International Journal of Wilderness.

International Journal of Wilderness.
The WILD Foundation
717 Poplar Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304 USA
www . wild . org
Nonprofit
Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit No. 63
For Wilderness Worldwide
www . wild . org
Sponsoring Organizations
Conservation International
Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
The WILD ® Foundation
The Wilderness Society
University of Montana, College of Forestry and
Conservation and Wilderness Institute
USDA Forest Service
USDI Bureau of Land Management
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
USDI National Park Service
Wilderness Foundation (South Africa)
Adapting wilderness stewardship to global change
Wilderness Foundation (UK)
Diversity of wilderness ecosystems
Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)
Wilderness Land Trust
Wilderness Task Force
Wilderness network conservation in northern Spain
For the young conservationists in your family
If you love Africa
you’ll want this book!
The Journey of Wildlife and Art
John Muir • Rachael Carson • Henry David Thoreau
Images of
Conservationists
series
Illustrated by award-winning
children’s book artist
Hudson
Rachel Carson
The Story of a River
Thomas Locker and
Robert C. Baron
Preserving a Sense of Wonder
Thomas Locker and
Joseph Bruchac
John Muir
America’s Naturalist
Thomas Locker
Also in Spanish !
Felipe the Flamingo
Hardcover, 9 x 10.5, 144 pages color photos, $35us
101/2 x 71/2 • 32 pages • full-color illustrations • HC $12.95
PB version in Spanish $9.95
Sand to Stone
A collection of wildlife art
depicting scenes from
Yellowstone to the Arctic Circle
Why do so many first-time travelers to the Serengeti region
feel such a strange affinity to this amazing, wondrous land of
infinite grasslands teeming with animals? Could it be the
150 years of artistic genius
awakening of some mysterious long-ago memory coming
from deep within our DNA … coming from the time when all
mankind began in this part of the world—a time that was
indeed “the eternal beginning”?
Experience the beauty of Boyd Norton’s photos, so magical
you can almost hear the zebra braying or the rhino grunting.
and again.
ration to protect and conserve nature in one of the world’s best
loved mountain regions.
“Boyd Norton has captured the magic of this ancient and majestic ecosystem. Through superb and deeply sensitive photographs and compelling
accounts of his experiences there, he introduces its animals and people.
Serengeti is profoundly moving—you will understand why it is so important to preserve this place for generations to come.”
Jane Goodall, founder, the Jane Goodall Institute
and UN messenger of peace
This animal-centered alphabet
book, offers an abundance of
images and subtle surprises on
every page. 10 x 10 • 40 pages •
behave towards nature in a generous and responsible way. This
describes how art has played a central role in providing the inspi-
*A portion of Limited Edition proceeds will go to Serengeti Watch
Lauren A. Parent
Illustrated by mo mcgee
Yellowstone to Yukon region have inspired North Americans to
its challenges today. This book is a treasure you will visit again
Also available: Limited Edition of only 200
Alphabet Kingdom
nineteenth century, the wild beauty and wildlife of the
lavishly illustrated book celebrates 150 years of artistic genius and
Autographed, numbered, hand bound faux leather,
with placeholder ribbon, 10 x 9, 260 pages, color photos, $200us*
A beautiful combination of photographs, drawings, and text illustrates the life cycle of sandstone
in the landscape of the desert Southwest. Written for ages 4
and up. 81/2 x 81/2 • 32 pages • full-color photos • PB $9.95
This is the story of an art exhibition about conservation. Since the
Read about the history of the region where man began and of
Hardcover, 10 x 9, 260 pages, color photos, $35us
and Back Again
Nancy Bo Flood
Photos by Tony Kuyper
The book is based on an exhibit that is the result of a
multi-year collaboration between the National Museum of
Wildlife Art in Jackson Hole, Wyoming; the Whyte Museum of
Thomas Locker
Each book is 11 x 81/2 • 32 pages
full-color illustrations • HC $17.95
Conservation Adventures series
Tales from Native North America
Gayle Ross and Joseph Bruchac
This collection of traditional stories
explores the significance of a young
girl’s rite of passage into womanhood.
Each of these stories originated in the
oral tradition and have been carefully
researched. Joseph Bruchac, author
of the best-selling Keeper’s of the Earth series, and noted
storyteller, has been entrusted with stories from elders of
other native nations which ensures that the stories collected
in this book are authentic.
6 x 9 • 128 pages • PB $9.95
Flying with the Eagle, Racing
the Great Bear
Tales from Native North America
Joseph Bruchac
In this collection of Native American
coming-of-age tales, young men face
great enemies, find the strength and
endurance within themselves to succeed, and take their place by the side
of their elders. Joseph Bruchac is the award-winning author
of books for children and adults.
6 x 9 • 128 pages • PB $10.95
full-color illustrations • PB $8.95
Gas Trees and Car Turds
A Kids’ Guide to the Roots of Global Warming
Kirk Johnson and Mary Ann Bonnell
This colorfully illustrated book makes
carbon dioxide, an invisible odorless
gas responsible for global warming and
plant growth, into something that can
be imagined and understood by children. 7 x 10 • 40 pages • full-color illustrations • PB $9.95
Tales of the Full Moon
Sue Hart
Illustrated by Chris Harvey
Children of all ages love these
wonderful tales of the African
bush. A timeless collection of
memorable stories centered on
lovable characters.
71/2 x 101/2 • 96 pages • full-color
illustrations • PB $16.95
Things Natural, Wild, and
Free
The Life of Aldo Leopold
Marybeth Lorbiecki
Adventure—as a child Aldo
Leopold was always loking for
it as he wandered over the
bluffs along the Mississippi
with his dog, Spud. This led
Leopold to become a forester,
wildlife scientist, author, and one of the most important conservationists in history. Award-winning author Marybeth
Loribiecki brings Leopold to life in this vivid new biography.
Featuring resource and activity sections, a time line, a bibliography, and historic black-and-white photographs.
7 x 9 • 112 pages • PB $12.95
Parks for the People
The Life of Frederick Law Olmsted
Julie Dunlap
Growing up on a Connecticut
farm in the 1800s, Frederick
Olmsted loved roaming the
outdoors. A contest to design
the nation’s first city park
opened new doors for Olmsted
when his winning design
became New York’s Central Park, just one of Olmsted’s
ideas that changed our nation’s cities. Award-winning author
Julie Dunlap brings Olmsted to life in this memorable biography, featuring resource and activity sections, a time line,
and a bibliography, as well as black-and-white historical
photographs.
7 x 9 • 112 pages • PB $12.95
the Canadian Rockies in Banff, Canada; artist Dwayne Harty;
and the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. A major
exhibition featuring wildlife art masterpieces from the two
museums’ permanent collections and Dwayne Harty’s specially
commissioned paintings was on display at the National
Museum of Wildlife Art in the summer of 2011 and at the
Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies in the summer and
fall of 2012.
America’s
Ecosystem
series
Each book is 9 x 9 • 48 pages • full-color illustrations
maps and glossary • PB $11.95
A series of six books,
each exploring a
different biome, its
plants, and its animals
To order or to learn more about other titles at Fulcrum Publishing, visit:
4690 Table Mountain Drive, Suite 100 • Golden, Colorado USA 80403
Phone: 303-277-1623 • Fax: 303-279-7111
Thomas Locker
The Girl Who Married the Moon
Jill Ker Conway,Illustrated by Lokken Millis
Felipe, a young flamingo, is left
behind when his flock migrates to find
more food. As he awaits his parents
he learns many life lessons.
Walking with Henry
Based on the Life and Works of
Henry David Thoreau
To order or to learn more about other titles at Fulcrum Publishing, visit:
4690 Table Mountain Drive, Suite 100 • Golden, Colorado USA 80403
Phone: 303-277-1623 • Fax: 303-279-7111
I
N
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
Journal of Wilderness
August 2012
Volume 18, Number 2
Features
Education & Communication
37 One Half Century of Wilderness
Stewardship
Editorial Perspectives
3 Celebrate Wilderness
BY CHAD P. DAWSON
America’s 50th Anniversary Wilderness
Celebration
Soul of the Wilderness
BY GREGORY HANSEN and VICKY HOOVER
4 Ernest Oberholtzer’s Wilderness Legacy
BY JAMES M. GLOVER
39 Forever Wild, Forever Free
Bob Marshall’s Legacy
BY ANN O’RYAN SPEHAR
Stewardship
9 Beyond Naturalness
WILDERNESS DIGEST
44 Announcements
Adapting Wilderness Stewardship to an
Era of Rapid Global Change
BY DAVID N. COLE
15 The Diversity of Wilderness Ecosystems
Represented in the U.S. National Wilderness
Preservation System
47 Book Reviews
by Nigel Dudley
Reviewed by Bill Borrie
BY H. KEN CORDELL
21 Traditional Wisdom and Climate Change
47 Authenticity in Nature: Making Choices
about the Naturalness of Ecosystems
Contribution of Wilderness Stories to
Adaptation and Survival
47 Rachel Carson – A Biography
by Arlene R. Quaratiello
Reviewed by Anna Thompson
BY ALAN WATSON, LINDA MOON STUMPFF,
and JENNIFER MEIDINGER
26 Wilderness Land Trust
On the Cover
Two Decades Keeping Wilderness Wild
BY PAUL F. TORRENCE
Science & Research
31 Wilderness Network Conservation in the
Cantabrian Region of Northern Spain
BY FERNANDO ALLENDE, MANUEL
FROCHOSO, RAQUEL GONZÁLEZ, and
NIEVES LÓPEZ
Main image: Katmai Wilderness (Alaska)
is 3.4 million acre (1.37 million ha). In
August, its famous grizzly bears gather on
the rivers for sockeye salmon, while anglers
(inset) work the same waters for worldclass rainbow trout that cruise below the
spawning salmon, feeding on the eggs.
Photos © Vance G. Martin.
Disclaimer
The Soul of the Wilderness column and all invited and featured articles in IJW, are a forum for controversial, inspiring, or especially informative articles to renew thinking and dialogue among our readers.
The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors. IJW neither endorses nor rejects them,
but invites comments from our readers.
—John C. Hendee, IJW Editor-in-Chief Emeritus
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 1
International Journal of Wilderness
The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interested
citizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning,
management, and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship.
EDITORIAL BOARD
H. Ken Cordell, Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Athens, Ga., USA
Lisa Eidson, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA
Greg Kroll, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Boulder, Colo., USA
Rebecca Oreskes, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, N.H., USA
John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada
Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND Managing Editor
Chad P. Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF EMERITUS
John C. Hendee, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho, USA
ASSOCIATE EDITORS—International
Andrew Muir, Wilderness Foundation Eastern Cape, South Africa; Karen Ross, The Wilderness Foundation, Capetown, South Africa; Vicki
A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; Anna-Liisa Ylisirniö, 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; Robert Dvorak, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich.; Greg Friese, Emergency
Preparedness Systems LLC, Plover, Wisc.; Gary Green, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; Kari Gunderson, University of Montana, Missoula,
Mont.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.; Bill Hendricks, CalPoly, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Christopher
Jones, Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah.; Cyril Kormos, The WILD Foundation, Berkeley, Calif.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho; Yu-Fai Leung, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey
Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Christopher Monz, Utah State University, Logan, Utah; Connie Myers, Arthur
Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; David Ostergren, Goshen College, Wolf Lake, In.; Trista Patterson, USFS, Sitka, Alas.;
John Peden, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Ga.; Kevin Proescholdt, Izaak Walton League, St. Paul, Minn.; Joe Roggenbuck,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Keith Russell, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Wash.; Rudy Schuster, USGS, Fort
Collins, Colo.
International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) publishes three issues per year
(April, August, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication.
Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, One
Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA. Telephone: (315) 470-6567.
Fax: (315) 470-6535. E-mail: [email protected]
Business Management and Subscriptions: The WILD
Foundation, 717 Poplar Ave., Boulder, CO 80304, USA. Telephone:
(303) 442-8811. Fax: (303) 442-8877. E-mail: [email protected]
Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription
costs are in U.S. dollars only—Online access $35; online access and
printed journal $50; online access and printed journal (Canada and
Mexico) $62; online access and printed journal (international) $74.
We do not offer an agency discount price. No refunds.
All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright ©
2012 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation.
Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make
fair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.
Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide are
solicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, and
allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptions of key
programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and environmental education; wilderness-related science and research from all
disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilderness; and international perspectives describing wilderness worldwide.
Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book reviews,
announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are encouraged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is available
from the website: www.ijw.org.
Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are
encouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signed
by the author.
Website: www.ijw.org.
Printed on recycled paper.
SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS
Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Conservation International • SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry • The
WILD® Foundation • The Wilderness Society • University of Idaho • University of Montana, School of Forestry and Wilderness Institute •
USDA Forest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDI National Park Service • Wilderness
Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)
FEATURES
E d i t o r i a l P erspe c t i v es
Celebrate Wilderness
BY CHAD P. DAWSON
A
fter decades of wilderness advocacy and stewardship,
we are poised to begin the celebration of several
landmark events in our collective wilderness legacy.
Like the hikes, paddles, climbs, and travels in wild places we
all enjoy, there are times to pause and take a look at the vista
before us. In those reflective moments at an alpine lake,
desert canyon, ocean beach, or trail overlook, we can appreciate the landscape and humbly see our place in the wider
expanse of an ecosystem. Rather than it being an experience
that diminishes our self, it is a liberating and cathartic experience because we are swept along within a much larger
reality, and we glimpse how our small part contributes to
and arises from that which is all around us. Then recharged,
we go back to playing our part and living our life with
enthusiasm as a contribution to something that transcends
us and helps define us and energizes us.
Two celebrations that are in the planning and development phases have been recently announced:
• The 10th World Wilderness Congress (WWC),
WILD10, will be held on October 4–10, 2013, in
Salamanca, Spain. The first WWC was held in 1977 in
South Africa and then in six different countries around
the world with eight other WWC events; the most
recent was WILD9 in Mexico in 2009. For more
information on WILD10 and the history of the WWC,
go to www.wild.org and www.wild.org/main/worldwilderness-congress.
• The 50th Anniversary National Wilderness Conference,
Wilderness50, will be held on October 15–17, 2014, in
Albuquerque, New Mexico. The Wilderness50
celebration is in honor of the 1964 Wilderness Act in
the United States. Although celebrations have been held
at 5- and 10-year intervals since 1964, this celebration
will include many events during 2014 and lead up to
the Wilderness50 conference. For more information, go
to www.wilderness.net/50th. Also see the article by
Gregory Hansen and Vicky Hoover in this issue of IJW
to learn how to become involved.
In addition to putting these dates on your calendar, get
actively involved with these landmark celebrations by sponsoring a supporting event, joining a planning committee,
proposing a talk at the conference, holding a local outdoor
event to educate about wilderness, and by representing your
organization’s wilderness interests at the WILD10 and
Wilderness50 conferences.
This issue of IJW includes four articles on wilderness
stewardship. Cole outlines another way of thinking about
naturalness and wilderness stewardship during a time of
global environmental change. Cordell reports on the amount
of different ecosystem types represented in the U.S. National
Wilderness Preservation System. Watson, Stumpff, and
Meidinger share their perspective on how traditional wisdom
can contribute to planning for wilderness stewardship that
adapts to global climate change. In anticipation of WILD10
in Spain in 2014, Allende and co-authors summarize some
of their research on the wilderness network conservation in
northern Spain.
CHAD P. DAWSON is editor in chief and managing editor of the
International Journal of Wilderness and professor emeritus from the
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse,
NY; email: [email protected]
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 3
FEATURES
S o u l o f t h e w i l d er n ess
Ernest Oberholtzer’s
Wilderness Legacy
BY JAMES M. GLOVER
E
rnest Oberholtzer (1884–1977) may be the most
underappreciated wilderness advocate in the brief
history of preservation in the United States. I suspect
that’s mainly because he was not a great writer in the fashion
of Henry David Thoreau, Aldo Leopold, Rachel Carson, or
Ed Abbey. We tend to venerate most those whose published
words inspired us most. Oberholtzer could and did write
well. But he spent so much time as a practical preservationist
that he never published the kind of essays and books the
above-mentioned icons did.
He’s worthy of our admiration for at least two things,
though. First, he was one of the earliest (and greatest) avocational wilderness explorers – those whose main motivation
was the sheer joy and adventure of it. And second, as one of
the first professional full-time wilderness advocates, his work
was extraordinary in both its volume and its effectiveness. His
legacy from that effort is one of the largest roadless complexes
in North America, known popularly as the Quetico-Superior
country of northeast Minnesota and southern Ontario.
A portrait of the violinist as a young man
There’s not a lot in Oberholtzer’s young life to predict he’d
become an intrepid wilderness traveler and relentless wilderness advocate. He was born in Davenport, Iowa, and grew
up there. He later said that he was fascinated as a child by
logs coming down the Mississippi River from the “mysterious North.” He enjoyed the rural and semi-wild landscape
just outside of Davenport, and he had something of an outdoor mentor in the form of a gravedigger named Tom
Burke. Burke, a family friend and fan of English literature,
took Oberholtzer on some hikes and encouraged his interest
in birds, plants, and animals.
Young Oberholtzer seems, however, to have been at least
as interested in academics and the violin and as in tramping
4
International Journal of Wilderness
around the outdoors. He began to pursue the violin at the
age of six, eventually became an accomplished classical violinist, and continued to play throughout his life. His
academic skills got him into Harvard, where he made a
point to take courses from, and spend time with, several of
the Western world’s most elite intellectuals. These included
Willy Hess, the concertmaster of the Boston Symphony, and
the philosophers William James and George Santana. His
two best student friends were a young scholar named Sam
Morrison, who would later achieve renown as a military
historian, and Conrad Aiken, who was to become a noted
novelist and poet.
He Tries a Little Exploration
In the summer of 1906, following his senior year at Harvard,
Oberholtzer made a short trip to northern Minnesota and
took a brief canoe journey into the Boundary Waters near
Ely. Again, there is little in the record to indicate that he
might be inclined to take such a trip. There’s no evidence
he’d even been in a canoe before this, and it’s a fairly safe
guess that he came to Minnesota alone because none of his
Harvard friends had any interest in the hardships of northwoods wilderness travel.
And yet, three years later, following a year of graduate
school studying landscape architecture at Harvard,
Oberholtzer returned to northern Minnesota. He now proceeded to make one of his two very remarkable achievements
as a wilderness canoe paddler. That summer and into the fall
he “traveled continuously by canoe.” He ended up, as he
later said, “travers[ing] all the major waterways of the Rainy
Lake Watershed.” In that one season, he went through six
different guides and paddled possibly as much as 3,000
miles (4,800 km). Much of this was in the future Boundary
Waters Canoe Area and Quetico Provincial Park. Only the
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
freezing of the lake waters and bitter
cold temperatures stopped him. He
finished out the year by solo paddling
part of the Rainy River. “By that time,”
he later said, “it was so fearfully cold
that you just couldn’t stay out there.”
He Takes a Historic Voyage
Oberholtzer’s second (and even more)
remarkable wilderness foray came three
years later. This was a two-man expedition with the ambiguous initial goal of
canoeing “in the uncertain direction of
the magnetic Pole.” It became a rather
epic journey to Hudson Bay and back,
involving some 133 days of canoe
travel through a largely unmapped
labyrinth of water he and his partner
had never seen before.
That partner was his favorite guide
from 1906, Billy Magee, an Ojibwa
trapper who would turn 51 that year
(see fig. 1). Starting at The Pas (northwest of Lake Winnipeg), they did
indeed travel generally north for 73
grueling days, until they found themselves, on the morning of September 6,
in a large spot of bother. They were
shivering around a tiny, sputtering
campfire in a cold pouring rain on the
Thlewiaza River, some 180 miles (290
km) west of Hudson Bay. They were
cold, hungry, and both feeling “rheumatic.” They were way “behind
schedule” and making just five miles a
day. “The prospects for reaching home
or even Churchill before winter look
very dark,” Oberholtzer wrote in his
journal, “but I am resolved to make a
desperate try.”
They did survive, of course, or
you would not be reading an article
that’s mainly about what Oberholtzer
later accomplished. Very briefly, here is
how they got through.
A week after the journal entry
above, they ran into a lone Inuit in a
kayak, whose name was roughly pronounced “Bite.” Bite took them in, fed
Figure 1 – Ernest Oberholtzer with his friend and guide Billy Magee in 1912. Photo courtesy of the
Ernest Oberholtzer Foundation.
them, and warmed them up. He then
taxied them down to Fort Churchill in
his family’s sailboat.
At that point, however, they were
still only about halfway home.
Somewhat recuperated, they proceeded
to paddle another 160 miles (258 km)
farther south down the western shore of
Hudson Bay in very harsh conditions;
then paddle, portage, and line their
canoe for 400 miles (645 km) against
the powerful current of the Hays River,
finally reaching the north end of Lake
Winnipeg on October 19; and 260
more miles (419 km) down the length
of Lake Winnipeg, that final section
taking 18 days, including 6 that were
too windy to travel and several when
they paddled in snowstorms.
That expedition has been considered so noteworthy that several
excellent sources are available to anyone
seeking more details. One is the definitive biography of Oberholtzer by Joe
Paddock , called Keeper of the Wild.
There’s also David F. Pelly’s The Old
Way North: Following the OberholtzerMagee Expedition, which provides a
detailed cultural context of the land
they traveled through. There’s a coffee
table–style book from the Oberholtzer
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Foundation, titled Toward Magnetic
North, featuring Oberholtzer’s photos
from the trip, passages from his trip
journal, and several short essays by
some of his friends and protégés.
Finally, there’s a detailed analysis of the
trip in the Canadian historical journal
The Beaver, titled “Voyage to Nutheltin”
by Robert H. Cockburn, who calls it
“one of the most commendable canoe
voyages in history” (p. 5).
Wilderness Keeper
In the years following the Hudson Bay
trip, Oberholtzer began living on an
island on Rainy Lake and pursuing a
variety of occupational endeavors,
none of which made him much of a
living. They included writing adventure stories for children, photographing
wildlife, lecturing on wildlife and
adventure, studying the Ojibwa culture, and sheep ranching (see fig. 2).
Then, in 1925, his life changed
abruptly. That year a timber and paper
tycoon named Edward Backus proposed what Oberholtzer would later
call “the most ambitious project for
hydroelectric development ever
launched in America.” Specifically,
Backus wanted to build seven large
International Journal of Wilderness 5
Figure 2 – Ernest Oberholtzer photograph of Bob Readman, Quetico’s first backcountry ranger, in 1909.
Photo courtesy of the Ernest Oberholtzer Foundation.
dams that would back water up over
some 14,000 acres (5,668 ha) – about
the size of four Yellowstone National
Parks – in the Rainey Lake watershed.
A hearing on Backus’s proposal
was held on September 28, 1925, in
International Falls, Minnesota.
Oberholtzer showed up and testified
against it, along with a surprisingly
large number of other local residents
and a few “outsiders.” The latter,
Oberholtzer later recalled,
were concerned about the
preservation of the very remarkable
– in fact unique – wilderness
character of the entire watershed.
There were men like myself who had
traveled year after year in and out of
these waterways who knew that this
was one of the great [wilderness]
areas of the world. (Paddock, p. 161)
Afterward, Oberholtzer tried to
get a transcript of the hearing. Even
this, however, became an ordeal that
seems emblematic of the battle he was
up against. He ended up having to
raise $478 among fellow wilderness
advocates to pay for a printing of the
bulky document.
6
Meanwhile, the “outsiders” – consisting largely of business and
professional men from Minneapolis
and Chicago – formed a group they
named the Quetico-Superior Council.
They asked Oberholtzer to be its executive director, and he agreed to do so
for an annual salary of $5,000 a year.
In that role, Oberholtzer began to
work on a counter-proposal to Backus’s
scheme. He came up with a management plan for the region that R.
Newell Searle, in Saving Quetico
Superior: A Land Set Apart, calls “truly
a prophetic vision, a plan with few
known precedents” (p. 66). It called
for three zones to be established. A
large core wilderness zone would
include today’s Quetico Provincial
Park in Ontario, the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyagers
National Park in Minnesota, and several other established canoe routes,
mostly on the Canadian side. A second
zone surrounding the wilderness core
would allow summer camps to be
offered and cabins to be leased, but
would be accessible only by foot trails
and water routes. Finally, the outer
zone would allow sustained-yield for-
International Journal of Wilderness
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
estry, private home ownership, and
some other economic activities.
Students of U.S. wilderness history may recall that Arthur Carhart, an
early U.S. Forest Service landscape
architect, had earlier proposed something similar for the Boundary Waters
portion. But Carhart’s proposal, in
fact, was not really a wilderness plan as
that term has come to be defined. As
David Backes (1991) has pointed out,
Carhart mainly envisioned the
Minnesota Boundary Waters as a
motorboat highway into the more
remote Quetico country on the
Canadian side. To accomplish this, he
proposed several small dams to back
water up over key streams and shallow
spots, and, obviously, unlimited
motorboat use. He also proposed that
a large number of rustic hotels and
“chalets” be scattered along what are
today key canoeing routes. The routes
would also be noticeably marked to
make it “impossible for a reasoning
person to become lost.” The hotels and
chalets, meanwhile, would, as Carhart
said, “eliminate the necessity for people
going into this territory carrying a
tent, cooking utensils, tools, etc”
(Backes 1991).
Carhart’s plan did call for the
boundary lakes to remain roadless, but
otherwise his idea of a wilderness was
rather different from Oberholtzer’s.
In any case, Oberholtzer devoted
the next several years to converting his
plan into public policy. He testified at
hearings, wrote hundreds of letters to
government officials, helped write legislation, and appeared on radio shows.
As might be expected, his plan – or
“the program,” as he affectionately
called it – was never fully adopted. But
slowly, over the next several decades, at
least some of it was. The first big
breakthrough was the passage of a U.S.
federal bill called the Shipstead-Nolan
Act, in 1930. It prohibited the use of
dams to alter water levels on the Forest
Service lands of the Minnesota
Boundary Waters, and also banned
logging within 400 feet (122 m) of
shorelines there. Although the bill did
not specifically use the word wilderness, it was, in effect, one of the first
acts of U.S. law to recognize preservation on federal lands as a public good
(Shipstead-Nolan Act, 1930).
Important as Shipstead-Nolan
was, it was only a first step for
Oberholtzer and his fellow wilderness
advocates. For 25 more years,
Oberholtzer kept pushing for an international management plan with a large
wilderness core at the heart of it. After
World War II, he proposed that
Canada and the United States sign a
treaty designating the region an
International Peace Park (an idea he
borrowed from the Waterton-Glacier
park system in the northern Rockies).
as the Quetico-Superior. It consists specifically of three different units. These
are the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness, managed by the U.S. Forest
Service; Voyageurs National Park, managed by the U.S. National Park Service;
and Ontario’s Quetico Provincial Park.
The biggest management difference is
that motorboats and snowmobiles are
permitted throughout Voyageurs
National Park, which is not the case in
Quetico and the Boundary Waters,
where canoe or snowshoe travel is
largely required.
Although that complex, as mentioned, is Oberholtzer’s single greatest
legacy, one other wilderness unit
deserves mention. This is the White
Otter-Turtle River Provincial Park of
Ontario. It is a 12,000-acre (4,858
ha) string of nine lakes that, by virtue
of its remoteness and almost complete
lack of facilities, has perhaps as much,
Figure 3 – A moose photograph taken by Ernest Oberholtzer while on a trip with
Billy Magee in 1910. Photo courtesy of the Ernest Oberholtzer Foundation.
The International Peace Park never
fully materialized, nor was anywhere
near the amount of the Rainy Lake
Watershed preserved as Oberholtzer
wanted. His efforts, however, contributed directly to the eventual protection
of the 2.4-million-acre (972,000 ha)
wilderness complex mentioned in the
first paragraph, known most popularly
Oberholtzer felt deserved preservation. Beyond that, it is not clear what
his exact role was in its protection,
but he should be credited for, at the
very least, being the first to espouse
its wilderness value.
No Straddler
When Bob Marshall spearheaded the
formation of the Wilderness Society in
1935, he somewhat famously declared,
“We want no straddlers, for in the past
they have surrendered too much good
wilderness … that should never have
been lost” (Glover 1986, p. 159). It’s
apt, then, that Marshall asked
Oberholtzer to be among the seven
founding members of the society
(Oberholtzer accepted). Indeed,
Oberholtzer was such a non-compromiser that he strained his relations with
some of his most sincere fellow wilderness advocates. For example, he had a
Figure 4 – A typical camping setup by Ernest Oberholtzer and Billy Magee.
Photo courtesy of the Ernest Oberholtzer Foundation.
if not more, of that elusive “wilderness character” than many much
larger units. Its corridor was traveled
numerous times by Oberholtzer, and
it was the spot to which Billy Magee
took him in 1910 when Oberholtzer
wanted to concentrate on photographing moose (see fig. 3). It, too,
was among the waterways that
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
bit of a falling out in 1951 with the
noted wilderness essayist and activist
Sigurd Olson. Olson wrote up a plan of
his own that for practical reasons concentrated on just the Boundary Waters
and Quetico Provincial Park – an area
only about one-fifth of the entire Rainy
Lake Watershed that Oberholtzer’s plan
had addressed.
International Journal of Wilderness 7
Oberholtzer seems to have felt
betrayed by this. He wrote Olson that
his (Olson’s) proposal “violates the
whole U.S. program as fostered these
many years” (Backes 1999, 212).
Olson’s biographer, David Backes,
writes that Oberholtzer was “hurt to
see his lifelong dream slowly whittled
away, and he nursed a growing distance between himself and Olson”
(Backes 1999, p. 212). From the practical point of view, Olson was correct.
There was never enough support for
the
amount
of
preservation
Oberholtzer’s plan called for to make it
come true. On the other hand, from a
negotiator’s point of view, Oberholtzer’s
plan, and even his rather solitary stubbornness, had a practical value. His
position – “extreme” perhaps, but wellarticulated – made Olson’s and others’
seem a lot more reasonable to their
opponents and to lawmakers. It’s a
dilemma, of course, that is very familiar
to wilderness advocates today.
albeit briefly, a pioneering wildlife
photographer, especially of moose and
caribou. He was a very accomplished
violin player and book collector. He
was an important – although technically “amateur” – student of the Ojibwa
culture (earning the nickname among
his Ojibwa friends of “Atisokon,” or
“legend,” because of his great interest
in their stories). He was an innovative
regional landscape planner, coming up
with what might be considered the
first-of-its-kind plan for a wildernesscentered ecoregion.
As mentioned, he’s less famous
than some of the best wilderness writers,
so he has probably had less direct influence on the way wilderness advocates
frame their arguments. But his marathon canoe trips are still greatly admired
by students of exploration. And the tens
of thousands of visitors to the QueticoSuperior region – one of the great wild
places left in North America – owe him
a lot of thanks (see fig. 5).
A Reluctant Summary
References
It is difficult to briefly sum up Ernest
Oberholtzer, but here’s a swing at it.
He was a notable explorer by canoe of
a large chunk of North American wilderness between northern Minnesota
and Hudson Bay (see fig. 4). He was,
His legacy ... is one of
the largest roadless
complexes in North
America ... the QueticoSuperior country of
northeast Minnesota
and southern Ontario.
8
Backes, D. 1991. Wilderness visions: Arthur
Carhart’s 1922 proposal for the QueticoSuperior wilderness. Forest &
Conservation History 35 (July):
128–137.
———. 1999. A Wilderness Within: The Life
of Sigurd Olson. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press (3rd printing, first
published 1997).
Cockburn, R. H. 1986. Voyage to Nutheltin.
The Beaver 66 (January/February): 4–27.
Glover, J. M. 1986. A Wilderness Original:
The Life of Bob Marshall. Seattle: The
Mountaineers.
Kane, L. M., R. Fridley, and P. Heffefinger,
interviewers. 1963. Oral history interviews with Ernest Oberholtzer.
Minnesota Historical Society, Acc.
#9430. Retrieved February 10, 2012,
from http://www.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00353.xml.
Kane, L. M., R. Fridley, and E. Hart. 1964.
Oral history interviews with Ernest
Oberholtzer, Feb. 19. Ernest Oberholtzer
papers. Minnesota Historical Society,
Acc. #9599. Retrieved February 10,
International Journal of Wilderness
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Figure 5 – Ernest Oberholtzer. Photo courtesy of
the Ernest Oberholtzer Foundation.
2012, from www.mnhs.org/library/findaids/00353.xml.
Oberholtzer, E. C. 1929a. A lakeland archipelago: A glimpse into the colorful past
of the Ontario-Minnesota border lakes.
American Forests 35 (September):
547–588.
———. 1929b. The ancient game of grab:
How the resources of the OntarioMinnesota border lakes are vanishing
into thin air. American Forests 35
(October): 631–672.
———. 1929c. A university of the wilderness: The proposal to perpetuate by
treaty the Ontario-Minnesota border
lakes. American Forests 35 (November):
689–700.
———. 2000. Toward Magnetic North: The
Oberholtzer-Magee 1912 Canoe
Journey to Hudson Bay. Marshall, MN:
The Oberholtzer Foundation.
Paddock, J. 2001. Keeper of the Wild: The
Life of Ernest Oberholtzer. St. Paul:
Minnesota Historical Society.
Pelly, D. F. 2008. The Old Way North:
Following the Oberholtzer-Magee
Expedition. St. Paul, MN: Borealis
Books.
Searle, R. N. 1979. Saving Quetico-Superior:
A Land Set Apart. St. Paul: Minnesota
Historical Society (2nd printing, first
published 1977).
Shipstead-Nolan Act of 1930. Pub. L. No.
71-539 (1930).
JAMES M. GLOVER is retired from Southern
Illinois University and a frequent contributor
to the International Journal of Wilderness
and biographer of wilderness advocates
and visionaries, including A Wilderness
Original: The Life of Bob Marshall (Seattle:
Mountaineers, 1986).
STEWARDSHIP
Beyond Naturalness
Adapting Wilderness Stewardship to
an Era of Rapid Global Change
BY DAVID N. COLE
C
limate change and its effects are writ large across
wilderness landscapes. They always have been and
always will be (see Figure 1). But contemporary
change is different. For the first time, the pace and direction
of climate change appear to be driven significantly by
human activities (IPCC 2007), and this change is playing
out across landscapes already affected by other anthropogenic stressors – pollution, invasive species, altered
disturbance regimes, and land fragmentation (Cole, Millar,
and Stephenson 2010). This raises serious questions about
how wilderness stewards should respond to climate change
and other anthropogenic stressors.
Much has been written about the nature of climate
change and its current and likely effects (IPCC 2007),
including effects on parks and wilderness (Saunders et al.
2007). The importance of wilderness and large-scale conservation to both climate change mitigation and adaptation has
been asserted (Locke and Mackey 2009). This article
explores the need for change in traditional notions about
appropriate wilderness stewardship, one of many profound
implications of climate change. The article is most directly
relevant to wilderness and national parks in the United
States and other places where the concept of maintaining
naturalness is central to stewardship goals. But many of the
recommended adaptations are relevant to protected areas
with other stewardship goals.
Naturalness and Wilderness
There have been several phases in the evolution of wilderness
areas in the United States and how they are managed. The first
phase involved defining wilderness, articulating its purposes
and values, and establishing a national system of wilderness
areas. From the start, the concept of naturalness has been
central to the mission of wilderness, and it is relied on heavily
to this day as a guide for wilderness management. The first
sentence of The Wilderness
Act (Public Law 88-577)
states that its purpose is to
ensure that some lands are
designated “for preservation and protection in their
natural condition.”
For the purpose of
establishing wilderness
areas and communicating
their values, the concept of
naturalness worked well
(see Figure 2). The concept
is consistent with characterizations of nature being
apart from humans and a
black-and-white contrast
between human-dominated lands and places David Cole. Photo by Liese Dean.
where nature dominated.
The goal of wilderness is to
ensure that some lands are protected from human domination
– in a natural state. Naturalness has also been helpful in clarifying some of the most fundamental aspects of wilderness
management, identifying things we do not want to allow, such
as commodity extraction and excessive development. It provides a clear rationale for why preference is given to native
species over nonnative ones, and why external threats, such as
air pollution and invasive species, should be guarded against.
But today’s stewardship dilemmas are much more
nuanced. No longer black and white, current dilemmas come
in shades of gray. Should we perpetually dump lime into
bodies of water to compensate for high pH due to acid precipitation, as is being done in the Saint Mary’s Wilderness?
Should we cut down, pile, and burn trees to bring back a more
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 9
Figure 1 – Wilderness landscapes have been forged by past climate change. Glacial features in the Sawtooth
Wilderness, Idaho. Photo by Liese Dean.
complete groundcover – one capable of
carrying more frequent fire and deterring soil erosion, as has been proposed
in the Bandelier Wilderness (Sydoriak
et al. 2001)? Should we plant tree seedlings bred for resistance to nonnative
pathogens to replace decimated forests,
as is one possible intervention strategy
for much of the northern Rocky
Mountains (Schoettle and Sniezko
2007)? Should we help species move in
response to climate change (Schwartz et
al. 2009)? The concept of naturalness is
much less helpful in making these sorts
of decisions and, consequently, policy
manuals provide little guidance
regarding how such decisions should be
made. Preserving the natural is a great
rallying cry for why wilderness is important, but it is a poor basis for making
difficult decisions about how to actually
go about the business of preservation.
Problems with Naturalness
One problem with natural is that it has
multiple meanings (Cole and Yung
2010). Different people use the term
10
in different ways, often without being
conscious that others using the same
term might mean something quite different. One meaning of natural is a
lack of human effect. Places with
little apparent human impact have
sometimes been referred to as pristine.
The goal here is to preserve places
where the imprint of human activities
is low to nonexistent. A related – but
decidedly different – meaning is
freedom from intentional human
control. Where nature is not intentionally controlled it is self-willed, a
concept that is often captured in the
terms wildness and untrammeled.
Managing for self-willed nature
involves human restraint, in that it
requires hands-off management and
the absence of human manipulation of
ecosystems (Cole 2000). Finally, naturalness also implies historical fidelity
– the idea that natural ecosystems
should be preserved in states similar to
those that existed in the past, with
similar species composition and ecological processes (Higgs 2003). The
International Journal of Wilderness
goal here is to retain the basic ecosystem features valued when the area
was designated as a protected area.
For much of the 20th century, it
was assumed that these three meanings
were congruent, that ecosystems could
be preserved in a pristine state without
intentionally manipulating them (at
least not much), and that maintaining
the pristine was the same as maintaining historical fidelity. But now,
given what we have learned about the
dynamism of ecosystems (Pickett and
Ostfield 1995) and the prevalence of
human impact and directional climate
change (Vitousek et al. 2000), we know
that these meanings are not congruent.
We must choose between them.
A second problem with the naturalness concept results from wilderness
areas being set aside for diverse reasons. Some of the more important
purposes include the protection of
• certain valued species – charismatic,
representative, and endangered species,
• nostalgic landscapes,
• all biological diversity,
• scenery,
• ecosystem services, and
• autonomous nature (self-willed, wild
nature, not controlled or manipulated by humans).
For much of the 20th century, it
was assumed that, by protecting natural conditions, all of these purposes
could simultaneously be met. But the
same advances in knowledge that
revealed conflict among the meanings
of naturalness have made it clear that
these purposes are also not congruent.
Trade-offs must be made among these
varied
purposes.
Management
approaches that maximize the protection of biological diversity might do a
poor job of protecting a particular
species or a nostalgic landscape. Interventions either to protect biodiversity
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
or to preserve cherished species and
landscapes come at a cost to autonomous nature (Cole 2000). In short,
wilderness stewards will need to match
management approaches to particular
park and wilderness purposes.
Beyond Naturalness
Instead of the single goal of naturalness,
multiple goals are needed to match the
different wilderness purposes just outlined. It is time to discard some of the
baggage inherent to the concept of
naturalness, such as its rooting in the
untenable view of nature apart from
rather than inclusive of humans
(Cronon 1995). In addition, it is time
to move from a focus on cause to a
focus on effect. Decisions about whether
an impact is so onerous that it requires
management intervention should turn
less on whether it was caused by humans
– as naturalness implies – as on characteristics of the resultant ecosystems.
Managers should base decisions on
careful consideration of whether the
impact significantly diminishes wilderness values, reduces ecological integrity,
or ecosystem resilience.
Society needs to debate and decide
what these multiple goals should be.
However, some can already be suggested. Although there may be others,
four different approaches to park and
wilderness stewardship are prominent
(Cole and Yung 2010). One approach
is to respect nature’s autonomy by
not intervening in ecosystem processes
for any purpose – even to compensate
for human impact. Other approaches
involve intervention for different purposes. So a second approach is to
intervene in order to emphasize historical fidelity – ensuring that future
ecosystems are composed, structured,
and look much as they did in the past.
A third approach is to intervene in
order to emphasize ecological integrity – ensuring that future ecosystems
are sound and complete,
with functions intact. A
fourth approach is to intervene in order to emphasize
resilience – the ability of
future ecosystems to absorb
change and still persist
without undergoing a fundamental loss of character.
Each of these approaches
is an effective means of protecting one or more of the
purposes of wilderness, but
not all of them. Some of
them overlap and are similar
in some ways; others are in
direct
conflict.
Used
together, in ways that complement each other, this
suite of approaches can optimize the preservation of
wilderness values, achieving
much of what was intended Figure 2 – Naturalness, like wilderness, embraces many values,
with the more simplistic and including scenery, nostalgia, autonomous nature, and biodiversity convague notion of preserving servation. Foxtail pine forest in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park.
Photo by David Cole.
naturalness (Cole et al.
2008). Of particular importance, each of these approaches can be
possibly others) are appropriate and
clearly operationalized. Each can be
where. Recognition of conflict between
defined in such a way that it is clear
goals and the need for trade-offs among
when intervention is appropriate and,
them should be surfaced and conwhere it is, what actions should be
fronted rather than obscured, as they
taken. Outcomes of interventions can
have been with the concept of naturalbe specified that are measurable, attainness. Clear statements of purpose
able, and desirable.
should help stewards make better decisions about whether to intervene in
response to anthropogenic impacts
A Way Forward
and, if they do intervene, whether to
To meet the stewardship challenges of
emphasize restoration of historical
the 21st century and beyond, a number
fidelity, maintenance of ecological
of changes in park and wilderness
integrity, enhancement of resilience, or
policy and practice are needed. First, as
some other attribute.
noted above, the concept of naturalOther necessary changes reflect
ness needs to be supplemented by
the fact that profound and directional
defining in as specific terms as possible
global changes are leading to an
multiple goals related to the varied
unprecedented future for park and
purposes of parks and wilderness (see
wilderness ecosystems – a future for
Figure 3). More societal debate is
which there are no analogs, now or
needed regarding which of these purfrom the past (Williams and Jackson
poses, goals, and objectives (and
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 11
cated
in
various
environments and across
the landscape in different
protected areas in order
to spread risk (Joyce et
al. 2009; Mawdsley et al.
2009). If a particular
approach fails in one
place, either due to a
poor match to environmental conditions or just
chance, perhaps that
approach will be successful elsewhere.
Diversity
and
redundancy need to be
planned for at multiple
scales. They can be
applied within individual protected areas
by pursuing different
strategies in different
parts of a single park or
wilderness.
More
Figure 3 – Extensive wilderness landscapes provide opportunities to manage uncommon, more chalwilderness for diverse goals and purposes, using varied management stratelenging, and even more
gies. Looking across a portion of the Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness,
important is planning
California, from near the top of Mt. Whitney. Photo by David Cole.
for diversity and redundancy at a larger scale,
2007). And in addition to being
among protected areas – ensuring that
unprecedented, the future will also be
individual place-specific decisions are
largely unpredictable, full of uncermade in the context of larger-scale
tainty and surprise (Baron et al. 2009;
regional strategies. Managers of proMillar et al. 2007).
tected areas within the same bioregion
The risks associated with uncerneed to come together to develop
tainty are best managed through
regional plans for conserving biodivercarefully planned diversity and redunsity and responding to threats, such as
dancy. Diversity amounts to not placing
invasive species and climate change.
all of one’s eggs in a single basket,
These plans would “distribute” goals
decreasing the risk of failure and maxiand strategies among individual promizing future options by employing
tected areas in such a manner that
multiple management strategies. If one
when implemented locally they colapproach proves unsuccessful, perhaps
lectively provide optimal diversity and
another will succeed (Millar et al. 2007).
redundancy at the regional scale.
Diversity is also important given the
Ideally, different public agencies would
varied goals of parks and wilderness
collaborate across their jurisdictional
(Cole 2011). The equally important
boundaries and extend the process to
complement to diversity is redundancy.
include private lands (Hansen and
Diverse approaches need to be repliDeFries 2007; White et al. 2010).
12
International Journal of Wilderness
Barriers to Change
There are at least four major barriers
limiting our ability to move forward.
The first barrier is allegiance, in the
United States at least, to the concept of
naturalness. The notion of naturalness,
if appropriately defined, can continue
to have iconic value and serve as a
touchstone – an expression of what
parks are and why they were designated.
But as a guide for stewardship, for
deciding whether and how we should
intervene in wilderness and park ecosystems, it is time to move to goals and
objectives beyond naturalness.
A huge barrier to planned diversity and redundancy is the decentralized
decision-making tradition of public
land management agencies in the
United States. The distribution of
power is at a scale that is too small for
individual decision makers to either
recognize the nature of problems
resulting from global change or to
develop the large-scale strategies
needed to effectively deal with them.
In this decentralized tradition, diversity is more the result of personal
preference and available resources than
a planned and deliberate strategy to
minimize risk by hedging bets. Where
goals conflict, similar compromises
tend to be fashioned everywhere. Case
by case, area by area, decision making
causes the system to gravitate toward
homogeneity and mediocrity (McCool
and Cole 2001). Planned diversity
means retaining the flexibility to
match solutions to situational specifics while ensuring that managerial
discretion is directed such that local
decisions contribute to regional goals
and objectives. Key to success is constraining local decision space while
also maintaining the empowerment
that results from widely shared power.
This might be accomplished through
some version of networked governance (Jones et al. 1997).
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
A related barrier is the lack of
institutions that facilitate large-scale
planning. Even within agencies, institutions do not encourage regional
planning. National policy tends to be
extremely broad, perhaps reflecting
too much deference to the need for
flexibility. There are even more institutional barriers to interagency planning
and cooperation between public and
private land management. What we
need instead is what Karkkainen
(2002) calls collaborative ecosystem
governance, which emphasizes locally
tailored solutions within larger-scale
structures of public accountability, recognizing the need for experimentation
and dynamic adjustment in response
to new learning.
Although it was once
thought that managing
for naturalness would
serve to protect all
wilderness values
and purposes,
we know now that
this is not the case.
The final barrier lies with current
planning processes that are not flexible and adaptable enough to deal
effectively with climate change.
Current planning frameworks – such
as that articulated in the U.S. National
Environmental Policy Act (Public Law
91-190) – were largely built around
concepts of dynamic equilibrium and
stationarity (Milly et al. 2008;
Thrower 2006). Now it is abundantly
clear that the most fundamental prerequisite for equilibrium, a stable
climate, is no longer met (Baron et al.
2009). These frameworks presume
certainty of impacts and outcomes,
when uncertainty is the most predictable future state (Millar et al. 2007).
They specify desired future conditions, in considerable detail and for
long time frames, something that may
be completely unrealistic given rapid
and unpredictable change. Planning
frameworks will have to develop more
capacity to operate at multiple spatial
and temporal scales and to embrace
uncertainty. They must be able to
rapidly and flexibly respond to surprise and to more regularly revisit
objectives and management decisions,
changing them as knowledge advances
and uncertainty retreats.
Stewardship Tools
Two important tools to apply to management planning for parks and
wilderness – tools that are more amenable to what we know now about the
world of the 21st century and the way
ecosystems operate – are scenario
planning and adaptive management.
Scenario planning, particularly useful
when the future is both uncertain and
largely uncontrollable (Baron et al.
2009), is a process of exploring and
articulating a set of alternative futures
(Biggs et al. 2010). Scenarios can help
managers start planning and be more
prepared for the future, despite high
uncertainty. Scenario planning can
help identify trade-offs and conflicts
between goals and in establishing priorities. Adaptive management, more
useful when the future is more controllable (Baron et al. 2009), is a
process for incorporating learning into
management practice. Actions are
taken, despite uncertain outcomes.
Results are carefully monitored, which
leads to learning, adjustment, and
refinement of management.
Wilderness stewards should always
err on the side of restraint, recognizing
that human interventions have a history of backfiring even when done for
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
noble reasons. Caution and restraint
are particularly important in wilderness. Nevertheless, boldness will at
times be necessary and the onslaught
of global change will increasingly force
stewards to consider intervention
(Lemieux et al. 2011). Cole et al.
(2010) provide a list of actions that
might be considered. Near-term
actions managers of individual areas
might take include:
• mitigating threats to resources;
• maintaining natural disturbance
dynamics;
• reducing landscape synchrony;
• making heroic but thoughtfully prioritized efforts to rescue highly
sensitive species;
• realigning conditions with current,
expected, or a range of possible
future conditions;
• relaxing genetic guidelines, where
risk is low and adaptive management can be implemented;
• conserving refugia;
• allowing and/or actively assisting
migration;
• cautiously considering the use of
nonnative species where they are the
best option for maintaining critical
ecosystem functions; and
• protecting highly endangered species ex situ.
Longer-term, larger-scale actions
include:
• promoting landscape connectivity;
• managing the matrix;
• promoting diversity and redundancy;
• articulating new goals;
• incorporating uncertainty and the
likelihood of surprise into planning
and management;
• prioritizing and practicing triage;
• increasing interagency cooperation;
and
• enhancing flexibility and the capacity
to adapt through learning.
International Journal of Wilderness 13
Conclusions
In the past half century we have learned
that park and wilderness ecosystems
are highly dynamic and that human
impact on them is ubiquitous, with
unprecedented and uncertain consequences. Although it was once thought
that managing for naturalness would
serve to protect all wilderness values
and purposes, we know now that this
is not the case. What is needed is a
richer articulation of goals and purposes, using concepts that describe
desirable attributes of ecosystems in
terms other than the absence of human
impact. Policies and institutions need
to be developed that allow for more
adaptability in planning and that promote large-scale, regional planning of
diversity and redundancy. This may
mean augmenting a decentralized
management tradition with policies
and institutions that constrain managerial discretion such that local
decisions more effectively contribute
to larger-scale strategies.
Acknowledgments
Many of the ideas in this article first
surfaced or were more fully explored in
two workshops that led to the book I
coedited with Laurie Yung (Cole and
Yung 2010).
References
Baron, J. S., L. Gunderson, C. D. Allen et al.
2009. Options for national parks and
reserves for adapting to climate
change. Environmental Management
44: 1033–1042.
Biggs, R., M. W. Diebel, D. Gilroy et al.
2010. Preparing for the future: Teaching
scenario planning at the graduate level.
Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 8: 267–273.
Cole, D. N. 2000. Paradox of the primeval:
Ecological restoration in wilderness.
Ecological Restoration 18: 77–86.
———. 2011. Planned diversity: The case
for a system with several types of wilderness. International Journal of
Wilderness 17(2): 9–14.
Cole, D. N., C. I. Millar, and N. L. Stephenson.
2010. Responding to climate change: A
14
toolbox of management strategies. In
Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park
and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era
of Rapid Change, ed. D. N. Cole and L.
Yung (pp. 179–196). Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Cole, D. N., and L. Yung, eds. 2010. Beyond
Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid
Change. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Cole, D. N., L. Yung, E. S. Zavaleta et al.
2008. Beyond naturalness: Protected
area stewardship in an era of global
environmental change. The George
Wright Forum 25(1): 36–56.
Cronon, W. 1995. The trouble with wilderness: Or getting back to the wrong
nature. In Uncommon Ground: Toward
Reinventing Nature, ed. W. Cronon
(pp. 69–90). New York: Norton.
Hansen, A. J., and R. DeFries. 2007.
Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands.
Ecological Applications 17: 974–988.
Higgs, E. 2003. Nature by Design: People,
Natural Process, and Ecological Restoration. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change). 2007. Climate change 2007:
Synthesis report. Retrieved October
13, 2009, from www.ipcc.ch/pdf/
assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.
Jones, C., W. S. Hesterly, and S. P. Borgatti.
1997. A general theory of network
governance: Exchange conditions and
social mechanisms. Academy of
Management Review 22: 911–945.
Joyce, L. A., G. M. Blate, S. G. McNulty et
al. 2009. Managing for multiple
resources under climate change:
National forests. Environmental Management 44: 1022–1032.
Karkkainen, B. C. 2002. Collaborative ecosystem governance: Scale, complexity,
and dynamism. Virginia Environmental
Law Journal 21: 189–243.
Lemieux, C. J., T. J. Beechey, and P. A. Gray.
2011. Prospects for Canada’s protected
areas in an era of rapid climate change.
Land Use Policy 28: 928–941.
Locke, H., and B. Mackey. 2009. The nature
of climate change: Reunite international climate change mitigation efforts
with biodiversity conservation and wilderness protection. International
Journal of Wilderness 15(2): 7–13, 40.
Mawdsley, J. R., R. O’Malley, D. S. Ojima.
2009. A review of climate-change
adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation.
Conservation Biology 23: 1080–1089.
McCool, S. F., and D. N. Cole. 2001. Thinking
and acting regionally: Toward better
decisions about appropriate conditions,
standards, and restrictions on recreation use. The George Wright Forum
18(3): 85–98.
Millar, C. I., N. L. Stephenson, and S. L.
International Journal of Wilderness
Stephens. 2007. Climate change and
forests of the future: Managing in the
face of uncertainty. Ecological
Applications 17: 2145–2151.
Milly, P. C. D., J. Betancourt, M. Falkenmark
et al. 2008. Stationarity is dead: Whither
water management? Science 319:
573–574.
Pickett, S. T. A., and R. S. Ostfield. 1995.
The shifting paradigm in ecology. In A
New Century for Natural Resources
Management, ed. R. L. Knight and S. F.
Bates (pp. 261–278). Washington, DC:
Island Press.
Saunders, S., T. Easley, J.A. Logan, and T.
Spencer. 2007. Losing ground: Western
national parks endangered by climate
disruption. The George Wright Forum
24:1, 41–81.
Schoettle, A. W., and R. A. Sniezko. 2007.
Proactive intervention to sustain highelevation pine ecosystems threatened
by white pine blister rust. Journal of
Forest Research 12: 3217–3336.
Schwartz, M. W., J. J. Hellmann, J. S.
McLachlan. 2009. The precautionary
principle in managed relocation is misguided advice. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution 24: 474.
Sydoriak, C. A., C. D. Allen, and B. F. Jacobs.
2001. Would ecological landscape restoration make the Bandelier Wilderness
more or less of a wilderness? Wild
Earth 10(4): 83–90.
Thrower, J. 2006. Adaptive management and
NEPA: How a nonequilibrium view of
ecosystems mandates flexible regulation.
Ecology Law Quarterly 33: 871–895.
Vitousek, P. M., J. D. Aber, C. L. Goodale,
and G. H. Aplet. 2000. Global change
and wilderness science. In Wilderness
Science in a Time of Change Conference,
Volume 1: Changing Perspectives and
Future Directions., comp. S. F. McCool,
D. N. Cole, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin
(pp. 5–9). Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-1.
Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station.
White, P. S., L. Yung, D. N. Cole, and R. J.
Hobbs. 2010. Conservation at large
scales: Systems of protected areas and
protected areas in the matrix. In Beyond
Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid
Change, ed. D. N. Cole and L. Yung (pp.
197–215). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Williams, J. W., and S. T. Jackson. 2007.
Novel climates, no-analog communities,
and ecological surprises. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 5:
475–482.
DAVID COLE is a research geographer with
the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research
Institute, 790 East Beckwith Ave., Missoula
MT 59801, USA; email: [email protected]
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
STEWARDSHIP
The Diversity of Wilderness
Ecosystems Represented in the
U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System
BY H. KEN CORDELL
N
ature has fascinated me since childhood. Many a
Sunday afternoon would find several of us boys
headed for the woods to explore and ... be boys.
The beginnings of the mountains of western North Carolina
were at our back doors – out and up we would go. In deciding
where to go to college and what to study, I followed this
interest in nature into early adulthood. I selected North
Carolina State University and majored in forestry. My senior
paper was on wilderness, whereas most of the papers by classmates were about timber and growing pines faster. Later,
while comajoring in forestry and economics, I did my dissertation on urban open land, including, of course, public parks.
Throughout my career, I have observed and valued the public
lands of this country, and have come to appreciate their
importance more and more. My research has always had some
wilderness content, as well as content about other protected
public lands. One of my ongoing studies looked at Americans’
values toward wilderness (designated wilderness), and there it
became clear that others value protected lands as well.
Thus, it is not surprising that my current research,
including my most recent venture, includes some aspect of
Figure 1 – Okefenokee Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area
in the Subtropical Division, Georgia and Florida. Photograph by Ken Cordell.
H. Ken Cordell. Photo by Babs McDonald.
wilderness. I am one of a national team of Forest Service
scientists that has just completed a broad-scale assessment
of the status and future of forest, range, and other natural
resources. This is the Forest Service’s Renewable Resources
Planning Act Assessment of Forest and Range Lands
(RPA). Working with this national RPA team, my assignment has been to look at trends and futures for recreation,
protected lands, and associated population trends and
futures. My research group, in Athens, Georgia, examined
the degree to which ecosystems are represented within
some of the most protected of U.S. federal lands. The focus
was on national parks, national wildlife refuges, and the
National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). The
results of this research are being published by the Forest
Service (Cordell et al., forthcoming). Presented in this
article are just the results for the NWPS. It is important to
step back now and then to examine various indicators of
the importance of wilderness, including ecosystem representation from swamps (see Figure 1) to highest
snow-covered peaks.
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 15
16
International Journal of Wilderness
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Figure 2 – National Wilderness Preservation System coverage of ecosystem division in the continental United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii).
Some Previous Ecosystem
Representation Research
Consideration of ecosystem representation as a criterion for designating
federal lands as wilderness dates back
to the Forest Service’s second Roadless
Area Review and Evaluation (RARE
II) in 1978. Attention was given to
evaluating the adequacy of ecosystem
diversity of roadless areas using the
Bailey-Kuchler ecosystem classification
(USDA Forest Service 1978). For purposes of proposing roadless additions
to the NWPS, sufficient representation was defined as there being a
minimum of two separate areas (at
least 400 ha/988 acres large) representing a particular type of ecosystem.
In the 1980s, Davis (1989) undertook
a review across the 261 major U.S. terrestrial ecosystems and found that 104
ecosystem types were not protected in
the NWPS. He recommended that a
representative sample of each major
ecosystem should be included within
the NWPS. Noss (1994, p. 235) reinforced this suggestion by stating that
the first of four objectives under the
heading of Ecological Goals is “to have
represented all native ecosystem types
across their natural range of variation
in a system of protected areas.”
Underscoring the importance of protecting the diversity of ecosystems in
the United States, the Nature
Conservancy estimated that 85 to 90%
of all plant and animal species in a
region can be protected by ensuring
ecosystem representation (Widen
2010).
A follow-up evaluation of ecosystem representation within the NWPS
was reported by Loomis and Echohawk
(1999; see also Loomis et al. 1999) in
the late 1990s. Their analysis, done for
the Forest Service 2000 RPA Assessment
(Cordell et al. 1999), was one of the
early studies to rely on GIS to overlay
NWPS areas with Bailey’s ecoregion
boundary data to determine which
ecoregions are represented. In their evaluation, an “ecoregion” was considered
synonymous with the province class
within the hierarchy of domains and
divisions as defined by Bailey (1995).
They found that 23 of the 35 provinces
in the 48 coterminous states have less
than 1% of their land area protected as
wilderness. They also found that 7 of
the 35 provinces had no land at all protected through wilderness designation.
There are varying
degrees of ecosystem
representation in the
NWPS.
Much of that unprotected land
was (and still is) privately owned, particularly in the Midwest and Southeast.
However, a surprisingly large amount
of the unprotected land was federal
land in the Intermountain states of
Nevada and Utah. Significant acreages
of this land have now been added to
the NWPS (Wilderness Institute
2009). A nationwide ecosystem gap
analysis based on a national vegetation
cover map that depicted the degree of
representation of ecosystem analysis
units (a precursor of ecosystem types)
indicated that just 4% of the land area
in 554 of the ecosystem units was conserved in the top two GAP protection
classes (Dietz and Czech 2005).
Cordell et al. (forthcoming) have followed up with a similar ecosystem
representation study at the Bailey’s
Division level as part of the U.S. Forest
Service 2010 RPA Assessment. This
IJW feature article summarizes the
more recent 2010 RPA Assessment.
Trends
By comparing the 1999 and forthcoming RPA studies, it is estimated that
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
ecosystem protection in the NWPS in
the 48 contiguous states has improved
through the addition of several million
acres since 1994 (Loomis and Echohawk
1999; Cordell et al. forthcoming), a
total area increase of 18%. Across ecosystems, the Temperate Desert Division
showed the largest increase as a proportion of the total NWPS land area, rising
from 2 to more than 7% of the system
between 1994 and 2009. However,
trends reported here are approximate
and not completely comparable because
of differing data sources and GIS technologies. Mountainous areas in the
Temperate Desert Division experienced
the second largest increase in percentage
representation in the NWPS (among
the contiguous states), more than doubling from 1.1% in 1994 to 2.3% in
2009. The Temperate Desert Mountains
Division also more than doubled its
share of total land area in wilderness,
growing from less than 2% to more
than 4%. Other divisions posting more
than a 1% gain were the Mediterranean
Mountains, Temperate Desert, and
Tropical/Subtropical Desert.
The Data and the Analysis
In this recent look at ecosystem representation in wilderness (Cordell et al.
forthcoming), a GIS analysis was
applied using digital boundary data for
estimating land area in different ecosystem types (at division level [Bailey
2009]). The resulting map showing
how lands in the NWPS overlay ecosystem boundaries is presented as
Figure 2 and depicts the spatial relationships between wilderness and
ecosystems across the contiguous 48
states. Including Alaska and Hawaii,
we estimated that 24 ecosystem divisions across the United States are
represented in the Wilderness System.
Eleven of these are mountain divisions. To conserve map scale, Alaska
and Hawaii are not shown in Figure 2,
International Journal of Wilderness 17
but the ecosystem divisions and wilderness in these two states are included in
the nationwide estimates in Table 1.
Table 1 reports the degree to which
different ecosystem types are protected
by their inclusion in the NWPS. The
estimated ecosystem acreages within
wilderness boundaries by Bailey’s
Division are national and, unlike Figure
2, do include Alaska and Hawaii. To
add perspective, not only are estimates
of each represented division’s acreages
shown (second column of numbers),
also shown are total surface areas across
the United States by division, percentage of the NWPS in each Bailey
Division, and percentage of each division within wilderness boundaries.
Because wilderness areas are designated from already existing federal
lands, the NWPS table and map in
the source RPA publication (Cordell
et al. forthcoming) somewhat overlap
with maps and tables covering the
National Park and National Wildlife
Refuge Systems. Wilderness also
includes designated national forest
and Bureau of Land Management
lands. The designated wilderness
lands of all four agencies are included
in the NWPS table.
As defined in the National Atlas
(www.nationalatlas.gov), ecoregions
are large-scale areas that share common
climatic and vegetation characteristics.
The four-level hierarchy shown in the
National Atlas originated from (Bailey
1976) and continues to be refined by
Robert Bailey (2009). The broadest
Table 1 – Acreage of U.S. surface area by ecosystem division, acres of the National Wilderness
Preservation System in each division, percentage of division protected by wilderness areas, and
percentage of the National Wilderness Preservation System area in each division.
Domain and
Ecosystem Division
Total surface millions of acres in
ecosystem division
National
Wilderness Area
millions of acres
Percentage of division in
Wilderness Areas
Percentage of
National Wilderness
acres in division
DRY DOMAIN
Temperate Desert Division
Temperate Desert Regime Mountains
Temperate Steppe Division
Temperate Steppe Regime Mountains
Tropical/Subtropical Desert Division
Tropical/Subtropical Regime Mountains
Tropical/Subtropical Steppe Division
172.2
27.9
272.1
144.6
110.6
32.1
163.0
3.8
1.2
0.5
15.3
11.3
1.3
1.4
2.23
4.23
0.20
10.59
10.19
4.07
0.84
3.51
1.08
0.49
14.02
10.32
1.20
1.25
HUMID TEMPERATE DOMAIN
Hot Continental Division
Hot Continental Regime Mountains
Marine Division
Marine Regime Mountains
Mediterranean Division
Mediterranean Regime Mountains
Prairie Division
Subtropical Division
Subtropical Regime Mountains
Warm Continental Division
Warm Continental Regime Mountains
239.1
47.7
9.3
73.4
21.7
59.8
191.0
263.0
5.6
93.9
28.0
0.2
0.6
0.05
18.8
0.3
7.4
0.002
0.7
0.05
1.4
0.2
0.08
1.35
0.57
25.69
1.43
12.38
<0.01
0.26
0.85
1.49
0.88
0.18
0.59
0.05
17.26
0.28
6.77
<0.01
0.63
0.04
1.28
0.23
HUMID TROPICAL DOMAIN
Rainforest Regime Mountains
Savanna Division
4.0
5.0
0.2
0.8
3.91
15.24
0.14
0.70
POLAR DOMAIN
Subarctic Division
Subarctic Regime Mountains
Tundra Division
Tundra Regime Mountains
53.8
118.5
55.7
99.9
2.0
12.4
2.5
26.8
3.74
10.44
4.51
26.80
1.84
11.33
2.30
24.50
2,292.0
109.2
——
100.00
National Totals
Source: Ecosystem divisions based on Robert G. Bailey, 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd ed., rev. and expanded. Misc. Publ. No. 1391, Washington
DC: USDA Forest Service.
18
International Journal of Wilderness
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
classification is the domain, which
Bailey has described as a grouping of
landscapes with similar climates, but
that are differentiated by precipitation
and temperature. There are four ecosystem domains across the landmass of
the United States: polar, humid temperate, dry, and humid tropical.
Domains are made up of divisions (the
level of this article’s analysis) that differentiate climates within domains
that have varying precipitation levels
and temperature profiles. Divisions are
subdivided into provinces based on
vegetation or other natural land covers.
Mountainous provinces are differentiated by elevation, which is one of the
primary determinants of vegetation
and other natural cover (see Figure 3).
The finest-grained level of ecosystem
classification is a section, which is a
subdivision of provinces and is based
primarily on terrain.
The data and spatial analysis for
generating the ecosystem maps, acreages, and percentages of area relied on
both wilderness and Bailey’s division
level boundary data. Decimal degree
boundary data for Bailey’s Ecosystem
Divisions (BED) (Bailey 1995) were
downloaded from the U.S. Geological
Survey website at nationalatlas.gov/
atlasftp.html#ecoregp. ESRI ArcMap
9.2 was used to calculate the total land
area in decimal-degree units covered
by each division. The general approach
was to calculate total decimal degrees
of land area for each county in the
United States. Next, the ESRI tool,
Intersect Analysis, was used to find the
BED decimal degree area for each
BED within each county. Intersect
computes the geometric intersection
of features or portions of features. The
proportion of land area within each
BED represented in each respective
county was then multiplied by the
square-mile total land area provided by
ESRI for each county. This product
Figure 3 –The Raggeds Wilderness in Colorado in the Temperate Steppe Regime Mountains Division.
Photograph by Ken Cordell.
(square miles of ecoregion division)
was multiplied by 640 (acres per square
mile) to derive acres of BED within
each county. For Table 1, acres were
then summed across counties for each
division and then across divisions for a
national total.
Wilderness boundary data were
downloaded from www.wilderness.
net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=
geography. The ESRI tool, Intersect,
was again used, this time to lay wilderness area boundaries over BED
boundaries for each county. This
enabled computation of proportions
of wilderness within each BED by
county. Next, the ESRI tool, Calculate,
was used to find the decimal degree
area of wilderness within the BED by
county. Transferring these decimal
degree data to an Excel spreadsheet,
the proportion of total county area in
designated wilderness was multiplied
by county total acreage to estimate
number of acres of wilderness in each
BED. Acres were then summed
nationally.
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Wilderness Acres by
Bailey’s Ecosystem
Division
Figure 2 and Table 1 report ecosystem
representation (at BED level) across
the National Wilderness Preservation
System. As we know, the NWPS is
found mostly in the western regions of
the United States, particularly in
Alaska. Alaska alone contains more
than 52% of the NWPS, most of
which is under the management of the
National Park Service and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Including Alaska,
about 96% of the NWPS is located in
the West. Without Alaska, the proportion drops only slightly to 92%.
In terms of percentage of the
National Wilderness Preservation
System among BEDs (Table 1), the
greatest portions are Tundra Regime
and Subarctic Mountains in Alaska;
Marine Regime Mountains in
Washington, Oregon, and southeast
Alaska; and Temperate Steppe
Mountains, mostly in Montana,
Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah. Also represented is the Tropical/Subtropical
International Journal of Wilderness 19
Figure 4 – Southernmost part of the United States, the south reaches of the Big Island, Hawaii, at sunset in the
Humid Tropical Domain. Photograph by Ken Cordell.
Desert Division of the Southwest. In
terms of the percentage of BEDs designated as wilderness, Alaskan Tundra
and Subarctic Divisions, Marine
Mountains, Temperate Steppe
Mountains and Tropical Desert are
among the highest. As a percentage of
BEDs, significant percentages of the
Savanna of southern Florida and the
Mediterranean
Mountains
of
California can be seen (Figure 2).
Some of the divisions not well represented include the Temperate Steppe,
Tropical/Subtropical Steppe, Hot
Continental, Marine (non-mountainous), Prairie, Subtropical, and
Warm Continental Divisions.
Observations
Preserving and even restoring naturally
functioning ecosystems is important, if
not indispensible. A diversity of natural ecosystems is valuable in many
ways. Many wildlife species require a
diversity of habitat, whereas others are
restricted to very specific habitats.
Plants also require varying degrees of
20
diversity, and are largely responsible
for habitat diversity in the first place.
The broad diversity of ecosystems
that exists also makes up the diversity
of natural scenery of the United States
(and world). It is this scenery and the
recreational opportunities it represents
that draw many people to set up residence near, or within natural areas. As
more people set up such residences,
the natural areas being settled soon
cease to be natural and evolve into
developed land (residential, transportation, commercial, industrial, etc.).
Herein lies a significant challenge.
From the swamplands of the
Okefenokee on the U.S. East Coast, to
the southernmost extremes of Hawaii
(see Figure 4), the challenge of ecosystem
protection is huge, if not daunting. The
sheer magnitude of housing development alone across the U.S. landscape
over the past few decades, especially the
last two, is a clear indicator of the challenge to protecting nature.
Designating federal land as wilderness has been a much-employed
International Journal of Wilderness
tool for natural land protection. For all
who have used and viewed and read
about wilderness, it is quite clear how
special area designation is. But the
dilemma with wilderness is that it is a
designation of federal lands that already
have varying levels of protection. There
are many more millions of acres of
private lands without protection than
there are federal, or federal plus state
lands with protection. The current
recession has slowed the pace of land
development, residential development
especially. But for how long?
As Figure 2 and Table 1 have
shown, there are varying degrees of
ecosystem representation in the
NWPS. In fact, some ecosystem types
are not represented at all. Although
wilderness designation is not the only
means of protecting natural land, it is
one of the more important ones.
Unless federal law is changed, the
NWPS, National Park System, and
National Wildlife Refuge System provide the best protection and stand a
good chance of being sustained.
In the future, not only land development, but also climate change
threatens wilderness and other natural
areas (Cole 2008). Climate change can
exacerbate threats to the natural functioning of areas, such as the threats
from invasive species and habitat fragmentation. As Cole (2008) notes,
wilderness provides many ecosystem
services, such as cleaner air, wildlife,
and water. But these services are highly
vulnerable to climate change. And
because biological composition of ecosystems is in large part determined by
climate, it is possible that some ecosystems may disappear entirely, whether
or not land development occurs.
On the hopeful side, there has
been growing interest in protection of
both public and private land and water
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Continued on page 25
STEWARDSHIP
Traditional Wisdom and
Climate Change
Contribution of Wilderness Stories to
Adaptation and Survival
BY ALAN WATSON, LINDA MOON STUMPFF, and JENNIFER MEIDINGER
O
ur Wilderness Act in the United States, passed in
1964, provides a fairly distinct definition of wilderness for the part of society that was successful
in parlaying their values, recreation motivations, and political influence into an extremely effective, world-recognized
conservation program. But relationships with our National
Wilderness Preservation System extend well beyond the
typical recreation visitor we might encounter in these areas.
For example, due to growing recognition of the downstream
importance of protected headwaters of important rivers, and
the need for climate change adaptive planning to protect the
flow of benefits to humans from protected nature, wilderness science takes on new meaning to our society. In other
words, not all relational aspects between wild places and
some segments of U.S. society (particularly indigenous
peoples) are described well in the 1964 Wilderness Act. To
some degree, Alaskan wilderness areas do take into account
rural peoples’ rights and way of life under ANILCA, the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980.
However, recent research efforts toward understanding past
and future relationships between humans and wilderness
(e.g., Watson 2011) have included efforts to articulate perspectives of American Indians (Watson et al. 2011) and
Alaska Native (Whiting 2004) people on their evolving relationships with large, relatively intact wild landscapes. This
knowledge sheds light on an ancient cultural orientation
toward North American wilderness, one different from that
described in the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Knowledge is transferred to wisdom among traditional
populations through interpreting storytelling into actions.
Watson et al. (2003), Watson et al. (2011), and Turner and
Clifton (2009) have emphasized the kincentric ecological
Alan Watson.
Linda Moon Stumpff.
Jennifer Meidinger.
principles described by Salmon (2000) that suggest indigenous people have traditionally most likely experienced the
environment as a whole, that all the parts of the system are
interrelated. Traditional knowledge can be seen as the quantitative information about these interrelationships that has
accumulated across generations of people. In describing this
knowledge, however, Turner et al. (2000) suggested that it is
not easily subject to fragmentation, as we most commonly
do in Western science approaches, including descriptions of
wilderness attributes. Turner et al. (2000) proposed that
traditional wisdom is acquired and demonstrated through
understanding and maintenance of relationships with complex natural systems, such as wilderness, and that these
systems are dependent on traditional knowledge to fully
understand forces of change and likely response of the
system. The dominant American cultural perspective on
wilderness does not provide a universal, cross-cultural concept of conservation (Berkes 2008).
Tribal Nations have unique relationships with federal
wilderness management agencies. Due to status conferred
through sovereignty, time-honored legal, cultural, and
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 21
historical connections and federal trust
responsibility, engagement with
American Indians and Alaska Native
peoples require federal government-totribal government consultation during
public lands decision making. President
Barack Obama’s Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation of
November 5, 2009 (Obama 2009),
confirmed the U.S. government’s
unique legal and political relationship with Indian tribal governments
and directed heads of all executive
departments to develop and implement tribal consultation plans on a
strict time schedule. Hearings were
held broadly in 2009 and 2010 to
obtain input from the nation’s 564
federally recognized tribes on new
consultation policies. This recognition has important implications for
efforts to protect relationships indigenous people have with public lands,
including wilderness.
The purpose of this article is to
emphasize to wilderness managers and
planners the importance of recognizing
how traditional knowledge about the
environment is passed across generations of North American people and
how the wisdom of applying this
knowledge can help society in the
overwhelming task of decision making
to protect wilderness in the face of
uncertainty, including the need to
increase resiliency in the face of climate change.
Storytelling
Although one must be cautious about
generalizing to all indigenous communities in North America, Bruchac
(2003) suggested that stories have
always been at the heart of all our
Native cultures. Watson et al. (2011)
contrasted tribal (storied) and nontribal
(empty) perceptions of wilderness landscapes of the Mission Mountains Tribal
Wilderness in Montana. Bruchac (2003)
22
We must integrate the
long-term knowledge
of indigenous people
into climate change
adaptive planning,
intervention, and mitigation efforts.
emphasized that Native stories about
nature are not just myths or legends, as
Western science might describe them.
They are powerful tools for teaching
cultural ethics. Stories open eyes to “a
world of animals and plants, of earth
and water and sky” (p. 35).
Although each indigenous nation
or language group may have its different stories, there are commonalities
that guide us in understanding past
and current relationships with nature,
and therefore appropriate future
response to changes in natural forces
such as climate change. In many traditional North American indigenous
stories, for example of the Salish
(McDonald 1973), the ShoshoniBannock (Heady 1973), the Penobscot
(Edmonds and Clark 2003), the
Cheyenne (Edmonds and Clark 2003),
the Wintun (Lake-Thon 1997), the
Seneca (Caduto and Bruchac 1997),
and the Acoma (Edmonds and Clark
2003), Native people, or animal people
on their behalf, have intervened to
change difficult climatic conditions.
Stories about the origin of summer
and winter, water famines and floods,
rivers, fire, medicine, and the sun and
moon all involve one or more individuals traveling to the east, or up into
the sky, to the south, or to another
community to intervene on behalf of
the people. Arrival of the seasons, creating river flows, fire, and even the sun
and moon are attributable to interven-
International Journal of Wilderness
tion by those threatened by changes in
natural forces. More important than
the specific character who intervened
on behalf of the people and animals, or
the source of whatever it was that was
created or stolen, is the fact that these
stories convey a very different relationship with nature from that described
in the U.S. Wilderness Act. In the act,
there is advocacy for untrammeled
natural forces. These indigenous stories all strongly support and teach
human intervention with respect
(Watson et al. 2003: Clarke and
Slocombe 2009: Watson et al. 2011).
Managers and planners must realize
that although past dominant societal
forces have influenced the landscape
on adjacent Native Reservations and
on homelands within parks and wilderness, both trammeled and
untrammeled landscapes are different
from those advocated through these
traditional stories. Human intervention is a large part of the lesson, but so
is respect for nature and its historical
relationship with people (see fig. 1).
Climate Change and
Indigenous People
There have been many studies, mostly
since 2000 and in the extreme north
where the effects have been felt strongest, of the impacts of climate change on
Native people (Berkes 2008). Although
traditional knowledge, or indigenous
knowledge, played a very small role in
development of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
report, Berkes (2008) celebrates more
recent climate change assessments such
as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
and the Arctic Climate Impact
Assessment as based on scientific and
indigenous epistemologies. Somewhat
similar to recent efforts within the wilderness science community to emphasize
the values of place-based research (i.e.,
science to identify unique experiences,
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
attributes, relationships, and threats to
specific protected places for specific
stakeholders), Berkes (2008) emphasizes
the importance of place-based research
to understand traditional knowledge
contributions to climate change adaptation (e.g., Watson et al. 2007; Watson
2004; Glaspell et al. 2003; Patterson et
al. 1998) .
Traditional Phenological Knowledge as described by Turner and
Clifton (2009) refers to accumulated
knowledge about seasonal timing of
growth, development, reproduction,
and migration of organisms, which
generally occurs in a predictable
sequence based on temperature thresholds, length of daylight, moisture, or
other environmental determinants.
Climate change uncertainties are likely
to interfere with this knowledge, as
described by Turner and Clifton
(2009). In this case study, indigenous
people’s dependence on anticipated
seasonal abundance of a specific
resource and, in turn, its dependency
on predictable climatic factors is illustrated through the impacts on
harvesting edible seaweed and fish by
indigenous people of British Columbia,
Canada. Indigenous communities have
adjusted to climate-induced impacts in
the past by relocating settlements,
temporarily or permanently; developing and imposing restraints on
harvesting certain resources; sharing
resources from family to family or
across communities; seeking alternative
resources; developing and using new
technologies; and developing economic and social alliances – all
strategies reflecting resilience and
acceptance of both change and the
need for intervention. These Native
communities have dealt with changes
in climate factors previously, and feel
they need to be heard, their knowledge
incorporated into intervention strategies, and that democratic approaches
to policy decisions is their
sovereign right (Grossman
2008).
Conclusions
Research has found that
Earth’s
climate
is
changing, and that these
changes are caused or
increased by human
activities (Leiserowitz
2010). Most people do
not dread climate change
(Weber 2006). The
threats are slow, intangible, uncertain, and
statistically documented
but the changes mostly lie
in the future, for most
people, and are not caused
by a hostile agent (Weber
2006). Among indigenous people, however, Figure 1 – Dominant U.S. societal values prescribed intervention in fire
particularly
in
the management programs during the 20th century, but the important element of
northern lands, climate respect may have been overlooked and is now being restored in many landscapes. To restore the natural role of fire in wilderness may require
change is having pro- intervention in many cases. Other intervention, in the face of climate
found effects on lifestyles, change, may also be championed by indigenous peoples, but with respect.
relationships with the U.S. Forest Service photo.
land, and the meanings
they attach to activities in natural
tain crucial connections with the land
landscapes (Whiting 2004). Dramatic
on which they depended. Place-based
changes are occurring. For example,
research and local observations have a
many Alaskan Native villages face
crucial role to play in research on enviimminent threats from sea level rise.
ronmental change (Berkes 2008).
Although Native people do not necesBerkes suggests an approach to undersarily have prior or “traditional”
standing the effects of climate change
knowledge of specific climate changes,
that is not model driven, but is culture
they do have sensitivity to critical signs
specific, historically informed, and geoand signals from the environment that
graphically rooted.
unusual events and changes are hapIndigenous communities are
pening (Berkes 2008).
increasingly realizing that survival of
Indigenous people have passed
some aspects of their relationships with
down stories about how they reacted in
nature, and therefore their identity,
the past when this sensitivity to critical
rests in their ability to obtain power,
signs and signals from the environment
exercise treaty and sovereign rights, and
suggested unusual events and changes.
force
democratic
participatory
In these past cases, they, or significant
approaches that allow them opportusymbolic animal-people, intervened to
nity to intervene to build adaptive
improve chances of survival and maincapacity in the face of uncertainty
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 23
connected to climate change (Grossman
2008). Clarke and Slocombe (2009)
identified the goal of qualitative application of this knowledge as ecosystem
resilience. Freeman (1999) identified
respect and reciprocity as important elements in all indigenous resource
management systems.
Park and wilderness managers are
increasingly faced with participation
in climate change vulnerability assessments on public lands and for
communities dependent on publiclands resources. Climate change social
vulnerability is a function of sensitivity
to climate-related risks and the adaptive capacity to deal with those risks.
Exposure sensitivity refers to susceptibility of a system to climatic conditions
that represent risks. Adaptive capacity
refers to the ability of individuals,
households, communities, institutions,
and so forth to address, plan for, or
adapt to these risks (Ford and Pearce
2010). American Indians and Alaska
Natives have unique exposure sensitivity, adaptive capacity, and resilience
knowledge that can benefit adaptive
planning. Wildcat (2009) describes
the impact of climate change as the
“fourth removal” of North American
first peoples (i.e., indigenous people)
and calls for immediate convergence of
cultures to address climate change vulnerability issues.
In our rush to determine and
invest in increasing adaptive capacity
of our communities, we must not
overlook the importance of connecting
with indigenous communities and
facilitating self-study to determine climate change exposure sensitivity that
will drive adaptive capacity building.
Whereas some human intervention is
likely to be supported by most
American Indians and Alaska Natives,
the key element of respect must be
considered. This raises uncertainty
about how members of these sovereign
24
nations will view adaptive planning by
federal governments that includes
genetic manipulation, large-scale restoration activities, or changes in agency
policies toward fire, recreation, and
access. For example, adaptation to climate change sometimes entails federal
government proposals for introduction of new, disease- or drought-resistant
genetic material and could involve
other intervention aimed purely at
sensitivity to climate change–induced
or –aided change. Although in general
human intervention to assure survival
in the natural environment is acceptable to indigenous peoples, tribal
members’ knowledge about likely
impacts of these interventions on traditional values or other ecosystem
components have implications for
respect, and must be considered in
decisions. Federal government-totribal government consultation is likely
to become a growing part of the wilderness planning process, and we must
prepare agency planners to engage and
plot a science direction (i.e., applying
appropriate methodologies including
place-based, traditional knowledge
capture) to provide the knowledge
needed for sound, adaptive plans.
Corbyn (2011) advocates respect
for both scientific and traditional
knowledge by expanding tribal research
capacities to help protect traditional
values while forging a new future. This
approach has been described as “an act
of resistance” by tribal colleges (quote
by Luana Ross, President of Salish
Kootenai College in Montana, in
Corbyn 2011). Native people are
taking control of the research process
on matters that affect them, as it
should be. Greater engagement of
Native people in climate change sensitivity assessment and adaptive capacity
building for all U.S. wilderness is
essential. Ultimately, climate change
impacts and imposed mitigation activ-
International Journal of Wilderness
ities on indigenous people in the
United States can be considered an
environmental violation of treaty rights
in many cases (Grossman 2008). For
both ethical and applied reasons, we
must integrate the long-term knowledge of indigenous people into climate
change adaptive planning, intervention, and mitigation efforts (Magzul
2009; Krupnik and Ray 2007).
References
Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred Ecology. New York:
Routledge.
Bruchac, J. 2003. Our Stories Remember:
American Indian History, Culture, and
Values through Storytelling. Golden,
CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
Caduto, M. J., and J. Bruchac. 1997. Keepers
of the Earth. Golden CO: Fulcrum
Publishing.
Clarke, D. A., and D. S. Slocombe. 2009.
Respect for grizzly bears: An aboriginal
approach for co-existence and resilience. Ecology and Society 14(1): 42.
Available at www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol14/iss1/art42.
Corbyn, Z. 2011. Research on the reservation. Nature 471: 25–26.
Edmonds, M., and E. E. Clark. 2003. Voices
of the Winds: Native American
Legends. Edison, NJ: Castle Books.
Ford J. D., and T. Pearce. 2010. What we
know, do not know, and need to know
about climate change vulnerability in
the western Canadian Arctic: A systematic literature review. Environmental
Research Letters 5(2010) 014008. UK:
IOP Publishing Ltd.
Freeman, M. M. R. 1999. Respect and reciprocity as key elements in Arctic
sustainable use strategies. In Tenure
and Sustainable Use, ed. J. Oglethorpe
(pp. 88–99). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Glaspell, B., A. Watson, K. Kneeshaw, and D.
Pendergrast. 2003. Selecting indicators
and understanding their role in wilderness experience stewardship at Gates
of the Arctic National Park and Preserve.
George Wright Forum 20(3): 59–71.
Grossman, Z. 2008. Indigenous nations’
responses to climate change. American
Indian Culture and Research Journal
32(3): 5–27.
Heady, E. B. 1973. Sage Smoke: Tales of the
Shoshoni-Bannock Indians. Chicago,
IL: Follett Publishing Co.
Krupnik, G., and G. Ray. 2007. Pacific walruses, indigenous hunters, and climate
change: Bridging scientific and indigenous knowledge. Deep-Sea Research
II 54: 2946–2957.
Lake-Thon, B. 1997. Spirits of the Earth: A
Guide to Native American Nature
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Symbols, Stories, and Ceremonies.
New York: Penguin Group.
Leiserowitz, A. 2010. Public understanding
of climate change. National Research
Council. Available at www7.national
academics.org/hdgc/Session_Moderator_
Public%20Understanding_of_Climate_
change_Anthony_Leiserowitz.pdf.
Magzul, L. 2009. The Blood Tribe: Adapting
to climate change. Prairie Forum 34(1):
289–309.
McDonald, W. H. 1973. Creation Tales from
the Salish. Montana Indian Publication
Fund. Billings, MT: Montana Reading
Publications.
Obama, B. 2009. Memorandum for the
heads of executive departments and
agencies. Subject: Tribal consultation.
Retrieved February 13, 2012, from
www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/memorandum-tribal-consultationsigned-president.
Patterson, M. E., A. E. Watson, D. R. Williams,
and J. R. Roggenbuck. 1998. An hermeneutic approach to studying the nature
of wilderness experiences. Journal of
Leisure Research 30(4): 423–452.
Salmon, E. 2000. Kincentric ecology:
Indigenous perceptions of the humannature relationship. Ecological Applications 10(5): 1327–1332.
Turner, N. J., M. B. Ignace, and R. Ignace.
2000. Traditional ecological knowledge
and wisdom of aboriginal peoples in
British Columbia. Ecological Applications
10(5): 1275–1287.
Turner, N. J., and H. Clifton. 2009. “It’s so
different today”: Climate change and
indigenous lifeways in British Columbia,
Canada. Global Environmental Change
19: 180–190.
Watson, A., L. Alessa, and B. Glaspell. 2003.
The relationship between traditional
ecological knowledge, evolving cultures,
and wilderness protection in the circumpolar north. Conservation Ecology 8(1):
2–21.
Watson, A. E. 2004. Human relationships with
wilderness: The fundamental definition
of wilderness character. International
Journal of Wilderness 10(3): 4–7.
Watson, A. E. 2011. The role of wilderness
protection and societal engagement as
indicators of well-being: An examination of change at the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness. Social
Indicators Research, DOI 10.1007/
s11205-011-9947.
Watson, A., B. Glaspell, N. Christensen, P.
Lachapelle, V. Sahanatien, and F.
Gertsch. 2007. Giving voice to wildlands
visitors: Selecting indicators to protect
and sustain experiences in the eastern
Arctic of Nunavut. Environmental
Management 40: 880–888.
Watson, A., R. Matt, K. Knotek, D. R.
Williams, and L. Yung. 2011. Traditional
wisdom: Protecting relationships with
wilderness as a cultural landscape.
Ecology and Society 16(1): 36.
Weber, E. 2006. Experience-Based and
Description-Based Perceptions of
Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming
does not Scare us (Yet). Climate
Change 77: 103-120.
Whiting, A. 2004. The relationship between
Qikiktagrugmiut (Kotzebue tribal members) and the Western Arctic Parklands,
Alaska, United States. International
Journal of Wilderness 10(2): 28–31, 8.
Wildcat, D. R. 2009. Red Alert: Saving the
planet with indigenous knowledge.
Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
ALAN WATSON is a research social scientist at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness
Research Institute, USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, 790 E.
Beckwith Ave., Missoula, MT 59801, USA;
email: [email protected]
LINDA MOON STUMPFF is a faculty member
at The Evergreen State College, 2700
Evergreen Parkway, Lab One, Olympia,
Washington 98505, USA; email: [email protected]
evergreen.edu.
JENNIFER MEIDINGER is a University of
Montana Climate Change intern at the
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station, 790 E. Beckwith Ave.,
Missoula, MT 59801, USA.
Continued from THE DIVERSITY OF WILDERNESS, page 20
resources. To provide an inventory of
these resources, the Protected Areas
Database program for the United
States is being improved to help in
describing ownership and protection
status across the country. This effort is
important because the United States is
losing about 2 million acres (809,715
ha) of forest, farm, and other open
space each year. Pushing against this
tide of open land loss, there is a rise in
the nongovernmental land trust movement and the land protection that
results. In addition, between 1998 and
2005, state governments conserved 8.6
million acres (3.48 million ha) of land
and spent $13 billion for its protection
(Cordell et al. forthcoming). The ecosystem protection challenge is large,
but perhaps some of this rising interest
in protection of natural lands will be
increasingly effective. Perhaps we will
see continued support for more wilderness designation. I, for one, am
hopeful this will be the case.
Acknowledgments
Shela Mou, Forest Service, Athens,
Georgia, provided data acquisition,
ArcGIS analysis, and mapping. Carter
Betz, Forest Service, Athens, Georgia,
provided data validation and review.
Appreciation is extended to the blind
reviewers for the source RPA publication on which this article is based.
References
Bailey, Robert G. 1976. Ecoregions of the
United States (map). Ogden, UT: United
States Forest Service, Intermountain
Region. 1:7,500.00 colored.
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
———. 1995. Description of the ecoregions
of the United States. Retrieved
November 8, 2011, from www.fs.fed.
us/land/ecosysmgmt/index.html.
———. 2009. Ecosystem Geography: From
Ecoregions to Sites. New York: Springer
Publishing.
Cole, David N. 2008. Wilderness, protected
areas and climate change. May 20.
Retrieved October 26, 2011, from www.
fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/wilderness.shtml.
Cordell, H. Ken, Carter J. Betz, J. M. Bowker,
Donald B. K. English, Shela H. Mou,
John C. Bergstrom, R. Jeff Teasley,
Michael A. Tarrant, and John Loomis.
1999. Outdoor Recreation in American
Life: A National Assessment of Demand
and Supply Trends. Champaign, IL:
Sagamore Publishing.
Cordell, H. Ken, Carter J. Betz, and Stanley
J. Zarnoch. (Forthcoming). Recreation
and protected land resources in the
United States: A technical document
supporting the Forest Service 2010
RPA Assessment.
Continued on page 38
International Journal of Wilderness 25
STEWARDSHIP
Wilderness Land Trust
Two Decades Keeping Wilderness Wild
BY PAUL F. TORRENCE
T
he U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System
(NWPS) includes more than 110 million acres (44.5
million ha) – an area greater than that of Denmark,
Switzerland, or the state of California (Anon 2011a; 2011b).
Many more lands deserve protection under the Wilderness
Act, thus wilderness advocates understandably focus on these.
But conservationists must recall that wilderness designation
by Congress does not mean that wilderness will remain wilderness forever (Hendee and Dawson 2001). The grand
architect of the Wilderness Act, Howard Zahniser, understood
that the forces that destroy wildness must be constantly confronted and resisted (Zahniser 1969).
There is one specific menace that can almost instantly
undermine the ecological fabric of a wilderness and erode
the values embraced by the 1964 U.S. Wilderness Act:
inholdings – once federal or private lands that are now relics
from past mining and timber claims, homestead acts, and
railroad grants (Tanner 2002).
The NWPS is perforated by some 400,000 acres (161,943
ha) of private lands that are termed “inholdings.” In the vast
majority of cases, the owners are content to allow their lands
to coexist in the matrix of wilderness. Nonetheless, these
Figure 1 – James Peak Wilderness, Colorado, Arapaho and Roosevelt
National Forests. Photo by WLT staff.
26
International Journal of Wilderness
inholdings can be ticking time bombs that can have a negative
impact on wilderness characteristics and values (Acalady 2000;
Binkly 2003; McMillion 1999; Peterson 2010; Quillen 2010;
Simon et al. 1998; Staff 1995; Steubner 1998; Zaitz 2010).
Wilderness Degradation Perils
Wilderness intrusions that degrade viewsheds, introduce noise
or water pollution, shut down trails, generally erode wilderness solitude, or diminish spiritual, scientific, or recreational
attributes are understood by most observers. Nevertheless,
wilderness advocates and conservationists may not always be
fully cognizant of the biological ramifications of even a small
human modification within a wildland matrix.
Edge effects (Leopold 1933), the outcomes on an ecosystem of juxtaposing two different environments, are a
common result of human development in wildlands.
Although edge effects often result in a local biodiversity
increase, their pervasiveness in fragmented ecosystems of the
modern world usually work to decrease overall biodiversity
(Murcia 1995; Ries et al. 2004; Woodroffe and Ginsburg
1998; Lovejoy et al. 1989).
An arresting example of edge effects comes from a study
of preserved redwoods on the northern California coast
(Russell, McBride, and Carnell 2000). Industrial logging
operations clear-cut the forest right up to the border of these
state and federal government preserves. Abiotic factors such
as wind and temperature changes in turn precipitated biotic
changes in vegetation and wildlife up to 219 yards (200 m)
into the uncut forest. This invasion resulted in dramatic
losses of core forests. For instance, a grove of 2,449 acres
(991 ha) in Del Norte Redwood State Park had 1,525 acres
(617 ha) affected by edge, so that remaining core forest was
just 924 acres (374 ha), a reduction of 62%. Even a much
larger 12,822-acre (5,189 ha) grove in Redwood Creek
North retained just 65% of core forest after edge effects were
taken into account.
Edge effects can possess even greater invasiveness. A
recent study (Ewers and Didham 2008) found a detrimental
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
effect on beetle populations at a distance of 1 kilometer (0.62 mile) from
the edge.
Edges and habitat fragmentation
(Soulé, Alberts, and Bolger 1992) are a
bonanza for mesopredators (middle
predators) such as rats, skunks, raccoons, opossums, foxes, gulls, ravens,
crows, feral cats, and feral dogs. Edge
habitat creation thus aids and abets
mesopredator release, which may
already be highly problematical where
apex predators (cougars, wolves) have
been removed, diminished, or had their
predatory behaviors altered by human
disturbances (Soulé 2010). Moreover,
many human developments provide
energy subsidies to the mesopredators,
corvids, and raptors. Tipping of the
ecological balance like this spells trouble
or doom for many interior forest species: victims include reptiles, amphibians,
beneficial insects, small mammals,
waterfowl, as well as nestling and juvenile birds (Crooks and Soulé 1999;
Terborgh and Estes 2010).
Wherever inholdings persist, the
consequences of edge effects, mesopredator release, disproportionate
energetic subsidies, and the like
increase the vulnerability of the
“untrammeled” quality of wilderness.
Speculation Fuels the
Problem
In some hands, private inholdings
within designated wilderness areas have
spawned a growing number of real
estate speculations and proposed developments. These threats create a
consuming task for public lands managers, constitute an intolerable drain on
the meager budget available for agency
land purchases, and reveal the fragile
protection of far too many wilderness
areas. Controversial and potentially
highly damaging development schemes
have been advanced in an array of landscapes such as Colorado’s West Elk
Wilderness, Montana’s Absaroka Beartooth Wilderness, Arizona’s Arrastra
Mountain Wilderness, Oregon’s Kalmiopsis Wilderness, and even Colorado’s
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park (Acalady 2000; Binkly 2003;
McMillion 1999; Peterson
2010; Quillen 2010; Simon
et al. 1998; Staff 1995;
Steubner 1998; Zaitz 2010).
questions about access or mining
activity. Some properties require restoration of human uses and structures
back to wildland. Owners wary of the
federal government and bureaucratic
time lines gain great benefit from the
A Real Estate
Agent for
Wilderness
Preservation
Fortunately, the U.S.
Wilderness Act provides
that any private inholdings
purchased by or donated to
the U.S. government may
be incorporated into a wilderness area without an
additional act of Congress.
Funds for such federal
acquisitions generally come
from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund or
Federal Land Transfer
Facilitation Act (FLTFA).
There is just one nonprofit organization that
focuses only on acquisition
of wilderness inholdings
from willing sellers and their
transfer to the United States:
the Wilderness Land Trust
(WLT). The WLT fulfills a
crucial role in the process of
securing a “Wilderness
Forever Future” because it
can often act when federal
funding is not immediately
available. Moreover, government agencies have a lot of
issues on their plates, often
making it difficult to prioritize acquisition of inholdings.
Many inholding transactions involve challenging
Figure 2 – Wild Sky Wilderness, Washington, Mount Baker-Snoqualmie
National Forest. Photo by Bill Pope.
Figure 3 – Hells Canyon Wilderness, Hells Canyon National Recreation
Area, Oregon and Idaho. Photo by Mike Stoklos.
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 27
businesslike approach to real estate
deals by a private nonprofit such as the
WLT. The WLT strives to make deals
simple and timely for landowners, and
then takes on the responsibility of
transferring the property to the federal
government for permanent wilderness
protection. Moreover, because WLT
deals exclusively with wilderness
inholding real estate, the staff has a
specific, in-depth knowledge of the
issues and concerns that this special
group of property owners face. Since
its inception 20 years ago, WLT has
completed 378 real estate transactions,
protecting more than 36,652 acres
(14,839 ha) in 82 designated and proposed wilderness areas in Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho,
New Mexico, Montana,
Nevada, and Washington.
Early Days
Figure 6 – Mokelumne Wilderness, Eldorado National Forest, California.
Photo by Jeff Davis.
Figure 4 – King Range Wilderness, Lost Coast, California, King Range
National Conservation Area. Photo by WLT staff.
28
International Journal of Wilderness
The WLT was the brainchild
of Coloradan Jon Mulford in
reaction to a specific threat to
Colorado wilderness lands
posed by real estate developer
Tom Chapman (Simon et al.
1998; Staff 1995). Beginning
in 1992, WLT was much like
a local land trust. Over the
next decade, it expanded
beyond Colorado to other
western states in the United
States. In 2003 the mission
of the WLT was modified to
include the acquisition of
inholdings within proposed
wilderness, as well as designated wilderness, strengthening relationships with a
broader constituency and
allowing for completion of
acquisitions before they became
problematic in the wilderness
designation process.
WLT’s financial model
consists of strong relationships with foundations, large
donors, and the profits from
periodic sales of lands to the
federal government. It has
pursued as a target a split of
60% of revenues from
annual giving and 40% from
land sales. In 2010 WLT
initiated a Wilderness
Opportunity Fund that seeks to build
a $3 million revolving asset base, available for unexpected and/or emergency
acquisitions. WLT’s successes have
been greatly dependent on a small,
exceptionally gifted, and effective staff
that is dedicated to its mission.
How Are Wilderness
Inholdings Prioritized?
Given the vast acreage and number of
inholdings in so many wilderness areas,
how can an organization with restricted
assets decide which lands to purchase?
An algorithm was devised to accomplish that (Pearson and Wallace 1994).
This methodology assigns a numerical
score to wilderness inholding parcels on
the basis of development, ecological,
and social factors. A total of 17 criteria
are evaluated and assigned scores of 1,
2, or 3, with 1 being less of a threat and
3 being more of a threat. The sum of
scores for each parcel provides a priority
ranking with the highest priority property achieving the largest total. This
tool is now nationally known and is
widely accepted as the standard for
evaluating and prioritizing the acquisition of wilderness inholdings.
Landscape Diversity
WLT endeavors have safeguarded ecosystems ranging from the hottest and
driest landscape in North America,
Mohave Desert’s Death Valley, to
Washington State’s Glacier Wilderness,
where unimaginable snowfall occurs.
The shores of the Pacific Ocean have
benefited from the stewardship efforts of
the WLT, as have high altitude meadows
of the distant Rocky Mountains.
Volcanic Legacies – In New
Mexico’s El Malpais (badlands) National
Monument Wilderness Study Area,
where jagged lava flows dominate the
land, the WLT acquired an old 320-acre
(130 ha) homestead called Hoya de
Cibola, with its own collapsed lava
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
tube. Hundreds of miles farther north,
in the Lassen Volcanic National Park,
WLT collaborated with the Nature
Conservancy to acquire and then donate
to the National Park Service a rare high
altitude fen within Lassen Volcanic
Wilderness. Known as Spencer
Meadows, this land is part of the Mill
Creek watershed that possesses the
highest levels of biotic integrity of the
100 major watersheds in the Sierra
Nevada. This parcel was rescued by
WLT from sale for conversion to a
commercial campground. It now
remains wild as part of one of the most
biodiverse areas of California, with
more than 700 flowering plant species
and 259 vertebrate species.
From Coastal to Montane
Ecosystems – WLT activities have
encompassed terrain from Pacific Ocean
surf to the literally breathtaking high
altitudes of the Rocky Mountains.
Thus, acquisition of inholdings in the
King Range Wilderness on the northern
California coast added key additional
protection to the “Lost Coast,” the longest stretch of undeveloped coastline in
the United States outside Alaska. In
Colorado’s Rocky Mountains, WLT
teamed up with the National Park Trust
to procure a 10-acre (4 ha) patented
mining claim perched on a lofty ridge
within the Maroon Bells-Snowmass
Wilderness, one of the most spectacular
vistas in the United States. Also part of
the High Elk Corridor conservation
effort, this tract is no longer vulnerable
to development. Similarly, in collaboration with the Colorado Conservation
Trust, WLT purchased a 320-acre (130
ha) private inholding in the James Peak
Wilderness, thereby protecting the
entirety of Echo Lake, key riparian areas,
and establishing legal access to the wilderness’s extensive trail system. Indeed,
WLT’s acquisitions have resulted in the
protection of widely loved icons of
splendid Colorado wilderness such as
Spanish Peaks, Sangre de
Cristo, Raggeds, HunterFryingpan, Holy Cross,
Weminuche, Mount Sneffels, Lizard Head, Mount
Massive, Indian Peaks, Flat
Tops, and Eagles Nest.
Wilderness
Expansion
WLT has been able to
expand existing designated wilderness through
the Section Six process of Figure 5 – North
the 1964 Wilderness Act, McCarthy.
which allows the secretary
of the interior to accept donated land
adjacent to designated wilderness and
add the land to the already designated
wilderness without further legislation.
In a particularly outstanding example,
the Trust donated to the Bureau of
Land Management a 2,430-acre (984
ha) ranch west of Ridgecrest, California,
thereby expanding the Sacatar Trail
Wilderness and connecting it to the
Domeland Wilderness. Thus, a single
acquisition served two far-reaching
ends: wilderness expansion and wildlands connectivity (Soulé 2010).
The Environmental Group
That Bought a Gold Mine
Sometimes, the WLT finds itself in
unexpected situations. This was the case
when it became the temporary owner of
the Big Horn Mine, a gold mine not far
from the heart of Los Angeles. Located
in the Sheep Mountain Wilderness of
the Angeles National Forest, the mine
has long been a favorite easy day-hike
destination because of its historical and
cultural values as well as impressive
views. However, the rapidly escalating
price of gold assured that the mine
would be reopened, creating huge compatibility issues with the surrounding
wilderness as well as a shutdown of
public access and the possible conver-
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Fork Owyhee River Wilderness, Idaho. Photo by John
sion into a recreational resort. WLT was
able to acquire the mine and its estimated 262,000 ounces (7428 kg) of
gold in 2007 when the price of the
lustrous metal was $350 an ounce, a
fifth of what it is selling for now.
Installation of a gate to prevent human
entry but allow entry of the healthy bat
populations enabled the 277-acre (112
ha) property to be transferred in 2011
to the United States as part of the Sheep
Mountain Wilderness.
Death Valley Chemicals
and a Corporate Merger
for Wilderness
In another atypical transaction, WLT
employed a complex corporate merger
strategy to acquire Avawatz Salt and
Gypsum Mine, once known as Death
Valley Chemicals. The Kerckhoff family,
one of the founders of Beverly Hills, had
bought the 2,450-acre (992 ha) property
in 1912 and planned to mine gypsum
and transport it to the building boom
taking place in Los Angeles. Herman
Kerckhoff had sold stock in the family’s
Avawatz Salt and Gypsum Company in
which the mine was the chief asset. The
proposed Amargosa Railway for delivery
of gypsum to Los Angeles never materialized. Thus, no large-scale disturbance
of the land ever took place.
International Journal of Wilderness 29
WLT’s success in adding more than 57 square
miles to the NWPS in the past 20 years testifies to
the viability of the organization and its mission.
Fast forward now to the 21st century when the Avawatz Mine property
was surrounded by BLM lands that
were in the Death Valley Wilderness
Study Area and part of U.S. senator
Diane Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposed
Desert Protection Act. When
approached by the WLT, the Kerckhoff
family was willing to sell the mine
property, but only if it were sold
together with the Avawatz Salt and
Gypsum Company. Acquisition of the
latter company by WLT then presented the thorny issue of deceased
stockholders or those of unknown
whereabouts who could not be contacted. The creative answer to this
conundrum was for WLT to set up a
separate entity, Avawatz Acquisition
Corporation, wherein WLT was the
majority shareholder. The purchase
was completed with a grant from the
Resources Legacy Foundation’s Preserve
Wild California Program. The former
mine property was then donated to
BLM for inclusion in the Death Valley
Wilderness Study Area.
The happy result was win-win all
around. The U.S. taxpayers got nearly
4 square miles of wildlands at no cost,
the Kerckhoff family added to their
historic legacy, and a valuable piece of
wild California, containing verdant
Sheep Creek Springs and its population of endemic toads and water source
for bighorn sheep, was protected.
A Square Mile of California
Wildlands Protected
A recent WLT acquisition illustrates
benefits to species and ecosystems that
would be adversely affected by existing
and proposed development. Most of
30
the 181,000-acre (73,279 ha) Yolla
Bolly Middle Eel Wilderness lies
within the Mendocino National Forest,
north of Sacramento, California, in
the eastern California Coast Range.
WLT has acquired there a 1-squaremile (640 acres/259 ha) tract that will
be transferred to the U.S. Forest Service
for inclusion in the NWPS. Situated
on Leech Lake Mountain, headwaters
of several streams feeding the designated Wild and Scenic Middle Fork of
the Eel River provide critical habitat
and summer cold waters for steelhead
trout and chinook and coho salmon,
the latter labeled as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act.
WLT’s purchase also protects
regionally sensitive species including
marten, fisher, goshawk, and spotted
owl. Globally rare plant communities
are supported by serpentine soils that
host the unique foxtail pine and Pacific
fuzzwort, and are good foraging
grounds for bald eagles and deer.
The diverse habitats of carbonsequestering mixed conifer and red fir
forests, in addition to scrub white oak
and riparian areas, will now be secured
from the looming threat of logging
and the incursion of off-road vehicles.
This area served as species refugia
during the climate changes of the last
ice age, and so will remain as a buffer
for species during the present anthropozoic-induced climate alterations.
Added bonuses are enhanced protection of nearby paleontological resources
and important deer summer range.
This private parcel, for sale as a
hunting camp with a house and outbuildings, had been accessed by a
4-mile (6.4 km) road through the des-
International Journal of Wilderness
ignated wilderness and also included
an additional 11 miles (18 km) of
internal roads. Artificial ponds and
water distribution systems increased
the remote parcel’s attractiveness for
illegal marijuana farming, which is
responsible for increasing widespread
degradation of our public lands. WLT
is currently seeking funds for closure
and restoration of these roads and
structures so that these lands can be
transferred to the federal government.
The Trail Ahead
WLT’s mission remains daunting;
nonetheless, its success in adding more
than 57 square miles (148 sq. km) to
the NWPS in the past 20 years testifies
to the viability of the organization and
its mission. The increasing pressures of
forces such as population growth,
development, and climate change
demand that we insulate our remaining
wildlands as well as possible and as
quickly as we can. This effort will
require an expanded cadre of committed individuals and organizations
that understand Aldo Leopold’s admonition (1925): “For unnumbered
centuries of human history the wilderness has given way … we must now
challenge that dogma, or do without
our wilderness.”
Acknowledgments
The author is indebted to Mark
Trautwein for his contribution to historical aspects of the WLT. The efforts
and support of the WLT staff, including
Reid Haughy, Karin Evans, David Kirk,
and Aimee Rutledge, are also gratefully
acknowledged. Added thanks go to
Charles Wellander for editorial help.
References
Acalady, A. 2000. Park sues notorious developer. High Country News. December
16. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Continued on page 43
SCIENCE & RESEARCH
Wilderness Network Conservation
in the Cantabrian Region of
Northern Spain
BY FERNANDO ALLENDE, MANUEL FROCHOSO, RAQUEL GONZÁLEZ, and NIEVES LÓPEZ
Abstract: Natura 2000 is a pan-European network whose principal aim is to conserve the European
spaces of greatest natural interest. Its effectiveness is analyzed in a specific sector in Spain, namely
the Atlantic Region, through an exhaustive division and assessment by area. This article considers
questions related to the impact on the spaces included within the network, providing specific examples associated with the fauna, flora, and the territorial agroecostructures. Alternatives and
communication possibilities are suggested for those spaces excluded from the network, but which
have a key role as nodes for interchange and connection of biodiversity.
Introduction
The Directive 79/409/EEC of 1979, related
to wildfowl conservation, established for the
first time in Europe the normative basis for
conservation of wildlife and nature. From
then on, the efforts to form a pan-European
network of protected areas intensified, which
has the aim of maintaining the integrity of
Fernando Allende
ecosystems in the nine biogeographic regions
of Europe (Schutyser and Condé 2009). The
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (ECD92)
finally established the creation of Natura 2000 and its proposal of Sites of Community Importance (SCIs). A Site of
Community Importance is a site that, in the biogeographical
region or regions to which it belongs, contributes significantly
to the maintenance of or restoration to a favorable conservation status of a natural habitat type in Annex I, or of a species
in Annex II. It may also contribute significantly to the coherence of Natura 2000 referred to in Article 3, and/or contributes
significantly to the maintenance of biological diversity within
the biogeographic region or regions concerned. For animal
species ranging over wide areas, Sites of Community
Importance correspond to the places within the natural range
of such species that present the physical or biological factors
essential to their life and reproduction (Directive 92/43/EEC
[art. 1 k]).
Manuel Frochoso
Raquel González
Nieves López
Natura 2000 was created to ensure the conservation of
habitats and species of special interest in each European
region. The biological and anthropogenic factors that have an
influence in Natura 2000 management are analyzed. Analysis
of the spatial distribution of these factors enables the evaluation of the degree of interconnection on a detailed scale,
evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the system not only
in terms of the richness of the variables but also in terms of the
management systems involved.
Objectives and Methods
In this article, an analysis has been carried out on a medium
scale, selecting a sector in the Spanish Atlantic Region: the
Cantabrian coast (Bay of Biscay) and mountains (see fig. 1).
Initially, sectors that have a certain degree of homogeneity
were defined. In the ecological approach, methodologies were
PEER REVIEWED
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 31
Figure 1 – Biogeographical regions of Europe (European Environment Agency, 2009) and Iberian Peninsula study
area (the Atlantic Region is lightly shaded). Area of the work and division into sectors: (1) Northwest Atlantic
Littoral; (2) Cantabrian (Bay of Biscay) Littoral; (3) Galicia-Leon Sierras, Hills and Plains; (4) Cantabrian Mountain
System and the Western Pyrenees; (5) Galicia-Leon Sierras and Depressions; (6) Mountains of Palencia, Burgos,
and Southern Alava. Source: Authors of data of the EAE (Spanish Statistic Agency), 2009.
overlaying techniques, this information
was simplified in six sectors (see fig. 1),
which were validated topologically in
ArcGIS. The choice of the variables followed the guidelines applied to Natura
2000 by Rodríguez et al. (2008), both for
discrimination and in the search for “sensitive areas.” GIS was used for multicriteria
evaluation (see fig. 2) and the results
allowed us to assess the degree of conservation and location of areas or points of
interest that may act as connectors in
accordance with the recommendations of
Kettunen et al. (2007).
Results and Discussion
Figure 2 – Connectivity relationship and flora and fauna conflict areas in Spanish Atlantic regions. Sites of Community
Importance (SCIs) and Special Protection Areas for Bird (SPAs) (A). Fragmentation surfaces – urban and intensive
agriculture land use (B). Results of combining protection figures and traditional land uses areas (C).
used that pertain to the ecology of the
landscape in terms of fragmentation
(Smith et al. 2009; Ricketts 2001; Burel
and Baudry 2003), connectivity
(Murphy and Lovett-Doust 2004), and
ecogeography (Foster 2002). For the
territorial ones, our study is based on
the geographical-type methodological
contributions (Bertrand and Bertrand
2002; Martínez de Pisón, 1990).
32
The article takes advantage of basic
information available in a digital format,
which was compatible with a Geographical
Information System (shapefile, coverage),
providing delimitation based on ecogeographical criteria (Mata et al. 2004) and
data available in the Biodiversity Database
of The Ministry of the Environment
(www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/). Using different merging and
International Journal of Wilderness
In each of the differentiated sectors, a
general approximation is made along
with a more specific one that refers to
more localized examples. In the text it
has been considered that the nuclear
areas are those that pertain to the Natura
2000 network and those peripheral
areas that, although included in ECD92,
were not considered in the SCI proposal. In most cases, there is considerable
coincidence between Natura 2000 and
the protected spaces at regional or
national level (regional park, natural
park, and even national park such as the
Picos de Europa) where these entities act
as an effective management element.
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
This protection varies in intensity and
quality, being especially effective in the
mountainous areas in the central sector.
However, there are problems of lack of
protection in those sectors where there is
no continuity among the protected
spaces (western-end Galicia and easternend Cantabria and Basque country).
This problematic situation is exacerbated in the potential corridors that,
under good conditions, would provide
excellent connectors among metapopulations of flora and fauna.
The Northwest Atlantic
Littoral and Bay of Biscay
Littoral
(See figure 2, areas 1 and 2)
The Northwest Atlantic and Bay of
Biscay Littorals are the Atlantic Regions
with the greatest connectivity in the
Natura 2000 network. In the two
zones there are extensive discontinuities that are only linked via fluvial
corridors (see fig. 3). This provokes a
degree of disconnection and extensive
spaces without structure that are, however, well represented in ECD92.
The effects caused by extensive
urbanization processes on the Galician
coast (Costa da Morte, Costa da Vela,
among others) are especially significant
on the Cantabrian coast (Santander and
Santona Bays) and the Basque coast.
Their longitudinal character leads to
the concentration of infrastructures as
well as a dispersed but dense network of
population centers. In the westernmost
area, the hydrographic layout articulates
the network to a large degree, although
this is not an impediment to the existence of grave effects related to the
general alteration of the hydrological
system and bogland drainage. In the
center and east, the mouths of the large
rivers cause hiatus of maritime-territorial disconnection due to the existence
of industrial and port concentrations
(Eo, Navia, Nalón, Bidasoa) with
Figure 3 – Coastal cliffs in Tapia de Casariego (Asturias). Photo by Fernando Allende.
important consequences for the resident wildfowl (Arcos et al. 2009) and
migratory ichthyofauna, such as Atlantic
salmon. In the whole sector, the pressure exerted by the cultivated forests of
pine and blue gum eucalyptus should
be highlighted as it disconnects patches
of autochthonous forest and endemic
metapopulations of amphibians such as
the gold-striped salamander (Chioglossa
lusitanica) (Pleguezuelos et al. 2002).
Galicia-Leon Sierras, Hills
and Plains
(See figure 2, area 3)
The geomorphological complexity
should be highlighted with outstanding
elements in Spain such as minerotrophic peat bogs or fenland,
morphologies derived from glacial
activity, and extensively eroded or
modeled surfaces over intrusive lithologies. Galicia-Leon is the sector with
the least surface area included in the
network and has large empty spaces
among nuclear areas. The areas that
occupy the greatest surface area are
distributed in the mountain ranges
and periphery massifs and in enclaves
of the central Galician ridge. The fluvial corridors (Mandeo, head of the
Miño, Eo, Masma, Ulla, Lérez, Alén,
etc.) are the real connecting nodes.
The main threats are concentrated
in the autochthonous forests, often surrounded by repopulated sectors where
abusive logging takes place (Spanish
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Department for Conservation of Nature
[DGCN] 2003). The elimination of
the riverside and marshy vegetation in
the mid-low fluvial stretches has generated accentuated eutrophication
processes. It is frequent to find desiccation associated with processes of land
consolidation that provoke the disappearance of some valuable wetlands in
the interior of Galicia such as Antela
(Martínez 2007) or the destruction of
alkaline boggy complexes (GarcíaRodeja and Fraga 2009).
The Cantabrian Mountain
System and the Western
Pyrenees
(See figure 2, area 4)
These mountains have the principal
feature of functioning as a transverse
connector providing a link with the
other large mountain system in the
north of the peninsula, the Pyrenees.
The highest mountain ridge coincides with the divisor of the Duero
watershed, and it is largely included in
the Natura 2000 network. This area
benefits from diverse regional and
national protection mechanisms (see
fig. 4). The fragmentation provoked
by large roads is especially significant
in the central mountains, which has
negative impacts on the largest populations of brown bear (Ursus arctos) in
the peninsula (McLellan et al. 2008).
Discontinuities associated with opencast mining are common, especially in
International Journal of Wilderness 33
Figure 4 – Northern limit of the Sierra de Urbasa (Navarra). Photo by Manuel
Frochoso.
the central-southern sector of AsturiasLeon, threatening endemic species
such as cappercaillie (Tetrao urogallus
cantabricus) (Robles et al. 2006) and
broom hare (Lepus castroviejoi)
(Ballesteros and Palacios 2009). Where
it borders on the Western Pyrenees,
the progressive densification of the
network of settlements and infrastructures (Oviedo, Torrelavega, Durango,
etc.) accentuates the fragmentation.
Galicia-Leon Sierras and
Depressions
(See figure 2, area 5)
Galicia-Leon is important because it
provides a transversal corridor to the
Cantabrian Mountain System and a link
between the northern mountains and
the southern foothills. Moreover, it is an
ecotonal sector between the Atlantic
biogeographical region and the
Mediterranean. It has a good connection
with the transversal mountains
(Trevinca-San Mamede, Cabrera,
Ancares), but it also has large discontinuities on the northern slopes of the
Eixe-Cabrera and Teleno or between
Ancares-Caurel and Ancares-Gistredo.
In some zones the Natura 2000 network
is exclusively supported on fluvial corridors (Támega, Tera, Sil). It is enormously
threatened by mining, abandonment of
34
Figure 5 – The southern Alava Mountains (Sierra de Cantabria). Photo by Manuel
Frochoso.
the traditional land uses, and by wind
farms, with an especially grave impact on
Iberian endemic species such as the gray
partridge (Perdix perdix hispaniensis)
(Onrubia et. al. 2004).
Mountains of Palencia,
Burgos, and Southern Alava
(See figure 2, area 6)
As in the preceding case, these mountains make up an ecotonal set in which
there are corridors favoring linear biodiversity east–west (Cantabrian-Pyrenean
Range) and south–north (Cantabrian/
Pyrenean-Duero/Ebro) (see fig. 5). Its
exo- and endokarstic nature should be
highlighted, as well as its extensive and
varied hanging synclines, whose platform landscape is under threat from the
installation of large wind farms. It has
some of the most interesting aquatic and
riverine communities, with the greatest
genetic purity, including white-clawed
crayfish (Austropotamobius pallipes),
brown trout (Salmo trutta fario), and
European mink (Mustela lutreola), which
are gravely threatened by the modifications in the fluvial media and the
introduction of foreign species (Gil
Sánchez and Alba Tercedor 2007; Blanco
and González 2001; Lecis et al. 2008).
Analysis of the disconnections, the
lack of consolidation, or good connec-
International Journal of Wilderness
tivity among areas included in Natura
2000 was done with comprehensive
knowledge of the territory and its problems. Table 1 shows the most important
threats for each ecogeographical sector.
These summarize the threats included in
the data sheets prepared before the designation of SCIs (www.marm.es/),
records consulted in the catalog of IBAs
from SEO Birdlife (Important Birdlife
Areas, Spanish Ornithological Society,
www.seo.org/ibas.cfm), and field data
collection. They include the effects that
have a significant surface representation,
5% or more of the affected ecogeographical sector .
Table 2 shows the overlap and
existing levels of protection in each sector
for different protection levels (European,
bilateral, or regional). For each sector the
overall percentage covered by the different types of protection was estimated.
The objective is to analyze what extension
and type of regulation the areas of the
network have. A percentage analysis was
performed of the values that had significance in relation to the total area of each
sector. The percentages considered were
the surface area included in the network,
the surface area occupied by the SCIs
and SPAs, those that include some type
of management system, and finally, the
surface area that coincides with
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Table 1 – Summary of threats in the different sectors:
(1) Northwest Atlantic Littoral; (2) Cantabrian (Bay of Biscay) Littoral; (3) Galicia-Leon Sierras, Hills
and Plains; (4) Cantabrian Mountain System and Western Pyrenees; (5) Galicia-Leon Sierras and
Depressions; (6) Mountains of Palencia, Burgos, and southern Alava.
Sectors
Threats
1
2
3
4
5
Extensive littoral urbanization
X
X
Dispersed urbanization
X
X
Concentration of infrastructures
X
X
X
General alteration of hydrological systems
X
X
X
Forestry repopulations X
X
X
Land consolidation
X
Desiccation and alteration of wetland ecosystems
X
Mining
X
X
Abandonment of traditional uses
X
Wind generators
X
6
X
X
X
X
X
X indicates the threats that exist in each regional sector (1 to 6).
protected sites that are established by
state or regional norms.
The percentage covered by Natura
2000 is relatively low, with extreme
values in the Northwest Atlantic
Littoral (7.3%) and the Cantabrian
Littoral (7.8%). Of these, 9.2% and
33.6% have some legal mechanism for
territorial planning mainly coinciding
with spaces included in the regional
norms (96.5%). On the other hand,
the connection of the coastal nuclear
areas is well established, constituting a
nearly continuous protected area.
Important discontinuities have been
identified in the fluvial-estuarine and
nearby land sites as well as among the
fragments of autochthonous forest.
One of the areas with greatest
weakness in connectivity relations is the
Galicia-Leon Sierras, Hills and Plains,
which are articulated by a fragile protection web established on periphery ranges
and narrow fluvial corridors. Overall,
13.2% of the unit is included in the
network, 12.6% has management plans,
and 98.5% coincides with protected
spaces. Therefore, the question arises:
“Is this an extension of the protected
land or just a consolidation of what
already existed?” Despite the efforts,
valuable bogland vegetation, forest, and
marsh communities included in ECD92
are outside the protected areas.
The Galicia-Leon Sierras and
Lowlands area constitutes 21.2%, but
in contrast only 2.7% of it has a management plan and 46.5% coincides
with protected mechanisms. In this
case the desire for conservation is at
loggerheads with the interests that
paralyze the planning in traditional
hunting areas that have species as singular as gray partridge. In this sector,
the Natura 2000 network unintentionally consolidates the connection,
thanks to extensive unpopulated sectors in plateaus and small sierras.
The central axis of the Cantabrian
Range has the greatest surface area in
this network. One-half of the area has
management plans, but this area was
already a protected zone (69.6%). The
neighboring peripheral sierras in the
southern sector do not have effective
protection, and they are optimal sectors for the expansion of valuable
species such as the gray partridge. In
the central sector, and especially in the
east, the problems of connection are
accentuated as there are extensive discontinuities among the medium-height
mountains and the limestone sierras of
Cantabria and the Basque Country.
The mountains of Palencia,
Burgos, and southern Alava have an
extensive percentage included in the
network (34.3%). Only 25.7% of the
area has a management plan, and of
this, 28.8% coincides with protected
spaces. In this case, we could say that
there is a positive balance, favored by
human depopulation, given that wide
interstitial spaces have been gained
that are now unproductive and that are
key to the movement of species.
Conclusions
It is important to know whether the
ecotonal relations among high, medium,
and low lands will ever be considered in
the areas of longitudinal migration
among ranges or whether the extensive
sequential scrubland formations will be
considered as connection nodes. As for
the management of some species, the
Natura 2000 network may lead to the
Table 2 – Significant category percentages by territorial sectors:
(1) Northwest Atlantic Littoral; (2) Cantabrian (Bay of Biscay) Littoral; (3) Galicia-Leon Sierras, Hills
and Plains; (4) Cantabrian Mountain System and Western Pyrenees; (5) Galicia-Leon Sierras and
Depressions; (6) Mountains of Palencia, Burgos, and southern Alava.
Significant categories
% covered by the Natura 2000 network with
respect to the total surface area of the sector
% occupied by SCIs
% occupied by SPAs
% that have a territorial planning system in
place (PORN, PRUG)
% coinciding with the Protected Spaces
existing in the Natura 2000 network
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.3
7.8
13.2
21.2
39.0
34.3
7.2
1.8
6.7
3.8
13.2
4.0
20.3
8.2
38.2
25.1
32.1
29.9
9.2 33.6
12.6
2.7
48.7
25.7
96.5 62.7
98.5
46.5
69.6
28.8
International Journal of Wilderness 35
consolidation of management and treatment of species with wide areas of
dispersion, such as the Iberian gray wolf
(Canis lupus signatus) to the north of
the Duero, or for the development of a
more wide-ranging strategy that reinforces the treatment of fluvial media as
a genetic reservoir of autochthonous
Iberian ecotypes, including the brown
trout and the white-clawed crayfish.
Finally, a decision must be made
about whether, in the current territorial
management context, Natura 2000 is
only effective when there are state and
regional protection mechanisms that
help support it or whether the regulation
of those habitats considered by ECD92
as priorities, but not included in Natura
2000, has been achieved. On the other
hand, the approach to interregional
management of these spaces, once they
are consolidated as Areas of Special
Conservation Interest (ASCIs), must be
considered a challenge, it being obvious
that this network will be useful.
Nevertheless, although there are partial
attempts at the regional level, there is still
a lack of regulation of the nodal spaces
using specific state-protection mechanisms. Of course, this does not exclude
the existence of interesting international
initiatives for connecting the mountains
of southwest Europe, such as the proposal made in the conference at Durban
in 2003 of a Great Ecological Connector
linking the Cantabrian mountain range,
the Pyrenees, the Massif Central, and the
Western Alps.
References
Arcos, J. M., J. Bécares, B. Rodríguez, and
A. Ruiz. 2009. Áreas Importantes para
la Conservación de las Aves marinas
en España. LIFE04NAT/ES/000049Sociedad Española de Ornitología
(SEO/BirdLife). Madrid.
Ballesteros, F., and B. Palacios, eds. 2009.
Situación y conservación de la liebre de
piornal Lepus castroviejoi en la Cordillera
Cantábrica. Madrid: Organismo Autónomo Parques Nacionales. (Naturaleza
y parques nacionales. Serie especies
amenazadas).
36
Bertrand, G., and C. I. Bertrand. 2002. Une
Géographie Travesière: L’énvironnement
à Travers Territories et Temporalities,
Paris: Editions Arguments.
Blanco, J. C., and J. C. González, eds. 2001.
Libro Rojo de los Vertebrados de España.
Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca
y Alimentación.
Burel F., and J. Baudry. 2003. Landscape
Ecology: Concepts, Methods, and
Applications. Enfield, NH: Science
Publishers, Inc.
DGCN (Dirección General de Conservación
de la Naturaleza). 2003. Lugares de la
Lista Nacional. (Dir. 92/43 CEE.)
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora.
EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY. 2009.
Accessed from www.eea.europa.eu/
data-and-maps/data/biogeographicalregions-europe-2008.
Foster, D. R. 2002. Insights from historical
geography to ecology and conservation:
Lessons from the New England landscape. Journal of Biogeography 29:
1269–1275.
García-Rodeja, E., and M. I. Fraga. 2009.
7230 Turberas minerotróficas alcalinas.
In VV.AA., Bases Ecológicas Preliminares
para la Conservación de los Tipos de
Hábitat de Interés Comunitario en
España. Madrid: Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente, y Medio Rural y Marino.
Gil Sánchez, J. M., and J. Alba Tercedor.
2007. Austropotamobius pallipes
(Lereboullet, 1858). In Libro Rojo de los
Invertebrados de España, ed. Verdú and
Galante. Madrid: Dirección General de
Conservación de la Naturaleza (online
version).
Kettunen, M., A. Terry, G. Tucker, and A.
Jones. 2007. Guidance on the maintenance of landscape features of major
importance for wild flora and fauna –
Guidance on the implementation of
Article 3 of the Birds Directive (79/409/
EEC) and Article 10 of the Habitats
Directive (92/43/EEC). Institute for
European Environmental Policy (IEEP),
Brussels.
Lecis, R. A., A. Ferrand, J. Ruiz-Olmo., S.
Mañas, and X. Domingo-Roura. 2008.
Population genetic structure and distribution of introduced American mink
(Mustela vison) in Spain, based on microsatellite variation. Conservation
Genetics 9: 1149–1161.
Martínez Cameiro, X. L. 2007. Antela, a
memoria asolagada. A Coruña: Xerais.
Martínez de Pisón, E. 1990. Unidades naturales. In Gredos, La Sierra y su entomo
(pp. 19–48). Madrid: M.O.P.U.
Mata Olmo, R., C. Sanz Herráiz, F. Allende
Álvarez, N. López Estébanez, L. Galiana,
and P. Molina. 2004. Atlas de los
Paisajes de España. Madrid: Ministerio
de Medio Ambiente.
International Journal of Wilderness
McLellan, B. N., C. Servheen, and D. Huber.
2008. Ursus arctos. In IUCN 2010.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2010.4. Retrieved December
2, 2010, from www.iucnredlist.org.
Murphy, H. T., and J. Lovett-Doust. 2004.
Context and connectivity in plant metapopulations and landscape mosaics: Does
the matrix matter? Oikos 105: 3–14.
Onrubia, A., A. Lucio A., Canut, Sáenz de
Buruaga M., Robles J. L., and Purroy, F.
2004. Perdix perdix hispaniensis. In
Libro Rojo de las Aves de España (pp.
185–188). Madrid: Dirección General
para la biodiversidad – SEO/Birdlife.
Pleguezuelos, J. M., R. Márquez, and M.
Lizana. 2002. Atlas y Libro Rojo de los
Anfibios y Reptiles de España. Madrid:
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente.
Ricketts, T. H. 2001. The matrix matters:
Effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 158: 87–99.
Robles, L., F. Ballesteros, and J. Canut, eds.
2006. El urogallo en España, Andorra y
Pirineos franceses. Situación actual
(2005). SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.
Rodríguez González, J., G. Del Barrio, and B.
Duguy. 2008. Assessing functional landscape connectivity for disturbance
propagation on regional scale: A costsurface model approach applied to
surface fire spread. Ecological Modelling
211: 121–141.
Schutyser, F., and S. Condé. 2009. Progress
towards the European 2010 biodiversity
target. EEA Report No. 4. Copenhagen:
European Environmental Agency.
Smith A. C, N. Koper, M. C. Francis, and L.
Fahrig. 2009. Confronting collinearity:
Comparing methods for disentangling the
effects of habitat loss and fragmentation.
Landscape Ecology 24: 1271–1285.
FERNANDO ALLENDE is professor of regional
geography, Department of Geography, the
University Autonoma of Madrid (Spain);
email: [email protected]
MANUEL FROCHOSO is professor of physical geography, Department of Geography,
Urbanism and Regional Planning, the
University of Cantabria (Spain); email:
[email protected]
RAQUEL GONZÁLEZ is professor of physical
geography, Department of Geography,
Urbanism and Regional Planning, the
University of Cantabria (Spain); email:
[email protected]
NIEVES LÓPEZ is professor of regional
geography, Department of Geography, the
University Autonoma of Madrid (Spain);
email: [email protected]
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION
One Half Century of
Wilderness Stewardship
America’s 50th Anniversary Wilderness Celebration
BY GREGORY HANSEN and VICKY HOOVER
O
n September 3, 1964, one of the most passionate
and controversial pieces of public land legislation
ever penned was signed into law – the 1964
Wilderness Act. After 66 rewrites and more than 8 years of
blood, sweat, and tears in preparing and fighting for the
integrity of its content, this important bill was passed by a
nearly unanimous vote.
In 2014, the concept of protecting wildlands, and the
establishment of the National Wilderness Preservation
System (NWPS), will be celebrated by our national and
international wilderness-supporting nongovernmental organizations (NGO) and by our dedicated U.S. federal land
managing agencies. We also cordially invite ordinary citizens
as well as wilderness advocates to join in the most significant
celebration of wilderness since the inception of America’s
NWPS in 1964.
The True Legacy of Wilderness
Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the historic 1964 Wilderness Act set aside an initial 9.1 million
acres (3.68 million ha) of wildlands for the use, benefit, and
enjoyment of the American people. According to the act,
wilderness areas were to be places “where the earth and its
community of life are left substantially unchanged and
where the primary forces of nature are in control.” These
natural areas obviously provide vital social benefits to the
public, but also lend quintessential nonrecreational values
such as ecological, geological, scientific, philosophical, educational, scenic, and historic benefits as well. A few
examples of these nonrecreational gains are the clean air
and water that wilderness supports and the use of wilderness as a natural living laboratory for conducting baseline
scientific research.
Areas within the NWPS are managed by all four federal
land agencies: the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and
National Park Service. Closely allied
with these stewardship agencies are
the many dedicated NGOs that work
to designate and protect wilderness.
This long-standing public-land partnership gives the United States a solid
framework for conducting an exciting
50th anniversary celebration that will
serve to honor the true American
legacy of wildlands management!
Figure 1 – Logo for the 50th anniversary Wilderness Act celebration.
50th Anniversary Celebration Planning
Efforts
To coordinate planning efforts, the Wilderness Act Celebration’s
National Planning Team (Wilderness50) is composed of representatives of all nationally focused wilderness organizations
plus the four federal wilderness managing agencies.
Wilderness50 is directing national-level activity and event
planning and is helping groups around the country organize
and plan local and regional 50th anniversary celebration
events to be held throughout 2014 (see fig. 1).
Wilderness50’s goals are to
1.engage the public to better understand and appreciate
the benefits and values of wilderness, ultimately resulting
in more people supporting responsible wildlands stewardship;
2.bring the wilderness community (NGOs/agencies/
international advocates) together to efficiently and consistently steward wilderness for the use, enjoyment, and
benefit of the American people; and
3.connect with today’s youth and with nonwilderness
using groups to find the thread that ties their lives to
wild places so they can more directly relate to, understand, and value wilderness.
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 37
By providing guidance and
resources, Wilderness50 promotes
consistency, cooperation, and partnership and eliminates duplication in
50th anniversary planning and programming. As a result, 2014 will
feature creative, highly participatory,
and diverse events, including (but not
limited to) community walks for wilderness; stewardship projects;
classroom and public wilderness educational programs; concerts; fairs; art
and photography contests; lectures;
new books and magazine articles;
museum, airport, and visitor center
exhibits; television and movie productions; a national 50th anniversary
website; and many other ways to
learn about wilderness and the anniversary online.
Special attention is being placed
on engaging youth and nonwilderness
organizations and communities who
care about nature, but have not been
previously involved in wilderness
advocacy or use. Wilderness50 is also
communicating with the international wilderness community in an
effort to simultaneously honor the
many successes that have been
achieved abroad in wildlands designation and stewardship.
Getting Involved in the
50th Celebration
Readers who desire formal involvement
should consider participating in planning efforts. Wilderness50 still seeks to
recruit participants of various planning
committees to help plan nationwide
activities in 2014. Readers interested in
national-level planning should contact
the authors for more information on
how to join a 50th working committee.
Those interested in local or state-specific celebration planning can contact
the authors to be connected with
existing coalitions or people who are
already organizing events at local levels.
38
For Wilderness50’s “50th Anniversary
Toolbox,” which provides resources and
ideas for local events and resources for
planning and implementing 50th programming and activities, go to www.
wilderness.net/50th/.
Conclusion
The 1964 Wilderness Act represented
a fundamental cultural shift from a
need to conquer nature to the need to
preserve it, and it is a modern philosophical expression of the human need
to find in nature spiritual solace and
refuge from daily-life stress. Over the
past 50 years, and as a result of
America’s continuing support for wilderness, Congress has added nearly
100 million acres (over 40 million ha)
to this unique land preservation
system. The remarkable 50-year
achievement of wilderness stewardship
will be celebrated during 2014
throughout the United States and we
– and the entire Wilderness50 team –
invite each and every reader to join us
in this milestone event!
GREGORY HANSEN spent his entire Forest
Service career in wilderness management
and is retired from the agency’s Washington,
D.C., office. He instructs, writes, and consults for the Arthur Carhart National
Wilderness Training Center and Southwest
Youth Corps, is the program committee chair
for the Society for Wilderness Stewardship,
and is serving as a 50th Anniversary
Wilderness Act Celebration national cochair (federal agencies); phone: (602)
237-2021; email: [email protected]
VICKY HOOVER has been a Sierra Club wilderness activist for more than 25 years. She
currently chairs the Sierra Club’s California/
Nevada Wilderness Committee, is active in
various additional initiatives to enhance
public lands protection and education
relating to the importance of our wildlands
heritage, and is a 50th Anniversary
Wilderness Act Celebration national cochair (NGOs); phone: (415) 977-5527; email:
[email protected]
International Journal of Wilderness
Continued from pg 25
Davis, G. D. 1989. Preservation of natural
diversity: The role of ecosystem representation within wilderness. In
Wilderness
Benchmark
1988:
Proceedings of the National Wilderness
Colloquium, ed. Helen R. Freilich (pp.
76–82). USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report SE-51. Asheville, NC:
USDA Forest Service, Southeastern
Forest Experiment Station.
Dietz, R. W., and B. Czech. 2005.
Conservation deficits for the continental United States: An ecosystem
gap analysis. Conservation Biology
19(5): 1478–1487.
Huber, P. R., S. E. Greco, and J. H. Thorne.
2010. Boundaries make a difference:
The effects of spatial and temporal
parameters on conservation planning.
The Professional Geographer 62(3):
409–425.
Loomis. J., and J. C. Echohawk. 1999.
Using GIS to identify under-represented
ecosystems in the National Wilderness
Preservation System in the USA.
Environmental Conservation 26(1):
53–58.
Loomis, J., K. Bonetti, and J. C. Echohawk.
1999. Demand for and supply of wilderness. In Outdoor Recreation in
American Life: A National Assessment
of Demand and Supply Trends, ed. H.
K. Cordell (pp. 351–376). Champaign,
IL: Sagamore Publishing.
Noss, R. F. 1994. The Wildlands project:
Land conservation strategy. In
Environmental Policy and Biodiversity,
ed. Edward R. Grumbine. Washington,
DC: Island Press. pp. 233-266.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest
Service. 1978. RARE II draft environmental impact statement 78-04, roadless
area review and evaluation. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
Widen, J. 2010. Testimony on H.R. 3914,
San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act.
Presented to the House Committee on
Natural Resources Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public
Lands, January 21, 2010. Retrieved
October 20, 2011, from wilderness.
org/files/Testimony-Widen-San-JuanWilderness-20100121.pdf.
Wilderness Institute. 2009. National
Wilderness Preservation System
Dataset. University of Montana.
Retrieved July 6, 2009, from wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=
NWPS&sec=advSearch.
H. KEN CORDELL is a senior scientist with
the USDA Forest Service, Southern
Research Station, located in Athens,
Georgia; email: [email protected]
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION
Forever Wild, Forever Free
Bob Marshall’s Legacy
BY ANN O’RYAN SPEHAR
W
ilderness in the early spring occasions a spirited
stirring in the heart comingled with an anticipation of a quiet landscape arousing and
awakening to life. To sense the soil against the soles of our
shoes and to bask in the miraculous spring sunshine with
45-degree temperatures fills all Montanans with vigor that
only a Montana spring could.
Our plan was to head into the midst of the wild
Montana Rockies somewhere between Glacier and
Yellowstone National Parks – somewhere in the Bob
Marshall Wilderness Complex, or “The Bob” as it is known
in Montana. To those familiar with The Bob, it is a respite
that renews and rejuvenates while restoring the bonds of the
heart and soul. It had been a hard winter. And now spring
offered to provide winter-weary Montanans a chance to shed
subzero winter temperatures and weighted snowpacks that
had for so long separated us from our land. Off-season travel
in The Bob is likely to be completely devoid of fellow hikers,
backpackers, and even the horseback rider – just the kind of
wilderness that can unhinge the spirit.
Such untrammeled primeval expanse demands a hardened traveler who is self-sufficient, resourceful, and seeks
comfort in doing without. The wild terrain requires hard
work, endurance, stamina, ingenuity, and quick thinking to
face the challenges of the indifferent – often severe and
relentless – conditions of this fiercely beautiful expanse. The
wilderness of The Bob is a place to loosen the grip of the
pilgrim soul and stand as a pioneer in the heart of this
untamed wild terrain.
That we have such an unencumbered wilderness to
rekindle and stretch the sinews of the pioneer spirit is a testament to the brilliance and hard work of the forefathers of the
conservation movement – Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry
David Thoreau, John Muir, Aldo Leopold to name a few.
But the namesake of this great land that we intended to
enter was given to the conservationist Bob Marshall.
A land this eminent demands a name that is equal in
stature and grandeur. Lending the names of any of our con
Ann O’Ryan Spehar with dogs Buddy and Montana entering the Bob Marshall
Wilderness Complex. Photo by Alex Spehar.
servation forefathers would have done this land justice. Yet the
spirit of a less well-known environmentalist was given steward
over this immense primeval landscape. To understand why,
one would need to appreciate this vast territory and this man’s
legacy. That Bob Marshall’s name is rarely mentioned as an
elder to the conservation movement is perhaps an injustice –
that his name graces this landscape is not.
Bob Marshall Wilderness Area
A portion of this wilderness was originally set aside in
1941 as the South Fork, Pentagon, and Sun River Primitive
Areas and named the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. The 1964
Wilderness Act designated it as wilderness. In 1972, The U.S.
Congress added 239,936 acres (97,140 ha) of the Scapegoat
Wilderness to the southern border. This is the border that
contains the spectacular towering 18-mile-long (29 km) and
1,000-foot-high (3,048 m) escarpment known as the Chinese
Wall. In 1978, an additional 286,700 acres (116,073 ha) of the
Great Bear Wilderness was added to the northern border.
These three wilderness areas are called The Bob Marshall
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 39
Wilderness Complex, or just “The Bob,”
and encompass more than 1.5 million
acres (607,287 ha). It is the second
largest wilderness in the lower 48 states,
second only to the Frank Church-River
of No Return Wilderness in Idaho. The
1,856 miles (2,994 km) of trails in The
Bob are open only to foot and stock use.
No motorized or mechanical equipment
is allowed.
The Bob contains significant megafauna. Together with Glacier National
Park just across U.S. 2 to the north of
the Great Bear, this pristine, untamed,
vast wilderness provides an unencumbered wildlife corridor that bestows a
powerful homeland to the grizzlies, gray
wolf, mountain goat, mountain sheep,
wolverine, and lynx, not to mention the
abundant deer, elk, moose, and black
bear. This magnificent land is a bountiful home even for fish flowing in the
14 lakes and 89 miles (144 km) of
streams in the Scapegoats and is a vast
expanse for the eagles that soar off the
high cliffs of their homes on the Chinese
Wall and the trumpeter swans that
grace its lakes.
Wilderness Travel
We were finally on the trail in the high
country of Montana, in The Bob, and a
day ahead of the Forest Service work
crew who were heading in to open up
the backcountry patrol cabins. We
stepped off the trail to let them by while
I shifted my backpack, sympathizing
with the 10 laden horses that carried
the Forest Service gear and equipment.
We nodded our heads with a smile as
they passed, while the border collies
made the appropriate acquaintances
distinctive of their own species.
After several hours of hiking from
the Gibson Reservoir Trailhead we
reached the entrance to the Bob
Marshall Wilderness. We then followed the North Fork of the Sun
River. Although long in the tooth, we
40
were well-seasoned backpackers.
Nonetheless, early spring backpacking
in the high country has its unique
challenges. My husband and I, along
with our two border collies, bravely
faced our first night out. The four of
us shared the meager provisions of
warmth huddled in a pile of fur and
sleeping bags. Old Man Winter had
lost his grip on the day but he still
owned the night. The melt of the
snow-clogged peaks and early spring
streams combine to make The Bob
“wet country.” Snowmelt can last even
until July in many areas of this high
wilderness. The problem, of course, is
that cold seems even colder when it’s
wet. Early spring nights that dip into
the teens can leave the early spring
traveler in extended negotiations with
Old Man Winter.
The basic 75-mile (120 km) loop
that follows the spectacular scenery
along the Continental Divide had to be
adjusted due to lack of snowmelt. But,
the plentiful network of trails throughout
The Bob allowed us to quickly adapt
our trip. Intent on separating ourselves
from all technology, we were without a
Global Positioning System (GPS). But,
we had backpacked for years before
such technology had even been available. Without a GPS it is wise to refresh
your map and compass skills.
For hours on end, we worked the
trails, shifting our heavy pack onto less
tender parts of the body, pounding the
snow, dirt, and mud with our sore feet.
Both day and night we shared the trail
with many a fellow traveler. As evidenced from the prints and scat – all of
them wild.
The grizzlies, wolves, and bighorn
sheep are not the only souls who are
free to roam about in these rugged
sawtooth ridges, gentle alpine
meadows, and densely forested waterways. For those hearty enough and
with the skills and ability to abide in
International Journal of Wilderness
its code of conduct and discomfort
with equanimity may gain passageway
and even a temporary reprieve from
the confines of the urban prison that
restricts our soul.
Reaching the top of a pass,
standing in the expanse of a mountain
meadow so far from all civilization,
gazing on a distant hillside sprinkled
with feeding elk framed by the white
peaks, shatters all illusions of the awakened winter spirit even while weighted
down by a heavy pack and sore feet.
The sanctity lifts one far beyond the
walls of what civilization demands and
fills the spirit with a simple unencumbered understanding of happiness.
My throat tightens over such
beauty as I marvel at the lunacy of
what we believe we need to gain peace.
The struggle against the constant
onslaught of urban living and its
meaningless demands slowly trickles
away like snowmelt on a warm spring
afternoon, leaving in its wake simple
small white avalanche lilies.
Marshall’s Legacy
Bob Marshall understood that for
many the wilderness was indispensable
for happiness:
For me, and for thousands with
similar inclinations, the most
important passion of life is the
overpowering desire to escape
periodically from the clutches of a
mechanistic civilization. To us the
enjoyment of solitude, complete
independence, and the beauty of
undefiled panoramas is absolutely
essential to happiness. (Marshall
1951, p. 481).
He was outspoken when it came
to protecting wildlands, driven by the
belief that the wilderness was the soul’s
raison d’être, its inspiration and its
very sustenance. This moved Bob
Marshall to action. He was not one to
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
be content to speak eloquently and
poetically following in the footsteps of
John Muir, Ralph Emerson, or Henry
Thoreau. Nor was he content to
explain the science behind a grand
“Evolutionary-Ecological Land Ethic”
and follow in the footsteps of Aldo
Leopold. Instead, he was moved to
action to preserve land through law
that was essential to preserving the
American heart, soul, and spirit. He
was the only one in his time who was
effective at changing the wilderness
laws and providing the mechanism to
withstand the powerful drive for over
exploitation of our natural resources.
Leopold was the first to propose
large wilderness areas be set aside for
hunting, fishing, and backpacking,
and was even the first in the world to
be successful at doing so. Yet, it was
the pragmatic and passionate Bob
Marshall who would become known
for his successful efforts at defining the
laws themselves that would protect
land in perpetuity, or as Marshall’s
father would have said, “forever wild.”
Bob Marshall was not just an
adventurer, prolific writer, and scientist with his PhD from John Hopkins,
he was more importantly an effective
bureaucrat and lobbyist, traits rarely
found among conservationists. Bob
spent four years as chief forester for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and two years
as chief of recreation at the Forest
Service, before his untimely death at
39. He was instrumental in defining a
stable wilderness policy within the
Forest Service by defining the “U”
regulations that strictly identified the
guidelines of how wilderness would be
defined and maintained. These regulations replaced the vague and flexible
“L-20 Regulations” for primitive areas.
The “U” regulations gave greater protection and banned road construction,
timber sales, motorboats, and aircraft.
In addition to the “U” regula
Figure 1 – Alex and Montana sniffing out the trail. Photo by Ann O’Ryan Spehar.
tions, Bob Marshall is also known for
writing the forest recreation sections of
the Copeland Report – a national
Forest Service plan ordered by the U.S.
Senate in 1933. In it he recommended
that 22.5 million acres be set aside in
“Superlative, Primeval and Wilderness”
areas and went on to define America’s
recreational-use philosophy, dogmatically as well as eloquently.
As co-founder of The Wilderness
Society, he left behind a strong and
well-supplied advocate. A son of a multimillionaire civil liberties lawyer, Bob
used his inheritance to support The
Wilderness Society (Glover 1986).
Bob did more than any other one
person to establish wilderness in
America. He was an agitator, a pike
who went after government officials
with dogged determination – truly the
wilderness’s best friend. Both John
Muir’s and Aldo Leopold’s writings
profess adoration and love toward
nature that is more often given to God.
Bob Marshall’s writing was no exception. A prolific and powerful writer in
his own right, he was propelled by a
passion to preserve the very resource
that had built the unique American
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
character; a character born and shaped
in previous generations by confrontation with the wild frontier – the pioneer
character, defined by self-determination, self-sufficiency, resilience,
independence, resourcefulness, endurance, and the spirit of adventure.
With dogged determination that
bordered on a crusade, Bob Marshall
believed that to preserve the wilderness
was akin to preserving the raw materials
required to rekindle the hardened, spirited, and independent American
pioneer.
Toting a fifty-pound pack over an
abominable trail, snowshoeing across
a blizzard-swept plateau or scaling
some jagged pinnacle which juts far
above timber all develop a body
distinguished by a soundness,
stamina and élan unknown amid
normal surroundings.... As long as
we prize individuality and competence it is imperative to provide the
opportunity for complete self-sufficiency. This is inconceivable under
the effete superstructure of urbanity;
it demands the harsh environment of
untrammeled expanses. (Marshall
1930, p. 142)
International Journal of Wilderness 41
Figure 2 – Forest Service heading into The Bob to open up backcountry cabins. Photo by Ann O’Ryan Spehar.
This land is a fitting tribute to one
who established the wilderness laws and
recreational philosophy for America
and who ensured that they remained
“forever wild.” Bob helped to develop
laws that protect into perpetuity pristine wildlands and thereby ensured that
our children, too, have the opportunity
to renew their American spirit; an
opportunity that is only possible in a
wild frontier.
It is also a fitting tribute to the
writer of the seminal call to arms to all
conservationists that asks that we never
cease to protect that very resource so
critical to the American spirit.
Marshall proclaimed the wilderness developed the American character
because it satiates the
longing for physical exploration
which bursts through all the chains
with which society fetters it. Thus we
find Lindbergh, Amundsen, Byrd
gaily daring the unknown, partly to
increase knowledge, but largely to
satisfy the craving for adventure.
Adventure, whether physical or
mental, implies breaking into
unpenetrated ground, venturing
beyond the boundary of normal
aptitude, extending oneself to the
limit of capacity, courageously facing
peril. (Marshall 1930, p. 143)
And Marshall noted it develops
42
the American spirit because it breeds
original ideas ... an objectivity and
perspective seldom possible in the
distracting propinquity of one’s
fellow men and required of most
virile minds, including Thomas
Jefferson, Henry Thoreau, Louis
Agassiz, Herman Melville, Mark
Twain, John Muir and William
James, who have felt the compulsion
of periodical retirements into the
solitudes. (Marshall 1930, p. 143)
Shortly after his untimely death in
1939, the U.S. secretary of agriculture
in 1941 set aside 950,000 acres
(384,615 ha) of the South Fork of the
Sun River, and the Pentagon and called
it the Bob Marshall
Wilderness Area. Bob
would surely have smiled
when the Great Bear and
Scapegoats were designated wilderness in the
1960s and 1970s and
appended to the Bob
Marshall Wilderness.
mapped out the territory and staked
the claim “forever wild.” Their legacies
continue to provide inspiration and
guidance for the contemporary conservation movement. Marshall’s legacy
ensured that humankind will always
have the pristine wilderness with which
to reunite, and this is the greatest of
legacies a forefather could provide. For
this gift allows his followers to experience the wilderness for themselves and
all it offers. He left not just poetry and
inspiration but the very wilderness
itself with all its capacity to mend,
heal, and strengthen any soul.
As we found in our trip through
The Bob, the vast primeval land there
strips away all vestiges of otherness that
we bring into the wilderness and resets
our compass. By setting aside “opportunities for solitude and primitive
recreation,” the 1964 Wilderness Act
did much more than bestow a homeland to the grizzlies, wolverines, and
bighorn sheep. It bestowed a homeland
for the American heart to roam. It
purges the darkness, discontent, and
hunger from our soul and rekindles the
pioneer spirit as only a wild frontier
can. When we breathe in this primitive
untamed expanse of the Marshall
Wilderness, the harshness of its beauty
strengthens the sinews of our America
Gift of Wilderness
John Muir built in us a
need for wilderness, Aldo
Leopold built the ecological theory for wilderness,
whereas Bob Marshall
International Journal of Wilderness
Figure 3. Ann, Buddy, and Montana following the North Fork of the
Sun River. Photo by Alex O’Ryan Spehar.
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
spirit where our real wealth is found.
While making us more resilient to our
own time- and weather-worn paths,
this untrammeled, unfettered land
teaches discipline, self-sufficiency, and
resilience to face new trails and produces courage and character to not just
believe in but to forge our future. In
“The Bob” we found the freedom of the
wilderness that is part of the wealth that
Americans still call home.
References
Edwards, M. 1985. A short hike with Bob
Marshall. National Geographic 167(5): 664.
Glover, James M. 1986. A Wilderness
Original: The Life of Bob Marshall.
Seattle, WA: The Mountaineers.
Jackson, Donald Dale. 1994. Just plain Bob
was the best friend wilderness ever
had. Smithsonian 25(5): 92–101.
Leopold, Aldo. 1987. A Sand County
Almanac. New York: Ballantine Books.
The vast primeval land
of “The Bob” strips
away all vestiges of
otherness that we bring
into the wilderness and
resets our compass.
Marshall, Robert. 1930. The problem of the
wilderness. Scientific Monthly 30(2):
141–148.
Marshall, Robert. 1933. The forest for recreation. U.S. Senate. A national plan for
American forestry (Copeland Report).
72nd Congress, 1st Session, Document
No. 12, March 1933 (pp. 463-487).
Retrieved April 1, 2011, from openlibrary.
org/books/OL6294948M/A_national_
plan_for_American_forestry or www.
archive.org/details/nationalplanfora01
unitrich.
Marshall, Robert. 1951. Impressions of the
wilderness. Nature Magazine 44:481.
Meffe, Gary K., and C. Ronald Carroll. 1997.
Principles of Conservation Biology, 2nd
ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc.,
Inc. Publishers.
Merriam, Lawrence C. 1989. The irony of
the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Journal
of Forest History 33(2): 80–87.
Published by Forest History Society
and American Society for Environmental
History, available from www.jstor.org/
stable/4005104.
Muir, John. 1992. The Eight Wilderness
Discovery Books. London: Diadem
Books and Seattle: The Mountaineers.
Nash, R. 1966. The strenuous life of Bob
Marshall. Forest History 10(3): 18–25.
Teale, Edwin, ed. 1982. The Wilderness
World of John Muir. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
ANN O’RYAN SPEHAR is a mathematics
and economics instructor at Gillette College
in Gillette, Wyoming; email: [email protected]
sheridan.edu.
Continued from WILDERNESS LAND TRUST, page 30
www.hcn.org/issues/193/10163.
Anon. 2011a. Creation and growth of the
National Wilderness Preservation
System. Wilderness Net. Retrieved
March 9, 2012, from www.wilderness.
net/index.cfm?fuse=nwps&sec=fastfacts.
———.2011b. Wilderness statistics reports.
Wilderness Net. Retrieved March 9,
2012, from www.wilderness.net/index.
cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=chartResults&
chartType=acreagebyagency.
Binkly, G. 2003. Developer tries to make a
killing off the Black Canyon. High
Country News. September 1. Retrieved
February, 2012, from www.hcn.org/
issues/257/14202.
Crooks, Kevin R., and Michael E. Soulé.
1999. Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinction in a fragmented
system. Nature 400: 563–566.
Ewers, R. M., and Raphael K. Didham. 2008.
Pervasive impact of large-scale edge
effects on a beetle community. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 105(14): 5426–5429.
Hendee, John C., and Chad P. Dawson.
2001. Stewardship to address the
threats to wilderness resources and
values. International Journal of
Wilderness 7(3): 4–9.
Leopold, A. 1925. A plea for wilderness
hunting grounds, Outdoor Life
(November). Reproduced in Aldo
Leopold’s Southwest, ed. David E.
Brown and Neil B. Carmony (pp.
160–161). Albuquerque, NM: University
of New Mexico Press.
Leopold, Aldo. 1933. Game Management.
New York: Scribner’s.
Lovejoy, T. E., J. M. Rankin, R. O. Bierregaard,
Jr., K. S. Brown, L. H. Emmons, and M.
E. van der Voort. 1989. Ecosystem
decay of Amazon forest fragments. In
Extinctions, ed. M. H. Nitecki (pp.
295–325). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
McMillion, S. 1999. Another wilderness
developer pops up. High Country News.
October 11. Retrieved February, 2012,
from www.hcn.org/issues/164/5293.
Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented
forests: Implications for conservation.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 10: 58–62.
Pearson, M., and G. N. Wallace. 1994.
Prioritizing the acquisition of wilderness inholdings. Wilderness Net.
Retrieved March 6, 2012, from www.
wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=toolbo
xes&sec=inholdings.
Peterson, J. 2010. Public lands “blackmailer” returns. High Country News.
April 5. Retrieved February 20, 2012,
from www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/publiclands-blackmailer-returns.
Quillen, E. 2010. More than a starter castle.
High Country News. April 16. Retrieved
February 21, 2012, from www/hcn.org/
blogs/goat/more-than-a-starter-castle.
Ries, L. et al. 2004. Ecological responses to
habitat edges: Mechanisms, models,
and variability explained. Annu. Rev.
Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35: 491–522.
Russell, William H., Joe R. McBride, and Ky
Carnell. 2000. Old-growth coast redwood
preserves.
Proceedings
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
RMRS-P-15-VOL-3: 128-136. Ogden, UT:
USDA Forest Service.
Simon, J., D. Nelson, D. Westneat, and E.
Nalder. 1998. Private owners play
game of backcountry speculation and
win big profits, prime land from feds,
Seattle Times. Retrieved February 20,
2012, from seattletimes.nwsource.
com/special/landswap/
part2/2spec_092898.html#background.
Soulé, M. E. 2010. Conservation relevance of
ecological cascades. In Trophic Cascades:
Predator, Prey, and the Changing
Dynamics of Nature, ed. John Terborgh
and James A. Estes (pp. 337–351).
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Soulé, M. E., A. C. Alberts, and D. T. Bolger.
1992. The effects of habitat fragmentation on chaparral plants and vertebrates.
Oikos 63: 39–47.
Staff. 1995. Wilderness trader cashes in.
January 23. High Country News.
Retrieved February, 2012, from www.
hcn.org/issues/27/773.
Steubner, S. 1998. Private rights vs. public
lands. High Country News. February
16. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from
www.hcn.org/issues/124/3946.
Tanner, R. 2002. Inholdings within wilderness: Legal foundations, problems,
and solutions. International Journal of
Wilderness 8(3): 9–14.
Terborgh, John, and James A. Estes, eds.
2010. Trophic Cascades: Predator,
Continued on page 48
International Journal of Wilderness 43
WILDERNESS DIGEST
Announcements
Compiled by Greg Kroll
Pan Parks’s Annual Conference to
Convene in Finland in September
Jamie Williams Named New Wilderness
Society President
Pan Parks’s annual conference, Europe’s Wilderness Days, is
the oldest event focused on protecting Europe’s wilderness
and has proven to be a highly successful way to network with
professionals addressing wilderness issues. The conference,
co-hosted by Archipelago National Park, will convene
September 26–28, 2012, in Nagu, Finland.
This year’s focus will be how to involve wider constituencies in wilderness protection and will look at the role of
protected areas, NGOs, and the tourism sector in engaging
the public and professionals in protecting Europe’s wilderness. A goal of the conference is the development of a
European wilderness campaign. A field trip to Archipelago
National Park will be part of the event. The draft program is
available at www.panparks.org/sites/default/files/docs/
ewd2012/ewd2012_draft_programme.pdf
The Wilderness Society has chosen Jamie Williams to
replace retiring president Bill Meadows. Williams most
recently served as director of the Landscape Conservation
for North America Program for The Nature Conservancy
(TNC). Over the past 20 years, he has also served TNC as
Northern Rockies Initiative director and Montana State
director. He has been recognized for his outstanding work
with awards from the Land Trust Alliance and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, among many other organizations.
Williams holds a BS in American studies from Yale
University and a masters of environmental studies from the Yale
School of Forestry. He is a founder of the Montana Association
of Land Trusts, a founder of the Heart of the Rockies Initiative,
and has served on the board of the Colorado Coalition of Land
Trusts and as co-chair of the Yampa River System Legacy
Project. “I am a strong believer in a collaborative, communitybased approach to conservation, and that’s one of the many
areas where The Wilderness Society has been a true innovator,”
he said. (Source: wilderness.org)
Albuquerque Selected as Wilderness50
Venue
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, has been chosen to host
the National Wilderness Conference (Wilderness50),
according to Mark Conley of the conference steering committee (IJW Digest, April 2012). To be convened October
15–17, 2014, the conference will commemorate the 50th
anniversary of the Wilderness Act.
Eight potential venues were considered. Albuquerque
was chosen for its excellent conference facilities and the city’s
exceptional opportunities for diversity outreach with Native
Americans, Hispanics, African Americans, and academic
communities. Albuquerque has excellent field trip prospects
as well as a long history associated with influential wilderness leaders, such as Aldo Leopold. Steve Capra, executive
director of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, will serve
as co-chair of the national conference committee, representing NGOs. (Source: www.wilderness.net/50th)
Court Finds Reconstruction of Wilderness
Lookout Illegal
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle ordered the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to remove its reconstructed
lookout from Green Mountain in the Glacier Peak Wilderness
of Washington’s Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.
In 2010, Wilderness Watch filed the lawsuit alleging the
USFS had violated the Wilderness Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by reconstructing the
abandoned lookout, built by the Civilian Conservation
Corps in 1933, and by using helicopters to haul out the old
building and haul in a new one. The project was done
without public notice or environmental review, as required
by NEPA. In his 25-page ruling, Judge Coughenour wrote,
“The record here established that the presence of the Green
Mountain lookout detrimentally impacts on the wilderness
Submit announcements and short news articles to GREG KROLL, IJW Wildernss Digest editor. E-mail: [email protected]
44
International Journal of Wilderness
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
character of the Glacier Peak
Wilderness.... In addition to finding
that the Forest Service violated the
substantive provisions of the Wilderness
Act, the Court further finds that the
Forest Service violated NEPA’s procedural requirements.”
One of the key issues involved in
this case was the historic preservation
of the lookout versus the Wilderness
Act’s mandate to preserve wilderness
character. Judge Coughenour, citing
numerous legal precedents and the
clear language of the act, repudiated
the USFS claim that directives for the
preservation of historic structures
under the National Historic
Preservation Act require it to ignore
the Wilderness Act’s mandate. The
USFS has maintained that the lookout,
which is on the national and state registers of historic places, was restored,
not reconstructed. The judge also ruled
that the USFS had failed to make a
finding that the reconstructed lookout
was “necessary to meet the minimum
requirements for the administration of
the area as wilderness.” (Sources: www.
wildernesswatch.org; Everett Herald,
March 29, 2012)
Russia OK’s Ski Resort in
Caucasus World Heritage
Site
The Russian government is preparing
to allow construction of tourist infrastructure in protected areas that were
formerly off-limits to development or
restricted by Russian federal environmental laws. A cluster of ski resorts
and roads in the Caucasus region will
alter one of Europe’s few untouched
mountain wilderness areas. The development will impact two biosphere
nature reserves, two national parks,
wildlife sanctuaries, and a World
Heritage Site.
The project has been named
Altitude 5642, for the height of Elbrus,
the highest mountain in the Caucasus.
The five planned ski resorts will have
600 miles (1,000 km) of ski runs and
214 ski lifts. The hotels will accommodate 83,000 guests, and it is calculated
that 150,000 people will visit the resorts
each day during ski season. The $15
billion project will be financed by a
public-private partnership.
The Western Caucasus World
Heritage Site is at the far western end of
the Greater Caucasus Mountains within
Krasnodar Kray and the republics of
Adygea and Karachevo-Cherkessia,
and is 15 miles (25 km) from Sochi,
the Black Sea coastal city that will host
the 2014 Winter Olympics. Inscribed
on the World Heritage List in 1999,
UNESCO describes “a remarkable
diversity of geology, ecosystems and
species. It is of global significance as a
center of plant diversity … containing
extensive tracts of undisturbed mountain forests unique on the European
scale.” The site is inhabited by 60
mammal species, including wolf, bear,
lynx, wild boar, Caucasian deer, tur,
chamois, and reintroduced European
bison, which are globally endangered.
Signs of the globally endangered snow
leopard have also been seen. Of the
246 bird species, 24 are nationally
threatened and 24 are globally threatened. (Source: Environment News
Service, February 3, 2012)
Grand Canyon Adopts
Noise Abatement Plan
After 25 years of wrangling among federal administrators and a variety of user
groups, Grand Canyon National Park,
Arizona, will soon adopt a plan to
restrict noise from tourist aircraft. The
plan limits the number of flights, hours,
and routes that tour operators can fly
over the 277-mile-long (450 km) park.
The canyon has up to 57,000 air tour
flights annually, ferrying upwards of
800,000 people each year. The new
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
plan caps the number of annual air tour
flights at 65,000, 14% more than the
record high. But hours around sunrise
and sunset will be off-limits, and planes
and helicopters will be required to have
noise-abating technology.
According to Alan Stephen, vice
president of corporate affairs for
Papillon, the largest air tour operator
at the park, “We will have some restrictions that are pretty hard to follow
from an economic standpoint.” He
claims the Park Service plan could cost
jobs and reduce the $104 million
annual revenue of the top three companies flying over the canyon by $18.4
million. But Grand Canyon National
Park superintendent David Uberuaga
says this overstates the plan’s impact.
In fact, Uberuaga said, “[this] is the
best plan the Park Service could get
given the conditions we have to deal
with,” referring to opposition from
tour operators and what he called the
Federal Aviation Administration’s
attempts to delay and sidetrack the
plan. “It is not,” he said, “enough to
restore natural quiet to one of the
world’s natural wonders.” (Source: The
Salt Lake Tribune, March 19, 2012)
Tribes Seek to Halt Mine in
Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness
As plans advance for the development
of the Rock Creek copper and silver
mine beneath Montana’s Cabinet
Mountains Wilderness (IJW Digest,
August 2006 and April 2007), members of the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes are trying to halt the
project by adding a sacred peak in the
area to the National Register of Historic
Places. Francis Auld, cultural preservation officer for the Kootenai Tribe,
said efforts are under way to recognize
Chicago Peak under the National
Historic Preservation Act as a traditional cultural property.
International Journal of Wilderness 45
The peak has long been associated
with the cultural practices and spiritual beliefs of the Kootenai Tribe.
“Chicago Peak is a very sacred site with
many stories,” Auld said. “It is a place
of sustenance and it is one of the last
untouched places where the Kootenai
can visit and reconnect with our cultural history. We don’t want to end up
with a hollowed-out mountain.”
Designation as a traditional cultural
property does not necessarily preclude
a project like the Rock Creek mine or
even add any restrictions. It does, however, force landowners and agencies to
identify and consider cultural values
and thresholds.
The mine entrance would be
located outside the wilderness
boundary, but shafts would tunnel
into the wilderness approximately
1,000 feet (300 m) below the mountain. The project has an estimated
35-year lifespan and would entail the
construction of roads, rail stations,
pipelines, power lines, a tailings treatment plant, and other industrial
infrastructure. (Source: Missoulian,
March 25, 2012)
Ecuador Vows to Proceed
with Yasuni NP Protection
Plan
Ecuador is committed to pressing ahead
with a plan to shield Yasuni National
Park in the Amazon jungle from oil
development after international donors
pledged more than $100 million in
exchange for the government prohibiting oil exploration (IJW Digest, April
2010). Ecuador is highly dependent on
oil exports for economic growth, and
President Rafael Correa has warned
donors (governments, individuals, and
foundations) that unless they contributed at least $100 million by the end of
2011 to protect Yasuni, his cashstrapped government would draw up
plans for oil extraction. The target was
46
met, but Ecuador needs to continue
raising money to meet its $3.6 billion
target by 2024. Ivonne Baki, the head
of the Yasuni project, said, “We know
there is a global economic crisis, but
with the environmental crisis, unless we
do something right now it will be too
late and it will be much worse than the
economic crisis.” (Source: Reuters,
December 30, 2011)
Big Bend National Park
Has the Darkest Skies
The
International
Dark-Sky
Association says that Big Bend National
Park, Texas, has the darkest measured
skies in the lower 48 states, and is the
largest park in the world with the
International Dark Sky Park designation. Strict ordinances in Alpine, Van
Horn, and other towns and communities in the region limit unnecessary
night light and curb West Texas light
pollution. Only four other U.S. parks
and one in Scotland share the “gold
tier” level, which means the area skies
are free from all but minimal light pollution. Six other parks, with slightly
less dark skies, have the “silver tier”
rank. (Source: Associated Press,
February 7, 2012)
UNESCO Loses U.S.
Funding
UNESCO, the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, has lost one-quarter of its
annual budget due to U.S. federal legislation dating from 1990 and 1994 that
mandates a complete cutoff of American
financing to any United Nations agency
that accepts Palestine as a full member.
UNESCO’s full membership voted in
October 2011 to accept Palestine as its
195th member by a vote of 107 to 14,
with 52 abstentions. As a result,
UNESCO has lost America’s $70 million annual contribution, as well as
Israel’s 3% contribution. U.S. State
International Journal of Wilderness
Department lawyers say there is no
leeway in the legislation and no possibility of a waiver.
Best known for designating World
Heritage Sites, UNESCO is a major
global development agency whose missions include promoting literacy,
science, clean water, and education,
and championing equal treatment for
girls and young women. After boycotting UNESCO in 1984 over charges
that the organization then was corrupt, anti-Israel, and anti-Western, the
United States rejoined the agency in
2003. The United States had also
claimed that UNESCO wanted to
regulate the international news media.
The American ambassador to
UNESCO, David T. Killion, repeatedly called the Palestinian vote
“premature” and said the United States
would seek other means to support the
agency, although he did not offer specifics, according to The New York
Times. Irina Bokova, UNESCO’s
director general, said she was concerned about immediate financial
problems for her agency, hoping they
would be temporary, and said that she
was worried that “the universality and
financial stability” of UNESCO would
be jeopardized. (Source: The New York
Times, October 31, 2011)
“Protected Planet” Takes
You to 150,000 of the
Earth’s Protected Areas
The United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) has joined forces
with the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to
create an interactive, social media–based
website that provides in-depth information on 150,000 of Earth’s protected
areas. Using the latest satellite images,
users can pinpoint individual preserves
– such as national parks or marine
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
Continued on page 48
WILDERNESS DIGEST
Book Reviews
Authenticity in Nature: Making Choices about the
Naturalness of Ecosystems
By Nigel Dudley. 2011. Earthscan. 244 pages. $35.00
(hardback).
Naturalness is frequently an explicit or implied objective of
wilderness and other protected areas. But pinning down
exactly what naturalness is has proved to be difficult. Nigel
Dudley, ecologist and author of numerous IUCN and
WWF reports, steps into this breach by showing current
definitions to be insufficient and proposing another –
authenticity – that encapsulates “the values of naturalness in
an increasingly unnatural world” (p. 148).
Much like Emma Marris’s very readable call for active
management of nature (Rambunctious Garden), Dudley
begins with a criticism of the strict preservation of nature.
These aren’t new arguments and were a frequent response
to managing parks as “a vignette of primitive America.”
(The Leopold Report in 1964 recommended that, for U.S.
National Parks, “the biotic associations within each park be
maintained, or where necessary recreated, as nearly as possible in the condition that prevailed when the area was first
visited by the white man.”) Dudley points out the inherent
racism of imagining an original, pristine, or virgin land
when indigenous cultures often had a presence, and perhaps an active role, in the landscape for many
generations.
Building on a review of global assessments of naturalness, Authenticity in Nature incorporates important concepts
of change; ecological function, structure, and process; as well
as biological and ecological integrity into his definition of
authenticity: “A resilient ecosystem with a level of biodiversity and range of ecological interactions that can be predicted
as a result of the combination of historic, geographic and
climatic conditions in a particular location” (p. 155).
Although critical of the motivations, distractions, and
expense of restoration, Dudley still seems to embrace the
appropriateness of active management for some locations.
What effect these introduced/removed species, manipulations, and changing human priorities and practices might
have on ecological composition, structure and process is, as
Dudley admits, largely unknown. Further, perhaps reflecting
his European perspective, by focusing on the importance of
near-natural habitats, Dudley essentially downplays the
importance of wilderness. Lastly, although there are hat-tips
to the benefits of building a constituency for nature, outdoor education, spiritual relief, and mental and physical
health, Authenticity in Nature doesn’t investigate the definition and role of authentic experiences in nature. In a world
that is increasingly constructed, homogenized, and commercialized, protected areas are vital and necessary opportunities
for different relationships with nature.
Although largely written before publication of some
important criticisms of naturalness, Authenticity in Nature is
a thoughtful, well-read discussion of naturalness and the
need for a “massive increase in commitment to protecting
and restoring natural habitats” (p. 195).
Reviewed by BILL BORRIE, professor of park and recreation management, College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana,
Missoula; email: [email protected]
Rachel Carson – A Biography
by Arlene R. Quaratiello. 2010. Prometheus Books. 163
pages. $18.00 (paperback).
Rachel Carson became a household name in North America
in the mid-1950s with the publication of The Edge of the Sea
and internationally renowned in 1962 with Silent Spring.
There is undoubtedly a lack of biographies and autobiographies that tell the story behind the lives of women scientists,
and being a longtime admirer of Carson’s books I was
thrilled to access this biography as a reviewer. This book is
well written and its 12 very informative chapters focused on
her studies, work life, and publications are meticulously
researched. The author’s detailed account of Rachel Carson’s
personal and professional life will satisfy most readers
inquisitive about one of the 20th century’s most influential
environmentalists. What I did find surprising is that there is
limited content regarding her experiences of the outdoors.
In fact I was quite saddened by how office bound (or laboratory bound) Carson was; however, her love of the Maine
coastline is apparent. It was interesting (from an academic
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
International Journal of Wilderness 47
perspective) to read the accounts of
Rachel’s own experiences of writing
(chapter 9, “The Struggle to write
Silent Spring”) and being published.
For instance, how Rachel was affected
by the very slow and limited sales of
Under the Sea Wind (1941) in chapter
6 compared to the acclaim for Silent
Spring in chapter 11. I was particularly
struck by Quaratiello’s account of
Carson’s experiences of pursuing a
career at a time when women were not
commonly employed as biologists.
Rachel Carson’s family circumstances,
her friendships, her successes, and her
non-successes are discussed delicately
but with depth by Quaratiello.
A useful time line of significant
events in Carson’s life and career
includes relevant occurrences since her
death in 1964. Although the book’s
focus is on Rachel Carson’s own experiences, there are references to other
influential people in her life, and one
cannot help but reflect on the changing
circumstances of women in the 20th
century generally. In many ways,
Quaratiello’s book captures Rachel’s
groundbreaking achievements as a student, scientist, and researcher pursuing
a career in what was usually a masculine domain. My one sadness is that
there were no attempts to include
interviews with people who knew or
worked alongside Rachel Carson. Nor
did Rachel Carson appear to have left
any diaries or personal letters that the
author could access – one presumes
Quaratiello accessed archival material
but this is not clear in the book. I was
rather disappointed by the cover photography of an elderly Carson chosen
for the book (it will not entice a
youthful audience); however, the 12
black-and-white photographs of
Rachel within the text provide personalized insights into her character. To
her credit, as a researcher Quaratiello
provides an extensive bibliography of
primary and secondary sources and a
useful index (often lacking in such
texts). This book will interest both
academic and lay audiences and will
undoubtedly suit those with particular
interests in the environmental movement and science generally.
Reviewed by Anna Thompson, University
of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand; e-mail:
[email protected]
Continued from ANNOUNCEMENTS, page 46
sanctuaries – and zoom in for information on endangered species, native plant
life, and types of terrain. Protectedplanet.
net also offers visitors the opportunity
to upload photographs of their trips to
protected areas, write travelogues of
what they saw and experienced for
Wikipedia, and recommend places of
interest nearby.
“Protectedplanet.net is about harnessing technology for biodiversity
conservation. It showcases the beauty
of protected areas and motivates
anyone who discovers it to help, from
a tourist to a government official,” says
Craig Mills, Protected Planet’s project
manager. “There is a huge network of
people interested in protected areas
out there that we haven’t been tapping
into.” Protectedplanet.net brings
together information from throughout
the Internet, including species data
from the Global Biodiversity
Information Facility (GBIF), protected
area descriptions from Wikipedia,
photos from Panoramio and Flickr,
and Google maps. The website also
expands on the World Database on
Protected Areas currently managed by
UNEP. For more information, go to
www.protectedplanet.net/about.
Italy Inaugurates New
Wilderness Area
Franco Zunino, secretary general of
the Italian Wilderness Society (AIW),
has announced the creation of a new
4,500-acre (1,800 ha) wilderness area
in the Lazio region of central Italy. The
AIW is now working to pass new wilderness legislation through the
Regional Parliament.
Continued from WILDERNESS LAND TRUST, page 43
Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of
Nature. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
U.S. Congress. 1964. WILDERNESS ACT.
Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C.
1131-1136). 88th Congress, Second
Session. 1964. Retrieved February 22,
2012, from www.wilderness.net/index.
cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct.
Woodroffe, R., and J. R. Ginsburg. 1998.
48
Edge effects and the extinction of
populations inside protected areas.
Science 280: 2126–2128.
Zahniser, H. 1969. Wilderness forever. In
Voices for the Wilderness, ed. W.
Schwarz. NY: Ballantine.
Zaitz, L. 2010. Developer lays claim to more
than gold in Oregon wilderness. The
Oregonian. March 13. Retrieved
February 22, 2012, from www.oregon-
International Journal of Wilderness
live.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/
developer_lays_claim_to_more_t.html.
PAUL F. TORRENCE is emeritus professor of
chemistry and biochemistry at Northern
Arizona University in Flagstaff and a member
of the board of directors of the Wilderness
Land Trust. He resides in Williams, Oregon;
email: [email protected]
AUGUST 2012 • Volume 18, Number 2
For the young conservationists in your family
If you love Africa
you’ll want this book!
The Journey of Wildlife and Art
John Muir • Rachael Carson • Henry David Thoreau
Images of
Conservationists
series
Illustrated by award-winning
children’s book artist
Hudson
Rachel Carson
The Story of a River
Thomas Locker and
Robert C. Baron
Preserving a Sense of Wonder
Thomas Locker and
Joseph Bruchac
John Muir
America’s Naturalist
Thomas Locker
Also in Spanish !
Felipe the Flamingo
Hardcover, 9 x 10.5, 144 pages color photos, $35us
101/2 x 71/2 • 32 pages • full-color illustrations • HC $12.95
PB version in Spanish $9.95
Sand to Stone
A collection of wildlife art
depicting scenes from
Yellowstone to the Arctic Circle
Why do so many first-time travelers to the Serengeti region
feel such a strange affinity to this amazing, wondrous land of
infinite grasslands teeming with animals? Could it be the
150 years of artistic genius
awakening of some mysterious long-ago memory coming
from deep within our DNA … coming from the time when all
mankind began in this part of the world—a time that was
indeed “the eternal beginning”?
Experience the beauty of Boyd Norton’s photos, so magical
you can almost hear the zebra braying or the rhino grunting.
and again.
ration to protect and conserve nature in one of the world’s best
loved mountain regions.
“Boyd Norton has captured the magic of this ancient and majestic ecosystem. Through superb and deeply sensitive photographs and compelling
accounts of his experiences there, he introduces its animals and people.
Serengeti is profoundly moving—you will understand why it is so important to preserve this place for generations to come.”
Jane Goodall, founder, the Jane Goodall Institute
and UN messenger of peace
This animal-centered alphabet
book, offers an abundance of
images and subtle surprises on
every page. 10 x 10 • 40 pages •
behave towards nature in a generous and responsible way. This
describes how art has played a central role in providing the inspi-
*A portion of Limited Edition proceeds will go to Serengeti Watch
Lauren A. Parent
Illustrated by mo mcgee
Yellowstone to Yukon region have inspired North Americans to
its challenges today. This book is a treasure you will visit again
Also available: Limited Edition of only 200
Alphabet Kingdom
nineteenth century, the wild beauty and wildlife of the
lavishly illustrated book celebrates 150 years of artistic genius and
Autographed, numbered, hand bound faux leather,
with placeholder ribbon, 10 x 9, 260 pages, color photos, $200us*
A beautiful combination of photographs, drawings, and text illustrates the life cycle of sandstone
in the landscape of the desert Southwest. Written for ages 4
and up. 81/2 x 81/2 • 32 pages • full-color photos • PB $9.95
This is the story of an art exhibition about conservation. Since the
Read about the history of the region where man began and of
Hardcover, 10 x 9, 260 pages, color photos, $35us
and Back Again
Nancy Bo Flood
Photos by Tony Kuyper
The book is based on an exhibit that is the result of a
multi-year collaboration between the National Museum of
Wildlife Art in Jackson Hole, Wyoming; the Whyte Museum of
Thomas Locker
Each book is 11 x 81/2 • 32 pages
full-color illustrations • HC $17.95
Conservation Adventures series
Tales from Native North America
Gayle Ross and Joseph Bruchac
This collection of traditional stories
explores the significance of a young
girl’s rite of passage into womanhood.
Each of these stories originated in the
oral tradition and have been carefully
researched. Joseph Bruchac, author
of the best-selling Keeper’s of the Earth series, and noted
storyteller, has been entrusted with stories from elders of
other native nations which ensures that the stories collected
in this book are authentic.
6 x 9 • 128 pages • PB $9.95
Flying with the Eagle, Racing
the Great Bear
Tales from Native North America
Joseph Bruchac
In this collection of Native American
coming-of-age tales, young men face
great enemies, find the strength and
endurance within themselves to succeed, and take their place by the side
of their elders. Joseph Bruchac is the award-winning author
of books for children and adults.
6 x 9 • 128 pages • PB $10.95
full-color illustrations • PB $8.95
Gas Trees and Car Turds
A Kids’ Guide to the Roots of Global Warming
Kirk Johnson and Mary Ann Bonnell
This colorfully illustrated book makes
carbon dioxide, an invisible odorless
gas responsible for global warming and
plant growth, into something that can
be imagined and understood by children. 7 x 10 • 40 pages • full-color illustrations • PB $9.95
Tales of the Full Moon
Sue Hart
Illustrated by Chris Harvey
Children of all ages love these
wonderful tales of the African
bush. A timeless collection of
memorable stories centered on
lovable characters.
71/2 x 101/2 • 96 pages • full-color
illustrations • PB $16.95
Things Natural, Wild, and
Free
The Life of Aldo Leopold
Marybeth Lorbiecki
Adventure—as a child Aldo
Leopold was always loking for
it as he wandered over the
bluffs along the Mississippi
with his dog, Spud. This led
Leopold to become a forester,
wildlife scientist, author, and one of the most important conservationists in history. Award-winning author Marybeth
Loribiecki brings Leopold to life in this vivid new biography.
Featuring resource and activity sections, a time line, a bibliography, and historic black-and-white photographs.
7 x 9 • 112 pages • PB $12.95
Parks for the People
The Life of Frederick Law Olmsted
Julie Dunlap
Growing up on a Connecticut
farm in the 1800s, Frederick
Olmsted loved roaming the
outdoors. A contest to design
the nation’s first city park
opened new doors for Olmsted
when his winning design
became New York’s Central Park, just one of Olmsted’s
ideas that changed our nation’s cities. Award-winning author
Julie Dunlap brings Olmsted to life in this memorable biography, featuring resource and activity sections, a time line,
and a bibliography, as well as black-and-white historical
photographs.
7 x 9 • 112 pages • PB $12.95
the Canadian Rockies in Banff, Canada; artist Dwayne Harty;
and the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. A major
exhibition featuring wildlife art masterpieces from the two
museums’ permanent collections and Dwayne Harty’s specially
commissioned paintings was on display at the National
Museum of Wildlife Art in the summer of 2011 and at the
Whyte Museum of the Canadian Rockies in the summer and
fall of 2012.
America’s
Ecosystem
series
Each book is 9 x 9 • 48 pages • full-color illustrations
maps and glossary • PB $11.95
A series of six books,
each exploring a
different biome, its
plants, and its animals
To order or to learn more about other titles at Fulcrum Publishing, visit:
4690 Table Mountain Drive, Suite 100 • Golden, Colorado USA 80403
Phone: 303-277-1623 • Fax: 303-279-7111
Thomas Locker
The Girl Who Married the Moon
Jill Ker Conway,Illustrated by Lokken Millis
Felipe, a young flamingo, is left
behind when his flock migrates to find
more food. As he awaits his parents
he learns many life lessons.
Walking with Henry
Based on the Life and Works of
Henry David Thoreau
To order or to learn more about other titles at Fulcrum Publishing, visit:
4690 Table Mountain Drive, Suite 100 • Golden, Colorado USA 80403
Phone: 303-277-1623 • Fax: 303-279-7111
The WILD Foundation
717 Poplar Avenue
Boulder, CO 80304 USA
www . wild . org
Nonprofit
Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Boulder, CO
Permit No. 63
For Wilderness Worldwide
www . wild . org
Sponsoring Organizations
Conservation International
Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
The WILD ® Foundation
The Wilderness Society
University of Montana, College of Forestry and
Conservation and Wilderness Institute
USDA Forest Service
USDI Bureau of Land Management
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
USDI National Park Service
Wilderness Foundation (South Africa)
Adapting wilderness stewardship to global change
Wilderness Foundation (UK)
Diversity of wilderness ecosystems
Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)
Wilderness Land Trust
Wilderness Task Force
Wilderness network conservation in northern Spain
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement