Wilderness Fire Policy and Stewardship Wildland Fire Management Wildland Fire and Social Influences South Africa, Alaska, Montana INTERNATIONAL Journal of Wilderness

Home , Lake Fire, Wilderness area

Wilderness fire policy and stewardship Wildland fire management Wildland fire and social influences South Africa, Alaska, Montana INTERNATIONAL Journal of Wilderness

APRIL 2006 VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1

FEATURES SCIENCE AND RESEARCH EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES 32 Wildland Fire Effects on Visits and Visitors 3 Anticipating Change for Wildland Fire Use to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex

in Wilderness Ecosystems BY WILLIAM T. BORRIE, STEPHEN F. MCCOOL, and BY ALAN E. WATSON JOSHUA G. WHITMORE

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS 36 Barriers to Wildland Fire Use 4 Take Back the Conservation Movement A Preliminary Problem Analysis BY DAVE FOREMAN BY DUSTIN DOANE, JAY O’LAUGHLIN, PENELOPE MORGAN, and CAROL MILLER

STEWARDSHIP 9 Evolution of Wilderness Fire Policy EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION BY GREGORY H. APLET 39 Trust in Wildland Fire and Fuel Management Decisions 14 Wilderness Fire Stewardship BY ADAM LILJEBLAD and WILLIAM T. BORRIE on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska BY JOHN M. MORTON, EDWARD BERG, INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES DOUG NEWBOULD, DIANNE MacLEAN, and LEE O’BRIEN 44 The Challenge of Wilderness Fire Stewardship in a Time of Change 18 Wilderness Fire Management A South African Perspective in a Changing World BY SONJA KRÜGER BY CAROL MILLER

WILDERNESS DIGEST SCIENCE AND RESEARCH 48 Announcements and Wilderness Calendar 22 Understanding Social Influences on Wilderness Fire Stewardship Decisions Book Reviews BY KATIE KNOTEK 51 Collapse How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed REVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE 51 Rewilding North America 26 Amphibians and Wildfire in the U.S. Northwest A Vision for Conservation in the 21st Century BY BLAKE R. HOSSACK REVIEWED BY RUDY SCHUSTER

27 Understanding Place Meanings for Wilderness On the Cover Personal and Community Values at Risk FRONT: Morning Light on Little Horn, Cradle Mountain, Tasmania, BY KARI GUNDERSON Australia. Photo by Peter Dombrovskis, © Liz Dombrovskis. INSET: Rainforest fungi, Southern Ranges, Tasmania, Australia. Photo by Peter Dombrovskis, © Liz Dombrovskis. 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, Wilderness and Trends Research Forestry Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, Ga., USA Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Ojai, Calif., 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; Karen Fox, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; 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; Lisa Eidson, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.; Don Fisher, USFS, Washington D.C.; 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.; Greg Hansen, U.S. Forest Service, Mesa, Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Greg Kroll, El Rito, N.M.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Yu-Fai Leung, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land Management, Sierra Vista, Ariz.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club; Christopher Monz, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y.; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions Inc., Sausalito, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Keith Russell, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, N.Y.; Michael Tarrant, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.; 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 Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, One of key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and Forestry Drive, Syracuse, N.Y. 13210, USA. Telephone: (315) 470-6567. environmental education; wilderness-related science and research from Fax: (315) 470-6535. E-mail: [email protected]. all disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilderness; and international perspectives describing wilderness Business Management and Subscriptions: WILD Foundation, P.O. Box 1380, worldwide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book Ojai, CA 93024, USA. Telephone: (805) 640-0390. Fax: (805) 640-0230. reviews, announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are E-mail: [email protected]. encouraged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is available from the managing editor. Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are in U.S. dollars only—$35 for individuals and $55 for organizations/ Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are libraries. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $10; outside North encouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signed America, add $20. Back issues are available for $15. by the author. All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright World Wide Website: www.ijw.org. © 2006 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 Wilderness Research Center • University of Montana, School of Forestry and Wilderness Institute • USDA Forest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDI National Park Service • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)

2 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 FEATURES

EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES

Anticipating Change for Wildland Fire Use in Wilderness Ecosystems BY ALAN E. WATSON

F. Stuart Chapin, in the Alaska theme issue of IJW (vol. 10, It is with great excitement that IJW brings you not only no. 2, August 2004) suggested to the wilderness community articles from agency, academic, and nongovernmental sci- that we manage not for a set of uniform physical attributes entists on the challenges of fire restoration in wilderness but for protection of a wilderness character that is difficult due to change, but also from wilderness managers in both to define, and that acknowledges the integral nature of the Alaska and South Africa to give us broader understanding dynamic relationship between people and land. Chapin of the influence of social, environmental, and political stressed that we need to orient our management toward changes. Some additional pieces were invited that were uncertain but inevitable change, rather than managing to believed to illustrate some of the issues discussed in the prevent change. If you went to the 8th World Wilderness WWC presentations by Knotek, Aplet, Morton, Miller, and Congress (WWC) in Anchorage, Alaska, this past October, Krüger, or that expanded the discussion into areas not ad- you probably noticed that a major focus of technical and dressed at the WWC. Borrie, Liljeblad, Gunderson, Doane, plenary sessions there was fueled by Chapin’s comments and Hossack provided those articles. All articles were re- in 2004. viewed by two or more of the other authors or outside One of 11 technical session themes at the WWC was reviewers, and several authors read all papers before final Wilderness Stewardship in a Changing Environment, and revision of their papers, allowing some cross-fertilization was chaired by David Parsons of the Leopold Institute. To and references. give us a greater understanding of some of the changes we If you are not aware of some of the challenges associated need to anticipate and how to respond to them, there were with wildland fire use for resource benefits in a time of such more than 40 presentations in sessions plus workshops on change, we hope this issue will be informative. We hope it everything from climate change and monitoring methods reflects or goes beyond the presentations and discussion at to detect change, to the effects of changing social balance the session within the WWC. We hope it stimulates progress in African countries and bemoaning the inevitable loss of in science, education, stewardship, and international circles wild time to civilization. One of the sessions, organized to act quickly to facilitate better fire use decisions in wil- and moderated by Katie Knotek of the Leopold Institute derness and on adjacent lands. We expect the theme of was on The Challenge of Wilderness Fire Stewardship in a change and its implications for wilderness stewardship Changing Environment. The presentations from this single is one that we’ll see given increasing attention in future session form the core of the papers in this theme issue. IJW issues. IJW

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 3 FEATURES

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS

Take Back the Conservation Movement

BY DAVE FOREMAN

n my 35 years as a conservationist, I have never beheld (Lovejoy 1980; Wilson 1992; Leakey and Lewin 1995). such a bleak and dreary situation as I see today. The Duke University ecologist Stuart Pimm (2001) has shown I evidence for my dismay falls into three categories: the in careful detail how humans are now taking 42% of Earth’s state of Nature, the power of anticonservationists, and net primary productivity (NPP). As we add half again as appeasement and weakness within the conservation and many people in the next few decades, how much NPP will environmental movements. None of this is reason for we be gobbling up? How much will be left for the other shrugging our shoulders and giving up, however. The several million species with which we share Earth? Despite bleakness we face is all the more reason to stand tall for our impressive successes here and there, the overall state of values and to not flinch in the good fight. But it is important Nature continues to decline. This is simple reality, despite for us to understand the parts and pieces of our the scolding we hear not to be doom-and-gloomers. predicament, so we might find ways to do better. Power of the Anticonservationists The State of Nature In the United States, the federal government has become I’ve just authored a book, Rewilding North America (Island the sworn enemy of conservation. Not only have the cor- Press, 2004; see book review in this issue), which goes into porate toadies running the presidency and Congress stopped considerable detail describing and analyzing the Seven Eco- any progress for the conservation and restoration of Na- logical Wounds that drive the Sixth Great Extinction, which ture, they are dedicated to overthrowing the 20th century’s is the fundamental fact and problem in the world today. legacy of conservation and environmental policy and pro- Around the world, direct killing of wildlife, habitat destruc- grams. They are unabashedly trying to go back to the tion, habitat fragmentation, loss of ecological processes, unfettered, uncaring era of the robber barons in the late invasion by exotic species and diseases, ecosystem pollu- 19th century. This revolution is both philosophical and tion, and catastrophic climate change are worsening. We practical (Pope and Rauber 2004). Bad as this is, the radi- six-and-a-half-billion too-clever apes are solely to blame cal right is also dedicated to shredding science, particularly

The First 10 years of the International Journal of Wilderness on CD!

$95 Regular Price $70 IJW Subscriber Price, Save 25%! $50ea. When you buy 10 or more

Orders to: The WILD Foundation • Phone: 805-640-0390 • Fax: 805-640-0230 On line: www.wild.org

4 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 biology, and time-traveling back to yield as practiced by before the Enlightenment. the U.S. Forest Service While the United States is an ex- and other agencies traordinary political case, elsewhere around the world (Na- some of the supposedly most civilized ture for people); nations on the planet, such as Canada, environmentalism is Norway, and Japan, are again waging the campaign to clean 19th-century crusades against wild up pollution for human Nature: frontier-forest mining, slaugh- health and make cities ter of troublesome animals (such as livable (the ”built” en- seals, wolves, bears), and commercial vironment for people). whaling, just for starters. Japanese, When they turn their

European, Chinese, and American attention to Nature, en- Figure 1—Rafting on the Salmon River in the Frank Church River-of-No-Return businesses are looting the last wild vironmentalists can be Wilderness in Idaho (Bureau of Land Management). Photo by George Wuerthner. places for timber, pulp, wildlife, min- either conservationists erals, and oil, opening up such places or resourcists. I call to further habitat destruction and those environmentalists with a resource management graduate bushmeat hunting by local people. resourcist approach to wild Nature schools and large “conservation” Although the radical-right control of enviro-resourcists. organizations. In some circles “conser- the U.S. presidency and Congress was Internationally since the 1980s, vation” is seen as a poverty alleviation gained by a very small margin in 2004 conservation efforts to protect wild- tool, not as a way to protect wild spe- (no mandate), it is backed by powerful lands and habitat by means of national cies and habitats. Some members of and popular forces and by a shocking parks, game reserves, and other pro- the academic left have become descent into prescientific irrationality tected areas have been undermined as deconstructors of Nature, denying that by large sections of the public. financial-aid agencies, and even some it independently exists, proclaiming top international conservation groups that we invent it; therefore there is no Appeasement and have shifted to promoting so-called reason to protect it (Soulè and Lease Weakness in the sustainable development and commu- 1995; Vale 2002). Right-wing advo- Conservation and nity-based conservation over cates of resource extraction glom onto Environmental Movements protected areas. Dutch botanist Marius the arguments of the wilderness Efforts to protect wild Nature and to Jacobs warned the IUCN against this deconstructionists (Whitlock and clean up pollution face internal sub- approach in 1983 but went unheeded Knox 2002). version from the right and left that (Jacobs 1983). Although these ap- Pressured from the left and right leads to deep compromises not only proaches are sometimes sound during the last 25 years, conservation on policies but also on fundamental conservation tactics, in practice they and environmental organizations principles. We can stuff these calls to have elbowed Nature into second worldwide have moved away from back off into several boxes, including place (Oates 1999; Terborgh 1999; forthright calls for zero population sustainable development, resourcism, Soulè 2000/2001). This establishment growth, even though human over- Nature deconstruction, politically cor- undercutting of Nature conservation population is the underlying cause of rect progressivism, and anthropocentric has been aided by the leftist passion all conservation and environmental environmentalism—which I combine of some anthropologists and other so- problems (Kolankiewicz and Beck under the umbrella of enviro-resourcism. cial engineers to reject protected areas 2001; Ryerson 1998/1999). We hear First, some brief definitions: con- in favor of indigenous extractive re- a growing drumbeat that there is a servation or Nature conservation is the serves and land redistribution for dearth of births and that developed movement to protect and restore wild- peasants. Shockingly, criticism of pro- nations face economic collapse be- lands and wildlife (Nature for its own tected areas rides high in the pages cause of fewer young people sake); resourcism or resource conser- even of Conservation Biology (Terborgh (Longman 2004). Conservationists vation is the resource-extraction 2005), and sustainable development and environmentalists stand silent in ideology of multiple-use/sustained gains more and more adherents in the face of this cornucopian madness.

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 5 Similarly, the conservation and environ- push them, including grassroots wilder- organizations to essentially go out of mental movements in general shy away ness groups, into enviro-resourcism in business and just become part of the from acknowledging the reality of hu- these ways: (1) downplay Nature-for- progressive wing within the Democratic man-caused mass extinction. If we its-own-sake values in favor of Party (Werbach 2004; Shellenberger don’t even clearly state the problem, economic and other anthropocentric and Nordhaus 2004). In the United how can we do anything about it? values as the reason for conservation; States, the overwhelming identifica- We can also see a shift in the United (2) replace strict protected areas, such tion of environmentalism with the States from conservation to resourcism as wilderness areas and national parks, progressive movement and the Demo- among several prominent and influ- with sustainable development, ecosys- cratic Party is a key reason that it lacks ential entities. Once the preeminent tem management, “working” ranches, credibility with much of the Ameri- conserver of biological diversity, The and extractive reserves; (3) “retire can public. Nature Conservancy (TNC) has been Cassandra” or downplay doom-and- Just as there has been a worrisome steadily moving to a resourcist ap- gloom in favor of smiley-face optimism; shift in attitudes among large segments proach. They talk now of “working (4) negotiate with other “stakehold- of the public, so have there been trou- timberlands and ranches,” a fancy eu- ers,” including anticonservationists, bling changes among members of the phemism for logging and livestock for “win-win” compromises for land conservation public. To be blunt, grazing, and insist that their employ- management; (5) get measurable re- many of the employees and activists ees talk about people instead of Nature sults, including the designation of new with conservation groups are ignorant (Weigel 2004). Nonetheless, TNC also wilderness areas and other protected of our history and have not read the continues to protect priceless hotspots areas, even if they represent a net loss classic books of conservation. There of biodiversity. of wildness, and then proclaim unvar- is a stunning lack of intellectual curi- I am particularly concerned about nished victory—Canadians seem osity in the movement. On the whole, the strengthening whip hand enviro- particularly good at this (Paquet staff and leaders of radical-right groups resourcists hold over the conservation 2005); and (6) emphasize the health both read and think more than do movement. Enviro-resourcists are of the organization over its mission. conservationists and environmental- generally progressive-movement pro- Not all enviro-resourcists push all of ists (interestingly, most of the criticism fessionals who believe that conservation these approaches. of an earlier version of this paper was should be about people, not Nature. Such enviro-resourcists are aided and directed at this claim). As far as out- They are found among staff and board abetted internationally on the political door recreation goes, young people, members of grant makers, consulting right by international funding institu- who once would have been hikers and and training groups that help conser- tions such as the World Bank and backpackers, now seek thrills on mountain bikes and thus cut themselves off from experiencing true The bleakness we face is all the more reason to stand wilderness and from having self-inter- tall for our values and to not flinch in the good fight. est in protecting roadless areas. I don’t see kids out messing around in little wild patches; they’re inside, plugged vation groups with “organizational corporations, and by United Nations in to a virtual reality. effectiveness,” media consultants water- agencies. ing down the messages of conservation Several bright young men have Take Back the groups, new leaders and staff members gained a disturbing amount of atten- Conservation Movement of conservation groups motivated by tion with their recent speeches about These are trends. Of course there are ambition and lacking a gut feeling for the “death” of environmentalism. In- exceptions. There are true-blue conser- wilderness, and in the ranks of anthro- sofar as they consider Nature vationists in all of the outfits I mentioned pologists and other social scientists protection at all, they demand that above, including land- and wildlife- working for poverty alleviation. With conservationists drop their priorities managing agencies. And I’m limited by a crowbar of financial support and or- to focus on social justice and other available space from backing up my ganizational control, enviro-resourcists anthropocentric progressive causes. warnings and assertions. Dwelling on break into conservation groups and Overall, they call on environmental the exceptions, though, keeps us from

6 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 doing something about the real prob- diversity into being is the bedrock • Be strong and unwavering in pro- lems. I’m not doing “nuance” here. This of the conservation mind (Leopold tecting and restoring wild Nature. sober, unapologetic cataloging of the 1949; Ehrenfeld 1981; Naess Nearly everyone wants to be a player, array of problems Nature conservation- 1986; Foreman 1991). So long as to rub shoulders with the rich and ists face is, however, the first step in we do not hide our fidelity to the powerful. The cost of doing so, how- developing a more effective strategy for intrinsic value of other species, it ever, is to water down your views, Nature lovers to take back the conser- is acceptable to use utilitarian ar- to hide your emotions and outrage, vation movement, which I believe is guments in favor of protected areas and to wink at self-serving resource essential for halting or at least lessening and other conservation measures. industries playing good guys at the destruction of wild Nature. Other We should also encourage sustain- international conservation confer- steps include the following: able use of resources in areas that ences. Conservationists need not be • Recognize the differences between are no longer wild. rude, but we do need to be honest resourcism, environmentalism, and forthright. • Recognize that the outstanding and conservation. Seeing the pro- problem is human-caused mass ex- • Defend strict protected areas as tection and restoration of wildlife tinction, and its driving cause is the “the most valuable weapon in our and wildlands as a separate con- conservation arsenal” (Soulè and servation movement will eliminate Wilcox 1980). Conservation biolo- confusion and allow Nature lov- gists and conservation activists ers to focus on our priorities. Let us instead offer a have long seen protected areas, the • Overcome the “environmentalist bold, hopeful vision for stricter the better, as the center- stereotype.” In the United States, piece of conservation (Nash 1967; environmentalists and conserva- how wilderness and Noss et al. 1999). Many now em- tionists are stereotyped as part of civilization can live brace the “rewilding” approach to the progressive wing of the Demo- protected area design: restoration cratic Party, urban, politically together. of missing carnivores and other correct, vegan, and antihunting. ecologically effective species; pro- Whether or not certain conserva- tection of large roadless core human population explosion, tionists fit into this stereotype is protected areas; and identifying revved up by rising affluence, tech- irrelevant. The stereotype discour- and protecting important linkages nology, and globalization. Although ages many who would otherwise for the movement of wildlife and many organizations at all levels work support conservation measures natural ecological processes (Soulè to protect and restore threatened and from supporting conservation and Noss 1998; Foreman et al. endangered species, few forthrightly groups. Similar “greenie” stereo- 2000; Ray et al. 2005). talk about the human-caused Sixth types plague conservationists Great Extinction. Indeed, were a poll • Strategically redirect conservation outside the United States. taken, I doubt that most members funding to build a powerful move- • Proudly proclaim the basic values of conservation groups would show ment for the long run (Lavigne and of Nature conservation. Don’t be awareness of mass extinction or rate Orr 2004). Over the last 40 years, shy about saying, “I love wilderness it as the highest priority. The retreat the radical right has directed hun- and big cats!” Our distinguishing of resourcist, environmental, and dreds of millions of dollars into field mark is that we cannot live conservation groups from calling for funding think tanks, training without wild things, that we try to population stabilization as we did 30 young activists, supporting lead- protect snow leopards, whales, years ago is perhaps the most aston- ers and organizations for the long ivory-billed woodpeckers, and their ishing and shameful deed in our term, and underwriting books and habitats for their own sakes, not for history. Conservationists need to be lectures. Resource extraction in- specific benefits to humans. Cel- seized by how growing human dustries and ideological opponents ebrating the intrinsic value of all populations cause the loss of spe- of public lands and conservation life-forms and the magnificent pro- cies and the degradation of habitats have been mainstays of that fund- cess that has brought all this (Crist 2003). ing. The radical right has been

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 7 disciplined about thinking and act- conservatism: prudence, piety, Make deals when they are good deals. ing for the long term; we have posterity, responsibility, and anti- But let us not be frightened and brow- failed in part because we do not materialism (Bliese 2001). beaten into appeasement. Let us have a long-term strategy to which instead offer a bold, hopeful vision for • Proclaim and work for a vision that we stick. Conservation funders are how wilderness and civilization can is bold, practically achievable, sci- often fickle and fund short-term live together, and be unyielding in entifically credible, and hopeful. projects with measurable results. defending and restoring wild Nature Ask the public if we have the gen- They have not built the movement and standing up for the idea and real- erosity of spirit, the greatness of by backing ideas, leaders, books, ity of wilderness areas and other heart to share Earth with other lectures, and so on. protected areas. IJW species and wild places. A move- • Encourage intellectualism within ment is not made strong simply by Acknowledgments the conservation movement. Sad opposing its foes. Conservation Adapted from the Introduction to to say, the opponents of conserva- needs a big, bold, hopeful vision Foreman’s Myth(s) of the Environmen- tion have been better funded to that can grab people in their hearts, tal Movement forthcoming in 2006. build an intellectual basis for do- an overarching vision into which Myth(s) will develop these thoughts ing away with land and wildlife all our efforts can fit. Continental- and others in greater detail. Thanks protection. Numerous hard-right scale rewilding networks, such as to Rewilding Institute Fellows for com- think tanks with good funding the North American Wildlands ments on this paper. have developed new ideas and Network, can do this (Soulè and strategic plans to kneecap conser- Noss 1998; Soulè and Terborgh REFERENCES vation, and they have taught their 1999; Foreman 2004). Bliese, John R. E. 2001. The Greening Of Conservative America. Boulder, CO: “children” well. Conservation These are just a few of the steps Westview Press. funders have ignored think tanks Crist, Eileen. 2003. Limits-to-growth and the conservationists need to climb if we and the intellectual needs of the biodiversity crisis. Wild Earth Spring: 62–65. are to take back our movement from conservation movement. Young Ehrenfeld, David. 1981. The Arrogance of enviro-resourcists and to boldly tackle Humanism. New York: Oxford University Press. conservation staffers are generally the forces of ecological destruction. Fast, Howard. 1945. Selected Work of Tom not well-read and are unfamiliar Paine/Citizen Tom Paine. New York: The In December of 1776, the Ameri- with the lore and history of con- Modern Library, 44–47. can Revolution was in its darkest hour. Foreman, Dave. 1991. Confessions of an Eco- servation. It is a priority to give In response, Tom Paine wrote his first Warrior. New York: Crown. them the intellectual grounding to Foreman, Dave. 2004. Rewilding North “Crisis” paper: be better leaders. America: A Vision for Conservation in the These are the times that try men’s 21st Century. Washington, DC: Island Press. • Reach out to the political main- souls. The summer soldier and Foreman, Dave, Kathy Daly, Barbara Dugelby, stream, including moderate the sunshine patriot will in this Roseann Hanson, Robert E. Howard, Jack crisis, shrink from the service of Humphrey, Leanne Klyza Linck, Rurik List, and Republicans and their counterparts his country; but he that stands Kim Vacariu. 2000. Sky Islands Wildlands in other countries. Conservation it now, deserves the love and Network Conservation Plan. Tucson, AZ: The will fail if it confines itself to the thanks of man and woman. Wildlands Project, Sky Island Alliance, left. By only modestly strengthen- Naturalia, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, and Southwest Forest Alliance. ing our support among moderate General Washington had the paper Jacobs, Marius. 1983. The spirits of Bali. IUCN Republicans or their counterparts read to his miserable, disheartened Bulletin 14: 64. elsewhere, close votes in Congress troops in their frozen winter camps. Kolankiewicz, Leon, and Roy Beck. 2001. Forsaking Fundamentals: The Environmental and parliaments could go our way. There was no surrender. Years of hard Establishment Abandons U.S. Population For example, in the fall of 2005, a battle lay ahead but victory was gained Stabilization. Washington, DC: Center for handful of brave House Republi- (Fast 1945). Immigration Studies. can moderates killed plans for oil We need Tom Paine conservation- Lavigne, Peter M., and David W. Orr. 2004. drilling in the Alaska National Rethinking green philanthropy. OneNorthwest, ists in our dark hour. Let us not September 8, http://blogs.onenw.org/onelist/ Wildlife Refuge. Conservationists apologize for loving wild Nature, for 001685.html#comments. need to fold our ideas and projects caring about other species, for speak- into the language of traditional ing the truth. Reach out to others. Continued on page 31

8 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 STEWARDSHIP

Evolution of Wilderness Fire Policy

BY GREGORY H. APLET

ust as wilderness ecosystems have been shaped by fire Wilderness Fire Policy (and the condition of those ecosystems has shaped fire This article is by no means intended J behavior), wilderness policy has been affected by to provide a comprehensive review fire policy (and vice versa). The Wilderness Act and sub- of wilderness fire policy. For such sequent wilderness bills have addressed fire, and policy has a review, there is the excellent work evolved to recognize the free play of fire as a natural proof Kilgore (1986) and Parsons and cess. Similarly, fire policy has evolved to accommodate the Landres (1998), a number of papers peculiar demands of wilderness. presented at the 1999 Wilderness This co-evolution has its origin in the confluence of eco- Science Conference (Agee 2000; logical thought and wilderness philosophy that occurred Parsons 2000; Zimmerman and in the late 20th century. For most of the century, fire was Bunnell 2000), or, for a more po- considered a universal threat to people, resources, and wild- etic treatment, Pyne’s 1995 “Vestal lands. Eventually though the observations of foresters like Fires and Virgin Lands.” Together, Aldo Leopold (1924) and Elers Koch (Arno and Fiedler these reviews characterize the his- Greg Aplet. Photo by Sander Aplet. 2005) added to the research of scientists such as Harold tory of policy from the advent and Weaver (1943) and Herb Stoddard (1935) to force realiza- growth of wilderness fire management, to the calamity of tion of the role of fire in sustaining species and maintaining Yellowstone in 1988, and through rebirth and recovery. the character of ecosystems. In 1963 a panel of ecologists Briefly, wilderness fire policy history began with the fires responded to the National Park Service’s request for a man- of 1910, which burned millions of acres in Idaho and Mon- agement review with the suggestion that “The goal [of park tana, killing 86 people and destroying entire communities. management] is to maintain or create the mood of wild That experience led to a policy of intolerance and all-out America” (Leopold et al. 1963). They recommended fire be suppression of fire throughout most of the 20th century. restored to the national parks. The accumulation of scientific evidence and societal desire Passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 represented the to leave some parts of the country beyond direct human culmination of the “fight for the freedom of the wilderness” control, however, led to a shift in policy, initiated by the begun by John Muir and sworn to by Robert Marshall (1930) National Park Service in 1968 and followed by the USDA and the other founders of The Wilderness Society in 1935. Forest Service in 1978, whereby some natural fires could According to the Wilderness Act definition, “Wilderness be allowed to burn in specified locations under previously [retains] its primeval character and influence [and] gener- identified conditions. Over two decades, this prescribed ally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of natural fire (PNF) policy spread from its original applica- nature” (emphasis added). It became clear that those “forces tion in California to national parks and wilderness areas of nature” include fire. across the country (see figure 1). The purpose of this article is to briefly review the policy Whatever momentum had built up over that period history of wilderness fire, identify some barriers to its increased ended abruptly in the summer of 1988 when a succession use, and propose some policy changes that could lead to more of fires that were allowed to burn in Yellowstone National harmonious relations among people, fire, and wilderness. Park encountered extreme fire weather and blew up into the

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 9 leading him to conclude skeptically, “The optimism evinced by Zimmerman and Bunnell … is promising but must be more fully evaluated.” Although the years leading up to 1998 showed a pattern of increasing Wildland Fire Use, the trend has not continued. The number of acres burned through Wildland Fire Use saw increases in 2003 and Figure 1—Natural fire acres burned on National Park Service lands, 1967–1998. Data from Parsons (2000). 2005, but the number of incidents of WFU has remained relatively stable (see largest fire event in the United States man and Bunnell 2000) concluded figure 2). since that catalyzing year of 1910. that wilderness fire implementation Immediately, federal officials sus- opportunities and accomplishments Barriers to Implementation pended the PNF policy, although a would grow as federal agencies imple- For better or worse, environmental review of federal policy immediately mented the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire policy in the United States largely after the Yellowstone fires concluded Management Policy. Another review and tends to be written in a way that al- that the objectives of prescribed natu- update of the fire policy in 2001 directed lows for good decisions to be made but ral fire programs were sound “wildland fire will be used…and, as does not require those decisions to be (Wakimoto 1990). nearly as possible, be allowed to func- made. To the extent that WFU is In the years since Yellowstone, fed- tion in its natural ecological role,” and implemented, it is a direct result of the eral fire policy has been modified the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, commitment of dedicated profession- many times, with each revision fun- developed to implement the National als who are willing to take risks for damentally endorsing wilderness fire. Fire Plan in 2002, established a goal to the benefit of the land. Managers face The most important of these, the 1995 restore, rehabilitate, and maintain “fire- a number of impediments, many of Federal Wildland Fire Management adapted ecosystems.” which have been discussed in the Policy and Program Review, changed It seems clear that federal fire man- policy reviews cited above. Here, I the nomenclature of fire management agement policy strongly supports classify them into three groups for dis- but firmly endorsed Wildland Fire Use wilderness fire. Parsons (2000), how- cussion: attitudinal, institutional, and for Resource Benefit (WFU) as an ap- ever, found that, in 1998, less than political barriers. propriate response to natural fire. So 15% of wilderness areas outside of strong was the wording of the policy Alaska had fire management plans that Attitudinal Barriers that federal fire managers (Zimmer- allowed some natural fires to burn, Attitudinal barriers are those impediments to WFU resulting not from policies per se, but from individuals’ beliefs. These barriers may apply to wilderness managers themselves, but more often, they apply to their superiors, who are in positions to influence fire use decisions. First and foremost among these barriers is the legacy of “suppression bias” afflicting land management agencies. Most agency personnel are trained in the techniques of fire suppression; they perceive them- Figure 2—Number of Wildland Fire Use events on National Park Service and USDA Forest Service lands, 1994 through selves to be suppression professionals October 2005. Note: Data from 1994 to 1998 are from Zimmerman and Bunnell (2000); data from 1998 to 2005 are derived from the final Incident whose job it is to put fires out, not to Management Situation Report for each year (see http://iys.cidi.org/wildfire/). The two data sets share only 1998 in common, and because the values are let them burn. The very idea of letting different in each data set, the number of WFU events is normalized to a common 1998 value for display. a natural fire burn may be anathema

10 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 to them, and this bias can be an im- do not allow for WFU. Bringing an FMP tion goal; however, a change in policy pediment to wilderness fire. into compliance with fire policy repre- in 2003 prevented wildland fire use Another attitudinal barrier is the sents extra work for the managers. events from being counted as “acres fact that wilderness managers often do Similarly, implementation of WFU re- treated,” thus removing a powerful not perceive tremendous support quires the preparation of a Wildland incentive to implement WFU (Gregory within their agencies. In some agen- Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP) dur- 2005). Similarly, WFU events, because cies, such as the Forest Service and ing the fire event, which some managers they are managed for resource benefit, Bureau of Land Management, wilder- may see as “more trouble than it’s are not eligible for postfire emergency ness management was traditionally worth.” Often, risk aversion in advance stabilization funds. Therefore, a man- relegated to “lesser” subdivisions of the of a fire has led to such small “burn ager who otherwise wants to restore bureaucracy, such as recreation or cul- windows” (i.e., the envelope of fuel, fire, but who is concerned about pos- tural resources, and not considered by weather, and topographic conditions sible undesirable effects, is less inclined some senior managers as part of the core mission of the agency. As a result, wilderness management, and There are many excellent managers distributed around maintaining wilderness fire in particular, was considered “somebody else’s the federal agencies who support wilderness fire, but job” and consequently was not sup- they struggle against a culture of suppression. ported by superiors responsible for making WFU decisions. One especially challenging attitu- inside of which WFU could be allowed) to choose WFU because funds will not dinal barrier results from the sheer that it is difficult even to produce an be available to mitigate damage. difficulty of managing wilderness fire. implementable WFIP. As powerful as these disincentives Whether the perceptions are of altered Another procedural barrier to are, none is as powerful as individual ecosystems resulting from fuel build- implementing WFU is the require- exposure to liability. A fire manager ups, threats of invasive plants, ment to arrange for emergency who selects the option of WFU is ex- presence of threatened or endangered suppression personnel and equipment posing him/herself to tremendous species, or of fragmented ownership to be on hand, should conditions personal and professional risk. No one and the proliferation of the wildland– change and the fire exceed prescrip- has ever been faulted for making the urban interface, many managers tion. Also, certain types of experts, decision to suppress fire, but careers perceive the job of fire restoration as such as long-term fire analysts and fire have ended as a result of decisions to prohibitively difficult. behavior analysts, which are not typi- allow fire. Until line officers are pro- cally staffed on site, must be brought vided some limitation from Institutional Barriers in to help manage a WFU event. liability—and provided a formal in- Although attitudes can prevent some Another type of institutional bar- centive to support wilderness managers from considering WFU, the rier is disincentives (or, often, simply fire—fear of professional exposure will dedicated manager, who understands the absence of incentives) to make the continue to affect fire use decision WFU as part of the job, can still run WFU decision. For example, under making. into impediments and disincentives. the National Fire Plan, agency man- Institutional barriers result from pro- agers are under tremendous pressure Political Barriers cedural requirements of WFU itself and to show that they have addressed haz- Even if a manager has a positive at- from other forces external to wilderness ardous fuel conditions through fuel titude toward wilderness fire and fire. An example of the former is the treatments such as prescribed fire and can overcome institutional barriers, additional process required by WFU. A thinning. The “acres treated” are re- external political influences can WFU decision requires that a sound fire ported back up through the agency hinder WFU. Although the benefits management plan (FMP) has been de- and serve as a basis for determining of fire have been well-known to the veloped that provides for WFU. While future budgets. Historically, WFU scientific community for years, the FMPs exist for most federal adminis- acres were considered fuel treatments public has been slow to embrace them. trative units, many are out-of-date and and counted toward the hazard reduc- People, understandably, remain

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 11 that depend on tour- developed to maximize the use of fire ism for their economic as a management tool, and fire man- base. agement plans should be developed to Another source of ex- maximize the conditions under which ternal pressure comes WFU may be implemented. Most im- from commercial in- portant, though, is for managers to terests that oppose fire. know that their WFU decisions will be Particularly powerful supported at the top levels. Therefore, among them are other establishment of policies limiting per- “airshed consumers,” sonal liability if the proper such as agriculture or decision-making process is followed is electric power, that likely to have a greater effect than any depend on their abil- other single change. Figure 3—Smoke from a wilderness fire. Because of the way air quality laws are written, natural fire is often subordinated to these interests, and many WFU events have been ity to pollute, and see A complementary policy change extinguished to make room in the airshed for other sources of pollution. natural fire as compet- that is likely to have far-reaching ing with their interests. effects would be to provide incentives concerned for their safety in the Because of the way air quality laws are for WFU, such as the institution of for- event of fire, and sensationalist written, natural fire is subordinated to mal performance measures that media coverage has not helped to these interests, and many WFU events encourage WFU decisions. An obvi- educate them on the nuances of fire have been extinguished to make room ous example is to restore the counting ecology. Recent public opinion poll- in the airshed for other sources of pol- of WFU events as “acres treated” un- ing has shown that public lution (see figure 3). der the National Fire Plan. Another acceptance of fire has increased, but would be to track the proportion of managers’ perceptions of public fear Policy Solutions planning areas in which WFU may be can dissuade the fire use decision. Although many of these challenges considered or the number of candi- Similarly, public concerns about have no easy solutions, there are some date ignitions that are classified as smoke, whether for nuisance or changes that could be made relatively WFU events. Of course, decisions to health reasons, can translate into quickly to improve prospects for wil- implement WFU must be supported political pressure to extinguish derness fire. One of the most by adequate resources for the devel- WFU events or avoid them alto- important is to establish a supportive opment of good FMPs, resources (both gether. This pressure can be culture within agencies. There are personnel and budgets) to manage especially strong from communities many excellent managers distributed WFU events, and access to emergency around the federal stabilization money, should damage agencies who sup- occur during WFU events. port wilderness fire, Another important way in which but they struggle policy can support WFU is to fund re- against a culture of search to solve the difficult challenges suppression. Strong of fire management. Questions remain statements of support about appropriate “burn windows,” from agency leaders, effects on invasive species, quantifying matched by support- benefits, and mitigating risk to commu- ive budgets, would nities. Fire managers need good tools send a loud signal for analyzing where and when WFU is that “It is your job!” appropriate (see figure 4). Recent Directions could be- research combining fire behavior gin with notification analysis and GIS/remote sensing has Figure 4—Firefighters from the Kings Peak Fire Use Module monitoring weather on a that revised Land and dramatically improved our ability to WFU event. WFU depends on managers who are willing to take risks for the good of the Resource Manage- model various real-world scenarios. land. Photo by Northern Arizona Type 2 Incident Management Team. ment Plans should be Continued funding of wilderness fire

12 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 research will help address the uncertain- treatment on private lands where the Management, comp. S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole, ties and resulting fears that currently community protection challenge is W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, 276–82. May 22– 26, 1999, Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS- prevent managers and the public from most acute. IJW P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, taking full advantage of WFU. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Policies should also support pub- REFERENCES Parsons, D. J., and P. Landres. 1998. Restoring fire Agee, J. K. 2000. Wilderness fire science: A state- to wilderness: how are we doing? In Fire in Eco- lic education about the benefits of fire of-knowledge review. In Wilderness Science system Management: Shifting the Paradigm from to wilderness ecosystems and to in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 5: Suppression to Prescription, ed. T. L. Pruden and people. Smokey Bear and other fire Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Man- L. A. Brennan, 366–73. Proceedings of the Tall prevention programs have proven the agement, comp. S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole, Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, no. 20. W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, 5–22. May 22– Pyne, S. J. 1995. Vestal fires and virgin lands. effectiveness of public education. Simi- 26, 1999, Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS- In World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth, lar efforts aimed at increasing public P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest 238–55. New York: Henry Holt. knowledge about fire, particularly ef- Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Stoddard, H. L. 1935. Use of controlled fire in Arno, S. F., and C. E. Fiedler. 2005. Mimicking forts aimed at changing sensationalist southeastern upland game management. Nature’s Fire: Restoring Fire-prone Forests Journal of Forestry 33: 346–51. media coverage, could also mitigate in the West. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wakimoto, R. H. 1990. National Fire Management public fear and produce a society sup- Gregory, L. 2005. Following the Money: National Policy. Journal of Forestry 88(10): 22–26. portive of wilderness fire. A better Fire Plan Funding and Implementation. Wash- Weaver, Harold. 1943. Fire as an ecological ington, DC: The Wilderness Society. and silvicultural factor in the ponderosa pine understanding of fire ecology will be Kilgore, B. M. 1986. The role of fire in wilder- region of the pacific slope. Journal of For- necessary among the public, but es- ness: a state-of-knowledge review. In Pro- estry 41:7-15. pecially among air quality regulators, ceedings: National Wilderness Research Zimmerman, T., and D. Bunnell, 2000. The Fed- before policies can be developed that Conference: Issues, State of Knowledge, eral Wildland Fire Policy: Opportunities for Future Directions, , 70–103, ed. R. C. Lucas. wilderness fire management. In Wilderness simultaneously address human health July 23–26, 1985, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. Science in a Time of Change Conference, Vol- effects of smoke and sustain healthy Tech. Rep. INT-220. Ogden, UT: USDA For- ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and wildland ecosystems. est Service, Intermountain Research Station. Management, comp. S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole, Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber, and Finally, perhaps the most important W. T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, 288–97. May 22– fire in southern Arizona. Journal of Forestry 26, 1999, Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS- policy step that can be taken is to ad- 22(6): 1–10): P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, dress public fear through necessary Leopold, A. S., S. A. Cain, C. H. Cottam, I. N. Rocky Mountain Research Station. fuel treatment work in and around Gabrielson, and T. L. Kimball. 1963. Wild- life management in the national parks. communities to lower fire danger. American Forests 69(4): 32–35, 61–63. GREGORY H. APLET is senior forest Only when people begin to feel safe Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of the wilder- scientist in The Wilderness Society’s Denver in their homes will they warm to the ness. Scientific Monthly 30: 141–48. office, at 1660 Wynkoop Street, Suite 850, idea of expanded wilderness fire. Re- Parsons, D. J. 2000. The challenge of restoring Denver, CO 80202, USA. natural fire to wilderness. In Wilderness Sci- [email protected]. sources are urgently needed to support ence in a Time of Change Conference, Vol- planning and implementation of fuel ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and

From WILDERNESS FIRE MANAGEMENT on page 21

ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and ment Policy. Washington, DC: United States DC: United States Department of Agricul- Management, comp. D. N. Cole, S .F. Department of Agriculture and United States ture and United States Department of the McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Laughlin, Department of the Interior. Interior. http://www.fire.blm.gov/Stan- 276–82. Proceedings RMRS–P-15-Vol-5. USDA and USDI. 2003. Interagency Strategy for dards/Redbk/Chapter08.pdf. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire USDA and USDI 2005c. Quadrennial fire and Rocky Mountain Research Station. Management Policy. June 20. Washington, fuel review report. Final content draft for Parsons, D. J., and P. B. Landres. 1998. Restor- DC: United States Department of Agriculture comment. May 20. ing natural fire to wilderness: How are we and United States Department of the Interior. doing? Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire USDA and USDI 2005a. Wildand Fire Use CAROL MILLER is a research ecologist, Ecology Conference, No. 20, 366–73. Implementation Procedures Reference studying how to steward fire as a process Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, S. I. Stewart, J. S. Guide. May. Washington, DC: United States Fried, S. S. Holcomb, and J. F. McKeefry. 2005. Department of Agriculture and United States in wilderness, at the Aldo Leopold The wildland-urban interface in the United Department of the Interior. Wilderness Research Institute in Missoula, States. Ecological Applications 15:799–805. USDA and USDI 2005b. Interagency standards Montana. She can be reached at USDA and USDI 2001. Review and Update of for fire and fire aviation operations. In Fire [email protected]. the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Manage- Management Planning, ch. 8. Washington,

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 13 STEWARDSHIP Wilderness Fire Stewardship on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska

BY JOHN M. MORTON, EDWARD BERG, DOUG NEWBOULD, DIANNE MacLEAN and LEE O’BRIEN

Introduction boundaries with Chugach National Forest and Kenai Fjords The policies of all four federal agencies responsible for managing National Park. KENWR was established in 1941 as the Kenai wilderness in the United States recognize the importance of fire as National Moose Range but was renamed under the Alaska a natural ecological process and the desirability of restoring the National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in historic role of fire to wilderness ecosystems (Par- 1980. ANILCA also gave KENWR its mandates, of which sons and Landres 1998). In 1995 the the primary purpose is to conserve fish and wildlife popu- Departments of the Interior and Agriculture is- lations and habitats in their natural diversity. sued Federal Wildland Fire Management: Policy Biodiversity is unusually high for this latitude because and Program Review, which provided policy di- of the juxtaposition of two biomes on the peninsula: the rection for all federal wildland fire activities. A northern fringe of the Sitka spruce-dominated (Picea guiding principle of this new policy is that the sitchensis) coastal rainforest on the eastern flank of the Kenai role of wildland fire as an essential ecological Mountains, and the western-most reach of boreal forest in John M. Morton. Photo from process will be incorporated into the planning North America on the western side of the Kenai Moun- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. process. This new policy allows naturally ig- tains. Forests on KENWR are dominated by white (P. glauca) nited fires to be managed for resource benefits wherever an and black spruce (P. mariana) with an admixture of aspen approved fire management plan is in place (Parsons et al. 2003). (Populus tremuloides) and birch (Betula neoalaskana). Exten- However, despite the increased emphasis on managing wil- sive peatlands are interspersed among spruce in the Kenai derness fire for resource benefits—Wildland Fire Use (WFU)—no Lowlands. Lichen-dominated tundra replaces mountain agency has a fully successful wilderness fire management pro- hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana) and subalpine shrub above gram (Parsons 2000). In addition to the policy and administrative treeline in the Kenai Mountains and Caribou Hills. constraints that have limited the use of natural fire, even on the Unlike the other 15 refuges in Alaska, KENWR has a fairly larger units, there are other reasons why natural fire can never be substantial urban interface with issues more typical of the lower expected to be allowed to burn in some wilderness units. 48 states, such as high recreational use and expanding adja- In this article, we review the 2005 fire season on the cent resident population, but also with oil and gas activities, Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KENWR), especially the contaminants, and commercial fisheries. More than 50,000 five lightning starts in wilderness. The decision process for people live on the Kenai Peninsula, and as one of only two suppressing these fires, or not, clarifies some of the major Alaskan Refuges on the road system, KENWR is a recreational obstacles to allowing wildland fires in wilderness. destination for many Anchorage residents and tourists. Wildfire and spruce bark beetles (Dendroctonus rufipennis) Kenai National Wildlife Refuge are the dominant disturbance processes on KENWR. There The 2-million-acre (800,000-ha) KENWR is in south-cen- are two distinct fire cycles: black spruce has a mean fire return tral Alaska on the Kenai Peninsula, which is formed by the interval of 79 years (De Volder 1999), whereas white spruce Cook Inlet and Prince William Sound. KENWR shares burns much less frequently, averaging once in 400 to 600 years

14 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 (Berg and Anderson, in press). The two largest fires in the last century were in 1947 (310,000 acres; 125,506 ha) and 1969 (86,000 acres; 34,818 ha).

Fire Management In 1980 Congress designated 1.35 million acres (550,000 ha) or about 69% of KENWR as wilderness in three separate geographic units. Wilderness on KENWR is managed in accordance with the Wilderness Act, ANILCA, National Wildlife Refuge System Ad- ministration Act, Federal regulations (50 CFR), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) policy. The 1985 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) established the current directives for managing fire and wilderness on KENWR. Specifically, WFU is allowed on 97% of KENWR, prescribed fire is not allowed in wilderness, and wildfires not contributing to management goals are suppressed using the “minimum appropriate tool.” WFU is naturally ignited wildland fire whereas prescribed fire is management-ignited fire; both are managed to achieve specific, planned resource objectives in approved land and fire management plans. The 1998 Alaska Interagency Wild- land Fire Management Plan further Figure 1—Lightning strikes, fire starts and Fire Management Options on the Kenai Peninsula in 2005, with defines how fire is managed on KENWR. specific reference to five wildfires in wilderness. Map courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This plan defines four Fire Management Options that can be applied by KENWR options. This classification, which is In 2005, there were 54 fire starts on to help define suppression priorities and unique to Alaska and applies only to natu- the Kenai Peninsula, of which 30 were the default response to wildland fires in rally ignited fires (all human-caused fires anthropogenic, 22 were lightning different areas. The options range from are suppressed), was first applied to strikes, and two were from unknown Critical, where human life or inhabited KENWR in 1984. In 2004, Fire Manage- sources (see figure 1). Of the 22 light- property is at stake, to Full where unin- ment Options on KENWR were adjusted ning-ignited fires, 15 were on KENWR. habited property or cultural/historic sites to increase the likelihood of natural wild- All but two of the 15 wildfires were sup- are at risk, and to Limited where there fire being managed for resource benefit. pressed, despite the fact that six occurred are few anthropocentric resources. Un- The Limited option area was increased in Limited and five were in wilderness. der the Modified option, fire is managed from 780,000 acres (316,000 ha) to The Brown’s Lake Fire was a light- as Full until a conversion date changes 1,283,000 acres (520,000 ha), effectively ning start in black spruce in a Full option the option to Limited. Only in Limited is placing 97% of wilderness under the Lim- area. It was immediately suppressed due the default response (i.e., initial attack) ited option. This change helped set the to its proximity to several subdivisions to allow a fire to burn, whereas suppres- stage for the relative success of fire man- and the community of Funny River, at a sion is the default for the other three agement activities in 2005. cost of $5,000. Similarly, the Moose Lake

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 15 Fire was a lightning start in black spruce, actions. The fire ultimately burned Manageable Area of 128,400 acres but it occurred in a Limited option area. 26,300 acres (10,650 ha), with suppres- (52,000 ha) that was defined for the Fox Although the default response should sion costs estimated at $1 million. Creek Fire. A fire of this magnitude raises have been to allow it to burn, it was sup- The Irish Channel Fire was a lightning public and political ire both locally and pressed for three reasons: (1) there were strike in mountain hemlock in a Limited in Anchorage. Air quality degradation several other concurrent fire starts on option area. It was designated for WFU associated with fire elicits complaints and KENWR, (2) the fire was showing fairly soon after detection because it was sometimes financial penalties from the extreme behavior, and (3) there was con- flanked on the east by a previous fire in Alaska Department of Environmental cern that personnel at a nearby research 2003, to the north and west by Skilak Conservation. Fortunately, most facility could not be evacuated safely. Lake, and to the south by tundra and gla- peninsula residents were supportive of the This fire was small (13.5 acres, 5.4 ha), cier. This fire slowly consumed 925 acres decision to not suppress the Irish Channel but suppression costs were $114,000. (375 ha); management costs were negli- and Fox Creek Fires. Both fires were The King County Creek Fire was a gible, essentially restricted to surveillance. remote, and local educational outreach lightning start in black spruce, initially These five wildfires in wilderness about the need for fire appeared to be in a Limited option area. However, the demonstrate some of the vagaries of successful; most complaints originated fire spread rapidly to the northwest wilderness fire stewardship on KENWR. from Anchorage, not the peninsula. toward areas designated as Full sur- All five fires were lightning strikes in Logistics played a role in the rounding the town of Sterling. This is wilderness, four of which were in Limited. decision to suppress the Moose Lake one of the few areas on KENWR where Three were suppressed in varying degrees, Fire, even though it was in Limited Wilderness is designated as Full rather and two were allowed to burn as managed Management Option in wilderness. than Limited management option due wildfires. The 27,225 acres (11,025 ha) This fire was detected shortly after a to the values at risk. The Incident Man- burned by these latter two fires were the severe June lightning storm and agement Team contained the fire within only WFU acreages reported by the several fires elsewhere on the natural barriers using aerial ignition to USFWS in 2005. The 37,325 acres peninsula were already being managed burn out unburned fuels in advance of (15,111 ha) burned by all fires or suppressed. Fire management the wildfire. The firing operation con- approximates the total acreage (41,350 resources on the peninsula and sumed an area almost as large as the acres/16,740 ha) that had previously been elsewhere in Alaska are limited and wildfire footprint, with suppression burned by anthropogenic and natural may have been inadequate for costs estimated at $3 million for a fire wildfire during 1985–2004 on KENWR. controlling multiple, concurrent large that totaled 10,100 acres (4,100 ha). fires with extreme fire behavior. The Fox Creek Fire was a lightning Discussion Prescribed fire has been the land strike in beetle-killed white spruce in a We recognize that managed wildfire management tool most advocated for Limited option area. It was designated must be used more effectively on mimicking or restoring natural fire for WFU (i.e., allowed to burn) because KENWR. Several factors constrain WFU regimes in wilderness. In the lower 48, it was flanked to the north by Tustumena on KENWR, the most significant of the USFWS has relied almost entirely Lake, and to the east and west by wild- which is the proximity of the urban on prescribed fire to accomplish fire scars from 1994 and 1996, interface to wilderness boundaries. wilderness management objectives, respectively, with no nearby human Furthermore, because Wilderness on including the reduction of hazardous habitation or structures to the south. KENWR is fragmented into three units, fuels, range improvement, wildlife However, the fire advanced westward the wilderness boundary (470 miles/760 habitat enhancement, and restoration of into the remnant fuels left by the 1996 km) exceeds the refuge boundary (409 natural fire regimes (Parsons 2000). fire, threatening private cabins outside miles/660 km), even though the former However, there continues to be both wilderness and refuge boundaries. is within the latter. This geometric considerable opposition both within and The fire also spread toward a historical artifact increases the risk of wildfire to outside the USFWS and other agencies cabin on the Tustumena Lake shoreline. human safety, property, and structures. to prescribed fire in wilderness. Consequently, firefighters used aerial and The threat of personal liability to the Prescribed fire is viewed by many as hand ignition methods to both flank the refuge manager may be a substantive inappropriate intervention that detracts fire in the west and to defend the cabin, hindrance to WFU. Frankly, few from the wild or untrammeled nature both of which proved to be successful managers would approve the Maximum of wilderness, and that its use conflicts

16 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 with the primary purposes of wilderness. revised CCP for KENWR. Despite high and Kluane National Park and Reserve, Yukon Perhaps of greatest concern is that the suppression rates, there is concern that the Territory: Relationships with summer temperature. Forest Ecology and Management. use of prescribed fire could become an natural fire regime is gradually being De Volder, A. 1999. Fire and climate history of accepted alternative to natural ignitions accelerated by increasing ignition rates, a lowland black spruce forest, Kenai National and as such would soon become the 10-year outbreak of spruce bark beetles Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Unpublished MS thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. dominant wilderness fire management of unprecedented magnitude and size Klein, E., E. E. Berg, and R. Dial. 2005. Wetland strategy (Parsons 2000). (Berg et al., in press), and a resident human drying and succession across the Kenai Peninsula During a recent USFWS workshop, population growing at 2.2% per year Lowlands, south-central Alaska. Canadian five situations were identified in which Prescribed fire in wilderness is not Journal of Forest Research 35(8): 1,931–41. Parsons, D. J. 2000. The challenge of restoring prescribed fire might be an appropriate without its concerns. Collateral damage natural fire to wilderness. In Wilderness tool in Alaskan wilderness: (1) to restore associated with fire management activities Science in a Time of Change Conference, or enhance habitats of federally listed may include exotic plant introduction, Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, threatened and endangered species; (2) physical impacts associated with and Management, ed. D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, 276– to control or eradicate invasive flora; (3) mechanical treatments, use of constructed 82. May 23-27, Missoula, MT. Proceedings to increase the likelihood of naturally fire lines for legal and illegal access by RMRS-P-15-Vol-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest ignited fire to burn unimpeded (by snowmachines and other off-road Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Parsons, D. J., and P. B. Landres. 1998. Restoring reducing hazardous fuel loads around vehicles. Translating landscape-level natural fire to wilderness: How are we doing? structures and the urban interface); (4) estimates of the natural fire regime into (eds.). In Fire in Ecosystem Management: to restore a natural fire regime that has when and which acre gets burned is also Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression to been temporarily altered (e.g., extreme highly problematic; most fire behavior Prescription, ed. T. L. Pruden and L. A. Brennan, 366–73. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference fuel loads due to blowdown from a models are not spatially and temporally Proceedings, No. 20. Tallahassee, FL: Tall hurricane); and (5) to mimic a natural explicit at this resolution. Timbers Research Station. fire regime that has been altered and is We are also concerned that historic Parsons, D. J., P. B. Landres, and C. Miller. 2003. not expected to be restored due to fire regimes may be changing in response Wildland fire use: The dilemma of managing and restoring natural fire and fuel in the United constraints on wildfire management. to global climate change. For example, States wilderness. In Proceedings of Fire Currently, situations 1, 2, 4, and 5 long-term colonization of peatlands by Conference 2000: The First National Congress do not apply to KENWR. KENWR does black spruce will provide continuity of on Fire Ecology, Prevention, and Management, ed. K.E.M. Galley, R. C. Klinger, and N. G. not have listed species, invasive flora fuels across previously wet muskegs that Sugihara, 19–26. Misc. Publ. No. 13. have not yet been identified that require served as firebreaks in fires such as the Tallahasee, FL: Tall Timbers Research Station. fire treatment, and the fire regime at a 1947 fire (Klein et al. 2005). This U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Kenai landscape scale does not appear to be expanded fuel bed, coupled with longer, National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Anchorage, AK 99503. altered, temporarily or otherwise. drier summers may be conducive to

However, situation 3 is a need that has larger and more severe fires in the JOHN M. MORTON is supervisory been identified on KENWR. Aerial lowland black spruce forests, as well as biologist at Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, ignitions were used during the 2005 putting more fire on the flanks of upland U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box season to both contain wildfire (King white spruce stands. As yet, we are not 2139, Soldotna, AK 99669, USA. Email: Country Creek) and protect structures aware of any policy that articulates how [email protected]. (Fox Creek). The use of prescribed fire historic fire regimes should be viewed EDWARD E. BERG is ecologist at Kenai to remove fuels or convert forest types (i.e., is it “natural”?) as global climate National Wildlife Refuge. Email: would have presumably been safer and change becomes more apparent. IJW [email protected]. less expensive than managed wildfires. DOUG NEWBOULD is fire management In this context, using prescribed fire to REFERENCES officer at Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. reduce fire risk at the wildland-urban Berg, E. E., and R. S. Anderson. In press. Fire Email: [email protected]. history of white and Lutz spruce forests on interface, around structures, and along the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, over the last DIANNE MacLEAN is assistant fire administrative boundaries may be an two millennia as determined from soil manager officer at Kenai National Wildlife important approach to increasing the charcoal. Forest Ecology and Management. Refuge. E-mail: [email protected]. likelihood of WFU in wilderness. Berg, E. E., J. D. Henry, C. L. Fastie, A. D. De Volder, and S. Matsuoka. In press. Long-term LEE O’BRIEN is GIS manager at Kenai The use of prescribed fire within histories of spruce beetle outbreaks in spruce National Wildlife Refuge. Email: wilderness has been proposed in the draft forests on the western Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, [email protected].

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 17 STEWARDSHIP

Wilderness Fire Management in a Changing World

BY CAROL MILLER

everal strategies are available for reducing accumu- results from either human or natural causes, and the man- lated forest fuels and their associated risks, including agement objective is to stop the spread of the fire and S naturally or accidentally ignited wildland fires, man- extinguish it at the least cost (USDA and USDI 2001). In agement ignited prescribed fires, and a variety of mechanical some cases, concerns about firefighter safety and suppres- and chemical methods (Omi 1996). However, a combina- sion costs will result in a less aggressive suppression tion of policy, law, philosophy, and logistics suggest there is response to a wildfire, with features of the landscape being a more limited set of fuels man- used to allow fire to burn within a designated area. WFU is agement activities that are the management of naturally ignited wildland fires to pro- appropriate in wilderness (Bryan tect, maintain, and enhance resources in predefined areas 1997; Parsons and Landres 1998; outlined in fire management plans (USDA and USDI 2001). Nickas 1998). Naturally ignited The management objective is to allow fire, as nearly as pos- wildland fires is the commonly sible, to function in its natural ecological role. In some cases, preferred fuels management strat- certain suppression tactics might be used with WFU to pro- egy in wilderness (Miller 2003), tect life, property, or specific values of concern. Recently, with management-ignited pre- there has been discussion about effectively dissolving the scribed fire being considered in distinction between wildfire and WFU, and managing all some cases (Landres et al. 2000). wildland fires with an appropriate management response Carol Miller. Restoring the ecological role of fire (AMR) (USDA and USDI 2005c). to wilderness has proven difficult, The use of naturally ignited wildland fires to achieve as the majority of lightning-caused ignitions in wilderness resource objectives on federal lands began in the 1960s are suppressed for myriad biophysical and social reasons (Aplet, this issue). At that time, these fires were called Pre- (Morton et al. this issue; Miller and Landres 2004; Parsons scribed Natural Fires (PNFs); a policy change in 1995 and Landres 1998). This article discusses fire management introduced the new terminology of Wildland Fire Use options currently available to managers of wilderness in the (WFU). Since the early 1970s, when policies were first United States and speculates how these might change with implemented to use natural ignitions, well over 1 million nationally and globally important influences. acres (404,858 ha) have been allowed to burn by either PNF or WFU in national parks and national forests, with Wildland Fire Use in U.S. Wilderness the vast majority of PNF or WFU occurring within desig- Wilderness fire managers in the United States have a range nated wilderness. Over the past 35 years, WFU has been of options for responding to unplanned (naturally or acci- implemented with varying degrees of success in wilderness. dentally caused) ignitions, and the appropriate response In recent years there has been increased application, and should be based on ecological, social, and legal conse- the expectation by managers is that it will continue to in- quences of the fire (USDA and USDI 2001). U.S. federal crease (Miller and Landres 2004). There is also increasing fire policy currently distinguishes two types of wildland application of WFU outside wilderness, and a significant fire that can result from unplanned ignitions: wildfire and portion of the total area burned by WFU during the fire Wildland Fire Use (WFU). Wildfire is unwanted fire that season of 2005 occurred outside designated wilderness.

18 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 Information collected through tele- with that fire—along with any changes phone and email interviews in 2003 in resources or weather—for the re- indicate that at least 29% of wilderness mainder of the fire season. units in the United States have the necessary authorization for WFU in approved Forces of Change land and resource management plans To anticipate the future of WFU in U.S. (LRMPs) and fire management plans wilderness, one needs to consider the (FMPs) (unpub. data) (see figure 1). The dynamic human and ecological environ- percentage of areas with authorization for ments within which any wilderness area WFU has likely increased in the past two resides. Many factors can be expected to years as the FMP process has continued restrict or expand the range of options (e.g., USDA and USDI 2005b). Further- available to fire managers, but two of the more, all federal lands in Alaska have strongest influences will likely be human strategies equivalent to WFU, but the ter- development patterns and climate. minology of WFU is not necessarily used. Rural areas, particularly in the west- More than half of the wilderness units in ern United States, have seen dramatic Alaska have a written FMP that explicitly increases in human populations dur- allows WFU, but those that don’t are not ing the past few decades. Much of this included in the 29% figure. increase has resulted in the creation and Figure 1—Status of authorization for WFU in US wilderness areas. Not surprisingly, there is a tendency expansion of the wildland-urban inter- for managers of larger wilderness areas face (WUI), where wildland vegetation revisions of management plans will ever to have the WFU option (see figure 2). and houses intermingle (Radeloff et al. authorize the strategy. Where WFU is Because fires are more likely to escape 2005). As housing densities increase already an option, wilderness fire man- from a smaller wilderness area, local and and the WUI continues to expand, the agers will find it increasingly difficult regional staff may consider WFU an potential threats to life and property and costly to mitigate the risks posed infeasible strategy in those smaller areas, from wildland fire increase (Hammer by WFU. The result could be fewer and WFU is less likely to be authorized et al. 2004). Where WFU is not yet an decisions to exercise the WFU option. in the plans. Oftentimes, the consider- option, the continued expansion of the The impact of encroaching human able effort involved with revising and WUI casts serious doubt on whether development will be felt most intensely updating a plan is not seen as worthwhile if there is little opportunity for WFU. However, even in many wildernesses where the fire management plan allows for WFU, the majority of lightning ignitions are suppressed (Morton et al., this issue). Where the potential for fire to escape the wilderness boundary is high and when fire behavior can be expected to be erratic or of high intensity, managers may feel less comfortable making the WFU decision (Miller and Landres 2004; Doane et al. 2005). Fur- thermore, there is an inherent difference in the longevity of a typical suppression fire versus a WFU event. Suppression fires typically have a lifetime of days or a couple of weeks, Figure 2—Size distribution of wilderness units with the necessary authorization for WFU in approved LRMPs and FMPs whereas the WFU decision requires compared to size distribution of all wilderness areas. commitment by a manager to living

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 19 tation is problematic for the fire man- concern over expected behavior and ager because the prevailing wind risk of escape, managers may become direction—which influences direction even more reluctant to make the of fire spread—is west-east. In these WFU decision in a warmer and drier kinds of settings, the decision to imple- climate. Finally, under drier condi- ment WFU may be especially difficult. tions, we can expect individual fires Forecasts about future climate in- to be larger, and perhaps more often clude warmer temperatures in winter spread out of a wilderness. and summer, with an unprecedented rate of warming (IPCC 2001). This is The Prescribed Fire Option likely to lead to increased drought, Because of the risks involved, WFU longer fire seasons, and more area may not be feasible in all wildernesses burned (McKenzie et al. 2004). Snow- (Parsons 2000), and in such cases, melt will occur earlier at high elevations, management-ignited prescribed fire bringing more area within a wilderness may be a viable option (see figure 3). Figure 3—Because of the risks involved, WFU may into the fire season for a longer period Changes in housing development pat- not be feasible in all wildernesses, and in such cases, management-ignited prescribed fire may be a viable of time. All of these forecasted changes terns and climate that present increased option. Photo by U.S. Forest Service. will compound the challenges currently challenges for the application of WFU faced by wilderness managers. Wilder- may make prescribed fire an attractive by managers of smaller wilderness ar- ness managers may find it more difficult option to wilderness managers (see eas, where there is a higher likelihood to handle the increased load of fire ac- figure 4). However, for philosophical, of fires escaping. Managers of wilder- tivity that can be expected under a future ecological, and practical reasons, the ness with certain shapes and geographic climate. Longer fire seasons will require use of prescribed fire in wilderness will orientations will also face additional longer-term commitments to managing likely be limited. Philosophically, pre- challenges. For example, wilderness a WFU, potentially stretching the com- scribed fire represents a manipulation areas situated along mountain ranges fort level of many managers. Fire that is inconsistent with the “untram- in the western United States are typi- intensities and spread rates increase with meled” intent of wilderness described cally oriented north-south, as are the dry conditions (Catchpole et al. 1998). in the 1964 Wilderness Act (Nickas adjacent populated valleys. This orien- If WFU decisions are limited now by 1998). Ecologically, prescribed fires may not be an adequate substitute for natural fire (Baker 1994). Finally, prescribed fire will not be a practical option for many wilderness areas that are typically difficult and costly to access. The implementation of prescribed fire in wilderness is fundamentally different from WFU implementation. To meet the requirements of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, prescribed fires must undergo some form of public review, but this review can be done on a case-by-case basis and so prescribed fire use does not have to be approved in the LRMP or FMP. Even so, as of 2003, 42% of wilderness units had the authorization for prescribed fire explicit in their management plans. Figure 4—The impact of encroaching human development will be felt most intensely by managers of smaller wilderness areas, where there is a higher likelihood of fires escaping. Photo by U.S. Forest Service. This is probably because many wilderness fire managers do not feel

20 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 comfortable conducting prescribed burns in wilderness unless the fire man- WFU is the management of naturally ignited agement plan explicitly prescribes it. wildland fires to protect, maintain, and enhance Conclusion resources in predefined areas outlined in How we steward wilderness fire in a changing environment requires that fire management plans. we recognize our management options may be changing. The combination of increasing development and a warmer some of the barriers and disincentives across the north central United States. Land- scape and Urban Planning 69: 183–99. climate is likely to make the decision for WFU (Doane et al. 2005). IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scien- to implement WFU more difficult in WFU is arguably one of the most ef- tific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I the future. It is more important than fective fuels management strategies we to the Third Assessment Report of the Inter- ever for the wilderness management have, but it needs to be integrated with governmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. J. T. Houghton, Y. Ding, D. J. Griggs, M. community to fully exploit available other fuels management strategies on Noguer, P. J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. options now. Management actions surrounding lands, and in some cases, Maskell, and C. A. Johnson. Cambridge, UK, taken today will influence the range in wilderness. As WFU becomes more and New York: Cambridge University Press. of options that will be possible in the difficult to implement, wilderness man- Landres, P., M. W. Brunson, L. Merigliano, C. Sydoriak, and S. Morton. 2000. Natural- future, widening or narrowing the fu- agers will need to identify if, when, and ness and wildness: The dilemma and irony ture decision space for WFU. where WFU needs to be supplemented of managing wilderness. In Wilderness Sci- The option of WFU needs to be with prescribed fire or other fuel ma- ence in a Time of Change Conference, Vol- ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and made available in many areas where it nipulations. As such, we can expect the Management, comp. D. N. Cole, S. F. doesn’t currently exist. In many cases, debate about when and where pre- McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Laughlin, this requires not only the revision and scribed fire is appropriate in wilderness 377–81. Proceedings RMRS–P-15-Vol-5. update of FMPs, but also revision of to intensify in the future. Although this Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. LRMP. The recent trend in fire man- debate may not be easily resolved, it will McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D. L. Peterson, and agement planning efforts of extending play a key role in shaping future stew- P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, the WFU option to lands outside wil- ardship of wilderness. IJW and conservation. Conservation Biology 18: derness, especially in the western 890–902. REFERENCES Miller, C. 2003. Wildland fire use: A wilder- United States, will improve the ability Baker, W. L. 1994. Restoration of landscape ness perspective on fuel management. In of managers to more fully realize WFU structure altered by fire suppression. Con- Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Resto- objectives. In many cases, improved servation Biology 8: 763–69. ration: Conference Proceedings, ed. P. N. Bryan, D. C., ed. 1997. Conference proceed- Omi and L. A. Joyce, 379–85. April 16– cooperation across agencies will also ings: Environmental Regulation and Pre- 18, 2002, Fort Collins, CO. Proceedings be necessary. The management flex- scribed Fire: Legal and Social Challenges. RMRS-P-29. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest ibility of allowing a WFU fire to cross Tampa, FL, March 14–17, 1995. Tallahas- Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. political boundaries essentially in- see, FL: Center for Professional Development, Miller, C., and P. B. Landres. 2004. Exploring In- Florida State University. formation Needs for Wildland Fuels and Fire creases the effective size of wilderness Catchpole, W. R., E. A. Catchpole, B. W. But- Management. RMRS-GTR-127. Fort Collins, and makes it easier for a wilderness ler, R. C. Rothermel, G. A. Morris, and D. J. CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest manager to make the WFU decision. Latham. 1998. Rate of spread of free-burn- Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. ing fires in woody fuels in a wind tunnel. Where WFU is already an option, Nickas, G. 1998. Wilderness fire. Wilderness Combustion Science Technology 131: 1–37. Watcher 10: 1, 4–5. managers need support and incentives Doane, D., J. O’Laughlin, P. Morgan, and C. Omi, P. N. 1996. Landscape-level fuel manipu- for implementation (Aplet, this issue). Miller. 2005. Barriers to wildland fire use in lations in greater Yellowstone: Opportuni- Fire management decisions made to- USDA Forest Service wilderness areas as ties and challenges. In The Second Biennial perceived by wilderness fire managers. Con- Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Eco- day have great potential to keep future tribution No. 1006, College of Natural Re- system, 7–14. September 19-21, 1993, management options open because sources Experiment Station, University of Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. today’s fires can serve as tomorrow’s Idaho, Moscow. Parsons, D. J. 2000. The challenge of restoring strategic firebreaks on the landscape. Hammer, R. C., S. I. Stewart, R. L. Winkler, V. natural fire to wilderness. In Wilderness Sci- C. Radeloff, and P. R. Voss. 2004. Charac- ence in a Time of Change Conference, Vol- Increasing the implementation of WFU terizing dynamic spatial and temporal resi- will mean helping managers overcome dential density patterns from 1940–1990 Continued on page 13

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 21 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Understanding Social Influences on Wilderness Fire Stewardship Decisions

BY KATIE KNOTEK

Abstract: Federal land managers and the public engage in many decisions about stewardship of wilderness in the United States, including decisions about stewardship of fire. To date, social science research lacks a holistic examination of the decision-making context of managers and the public about stewardship of fire inside wilderness and across its boundaries. A conceptual model is presented to guide research on this decision-making context, with emphasis placed on social influences on public and manager decision making.

Introduction on ecological elements, such as flora, fauna, air and water qual- The Wilderness Act of 1964 mandates that the natural con- ity, and social elements, such as human life, private property, ditions of wilderness be protected and preserved while being and local, regional, and national values attached to public lands. managed for human uses and values. Wildland fire (any Members of the public must also consider such impacts when nonstructure fire in a wildland area) is a natural disturbance evaluating fire stewardship decisions proposed by land man- process in many wilderness ecosystems, and therefore, in agement agencies. This creates a complex decision-making these places wilderness stewardship (careful and responsible context for managers and the public concerning the steward- management) must allow the ship of fire inside and outside wilderness. occurrence of fire to preserve This article presents a model to guide research in under- natural conditions. At the same standing and facilitating these decisions. Because social factors time, wilderness stewardship are among the primary influences on decision making, em- must also consider how fire in- phasis is placed on understanding how these factors can teracts with human uses and influence fire stewardship decisions and how research can fa- public values associated with cilitate such decisions. A model originally proposed to explain wilderness and adjacent lands. social influences on wilderness policy, human and ecological Katie Knotek. Photo by Jeff Brooks. Thus, federal land managers, values, and codes of behavior for wilderness visitors (Watson engaged with the public, must and Landres 1999) has been adapted to understanding social make decisions about the appropriate stewardship of fire factors that influence manager and public decisions about fire inside and across wilderness boundaries (see figure 1). stewardship. The adapted model (see figure 2) provides in- Strategies for fire stewardship can include both suppression sight into social influences on fire stewardship decisions and use of wildland fire (either naturally ignited or manage- generally, which includes decisions regarding the stewardship ment ignited). Guided by the 2001 Federal Wildland Fire of fire in wilderness ecosystems specifically. Management Policy in the United States, managers must assess the costs and benefits of these options when making steward- Cognitive Disposition toward Fire ship decisions, taking into account both short- and long-term Decisions made by managers and the public about fire are ecological and social outcomes. For example, managers must directly influenced by their cognitive disposition (see figure 2), consider the impact (positive or negative) of different decisions reflecting human values, value orientations, attitudes, norms, PEER REVIEWED

22 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 and behavioral intentions. The Cogni- et al. 2004). Detailed below are a select tive Hierarchy, a theoretical framework set of some general societal trends and (Fulton et al. 1996; Vaske and Donnelly specific influences and discussion about 1999), suggests that an individual’s per- their relationship to decisions regard- sonal view of the environment is shaped ing stewardship of wildland fire. by these cognitive components, and that each of these components builds upon Shifting Orientations the other, from fundamental values (the toward Natural Resources center of one’s personal belief system) Shifting orientations toward natural to specific behaviors. Thus, the theory resources is a societal trend that has sig- Figure 1—Fire does not adhere to political or administrative boundaries, thus federal land managers and the public must holds that fundamental values and value nificantly influenced public land make decisions about fire stewardship across the wilderness and orientations can be used to understand management, including stewardship of nonwilderness interface. Photo by Josh Whitmore. and predict human attitudes, norms, wildland fire. Historically, American and behavioral intentions with reference society has dominantly displayed utili- increasingly values natural resources as to a specific object or subject such as tarian or anthropocentric orientations amenities, there is greater support for the stewardship of wildland fire. toward natural resources, focusing pub- decisions to manage fire in ways that A large proportion of social science lic lands policy and management on the will preserve the natural features and research applied to fire issues has fo- extraction and utilization of natural re- functioning of wildlands (Manfredo et cused on investigating the various sources for economic benefit (Williams al. 1990; McCool and Stankey 1986). components of the Cognitive Hierarchy 2005). In the second half of the 20th and their influences on decision mak- century, however, American society has Increased Knowledge ing (Machlis et al. 2002). For example, shifted to less utilitarian and more of Natural Processes scientists have assessed value orienta- biocentric orientations toward natural Another societal influence on attitudes tions (Bright et al. 2003), attitudes resources, valuing resources for their about fire stewardship is an increased (Jacobson et al. 2001; Manfredo et al. inherent worth as amenities or scarce understanding of natural processes. 1990; McCool and Stankey 1986), resources to be protected and con- Scientific understanding of natural pro- norms (Kneeshaw et al. 2004), and be- served (Williams 2005). The former cesses, such as wildland fire and its havioral intentions (Jacobson et al. 2001) anthropocentric orientation toward importance in proper ecosystem func- related to fire stewardship inside and natural resources spurred a fire policy tioning, has increased over time, outside wilderness. Such research has of strict suppression emphasizing com- particularly since the 1970s (Pyne been emphasized because, as purported modity protection (Pyne 1982; 1982). For example, fires within wil- by the Cognitive Hierarchy, knowledge Williams 2005). But today, as society derness were previously perceived to of human values, attitudes, and norms is critical to predicting human behavior and decision making. This line of research, however, lacks an examination of more broad social influences that ultimately drive cognitive dispositions toward stewardship of fire (see figure 2).

General Societal Trends and Specific Influences In order to fully understand the context within which managers and the public make decisions about fire stewardship, there is a need to link the study of cognitive components held by individuals, such as values and attitudes, Figure 2—A model for understanding social influences on fire stewardship decisions. to larger societal influences (Manfredo

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 23 (Jacobson et al. 2001; Winter and Fried Place Meanings and Attachments 2000). At the same time, fire policy (e.g., The type and degree of attachments that the National Fire Plan) increasingly em- people hold in regard to specific public phasizes community protection and risk lands influence their views of fire stew- prevention in the WUI (Glickman and ardship. Stewardship practices and Babbitt 2000), which often constrains de- environmental conditions acceptable in cisions to use fire on adjacent areas, one setting are not necessarily accept- including wilderness. Social trends and able in another, depending on place projected growth in the WUI (Radeloff meanings and landscape context Figure 3—It is important to consider how fire influences human et al. 2005) is important information for (Brunson 1993). Place-based meanings relationships with wildlands and perceptions of appropriate fire managers and the public to inform deci- have been investigated through the con- stewardship activities. Photo by Josh Whitmore. sions about fire and protecting values at cept of “place attachment” (Moore and risk across the interface of wilderness and Graefe 1994; Williams et al. 1992), de- be detrimental to public resources and adjacent lands. Data such as these, as well fined as a psychological indicator of a values, causing fire suppression to be as other changes in the WUI environment person–place relationship and the mean- viewed as essential for protecting wil- will become increasingly important in ings that are inherently a part of that derness values (Parsons 2000). making decisions about fire stewardship relationship. All wildland fires have the Research has shown, however, that fire as growth of the WUI continues. potential to impact (positively and nega- is indeed a natural process in many tively) relationships humans have with wilderness ecosystems, as it provides Public Trust places, and in turn, how they perceive for nutrient cycling, regeneration of Public trust in land management agen- wildland fire and decisions pertaining vegetation, and reduction of hazardous cies is an example of a specific influence to its stewardship (see figure 3). Research fuel loads, among other benefits (Pyne on how the public evaluates and responds has been used to map personal values 1982). As a result, federal land man- to policy governing fire stewardship and meanings across wilderness and agement agencies initiated new policies (Liljeblad and Borrie, this issue; Toman nonwilderness lands to understand how in the late 1960s and 1970s that would and Shindler 2003; Winter and place meanings and attachments can allow some wildland fires to burn un- Cvetkovich 2003). Trust in public land influence decisions about fire steward- der prescribed conditions (Pyne 1982). management agencies has been assessed ship (see, for instance, Gunderson, this As science produces new knowledge through measurement of perceptions of issue). The results of this research pro- about wildland fire, these policies are shared values, direction, goals, views, vide social understanding that, coupled being updated and expanded to in- actions, and thoughts (Earle and with ecological modeling efforts, can be crease the use of fire both inside and Cvetkovich 1995). Trust is facilitated used to evaluate the social and ecologi- outside wilderness (Aplet, this issue). through a collaborative relationship be- cal consequences of potential fire tween the public and the agency, in which stewardship decisions. Research suggests Development and Growth the agency takes responsibility for pro- that through the investigation and map- of the Wildland-Urban Interface tecting the public purpose of public lands ping of place meanings and attachments One of the most influential societal (Borrie et al. 2002). Therefore, public per- it is possible to better inform manager changes that has affected fire stewardship ception of the land management agency’s and public decisions concerning fire decisions has been the development and ability to reflect public values, goals, di- stewardship, providing a valuable tool growth of the wildland-urban interface rection, and so forth influences support to facilitate manager and public decision (WUI) (Miller and Landres 2004). The for agency policy and decisions related making in the future. growing WUI represents the increase in to fire stewardship. Research to under- residential housing and recreational use stand public trust in an agency’s ability to Conclusions in urban fringe areas that has occurred make fire stewardship decisions that con- There are other examples of acknowl- over the past several decades. In these sider local values is crucial. Research of edged, but not understood, social areas, society is faced with the necessity this type equips scientists with the ability influences on decisions about fire stew- and risk of wildland fire, while managers to assess and monitor trust levels over ardship, such as institutional incentives struggle to understand and meet public time, providing feedback on stewardship and disincentives, education initiatives expectations regarding fire stewardship decisions (Liljeblad and Borrie, this issue). to inform homeowners about personal

24 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 responsibility, increasingly urban popu- media on public knowledge, attitudes and Pyne, S. J. 1982. Fire in America: A Cultural lations, and cultural differences in place behavioral intentions. Wildlife Society Bulletin History of Wildland and Rural Fire. 29(3): 929–37. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. meanings and attachments. Guided by Kneeshaw, K., J.J. Vaske, A. D. Bright, and J. D. Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, S. I. Stewart, J. S. this conceptual framework, however, Absher. 2004. Acceptability norms toward Fried, S. S. Holcomb, and J. F. McKeefry. 2005. research should be aimed at not only fire management in three national forests. En- The wildland urban interface in the United vironment and Behavior 36(4): 592–612. States. Ecological Applications 15: 799–805. individual cognitive components that Machlis, G. E., A. B. Kaplan, S. P. Tuler, K. A. Toman, E., and B. Shindler. 2003. Hazardous fuel predict decision making, but also these Bagby, and J. E. McKendry,. 2002. Burning reduction in the blue mountains: Public attitudes larger changing social factors that influ- Questions: A Social Science Research Plan and opinions. In Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Eco- ence decisions about stewardship of fire for Federal Wildland Fire Management. logical Restoration: Conference Proceedings, Moscow, ID: Idaho Forest, Wildlife and tech. ed. P. N. Omi and L. A. Joyce.p.241– inside and outside wilderness. Investi- Range Experiment Station, College of Natu- 254. April 16–18, 2002. Ft. Collins, CO. Pro- gation of issues on the topic areas and ral Resources, University of Idaho. ceedings RMRS-P-29. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. relationships depicted in this model will Manfredo, M. J., M. Fishbein, G. E. Haas, and A. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky provide a more detailed understanding E. Watson. 1990. Attitudes towards prescribed Mountain Research Station. fire policies. Journal of Forestry 99(7): 19–23. Vaske, J. J., and M. P. Donnelly. 1999. A value- of agency and public decision making. Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, and A. D. Bright. 2004. attitude-behavior model predicting wildland Such a research pursuit is timely as fed- Application of the concept of values and atti- preservation voting intentions. Society and eral land managers, engaged with the tudes in human dimensions of natural resources Natural Resources 12: 523–37. research. In Society and Natural Resources: A Watson, A., and P. Landres. 1999. Changing public, act to restore the natural role of Summary of Knowledge, ed. M. J. Manfredo, wilderness values. In Outdoor Recreation in fire to many ecosystems. IJW J. J. Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R. Field, and P. J. American Life: A National Assessment of Brown. Prepared for the 10th International Demand and Supply Trends, prin. investi- REFERENCES Symposium on Society and Resource Manage- gator H. K. Cordell, 384–88. Champaign, Borrie, W. T., N. Christensen, A. E. Watson, T. ment. Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho. IL: Sagamore Publishing. A. Miller, and D. W. McCollum. 2002. Pub- McCool, S. F., and G. H. Stankey. 1986. Visitor Williams, D. R., M. E. Patterson, J. W. lic purpose recreation marketing: A focus attitudes toward wilderness fire management Roggenbuck, and A. E. Watson. 1992. Be- on the relationships between the public and policy—1971–84. Res. Pap. INT-357. Ogden, yond the commodity metaphor: Examining public lands. Journal of Park and Recreation UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Administration 20(2): 49–68. Service, Intermountain Research Station. Leisure Sciences 14: 29–46. Bright, A. D., J. J. Vaske, K. Kneeshaw, and J. Miller, C., and P. Landres. 2004. Exploring In- Williams, G. W. 2005. The USDA Forest Service— D. Absher. 2003. Scale development of wild- formation Needs for Wildland Fire and Fu- The First Century. Washington, DC: USDA fire management basic beliefs. In els Management. Gen. Tech. Rep. Forest Service, Office of Communication. Homeowners, Communities, and Wildfire: RMRS-GTR-127. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. De- Winter, G., and J. S. Fried. 2000. Homeowner Science Findings from the National Fire Plan. partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, perspectives on fire hazard, responsibility, Proceedings of the Ninth International Sym- Rocky Mountain Research Station. and management strategies at the wildland- posium on Society and Management, comp. Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. 1994. Attach- urban interface. Society and Natural Re- P. J. Jakes. 18–25. June 2–5, Bloomington, ment to recreation settings: The case of rail- sources 13: 33–49. IN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-231. St. Paul, MN: trail users. Leisure Sciences 16: 17–31. Winter, P. L., and G. T. Cvetkovich. 2003. A study U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- Parsons, D. J. 2000. Restoration of natural fire of Southwesterners’ opinions on the manage- vice, North Central Research Station. to United States Wilderness Areas. In Per- ment of wildland and wilderness fires. River- Brunson, M. W. 1993. “Socially acceptable” sonal, Societal, and Ecological Values of side, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest forestry: What does it imply for ecosystem Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Con- Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. management? Western Journal of Applied gress Proceedings on Research, Manage- KATIE KNOTEK is a social science research Forestry 8(4): 116–19. ment, and Allocation, vol. II, comp. A. E. assistant with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Earle, T. C., and G. T. Cvetkovich. 1995. Social Watson, G. H. Aplet, and J. C. Hendee. P. Research Institute and the Bitterroot Ecosystem Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society. 42–47. October 24–29, 1998, Bangalore, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. India. Proceedings RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: Management Research Project, USDA Forest Fulton, D. C., M. J. Manfredo, and J. Lipscomb, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser- Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. J. 1996. Wildlife value orientations: A con- vice, Rocky Mountain Research Station. She can be reached at [email protected]. ceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1: 24–47. Glickman, D., and B. Babbitt. 2000. Managing Research suggests that through the investigation and the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment: A Report to the President in Response to the Wildfires of 2000. Wash- mapping of place meanings and attachments it is ington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the Interior. possible to better inform manager and public Jacobson, S. K., M. C. Monroe, and S. Marynowski. 2001. Fire at the wildland in- decisions concerning fire stewardship. terface: The influence of experience and mass

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 25 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE Amphibians and Wildfire in the U.S. Northwest

BY BLAKE R. HOSSACK

ecent evidence of amphibian declines along with outbreaks of large wildfires in western North Ameri- R can conifer forests has underscored our lack of knowledge about effects of fire on amphibians in these ecosystems. Understanding the connection between amphibian declines and wildfire is proving complex in some areas because the past century of fire suppression and other management activities have already altered amphibian habitats. For example, ponderosa pine forest types typically had low severity understory fires that likely maintained open habitats preferred by some amphibians. Fires in these, or other forests that have been altered by fire suppression, may be wood and fine fuels (e.g., leaf litter) were reduced after fire, more intense than what occurred historically, and may have but strong negative effects on the salamander community immediate negative effects on amphibians (direct mortality) were not immediately evident. Covering a larger geographic or long-term beneficial effects (habitat restoration). area, D. S. Pilliod (California Polytechnic University–San Amphibian communities in the southeastern United States Louis Obispo), R. B. Bury, and P. S. Corn (USGS–Leopold benefit from frequent (1–5 years) low intensity fires, and pre- Institute) are conducting a five-year study of the patterns of scribed fire is now a tool in managing some forests for distribution and abundance of stream amphibians in areas biodiversity. In western North American forests, wildfire was burned by recent wildfires in the northern Rocky Mountains the dominant historic disturbance, but there have been sur- (including the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilder- prisingly few studies on its short- or long-term effects on ness) and southern Oregon. The amphibian community of amphibians. Notably, one study in Oregon and Washington headwater streams in these study areas is often dominated found that abundance or richness of most terrestrial and stream- by either the Rocky Mountain tailed frog or the Pacific tailed dwelling amphibians did not differ between young (40- to frog, depending upon location. Species such as tailed frogs 80-year-old) and old-growth (up to 450-year-old) Douglas fir and other stream-breeding amphibians are expected to be forests. Although this was not directly a fire study, it was con- especially sensitive to disturbances such as wildfire because ducted in forests naturally regenerated after stand-replacing they breed in cold headwater streams, have larvae that can wildfire, and the results suggest few long-term effects of fire. take more than three years to metamorphose, and are sensi- There are several studies now underway in the Northwest tive to increases in stream sedimentation and temperature. examining the role of fire in amphibian conservation. D. J. Ma- Data from this study so far suggest densities of tailed frog jor (Utah State University) and R. B. Bury (U.S. Geological larvae are reduced by wildfire, especially in south-facing Survey) are investigating the effects of fire on fuel loads and watersheds, and younger larvae are more susceptible to envi- terrestrial salamanders in the Klamath province of northern ronmental changes that ensue. California. Initial results from that study suggest that downed Continued on page 43

26 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Understanding Place Meanings for Wilderness Personal and Community Values at Risk

BY KARI GUNDERSON

Abstract: Information about human relationships with wilderness is important for wilderness management decisions, including decisions pertaining to the use of wildland fire. In a study about meanings attached to a national forest, local residents were asked to identify places they valued on the forest, why they valued them, and how fuel treatments affected those values. Local residents attach many meanings to the wilderness part of the landscape and they have opinions about the use of wildland fire as a fuel treatment there. Understanding the meanings humans attach to wilderness and how it influences their perceptions of fire and fuels management there can help managers anticipate public response to planned activities.

Introduction the meanings local people attach to the wilderness portion Information about human relationships with wilderness is of a national forest landscape and their opinions about the important for wilderness management decisions, includ- use of wildland fire in fuels management there. ing decisions pertaining to the use of wildland fire. In a study about meanings attached to a national forest, local Human Connectivity to Public Lands residents were asked to identify places they valued on the People have relationships with places, and scientists have forest, why they valued them, and how fuel treatments af- contributed substantially to under- fected those values. Local residents attach many meanings standing these relationships. Some to the wilderness part of the landscape, and they have opin- locations are more important than ions about the use of wildland fire as a fuel treatment there. others to people, and in order to Understanding the meanings humans attach to wilderness anticipate public response to pro- and how it influences their perceptions of fire and fuels posed resource management management there can help managers anticipate public re- activities, managers need to under- sponse to planned activities. stand these relationships. Tuan The importance of considering the interests of local resi- (1977) referred to “geopiety” as an dents in public land decision making is growing individual’s bonding with nature in Kari Gunderson. Photo by Anne Dahl. (Brandenburg and Carroll 1995; Eisenhauer, Krannich, and general, and specific places in par- Blahna 2000; Endter-Wada, Blahna, Krannich, and Brunson ticular. He described place as a center of meaning 1998; Mitchell, Force, Carroll, and McLaughlin 1993; constructed by experience. Place attachment has been as- Schroeder 1996; Vining and Tyler 1999). Human connec- sociated with choices of homes, neighborhoods, and tivity is an important influence on public response to public communities (Feldman 1990). The concept of place attach- land management policies. The connection between hu- ment has been an important research issue in public lands mans and places may be due to emotional attachments, be planning (Moore and Graefe 1994; Schreyer, Jacob, and activity driven, and/or incorporate functional meanings. The White 1981; Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, and Watson study reported here attempts to create an understanding of 1992; Williams and Roggenbuck 1989). PEER REVIEWED

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 27 The Bitterroot National Forest The Bitterroot Valley is located in western Montana, south of Missoula. The Bitterroot Front, on the west side of the Bitterroot Valley, features an east to west continuum, beginning with developed private lands in the valley floor, transitioning to the wildland/ urban interface, then to roaded national forest lands, then upslope to roadless nonwilderness areas, and finally reaching the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness to the west (see figure 1). About 77% of the property in the watershed is within the Bitterroot National Forest. Ravalli County, which includes most of the Bitterroot watershed, experienced Figure 1—The meanings local people have for the wilderness portion of the National Forest landscape, like this a 43% increase in population during forest area, need to be heard through their own words. Photo by Kari Gunderson. the 1990s and was the fastest growing county in Montana (Swanson 2001). Montana. Since the occurrence of the 471,000-acre (190,688-ha) Bitter- Today the Bitterroot Valley is charac- these fires, relationships between lo- root National Forest landscape by local terized by an influx of new people with cal residents and the forest, with each residents to allow them to be more effi- different values and economic means. other, with the Forest Service, and ciently and effectively considered in fuel The once very rural communities are with firefighters have changed. There treatment programs. evolving into communities of commut- is an “inseparability of fuels manage- ers to the Missoula area, retirees, and a ment and fire psychology” (Daniels Methods growing service and high technology 2000). Daniels states (pp. 30–31): There were 12 semistructured inter- business center, while trying to main- People who built their houses in views with Bitterroot Valley residents tain a strong relationship with the valley had powerful feelings from four principal communities in about their place in nature. agriculture and the area’s natural re- Ravalli County; eight key informant People’s dreams as well as their sources largely managed by the life savings are connected to their interviews with people recognized as Bitterroot National Forest. Most of the homes and their properties; they community leaders (including one Bitterroot Range above the Bitterroot identify with the land around member of the Confederated Salish Valley is protected as wilderness and is them, and now it’s burned. and Kootenai Tribes); and two focus a source of much of the water that flows groups with intact community orga- down and through the otherwise fairly A postfire assessment of the Bitter- nizations. Participants were asked to arid valley environment. The quality of root Valley fires of 2000 resulted in two indicate: (1) the specific places you life in the Bitterroot Valley is high, and major postulates about community spend the most time on the Bitterroot it is deeply connected to the area’s natu- member beliefs: (1) there was a need to Front; (2) the areas that you consider ral resources, outdoor recreational change current forest stewardship prac- important, but that you have seldom opportunities, and naturalness of the tices to more effectively reduce wildland or never spent time; (3) the reasons mountain landscape. fire fuels, and (2) there was a lack of trust these places are important to you; and During the summer of 2000, wild- in the Forest Service to make decisions (4) feelings about hazardous fuel treat- fires burned more than 350,000 acres about fuel and fire management that ments, including wildland fire use at (141,700 ha) of Bitterroot National consider local values (Watson 2001). these important places. Maps were Forest, Montana State Trust, and pri- Research was needed to create under- available for respondents to locate spe- vate forest land in southwestern standing of the local values attached to cific places that had meaning to them,

28 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 and all interviews were tape-recorded the divide, through the wilder- to burn, or we’re going to allow for transcription and analysis. ness over into Idaho that were that to kind of run its normal Participants were also shown two used by families for thousands course. And if there’s a beautiful of years and they’re continually place in there that I like burns fixed-point photographs illustrating used. Not only is it our aborigi- up, that’s just what’s going to common conditions before and after nal territories for the tribes and happen in my lifetime. I’m not fuel treatments. Respondents were told me individually, I’d say that it’s going to lose any sleep over that that examples of fuel treatments could more than just a special place. one. (FOCUS GROUP # 01) include using fire alone, using mechani- It’s our homeland, you know? cal fuel treatments alone, and using a (Interview # 06-01) Responses from Bitterroot Valley resi- combination of burning and mechani- dents indicated uncertainty regarding Several respondents offered opinions cal treatments, although interviewees whether wildland fire use is considered on the use of wildland fire in the Selway- were informed that mechanical treat- a fuel treatment tool and identified Bitterroot Wilderness and its ments could not be applied in the some barriers to use of wildland fire on compatibility with the values they asso- wilderness portion of the forest. this landscape. For example: ciate with some of the important places Are you going to classify wild- they had indicated there. For example: land fire use fires as hazardous Results Fire will reintroduce itself. I don’t fuel reduction? It’s not very Respondents commonly indicated some think we need to go in there with precise, it’s kind of heavy- of the most important areas to them to fire. Let nature take over. I would handed sometimes because, be in the wilderness (Gunderson, say that with much of this, where and especially some of those Watson, Titre, and Nelson 2004). A va- these prescriptions may be pro- places down in those drain- riety of meanings are attached to places posed, let’s back off with our in- ages. They’re due to burn up tensive practices of scarifying the big time, not just nice little they go and don’t go within the wilder- land and let nature come in. (In- pretty underburn to make it ness boundary (e.g., emotional, terview # 04-03) look beautiful 10 years from symbolic, and functional), using a vari- now. It’s going to cook. (FO- ety of terms to describe the character of Fine, let it burn … it burned CUS GROUP # 01) these places (e.g., remote, roadless, pris- for eons of time before we ever tine, few people). For example: saw it, and we’re just a speck Getting back to wilderness, the on the flow of time there. (In- Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, I think that not very many terview # 02-01) we do have authorization or people get up into any of these. authority to allow wildland fire … [It] is extremely remote, There should be absolutely zero to meet resource management extremely remote. … It’s a long manipulation of woody mate- objectives in those areas. But ways from trails up there. Not rial in wilderness areas. I think certainly the issue with that is very many people are willing in wilderness fires ought to be that we’re limited in our abil- to crawl on their hands and let burn. (Interview # 05-01) ity to do that, just based on knees with a full backpack. It’s typical weather patterns, to- very pristine. The remoteness. If there is a great big, huge for- pography, geography of the In fact, with all of these areas est fire I just say let it rip and area, and historically how fires the reason is that it feels like not go in there and do anything. once being established up can- rarely do people get up there. See, the problem is that they try yon have a tendency to move (Interview # 05-01) to go fix things and when they out onto the face. But, I mean, I want to pull that wilderness go in there and fix things and that is a fuels reduction tool we boundary down to where we they disturb things that’s when have in the wilderness. (FO- delineate that that is roadless, they make it worse. But natu- CUS GROUP # 02) that it’ll never be roaded and rally, if a fire burnt through there that we should extend the wil- naturally I wouldn’t see that you There was some support for allowing derness boundary to that place would need to do any treat- “naturally occurring fire” to play a role to give that area the protection ments. Because it’d come back in reducing fire hazards both inside the Wilderness Act gives it. (In- naturally. (Interview # 06-03) and adjacent to the Selway-Bitterroot terview # 02-01) If we’re talking about fuels re- Wilderness, if trust between the pub- It is all important. There were duction … either the wilderness lic and the Forest Service can become certain trails and passes over is going to burn or it’s not going stronger. For example:

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 29 relationships with the landscape. Al- Local residents attach many meanings to the though there has been progress in capturing variation in the spatial scale of wilderness part of the landscape, and they have attachments, it is likely that the attach- opinions about the use of wildland fire as ments might also vary in the intensity of feelings about how that place on the a fuel treatment there. landscape contributes to identity, provides some functional value, or is unique. I think ultimately we’re going ence support of fuel treatment objec- Future efforts to proactively include to come to the realization, as tives on all parts of the landscape. Fears this type of social science data in mod- we have with wilderness, that of hidden agendas connected to fuel eling efforts to locate priority areas and natural fire will play a role, as it always has. And that will ap- management likely suggest the feeling determine appropriate methods for fuel ply also to roadless lands and that some members of the public are treatment are crucial. Currently, fire and other lands of the national for- suspicious of how well the agency un- fuels management programs on public est. We will let fire have its head derstands or represents the values local lands are placing an increased emphasis in many instances in the na- people attach to this landscape. on building public trust, understand- tional forest, but this extreme This study provided insight into ing and protecting economic and denudation of the landscape with fire I think in the worst of meanings that local residents attach to noneconomic values at risk associated these examples is unconscio- the wilderness portion of the landscape. with public lands, and gaining more nable. And we really need to This knowledge is needed by agency collaborative engagement with the pub- stand by research that gives us managers and planners to more effec- lic. This kind of research will contribute some balance with this and tively consider how fire and fuels to all of these objectives. IJW avoid the pitfall of justifying management activities inside wilderness treatment, fire treatment, where REFERENCES the bottom line is getting the and across its boundaries will affect human relationships with the landscape Brandenburg, A. M., and M. S. Carroll. 1995. logs out. (Interview # 04-03) Your place, or mine: The effect of place cre- and, in turn, public response to man- ation on environmental values and land- The biggest issue with regards agement activities. Managers need to scape meanings. Society and Natural to fuel management on the Bit- hear from people about their relation- Resources 8: 381–98. terroot Front is probably trust, Daniels, S. 2000. Conference presentation. In ships with places, including wilderness, I guess. The public under- National Conference on the Social Accept- standing of the need to do the and understand how management ac- ability of Fuel Treatments on Western Public work to accomplish objectives. tions might influence these relationships. Lands, ed. J. Burchfield, 30–34. Final re- (FOCUS GROUP # 02) Efforts to understand human con- port. USDA, Rocky Mountain Research Sta- tion, Fort Collins, CO. nectivity to the national forest Eisenhauer, B. W., R. S. Krannich, and D. J. Blahna. Conclusion landscape may contribute to building 2000. Attachments to special places on pub- The research briefly described here pro- trust in the agency (Liljeblad and Borrie, lic lands: An analysis of activities, reason for vides insight into how current emphasis this issue). Information gained from attachments, and community connections. Society and Natural Resources 12: 421–41. on fuel treatment on public lands in the this research in the Bitterroot Valley was Endter-Wada, J. D., D. Blahna, R. Krannich, and United States may influence relation- used, along with ecological modeling, M. Brunson. 1998. A framework for under- ships humans have with landscapes. to propose fuel treatment locations to standing social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecological Applications Many of the comments obtained about accomplish ecological restoration and 8(3): 891–904. wilderness places and needs for fuel hazardous fuel reduction targets. When Feldman, R. M. 1990. Settlement identity: management there gravitated toward projecting the long-term effects of fire Psychological bonds with home places in fuel buildup and things that might be on the landscape, under alternative fuel a mobile society. Environment and Behav- accomplished at the interface between ior 22: 183–229. treatment scenarios, anticipating the Gunderson, K. I., A. E. Watson, J. Titre, and R. wilderness and nonwilderness in order influence of social response to alterna- Nelson. 2004. Mapping Place Meanings on to protect both. Concern about homes tive treatment options is vital. the Bitterroot National Forest—A Landscape- at risk of wildfire and the risk of unde- Future research needs to provide more level Assessment of Personal and Community Values as Input to Fuel Hazard Reduction sirable landscape modification due to complete understanding of the influences Treatments. Report to the Bitterroot Ecosys- stand replacement fires certainly influ- of alternative fuel treatments on human tem Management Research Project, USDA

30 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Sta- O’Conner Center for the Rocky Mountain emotional and symbolic attachment to place. tion. On file, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Re- West, the University of Montana, Missoula. Leisure Science 14: 29–46. search Institute, Missoula, MT. Tuan, Y. F. 1977. Space and Place. London: Williams, D. R., and S .I. Stewart. 1998. Sense Mitchell, M. Y., J. E. Force, M. S. Carroll, and W. Arnold. of place: An elusive concept that is finding J. McLaughlin. 1993. Forest places of the heart: Vining, J., and E. Tyler. 1999. Values, emotions, a home in ecosystem management. Journal Incorporating special spaces into public man- and desired outcomes reflected in public of Forestry 96: 18–23. agement. Journal of Forestry 91(4): 32–37. responses to forest management plans. Hu- Moore, R. L., and A. R. Graefe. 1994. Attach- man Ecology Review 6(1): 21–34. KARI GUNDERSON is the contracted ments to recreation settings: The case of rail- Watson, A. E. 2001. Bitterroot National Forest. wilderness coordinator at the USDA Forest trail users. Leisure Sciences 16: 17–31. Community telephone survey open-ended Service Mission Mountain Wilderness in Schreyer, R. M., G. Jacob, and R. White 1981. questions analysis. Report to the Bitterroot Montana, the education coordinator and Environmental meaning as a determinant of National Forest. March 2001. Available spatial behavior in recreation. Papers and from Bitterroot National Forest and the Aldo instructor for the Wilderness Management proceedings of the Applied Geography con- Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. Distance Education Program at the ferences: Vol. IV, 294–300. Kent State Uni- Williams, D. R., and J. W. Roggenbuck. 1989. University of Montana, a teacher at the versity, Kent, OH. Measuring place attachment: Some prelimi- Confederated Salish & Kootenai College in Schroeder, H. W. 1996. Ecology of the heart: nary results. In Abstracts: 1989 Leisure Re- Pablo, Montana, and maintains a research Understanding how people experience natu- search Symposium, eds. L. H. McAvoy and association with the Aldo Leopold ral environments. In Natural Resource Man- D. Howard, 32. Arlington, VA: National Wilderness Research Institute in Missoula, agement: The Human Dimension, ed. A. Recreation and Park Association. MT. She can be reached at Ewert, 13–27. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Williams, D. R., M. E Patterson, J. W. [email protected]. Swanson, L. 2001. The Bitterroot Valley of west- Roggenbuck., and A. E. Watson. 1992. ern Montana area economic profile. Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining

From TAKE BACK CONSERVATION MOVEMENT on page 8

Analysis. Rewilding and biodiversity: Complementary Leakey, Richard, and Roger Lewin. 1995. The Pimm, Stuart L. 2001. The World According to goals for continental conservation. Wild Sixth Extinction: Patterns of Life and the Fu- Pimm: A Scientist Audits the Earth. New Earth Fall: 18–28. ture of Humankind. New York: Doubleday. York: McGraw-Hill. Soulè, Michael E., and John Terborgh, eds. Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac Pope, Carl, and Paul Rauber. 2004. Strategic Ig- 1999. Continental Conservation. Washing- and Sketches Here and There. New York: norance: Why the Bush Administration Is Reck- ton, DC: Island Press. Oxford University Press. lessly Destroying a Century of Environmental Terborgh, John. 1999. Requiem for Nature. Longman, Phillip. 2004. The global baby bust. Progress. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Washington, DC: Island Press. Foreign Affairs May–June. Ray, Justina C., Kent H. Redford, Robert S. Terborgh, John. 2005. Letters. Conservation Bi- Lovejoy, Thomas E. 1980. Foreword. In Con- Steneck, and Joel Berger. 2005. Large Car- ology 19(1): 5–6. servation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecologi- nivores and the Conservation of Biodiversity. Vale, Thomas R., ed. 2002. Fire, Native Peoples, cal Perspective, ed. Michael E. Soulè and Washington, DC: Island Press. and the Natural Landscape. Washington, Bruce A. Wilcox. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. Ryerson, William N. 1998/1999. Political cor- DC: Island Press. Naess, Arne. 1986. Intrinsic value: will the de- rectness and the population problem. Wild Weigel, Lori. 2004. Lessons learned regarding fenders of nature please rise? In Conserva- Earth Winter: 100–103. the “language of conservation” from the tion Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Shellenberger, Michael, and Ted Nordhaus. national research program. Public Opinion Diversity, ed. Michael E. Soulè, 504–15. 2004. The death of environmentalism: Glo- Strategies memorandum to The Nature Con- Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. bal warming politics in a post-environmen- servancy/Trust for Public Land. Nash, Roderick. 1967. Wilderness and the tal world. Speech to the Environmental Werbach, Adam. 2004. Is environmentalism American Mind. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni- Grantmakers’ Association. September 29. dead? Speech to the Commonwealth Club versity Press. Kaua’i, Hawaii. in San Francisco. Dec. 8. Noss, Reed F., Eric Dinerstein, Barrie Gilbert, Soulè, Michael. 2000/2001. Does sustainable Whitlock, Cathy, and Margaret A. Knox. 2002. Michael Gilpin, Brian J. Miller, John development help nature? Wild Earth Win- Prehistoric burning in the Pacific Northwest: Terborgh, and Steve Trombulak. 1999. Core ter: 56–61. Human versus climatic influences. In Fire, areas: Where nature reigns. In Continental Soulè, Michael E., and Bruce A. Wilcox. 1980. Native Peoples, and the Natural Landscape, Conservation, ed. Michael E. Soulè and John Conservation biology: Its scope and Its chal- ed. Thomas R. Vale, 222–23. Washington, Terborgh, 99–128. Washington, DC: Island lenge. In Conservation Biology: An Evolu- DC: Island Press. Press. tionary-Ecological Perspective, ed. Michael Wilson, Edward O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Oates, John F. 1999. Myth and Reality in the E. Soulè and Bruce A. Wilcox, 4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rain Forest: How Conservation Strategies Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. Are Failing in West Africa. Berkeley: Uni- Soulè, Michael E., and Gary Lease, eds. 1995. DAVE FOREMAN is chairman and versity of California Press. Reinventing Nature? Responses to executive director of The Rewilding Institute, Paquet, Paul. 2005. Faith Based Conservation— Postmodern Deconstruction. Washington, www.rewilding.org, and can be reached A Risky Investment. Raincoast Conservation DC: Island Press. by email at [email protected]. Society’s science comments on Sufficiency Soulè, Michael, and Reed Noss. 1998.

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 31 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Wildland Fire Effects on Visits and Visitors to the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex

BY WILLIAM T. BORRIE, STEPHEN F. McCOOL, and JOSHUA G. WHITMORE

Abstract: Wildland fire can affect wilderness visits and scientific efforts to understand visitor relationships with wilderness places. Large-scale and long-lasting fires occurred in the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, Montana, in 2003. A study of visitors that year to monitor long-term trends in visit and visitor characteristics was repeated in 2004 to fully understand how the 2003 fires affected trend analysis. This article considers the question of how wildland fire changes the relationship people have with wilderness, particularly related to their visits and visitor attitudes toward fire management.

A Wilderness Visitor Study— The BMWC is a mountain ecosystem, ranging in eleva- And Dilemmas over Fire tion from 4,000 feet (1,200 m) to more than 9,000 feet (2,800 In 2003 a survey was conducted of visitors to the Bob Marshall m). It provides habitat for grizzly bears, mountain lions, Wilderness Complex (BMWC), an area of 1.5 million acres moose, Canadian bighorn sheep, mountain goats, and many (600,000 ha) straddling the continental divide in Montana. other plants and animals. Many of the ecosystems in the It is managed under the provisions of the Wilderness Act of BMWC are fire-adapted, such as low-elevation ponderosa 1964 and comprises three units of the National Wilderness pine forests and higher elevation western larch–lodgepole Preservation System (the Great Bear, Bob Marshall, and Scape- pine forests, although it has been estimated that 80% of light- goat Wildernesses). The BMWC is managed by the U.S. Forest ning-ignited fires in the BMWC were suppressed in the Service and has proven to be an ideal setting for a variety of 1988–1998 period (Parsons 2000). social science research and planning activities (McCool 2005). As part of the national forest plan revision process, a trend analysis of visit and visitor data was needed. Infor- mation on the characteristics of wilderness visitors, their trips into the BMWC, and their attitudes and preferences toward the management of the Bob were previously collected in 1970 (Lucas 1980) and 1982 (Lucas 1985; McCool 1983). Sampling of recreation visitors to the BMWC began at 12 of the most popular trailheads in late June 2003. However, during the summer a series of lightning-ignited fires occurred, a pattern also seen in Glacier National Park just to the north. Beginning at the end of July, many popular trailheads were Article co-authors (left) William Borrie and Stephen McCool and (right) Joshua Whitmore. closed to public entry to reduce safety hazards. By the end of September 2003, when all trailheads had reopened, 41

PEER REVIEWED

32 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 separate fires and nearly 100,000 acres (40,485 ha) had burned in the BMWC Table 1. Respondents to Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex Visitor Surveys. (Lasko 2004). The presence of fires was quite Year of data collection noticeable throughout western and # Visitors 2003 2004 central Montana during this period. Contacted at trailheads 605 408 Not only were trailheads and trails Refusals 7 12 closed, but roads and campgrounds Undeliverable addresses 6 3 Completed questionnaires returned 462 294 near the wilderness boundaries were Response rate 76% 72% also inaccessible. News of fire activity was common in the local and regional media, and a large amount Managers and scientists expressed those trailheads with higher levels of of information, including photo- concern that some visitors might be use were sampled more frequently than graphs and maps showing the extent more affected than others by the fires. those with lower levels of use). This bias of the fires, was available on a variety Perhaps those with more experience toward higher-use trailheads was then of websites. In addition, much of the or more visits to the BMWC would feel accounted for in the analysis by weight- region was clouded in smoke from less compelled to change their plans. ing data inversely proportional to size these and other nearby fires. It is, there- There might also be influences from of sample, as was undertaken in earlier fore, reasonable to assume that almost local knowledge and access to media 1970 and 1982 studies (Lucas all visitors to the BMWC were aware information. Locals might have more 1985).On-site and mail-return ques- of fires burning in the wilderness. flexibility in plans, with less commit- tionnaires were used, with all Whether management-ignited or ment of time and resources to travel. respondents to the on-site survey in- natural, fire impacts all aspects of the Hikers might be more worried about cluded in the mail-back survey. management of wilderness. Whereas their ability to leave the wilderness the biological effects of wildland fire are should the fires become too threaten- Results and Discussion relatively well known (e.g. Agee 1996, ing, although horse riders might be There is confidence that the 2003 2000; Brown et al. 1995), there is less particularly concerned about their sample accurately describes the visits, known about the impact of fire on rec- stock and their ability to travel through visitors, and visitor attitudes for that reation and other human activities. The burning or burned landscapes. year, but findings could not be confi- presence of wildland fire could be ex- Our sampling plan had been predi- dently compared to previous data pected to influence wilderness visitors cated on all trails being open to the points. That is, the visits and visitors in a number of ways, both direct and public, but many of the trailheads of 2003 may not be representative of indirect. Not only would some areas be scheduled for sampling were closed. visitors and their responses if the fires inaccessible, the fires would also have This first comprehensive study of visi- had not occurred. Although it can be changed conditions and experiences at tors in the BMWC since 1982 may not acknowledged that no one particular these places. Thus, visitors might be representative enough to understand year of sampling can ever be perfectly change their plans as a result of access trends in visits and visitors. Since this generalizable, we were particularly restrictions, but they might also change study involved contacting visitors at concerned that the presence of large their expectations or evaluations of wil- trailheads, access and infrastructure clo- scale fires for a lengthy period, of re- derness visits. Visitors may have sures led to a reallocation of trailhead gional firefighting activities, and of concerns for safety and avoid traveling sampling. Visitors to the BMWC have smoke may have made 2003 a particu- near currently burning fires, through choices when selecting a trail (there are larly unrepresentative year. recently burned areas, or to locations about 75 trailheads in the complex), As a result, sampling in 2004 was where fire might “trap” them or other- but relatively few (a dozen or so) ac- conducted to provide data for compari- wise disrupt their immediate travel count for about 50% of the use. son to 2003. This was an opportunity plans. Fire and fire-related activity can Sampling of four-day weekday to assess the consequences of the fires damage recreation infrastructure, and blocks and three-day weekend blocks on wilderness visitors and their atti- visitors may want to avoid disruption was conducted at trailheads, with prob- tudes and behaviors, as well as provide of fire management activities. abilities proportional to size (so that confidence in trend analysis. No major

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 33 and firefighting activity in 2003. Thus, Table 2. Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex Visitor Characteristics we generally did not find significant (no significant differences p ≤ .05). differences when compared with the Year of data collection same time periods in 2004. We found 2003 2004 no significant differences in the char- Age 43.7 43.5 acteristics of the visitors between 2003 Sex (% male) 68.7 71.1 and 2004. That is, the average age, sex, Level of education (years) 15.3 15.6 Place of residence (% in Montana) 64.8 62.4 place of residence, level of previous Previous experience (# visits to the Bob) 11.1 13.8 experience in the BMWC, and level of education, did not differ between the fire events occurred in the BMWC or on each of six key variables (educa- two years generally (see table 2), or surrounding areas in 2004, thus sur- tion level, amount of previous between the three individual time pe- vey data in that year were not directly experience in the BMWC, mode of riod groups specifically. affected by the presence of fire, al- travel, length of stay, use of outfitters, Although the characteristics we ex- though it should be noted that various and season of use). amined of people visiting the BMWC impacts of the 2003 fires continued into If fire is an important influence on did not vary overall between 2003 and 2004 (e.g., blackened vegetation, visitors, we would expect to find sig- 2004, the nature of their visits did opened vistas, and minor damage to nificant differences between the years show some significant differences. We infrastructure) and will continue for the in use patterns, visitor characteristics, found changes in how people visited foreseeable future. and attitudes toward management ac- the complex, such as a greater percent- Although staff and resource limita- tions. To address these potential age of visitors hiked in 2003 than in tions prevented a complete replication impacts, between-year comparisons 2004 (65.5% versus 54.5%). As can of the 2003 sampling plan, the 13 are made in three time periods, since be seen in table 3, this difference is trailheads estimated to receive the heavi- not all of the 2003 season was heavily most noticeable for the fire-affected est use by wilderness visitors were again affected by fire: (1) prefire (June and period, with a smaller proportion of sampled from the beginning of the sum- July)—before the 2003 fires started to visitors traveling on horseback during mer, when the majority of the trails first have an impact on visitors; (2) during this time in 2003 than in the nonfire- opened, through the first significant fires (August and September)—when affected year. Paralleling this is a snow event in the fall, when access roads trailhead closures had begun and ar- reduction in the average number of were covered with snow and visitation eas of the BMWC were closed to stock in the travel group in the fire- dropped off sharply (see table 1). recreational use; and (3) postfire (Oc- affected year (average of 7.5 in 2003 A nonresponse bias check compar- tober)—after fires were extinguished versus 10.8 in 2004). Visitors were less ing respondents to nonrespondents to and trailheads had reopened likely to use outfitters during the fires the mail-back questionnaires in both The “prefire” and “postfire” time in 2003 than during that period in years found no significant differences periods were not directly affected by fire 2004 (11.8% versus 31.2%). We also observed significant changes Table 3. Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex Visit Characteristics in recreational activity participation (all response pattern differences significant at p ≤ .05). during the wilderness visit (e.g., fishing, hunting, rafting, swimming, etc.); Sampling period and year most noticeably a smaller percentage August & August & Whole Whole reported fishing in 2003 than in 2004. September September Season Season This was most prevalent in the “during 2003 2004 2003 2004 fires” period (see table 3). The average Mode of travel (% hiking) 64.7 35.3 65.5 54.5 length of stay was also found to be sig- (% on horseback) 35.3 59.1 34.5 45.5 nificantly shorter in 2003 than in 2004. Percentage using an outfitter 11.8 31.2 14.0 21.9 In particular, during August and Sep- Participated in fishing (%) 30.8 51.9 41.9 52.7 tember trip lengths were significantly Average length of stay (# nights) 2.4 3.8 2.2 3.3 shorter in the fire year. Finally, visitors Number of groups encountered 3.8 5.2 4.2 5.5 in 2003 reported seeing fewer groups

34 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 BMWC are likely to be long-term and Table 4. Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex Visitor Attitudes profound (large-scale fires occurred in (% who found management action desirable) 1988 and 2001 as well). As wilderness ≤ (all response pattern differences significant at p .05). agencies move toward more than fire suppression for their wildland fire and Year of data collection fuels management, we could expect Desirability of … 2003 2004 more fluctuation in the accessibility of cemented rock fireplaces with metal grates 20.3% 13.8% small, loose rock fireplaces (fire rings) 58.1% 44.8% specific areas within wilderness. Given prohibiting wood fires where dead wood is scarce 54.4% 44.6% the fire regime of many wildernesses in eliminating grazing by visitors’ horses 38.4% 33.9% the northern Rockies—large, infrequent, (require carrying horse feed) but stand replacement regimes—the natural forest fire started by lightning 49.3% 68.4% visual effects of these fires will be present in the wilderness on their trip than visi- Mountains, there are surely limits to for many years. In addition, we have tors in 2004 reported seeing. generalizability. In 2003 we saw those identified some short-term impacts that Respondents were also queried about limits exceeded. Had the study not been have required response by researchers their attitudes toward a large variety of replicated in 2004, for example, a seri- and managers alike. As fire becomes social and physical conditions in the ous underestimate of outfitted use more a part of the wilderness landscape wilderness, as well as potential manage- could have resulted in poor decisions we need to be aware of its impact on ment actions (46 items total). There were about outfitter allotments. visitors and the implications for social few differences between the attitudes of Fortunately, there was an opportu- science data collection. IJW 2003 visitors and those in 2004, with nity to replicate data collection in a year some notable exceptions. Table 4 shows far less impacted by fires. Comparing REFERENCES the five attitudes that did differ between data provided by visitors in each of the Agee, James K. 1996. Fire Ecology of Pacific North- west Forests. Washington, DC: Island Press. 2003 and 2004. The provision of fire- two years indicated no significant dif- Agee, James K. 2000. Wilderness fire science: A places (cement or loose-rock fire rings), ferences in the visitor characteristics we state-of-knowledge review.In Wilderness Sci- prohibiting wood fires, and eliminating measured and in most of their attitudes. ence in a Time of Change Conference—Vol- ume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and grazing were considered desirable by However, it does appear that the fires Management, comp. D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool, more respondents in the fire year. And, affected some visit characteristics. Visi- W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Laughlin, 5–22. Pro- very importantly, natural forest fires were tors adapted to the presence of fires by ceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Fort Collins, CO: considered desirable by a smaller pro- staying fewer nights in the wilderness, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. portion of visitors in 2003 than in 2004. were more likely to hike than to travel In combination, these differences (and by stock, and were less likely to fish Continued on page 38 lack of other differences) indicate the and/or use outfitters likelihood that attitudes toward fire and than visitors in 2004. A fuels management were significantly al- consequence of these tered by the fires in August and changes was that visi- September of 2003. tors encountered fewer other visitors during Conclusion their stay. Attitudes to- In summary, the research opportunity ward fuels and fire presented by the BMWC fires in 2003 differed between 2003 has yielded some important insights and 2004, with those about the impacts of wildland fire on studied in the fire year visitors and on science. Sampling is expressing more sup- based on a set of assumptions, one of port for fire control those being that the conditions under measures (see figure 1). which sampling occurs are representa- The impacts of Figure 1—Natural forest fires were considered desirable by a smaller proportion of tive. Whereas there is no such thing as numerous and wide- visitors in the fire year than in 2004. Aldo Leopold Research Institute photo. an average year in the northern Rocky spread fire events in the

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 35 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Barriers to Wildland Fire Use A Preliminary Problem Analysis

BY DUSTIN DOANE, JAY O’LAUGHLIN, PENELOPE MORGAN, and CAROL MILLER

Wildland Fire Use USDI 2005). The line officer then must accept the fire in Wilderness in the United States manager’s “go” recommendation. The line officer is ultimately American society has a general cultural bias toward con- responsible for all fire management decisions within the scope trolling nature (Glover 2000) and, in particular, a strong of the two plans. When the plans authorize WFU as an op- bias for suppressing wildfire, even in wilderness (Saveland tion, the line officer usually decides to accept the fire manager’s et al. 1988). Nevertheless, the Federal Wildland Fire Man- advice (Sexton 2004). agement Policy directs managers to “allow lightning-caused We used an Internet-based questionnaire (see fires to play, as nearly as possible, their natural ecological www.cnr.uidaho.edu/wildernessfire) to collect data from fire role in wilderness” (FWFMP 2001). Each year, however, managers in national forest wilderness areas covering the approximately 85% of natural fire ignitions in national forest 2002–2004 period, sent electronically to all Forest Service wilderness areas are suppressed (Sexton 2004). units with wilderness responsibilities. These years were Roughly 20% of all national forest wilderness lands have selected because of substantial policy changes in 2001. A been significantly altered from historical ecological condi- total of 72 wilderness fire managers responded to the questions (Miller 2003), and the risk of losing key ecosystem tionnaire, with at least one response from all nine Forest components within these altered landscapes is high Service regions. The response rate is estimated at only 14% (Schmidt et al. 2002). Current management practices fa- of potential respondents. We relied on the agency’s admin- voring suppression of natural ignitions cannot sustain the istrative hierarchy to identify the target group of managers functional role of fire in wilderness areas (Cole and Landres and invite questionnaire responses from them. This ap- 1996). Although concerns and issues that influence fire proach was not effective in generating the response needed management decisions on U.S. federal lands have been iden- to generalize to all wilderness areas, but does provide in- tified (Miller and Landres 2004), to our knowledge there sight into how these managers describe barriers. has not been a systematic national assessment to identify Those responding indicated that 25% of the total natural and measure Wildland Fire Use (WFU) barriers. ignitions in the 2002–2004 period were within wilderness Three requirements must be met in order to manage a areas that have been approved for WFU; and only 40% of natural ignition as WFU in national forests. Managing a natu- this 25% received the “go” recommendation. These results ral ignition as WFU requires a land and resource management suggest that even if WFU is authorized by plans, the major- plan (LRMP) that authorizes WFU, a fire management plan ity of WFU opportunities may likely be suppressed. (FMP) that authorizes WFU, and a recommendation to man- Managing fire to attain wilderness objectives through WFU age a fire (i.e., natural ignition within the WFU management is likely constrained by five categories of factors: (1) organiza- zone) as WFU (USDA/USDI 2005). If the fire management tional culture, (2) political boundaries, (3) organizational capacity, plan authorizes WFU, it is still possible that the majority of (4) policy directives, and (5) public perceptions (Doane et al. natural ignitions may be suppressed. The fire manager—the 2005). In this summary we focus only on barriers rated impor- individual who counsels or provides advice to the respon- tant by managers that can be mitigated by the agency, which sible line officer, usually the forest supervisor—must make a includes factors related to organizational culture, capacity, and recommendation that the fire be managed as WFU (USDA/ policies originating within the agency that influence WFU

36 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 planning and implementation decisions Table 1. Internal Factors Posing Barriers to Wildland Fire Use. (see table 1). Results are based on responses from managers who identified Planning factors preventing WFU from being an option: and rated the importance of factors pos- 1. WFU is not the cultural norm of the forest and/or the region ing barriers to WFU on national forest 2. Lack of time and resources to conduct a sufficient analysis to incorporate WFU into the LRMP or the FMP wilderness areas. Political boundaries are 3. Insufficient natural ignitions to justify the planning effort important barriers but cannot be ad- 4. Managing for wilderness objectives is not a priority for the forest and/or the region dressed by the agency, and results suggest 5. The planning team’s discomfort with the uncertainty associated with managing a WFU event, including political consequences that public perceptions can pose barri- 6. Lack of memorandum of understanding with adjacent landowners to transfer WFU ers, but not to the same extent as other fires across the boundary factors (Doane et al. 2005). 7. Insufficient qualified personnel to manage a WFU event Implementation factors leading to the suppression of candidate fires: Recommendations for 1. The regional directive was to suppress all ignitions regardless of whether or not a Mitigating WFU Barriers natural ignition could have been managed as WFU Eight general themes were developed 2. Lack of qualified personnel to make the decision to manage the fire as WFU 3. Personal discomfort with the political consequences associated with managing as WFU from the 69 suggestions received from 38 4. The likelihood that the line officer would accept the recommendation to manage as wilderness fire managers (see table 2). WFU was low due to his or her discomfort and the political consequences Based upon managers’ suggestions and associated with managing as WFU recent literature, we developed seven recommendations for mitigating WFU Table 2. Managers’ Suggestions for Increasing Wildland Fire Use barriers: Organized by Themes and Percent Responding. 1. Encourage WFU at all levels within the organization in ways that Increase training and education (22%) provide support for managerial • Educate the agency and the public on WFU • Provide more WFU training and experience with WFU in the agency actions and decisions, • Evaluate the adverse effects of suppressing natural ignitions 2. Provide district- or forest-level fire Provide institutional support (19%) managers with greater flexibility in • Provide encouragement for WFU from higher levels in the organization managing WFU in wilderness, • Support and protect the wilderness fire manager and his or her decisions 3. Emphasize the national directive to • Provide managers an incentive manage natural ignitions as WFU Increase management flexibility (13%) so as to increase awareness of it and • Increase management flexibility for the wilderness fire manager clarify ambiguity, Increase lands available to WFU (12%) 4. Increase land areas available to WFU, • Increase the lands available for managing natural ignitions as WFU via memorandum 5. Increase the organization’s knowl- of understanding (MOU) with Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, edge of WFU, Forest Service, etc. • Purchase private inholdings (private property within wilderness areas) 6. Use management ignitions to support WFU efforts, and Change organizational culture (7%) • Revise Forest Service Manual 2320 (Wilderness section) to emphasize WFU 7. Periodically assess and monitor the • Emphasize the national directive to manage natural ignitions as WFU and managing barriers to WFU. for wilderness objectives • Make WFU fires equal to suppression fires when ordering resources Conclusions Utilize management ignitions (6%) Suppression of wildland fire alters eco- • Utilize management ignitions to support WFU efforts logical processes and conditions, often in • Minimize impacts from smoke by treating fuels through management ignitions ways that are counter to maintaining wil- Prevent negative outcomes from WFU events (3%) derness values. Results of our study • Prevent negative outcomes (e.g., destruction of private property) from WFU events identify many factors that make it diffi- Miscellaneous (18%) cult for managers to allow fires to burn • Amend plans to make WFU an option freely in national forest wilderness. Other • Forest is looking at WFU • Eleven other miscellaneous suggestions that do not fit any general theme agencies may have similar problems, and

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 37 barriers do exist, and we recommend derness 6(1): 4–8. systematic and periodic assessments of Miller, C. 2003. Natural fire regimes in wilder- Results of our study identify ness. International Journal of Wilderness the factors influencing WFU implemen- 9(2): 33, 48. many factors that make it tation as part of program evaluation. A Miller C., and P. B. Landres. 2004. Exploring better understanding of the factors that Information Needs for Wildland Fire and difficult for managers to Fuels Management. RMRS-GTR-127. Fort influence managers is a meaningful Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky allow fires to burn freely in complement to accountability measures Mountain Research Station. of the number of fires allowed to burn Saveland, J. M., M. Stock, and D. A. Cleaves. national forest wilderness. freely and acres subjected to WFU. IJW 1988. Decision-making bias in wilderness fire management: Implications for expert system development. AI Applications 2(1): 17–30. managing natural ignitions as WFU is REFERENCES Schmidt, K. M., J. P. Menakis, C. C. Hardy, W. likely even more challenging on Cole, D. N., and P. B. Landres. 1996. Threats to J. Hann, and D. L. Bunnell. 2002. The De- wilderness ecosystems: Impacts and research nonwilderness lands. The Federal Wild- velopment of Coarse-scale Spatial Data for needs. Ecological Applications 6(1): 168–84. Wildland Fire and Fuel Management. RMRS- land Fire Management Policy directive DellaSala, D. A., A. Martin, R. Spivak, T. GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Ser- to restore natural fire regimes applies not Schulke, B. Bird, M. Criley, C. Van Daalen, vice, Rocky Mountain Research Station. J. Kreilick, R. Brown, and G. Aplet. 2003. just to national forest wilderness, but to Sexton, T. 2004. Personal communication. Fire A citizen’s call for ecological forest restora- use program manager, USDA Forest Service, all lands administered by the federal gov- tion: Forest restoration principles and crite- Washington, DC, and National Interagency ernment (FWFMP 2001). Restoring fire ria. Ecological Restoration 21(1): 14–23. Fire Center, Boise, ID. will require cooperation among various Doane, D., J. O’Laughlin, P. Morgan, and C. Miller. USDA/USDI. 2005. Wildland Fire Use Imple- 2005. Barriers to wildland fire use in USDA levels within an individual agency, along mentation Procedures Reference Guide. Forest Service wilderness areas as perceived Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agri- with various federal, state, and local gov- by wilderness fire managers. Contribution No. culture and U.S. Department of the Interior. ernments, and local and national 1006, College of Natural Resources Experi- communities (DellaSala et al. 2003). ment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow. DUSTIN DOANE is a USDA Forest Service Dombeck, M. P, J. E. Williams, and C. A. Wood. smokejumper based in McCall, Idaho; Learning to live with fire is a social 2004. Wildfire policy and public lands: Inte- Email: [email protected]. issue (Dombeck et al. 2004). Wilderness grating scientific understanding with social JAY O’LAUGHLIN is professor and director, can be a proving ground for demonstrat- concerns across landscapes. Conservation Biology 18(4): 883–89. Policy Analysis Group, College of Natural ing the benefits of restoring fire across the FWFMP (Federal Wildland Fire Management Resources, University of Idaho. landscape. Suppression, however, is likely Policy). 2001. Review and update of the PENELOPE MORGAN is professor, Department 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management to remain the cultural norm unless barri- of Forest Resources, University of Idaho. ers to managing natural ignitions as WFU Policy. Washington, DC: various governmental agency partners. CAROL MILLER is wilderness fire research can be overcome. This research suggests Glover, J. M. 2000. Can we stop trying to ecologist, Aldo Leopold Wilderness that viable options for mitigating these control nature? International Journal of Wil- Research Institute, Missoula, MT.

From FIRE EFFECTS ON VISITS on page 35

Brown, James K., Robert W. Mutch, Charles W. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Personal, Societal, and Ecological Values of Spoon, and Ronald H. Wakimoto, tech. co- Intermountain Research Station. Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Con- ordinators. 1995. Proceedings: Symposium Lucas, Robert C. 1985. Visitor characteristics, gress Proceedings on Research, Manage- on Fire in Wilderness and Park Management. attitudes and use patterns in the Bob ment, and Allocation, vol. II, comp. A. E. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Marshall Wilderness Complex. Research Watson, G. H. Aplet, and J. C. Hendee, 42– Station Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-320. Paper INT-345. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 47. RMRS-P-14. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. De- Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lasko, Rich. 2004. Wildland fire use: Decision, Research Station. Rocky Mountain Research Station. outcomes, and the future. Paper presented McCool, Stephen F. 1983. The Bob Marshall in March 2004 at the Wilderness Steward- Wilderness visitor study. School of Forestry, WILLIAM T. BORRIE is associate professor, ship in the Rockies: Let’s Talk conference of University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 89 p. STEPHEN F. McCOOL is professor, and the Rocky Mountain Cooperative Ecosystem McCool, Stephen F. 2005. Social science re- Studies Unit. search and planning in the Bob Marshall JOSHUA G. WHITMORE was a graduate Lucas, Robert C. 1980. Use patterns and visitor Wilderness Complex. International Journal research assistant in the College of Forestry characteristics, attitudes and preferences in of Wilderness 11(2): 28–29. and Conservation, the University of nine wilderness and other roadless areas. Parsons, David J. 2000. Restoration of natural Montana. Dr. Borrie can be reached at Research Paper INT-253. Ogden, UT: U.S. fire to United States wilderness areas. In [email protected].

38 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

Trust in Wildland Fire and Fuel Management Decisions

BY ADAM LILJEBLAD and WILLIAM T. BORRIE

Abstract: Public land managers are stewards of public lands and of the relationship between the public and these lands. Maintaining one aspect of this relationship, trust in the agency, can be challenging. Lack of trust can influence public response to management decisions, including about wildland fire use. By considering the factors that influence trust, managers can be more effective in accomplishing fire stewardship objectives.

Trust—An Essential Element of Fire Stewardship Today, resource managers are likely to consider social, economic, and ecological effects when making or implementing fire management decisions. However, recent studies have shown that significant portions of the public do not fully trust the fire and fuels decisions that managers make (Shindler and Toman 2003; Winter et al. 2004). This lack of trust is one of the primary factors influencing public evaluation of these decisions (Knotek, this issue; Brunson and Evans 2005; Vogt et al. 2002; Winter 2002). Without trust, it is easy for the public to become disen- franchised and withhold their support for decisions regardless Adam Liljeblad and Bill Borrie. Photo by Adam Liljeblad. of the merit of the decisions (Shindler et al. 2002). Many of the political barriers to wildland fire use (WFU) described imity to wildlands, local residents are disproportionately im- by Aplet (this issue) may be remedied by addressing issues pacted by fire management decisions (Danks 2001). Local of trust between the public and managers. Not only is wil- community members frequently take issue with fire manag- derness fire management a matter of assessing what to do, ers’ prioritization of available resources, have long-held beliefs but also of having the necessary public support to carry it about the desired conditions of the forest, and tend to be sus- out. Managers need, therefore, to maintain or increase pub- picious of outside influences on local land management lic trust in wildland fire decisions if they are to be fully effective decisions (see, for instance, Gunderson, this issue). as public land stewards (see figure 1). As Shindler et al. (2002) Recent research has shown that public attitudes toward fire suggest, trust building should be “the central long-term goal management decisions are at least partially dependent on per- of effective public process” (p. 44). ceived impacts (Kneeshaw et al. 2004; Winter et al. 2003; Winter Trust affects the public’s evaluations of public lands policy et al. 2004). In general, the greater the benefits the public per- (Borrie et al. 2002). Although federal lands are national re- ceives to be associated with each fire management option, the sources and need to be managed to meet intended national more trusting the public is likely to be. Similarly, the greater the public purpose, managers are increasingly concerned about perceived risk associated with each option, the less public trust. protecting the meanings that local residents attribute to these Using fire and fuel management techniques that the public con- places, as well (Gunderson, this issue). Because of their prox- siders to be unacceptable or believes to pose high risk will likely PEER REVIEWED

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 39 has with public places (Watson and Borrie 2003). Having a trusting relationship between a managing agency and the public not only directly benefits public lands but also the government as a whole, the specific managing agencies, and the public (Hardin 1993). Trust contributes, for example, to overall governmental effectiveness by minimizing transaction costs, the external costs associated with any interaction or exchanges between parties. With trust, there is a measure of faith in the actions and intentions of others, so there is reduced need for extensive regulation, contractual agree- ments, or litigation (Fukuyama 1995; Figure 1—Having the trust of the public allows managers to be more effective stewards of the land. White Knoll Wildland Fire in the Manti-La Sal National Forest in 2005. Photo from U.S. Forest Service. Putnam 2000). Through these actions of voluntary compliance, parties are able lead to a decrease in the public’s trust in Currently, some mechanisms do ex- to cooperate in a more open, honest the agency (Winter et al. 2004). ist for considering local knowledge in fashion, consequently developing a In order to get support for manage- the decision-making process. During the moral consensus, which results in more ment decisions, such as WFU, it requires scoping process under National Envi- mutually agreeable decisions. Relation- a significant extension of public trust. ronmental Policy Act, for example, there ships of all types are built around the WFU is inherently risky, and the public are numerous opportunities for local notion of social capital, referring to the must have confidence that wildland fire community residents to comment on bonds of honesty, reciprocity, and trust managers will not let fires escape to proposed plans and policies. Most cur- that form between parties as they inter- threaten homes, lives, or other values at rent methods of engagement, however, act openly. Organizations high in social risk. Local residents also sometimes ex- are not typically systematic attempts to capital are believed not only to be more press distrust of fire and fuel managers incorporate knowledge about contribu- effective and innovative, but also are because many incident command teams tors to trust into this process. perceived as having greater legitimacy managing large fires are from outside the than organizations with lower levels of area and are less likely to understand lo- Systematic Consideration social capital, because there is an in- cal values or utilize local knowledge of Trust Contributors creased sense of a collective good (Black et al. 2004; Carroll et al. 2005; Kent The public’s trust is critical to long-term (Putnam 2000). et al. 2003). These transient teams pos- success of fire and fuel management A recent study examined the public’s sess the level of experience and skill decisions. Trust exists on multiple lev- trust in one national forest’s fire and fuel needed to manage larger fires—some- els, from trust in an individual to trust management program (Liljeblad 2005). thing local firefighters rarely have. in an institution (Kramer 1999). When Seventeen hypothesized contributors to However, as these managers take the the public trusts a management agency, trust were identified in a broad-reach- firefighting reins, utilizing the knowledge it suggests managerial success through ing review of social science literature. and expertise of local firefighters and man- the implementation of effective policies Although each of those 17 items con- agers may contribute to trust. Local fire and practices, a strong and attentive tributed significantly to trust, seven departments have much greater knowl- relationship between resource manag- were determined to be the most influ- edge of the tradeoffs associated with ers and the public, and perhaps most ential. These seven interrelated items decisions, are able to provide continuity, importantly, that managers are fulfill- reflected the public’s level of agreement and have an understanding of historical ing their public purpose mandate to be with the actions of fire managers; their events that transient managers do not stewards of natural resources as well as perceptions of the fairness and equity (Danks 2001; McCool et al. in press). stewards of the relationship the public in the fire and fuel management process;

40 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 the public’s willingness to endorse agen- suppressed, especially since their cab- cies to act as stewards on their behalf; ins were threatened and they believed how well managers are doing their job; there were idle fire crews available. An the degree of confidence that the pub- attempt by one of the landowners to lic has in the actions of fire and fuel persuade suppression was not success- managers; the extent to which manag- ful. Seeking to protect the structures ers can be relied upon to perform in a themselves, landowners flew out to the consistent manner; and the public’s lake with rudimentary firefighting perceptions of how deserving manag- equipment, with the hopes of protect- ers are of trust. ing the structures (Dillon 2005a). Once Figure 2—Public confidence in the actions of wildland The contributors to trust are specific landowners arrived at the lake, their lives fire managers is important to management. Photo from U.S. Forest Service. to each particular set of circumstances, were considered to be in danger due to involved parties, and their histories their proximity to the fire, and with one another (Liljeblad 2005). smokejumpers and air tankers were then trust to agencies based on their percep- Paired with the fact that fire and fuel dispatched to suppress the fire. Only one tions of how the agency will perform. management is by its very nature com- small cabin and a cache were destroyed That is, in order for the public to trust plex, controversial, rife with by the fire (Dillon 2005b). the agency, the agency needs to fulfill the uncertainty, and varies as social and The example of this 2005 fire pre- public’s expectations. For example, the biological systems change (McCool et sents a fitting lens through which to cabin owners likely would not be willing al. in press), it becomes impossible to examine each of the contributors to to endorse the fire managers’ decisions definitively and precisely know the re- trust in fire and fuel management deci- to not suppress fires to protect recreational quirements for trust for each set of sions. Agreement is simply the belief that structures in the limited suppression circumstances. The seven most influ- the objectives and actions of managers zone. The public’s willingness to endorse ential contributors to trust in this coincide with those of the public. Ac- managing agencies reflects trust’s volun- landscape-level fuel treatment project, cording to newspaper reports, cabin tary nature, which is inherently however, can be illustrated using an owners did not agree with the state’s contingent on perceptions of what man- example from the 2005 fire season. policy of not protecting recreational agers will or will not do. Under the 1998 Alaska Interagency structures in limited suppression zones. Effectiveness is the ability of manag- Wildland Fire Management Plan, fires In order to maintain trust, managers ers to successfully accomplish their in limited suppression zones are low- would need minimally to acknowledge management decisions, or have the est management priority and are and address these opinions of residents impact they intend. It implies that man- generally not suppressed unless hu- when making decisions. agers are productive, not just active. man life is in danger. Areas are Procedural justice refers to the fair- Managers were working within the re- designated as limited suppression ness, equity, and legitimacy of the fire strictions of a limited suppression zone, based on three possible criteria: (1) management process. Property own- which prevented the protection of rec- when the cost of suppression may ex- ers wanted an exclusion from the reational structures. However, once ceed the value of resources to be policy of limited suppression and pro- people’s lives were put in danger, man- protected, (2) the environmental ef- tection of their recreational cabins agers were obligated to do whatever fects of suppression may have more surrounding the lake, prompting ac- possible to protect them. Managers negative impacts than the fire, (3) or cusations of favoritism and inequity were effective at adhering to both the if excluding fire is detrimental to fire- from the local media (A sound fire restrictions of limited suppression, and dependent ecosystems. policy 2005). Because other remote then the need to protect the public, In interior Alaska, a lightning-ignited property owners could most likely not likely strengthening public trust. fire started in a remote, limited suppres- receive the same treatment, a suppres- Confidence is the degree of faith, sion fire management zone. Eighteen sion decision would likely harm the certainty, or assurance that the public recreational cabins exist along the shores general public’s trust in fire decisions. has in the actions of wildland fire man- of a nearby fly-in-only lake. As the fire The public’s willingness to endorse managers (see figure 2). People expect a approached the cabins, landowners were aging agencies to act on their behalf refers certain outcome or range of outcomes concerned that the fire was not being to the extent to which people extend their when managers make or implement a

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 41 decision. In the example, landowners area (normally associated with nega- ments. Journal of Forestry 103(3): 134–38. were likely confident that if wildland tive social implications) in order to Carroll, M. S., P. J. Cohn, D. N. Seesholtz, and L. L. Higgins,. 2005. Fire as a galvanizing firefighters were to respond to sup- protect a town (normally associated and fragmenting influence on communities: press the fire, they could and would with positive social implications). The Case of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire. Soci- protect the structures. ety and Natural Resources 18: 301–20. Danks, C. 2001. Community-based wildfire Reliability is a characteristic of man- Conclusion management: An opportunity to integrate agers themselves. It refers to the extent The contributors to trust presented here social and ecological objectives on federal to which managers can be counted are an important subset of factors iden- lands. InEnabling Policy Frameworks for upon to perform a given function or tified by Liljeblad (2005), and are Successful Community Based Resource Man- agement Objectives, ed. K. Suryanata, R. behave in certain predictable manners, believed to be the most critical to devel- Dolcemascolo, J. Fisher, and J. Fox. Proceed- and reflects consistency of acting. If, oping and maintaining trust in fire and ings of the eighth workshop on community for example, fire managers had been fuel management decisions. In order to management of public lands. Honolulu, HI: permitted to suppress the fire soon be effective stewards of wildland fire, East-West Center. Dillon, R.A. 2005a. June 29. Remote fire poses after it began, their swift response on managers need to be cognizant of the a problem. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. that fire, like on dozens of fires previ- potential effects of each and every one Dillon, R.A. 2005b, June 30. Fire moves away from ously, would be considered to be of their actions. Resource managers have area homes. Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. reliable because they had behaved in a public purpose mandate to consider Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: TheSocial Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: The a consistent, predictable manner. the ecological, economic, and social im- Free Press. The last of the most influential con- plications of all decisions. If they can Hardin, R. 1993. The street-level epistemology tributors to trust is trustworthiness, incorporate these considerations into of trust. Politics and Society 21: 505–29. which is the notion that fire managers how they manage fire, they are likely to Kent, B., K. Gelbert, S. McCaffrey, W. Martin, D. Calkin, E. Schuster, et al. 2003. Social conduct themselves in a manner de- be able to increase the public’s trust in and economic issues of the Hayman fire. serving of trust of others. Conceptually, their decisions and in so doing, improve InHayman Fire Case Study, tech. ed. R. T. trustworthiness intertwines with the their overall managerial effectiveness. It Graham, 315–88. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- GTR-114. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of other contributors, and is a reflection is not a simple task, and requires man- Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain of fire managers’ general reputation, agers to continually consider the effects Research Station. implying managers deserve the trust the of each action. In a time where forest Kneeshaw, K., J. J. Vaske, A. D. Bright, and J. D. public offers, and is suggestive of fu- management by lawsuit is becoming the Absher. 2004. Situational influences of acceptable wildland fire management actions. ture behavior. These managers showed norm, greater public trust means that Society and Natural Resources 17: 477–89. that they were worthy of the trust the lawsuits may be reduced, managers can Kramer, R. 1999. Trust and distrust in organi- cabin owners placed in them when they be more effective stewards of public zations: Emerging perspective, enduring responded to suppress the fire to pro- lands, and the benefits of fire can be as- questions. Annual Review of Psychology 50: 569–98. tect the owners. It suggests that they sured on wilderness and nonwilderness Liljeblad, A. 2005. Towards a comprehensive likely would respond in a similar man- lands alike. IJW definition of trust: Understanding the public’s ner were the situation to arise again. trust in natural resource management. Un- It is possible for managers to foster REFERENCES published Master’s Thesis. The University of A sound fire policy. 2005. Editorial. June 25. Montana, Missoula. Available from http:// some of the attributes of trust and not Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/558.pdf. all of them. In the preceding example, Black, A., C. Miller, and P. Landres P. 2004. McCool, S. F., J. A. Burchfield, D. R. Williams, managers behaved in a manner that Wildland Fuels Management: Evaluating and M. S. Carroll. In press. An event-based and Planning Risks and Benefits. Final re- approach for examining the effects of wild- likely harmed the trust of the cabin port to the Joint Fire Science Program: No. land fire decisions on communities. Environ- owners while building the trust of the 99-1-3-16. Missoula, MT: Aldo Leopold mental Management. general public, but also did things that Wilderness Research Institute. Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Col- likely harmed the trust of the general Borrie, W. T., N. Christensen, A. E. Watson, T. lapse and Revival of American Community. A. Miller, and D. W. McCollum. 2002. Pub- New York: Simon and Schuster. public, but built trust among cabin lic purpose marketing: A focus on the rela- Shindler, B. A., M. Brunson, and G. H. Stankey. owners. There are times when man- tionships between the public and public 2002. Social Acceptability of Forest Condi- agers must abrogate the public’s trust lands. Journal of Park and Recreation Ad- tions and Management Practices: A Problem in order to accomplish some higher ministration 20(2): 49–68. Analysis. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-537. Brunson, M. W., and J. Evans. 2005. Badly Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agricul- level objective, such as conducting a burned? Effects of an escaped prescribed burn ture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Re- back-burn through a prized recreation on social acceptability of wildland fuels treat- search Station.

42 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 Shindler, B. and E. Toman. 2003. Fuel reduc- protect relationships with public land. In CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest tion strategies in forest communities: A lon- Nature-basedTourism, Environment and Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. gitudinal analysis of public support. Journal Land Management, ed. R. Buckley, C. Winter, G., C. Vogt, and S. McCaffrey. 2004. of Forestry 101(6): 8–15. Pickering, and D. B. Weaver, 25–35. Oxon, Examining social trust in fuels management Vogt, C., G. Winter, and J. Fried, 2002. UK and Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing strategies. Journal of Forestry 102(6): 8–15. Antecedants to attitudes toward prescribed Winter, P.L. 2002. Californians’ opinions on the burning, mechanical thinning, and defen- management of wildland and wilderness fires. ADAM LILJEBLAD is research associate at sible space fuel reduction techniques. In Unpublished report. Riverside, CA: Pacific the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Jakes, P.J. (comp), p. 74–83. Homeowners, Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, Institute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT communities, and wildfire: Science findings U.S. Department of Agriculture. 42 p. 59807, USA. Email: [email protected]. from the National Fire Plan: Proceedings of Winter, P.L.; Cvetkovich, G. 2003. The role of trust, the Ninth International Symposium on Soci- knowledge, concern, and gender in the predic- WILLIAM T. BORRIE is associate professor ety and Resource Management; 2002 June tion of Californians’ reactions to fire manage- of Wildland Recreation Management in the 2-5; Bloomington, IN. General Technical Re- ment. In: Narog, M.G. (technical coordinator). port NC-231. St. Paul, MN: North Central Proceedings of the 2002 Fire Conference on University of Montana’s College of Forestry Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. De- Managing Fire and Fuels in the Remaining Wild- and Conservation, 32 Campus Drive, partment of Agriculture. lands and Open Spaces of the Southwestern Missoula, MT 59812, USA. Email: Watson, A. E., and W. T. Borrie. 2003. Apply- United States; 2002 December 2-5; San Diego, [email protected] ing public purpose marketing in the USA to CA. General Technical Report PSW-189. Albany,

From ALDO LEOPOLD INSTITUTE on page 26

There are several studies at various found few changes to the wetland en- study of wildfire and stream amphibians stages of completion in Glacier Na- vironment (e.g., temperature, described above. Wildfire studies are tional Park investigating the nutrients) that would explain the colo- never truly replicated, but similar results relationship between wildfire, am- nization and expansion, but radio from different areas and fires increase our phibians, and their habitats. Most of tracking of adult toads and GIS mod- confidence that conclusions we may these studies were instigated by wild- eling of vegetation gradients suggest draw are robust. fires in 2001 and 2003 that burned they may be responding to changes to Scientists are in the early stages of areas where the area has been moni- the terrestrial environment rather than determining the relationship between tored for the distribution of breeding to the wetlands. Based on similar colo- wildfire and conservation of amphib- populations since 1999, providing the nization events in other areas of the ians in the Northwest. It will not be rare opportunity to document poten- Northwest, we suspect the western surprising if we find that amphibian tial changes using prewildfire data. A toad is a habitat generalist that re- communities are healthier in areas general pattern that has emerged is the sponds to a wide variety of where fire regimes more closely re- number of wetlands used for breed- disturbances. Exactly why disturbed semble those prior to European ing by the western toad increases the habitats are preferred and whether or settlement, similar to the relationship year after wildfire, sometimes in areas not the larger population of the area between wildfire and amphibians in where we had found few adults and actually benefits from the colonization the Southeast. Also, because fire has no breeding activity in years before the of new breeding sites is still uncertain often been managed differently in wil- fires, followed by a decline toward and will be the focus of future research. derness and national parks during the prefire numbers over subsequent The 2003 wildfires in Glacier Na- last 30 years or so, compared to ac- years. The response of other widely tional Park burned half of a group of tively managed forests, protected lands distributed pond amphibians in the streams we had sampled in 2001 for may be important to the conservation park, the long-toed salamander and Rocky Mountain tailed frog larvae. of many amphibians. IJW Columbia spotted frog, seems minimal, Postfire reductions in relative abundance with no apparent increases or de- and a shift in age structure of the popu- BLAKE R. HOSSACK is a zoologist with the creases in the proportion of wetlands lations were consistent with a moderate Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, occupied by breeding populations in fire effect. We do not think the fire rep- U.S. Geological Survey, stationed at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, burned areas. We have tried to deter- resents a long-term threat to the P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807, USA. mine why toads rapidly increase their populations. Results from this study will Email: [email protected]. numbers in recently burned areas. We be an important counterpart to the larger

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 43 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

The Challenge of Wilderness Fire Stewardship in a Time of Change A South African Perspective

BY SONJA KRÜGER

n keeping with the South African definition of wilder- where fire has been used for centuries by indigenous people, ness (National Environmental Management: Protected these are often also considered natural ignitions (Hall 1984). I Areas Act No. 57 of 2003), the policy is to preserve As a result of these two sources of ignition, fire was prob- natural conditions by allowing natural ecological processes ably more heterogeneous (patchy) in the past. The to operate without human interference. This policy presents heterogeneity that used to occur at a regional level is, how- managers with a dilemma for wilderness fire stewardship: ever, no longer possible. Decisions regarding wilderness fire What is the natural or historical fire regime, and is wilder- stewardship can now only be implemented at a local level ness fire stewardship possible without human interference? and are based on objectives and conservation targets of these Although our wilder- areas and the social and political influences on them. ness areas are considered large enough for most Fire Stewardship— natural processes to take Burning for Multiple Objectives their course, this does not Southern Africa has a considerable body of fire research, hold true for fire. As a re- which has been integrated into the management of natural sult of the ecological, areas. Fire stewardship plans for the grassland biome of the social, and policy environ- Drakensberg Mountains have recently been reviewed, and ments within which forms the focus of this article, with particular emphasis on Sonja Krüger. Photo by Douglas van Zyl. wilderness stewards oper- fire stewardship within the uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park ate, human interference is World Heritage Site (see figure 1). essential. Active fire management is required to maintain The fire stewardship of the montane grassland biome was ecological processes, protect life and property, and to en- reviewed by the scientific community; first to determine the sure that burning takes place within the prescribed legal success of the existing fire management plan in meeting spe- framework. cific management objectives, and second to incorporate the Human interference can be used to simulate the natural results of recent fire research into a best-practice fire stew- or historical fire regime. However, in order to implement ardship program (Uys et. al. in prep.). The review included the natural fire regime, we need to know: (1) what the natu- the effects of fire on vegetation, vertebrates, invertebrates, ral fire regime is, (2) whether it is still beneficial in our water production, soil, wilderness values, and cultural heri- current context, and (3) whether it is even possible to imple- tage. The product of the partnership between scientists and ment in a landscape that is vastly different from the historical managers is a practical fire stewardship program containing one. Lightning-caused ignitions are accepted as being the a set of defendable fire objectives and goals for nature con- primary source of natural ignitions, but on a continent servation accompanied by relevant management actions.

44 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 The aim of reviewing fire steward- example of species-spe- ship programs is to constantly improve cific burning in the wilderness stewardship. An integral Drakensberg is an au- part of these reviews is the transfer of tumn burn, which knowledge between regions and na- provides a green flush tions, which ensures improved decision required to sustain making by incorporating expert opin- small antelope, such as ion, applying ecological principles, and the endangered oribi, making sensible extrapolations. This Ourebia ourebi, through adaptive management approach to wil- the winter period. derness fire stewardship is essential in Fire regimes need an environment where changes in the to be managed in or- ecological, social, and policy environ- der to maintain ments inform the fire stewardship habitat heterogeneity program and provide a framework for and at least the exist- Figure 1—The montane grassland biome of the Drakensberg Mountains, which contain the integrated management of the wil- ing plant and animal 36% of the country’s proclaimed wilderness areas. Photo from Ezemvelo, KZN Wildlife. derness resource. community composi- tion, structure, and distribution at the sward, which is responsible for main- Ecological Environment local level. In the Drakensberg, these taining water production (Tainton and Increasing knowledge of the ecologi- objectives are achieved by manipulat- Mentis 1984). In a country that is cally important role of fire has resulted ing the fire frequency, fire intensity, the largely semi-arid, water is likely to in radical changes in fire stewardship season of burn, and the type of fire by become the national priority as urban programs over the years. Large sections burning either with or against the wind. and agricultural demands increase. of the Drakensberg were excluded from The fire stewardship program of the Since the Maloti-Drakensberg Moun- fire for several decades (Bainbridge uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park takes tains produce approximately 25% of 1999). Since this exclusion in the mid- into account the effects of fire on the southern Africa’s water, it is vitally 1930s, however, ecologists have globally significant biological and cul- important that we maintain the long- realized that the Drakensberg biome tural diversity of the park and its term security of this resource through contains many species that are ecologi- importance as a water catchment area proper fire management (see figure 2). cally adapted to fire and that fire plays in the development of a best-practice an important role in ecosystem func- strategy (Uys et. al. in prep.). This strat- Cultural Environment tioning (Tainton 1981; Hall 1984). egy is adopted in order to achieve the Managing cultural heritage risk pre- The Drakensberg fire stewardship pro- objective of ensuring that those natu- sents another fire stewardship gram recognizes that disturbance is a key ral processes responsible for generating challenge. Cultural heritage is our feature of natural ecosystems essential to and maintaining biodiversity and life legacy and because of its irreplaceabil- maintain biodiversity. A range of distur- support systems continue to function ity, it has always been well protected bances influence the environment, such at a local level. as fire, grazing, drought, or geological Water and soil conservation is an forces. Of these, fire has the greatest po- ecological challenge to wilderness tential in conservation areas for stewards in the mountain catchment manipulation by management where the areas. Management actions need to main objective is to maintain biodiversity ensure that a sustained yield of good and ecosystem functioning. Other fire quality water is maintained. Results stewardship objectives include maintain- from long-term research in several ing the vigor of the grass layer, creating a Drakensberg catchments indicate that heterogeneous mosaic of burned and un- fire has little influence on water pro- burned patches, alien plant control, duction and soil erosion (Everson protection of forest wilderness, and vari- 1985). Fire, however, determines Figure 2—The Drakensberg wilderness areas are situated in an important water catchment area. Photo from Ezemvelo, KZN Wildlife. ous species-specific objectives. An canopy and basal cover of the grass

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 45 eas of South Africa. Although people Although our wilderness areas are considered large depend on these resources for their live- lihoods, current land-use practices enough for most natural processes to take their outside protected areas are neither con- course, this does not hold true for fire. ducive to conservation ideals nor to the sustainable use of resources from the region. This is particularly true for fire by legislation in South Africa. Some fires of the past cannot be simulated in management. Increased commercializa- cultural features, such as San rock art the current landscape. Changes in the tion and human populations place sites (painted shelters) and archaeologi- social environment have resulted in a pressure on natural resources, which cal artifacts, can be damaged or altered reduction in the extent and connectiv- are limited as a result of the reduction by fire and justify some management ity of natural areas and an increase in in the number and size of protected intervention if they are to remain un- the number of developments near wil- areas over the years. damaged. Fire may also be a concern derness areas, such as large-scale land The threats to wilderness from infor some features of living heritage, for transformation and residential develop- adequate fire management in the buffer example historically important trees ments. As a result, maintaining natural zones can be attributed to a lack of and grave sites within protected areas. processes such as fire is no longer pos- understanding of the impacts of fire and Previously, the focus of fire manage- sible on a large scale. Controlled fire its correct use. Incorrect burning results ment in the Drakensberg has been management is therefore necessary at in reduced grazing capacity and soil water production and biodiversity a local scale to reduce the risk of disas- erosion. The misuse of fire is also a di- conservation (Bainbridge 1999). The ter caused by unplanned fires. rect result of many communally owned proclamation of the uKhahlamba Wilderness areas also face the threat areas bordering protected areas that no Drakensberg Park as a World Heritage of deliberately set arson fires and un- longer have a strong traditional leader- Site for its cultural values, however, planned invasive fires from communities ship. Fire management at a community has made reserve managers more living and grazing their stock along the level is therefore not being coordinated. aware of the impacts of burning prac- boundary of protected areas. These fires Wilderness stewards face the challenge tices on cultural resources. The impact impact negatively on biodiversity, the se- of finding ways in which to preserve the of fire on cultural resources was thus curity of visitors, and on the wilderness wilderness resource while ensuring that taken into account as part of the re- user’s experience. Similarly, prescribed the needs of the local population are met view of the fire stewardship program burns in wilderness, such as the straight, in a sustainable manner. A process of of the park (Uys et. al. in prep.). parallel lines of firebreaks, form a sig- knowledge transfer from conservation A provincial heritage agency is re- nificant visual intrusion. To counter this, agencies to local communities will im- sponsible for cultural resource wilderness stewards attempt to burn prove their understanding of the impacts management, and the local community large blocks rather than rigid firebreaks of fire and the correct application of fire. is responsible for maintaining ancestral to create a more “natural” appearance and In the long term, a focused environmen- graves and living heritage sites. The avoid prescribed burns that result in ar- tal awareness program will result in conservation authority, however, as the tificially shaped edges. These aesthetic responsible fire stewardship in commu- custodians of the land, need to take impacts compromise the objective of nally owned areas also. cultural resources into account in their maintaining the natural character of the fire stewardship program and collabo- wilderness areas. Policy Environment rate with the heritage agency and local Wilderness areas in South Africa The mitigation of the above-mentioned community to resolve responsibilities contain numerous globally significant ecological and social risks is overseen for these resources and to prevent the biological and cultural resources, in- by a body of legislation aimed at regu- degradation or destruction of nonre- cluding environmental services. The lating burning activities in South Africa. newable features of cultural heritage. Drakensberg in particular contributes Of the various sets of legislation that significantly to effective mountain regulate fire management, the National Social Environment catchment management, ensuring an Veld and Forest Fire Act No. 101 of Wildfire poses serious risks to life and optimal flow of good quality water in 1998 represents the most important property. For this reason, the extensive one of the major water catchment ar- framework in which all fire activities

46 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 must be conducted. The purpose of this will deal with all aspects of veldfire pre- Fire stewardship is a dynamic pro- act is to prevent and combat veld vention and firefighting, and are required cess requiring regular review in the face (rangeland), forest, and mountain fires to develop and apply a veldfire manage- of a dynamic environment. It is, how- throughout the Republic. The act pro- ment strategy for a particular area. The ever, essential that knowledge transfer vides for the prevention of fires by strategy of the Fire Protection Associa- take place from the conservation agen- requiring citizens to heed a fire danger tions will be developed according to the cies to the neighboring communities. rating system, burn firebreaks, acquire management objectives of the represen- These communities depend on various equipment, and have available person- tatives of the association within its area natural resources for their basic needs. nel to fight fires. of responsibility. This forum ensures These resources are negatively affected South Africa is fortunate in that the public participation in fire stewardship by the burning practices employed by national legislation has remained rela- decisions and provides a platform for the communities, who do not under- tively constant over the years. Recent knowledge transfer at a local level be- stand the impacts of their practices on revisions of fire-related legislation indi- tween conservation agencies and local social, ecological, cultural, and wilder- cate a transition to a new legal order in communities. ness resources. South Africa could also veldfire (rangeland fire) management and A political challenge facing scientists add value to, and benefit from, a knowl- control in the country, proof that the gov- and managers is one of insufficient re- edge transfer process through the ernment considers fire management a sources to maintain existing long-term exchange of wilderness fire stewardship priority. For example, the National Veld burning trials and establish new ones. models on an international scale. IJW and Forest Fire Act of 1998 repeals cer- Four long-term burning trials exist tain provisions of the Forest Act of 1984 within the uKhahlamba Drakensberg REFERENCES and reforms the law on veld and forest Park, totaling more than 120 years of Bainbridge, W. R. 1999. A theoretical approach to fire management in wilderness areas. In fires. The act also makes provision for the fire-related research. These trials are the Wilderness Concepts and Practice Course establishment of Fire Protection Associa- most important in the country, provid- Basic Level Reference Manual, ed. Wilder- tions (see below). ing invaluable information regarding fire ness Action Group. The Centre for Environ- Past fire policies were dictated by the impacts on biodiversity. There are insuf- ment and Development, University of Natal. Everson, C. S. 1985. Ecological effects of fire exotic plantation forestry industry and ficient of these long-term experiments in the montane grasslands of Natal. Unpub- the agricultural sector. The policies fo- within the country at present, represen- lished M.Sc. Thesis, University of Natal, cused on reducing the risk of fires to tative of the various biomes, and those Pietermaritzburg. timber plantations, and maximizing the that exist are poorly resourced. It is these Hall, M. 1984. Man’s historical and traditional use of fire in South Africa. InEcological Ef- production potential of agricultural experiments, together with the informa- fects of Fire in South African Ecosystems, ed. land. Although the agricultural regimes tion obtained from monitoring the actual P. de V. Booysen and N. M. Tainton, 2–17. generally did not favor biodiversity, fire regime, that provide the information New York: Springer-Verlag. Tainton, N. M., ed.. 1981. Veld and Pasture conservation agencies could apply for required to better inform management Management in South Africa. exemption from burning restrictions in decisions and formulate fire stewardship Pietermaritzburg: Shuter and Shooter. order to achieve biodiversity objectives objectives when reviewing fire steward- Tainton, N. M., and M. T. Mentis. 1984. Fire in in their fire stewardship program. The ship programs. grassland. InEcological Effects of Fire in South African Ecosystems, ed. P. de V. new Protected Areas Act No. 57 of 2003 Booysen and N. M. Tainton, 115–147. New benefits wilderness stewards where Conclusion York: Springer-Verlag. there is a conflict between any local or Examples from the Drakensberg indicate Uys, R., R. Lechmere-Oertel, S. Krüger, M. Hamer, national legislation. The Protected Ar- that wilderness fire stewardship in South and C. Everson. In prep. A review of scientific best practice for fire in the Maloti-Drakensberg eas Act prevails if the conflict concerns Africa requires human intervention to mountains. uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park the management or development of develop clear objectives and targets for World Heritage Site, South Africa. protected areas, which includes fire application within the current ecological, management. social, and policy environments. The col- SONJA KRÜGER is employed by Ezemvelo The conflict between the objectives lation of existing information and KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife as the ecologist for the uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park World of plantation forestry companies, the knowledge ensures that a fire regime is Heritage Site and surrounding area. agricultural sector, and conservation implemented that is appropriate in terms Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, South Africa, P. O. agencies will be addressed by the Fire of the management constraints, legal con- Box 13053, Cascades, 3202. Email: Protection Associations. The associations straints, and risk-management factors. [email protected].

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 47 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcements and Wilderness Calendar

COMPILED BY STEVE HOLLENHORST and CHAD DAWSON

Kenton Miller Awarded Links between Protected H. Ken Cordell Named to the Bruno H. Schubert Areas and Tourism IJW Editorial Board Environment Prize Many tourism companies include visits Dr. H. Ken Cordell is a research social Former World Conservation Union to protected areas as part of their tourism scientist and project leader for the Rec- director general Dr. Kenton Miller has excursions. These visits could also ben- reation, Wilderness, Urban Forest, and been awarded the Bruno H. Schubert efit conservation and site protection, but Demographic Trends Research Group Environment Prize, considered to be this requires forging links between pro- with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Dr. one of the most prestigious awards tected area managers and the tourism Cordell has accepted an appointment to of its kind in the world. Dr. Miller, industry. ”Links Between Protected Areas the IJW editorial board. He earned his an American national, was awarded and Tourism” is based on interviews with Ph.D. from North the prize for his lifetime achievements tourism companies, provides practical Carolina State Uni- in conservation, particularly his pio- guidance on better ways of understand- versity in 1975 and neering work in protected area ing the tourism industry and on effective worked there for development and management. Dr. methods of developing links with tour- several years before Miller has had a long and distin- ism. It details what can be realistically joining the USFS. guished career. He was director expected from the tourism industry in Dr. Cordell moved general of the World Conservation terms of support for conservation. to Athens, Georgia, in 1997 to lead the Union (IUCN) from 1983 to 1988, Developed as a contribution to the USFS research project there. The re- served as chair of IUCN’s World Com- Linking Conservation of Biodiversity search unit has been variously named mission on Protected Areas from and Sustainable Tourism at World Heri- over the last three decades with such 1976 to 1982 and again from 2000 tage Sites project, funded by the United titles as Urban Environmental Research to 2004, and served on the IUCN Nations Foundation and implemented and Recreation and Wilderness Assess- Council during the same period. He in partnership with the United Nations ment until its current project name. Dr. has received numerous international Educational, Scientific and Cultural Or- Cordell is a prolific author and recently awards for his role in shaping the in- ganization and United Nations released a book entitled The Multiple ternational protected areas agenda. Environment Programme, the manual Values of Wilderness, for which he was His career has taken him to activities builds on primary research on actual principal coauthor with John Bergstrom throughout Latin America, Africa, interactions and linkages between tour- and J. M. Bowker (look for a book re- Asia, and briefly to Antarctica. He has ism companies and protected areas. view in the August 2006 issue of IJW). been a university professor, field re- In-depth interviews were conducted Dr. Cordell can be reached at the U.S. searcher, and author and recently with 23 tourism companies, including Forest Service, Recreation, Wilderness, retired as vice president for conser- international tour operators, ground Urban Forest, and Demographic Trends vation at the World Resource”linkss operators, and hotel groups. Research Group, 320 Green Street, Ath- Institute. Source: IUCN (http:// Online at http://www.uneptie.org/ ens, GA 30602-2044, USA; or by email www.iucn.org/). pc/tourism/library/forging-links.htm. at [email protected].

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

48 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 Troy Hall Named time to his work as a professor of Pro- and protected area management issues to IJW Editorial Board tected Area Policy and head of the in the United States and in other inter- Dr. Troy Hall, associate professor of Department of Conservation Social national initiatives. He can be reached Protected Area Visitor Studies in the Sciences at the University of Idaho at the University of Montana, Depart- Department of Conservation Social (UI). Dr. Hollenhorst was recently ap- ment of Society and Conservation, Sciences at the University of Idaho pointed as the co-editor-in-chief for College of Forestry and Conservation, (UI), has accepted an appointment to the Journal of Society and Natural Re- Missoula, MT 59812, USA; or by email the IJW editorial board. Dr. Hall sources, published by the International at [email protected] earned her Ph.D. at Oregon State Uni- Association for Society and Natural versity in 1996 and held faculty Resources. He has been involved in Two New U.S. Wilderness positions at Oregon State University IJW since 1996 as an associate editor Areas Designated in 2005 and Virginia Tech before joining the and then editorial board member. We The U.S. lawmakers and president faculty at UI. Her look forward to Dr. Hollenhorst’s con- signed into law two new wilderness ar- research interest tinued involvement in protected area eas in 2005. The approximately is in recreation policy at UI and management issues 10,000-acre (4,048-ha) El Toro Wilder- planning and and wish him well in his new role with ness was designated (P.L. 109-118) in management to the Journal of Society and Natural Re- Puerto Rico’s Caribbean National For- develop creative ways to bring stake- sources. He can be reached at the est and protects numerous species of holders together to solve challenges University of Idaho, Department of unique native orchids and the Puerto created by increasing demand and Conservation Social Sciences, College Rican parrot—considered to be one of sociocultural changes in the United of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 441139, the most endangered species in the States. Recent research includes studies Moscow, ID 83844-1139, USA; or by world. The 11,183-acre (4,527-ha) of displacement in wilderness and devel- email at: [email protected]. Ojito Wilderness was designated (P.L. oped sites; investigates about boaters and 109-94) in the Albuquerque District of their experiences on the Colorado River Wayne Freimund the Bureau of Land Management in in the Grand Canyon; wilderness camper Leaves IJW Board New Mexico and includes certain lands perceptions and evaluations of campsite Dr. Wayne A. Freimund, a longtime IJW being held in trust for the Pueblo of conditions; and visitor knowledge at board member and contributor to web- Zia, a Native American community. Yosemite National Park. Dr. Hall has been based wilderness These two designations were made a contributing author and associate edi- information and through bipartisan legislative efforts to tor for IJW and the Journal of Leisure education issues, is add significant new areas to the National Research. We look forward to her involve- leaving the IJW Wilderness Preservation System. ment with IJW in the coming years as board to devote board member. Dr. Hall can be reached more time to his work as professor of National Landscape at the University of Idaho, Department Wildland Recreation and chairman of Conservation System of Conservation Social Sciences, College the Department of Society and Conser- Assessment of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 441139, vation at the University of Montana An effort by The Wilderness Society Moscow, ID 83844-1139, USA; or by (UM). As author, educator, and scien- to assess the condition and stew- email at [email protected]. tist, Dr. Freimund has been director of ardship of the Bureau of Land the UM Wilderness Institute and is a co- Management’s 26-million-acre (10.5- Steven Hollenhorst operator in the Protected Area million-ha) National Landscape Leaves IJW Board Management Program at the University Conservation System (NLCS) spot- Dr. Steven J. of KwaZulu Natal in South Africa, a lighted the difficulty of stretching Hollenhorst has coleader of the UM International Semi- limited staff and funding to adequately been the Digest nar on Protected Area Management, and protect a diverse American treasure. editor and a con- an executive committee member on the To evaluate the system at the five-year tributor to IJW for Consortium on Protected Area Manage- mark, The Wilderness Society exam- many years. He is ment. We look forward to Dr. ined issues ranging from accountability leaving the IJW board to devote more Freimund’s involvement in wilderness and resource monitoring to cultural site

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 49 protection and visitor management. With agency leadership to replicate forests such as the boreal,” said Dr. They reviewed the stewardship and best practices across the NLCS, and David Schindler, professor of Ecology condition of 15 National Monuments, to focus additional staff and funding at the University of Alberta. “Failure National Conservation Areas, and on the system’s needs, The Wilderness to do so not only ensures continued other special places or “units” in the Society notes that perhaps at the 10- ecosystem degradation, but the accel- system, and determined grades on the year mark the BLM can be proud of erating impoverishment of human basis of more than 35 indicators. its role in protecting America’s great societies, ours included.” Grades of C and D dominate the re- western landscapes, wilderness, and “An understanding of the Boreal port (see full report at http://www. ecosystems. Source: http://www. region’s true value is essential to ad- wilderness.org/Library/Documents/ wilderness.org/library/documents/ dressing important questions about upload/StateOfTheNLCS-Final stateofthenlcs2005.cfm. how this natural heritage asset can Report.pdf), although some units of continue to contribute to national and the NLCS scored very well in specific Ecosystem Services from international well-being for genera- areas, such as leadership and empow- Canada’s Boreal Forest tions to come,” said Mark Anielski, erment or visitor management. Research by the Pembina Institute for ecological economist and report coau- Overall, they found: the Canadian Boreal Initiative puts the thor. “For Aborginal people, it has • Committed and passionate NLCS value of ecosystem services such as always been paramount that we take managers who are hobbled by a water filtration and carbon storage at care of the land that takes care of us— lack of empowerment and inad- roughly 2.5 times greater than the net the land, the air and the resources on equate or unstable budgets to carry market value of forestry, hydro, min- it. It has not always been easy to have out their broad responsibilities. ing, and oil and gas extraction in people understand the true total value • Road networks that fragment wild- Canada’s boreal region. The report ar- of what it is that the land provides to life habitat and bring motorized gues that the degradation of natural us,” said Stephen Kakfwi, former pre- vehicles near cultural resources. ecosystems worldwide is at least in mier of the Northwest Territories. • Incomplete information gathering. part because natural capital values “Perhaps now with this report, Inadequate monitoring of species, aren’t taken into account in land use it will be easier for us to begin water quality, and unique cultural decisions around the globe, noting to understand and have discus- sions about why we have to be resources, in turn, hinders assess- these values aren’t part of the universal responsible and not think only ment of ecosystem and cultural site international wealth indicator—gross in terms of resource extraction condition in the NLCS. domestic product. and development but in terms • Satisfactory efforts to educate visi- “We are only just beginning to un- of what damage and cost we tors who call for information, but derstand the true value of these inflict on ourselves and on the a glaring lack of field staff to ad- services, including flood control, wa- land’s resources in our quest for progress and development.” dress illegal off-road vehicle use, ter filtration, climate regulation, and Source and a copy of the study are vandalism, and other problems even pest control,” said CBI director available at www.borealcanada.ca. that accompany increasing public Cathy Wilkinson. “We have the oppor- access and recreational use. tunity to get it right in Canada’s boreal, • An absence of public reporting on sustaining its natural capital and eco- Get your copy NLCS management, condition, system services, while building other successes, and needs. forms of wealth and maintaining com- of the IJW Despite underlining the need for munity and cultural values.” The Subscribe Today! improvement in many areas, the as- report estimates the value of the 67 sessment also offered some billion tons of carbon stored in the Student: $25/year encouraging words. Nearly all units in trees and peatlands of Canada’s boreal Individual: $35/year Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, region at $3.7 trillion, and the annual Institution: $55/year New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, and value of carbon sequestration by the Utah offer some “best practice” ex- region at $1.85 billion. “It is indeed amples of stewardship that we time to broaden our understanding of www.ijw.org highlight. the true ‘value’ of globally important

50 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Book Reviews

Collapse: How Societies The only question is whether This is a major scholarly work, Choose to Fail or Succeed they will become resolved in extremely thought-provoking, at times pleasant ways of our own by Jared Diamond. 2005. Penguin depressing, at times hopeful. Evoca- choice, or in unpleasant ways Group, New York, NY. 578 pp., $29.95 tively written for a wide audience, (hardcover). not of our own choice, such as warfare, genocide, starvation, some of the biggest, most difficult disease epidemics, and col- questions faced by contemporary At the heart of debates over wilder- lapses of societies. While all of society are addressed in this mix of ness preservation are a number of those grim phenomena have historical and contemporary analysis. extremely challenging questions. For been endemic to humanity Diamond forces us to consider how example: What impact will increased throughout our history, their the continued degradation of our ecological degradation have on con- frequency increases with envi- natural environment might lead to our temporary societies? How can we ronmental degradation, population pressure, and the own destruction, and challenges us control our propensity to destroy the resulting poverty and political to make the difficult but necessary Earth? What role do corporations and instability. (p. 498) societal changes needed to maintain the public have in changing current Western societies. environmental practices? And, will our Although there is much sadness in destruction of the wilderness eventu- Diamond’s analysis, there is hope as Reviewed by JOHN SHULTIS who is the book editor for IJW ally lead to our own demise? well, for as the subtitle suggests, the Pulitzer prize–winning author Jared author believes that societies can cre- Diamond asks these and related ques- ate the societal change necessary to tions in his new book, Collapse: How solve environmental issues. He points Rewilding North America: Societies Decide to Fail or Succeed. the finger squarely at the public rather A Vision for Conservation in Diamond reviews the historical, than at corporations directly respon- anthropological, and archaeological sible for environmental destruction, the 21st Century evidence from several failed and suc- by Dave Foreman. 2004. Island Press, noting that political and economic Washington, DC. 297 pp., $25.00 cessful societies, including the Easter change will come only when the pub- (paper). Islanders, Anasazi, and Mayans, in an lic demands it. attempt to answer the weighty ques- Diamond suggests there are two The Earth needs another human on it tion of why some societies fail and why critical choices we need to make if our like I need a hole in the head. This is some succeed over time. He identifies Western society is to continue to exist. the general feeling the sympathetic five sets of factors that explain past First, we need “the courage to prac- reader is left with after completing societies’ failures: environmental dam- tice long-term thinking, and to make Dave Foreman’s new book Rewilding age, climate change, hostile neighbors, bold, courageous, anticipatory deci- North America. The book has three lack of friendly trade partners, and sions at a time when problems have distinct yet interconnected sections. society’s response (or lack thereof) to become perceptible but before they Section one consists of a history of its environmental problems. have reached crisis proportions” (p. how humans have wounded the Earth. Diamond’s analysis can be discon- 522). Second, we need to make Extensive lists of damaged ecological certing. For example, although he equally difficult choices about our so- systems along with the mechanisms encouragingly believes that we will cieties’ values. Some of our dearly held through which humans are respon- resolve our environmental problems values can be maintained, but some sible for causing the wounds are within the lifetimes of our children, may need to be jettisoned if we are to provided. The first section has two ob- he also notes, survive. jectives. The first is to drive the point

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1 51 home that “mass extinction is our The second section presents a ra- predators. The three key points of [humans’] legacy as a species so far. tionalization for rewilding as a land rewilding as a conservation strategy are No other moral challenge is so great management practice. Forman uses (1) healthy ecosystems need large car- as controlling our destructive power conservation biology to explain how nivores, (2) large carnivores need big, over nature” (p. 60). The second is the wounds discussed in the first sec- wild roadless areas, and (3) most that “if you do not know how the tion can be healed through rewilding. roadless areas are small and thus need present came to be, you stand in a Rewilding is defined as the scientific to be linked. A strategy and map are nihilistic void and your words and argument for restoring big wilderness provided that describe the four Con- actions lack coherence” (p. 6). based on the regulatory roles of large tinental MegaLinkages needed to provide secure core habitat for key predators. The third section of the text, aptly titled “Taking Action,” describes “the real work of selecting, designating, The Action Not Taken restoring, and protecting a North American Wildlands Network” (p. Denis Davis 177). A list of specific actions is pro- National Park Service vided, along with a rationale of why August 2005 each is necessary to effectively imple-

(With inspiration from Robert Frost’s “The Road Not Taken”) ment a rewilding strategy. This book is written as an instruc- tion manual for the rewilding advocate The choices diverged in a pristine wood, or those involved in land conservation. And sorry I could not select both The first and second sections are an excellent introduction for the aspiring And being one wilderness manager, long I stood conservationist who is unaware of the And pondered one as far as I could major issues and history of conserva- Imagining chainsaws and helicopters in the undergrowth. tion. The third section provides a blueprint for action and a framework Then took the other, being just as fair, for directing rewilding efforts at both And having perhaps the quieter claim, large and small scales. The book does Because it didn’t need motors to tear; suffer from an overabundance and rep- Though as for the project ending there etition of lists. The prolific lists may Had results that were really about the same. have two consequences: the reader may lose focus or gloss over what he/she is And both that morning equally lay less interested in and key in on others. In documented pages white and black. The format and objectives of the text Oh, I chose the first for another day! are clear and the progression of logic is Decision leads on to decision along the way, easy to follow. Rewilding North America should be required reading to I doubted I should ever need to hear the motors whack. get nongovernmental organization new-hires up to speed and may work I shall be telling this from on peak high as a supplementary text in a general Somewhere along trails and trails hence: ecology or conservation class. Two choices diverged in a pristine wood, and I— I made the decision with no motors or need to fly, Reviewed by RUDY M. SCHUSTER, assistant professor, Recreation Resource And that has made the wilderness character difference. Management, SUNY College of Environ- mental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York. Email: [email protected].

52 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1