Managing wilderness in the 21st century is complicated. Recently, a debate regarding ecological restoration in federally designated wilderness has intensified - how should we manage for "naturalness" or "wildness" or both? Leopold Institute investigators have weighed in on this issue in a number of topical journal articles as listed below.
SYNOPSIS
Many problems that face US federal wilderness managers were undoubtedly unforeseen by the authors of the 1964 Wilderness Act. According to this Act, wilderness should support both the attributes of naturalness and wildness. In this context "naturalness" describes an ecological condition. Within the Act, wilderness is defined as land "retaining its primeval character and influence... which is protected and managed to preserve its natural conditions." Additionally, according to the Act, wilderness is "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man." Untrammeled is synonymous with unconfined, unmanipulated, unhampered, self-willed, and free. The word "wildness" represents this social condition, one in which an area is untrammeled and free from human control, regardless of preexisting conditions or future consequences. A dilemma arises when managers consider manipulating wilderness ecosystems and trammeling the wilderness in order to restore natural conditions, in effect assuming that the ends (natural conditions) justify the means (trammelling). Thus, managing for naturalness may sometimes conflict with managing for wildness.
Historic fire suppression, livestock grazing, exotic species introduction, and global climate change are all human influences that affect the ecological character and function of wilderness. In the face of these changes, the primary dilemma is how to simultaneously manage lands to be both natural and wild. For managers and wilderness advocates the challenges within this wilderness restoration dilemma revolve around agreeing on target conditions and deciding when to take action. Philosophical and practical questions surrounding this debate are addressed in the following articles: |
Landres, P. 2004. Managing wildness in designated wilderness. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:498-499.
Abstract:
This short essay is part of a set of essays that respond to an opening essay by Peter Alpert on "Managing the wild: should stewards be pilots?" The essay discusses the dilemma posed to managers when ecological conditions and processes are so compromised that sustaining "natural conditions" is no longer possible without human intervention. While the legislated goal for wilderness is to be both wild and natural, in some situations implementing these goals creates a unique and central dilemma for wilderness managers: not taking restoration action may allow natural conditions to further degrade, but taking action destroys the symbolic value of restraint and may influence natural conditions in wilderness in unknown ways. Whereas some conservationists argue that the current biological diversity crisis demands that we manipulate wilderness to restore natural conditions there, in my view wildness is even more rare and threatened than naturalness in our increasingly developed world. In addition, I believe that the unique legislated goal of wildness means that the burden of proof for taking restoration action in Wilderness is higher than for any other type of land. Deciding whether to manage the wild in wilderness-whether to be guardians or gardeners-should be difficult because the consequences are large, demanding that we fully understand what we gain and what we lose by our actions.
Leopold Institute Publication Number 531 (112k)
To read, "Managing the wild: should stewards be pilots?" the opening essay by Peter Alpert, and the whole series of response essays, please Click Here.
Landres, Peter. 2002. Wilderness Restoration: The Dilemma Of Managing For Wildness And Naturalness. Lecture given as part of the annual Wilderness Lecture Series, Univeristy of Montana, February 2002.
Click here to view Presentation (pdf format)
NOTE: If you do not have Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer, you can view this presentation by downloading
Acrobat Reader.
Cole, David, N. 2001. Management Dilemmas That Will Shape Wilderness in the 21st Century. Journal of Forestry 99(1): 4-8.
Abstract:
How we resolve two management dilemmas will determine the future nature and value of wilderness. The first dilemma is providing for use and enjoyment while protecting wilderness conditions. The second is whether wilderness ecosystems should be left wild and "untrammeled" or, paradoxically, be manipulated toward a more natural state. Alternative solutions are explored. Because compromises between value systems will tend to homogenize wilderness areas, such that no area will fully meet any goal, we should consider allocating separate lands to each goal. Expanding our conception of wilderness will help us develop a diverse system
that satisfies multiple needs.
Leopold Institute Publication Number 419 (309k)
Landres, Peter; Brunson, Mark W.; Merigliano, Linda. 2001. Naturalness and Wildness: The Dilemma and Irony of Ecological Restoration in Wilderness. Wild Earth 10(4): 77-82.
Abstract:
The fires throughout the western United States in the summer of 2000 raise a difficult question about all wildlands and especially federally designated wilderness: should fuels accumulated from decades of fire suppression be removed to restore more natural ecological conditions? More generally, when and how do wilderness managers decide to take actions to restore natural conditions in wilderness? What is gained and what is lost by such actions? Here we explore the dilemma and irony surrounding two concepts, naturalness and wildness, that arises over proposals to restore natural ecological conditions in designated wilderness. We assert that the right course of action is not simply doing what is necessary to restore natural conditions because the goal in wilderness is to restore and support both naturalness and wildness.
Leopold Institute Publication Number 417
Cole, David N.; Hammitt, William E. 2000. Wilderness Management Dilemmas: Fertile Ground for Wilderness Management Research. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Freimund, Wayne A.; O'Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference? Volume 1: Changing perspectives and future directions; 2000 May 23?27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 58-63.
Abstract:
Increasingly, wilderness managers must choose between the objective of wildness (“untrammeled” wilderness) and the objectives of naturalness and solitude. This dilemma has surfaced with awareness of the pervasiveness of human influence in wilder-ness and that regulation is often the only way to maintain outstanding opportunities for solitude. Should we trammel wilderness to compensate for unnatural effects of human activity or, to avoid trammeling wilderness, should we allow conditions to become increasingly unnatural? Should we restrict access and behavior to preserve opportunities for solitude, knowing this will exacerbate supply/demand problems and deny visitors a sense of freedom and spontaneity? This paper discusses this dilemma and opportunities for research in support of different objectives.
Leopold Institute Publication Number 384 (121k)
Cole, David N. 2000. Paradox of the primeval: Ecological restoration in wilderness. Ecological Restoration 18(2): 77-86.
Abstract:
Wilderness ecosystems should ideally be wild (untrammeled), natural, and primeval. This essay explores differences between these attributes and implications of these differences to the appropriateness of manipulative ecological restoration in wilderness. It concludes with the suggestion that we seriously consider practicing manipulative restoration in some wilderness areas while leaving other wilderness lands unmanipulated.
Leopold Institute Publication Number 374
Cole, David N. 2000. Natural. Uncrowded or Free: Which of These Should Wilderness Be? International Journal of Wilderness 6(2): 5-8.
Abstract:
The most important and desirable attributes of wilderness are that it is natural, wild, uncrowded, and free. However, these attributes come into conflict with each other as society faces difficult decisions about wilderness management. This article discusses these attributes, ultimately suggesting that the value of wilderness might be optimized by embracing a diverse wilderness system, a system in which wilderness values are maximized or minimized in different areas.
Leopold Institute Publication Number 411
Landres, Peter B.; Brunson, Mark W.; Merigliano, Linda; Sydoriak, Charisse; Morton, Steve. 2000. Naturalness and Wildness: The Dilemma and Irony of Managing Wilderness. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O'Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference - Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 2000 May 23-27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 377-381.
Abstract:
This paper summarizes a dialogue session that focused on two concepts that strongly influence nearly all wilderness management: wildness and naturalness. The origin and value of these concepts are discussed, as well as the dilemma and irony that arises when wilderness managers contemplate manipulating the environment to restore naturalness at the risk of reducing wildness. To illustrate this irony, a case study of a proposed large-scale manipulation to stop the loss of cultural resources in the Bandelier Wilderness is discussed. It is concluded that large scale wilderness restoration based on manipulating the environment will always cause a dilemma and entail the irony of balancing wildness against naturalness. One of the biggest hurdles facing wilderness policy-makers and managers today, as well as the concerned public, is how to reconcile these views and manage wilderness for both wildness and naturalness.
Leopold Institute Publication Number 408 (123K)
Sydoriak, Charisse A.; Allen, Craig D.; Jacobs, Brian F. 2000. Would Ecological Landscape Restoration Make the Bandelier Wilderness More or Less of a Wilderness?. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O'Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change conference - Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management; 2000 May 23 - 27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 2000.
Abstract:
The purpose of this paper is to foster discussion on the basic issue of whether it is appropriate or not to intervene in designated wilderness areas that have been "trammeled by man" and, as a result, no longer retain their "primeval character and influence." We explore this wilderness management dilemma (whether we can or should actively manage wilderness conditions to restore and protect wilderness and other values) by asking seven questions relating to a wilderness area that is no longer "natural." (For the purposes of this discussion, "natural" is defined by words and phrases used in the 1964 Wilderness Act: "a community of life untrammeled by man"; "land retaining its primeval character and influence"; and or existing in an "unimpaired condition."). Debate on this issue is not new, but is intensifying, since most wilderness areas in the continental United States are not pristine and ecosystem research has shown that conditions in many are deteriorating. To facilitate dialog on this wilderness management topic we focus on a case-study of a proposed large-scale project to restore piñon-juniper woodlands in the Bandelier Wilderness, New Mexico.
Download this publication
Cole, David N. 1996. Ecological manipulation in wilderness--an emerging management dilemma. International Journal of Wilderness 2(1): 15-19.
Abstract:
The 1964 Wilderness Act contains at least three conflicting goals: preservation of natural or pristine conditions, avoidance of intentional ecological manipulation, and provision of opportunities for use. As anthropogenic disturbance of wilderness intensifies, managers must increasingly face the dilemma of choosing between the goals of restoring pristine conditions and avoiding conscious manipulation of ecosystems. At the crux of this dilemma are questions about the value of wilderness as a reference area or baseline and what wilderness should provide a reference to. Several compromise approaches with the potential for partial resolution of this dilemma are offered but more ideas and debate are needed.
Leopold Institute Publication Number 283
Back to Top
|
LEOPOLD INSTITUTE 790 E. BECKWITH AVE. MISSOULA, MT 59801 406-542-4190