Southwest as an arid throughout the region are testament to with its Sky Island outliers that span desert and highlighting just how far these overlaps and convergences. the subtropics reach northward. The Mexican Commission on Biodiversity, Topographical Complexity CONABIO (Comisión Nacional para The great topographical relief created el Conocimiento y uso de la between the region’s mountain islands Biodiversidad), recognizes this region and desert seas creates a third phe- as one of the country’s highest priori- nomenon called biotic stacking ties for conservation due to its (Marshall 1957). Naturally, lower remoteness, relatively intact ecology, elevations are hotter and drier, whereas and high biodiversity. higher elevations are cooler and Between and connecting these wetter. Valley floors within the Sky two massive continental backbones, Island region vary between 800 and 40 distinct mountain ranges form the 1,400 meters (2,625 and 4,593 ft.), Sky Island region of North America whereas isolated mountains peaks (see figure 4). The north-south junc- reach 1,900 to 3,500 meters (6,234 tion of two major cordilleras spanning to 11,483 ft.). Plants and animals the temperate and subtropical latitudes stack themselves in tight associations is unique among the approximately 18 at specific elevations with 40 distinct Figure 3—Thick-billed parrot. Photo courtesy of Matt inland archipelago complexes throug- Skroch. Sky Island mountains each providing hout the world (Warshall 1994). up to 2,000 meters (6,617 ft.) of

10 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 elevation gradient from valley to peak prairie dogs, and many more within a matter of several miles. make their home here, Consider the tallest of Sky Islands, including 29 species of bat the Pinaleño Mountains of southeastern (Felger and Wilson 1994). Arizona. Beginning at the valley floor In recent years, the jaguar on the banks of the Gila River, one and ocelot have returned, or walks among irrigated cotton fields perhaps were discovered surrounded by typical Sonoran again after several decades Desert—saguaro and cholla cactus, of absence. The grizzly bear ocotillo, and creosote. Heading upward was extirpated in the 1930s, and hiking towards the peak, one travels and the last wild Mexican through no less than eight distinct gray wolves were killed or zones: desert, semiarid grassland, chap- captured in the late 1970s arral, piñon-juniper woodland, Madrean (Brown 1983). Today, the evergreen oak woodland, Ponderosa wolf has returned to the pine forest, mixed conifer stands of wild through a recovery Douglas fir and white pine, and eventu- effort led by U.S. federal ally a true spruce-fir forest with burbling and state agencies. While creeks and quaking aspens. Instead of this U.S. program struggles days, the hike takes mere hours. Biotic to succeed, Mexico is cur- stacking is bound to make for inter- rently considering wolf esting associations of life. Imagine recovery plans as well, saguaro cacti opposite ponderosa pines, potentially adding to the Figure 4—Location of the Sky Islands region. Map courtesy of Matt black bears lumbering downhill to eat return of one of the Sky Skroch. prickly pear fruit, or a jaguar peering Island region’s most iconic through the trees to gaze inquisitively at species. tions that develop. Today, the an elk. It would be remiss not to mention elevational migration of wildlife and the herpetofauna of the Sky Islands, its habitat faces a new challenge. Biodiversity with 56 species of snake, 29 frogs and Climate change is causing additional In the Chiricahua Mountains—the toads, 37 lizards, and 11 turtles. The upward migrations on the Sky Islands, place that inspired the original coining U.S. portion of the Sky Islands is the and species are literally being “pushed of the term “Sky Island” in 1958 by richest in the country for herpetolog- off” the top of the mountain (i.e., have author Weldon Heald—you will find ical species. Eight endemic species no higher elevations to migrate into). more than half of all bird species that have evolved since the last ice age, occur in the United States (Fischer having been stranded upon various Threats 1994). In almost every Sky Island mountain islands as glacial retreat The ecological system within the Sky mountain, a different subtropical bird brought warmer temperatures and iso- Island region is complex, diverse, and species reaches its northern limit; the lated their habitat to higher elevations. fragile. Unfortunately today, the eco- Sinaloan wren in the Sierra Azul, the This phenomenon is not exclusive to system is being dismantled piece by white-faced hummingbird in the reptiles and amphibians. It has affected piece. The greatest threat to the Huachuca Mountains, the five-stripped a number of mammals and plants region’s natural heritage is not unlike sparrow in the Santa Rita Mountains, unable to withstand the challenge of that which plagues our planet’s other and the elegant trogon in the transmitting their genes, in some cases, biodiversity hotspots—habitat loss Chiricahuas, to name a few. just 5 or 10 kilometers (3.1 to 6.2 mi.) and fragmentation—although its pro- Less well known is that the Sky across the valley to a neighboring Sky gression is occurring at breakneck Island region hosts 104 species of Island. As time persists, evolution’s speed here. mammal—double that of Yellowstone invariable impact slowly changes the Historically, species often declined, National Park. Javelinas, coatis, big- physiological or morphological traits became extinct, or became extirpated horn sheep, black bears, black-tailed of life to best match the specific condi- (i.e., local population extinctions) at

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 11 currently in the process of thousands of people migrating north constructing 670 miles every year, retaining more and more (1,080 km) of walls and people unable to enter the United barriers along the interna- States or too impoverished to return tional boundary with home farther south. This bottleneck Mexico. This collection of exacerbates the existing problems asso- projects spans from the ciated with current U.S. border policy, Pacific Ocean to the Gulf placing unprecedented demands upon of Mexico, dividing eco- the natural resources of the region to systems and communities support this growth. alike along its path. Once A third major driver of change in an urban-based strategy the Sky Islands is climate change. for controlling illegal Plant and animal distributions are immigration, the barriers already changing as a result of warmer now affect national wild- temperatures. Between 2002 and life refuges, national parks, 2003, about 3.5 million acres (1.4 wilderness areas, and bio- million ha) of piñon and ponderosa sphere reserves. What pine were decimated by high tempera- impact will this barrier tures across Arizona and New Mexico have on the integrity of the (Breshears et al. 2005). This massive Sky Islands? Mexico’s die-off is one example of large-scale Secretariat of Environment changes of forest types in recent years. and Natural Resources, Higher-elevation mixed conifer and Figure 5—Hikers on Mt. Graham. Photo courtesy of Matt Skroch. along with the National spruce-fir forests are declining rapidly, Institute of Ecology and responding to record high tempera- the hands of government trappers and other partners, recently published ini- tures, invasive species outbreaks, and hunters, aided by a general societal tial findings on the border wall’s impact increased aridity. Initial modeling pre- conviction that wolves, bears, wild (see Cordova and de la Parra 2007). dicts that with an average increase of cats, prairie dogs, and many other spe- Their work concludes that significant 3°C (5.4°F) and 10% precipitation cies should be done away for a variety ecological, cultural, and political chal- over time, conifer forests will be of reasons. Combined with extensive lenges are created or further exacerbated reduced by more than 50% of their timber harvesting and cattle grazing, by the construction of the wall, and current coverage in the Rincon the ecological effects of human distur- call on more effective binational policy Mountains of Arizona (Kupfer et al. bances during the 19th and 20th to confront these challenges. Outside 2005). As a result, in-situ conserva- centuries are still felt today. Fortunately, of the U.S. government, most scien- tion measures must incorporate enlightened policy and changing values tists agree that in order to maintain adaptive change and landscape-level have moved natural resource manage- healthy ecosystems along the border, connectivity into current and future ment toward more sustainable and the wall will need to be removed or planning efforts. wildlife-friendly practices, in part, significantly altered. thanks to laws and regulations such as Second, Arizona overtook Nevada Conservation the Endangered Species Act, Wilderness as the fastest growing state in the The future is uncertain, although hope Act, Migratory Bird Act, and the United States in 2007, adding more remains for these mountain islands Wildlife without Borders program than 200,000 new residents (net) every and grassland seas. The opportunity jointly administered by the United 365 days. Urban cores are undefined for ensuring that the Sky Island region’s States and Mexico. and growth continually spills into the natural heritage remains intact for New and dire threats loom in the wildlands, creating additional expan- future generations lies in the same 21st century. First, unilateral U.S. sion and dependency on transportation fundamental arena that drives the chal- border security efforts, exempted from infrastructure. In Mexico, border lenges placed upon it. This arena is all applicable environmental laws, are towns act as coarse filters to hundreds responsible land-use planning at a

12 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 regional and local level, in addition to binational cooperation in managing The ecological system within the Sky Island this unique Sky Island ecosystem as a region is complex, diverse, and fragile. whole rather than two parts. Three actionable themes are cur- rently embedded within a growing biodiversity integrated with land- ered with the will, determination, and number of organizations collaborating scape connectivity. Currently, knowledge necessary to chart a future on land and wildlife conservation work legislation is moving through the that provides for a functioning eco- throughout the region (see figure 5). U.S. Congress to create the system that will continue to provide In 2008, more than 20 researchers, 84,000-acre (34,008 ha) for human and nonhuman denizens government officials, and NGOs con- Tumacacori Highlands Wilderness alike, or will the faults in recent devel- vened to assess conservation strategies Area on the Coronado National opment trends not break soon enough and attract additional resources to Forest in Arizona, and Mexico is and result in catastrophe? History address needs. These themes are: on the cusp of declaring a new teaches us that both outcomes have • Restoration of natural fire regimes, Biosphere Reserve in extreme occurred before. Today, the fate of the grasslands, and riparian areas. northwest Chihuahua. These two Sky Islands will likely be similar to the Although the Sky Island region is initiatives are associated with other fate of much of our planet. IJW still largely intact relative to large efforts to protect landscape link- population centers and agriculture ages between Sky Island References lands to the east and west, restora- mountains, most notably across Breshears, D. D., et al. 2005. Regional veg- etation die-off in response to tion is a key element to bolstering the international boundary. Border global-change-type drought. the region’s ecological resiliency security infrastructure has not yet Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 102: 15144–48. and function. Wildland fire use reached many of the mountains Brown, D. E. 1983. The Wolf in the and prescribed burning have that span the border, and current Southwest: The Making of an become fundamental aspects of priorities are to keep these critical Endangered Species. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. public lands management today, linkages intact by working with Brown, D. E., ed. 1982. Biotic communities and landowners are increasingly the government agencies in both of the American Southwest—United States and Mexico. Desert Plants 4: understanding the ecosystem ser- countries. 3–341. vices derived from intact riparian Cordova, A., and C. de la Parra, eds. 2007. A and upland systems beyond their In the Sky Island region, hope lies Barrier to Our Shared Environment: The Border Fence between the United worth as grazing forage. with the local constituencies who are States and Mexico. Secretariat of • Robust binational research efforts currently beginning to redefine how Environment and Natural Resources, National Institute of Ecology, El Colegio that aim to inventory and prioritize land and wildlife conservation must de la Frontera Norte, and Southwest land features and natural histories. act and react to the growing pressures Consortium for Environmental Efforts are underway to initiate upon the land. Global and regional Research and Policy. Communicacion Objectiva. San Angel, Mexico City. the Madrean Biodiversity challenges have brought into focus Felger, R. S., and M. F. Wilson. 1994. Assessment over the next three solutions that weren’t previously eluci- Northern Sierra Madre Occidental and its Apachian outliers: A neglected years. This binational team of dated, and as these solutions are center of biodiversity. In Biodiversity researchers and conservationists connected with a social consciousness and Management of the Madrean will be compiling the most com- that demands a better and more sus- Archipelago: The Sky Islands of Southwestern United States and prehensive scientific inventory of tainable way of life, the Sky Islands Northwestern Mexico, tech coord. the Sky Islands to date through will benefit along with many other Leonard F. DeBano, Peter F. Ffoliott, Alredo Ortega-Rubio, Gerald J. Gotfried, collaborative field expeditions in places on Earth currently reeling from Robert H. Hamre, and Carleton B. the Mexican and U.S. Sky Islands. the consequences of myopic natural Edminster (pp. 36–51). Gen. Tech. Rep. Data collected—much of it new resource policy, growth, and climate RM-GTR-264. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest to science—will inform and help change. Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and prioritize conservation planning A race against the clock is occur- Range Experiment Station. Fischer, D. 1994. A Checklist of Birds of efforts across the region. ring now. Can the people that live Chiricahua National Monument and • Protection of existing core wells of there—new and old alike—be empow- Fort Bowie National Historic Site.

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 13 Tucson, Arizona: Southwest Parks and Monuments Association. Hope lies with the local constituencies who Kupfer, J. A., J. Balmat, and J. L. Smith.2005. Shifts in the potential distribution of sky are currently beginning to redefine how land island plant communities in response to climate change. In Connecting Mountain and wildlife conservation must act and react Islands and Desert Seas: Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean to the growing pressures upon the land. Archipelago II, comp. Gerald J. Gottfried, Brooke S. Gebow, Lane G. Eskew, and Carleton B. Edminster. pp. 485-490. RMRS-P-36. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Warshall, P. 1994. The Madrean Sky Island Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-264. Fort Collins, Department of Agriculture, Forest archipelago: A planetary Overview. In CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Service, Rocky Mountain Research Biodiversity and Management of the Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest Station. Madrean Archipelago: The Sky Islands and Range Experiment Station. Marshall, J. 1957. Birds of the Pine Oak of Southwestern United States and Woodland in Southern Arizona and Northwestern Mexico, tech. coord. MATT SKROCH is the executive director of Adjacent Mexico. Cooper Ornithological Leonard F. DeBano, Peter F. Ffoliott, Society. Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 32. Alredo Ortega-Rubio, Gerald J. Gotfried, the Sky Island Alliance, P.O. Box 41165, Accessed January 2009: http://elibrary. Robert H. Hamre, and Carleton B. Tucson, AZ 85745, USA; website: www.sky- unm.edu/sora. Edminster (pp. 6–18). Mexico. Gen. islandalliance.org.

Continued from CANADIAN POLICY GOALS, page 8 will likely be dependent, in part, on Protected Areas: Proceedings of 40th McGuinty, Dalton. 2008. Protecting the Anniversary Parks for Tomorrow northern boreal region, www.premier. whether members of civil society act to Conference. Calgary, Alberta: University gov.on.ca (accessed December 2008). ensure that the various governments of Calgary Press. Polk, James. 1972. Wilderness Writers. follow through on their recent inspiring Luyssaert, Sebastiaan, E., Detlef Schulze, Toronto, Ontario: Clarke, Irwin. Annett Borner, Alexander Knohl, Schmiegelow, F.K.A, S. G. Cumming, S. promises. IJW Dominik Hessenmoller, Beverly E. Law, Harrison, S. Leroux, K. Lugo, R. Noss, Philippe Ciais, and John Grace. 2008. and B. Olson. 2006. Conservation Old-growth forests as global carbon Beyond Crisis Management: A References sinks. Nature 455: 213–15. Conservation Matrix Model, Beacons Bryant, Dirk, Daniel Nielsen, and Laura Mackey, Brendan, H. Keith, S. Berry, and D. Discussion Paper No. 1. Edmonton: Tangley. 1997. Last Frontier Forests: L. Lindenmayer. 2008. Green Carbon: University of Alberta. Ecosystems and Economies on the The Role of Natural Forests in Carbon Trudeau, P. E. 1970. Exhaustion and fulfill- Edge. Washington DC: World Storage. Part 1: A Green Carbon ment: The ascetic in a canoe. In Resources Institute. Account of Australia’s Southeastern Wilderness Canada, ed. B. Spears (pp. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Eucalypt Forest, and Policy Implications. 3-5). Toronto, Ontario: Clarke, Irwin. Environment, Canadian Parks Ministers’ Canberra: Australian National University Council, and Wildlife Ministers’ Council Press. of Canada. 1992. A statement of com- MacNamee, Kevin. 2008. Canada. In A HARVEY LOCKE is vice president for mitment to complete Canada’s Handbook on International Wilderness Conservation Strategy at the WILD networks of protected areas. Unpub- Law and Policy, ed. C. F. Kormos (pp. Foundation, senior advisor for conservation lished statement. 91-117. Golden, CO: Fulcrum to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Harper, Stephen. 2008. Prime Minister Publishing. Harper addresses UN Conference on McAllister Opinion Research. 2008. Society, and strategic advisor to the the Convention on Biological Diversity. Canadians and the Protection of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Unpublished speech, Bonn, Germany. Boreal Forest. Ottawa, Ontario: Initiative; email: [email protected]. Locke, Harvey. In press. Civil Society and Canadian Boreal Initiative.

Join Us for www.wild9.org www.wild.org

9th World Wilderness Congress 6–13 November 2009 • Yucatan, Mexico, Mesoamerica

14 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 STEWARDSHIP

Artificial Water When Is It Justified in Desert Wilderness?

BY CRAIG DEUTSCHE

ur entire country was once a vast wilderness. responsible for man- Lands were covered by flora that had been present aging hunting are likely Ofor centuries. People were widely scattered, and to support such efforts wildlife was largely left to work out its own fate. In the 21st that aid the larger game century this has changed dramatically, but we are trying to animals, and hunters save some of the most natural remaining lands as they once favor them as well. were—as wilderness—and to manage them so that they stay Because desert bighorn wild and natural. The naturalness of wildlife in such areas is sheep are a California a measure of how well we are doing. designated threatened The threats that humans have imposed on native wild- species, the California life are many, such as encroachment by city and suburban Department of Fish development; isolation of habitat by roads and canals; intro- and Game (CDFG) has duction of nonnative flora, fauna, and disease; poaching; an additional respon- Author Photo: Craig Deutsche. and the denial of water sources to wildlife. It is the avail- sibility for their ability of water for larger mammals, specifically desert protection. There is credible evidence that water, or its bighorn sheep in wilderness, that is the subject of this article, absence, has significantly affected the success of bighorn including when and where provision of artificial water populations in a number of mountain ranges in southern sources are justified. A case study of the Indian Pass California. While controlling for other variables, a recent Wilderness in southern California is an example, but the study (Wehausen 2007) indicates that mountain ranges in principles can be more widely applied (see figure 1). which bighorn have been extirpated are correlated with lower elevations, isolation from other suitable mountain Humans, Water, and Wilderness Wildlife habitat, and scarcity of surface water. Although nothing can There are situations where humans have simply removed be done about elevation, and the creation of travel corridors access to surface water and less obvious cases where pumping between physically separated ranges can be extraordinarily of groundwater has depleted springs and other sources that expensive, fewer people would object to providing water were once available to wildlife. In drought years, the water sources within existing sheep habitat in these lower eleva- scarcity is compounded. The prospect of global warming tions and isolated mountain ranges. and its uncertain effects upon water resources has increased Guzzlers providing artificial water sources are cur- concern that water may be a limiting factor for some wildlife rently proposed by the CDFG in several desert wildernesses. species. Although opinions differ in degree, it is generally They are intended to be unobtrusive and to require min- recognized that losses in biodiversity are undesirable and imum maintenance. Their construction, however, is no that extirpation or extinction would be disastrous. Less cer- slight undertaking. Typically, a check dam is built across a tain is whether and how we ought to provide artificial water small wash that carries water after a rain. The water is then sources for the iconic large mammals that are affected. stored in a large, underground tank—10,000 gallons is Several interest groups are strongly in favor of providing typical. A “drinker” for the animals is built a short distance artificial water sources, commonly known as drinkers or away slightly below the level of the tank; this is essentially guzzlers, in certain desert wilderness areas. State agencies a trough from which animals get the water. The drinker is

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 15 by the appropriate State agencies. (U.S. Public Law 103-433, Sec. f)

Under this presumed authorization, the CDFG has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to con- struct five bighorn sheep guzzlers within several designated wilderness areas and has expressed its intention to apply for five more permits in the future. In a somewhat related pro- ceeding, the organization Quail Unlimited has requested motorized access under the auspices of CDFG in order to maintain bird guzzlers in the El Paso Wilderness southeast of Ridgecrest, California. These applications raise a number of questions. It is possible to debate the intrinsic justifications for providing Figure 1—Map of water sources, existing and proposed, in the Indian Pass Wilderness of southern California. artificial water sources. Beyond this, Dots denote natural, ephemeral tanks (water sources); crosses indicate CDFG proposed sites for guzzlers; ovals one might debate the legality of con- represent alternative proposals outside the wilderness. Map of existing sources produced by BLM El Centro field office; proposed guzzler sites marked by Craig Deutsche. structing these guzzlers as an intrusion on wilderness naturalness. Finally, if it provided with an escape ramp so that natural character is preserved and is decided that guzzler permits can be small animals would not be trapped. which, by legislative definition, “gener- granted, then the conditions that All water movement is gravity fed so ally appear to have been affected might be placed upon the actual con- that there are no moving parts subject primarily by the forces of nature, with struction and maintenance of the to failure. Following construction, the the imprint of man’s work substantially facilities to protect wilderness quality ground is returned to its natural unnoticeable.” There are, of course, must be decided. contours and native vegetation restored exceptions, such as for fire protection To the broader question of wilder- to the extent possible. In many and law enforcement. The managing ness naturalness one might argue that circumstances these installations agency may also grant exceptions when humans have already altered the land- would seem to be unobjection able, a project serves to preserve the wilder- scape so drastically that providing water but within federally designated ness character of the area. More relevant represents a restoration of earlier condi- wilderness, proposals for guzzlers can here are provisions for fish and wildlife tions that were more favorable to be contentious. management in the California Desert wildlife. Indeed, the wildlife is a signifi- Protection Act of 1994, the legislation cant part of the natural order and to When Should Guzzlers Be designating most of the wilderness areas allow its demise is contrary to the spirit Permitted? in which artificial water is being pro- of the Wilderness Act. This point of The Wilderness Act of 1964 (U.S. posed. That act states: view has been suggested by Wehausen Public Law 88-577) and subsequent Fish and Wildlife (2007) in an article titled “Wilderness wilderness designation acts are very Management—Management and Guzzlers for Desert Bighorn Sheep.” specific concerning what is, and what is activities to maintain or restore fish It has also been observed that histori- not, permitted. No new structures shall and wildlife populations and the cally, at least in the Colorado Desert of be created and no roads, vehicles, or habitats to support such populations southern California, Native Americans machinery shall be permitted within may be carried out within wilderness actively managed their lands to enhance the designated boundaries of the wil- areas designated by this title and shall both flora and fauna for their own ben- derness. These are areas in which the include the use of motorized vehicles efit (Hogue 2000). It might be suggested

16 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 that we should do likewise today, although on a cautious scale. On a con- If wilderness preservation were easy and trary note, Kane (2008) argues in cheap, then there would be no need for protective “Wilderness or Zoos?” that humans are neither sufficiently knowledgeable nor legislation in the first place. sufficiently wise to successfully manage wilderness. He and others submit that wildlife. CDFG interprets those words then prepares an environmental assess- we must leave some areas entirely to permit whatever they deem neces- ment to accompany the proposal, and unmanaged as a control with which to sary to enhance the animal populations. these procedures follow the require- compare the results of our other actions. Perhaps the distinction between the ments of the National Environmental This is particularly important in the words may and shall, which appeared Protection Act, which specify a number relatively unpredictable prospect of in italics in the authorizing legislation of factors that must be considered and future climate changes. The wisdom of is critical. May is conditional; the access with opportunities for public input. A managing wilderness is also debated by may, or may not, be justified and decision is then rendered that may (a) Smith and Gow (2008) in an article granted. Shall is an imperative; it sug- deny the application, (b) grant permis- title “Unnatural Preservation.” gests that motorized access is guaranteed sion as it was sought, or (c) permit the Even accepting the desirability of when access is required. If this distinc- construction subject to a number of providing guzzlers within wilderness, tion is accepted, then it is the BLM, specified conditions. These constraints there is still a question of its legality acting as land management agency for might include, among various possi- under the Wilderness Act. In desig- most of the desert wilderness in ques- bilities, that an environmental nated wilderness no structures, roads or tion, that has the responsibility for compliance officer be appointed by vehicles are permitted, and some groups granting or withholding permission for the BLM to oversee construction, and claim this is an absolute prohibition guzzlers—and if permitted motorized that subsequent inspections of the guz- against construction of guzzlers. On access shall be used. zlers should be carried out on foot. the other hand, provisions of the The practice as it is currently fol- California Desert Protection Act of lowed in the California Desert District Some Proposed Conditions for 1994 quoted above, and which desig- is as follows. The CDFG applies for- Guzzler Permits nated these areas as wilderness, make mally for a permit to carry out I propose here some conditions I allowances for the management of construction of the guzzler. The BLM believe should be met before a permit for guzzler construction is granted. These conditions would need to be met for each guzzler considered. There would be no programmatic permits issued that would cover mul- tiple guzzlers in multiple areas. An application for construction of two guzzlers within the Indian Pass Wilderness Area in southern California has been submitted by the CDFG. I use this application to illustrate the issue, and what I think is a reasonable resolution. The CDFG acknowledges the presence of nine natural water sources in this wilderness and these are indi- cated with dark circles and names in figure 1. These are not springs, but

Figure 2—Indian Tank guzzler. Photo by Craig Deutsche. instead are depressions in rocks, some- times called tanks, that hold water

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 17 Noel, was a virtual lake, although this observation was made exactly two weeks after a torrential rain. Burros, and their tracks and droppings, were found at many of the sites. One big- horn ram was sighted near the Indian Tank (see figure 2), and another imme- diately west of the wilderness. The Indian Pass Wilderness map (see figure 1) indicates the sites (marked by crosses on the map) proposed by CDFG for guzzler construction (see figure 3). Reasonably these are located within washes where rain could be impounded conveniently and stored. The construction would necessarily preclude the availability of water far- ther down the drainages, and one might be concerned about that and the attraction that guzzlers could have for the distribution of other animal spe- cies, including various predators. Fresh burro tracks were found near the northern Sheep Track proposed site, even at the end of the long summer drought, casting some doubt upon the actual need of an artificial water source at this location (see figure 4). The map also indicates, with large solid ovals, several alternative guzzler sites outside the wilderness. These alternatives are not ideal in terms of their ability to Figure 3—A desert wash where the CDFG proposes to construct the Horseshoe guzzler in the Indian Pass wilderness. Photo by Craig Deutsche. impound water after a rain, but they are outside wilderness along desig- after rains. It is the contention of and other groups. If correct, these are nated roads where the delivery of CDFG that these sources are unreli- all valid and important arguments sup- water by truck would be a reasonable able during the dry summer months. porting guzzlers in those situations. option when needed. Although a biol- The mountains within the wilderness Between February and August ogist from CDFG has asserted that the have been historic range for bighorn, 2007, I visited all nine of these sites. western alternative site is beyond the but have been artificially isolated from Five were completely dry—it had been normal range of the bighorn herd, I other nearby ranges by roads and other a dry winter with little rain. One nat- encountered a full-curl ram even far- development. The CDFG believes that ural “tank” had only a very small ther west on one exploratory trip. by providing additional water, the resi- quantity of water; a second held per- All of this information suggests dent bighorn will be able to better haps five gallons; and a third, which that without detailed data on natural utilize available forage within the wil- was called the “Indian” tank, had water availability, wildlife distributions derness, and that an increase in the enough water in March that it might and range, and potential downstream local herd may allow the translocation perhaps last through the summer. This impacts, it is simply not possible to of some sheep to other ranges to tank (unlike the others) had barriers to evaluate the need for new guzzler con- increase the genetic diversity of these exclude burros. The ninth tank, called structions within wilderness, much

18 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 less to compare them with alternative Smith, M. M., and F. Gow. 2008. Unnatural CRAIG DEUTSCHE now lives in Los Angeles, preservation. High Country News, California, but grew up canoeing and sites outside wilderness. February 4, 2008. www.hcn.org/issues/ camping in Minnesota. He has led outings The process proposed here follows 363/17481. in the Brooks Range of Alaska and more the precautionary principal: interven- U.S. Public Law 88-577. 1964. The Wilderness Act of 1964. 78 Stat. 890. recently in the California deserts with the tion is only permitted when the need U. S. Public Law 103-433. 1994. California Sierra Club and Desert Survivor organiza- is clearly demonstrated. The alterna- Desert Protection Act of 1994. Section tions. He is editor of the Sierra Club quarterly 103, (f). 108 Stat. 4473. Desert Report and advocates for several tive view, that intervention is acceptable Wehausen, John D. 2007. Wilderness and as long as no damage is expected, is guzzlers for desert bighorn sheep. conservation issues and the future of the explicitly rejected. This evaluation Desert Report: News of the Desert Carrizo Plain National Monument; email: from Sierra Club, California/Nevada [email protected]. process is expensive and time con- Desert Committee (December): 3, 9. suming. If wilderness preservation www.desertreport.org. were easy and cheap, then there would be no need for protective legislation in the first place. Preservation of wilder- ness and wildlife naturalness is too important to be resolved casually. To summarize, programmatic approvals for construction of multiple new artificial water sources are not appropriate. Because each new guz- zler might change the historic and natural distribution and perhaps abundance of wildlife, and introduce mechanized disturbance in wilderness for its maintenance, each must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There needs to be complete data on natural water availability, likely wild- life abundance and distribution effects of new, artificial water, and serious consideration of alternative guzzler locations outside wilderness. These recommendations for careful analysis with detailed information represent minimum conditions to be met before managing wildlife within wilderness by introducing artificial water sources. IJW References Hogue, Lawrence. 2000. All the Wild and Lonely Places. Washington, DC: Island Press. Kane, Jeffrey, 2008. Reframing the debate in the 21st century: Wilderness or zoos? Desert Report: News of the Desert from Sierra Club, California/ Figure 4—A natural tank near the proposed Sheep Track guzzler; in drier times this source may become Nevada Desert Committee (March): unavailable. Photo by Craig Deutsche. 18. www.desertreport.org.

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 19 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

A Relatively Nonrestrictive Approach to Reducing Campsite Impact Caney Creek Wilderness, Arkansas

BY DAVID N. COLE AND THOMAS E. FERGUSON

Abstract: An excessive number of highly impacted campsites led managers of the Caney Creek Wilderness to attempt to reduce campsite impacts with a program of trail relocation, education, closure of selected campsites, and site restoration. The strategy involved increasing the concentra- tion of use somewhat, without resorting to the restrictiveness of a designated campsite policy. To assess success, all campsites in the wilderness were inventoried in 1994 and their condition was assessed. A subsequent reassessment of campsites, in 2007, indicated the management program was highly successful. The total number of campsites was reduced by 40% and the number of highly impacted campsites declined substantially.

Introduction the deterioration of long-established sites (Cole 1993; Cole Camping activities can cause substantial disturbance of soil and Hall 1992). This finding of substantial and increasing and vegetation in wilderness. Common effects include veg- campsite impact suggests that a laissez-faire approach to etation loss, change in species composition, damage to campsite management is problematic. To avoid ever- standing trees, compaction of soils and truncation of soil increasing campsite impact, active management strategies profiles (Hammitt and Cole 1998; Leung and Marion are needed. Common active strategies include Leave-No- 2000). Although such impacts are localized, most studies of Trace education, concentration of camping on selected trends in campsite impact have reported that impacts are campsites, closure and restoration of other campsites, and increasing—more often as a result of site proliferation than confinement of activities within campsites (Cole 1981; Marion and Farrell 2002). Despite these suggestions and implementation of camp- site management strategies in many parks and wilderness areas, only a few studies have assessed the effectiveness of these strategies. In a portion of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, Montana, managers attempted to reduce distur- bance on highly impacted campsites by temporarily closing them, diverting use to adjacent undisturbed sites. Cole and Ranz (1983) found that this action was counterproductive; it resulted in increased impact. They concluded that closures should be permanent rather than temporary and that success David N. Cole (left) photo by Linda Henderson. Thomas E. Ferguson (right) reading USFS book in the Caney Creek Wilderness. Photo by John Wesson. would be furthered by education and active restoration (unless sites are unusually resilient).

PEER REVIEWED

20 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 Permanent campsite closure was agers only allowed camping on Specifically, we report on change in successfully implemented elsewhere in designated campsites so popular that the number and condition of camp- the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. In they were used most nights of the pri- sites following an effort to reduce the Seven Lakes basin, 12 of 18 camp- mary use season. Here the number of campsite impact through education, sites with substantial stock-related campsites and area of disturbance has trail relocation, permanent closure of impact were closed to stock and actively increased, due to substantial use of a few selected campsites, and site restored. Campers with stock were only illegal campsites (Cole et al. 2008), restoration. allowed on the remaining six sites; but not at the rate it likely would have backpackers were allowed to camp any- in the absence of a designated campsite Caney Creek Campsite where other than on four closed policy. In each of these cases, despite Management campsites. This effort resulted in a 37% the fact that ecosystems were much Caney Creek Wilderness covers 14,460 decrease in the total area of campsite less resilient than those at Shenandoah acres (5830 ha) of the Ouachita disturbance over a five-year period and Delaware Water Gap, there was no Mountains of west-central Arkansas (Spildie et al. 2000). A more restrictive attempt to actively restore campsites. (see figure 1). Vegetation is a dense confinement strategy was implemented With restoration, more improvement cover of oak-hickory-pine forest. in a portion of Shenandoah Wilderness, might have occurred. Topography is dominated by two par- Virginia, with 73 campsites. Managers Given these divergent results, allel creeks, Caney Creek and Short decided to only allow camping on 41 of from different parts of the United Creek, separated by long ridges with these sites. Within three years, without States, it seemed worthwhile to con- local relief of more than 1,000 feet active restoration, the total area dis- duct further research on the efficacy of (300 m). Although there are about 20 turbed by camping was reduced by campsite management strategies. In miles (32 km) of trail in the wilder- about 50% (Reid and Marion 2004). this article, we report on the effective- ness, most use occurs along the 9-mile Confinement was equally effective on ness of a campsite management (14.4-km) trail that follows Caney canoe-accessed campsites in the program, implemented in the Caney Creek. Most of the Short Creek Delaware Water Gap National Creek Wilderness, Arkansas, that drainage is trailless, but not difficult to Recreation Area, Pennsylvania-New sought to reduce the extent of camp- traverse. Use is quite heavy in the wil- Jersey, where managers decided to only site impact without the restrictiveness derness, estimated at more than 12,000 allow camping on 81 of 179 existing of a designated campsite policy. visitor days in the early 1990s. campsites, plus six new campsites. They also concentrated camping on-site by installing anchored fire grates. Five years later, the total area disturbed by camping was reduced by 50%, without active restoration (Marion 1995). Less successful—but not counter- productive—were two campsite confinement programs in the western United States. Around five lakes in the Three Sisters and Mt. Jefferson Wildernesses, Oregon, managers closed about one-half of the existing campsites and required all campers to use designated sites. Four years later, campsite proliferation had been halted but the number of campsites and the total area of disturbance remained unchanged, largely because closed sites Figure 1—Overview of the Caney Creek Wilderness from the Tall Peak trail. Photo by Thomas did not recover much (Hall 2001). At Ferguson. Grand Canyon National Park, man-

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 21 Education programs emphasized The campsite management program camping at already-impacted sites and implemented in Caney Creek Wilderness staying off closed sites. Although camping on closed sites was prohib- has been effective in reducing ited, camping on existing sites was not campsite impact. mandatory (as in a designated camp- site program). Although measures of use are lacking, Katy Creek, had 11 creek crossings in Most of the closed campsites did long-term ranger observations suggest about 3 miles and was in the creek for not require ongoing work. However, relatively stable use levels over the past substantial distances in several places. two of the 16 closed sites required few decades. The relocated trail crossed in four additional work every year for five In 1994, campsites were invento- places and the trail was up the side years, and another two required ried across the entire wilderness—on slope away from the creek most of the ongoing work 10 years after closure. and off trail. A total of 91 campsites time. Trail relocation meant that many “No Camping” signs have been left at were located, many of which were former campsites were no longer vis- six of the campsites. highly disturbed. Local managers ible from the trail. decided that this number of campsites In addition, between 1994 and Methods and degree of impact was excessive. So 1996, 16 well-established campsites As noted above, there were 91 camp- they developed a management strategy were closed to use and restored. Soil sites in the Caney Creek Wilderness in to reduce the number of campsites was scarified and planted with seed 1994. On 48 of these sites, the pri- and, thereby, the magnitude of and locally collected transplants. Large mary impact was campfire remains, camping impact. Trail relocation, edu- rocks were buried in tent pads to make with or without a fire ring. There was cation, campsite closure, and site the site less conducive to camping (see little if any long-term disturbance. restoration were all employed. figure 2). Plantings were watered and The only information collected on More than 2 miles (3.2 km) of mulched. Ribbon was tied between these “trace sites” was their location. creek-bottom trail were rerouted. This trees to cordon off the site, and a “No On the 43 well-established campsites, reduced the number of trail-accessible Camping” sign was posted. In addi- we rapidly assessed different types of desirable places to camp. For example, tion, fire rings and fire remains were impact on every campsite, and we the original Caney Creek Trail, east of scattered at 26 lightly impacted sites. took detailed measurements on a sample of 12 sites. The rapid assess- ment, which took fewer than 10 minutes per site, quantified nine parameters: campsite area, devegetated area, vegetation loss, increase in min- eral soil exposure, damage to tree trunks, exposure of tree roots, social trails, developments, and cleanliness (McEwen et al. 1996). For each param- eter, a rating of 1, 2, or 3 was assigned to the site, depending on the level of impact. These ratings were summed to obtain the overall impact index. In addition, we assigned each site a modified Frissell (1978) condition class rating. Condition classes, ranging from 1 to 4, were (1) minimal impact (assigned to trace sites as well), (2) Figure 2—Student Conservation Association crew planting transplants among buried rocks on a closed campsite. Photo by Thomas Ferguson. vegetation loss confined to the central portion of the site, (3) vegetation lost

22 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 over most of the site but little mineral in 1994 to 54 in 2007 (see table 1). soil exposure, and (4) vegetation lost Both trace and well-impacted sites Table 1—Condition class of Caney and mineral soil exposed over most of decreased in number, but the largest Creek campsites in 1994 and 2007 the campsite. Where it was difficult to decrease was in the number of highly Condition 1994 2007 decide between adjacent condition impacted campsites. The number of Classa —campsites— classes, midpoints were used. For con- sites with a condition class rating of 1.0 48 29 sistency, the same individual evaluated 3.5 or 4.0 (sites that had experienced 1.5–2.0 11 13 2.5–3.0 17 9 all sites each year. Although formal widespread loss of vegetation and 3.5–4.0 15 3 evaluations of precision have not been organic litter cover) decreased from Total 91 54 made, the ratings of trained evaluators 15 to 3 (see table 1). Based on the aModified Frissell condition class (refer to seldom differ by more than 0.5. impact index ratings, the number of text for definitions). On the 12 campsites evaluated sites in the highest impact index class more precisely, we buried nails that (22–27) decreased from 7 to 0 (see Table 2—Impact index of Caney could be relocated and we established table 2), and the mean impact index Creek campsites in 1994 and 2007 permanent plots. We spent an hour or decreased from 13 to 12. Impact 1994 2007 more on each site, taking careful mea- Table 3 can be used to describe Indexa —campsites— surements of campsite area, ground the fate of individual sites in the 9 48 31 cover conditions, and tree damage, period between 1994 and 2007. Read 10–15 15 13 using techniques first used in the Eagle down columns to determine the con- 16–21 21 10 Cap Wilderness, Oregon (Cole 1982). dition in 2007 of all campsites of a 22–27 7 0 Campsite measurements were given impact index class in 1994. For Total 91 54 repeated in 2007. We searched for example, of the 15 campsites in the aSum of ratings for 9 parameters (refer to campsites in the entire wilderness. 10–15 impact index class in 1994, 10 text for details). Rapid assessment procedures were disappeared (index = 0), four improved • 14 campsites were unchanged in done on all campsites, except the trace to become trace sites (index = 9), and condition; sites. Detailed measures were taken on one deteriorated (index = 16–21). No • 3 campsites deteriorated; and six of the 12 sites studied in detail in sites in this class were stable. From this • 21 new campsites were created. 1994. Permanent markers could not table we can conclude that between be found on two of the original 12 1994 and 2007: Of the new campsites, 16 were mini- sites, and the other four sites were • 16 campsites improved, but were mally impacted trace sites, but five closed, restored, and, therefore, no still campsites; were more substantially disturbed. longer recognizable as campsites. This • 58 campsites improved so much Most of the sites that improved or sample of six long-established camp- that they were no longer recogniz- disappeared were in places that were sites is small and results should be able campsites; no longer readily accessible once the treated cautiously. However, when expressed as a proportion of the popu- lation of long-established sites, the Table 3—The number of Caney Creek campsites in each sample size seems less limiting. The six impact index class in 1994 and 2007a campsites in the sample represent 38% 1994 impact index of the 16 campsites that were well established (i.e., not trace sites) in 0 9 10–15 16–21 22–27 Total both time periods. Moreover, results 0 37 10 7 4 58 are consistent with studies of long- 9 16 9 4 2 0 31 term trends with larger sample sizes 10–15 4 2 0 7 0 13 16–21 1 0 1 5 3 10 (e.g., Cole and Hall 1992). 22–27 0 0 0 0 0 0

2007 impact index Total 21 48 15 21 7 112 Results aCampsites with an impact index of 0 in 1994 are new sites in 2007, whereas those Between 1994 and 2007, the number with an index of 0 in 2007 disappeared. Sites above the shaded boxes improved, and of campsites declined 40%, from 91 those below the shaded boxes deteriorated.

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 23 generally were more of campsites has decreased greatly (see highly impacted than figure 5), as has the magnitude of those along Short Creek. impact on the most severely disturbed Although limited in campsites in the wilderness. Most of the quantity, the data from work that contributed to success was detailed measures on the accomplished over a period of four sample of sites also sug- years. A Student Conservation gest a dramatic decrease Association crew (six members plus in campsite impact. crew leader) worked four weeks a year— Disregarding the two sites for three years on the trail rerouting and that could not be remea- one year on the site closure and restora- sured, four of the tion. Cost was approximately $18,000 remaining 10 campsites per year, along with about 1.5 months had recovered so substan- per year provided by Forest Service or Figure 3—Change in campsite and devegetated area, 1994 to 2007; box plots show the median campsite, as well as the 5th, 25th, 75th, and 95th tially that we did not other volunteer personnel, for visitor percentiles. remeasure them. On the contact and education. The program is remaining six sites, being maintained with an ongoing median area of campsite investment of about one-half month of disturbance decreased work per year. from 2,500 feet2 (232 m2) Earlier studies of stricter and more in 1994 to 915 feet2 (85 restrictive confinement strategies m2) in 2007 (see figure (where camping is only allowed on 3). This difference is sta- designated sites) suggest that this tistically significant strategy can be successful in limiting (Wilcoxon signed ranks campsite impacts (e.g., Marion 1995; test, Z = 2.2, p = 0.03). Reid and Marion 2004). At Caney Devegetated area Creek, impacts were reduced not by decreased significantly implementing restrictions requiring from a median of 866 the use of designated campsites. Rather, feet2 (80 m2) in 1994 to the strategy involved reducing the 506 feet2 (47 m2) in 2007 number of places where visitors are (Z = 2.0, p = 0.05). These likely or allowed to camp. This was

Figure 4—Change in number of mutilated trees and percent vegetation declines would be even accomplished using multiple cover on campsites, 1994 to 2007; box plots show the median campsite, as greater if we included data approaches. Trail relocation, educa- well as the 5th, 25th, 75th, and 95th percentiles. from the four campsites tion, permanent closure of selected that almost completely campsites and assisted site restoration trail was rerouted or were sites that disappeared. The number of mutilated all contributed to success. It was par- had been closed and restored. None of trees decreased significantly from a ticularly important to ensure that staff the sites that deteriorated were in the median of 7.5 to 3.0 (Z = 2.0, p = was available for education and moni- more popular destinations along 0.04), and vegetation cover increased toring during the times when most Caney Creek. Two were located on the significantly from a median of 13% in visitors were in the wilderness. The Buckeye Mountain trail, which had 1994 to 21% in 2007 (Z = 2.0, p = high resilience of these sites (i.e., they been recently improved. The 21 new 0.04) (see figure 4). can recover rapidly) was an important campsites were widely distributed factor, as was the decision not to close throughout the wilderness, but they Discussion and Conclusions so many sites that people had a hard were particularly abundant along trail- Clearly, the campsite management pro- time finding an open campsite. less Short Creek. However, the new gram implemented in Caney Creek The fact that 21 new campsites campsites that developed in more Wilderness has been effective in developed over the study period sug- popular places along Caney Creek reducing campsite impact. The number gests that a designated site policy might

24 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 Figure 5—Highly impacted campsite (a) in 1993, one year before closure and (b) in 1999, five years after closure. Photographs by Thomas Ferguson. be even more effective in limiting Cole, D. N., P. Foti, and M. Brown. 2008. Park, USA. Journal of Environmental Twenty years of change on campsites Management 66: 201–12. campsite impact. Although that is pos- in the backcountry of Grand Canyon McEwen, Douglas,; Cole, David N.: Simon, sible, recent research at Grand Canyon National Park. Environmental Mark. 1996. Campsite impact in wilder- National Park shows that new camp- Management 41: 959–70. nesses in the south central United Cole, D. N., and T. E. Hall. 1992. Trends in States. Research Paper INT-RP-490. sites are often created even in places Campsite Condition: Eagle Cap Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of with designated campsite policies Wilderness, Bob Marshall Wilderness, Agriculture, Forest Service, Inter- and Grand Canyon National Park. mountain Research Station. (Cole et al. 2008). Moreover, a large Res. Pap. INT-453. Ogden, UT: USDA Reid, S. E., and J. L. Marion. 2004. proportion of the new campsites at Forest Service, Intermountain Re- Effectiveness of a confinement Caney Creek were in trailless areas, search Station. strategy for reducing campsite im- Frissell, S. S. 1978. Judging recreation pacts in Shenandoah National Park. where campsites are few and far impacts on wilderness campsites. Environmental Conservation 31: between. Future success might be most Journal of Forestry 76: 481–83. 274–82. Hall, T. E. 2001. Changes in wilderness Spildie, D. R., D. N. Cole, and S. C. Walker. dependent on the ability to persuade campsite conditions resulting from 2000. Effectiveness of a confinement visitors to use established sites in pop- implementation of a designated-site strategy in reducing pack stock impacts ular places and to eliminate all trace of camping policy. Unpublished report on at campsites in the Selway-Bitterroot file at USDA Forest Service, Aldo Wilderness, Idaho. In Wilderness their camping activities when they Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Science in a Time of Change Con- visit trailless places. IJW Missoula, MT. ference. Vol. 5. Wilderness Ecosystems, Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998. Threats and Management, comp. D. N. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T Borrie, and J. Management, 2nd ed. New York: John O’Loughlin (pp. 199–208). Proceedings References Wiley. RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Cole, D. N. 1981. Managing ecological Leung, Y., and J. L. Marion. 2000 Recreation Forest Service, Rocky Mountain impacts at wilderness campsites: An impact and management in wilder- Research Station. evaluation of techniques. Journal of ness: A state-of-knowledge review. In Forestry 79: 86–89. Wilderness Science in a Time of ———. 1982. Wilderness Campsite Impacts: Change Conference. Vol. 5. Wilderness DAVID N. COLE is research geographer Effect of Amount of Use. Res. Pap. Ecosystems, Threats and Management, with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research INT-284. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest comp. D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Service, Intermountain Research Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin (pp. 23–48). USDA Forest Service, 790 East Beckwith, Station. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Og- Missoula, MT 59801, USA; email: dcole@fs. ———. 1993. Campsites in Three Western den, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Wildernesses: Proliferation and Mountain Research Station. fed.us. Changes in Condition over 12 to 16 Marion, J. L. 1995. Capabilities and manage- Years. Res. Pap. INT-463. Ogden, UT: ment utility of recreation impact THOMAS E. FERGUSON is retired as wilder- USDA Forest Service, Intermountain monitoring programs. Environmental ness, trails, and wild and scenic rivers Research Station. Management 19: 763–71. specialist, Ouachita National Forest, Hot Cole, D. N., and B. Ranz. 1983. Temporary Marion, J. L., and T. Farrell. 2002. campsite closures in the Selway- Management practices that concen- Springs, AR; email: tferguson623@sbc- Bitterroot Wilderness. Journal of trate visitor activities: Camping impact global.net. Forestry 81: 729–32. management at Isle Royale National

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 25 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Climbers’ Attitudes toward Recreation Resource Impacts in the Adirondack Park’s Giant Mountain Wilderness

BY CHRISTOPHER A. MONZ

Abstract: Climbers arriving at trailheads to popular climbing areas in the Giant Mountain Wilderness in Adirondack Park, New York, were surveyed as to the types of resource impacts they found to be offensive. Climbers were asked about their degree of concern regarding crowding, noise, and man- agement of climbing areas. Some resource impacts, such as damage to trees as a result of poor climbing practices, were found to be offensive to climbers, whereas other resource impacts common to climbing areas were less of a concern. Crowding was reported by the majority of climbers as an important concern, but noise, such as that generated by nearby vehicle traffic, was less of an issue. No significant differences in responses to either resource impact or social concepts were observed based on climbers’ experience level or preference for traditional or sport climbing styles.

Introduction 1988; Roggenbuck et al. Managers of parks and protected areas continue to face 1993; Lynn and Brown challenges in maintaining a balance between visitor use and 2003). A related line of the protection of natural resources. To address these chal- research has applied norm lenges, considerable research has examined both the theory and developed biophysical and social conditions in wildlands (Hammitt empirical approaches and Cole 1998; Manning 1999) in an effort to manage for determining thresh- areas sustainably. A component of this research—visitors’ olds of acceptability of subjective perception of wildland conditions—is particu- ecological conditions larly helpful in providing guidance for the formation of (Manning et al. 2004). management strategies and policies. A second line of Christopher A. Monz. Photo by Wyatt Lutsk. A growing body of research has begun to investigate thinking suggests that visitor perceptions of environmental conditions and recre- visitors’ experience may ation impacts. Recent reviews of this literature (White et al. not be significantly affected by ecological impacts, except for 2008) suggest that two seemingly contradictory conclusions those clearly resulting from inappropriate behaviors such as can be drawn from the findings thus far. One line of litter or vandalism. Early studies (c. 1970s) examining the thinking suggests that visitors perceive impacts, such as veg- perceptions of recreational impacts, found visitors rarely etation loss and soil erosion, and that their experience is reported unacceptable recreation site conditions in back- affected by these impacts, and consequently, they formulate country settings. For example, a study in the Boundary Waters acceptability judgments of resource conditions (Shelby et al. Canoe Area found no correlation between visitor ratings of

PEER REVIEWED

26 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 site conditions and expert ratings of these areas (McMillan and Larson 2002). In Joshua Tree National Park, Trench and environmental impacts (Merriam and addition, some climbing practices such as Wallace (1994) reported an increased Smith 1974). Other studies conducted the use of fixed anchors including perma- sensitivity to various resource impacts during this time period (such as nent bolts and fixed slings are controversial by climbers who preferred wilderness Downing and Clark 1979; Helgath to managers and often perceived as undesir- to mid- and front-country settings. 1975; Moeller et al. 1974) support able impacts when seen by other visitors The goal of this case study was to these findings, even in situations where (Jones and Hollenhorst 2002). Moreover, it collect information on climbers’ atti- the impacts visitors experienced were is unclear whether impacts not directly tudes toward specific resource impacts, deemed severe by researchers. More related to the activity of climbing such as soil crowding, and the management of recent research largely supports these and vegetation disturbance near cliffs, repre- climbing at the most popular climbing conclusions (White et al. 2001; Farrell sent a concern for climbers or whether their areas in the Adirondack Park. The et al. 2001) and in addition also sup- perceptions of important resource impacts study assessed attitudes toward impacts ports the assertion of previous work by are limited to those directly affecting the cliff to soils and vegetation at the climbing Knudson and Curry (1981) that sug- environment. Climbers may evaluate some site due to trampling from climbing gests that visitors deem certain impacts, resource disturbances, such as vegetation loss activities. In addition, the study exam- such as vegetation loss on campsites at the base of cliffs, as desirable from an ined both the influence of climbers’ desirable, due to the increased camping amenity perspective as has been found with experience level and the style of amenity value of sites with bare soil. campers in the aforementioned literature. climbing they preferred on perceptions The literature is suggestive of some To date, few studies have addressed of resource conditions. possible contemporary trends in visitor climbers’ attitudes toward associated perceptions of environmental condi- resource impacts commonplace in Study Approach tions. First, Manning (2004) suggests climbing areas. Waldrup and McEwen Climbers were surveyed at entry points that contemporary visitors may be more (1994) examined climbers’ attitudes to climbing areas in the Giant perceptive to resource impacts than the toward wilderness and climbing Mountain Wilderness of the early work in this field reported. This impacts, their motivations in choosing Adirondack Park in northern New possibility is supported by several a place to climb, and their preferences York State, USA, near the town of studies that indicate that visitors have for management regulation. The Keene Valley (see figure 1). The normative standards for impacts such as resource impacts examined in this study trail erosion (Manning et al. 1996) and were limited to impacts to the cliff face campsite conditions (Newman et al. such as the placement of bolts, use of 2001). Second, recent research suggests chalk, and creating holds by chipping that some subjective factors such as and gluing. Although some differences place attachment (Kyle et al. 2004) and were observed based on the type of experience-use history (White et al. climber (determined by the style of 2008) may influence visitor sensitivity climbing preferred), most climbers to recreation impact. were not offended by the placement of In the spirit of contributing to this fixed anchors on the cliff face or the use continuing line of inquiry, this study exam- of chalk—two resource impacts often ined the attitudes of rock climbers toward cited by managers and other visitors as specific resource impacts that might be problematic. Crowding at the climbing encountered in a climbing setting. From a site and alterations of the rock face by resource perspective, climbing is a unique chipping and gluing of holds were wildland visitor activity in that many rated at least moderately offensive by climbers often pursue well-known, popular the vast majority of climbers surveyed. climbs in areas away from designated hiking Similar results were reported on trails. As such, climbers concentrate their climbers’ attitudes toward bolts and activities on a few visitor-created trails and at fixed anchors in a study conducted Fig. 1. Rock climbing in the Giant Mountain Wilderness the base and tops of cliffs, sometimes across 13 popular U.S. climbing areas in the Adirondack Park. Photo by David Hough. resulting in vegetation loss and erosion in (Schuster et al. 2001). In a study at

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 27 found most offensive in an initial inter- climbing area (16%). Other impacts Table 1—Frequency of reported view style question, before they were such as crowding, noise, and cell phone resource impacts given the survey. It was stressed to par- use were reported less frequently (9% as reported in an open-ended inter- ticipants that this survey addressed the to 15%). The impacts least reported as view question (n=105) range of potential impacts that could be offensive were multiple trails and Impact type Frequency found at climbing sites, but was not impacts to the rock face at 9% and intended as an evaluation of conditions 6%, respectively, and large groups and Litter 45 at any particular area. Attitudes toward visitor-created campsites at 1%. General erosion 34 various environmental impacts were A total of six resource impact con- Impacts to trees 20 measured on a scale adapted from cepts (see table 2), three social impacts, Cigarette butts 16 Waldrup and McEwen (1994) that and two managerial concepts (see table Noise 15 asked respondents to rate each impact 3) were found to be reliable measures Crowding 12 as to the degree of offensiveness (1 = (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.6). Cell phones 9 not offensive to 5 = extremely offen- Frequency analysis of these con- Visitor-created trails 9 sive). Wilderness values (i.e., solitude, cepts suggests that the majority of remoteness, etc.) and attitudes toward climbers report that most resource Impacts to the rock face 6 management were measured by asking impacts are at least “somewhat offen- Large groups 1 participants to rate their response to sive” at climbing sites (see table 4). Visitor-created campsites 1 statements (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = One important exception is bare soil Adirondack Park is an internationally strongly agree). Concepts for each of at the climbing site, which is less of a known climbing destination and is these categories of questions were devel- concern. Of the impacts surveyed, particularly popular with climbers oped based on a preliminary study damaged trees (81%), trampled vege- looking for a more wilderness-based (Monz et al. 2006) and tested for reli- tation (72%), and top of cliff impact climbing experience (Mellor 1995; ability with current data. Scales for each (71%) were reported at least some- Lawyer and Haas 2008). Surveys were of the concepts were calculated from what offensive most frequently. administered at the three primary the multiple items, and these scales Erosion and multiple trails were climbing entry points in the area on a became the dependent variables in the reported as offensive by the majority total of seven randomly selected days analysis. All statistical tests were con- of climbers (64% and 69%, respec- during the popular fall climbing ducted using standard procedures with tively). Conversely, a sizable number season. All three trailheads were sam- SPSS version 15. of climbers were not offended by pled each day. Each of three weekdays impacts such as bare soil at the and four weekend days were selected Results climbing site (44%), erosion (36%), randomly during September and A total of 105 usable surveys were col- and multiple trails (31%). October, and climbing parties were lected. Voluntary participation in the Of the social concepts examined randomly intercepted and asked to study was high, with only four indi- (see table 5), crowding was reported as voluntarily participate. viduals declining to participate. affecting the experience by a majority The survey instrument assessed Responses to the initial open-ended of participants (66%), whereas human- climbers’ experience level (in years), question regarding the impacts made noise was less of, though still a their preference for climbing style (tra- climbers found most offensive were significant concern (58%). The ditional or sport), attitudes toward categorized and summarized in table majority of climbers report that they environmental impacts, importance of 1, and total frequencies exceed a total were aware of the wilderness designa- wilderness, and attitudes toward the of 100% due to visitors reporting mul- tion of areas in which they climb management of climbing areas, tiple impact issues of equal importance. (57%), and an overwhelming majority including allowance for the placement Among the most frequently reported felt that wilderness was worthwhile of fixed anchors and bolts. The was the appearance of litter (45%), and important (87%). Participants questionnaire consisted mainly of quan- general erosion around the site (34%), were more likely to be either opposed titative questions using five-point impacts to trees from climbing prac- or neutral to official agency manage- Likert-type scales. Climbers were asked tices or erosion around the roots ment of climbing areas, including to list the type of resource impacts they (20%), and cigarette butts around the fixed anchor management (70%).

28 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 Table 2—Reliability analysis of environmental impact concepts measured in survey questions

Concept and variable identification Item total Alpha if Cronbach’s correlation item deleted alpha Attitudes toward erosion at site .87 Erosion at the base of the cliff .64 .87 Erosion around trees, exposing the roots .71 .84 Erosion at/near climbing site .73 .83 Erosion at the top of the cliff .81 .79 Attitudes toward multiple trail impacts at site .61 Erosion at/near cliff .44 NA Multiple trails from cliff to parking area .44 NA Attitudes toward dead/damaged trees at site .83 Dead/damaged trees at the base of the cliff .65 .79 Dead/damaged trees at the top of the cliff due to anchors .67 .78 Dead/damaged trees at the top of the cliff from rappelling .73 .72 Attitudes toward trampled vegetation at the cliff .75 Trampled vegetation at the base of the cliff .59 Trampled vegetation at the top of the cliff .59 Attitudes toward bare soil at site .78 Bare soil at the base of the cliff .64 Bare soil at the top of the cliff .64 Attitude towards impact at the top of the cliff .89 Erosion at the top of the cliff .80 .85 Bare soil at the top of the cliff .77 .86 Trampled vegetation at the top of the cliff .70 .87 Dead/damaged trees at the top of the cliff due to top-rope anchors .71 .87 Dead/damaged trees at the top of the cliff from rappelling .68 .88

Examination of groups organized Discussion experiences. Subsequent investigations by experience level within the climbing Understanding visitor attitudes toward as to visitors’ thresholds of tolerance population surveyed did not reveal resource impacts has several implica- for these indicators can provide impor- significant differences. Climbers were tions for the sustainable management tant information in a Limits of categorized into three groups: climbers of recreation areas. First, knowledge of Acceptable Change or related plan- with fewer than two years, climbers what resource impacts visitors report ning process. with three to five years, and climbers as problematic provides some direc- The results presented here provide with greater than six years of experi- tion for management actions on some insight on climbers’ attitudes ence. No significant differences were impact mitigation. Minimizing these toward resource impacts associated found among the groups for the impacts may enhance the visitor expe- with rock climbing. Previous related resource, social, and management con- rience and would likely be well received studies primarily examined impacts cepts examined (see tables 6 and 7). by participants. Second, examining occurring on the rock face (chalk Comparisons of climbers’ style prefer- the disparity between what visitors marks and chipping holds) or the use ence (traditional or sport climbing) report as impact problems and man- and proliferation of fixed anchors also did not reveal significant differ- agement priorities regarding impacts (Waldrup and McEwen 1994; Schuster ences within the population surveyed helps managers direct visitor educa- et al. 2001). Although these resource (see tables 8 and 9), with the exception tion to specific important issues. Last, issues are clearly important, this study that sport climbers found damage to examining a broad range of resource assessed attitudes toward impacts in trees more offensive than did tradi- and social impact issues in terms of locations other than the cliff face in tional climbers. relative importance is suggestive of more detail than previously reported indicators of quality of recreation (Trench and Wallace 1994). These

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 29 Table 3—Reliability analysis of wilderness and management concepts measured in survey questions

Concept and variable identification Item total Alpha if Cronbach’s correlation item deleted alpha Attitudes toward crowding at climbing site .65 Seeing a large party reduces the feeling that I am out in the wilderness. .39 .64 Crowding at a climbing site affects my wilderness experience. .41 .61 Solitude is important in choosing a climb. .58 .36 Attitudes toward noise at climbing site .67 Human-made noise inside the wilderness area reduces the feeling that I am out in the wilderness. .50 Quiet is an important factor in choosing a place to climb. .50 Wilderness awareness1 N/A I am aware of the wilderness system in the areas I climb. Wilderness importance .76 Wilderness preservation is a worthwhile use of the land. .68 .70 More land should be preserved as wilderness. .67 .72 Wilderness areas are important/valuable to me personally. .64 .77 Attitudes toward management of climbing areas .78 Official agency management of climbing areas is necessary. .53 .79 There should be official regulations concerning where, when, and how bolts should be used. .63 .68 There should be official regulations concerning where, when, and how fixed anchors should be used. .69 .62 1Single item indicator

Table 4—Frequencies of responses and mean response for resource impact concepts Frequency (%) Mean ± SE Concept1 Not/slightly Somewhat Moderately/extremely offensive offensive offensive Erosion 36 40 24 3.14 ± 0.09 Multiple trails 31 40 29 3.28 ± 0.09 Damaged trees 19 41 40 3.59 ± 0.10 Trampled vegetation 28 38 34 3.32 ± 0.10 Bare soil 44 37 19 2.84 ± 0.10 Top of cliff impact 29 44 27 3.33 ± 0.19 1Concepts are measured using scales calculated from multiple items (table 2).

Table 5—Frequencies of responses and mean response for social and management concepts Frequency (%) Mean ± SE Concept1 Strongly disagree/ Agree/ disagree Neutral strongly agree Crowding 3 30 66 4.05 ± 0.08 Noise 11 31 58 3.85 ± 0.08 Wilderness awareness 23 19 57 3.37 ± 0.14 Wilderness importance 5 8 87 4.45 ± 0.08 Management 29 44 27 3.18 ± 0.12 1Concepts are measured using scales calculated from multiple items (table 3).

30 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 adjacent impacts are commonplace in overwhelming majority of climbers popular climbing areas and can be of Climbers in the (87%) agreeing on the importance of significant management concern. Adirondack Park wilderness (see table 5). Other setting Results suggest that the majority attributes associated with wilderness, of climbers visiting the Adirondacks reported that such as solitude and small party size are perceptive of certain resource common resource (crowding concept), are also important impacts such as erosion, multiple to the majority (66%) of climbers (see training, and damage to trees (see table impacts including table 5). Human-made noise is some- 4). Results were similar for an open litter, damage to what of an exception to this trend, question format (see table 1), sug- trees, erosion, and which is less important to most gesting that climbers freely offered climbers; perhaps climbers are more these resource impacts as concerns crowding were a accepting of this condition as many independent of any direction by the concern. popular crags are within sound of survey questions. main roads. In scaled responses, tree damage to enhance the desirability of camp- Adirondack climbers were not appears to be an overriding concern, sites. These findings suggest that strongly in support of more manage- with the highest mean score reported, perhaps some vegetation loss at the ment of climbing areas, including whereas bare soil is the least offensive, base of climbing areas is acceptable official management of fixed anchors, with the lowest mean score (see table and provides amenity value, and that with 73% of those surveyed either 4). Although not addressed by quanti- areas should be managed so that veg- disagreeing or neutral in responses to tative measures, litter is also a primary etation loss is minimized, but not the management questions (see table concern, appearing most frequently eliminated. In contrast, climbers are 5). These results are similar to those (45%) in open responses (see table 1). sensitive to tree damage at the climbing reported by Schuster et al. (2001), These results suggest that climbers site and these results suggest that where climbers felt that managers did may be more accepting of impacts management strategies that seek to not adequately understand the activity that are unavoidable in the context of reduce or eliminate this impact would and that climbing was not treated pursuing the activity, such as soil likely be successful and well received fairly in the management process. exposure at the base of a climb where by climbers. This has important implications for climbers congregate, and less accepting Mellor (1995) proposed that managers, as perhaps most manage- of impacts deemed avoidable with climbing in the Adirondack Park is ment strategies need to be developed proper climbing minimum impact markedly different than other climbing in close collaboration with climbers’ practices (e.g., damage to trees). centers in the United States, largely groups in order to be successful. Similar findings have been reported in due to the wilderness character of the Unlike previous studies, little dif- research with wilderness campers area and the ethics adopted by the ference in responses among climbing (White et al. 2001; Knudson and climbing community. These results subpopulations was found. This study Curry 1981), where bare soil was seen support this proposition, with the examined subpopulations based on

Table 6—A comparison of resource impact attitudes (mean values) by climber experience levels Experience level

Concept1 ≤ 2 years 3–5 years > 6 years f-value p-value Erosion 3.24 3.02 3.15 .37 .69 Multiple trails 3.11 3.39 3.31 .68 .51 Damaged trees 3.65 3.70 3.50 .45 .69 Trampled vegetation 3.36 3.35 3.30 .03 .97 Bare soil 3.23 2.65 2.89 .83 .44 Top of cliff impact 3.39 3.32 3.31 .06 .94 1Concepts are measured with a five point scale from 1 = “not offensive” to 5 = “extremely offensive.”

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 31 Table 7—A comparison of social and management attitudes (mean values) by climber experience levels Experience level

Concept1 ≤ 2 years 3–5 years > 6 years f-value p-value Crowding 4.10 3.98 4.19 1.27 .28 Noise 3.86 3.73 3.87 .33 .72 Wilderness awareness 3.23 3.54 3.54 .68 .51 Wilderness importance 4.42 4.44 4.41 .01 .97 Management 3.35 2.96 3.22 1.20 .29 1Concepts are measured with a five point scale from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” experience level in years (see tables 6 Table 8—A comparison of resource impact attitudes and 7) and on preference for tradi- (mean values) by climber style preferences tional or sport climbing (see tables 8 Climbing style and 9). The one exception was tree Concept1 Traditional Sport T-value P-value damage, which was reported as more Erosion 3.12 3.02 -.28 .78 offensive by sport climbers than tradi- Multiple trails 3.27 3.39 -.28 .78 tional climbers. Sport climbing is Damaged trees 3.45 3.70 -2.1 .04 characterized by an abundance of fixed Trampled vegetation 3.26 3.35 -.92 .36 anchors, and climbers who prefer this Bare soil 2.77 2.65 -.98 .32 style of climbing may be less tolerant Top of cliff impact 3.22 3.51 -1.58 .12 1 of using trees as anchors and more Concepts are measured with a five point scale from 1 = “not offensive” to 5 = “extremely offensive.” tolerant of the use of permanent anchors deemed controversial by tra- Table 9—A comparison of social and management attitudes ditional climbers. Conversely, (mean values) by climber style preferences traditional climbers may be more tol- erant of some damage to trees in order Climbing style 1 to avoid the placement of permanent Concept Traditional Sport T-value P-value fixed anchors in the rock surface. Crowding 4.13 4.07 .47 .63 These results contrast somewhat with Noise 3.89 3.77 .87 .38 Wilderness awareness 3.57 3.31 1.13 .26 recent examinations of experience-use Wilderness importance 4.40 4.42 -1.29 .89 history as an important predictor of Management 3.11 3.25 -.68 .49 participant sensitivity resource impacts 1Concepts are measured with a five point scale from 1 = “not offensive” to (White et al. 2008). A possible expla- 5 = “extremely offensive.” nation is that what was measured in this study—years of experience with Management Implications namely, to what extent do we allow an activity—may not be as sensitive a Climbers in the Adirondack Park visitor information, particularly from measure as years of experience with a reported that common resource impacts one visitor group, to guide the formula- place, as assessed in White et al. including litter, damage to trees, ero- tion of indicators and standards? (2008). Although the observed uni- sion, and crowding were a concern. Although the results imply that from a formity of the climbing community Other common resource impacts are climber’s perspective, some meaningful on all other resource impact attitudes less of a concern and still others, such as indicators of quality at climbing sites examined is somewhat surprising, it is bare soil at the base of cliffs, may be would be damage to trees, erosion, and suggestive of the uniqueness of the perceived as beneficial. Although this crowding, the perspectives of non- Adirondack settings in attracting information is helpful in informing climbers and managers need to be certain climbers seeking broader management, it also points to larger assessed to proceed with a full develop- wilderness experience aspects. discussions that are currently ongoing ment of indicators and standards of in wilderness and park management— quality in the context of a management

32 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 planning effort and agency policies for Department of Agriculture, Forest Monz, C. A., K. Smith, and L. Knickerbocker. Service, Intermountain Research 2006. An assessment of rock climbers’ resource protection and stewardship. Station. attitudes towards resource impacts in An interesting paradox suggested Knudson, D. M., and E. B. Curry. 1981. the Adirondack wilderness. In by the study findings is climbers’ self- Campers’ perception of site deteriora- Proceedings of the 2005 Northeastern tion and crowding. Journal of Forestry Recreation Research Symposium, April reported strong support of wilderness, 79: 92–94. 10–12, 2005, Bolton Landing, NY, ed. J. but lack of support for increased man- Kyle, G. T., A. R. Graefe, R. E. Manning, and Peden and R. Schuster (pp. 204–211). J. Bacon. 2004. Effects of place attach- Gen. Tech. Report NE-341. Newton agement of climbing areas and ment on users’ perceptions of social Square, PA: U.S. Department of activities. Although the complexities and environmental conditions in a nat- Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern of this issue are beyond the scope of ural setting. Journal of Environmental Research Station. Psychology 24: 213–25. Newman, P., J. Marion, and K. Cahill. 2001. this paper, the findings support what Jones, C. D., and S. J. Hollenhorst. 2002. Integrating resource, social and mana- wilderness managers have known for Toward a resolution of the fixed anchors gerial indicators of quality into carrying in wilderness debate. International capacity decision making. The George some time—managing climbers and Journal of Wilderness 8(3): 15–20. Wright Forum 18(3): 28–40. climbing in many wilderness settings is Lawyer, J., and J. Haas. 2008. Adirondack Roggenbuck J. R., D. R. Williams, and A. E. difficult. The results presented in this Rock: A Rock Climbers Guide. Pompey, Watson. 1993. Defining acceptable NY: Adirondack Rock Press. conditions in wilderness. Environmental work suggest that certain resource and Lynn, N. A., and R. D. and Brown. 2003. Management 17: 187–97. social conditions are important to Effects of recreational use impacts on Schuster, R. M., J. G. Thompson, and W. E. hiking experiences in natural areas. Hammitt. 2001. Rock climbers’ atti- climbers, and perhaps including Landscape and Urban Planning 64: tudes toward management of climbing climbers’ perspectives in the develop- 77–87. and the use of bolts. Environmental ment of standards for these concerns Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Management 28(3): 403–12. Recreation, 2nd ed. Corvallis: Oregon Shelby, B., J. J. Vaske, and R. Harris. 1988. would encourage more involvement in State University Press. User standards for ecological impacts planning processes. IJW Manning, R. E., D. Lime, W. Freimund, and at wilderness campsites. Journal of D. Pitt. 1996. Crowding norms at front Leisure Research 20: 245–56. country sites: A visual approach for Stewart, W. P., and D. N. Cole. 2003. On the Acknowledgments setting standards of quality. Leisure prescriptive utility of visitor survey The author thanks the Environmental Sciences 18: 39–59. research: A rejoinder to Manning. Manning, R. E., S. Lawson, P. Newman, M. Journal of Leisure Research 35(1): Studies Department at St. Lawrence Budrul, W. Vallerie, D. Laven, and J. 119–27. University and the Utah State Bacon. 2004. Visitor perceptions of Trench, K., and G. N. Wallace. 1994. Norms recreation-related resource impacts. In held by rock climbers for different set- Agricultural Experiment Station for The Environmental Impacts of tings in Joshua Tree National providing support for this research, Ecotourism, ed. R. Buckley (pp. Monument. In Wilderness—The Spirit and Katie Smith, Leah Knickerbocker, 259–71). London: CABI. Lives, (pp. 78–90). 6th National McCool, S. F., and D. N. Cole, comps. 1997. Wilderness Conference Proceedings. Rich Wilson, and Matthew Way for Proceedings—Limits of Acceptable Los Alamos NM: Bandolier National contributing numerous hours in field Change and Related Planning Processes: Monument. Progress and Future Directions. General Waldrup, R., and D. McEwen. 1994. Rock sampling. Technical Report INT-GTR-371. Ogden, climbing and wilderness: A study of UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, climbers’ attitudes toward wilderness, References Forest Service, Rocky Mountain climbing impacts and regulation. Trends Downing, K., and R. Clark. 1979. Users’ and Research Station. 31(3): 38–42. managers’ perceptions of dispersed McMillan, M. A., and D. W. Larson. 2002. White D. D., T. E. Hall, and T. A. Farrell. recreation impacts: A focus on roaded Effects of rock climbing on the vegeta- 2001. Influence of ecological impacts forest lands. In Proceedings of the tion of the Niagara Escarpment in and other campsite characteristics on Wildlands Recreation Impacts Southern Ontario, Canada. Conservation wilderness visitors’ campsite choices. Conference (pp. 18–23). Portland, OR: Biology 16 (2): 389–98. Journal of Park and Recreation USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Mellor, D. 1995. Climbing in the Adirondacks: Administration 19: 83–87. Region, R-6-001-1979. A Guide to Rock and Ice Routes in the White D. D, R. J. Virden, and C. J. van Riper. Farrell, T. A., T. E. Hall, and D. D. White. Adirondack Park, 3rd. ed. Lake George, 2008. Effects of place identity, place 2001. Wilderness campers’ perception NY: Adirondack Mountain Club. dependence and experience-use history and evaluation of campsite impacts. Merriam, L., and C. Smith. 1974. Visitor on perceptions of recreation impacts Journal of Leisure Research 33: impact on newly developed campsites in a natural setting. Environmental 229–50. in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Management 42: 647–57. Hammitt, W. E., and D. N. Cole. 1998. Journal of Forestry 72: 627–30. Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Moeller, G., R. Larson, and D. Morrison. CHRISTOPHER A. MONZ is an assistant Management, 2nd ed. New York: John 1974. Opinions of Campers and Boaters professor in the Department of Environment Wiley. at the Allegheny Reservoir. Research Helgath, S. 1975. Trail Deterioration in the Paper NE-307. U.S. Department of and Society and The Ecology Center at the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. Research Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Utah State University, Logan, UT 84321, Note INT-193. Ogden, UT: U.S. Research Station. USA; email: [email protected].

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 33 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Learning From Wilderness The Social Dimension of Fire Management

BY ANNE E. BLACK

n 2008, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) began piloting a “new” concept in fire management: managing “fire as Ifire” on the landscape; no more black-and-white dis- tinctions between “good” fire and “bad” fire. Instead, under the new direction, the USFS manages the fire based on what the land, the long-term objectives, the land man- agement plan, the social-political situation, and the weather suggest. For example, the USFS staff may attack a flank of the fire that has a high probability of moving aggressively into a housing subdivision, but may only monitor the flank of a fire moving through public lands (wilderness or nonwilderness) that are ecologically in need of a fire. Interestingly, this intuitively straightforward way to manage laboratory: wilderness and prescribed fire. Now, Aldo fire represents a profound shift in organizational structure Leopold Wilderness Research Institute (ALWRI) staff are and culture, with implications for how to receive and allo- capturing, grounding, and extending that knowledge cate budgets that manage natural ignitions, how to through an ongoing series of applied research projects coordinate and communicate with internal and external among a community of academics, researchers, managers, partners, how to understand and predict fire behavior, and and contractors. how to weigh competing priorities and objectives in the Since 2000, staff at the ALWRI have been working to decision-making process. Success hinges on the ability of a understand how to integrate the potential benefits of fire manager to safely, effectively, and efficiently manage a and lessons from the 30 years of federal experience and dynamic, high-stakes fire situation. The shift takes the fire expertise in wilderness fire into all fire decision making. manager out of the safe terrain of heroic figure doing battle The idea is to capture the general issues and patterns and with nature’s forces to the trickier territory of shepherding use these consistently to identify how, when, and where we a complex system. can most effectively use fire to meet ecological and man- Where does the knowledge to guide us come from? agement goals. However, this knowledge tends to be One place is wilderness, both ecological knowledge (e.g., distributed and anecdotal. Although there is a wealth of fire processes, return intervals, and resulting pattern) and knowledge gained from expertise and experience in many social knowledge (e.g., how to organize and manage a long- places, those lessons tend to be shared only with others duration event successfully). As managers and researchers, close by. Because of this, the keys to the most significant we gained experience in the art of fire management barriers and facilitators to fire management were not through the courage and passion of managers willing to readily available to the entire system. With the assistance of push unconventional ideas about fire management—their two master’s students, the ALWRI obtained an initial

34 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 objective understanding of key influ- management agencies, and The however, if the end result is finding ences (Black et al. 2008; Doane et al. Nature Conservancy sponsored four someone to blame, few will be willing 2006). These key influences range annual workshops on high reliability to speak up, and fewer yet will be from national policies and planning theory for the management commu- willing to look objectively at their documents that do or do not allow nity. This has led to smaller regional own actions (Lewis 2008). As recent fire use, to the presence or absence of and local workshops to help fire man- reviews of unwanted fire outcomes agreements between adjacent land agers become better risk managers by indicate (Nasiatka et al. 2008; Dether managers that provide for the natural paying more attention to small fail- and Black 2006), there are unique scale of fire and to the critical working ures and to differences between what circumstances to every event, but relationship between local line offi- was planned and what actually hap- there are also few new patterns. cers and their fire staff. Based on pened, listening for subtle changes in Despite our best intentions, we may ALWRI research experience, the fun- environment on the fire line, and underestimate weather or fire damental issues of individual and quickly reassessing and responding to behavior, fail to notice or act on accu- group dynamics were identified as the these changes. As with concepts of mulating deviations from our plan, or levels of trust, comfort level with fire, organizational learning, these man- communications were less than and experience with fire and local agement actions require a leadership desired. Are these individual errors? political realities. Over the same time period, the Fire use, most notably in wilderness, requires a fire use management community began seeking to build skills in orga- quite different mind-set, one in which nizational learning and a “high success means choosing not to do reliability” organization because of their acknowledgment that manage- everything possible. ment disasters and organizational errors can kill people and jeopardize and group culture that does not Organizational research, such as fire-use programs. Organizational simply accept diverse perspectives and referenced in this article, suggests that learning (e.g., Garvin 2000) focuses views, but requires them. The speed the actions causing the patterns in the on the behavioral and structural pro- and complexity of any fire environ- outcomes are likely institutional as cesses necessary to identify, capture, ment cannot be known, seen, or opposed to individual. That is, although and transmit lessons and adapt understood completely by any one individuals make decisions and take behavior as a consequence of those person—thus, the key to safe and action, they do so from within institu- lessons. High reliability theory (e.g., effective operations is cultivating a tional and cultural frameworks and Weick and Sutcliffe 2007) was devel- group climate in which partial knowl- rationales that direct their attention and oped to explain why certain edge and competing explanations can guide how they weigh the information organizations are able to operate in be respectfully voiced and integrated received. To produce different outcomes, unpredictable, high stakes environ- into group understanding. Because we must be able to see this system in ments with minimal errors, such as wilderness fires often do not pose action—in ourselves, in our groups, in air traffic control and nuclear aircraft immediate threats to property, the our organizations—and understand the carrier operation. These concepts and tempo on managed wilderness fires is rationale for the existing frameworks. those of other researchers trying to often slower and the stakes lower. For example, we need to be able to understand how organizations can These seem to be one of the best clearly see and critically discuss: better detect, manage, and bounce places in which to develop and prac- • what our intentions and behaviors back from error (e.g., Dekker 2007; tice new skills. are, Reason 1997) form the foundation Few things dampen a fire-use • what we notice and pay attention for current applied research efforts. program like unwanted outcomes; for to in our environment, The Wildland Fire Lessons example, think of the national atten- • what we consider in our delibera- Learned Center in partnership with tion on post-1988 fires in places such tions of what actions to take, the USFS Rocky Mountain Research as Yellowstone National Park. • what constitutes appropriate Station, the four U.S. federal land Improvement depends on learning; action, and

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 35 • what would need to change in to capture the decision-making process action research projects, offers a pow- order to allow for a different path during fires to build an understanding erful way to learn. IJW to develop. of organization-wide patterns and con- References tribute to organizational learning. A Black, A. E., M. Williamson, and D. Doane. In a sense, our individual experiences third project is working on a series of 2008. Wildland fire use barriers and are a window into organizational preseason “dialogue simulations” to facilitators. Fire Management Today 68(1): 10–14. structure and culture. assist line officers and fire managers in Dekker, S. 2007. Just Culture: Balancing becoming more aware of critical orga- Safety and Accountability. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co. The USFS manages nizational dynamics and how they Dether, D., and A. E. Black. 2006. Learning the fire based on contribute to performance and out- from escaped prescribed fires—Les- comes. Within each project is the sons for high reliability. Fire Management Today 66(4): 50–56. what the land, awareness that success in the new fire Doane, D., J. O’Laughlin, P. Morgan, and C. management era means understanding Miller. 2006. Barriers to wildland fire the long-term use: A preliminary problem analysis. and integrating different organizational International Journal of Wilderness 12: objectives, the land cultures of suppression and fire use. 36–38. In most places, the United States Garvin, D. A. 2000. Learning in Action: A management plan, Guide to Putting the Learning included, humans seek to dominate Organization to Work. Watertown, MA: the social-political fire—fight it, suppress it. Success has Harvard Business School Press. Lewis, A. 2008. Safety in wildland fire: situation, and the been defined as persevering even in Leadership and employee voice. weather suggest. the face of overwhelming odds. Fire Master’s thesis. College of Graduate use, most notably in wilderness, Studies, Moscow University of Idaho. Nasiatka, P., R. Duncan, and D. O’Brien. requires a quite different mind-set, 2008. Prescribed fire escapes and near The ALWRI, in collaboration with one in which success means choosing miss lessons learned. In Information Collection Team Report, ed. P. Keller. the research and management commu- not to do everything possible. Learning Tucson, AZ: Wildland Fire Lessons nity, is engaged in several projects to manage “fire as fire” requires Learned Center. designed to build a system perspective understanding: what it takes to refrain Reason, J. 1997. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Burlington, and extend our understanding of effec- from doing everything possible, how VT: Ashgate Publishing. tive practices. One project is a national to transition between aggressive Weick, K. E., and K. M. Sutcliffe. 2007. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient survey of high reliability practices in action and monitoring, how to com- Performance in an Age of Uncertainty, the federal fire community that asks municate intent, what to pay attention 2nd ed. Somerset, NJ: John Wiley & questions such as: How broadly and to, and how to determine appropriate Sons. how deeply have these concepts spread, action in each landscape. Combining ANNE E. BLACK is a social science analyst/ and are they having an impact on per- fire management practice with struc- ecologist at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness formance? Another project is working tured reflection, such as through the Research Institute; email: [email protected]. on development of a “key decision log” ALWRI collaborative applied and

Plan to be there!

Join Us for www.wild9.org www.wild.org

9th World Wilderness Congress 6–13 November 2009 • Yucatan, Mexico, Mesoamerica

36 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

The Carpathian Mountains The Wild Heart of Europe

BY MICHAEL C. BALTZER, DAVID STROBEL, and VLADO VANCURA

Editor’s Note: This is the final of two articles featuring the Carpathian ecoregion, the largest area of wilderness in mainland Europe. See the December 2008 issue of IJW for an article (Stanciu 2008) that focuses on the Romanian Carpathians.

plaque in the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve in Ukraine, situated in the central axis of the Carpathian AMountains, celebrates the exact geographical center of Europe as calculated by Austrian-Hungarian geographers in 1887. Although there are almost as many claims for the center of Europe as there are countries, it is still incredible today that there is a remarkable wild area such as the Carpathian Mountains in the center of this overcrowded continent with its long history of human endeavor. Spanning seven countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine) between the Czech Republic in the northwest to Serbia (across the Vlado Vancura, David Strobel, and Michael Baltzer (left to right). Photo by Toby Danube River) in the southeast of the range, the Carpathian Aykroyd. Mountains cover an area more than 200,000 kilometers2 (77,220 sq. mi.) and more than 1,500 kilometers (930 mi.) human activity. Even in the most remote, pristine natural long, which is far bigger than the Alps, the other great areas, local people have collected mushrooms and other mountain chain in Europe. However the average altitude of forest products, grazed sheep, or regularly hunted. In many the Carpathians is much lower (850 m; 2,788 ft.) and does ways, the Carpathians are characterized by this close rela- not have the high-peak, permanent snow cover and glaciers tionship between humans and nature. that characterize the Alps. The Carpathian Mountains are However, despite this long, close interrelationship, the not a single uninterrupted range, but are represented by a Carpathians do have areas where you can walk for days number of distinct geographical groupings that gives the without seeing another person or any signs of human inter- range a high degree of diversity. ventions. There are many places where it is possible to feel the total dominance of nature and the long natural history Wilderness in the Carpathians of these beautiful mountains. For these reasons, the In A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold wrote that “in Carpathians are characteristic of wilderness in Europe and Europe … wilderness is relegated to the Carpathians and an inspiration to many. The Carpathians have been the set- Siberia” (1949, p. 200). However, it is difficult in some sense ting for many tales and folklore in Europe when a vision of to equate the wilderness of the Carpathians with the other wilderness and ancient wild Europe is required. great wildernesses of the world, such as Antarctica or the Gobi desert. The Carpathians have had a long and intimate Protected Areas and Wilderness relationship with humans, and there are few, if any, places in There are 39 national parks in the Carpathians. Most of the mountains that have not been influenced or touched by these were created to provide protection for the best of the

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 37 Bieszczady (pronounced “bay- nature sites in eastern Europe, exhib- ash-tchade”) National Park (BNP) in iting the most comprehensive Poland was the first Pan Park, and ecological patterns and processes of Retezat National Park in Romania pure stands of European beech. These was the second. BNP is a magical Beech forests represent an outstanding place and, as Poland’s third largest example of undisturbed temperate national park, is located in the extreme forests and reflect the ongoing recolo- southeast corner of the country on nization of terrestrial ecosystems after the border of Slovakia and Ukraine. the last ice age. Figure 1—River through fir-tree forest, Retezat National After BNP’s creation in 1973, when it Park, Carpathian Mountains, southeast Romania. Photo covered approximately 60 square kilo- Land of the Large Mammals courtesy of Michel Gunther, World Wildlife Fund– Canon. meters (23 sq. mi.), it was enlarged of Europe four times, spanning today more than The Carpathian Mountains are often Carpathian wilderness and many of 292 square kilometers (113 sq. mi.). heralded as the land of carnivores, and the wildest areas of the Carpathians are BNP belongs, together with adjacent are one of the last places that substan- found in these parks. The biggest park protected areas in Slovakia and tial populations of gray wolves (Canis is the Lower Tatras National Park with Ukraine, the trilateral UNESCO East lupus), brown bears (Ursus arctos), and 74,000 hectares (182,780 acres), but Carpathian Biosphere Reserve, the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) are those parks with the largest amount of forming an exceptional transboundary found. The approximate population wilderness are found in the Romanian protected area of 2,132 square kilo- of large carnivores in the Carpathians and Ukrainian Carpathians. One meters (823 sq. mi.) in size. About is composed of 4,000 to 5,000 wolves, example is the Carpathian Biosphere 80% of the national parks are covered 7,000 to 8,000 brown bears, and Reserve. Covering 53,630 hectares with forests, and some of them have 2,400 lynx. Romania harbors more (132,466 acres) and with an altitu- preserved their pristine character. The than a half of the overall number of dinal range of 200 to 2,060 meters use of trails in the BNP is restricted, bears and wolves in the Carpathians (656 to 6,758 ft.), this reserve com- with about 70% of the area under and about 40% of the lynx popula- prises large areas of wilderness mixed strict protection. tion, with the other part of the with rich natural habitat managed by populations being found mainly in humans for more than a thousand The Carpathians do Poland, Slovakia, and Ukraine. years, and it is a wonderful flagship for Moreover, the Carpathian Mountain the entire Carpathian Mountain chain. have areas where region is the last stronghold of the Many other examples in Romania you can walk for days European bison (Bison bonasus). This were featured in the December 2008 species almost went extinct, and the edition of IJW. without seeing population in central Europe is An initiative aimed to find sus- another person or restricted to the eastern part of Poland tainable solutions for wilderness in any signs of human (Bialowieza National Park in Poland; Europe called Pan Parks (www.pan- see Bobiec 2002) with about 160 parks.org) has identified all areas of interventions. bison, and the western part of Ukraine wilderness in Europe over 10,000 with about 220 bison. Other bison hectares (24,700 acres) and is slowly Perhaps the most outstanding populations exist farther east in certifying the best managed as an habitat of the Carpathians is its ancient Belarus, Lithuania, and Russia. Bison incentive for conservation and for beech forests. In 2007, UNESCO reintroduction projects have been ini- tourism and sustainable development declared 10 sites of old-growth beech tialized, including one in the Romanian (Vancura et al. 2008). More than eight forests as World Heritage Sites. The Vanatori Neamt Nature Park. One of potential sites have been identified in sites stretch over 185 kilometers (115 the great dreams of many is to see the the Carpathians, and two of them are mi.) of mountain landscapes in the European bison truly restored in the now certified Pan Parks. This marks border area between Slovakia and Carpathians. This would be a great the Carpathians as one of the best Ukraine. These rare forest habitats are symbol for the wilderness of the regions for wilderness in Europe. among only a few other UNESCO Carpathians.

38 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 A Special Type of Wilderness Extensive fences were never built to Ironically, these grasslands may Although the Carpathians do have secure grazing land, but complicated disappear soon due to the lack of many areas of true wilderness, when grazing rights were created by the human intervention. The shepherds people think of the Carpathians as local people, and understood by the and hill farmers that act as surrogates wilderness, they often mean something shepherds, to ensure sustainable man- for the lost large herbivore populations more than these few areas. Why is it agement of the grazing resources. The are leaving the hard mountain life and that some people—including wilder- impact of this grazing has been to abandoning the land. The grassland is ness giants such as Aldo Leopold—have open up some of the forest glades, succeeding to forests, and the rich bio- considered the Carpathians as one of creating, in many places, mosaics of diversity and beautiful landscapes are the last bastions of wilderness in forests and extensive areas of rich becoming lost. Perhaps the answer and Europe, when most its “wild areas” are grasslands. There is a debate about the the opportunity now is to bring the clearly woven with human activities, past makeup of this mosaic landscape, herbivores back? and generally are far removed from with many arguing that it was once The loss of the large herbivores their natural state? completely forested, and with some and the maintenance of the grasslands through farming mean the mountains The relationship between humans and the cannot be considered a true wilderness in the strict sense of the word. However, Carpathian Mountains has not been it is still a landscape where one feels totally balanced. nature truly is in control, and humans an intricate part of the wilderness. Perhaps the best answer to this arguing that the large herbivores, such This is not a wilderness where humans question is the way that the human as the European bison (Bison bonasus) are rare visitors or, on the contrary, a society in the Carpathians has evolved and auroch (Bos taurus primigenius) landscape dominated by humans. The there. There are many theories about (an ancient cattle now extinct), main- Carpathians are a wilderness where why the Carpathian region has tained large open areas. The domestic people are a welcome part of the nat- remained more intact than other grazers have simply replaced the nat- ural system. mountain regions, especially in Europe. ural ones, so that today’s landscape Many of these reasons stem from the may even look more similar to the past A Region in Transition fact that the Industrial Revolution was landscape than one would immedi- The relationship between humans and never as intense in this region as it was ately expect. the Carpathian Mountains has not in other parts of Europe. A few pow- erful landowners controlled much of the forest and animals and, therefore, endowed it with protection from mass removal longer than many areas in other parts of Europe. But, whatever the reasons are, the mountains have remained relatively untamed and the local inhabitants have learned how to live as part of the hill and mountain ecosystems, matching their practices to the seasons and the natural systems of the mountains. For hundreds of years shepherds have grazed their sheep, cattle, and horses across the mountains in the summer, protecting them from the Figure 2—Hiker looking across a grassland in Retezat National Park, Carpathian Mountains, Romania. large carnivores using dogs rather than Photo courtesy of Michel Gunther, World Wildlife Fund–Canon. guns, and other lethal methods.

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 39 for improving the prosperity of the Bucharest, Romania. At this confer- region, without regulation and guid- ence, the signatory countries agreed ance these influences are presently a upon a Biodiversity and Landscape threat for the wilderness conditions in Protocol. This protocol aims to pro- the mountains. tect the rich and diverse natural Possibly the greatest threat to the heritage of the Carpathians. Although wilderness of the Carpathians is the there is no specific mention of wilder- growth of the skiing industry. Skiing ness in the protocol, a number of has never been a major attraction in articles contribute to the protection of the Carpathians, but in the last few wilderness, such as the protection of years with the opening up of the extensive habitat for large carnivores economies and the access to easy cap- and the encouragement of trans- ital, ski resorts have been developed in boundary protected areas. many places in the mountains. As Two related Carpathian-specific these mountains are much lower than initiatives are underway to help pro- the Alps, there are fewer places suit- tect wilderness. The first is the able for extensive skiing resorts. Carpathian Network of Protected Figure 3—European bison. Photo courtesy of SANCHEZ and LOPE/World Wildlife Fund– Ski-area developers seek the most Areas, an initiative sparked by the Canon. remote and highest peaks of the Carpathian Convention. The network Carpathians, and many of these resorts aims to coordinate its efforts to ensure been totally balanced. The expansion are not small. In the center of the that there is a strong system of pro- of grazing areas into the most wild and Ukrainian Carpathians at Bukovel, tected areas throughout the Carpathians remote areas has meant that the wil- developers are constructing Europe’s and to ensure effective management. derness portions of the Carpathians largest resort. New developers are not In addition, scientists across the region have been somewhat reduced in quality familiar with the concept of sustain- are designing an ecological network as places of exclusion from human able skiing, if that is even feasible in that aims to ensure extensive areas of intervention. If one accepts this grazing these days of global warming. natural habitat connect across the as part of the system, then this is Carpathians. Wilderness is one of the minor disturbance compared to some Ensuring the Future many criterion being used to design of the other intrusions, such as large In 1998, as part of its global adoption the framework for this ecological net- dams or forestry activities that have of large-scale, ecoregion conservation work. reduced the quality of the Carpathian approaches, the World Wildlife Fund More broadly, a new initiative wilderness. Large-scale socialist plans launched a cooperative project between called the Wild Europe Initiative is did have their impact in the moun- conservation NGOs and academic being started across Europe with the tains, but the impact was often institutions across the region to create goal of protecting the remaining wil- localized and not extensive. The time a strategy and action plan for the con- derness in Europe as well as proactively of the greatest threat to the wilderness servation of the Carpathian Mountain exploring ways to restore and create of the Carpathians is now. Until 20 region. This was the first regional new areas of wilderness, where pos- years ago, the Carpathian countries approach to protect the Carpathians, sible. The Carpathian Mountain were all under communist govern- and this cooperation led to the cre- region is one of the flagship regions for ments. Once the iron curtain fell in ation of the Carpathian Ecoregion the initiative. In May 2009, the Wild 1989, the region became exposed to Initiative (www.carpates.org), and Europe Initiative will hold its first larger, global scale economic and then the Framework Convention for meeting to discuss the way forward for social forces. At the same time, five of the Conservation and Sustainable wilderness in Europe. the countries have become members Development of the Carpathian of the European Union, adding fur- Mountains. The Framework Con- The Future of Wilderness ther opportunities for economic and vention came into force in May 2003. in the Carpathians social expansion into these areas. In June 2008, the convention held its The threats mentioned above linked Although this is an important chance second Conference of the Parties in to unplanned and unsustainable

40 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 infrastructure development and the loss of local protection mechanisms There are two significant opportunities that seem daunting, and, without direct can help to save these wild areas, and both concerted action, the Carpathian Mountains will lose their value as the require proactive and careful action. wild heart of Europe. However, there are two significant opportunities that areas to return to forest. This process and the mountains are becoming can help to save these wild areas, and cannot be left to its own natural increasingly less environmentally both require proactive and careful devices, as abandoned farmland in robust. The natural stronghold of the action. overcrowded Europe is never left Carpathians against the impacts of Modern economies have encour- abandoned for long. However, with climate change is being weakened just aged many mountain and rural area direct intervention and an ambitious at a time when it will be needed. The people to leave their land and head vision, this process could be turned arguments for wilderness conservation for the towns and cities in search of into an opportunity for wilderness in the Carpathians have never been more comfortable living standards and protected area stewardship. stronger. and more reliable ways to ensure In addition, not everybody wants Although the future is uncertain, them. The Carpathians are no excep- to leave the mountains, and so new the Carpathians remain a bastion of tion to this. Shepherds and local economies must be found to provide wilderness on an otherwise over- livestock owners who traditionally employment for and to support life in crowded continent. It is remarkable made their living from meat, cheese, the villages. In fact, without some sort that despite thousands of years of wool, and milk, and provided the of new economy (whether it is from human history, the Carpathians still central pillar for many of the local private enterprise and/or government held on to some wild areas. Let us mountain economies, are fewer and support), wilderness is likely to disap- hope that the Carpathian Mountains fewer. The tough rural life and the pear as alternative profitable ventures will remain the “wild heart of Europe” attraction of regular income and more replace them, unless there is strong for many centuries to come. IJW attractive jobs in the valleys and towns political support for wilderness. The have drawn away many people, par- combination of the need to create new References ticularly young farmers. The vast areas economies to provide new jobs, and Bobiec, Andrzej. 2002. Bialowieza Primeval Forest: The largest area of natural of grazed fields and hay meadows the need to find methods to protect deciduous lowland forest in Europe. maintained for winter fodder are wilderness, especially in view of miti- International Journal of Wilderness 8(3): 33–37. increasingly being abandoned. This gating and adapting to climate change, Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County has serious implications from a biodi- could be a powerful political force to Almanac. Oxford, UK: Oxford University versity point of view, as these meadows protect the Carpathian Mountains, if a Press. Stanciu, E. 2008. Wilderness and wildlands support a rich and rare habitat lost vision and enough energy can be in Romanian Carpathians. International throughout most of Europe due to directed to find future solutions for Journal of Wilderness 14(3): 37-42. Vancura, Vlado, Zoltán Kun, and Mylène Van the intensification of agriculture. the people, nature, and wilderness. Der Donk. 2008. Pan Parks perspec- However, it provides an opportunity No discussion about future sce- tives for a wilder Europe. International in many locations to increase the narios for wilderness in the Carpathians Journal of Wilderness 14(1): 38–42. natural forest areas and, in turn, create can be held without acknowledging MICHAEL C. BALTZER is director of World even larger wilderness areas. If the ski the role that climate change will play. Wildlife Fund’s Danube-Carpathian resorts and second homes can be A mountain range the size of the Program; email: [email protected]. minimized, then a rare chance to Carpathians will undergo significant increase wilderness, even in Europe, changes. However, because many of DAVID STROBEL is protected areas officer exists in the Carpathians. It is crucial the large-scale processes are still intact, for World Wildlife Fund’s Danube-Carpathian Program; email: [email protected]. to maintain extensive tracks of pro- the impacts on the whole may be less. ductive meadows, but in many The present onslaught of threats in the VLADO VANCURA is conservation manager strategic places it may be best to leave mountains is progressively dismantling for PAN Parks based in Hungary; email: them abandoned and allow some these natural systems and processes, [email protected].

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 41 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcements

Compiled by Greg Kroll

IJW Welcomes New Editorial Board Member U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wilderness Lisa Eidson Stewardship Policy The editorial board for IJW The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) released on welcomes a new board November 17, 2008, an updated Wilderness Stewardship member, Lisa A. K. Eidson, Policy, the first revision since the original policy was issued who brings with her experi- in 1986. Congress has designated more than 20 million ence in website development acres (8.1 million ha) on 63 national wildlife refuges as wil- and information manage- derness, comprising nearly 20% of National Wilderness ment. She is the website Preservation System lands. Provisions within the revised manager and wilderness wilderness policy include the following: information specialist for • Affirmation that the Refuge System generally will not www.wilderness.net, one of modify wilderness ecosystems, such as creating new the most comprehensive impoundments or modifying natural process, unless public sources for wilderness doing so maintains or restores biological integrity, diver- information that is sup- sity, or environmental health that has been degraded, or ported by a partnership with is necessary to protect or recover threatened or endan- the Wilderness Institute in Lisa A. K. Eidson. gered species. the College of Forestry and • Guidance in determining whether a proposed refuge Conservation at the University of Montana, Aldo Leopold management activity constitutes the minimum require- Wilderness Research Institute, and the Arthur Carhart ment for managing a refuge as wilderness. National Wilderness Training Center. Lisa Eidson was • Permitting of appropriate recreational uses in wilderness awarded the University of Montana’s 2006–07 Outstanding areas if such wildlife-dependent recreational activities Service to the External Community Staff Award for her (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, etc.) are non- continued enhancement of www.wilderness.net to serve wil- motorized, non-mechanized, and compatible with the derness managers. We welcome Lisa Eidson to IJW and look refuge purpose and mission. forward to her contributions to the board and the journal. • First-ever guidance on wilderness review of Refuge System lands to help determine whether those lands IJW Thanks Outgoing Editorial Board Member should be recommended for wilderness designation. Troy Hall Dr. Troy Hall has assumed comanaging editor responsibili- The new Wilderness Stewardship Policy has not ties with Society and Natural Resources: An International received universal acclaim, however; in the opinion of The Journal. She is an associate professor of protected area vis- Wilderness Society (TWS), the revision suffers from itor studies in the Department of Conservation Social serious shortcomings. According to TWS, there is nothing Sciences and College of Natural Resources at the University in the new policy about managing refuge wilderness to of Idaho, Moscow. Dr. Hall has served on the IJW editorial protect habitat, species, and migration corridors in a time board for two years, and we wish her well in her new of climate change. “This is a serious omission when Refuge responsibilities. System lands will be among the first to be impacted by the

Submit announcements and short news articles to GREG KROLL, IJW Wildernss Digest editor. E-mail: [email protected]

42 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 temperature changes associated with empowered by an environmental ethic, significant contributions to wilderness global warming.” In addition, TWS and employs the healing qualities of preservation. A ceremony was held in expresses concern that all refuge lands nature to support long-term health, Port Angeles, Washington, in October in Alaska (comprising more than 80% self-esteem, employability, and per- 2008, to present the 2006 and 2007 of FWS refuge acreage) are exempt sonal growth. awards to the following recipients: from the new wilderness review Graduates are guaranteed jobs, • Jan van Wagtendonk, Yosemite requirements. Finally, TWS regrets and every Umzi learner—regardless of National Park (2006 Individual that the document was released his/her specialty training—goes “on Award) in recognition of his many without any opportunity for public trail” for five days every two months, achievements in studying and comment. (Sources: www.fws.gov/ spending almost 15% of the training modeling ecological and social refuges/news/wildernessPressRelease. time in a wilderness setting. The first impacts of recreational use in wil- html; www.fws.gov/refuges/whm/ group of hospitality students all quali- derness. pdfs/wildernessPolicy_102808.pdf; fied as either junior chefs or food and • Judy Alderson, Alaska Regional wilderness.org/print/479) beverage coordinators. The current Office (2007 Individual Award) group of learners, from townships and for serving as a role model in wil- Andrew Muir rural villages throughout South Africa’s derness stewardship and her Receives Rolex Award Eastern Cape, are training to be game unwavering spirit of service over South African Andrew Muir, execu- rangers. Umzi Wethu’s motto is several decades. tive director of the Wilderness “Nature, Nurture, Future.” (Sources: • Paul Anderson, superintendent, Foundation Africa and leader of the www.wild.org/field-projects/umzi- Denali National Park and Umzi Wethu program, was honored %e2%80%93-aids-orphans-nature/; Preserve (2006 Group Award) for for his innovative vision and out- and www.rolexawards.com) working with other agencies, standing leadership in harnessing the organizations, and the public in healing power of nature in the multi- National Park Service developing the park’s Backcountry faceted Umzi Wethu program. Mr. Wilderness Stewardship Management Plan. Muir received the Rolex Award, which Awards • Gregg Fauth, wilderness manager, is bestowed upon those who “demon- The Wes Henry National Excellence Sequoia and Kings Canyon strate a spirit of enterprise and address in Wilderness Stewardship Award is National Parks (2007 Group pressing needs around the world,” on conferred by the U.S. National Park Award) for facilitating the reduc- November 18, 2008, in Dubai. The Service to recognize both individuals tion of low-level military award was accompanied by US and groups from within the agency for overflights and developing a $100,000 to provide for the expan- sion of Umzi Wethu. Umzi Wethu (“our home” in Xhosa) is a holistic approach to con- servation and job creation, enabling social, economic, and spiritual trans- formation of young South Africans who are currently experiencing endemic poverty, orphanhood, and high vulnerability, often as a conse- quence of the HIV/AIDS pandemic affecting southern Africa. Umzi Wethu selects and qualifies youth for ecot- ourism jobs through training scholarships and effective partnerships with game reserves and parks through NPS Award recipients from left to right: Gregg Fauth, Paul Anderson, Jan van Wagtendonk, and Judy certified hospitality training, intern- Alderson. ships, and mentoring. Umzi Wethu is

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 43 long-term program of overflight • Bob Marshal Group Champion of (Source: www.fs.fed.us/fstoday/ management and education. Wilderness Stewardship, Friends of 081017/NATIONAL_NEWS/wilder- (Source: National Park Service, Nevada Wilderness. ness.html) Wilderness Stewardship and Recreation • Wilderness Education Leadership Management Office) Award, Kearstin Edwards, wil- IUCN Honors Outstanding derness ranger, Powell and Lochsa Conservationists with the Fred Forest Service Wilderness Ranger Districts, Clearwater Packard Award Awards Presented National Forest Service. The International Union for Con- On October 17, 2008, the U.S. Forest • Traditional Skills and Minimum servation of Nature (IUCN) honored Service (USFS) chief Gail Kimbell, Tool Leadership Award, Hidden seven outstanding individuals at the deputy chief Joel Holtrop, and director Springs Ranger District Wilder- World Conservation Congress, held Chris Brown presented the 2008 ness Trail Crew, Shawnee National in Barcelona in October 2008. The National Wilderness Awards. The six Forest Service. Fred Packard Award is bestowed by awards were made to individuals, • Line Officer Wilderness Leadership the IUCN’s World Commission on teams, or organizations who supported Award, Kathleen McAllister, Protected Areas to recognize globally the stewardship of the wilderness deputy regional forester, Northern outstanding service to protected system on national forest lands. Region. lands. • Aldo Leopold Award for Overall Ernesto Enkerlin, senior advisor Wilderness Stewardship Program, The Excellence in Wilderness to WILD9 (the 9th World Wilderness Brad Hunter, wilderness and Stewardship Research Award was Congress), is an inspiring leader recreation manager, Petersburg jointly awarded by the USFS and the whose vision has helped shape conser- Ranger District, Tongass National International Journal of Wilderness to vation policy in Mexico. Ernesto’s Forest Service. Dr. Joseph Roggenbuck, an emeritus work as head of the National • Bob Marshall Award for Individual professor of natural resource recreation Commission for Natural Protected Champion of Wilderness Steward- at Virginia Tech University for his life- Areas (CONANP) has substantially ship, Rob Mason, wilderness long contributions to research that elevated the profile of conservation in manager, High Sierra District, supported management of wilderness the national political agenda. He has Sierra National Forest Service. visitors and resources. worked with and engaged local com- munities and indigenous peoples living in and around protected areas in Mexico, and has participated actively in various NGOs dedicated to conservation. Ernesto has also made major contributions globally to protected areas through his involve- ment with the World Protected Areas Leadership Forum, which includes the CEOs of the world’s major wild- lands management agencies. George Wallace, a professor at Colorado State University in the United States, has devoted his career to capacity building for protected areas through his teaching, research, training, graduate students, and by personal example. His work has improved the efficacy of hundreds, if

USFS deputy chief Joel Holtrop presents 2008 wilderness awards. Photo courtesy of the USFS. not thousands, of protected area pro- fessionals in the Americas. George is

44 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 one of the founders of the Consortium an example of valor and responsibility tive way the national genetic for International Protected Area to fellow staff members. patrimony is prohibited. Management, which has supported (Source: www.iucn.org/about/ • Persons, people, communities and capacity building for land managers union/commissions/wcpa/wcpa_ nationalities will have the right to in many countries. focus/index.cfm?uNewsID=1664) benefit from the environment and Moses Mapesa is the executive from the natural wealth that pro- director of the Uganda Wildlife Ecuador Gives Environment motes wellbeing. Environmental Authority, one of the most professional Legal Rights services cannot be appropriated; protected areas agencies in Africa. He On September 28, 2008, Ecuadorean its production, provision, use and is a founding member of the Leadership voters approved a new constitution, exploitation will be regulated by for Conservation in Africa forum, the 20th since independence, by a the State. which brings conservationists and majority of 64%. Ecuador is the first business leaders together to support nation ever to codify a new system of (Sources: www.globalexchange. conservation-led development. environmental protection based on org/campaigns/greenrights/rightsofna- Maria Tereza Jorde Padua is rights. The following clauses are ture.html.pf; stuffedandstarved.org/ director of the Brazilian Institute of included in the constitution: drupal/node/369; The Economist, Forest Development’s National Parks, • Nature, or Pachamama, where life October 2, 2008) having created 20 million acres (8 is reproduced and exists, has the million ha) of national parks and bio- right to exist, persist, maintain New Wilderness logical reserves. She also helped create and regenerate its vital cycles, Communication Gadget Debuts the first Private Natural Heritage structure, functions and processes As if personal locator beacons have Reserves in Brazil. in evolution. Every person, people, not already sufficiently compromised Henri Blaffart, a true conservation community or nationality may the wilderness experience, there is warrior for Conservation International demand the recognition of rights now a new handheld satellite com- Pacific, recently drowned while of nature before [the courts and munication and safety device on the crossing the Tiendanite in New government agencies]. market: SPOT Satellite Messenger. Caledonia. He single-handedly • Nature has the right to an integral Under the trademarked tagline of engaged 20 tribes and clans of the restoration… . In the cases of “Live to Tell About It,” SPOT can area to work for nature conservation severe or permanent environ- alert emergency responders, allow the and successfully battled against the mental impact, including those user to check in at home, and track establishment of four hydroelectric caused by the exploitation of non- the user’s whereabouts. dams in the Mont Panié reserve. renewable natural resources, the According to SPOT’s website, Rober Cartagena, the president of State will establish the most effi- “Hiking is adventure travel at its CIDOB, the national organization of cient mechanisms for restoration, purest. Just you, the trail and a new indigenous people in Bolivia, has and will adopt adequate measures experience around every bend. But it’s worked tirelessly for two decades to to eliminate or mitigate harmful important to stay connected and let save one of the most important forest environmental consequences. those at home know you’re OK. Now, areas on the planet, while increasing • The State … will promote respect there is an easy way to provide that the participation of and respect for towards all elements that form an peace of mind without interrupting indigenous people within the pro- ecosystem. the hike. With the push of a button, tected areas. • The State will apply precaution SPOT’s ‘check-in’ function sends a Muslih Al-Juaid, of Saudi Arabia, and restrictive measures in all message with your exact coordinates to has shown exemplary dedication in activities that can lead to the people of your choice. Need some conserving desert ecosystems and in extinction of species, the destruc- help? Ask your contacts or fellow the reintroduction of several species. tion of ecosystems or the hikers for assistance with the ‘Ask for In 2007, he was shot and severely permanent alteration of natural help’ button. If real trouble comes wounded by suspected poachers while cycles. The introduction of organ- your way, hit ‘Alert 911’ to bring emer- attempting to detain them. He is now isms and organic and inorganic gency help right away. You can even recovered and is back at work, setting material that can alter in a defini- share your journey with friends and

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 45 family with the 24 hour tracking func- tion—which may include local police, directed assessments of selected state tion. It allows them to follow your trail highway patrol, the Coast Guard, lands in Lake, Mendocino, Napa, online in real time with vivid detail on America’s embassy or consulates over- Santa Clara, and Sonoma counties for Google Maps … all while you’re out seas, or search-and-rescue teams. “Alert possible wilderness designation under living life.” 911” also notifies the user’s emergency California law. The International The “Alert 911” function sends contact person about the receipt of a Mountain Bicycling Association exact GPS coordinates, along with a distress signal. (Source: www.find- (IMBA) opposed the law, sponsored distress message, to a GEOS mespot.com/en/) by the California Wilderness Coalition, International Emergency Response and enlisted members of California’s Center every five minutes until can- Mountain Bikers Help Kill bicycle industry to add their voices to celed. The Emergency Response State Wilderness Bill successfully kill the bill. (Source: imba. Center then notifies the appropriate On September 27, 2008, California com/news/news_releases/ emergency responders based on the governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 10_08/10_02_wilderness_veto.html) user’s location and personal informa- vetoed legislation that would have

the 9th World Wilderness Congress 6–13 November 2009 • Yucatan, Mexico, Mesoamerica

www.wild9.org • www.wild.org

46 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Book Reviews

Arthur Carhart: Wilderness Prophet writing was a mixture of pulp fiction—often portraying By Tom Wolf. 2008. University of Colorado Press. outsiders living in the Western wilderness—and a growing 304 pages. $34.95 (cloth). number of freelance publications dealing with a variety of outdoor recreation and resource management issues. His fic- Tom Wolf begins his biography of Arthur Carhart with sev- tion, then, often reflected his own views of himself: “a eral provocative statements. He suggests that Carhart’s non-conformist, totally; an old buck always off the reserva- populist ideas of wilderness—a stance that differentiated tion and hunting lonely” (p. 250). him from other environmentalists of his time—provide a Although his self-imposed outsider status may have useful guide to the future direction of wilderness manage- ultimately limited his impacts on mid-century conservation ment in the United States. Further, not only did “obscurity thought and action, Wolf persuasively argues that Carhart’s and ostracism [become] Carhart’s ‘rewards’ for questioning populist and critical voice provided a valuable alternative the environmental orthodoxy of his times” (p. 3), but “ano- perspective to other conservationists’ thinking at this time. nymity and suspicion have been Carhart’s posthumous However, much as Carhart’s vision of resource and wilder- ‘reward’ for a lifetime of conservation advocacy” (p. 4), even ness management never quite came to fruition, Wolf’s though this work made him “America’s most widely read provocative statements as to Carhart’s importance in conser- conservation writer in the mid-twentieth century” (p. 7). vationist history in America are perhaps not ever definitively This image of Carhart as a populist outsider who never got proven. But it is clear that Wolf has provided a scholarly, the respect he deserved pervades this biography. sympathetic analysis of the life and works of this compli- Reflecting Carhart’s Republican status, Wolf suggests cated curmudgeon, an important and influential figure in that Carhart maintained a considerable distrust of govern- the 20th-century U.S. conservation movement. ment’s role in wilderness and resource management, and was most concerned by the bureaucracies’ propensity to serve Review by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW book editor; email: shultis @unbc.ca. their own need over that of the public or wilderness. Certainly, his early status as the first landscape architect in the USDA Forest Service (in 1919), and his subsequent resignation in 1922 seemed to generate a lifelong suspicion A Wild Life: Adventures of an Accidental about the misplaced priorities of American resource manage- Conservationist in Africa ment and wilderness agencies. Throughout his lifetime, By Dick Pitman. 2008. The Lyons Press. Carhart was never shy about questioning the actions of these 302 pages. $16.95 (paperback). agencies (or special interest groups such as ranchers or the forest industry). This led to his populist view of wilderness Befitting his British background, Pitman describes himself and resource management: he strongly felt local residents in a self-depreciating manner as an “accidental conserva- and communities were the best arbiters of decision-making tionist,” introduced to the African wilderness via an army in these realms. His lack of support for the Wilderness Act experience soon after his arrival in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) (he felt it pandered to special interests) proved to be a par- in 1977. Despite the civil war, Pitman managed to convince ticular thorn in the side of many fellow environmentalists the parks branch to allow him to write a book on the coun- and government officials. try’s wildlife and park system. Although it was literally a After his brief stint in the Forest Service, Carhart first world away from his old London life, Pitman immediately turned to the private sector (as a partner in a landscape felt like it was home, describing the trip as a “strangely sur- architect firm) and then juggled consulting (often for the real combination of wartime constraint and glimpses of very agencies he criticized) and writing for his career. His extraordinary beauty” (p. 27). The landscape was “a wild and

APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 International Journal of Wilderness 47 endlessly fascinating entity, of incred- by tour operators and high level gov- There are three sections to the ible loveliness and terrifying fragility” ernment officials” (p. 155). book. Part I, State of the Wild, pro- (p. 56). These early experiences in the This book mainly provides a vides global conservation wins and African wilderness gave his life a direc- humorous account of the author’s losses, identifies new species, identifies tion it had previously lacked. experiences in visiting the Zimbabwe those closest to extinction, and updates After a brief stint working for the wilderness over the last 25 years, the previous issues’ focus. government parks department, a disil- focusing on his exciting and dangerous Part II, Focus on the Wild, pro- lusioned Pitman turned to freelance escapades with the wildlife and vides eight chapters which address the writing and photography for his living. attempts to conserve these animals. links between the health of wildlands A trip down the Zambezi River, amid Beneath the lighthearted tales of his and human health. Several chapters threats to dam the river, led to the exploits, however, is a personal indict- highlight recent findings that suggest creation of the Zambezi Society (ZS) ment of the move to rural development that ecosystem health may decrease the in 1982; Pitman became the founder- through CBC efforts. This makes the spread of infectious diseases such as chairman of this society. After the dam book a little more uncomfortable to Lyme disease or malaria. This relation- plans were put on hold, the ZS tackled read, but it provides a singular first- ship may provide a new, powerful many other issues, including the pro- hand, critical perspective by one reason to preserve wilderness: “The tection of the black rhinoceros, expatriot conservationist on the move goal is healthy ecosystems, within translocating cheetahs, visitor plan- to CBC in Zimbabwe. which a richness of species, including ning at Victoria Falls, elephant native pathogens, have their roles” (p. conservation, and various community- Review by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW book editor; 81). Without this biodiversity, the email: [email protected]. based conservation (CBC) efforts. continued destruction of wildlands It is Pitman’s attitudes toward will intensify disease outbreaks. international CBC activities that par- State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Emerging Issues in the Wild (Part ticularly caught my attention. Pitman Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands and Oceans III) identifies several threats and dis- launches a rather devastating attack By Wildlife Conservation Society. 2008. cusses the relationship between society on CBC in Zimbabwe. He suggests Washington, DC: Island Press. 312 and conservation. A wide variety of that conservation NGOs “sprung up pages. $29.95 (paperback) topics are included, from conservation like weeds when they found just how psychology to climate change. The much money there was in turning State of the Wild is a biennial series extreme range of topics in the 16 chap- elephants into useful members of vil- produced by the Wildlife Conservation ters is a little disconcerting at times, lage society” through CBC (p. 114). Society (WCS) that attempts to inform but certainly identifies the wide range And despite the “community” mon- and inspire the public on key issues of issues affecting global conservation iker, Pitman suggests that rural facing global wildlife and wildlands. and the integration of social and nat- communities are rarely involved in The purpose of the series is to high- ural systems. decision making in a meaningful way, light critical issues facing wildlife, The same is true for the series as a and that the commnities involved do promote solutions to these issues, whole: while the disparate topics and not match the view of western agen- present global conservation highlights, approaches don’t always integrate per- cies: “The rapidly growing donor aid and influence global policy. Each fectly, State of the Wild certainly industry had re-branded them as a volume also has a unique focus: this provides a wide-ranging, passionate rural community—a pre-packaged 2008–2009 edition discusses the links review of the state of the world’s wild- bundle of stakeholders who suppos- between ecological and human health. life and wildlands and the need to edly think alike, act alike, love each The content of the series is pri- work harder to protect them. It con- other to pieces, and produce unani- marily short chapters based on scientific denses a great deal of information and mously constructive answers when information, but personal essays and illuminates many of the key issues consulted. That’s the mythology, poetry are also present; both WCS- facing our planet and species. anyway” (p. 221). Pitman also related and other authors provide expresses the concern that “the parks material. Reflecting WCS objectives, Review by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW book editor; had become tourist playgrounds, but the focus of the material tends to slightly email: [email protected]. all the money was being gobbled up emphasize wildlife over wildlands.

48 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2009 • VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1