TheDefinitionofWildernessCharacterin“KeepingItWild”Jeopardizesthe
WildnessofWilderness
DavidCole,DougScott,EdZahniser,RogerKaye,GeorgeNickas,andKevinProescholdt
“Wemustrememberalwaysthattheessentialqualityofwildernessisitswildness”
---HowardZahniser
Introduction
Forthosewhocarepassionatelyaboutthestewardshipofwilderness—aswedo—nothing
ismoreimportanttogetrightthanthedefinitionofwildernesscharacter.Sincethecentral
mandateoftheWildernessActistopreservewildernesscharacter,thefutureofour
wildernesssystemisdependentonhowwildernesscharacter—somethingthatisnot
explicitlydefinedintheAct—isinterpreted.Forthepastdecadewehavevoicedconcerns
overmisinterpretationofwildernesscharacterinagencymonitoringprotocols,themost
recentofwhichis“KeepingItWild2.”(KIW2)(Landresetal.2008,inpress).
KIW2defineswildernesscharacteras“aholisticconceptbasedontheinteractionof(1)
biophysicalenvironmentsprimarilyfreefrommodernhumanmanipulationandimpact,(2)
personalexperiencesinnaturalenvironmentsrelativelyfreefromtheencumbrancesandsigns
ofmodernsociety,and(3)symbolicmeaningsofhumility,restraint,andinterdependencethat
inspirehumanconnectionwithnature.”Wehavelittleproblemwiththis.However,this
conceptualdefinitionisnotusedeitherintheKIW2monitoringframeworkorasaguideto
makingwildernessstewardshipdecisions.Instead,togivepracticalmeaningtowilderness
character,KIW2statesthatwildernesscharactershouldbedefinedasfiveseparatequalities:
untrammeled,undeveloped,natural,outstandingopportunitiesforsolitudeoraprimitive
andunconfinedtypeofrecreation,andotherfeaturesofscientific,educational,scenic,or
historicalvalue.ThesefivequalitiesincludealltheattributesmentionedintheSec.2(c)
definitionofwildernessintheWildernessAct.Theyareconsideredtobeequalin
importanceandofteninconflictwitheachother(Landresetal.2008,inpress),makingthe
conceptofwildernesscharacterinternallycontradictoryratherthanasinglecoherent
stewardshipgoal.
Wedisagree.Thepurposeofthemandatetoprotectwildernesscharacteraboveallelseis
tofocustheattentionofwildernessstewardsonpreservingthe“essence”ofwilderness—
thosequalitiesthataremostuniqueanddistinctiveaboutwildernessandmakeit“a
contrastwiththoseareaswheremanandhisownworksdominatethelandscape”.Itis
aboutdifferentiatingthemostimportantthingstoprotectfromthemanyotherthingsthat
ideallymightbeprotectedinwilderness.Forthispurpose,wildernesscharactermustbe
definedasacoherentwhole,inamannerthatisnotinternallycontradictory.Itcannotbe
brokendownintoseparatequalities.
Webelievethatwildernesscharacterisfundamentallyaboutwildnessandthatitshouldbe
definedasthedegreetowhichwildernessisfreefromdeliberatehumanmodification,
control,andmanipulationofacharacterandscopethathampersthefreeplayofnatural
ecologicalprocesses.
Thefive-qualityKIW2definitionconfuseswildernesscharacterwithalistofallthethings
wevalueinwildernessandwouldliketoprotectandpreserve.Bymakingallwilderness
valuesapartofwildernesscharacter,andtreatingallthosevaluesasequalinimportance,
thisdefinitionnegatestheintendedpurposeandmeaningofwildernesscharacter.Most
onerously,itundervaluestheimportanceofprotectingwildness.Wildernesscharacter
cannotbeprotectedaboveotherwildernessattributesandvaluesifallattributesand
valuesareincludedinthedefinitionofwildernesscharacterandwildnesscannotbe
emphasizedwhenitisjustoneofmanyvaluesthatmanagersmightprotect.
Inrecentyears,ourconcernsabouttheinappropriateKIW2definitionofwilderness
characterhavegrown,asthosewhodevelopedithavepromoteditsuse—notjustasa
monitoringframework—butasthebasisforwildernessstewardship(Landresetal.2011).
Withoutmeaningfulpublicinvolvement,theagencieschargedwithwilderness
managementhaveincorporatedthefive-qualitydefinitionintotheirstewardshippolicy
andguidanceandithasbeenincorporatedintostewardshipdecisionmakingprocesses
suchastheMinimumRequirementsDecisionGuide(ArthurCarhartNationalWilderness
TrainingCenternd).Wildernessstewardshipdecisionsbasedonaninappropriate
definitionofwildernesscharacterarelikelytobeinappropriateandultimatelywillharm
wilderness.OfparticularconcernistheinternallycontradictorynatureoftheKIW2
framework,whichmakesitacceptabletotrade-offdegradationofaqualitysuchas
“untrammeled”forimprovementinanotherqualitysuchas“natural.”Thisgivesmanagers
almostinfinitediscretionindecidingwhichvalueswillbeprotectedandwhichwillbe
compromisedtoachievetheirgoals.
Inthisarticle,weprovideamoreappropriatedefinitionofwildernesscharacteranda
rationaleforwhywildernesscharactershouldbedefinedthisway,arguingthatour
definitionismoreconsistentwiththeWildernessActandbetterforwildernessthanthe
five-qualityKIW2definition.Weaddressconcernsthatsomehaveraisedwithour
approachandconcludewithspecificrecommendationsformovingforwardinamanner
thatmeetsmanyofthegoalsofKIW2,despitetheneedtodevelopamoreappropriate
definitionofwildernesscharacter.
Wedonotofferrecommendationsforincorporatingourperspectiveintoimproved
wildernesscharactermonitoringprotocols.Thisreflectsourbeliefthatwilderness
characterismoreusefulasanoverarchingprincipletoguidestewardshipdecisionsthan
somethingtangiblethatcanbemeaningfullyassessedandmonitored.Whenitcomesto
assessingthesuccessofwildernessstewardship,itisbettertomonitorarangeof
wildernessconditionsthantoattempttomeasurewildernesscharacteritself.Fortunately,
thisisexactlywhatthewildernesscharactermonitoringprogramhasbeendoing.We
applaudthiseffortandnothingweareproposingshoulddetractfromit.So-called
wildernesscharactermonitoringshouldsimplyberecognizedforwhatitis—aprotocolfor
comprehensivelymonitoringconditionsinwilderness—andlabeledmoreappropriately.
AnAppropriateDefinitionofWildernessCharacter
Wildernesscharacterisfundamentallyaboutwildness.Itshouldbedefinedasthedegree
towhichwildernessisfreefromdeliberatehumanmodification,control,andmanipulation
ofacharacterandscopethathampersthefreeplayofnaturalecologicalprocesses.
Protectingwildernesscharacterisaboutensuringthatwildernessremainsuntrammeled
andundeveloped,withouthumanoccupationordomination.Wedosobynotallowing
developmentsormanipulatingwildernessecosystemstoanysignificantdegree.
Manipulationswheretheintentismoretoremoveevidenceofhumansthantointervenein
ecologicalprocesses,suchasrestorationofanimpactedcampsite,arenotaconcern.
Actionsthatseektomodifywildernessecosystemssignificantly,suchasaprogramof
herbicidesprayingorprescribedfire,aremuchhardertojustifybecausetheydegrade
wildernesscharacter.
Wearenotaloneinbelievingthatwildnessisthecentralqualityofwildernesscharacter.In
1953,HowardZahniserwrote,“Wemustrememberalwaysthattheessentialqualityofthe
wildernessisitswildness.”Inthatsameparagraph,Zahniserstated:“wemustnotonly
protectthewildernessfromcommercialexploitation.Wemustalsoseethatwedonot
ourselvesdestroyitswildernesscharacterinourownmanagementprograms”(Harvey
2014).
Morerecently,JackTurnerwrotethat“ifwefailtoincorporatewildnessintowhatwe
meanbywildernesswesimplydefinewildernessoutofexistence”(Burks1995:179).Doug
Scott(Scott2001-2002),inanarticleonwildernesscharacterandtheWildernessAct,
statesthatitistheworduntrammeledthatdefines“thewildernesscharacter(that)itisthe
dutyofconservationistsandlandmanagerstoprotect,”aperspectiverepeatedby
Proescholdt(2008).HowardZahniser’sson,Ed,concludedanarticleonwilderness
characterwiththestatement“Thewildernesscharacterofdesignatedwildernessisits
wildness(Zahniser2014).
In1963,HowardZahniserdiscussedthestewardshipimplicationsofprotectingwildnessin
aneditorialthattookissuewiththeDepartmentofInterior’sLeopoldReportonwildlife
managementinnationalparks.Thereportrecommendedthatnationalparksbeactively
managedtorestoretheirconditionatthetimetheywerefirstvisitedbywhitemen,to
present“avignetteofprimitiveAmerica”(Leopoldetal.1963).Zahniserwrotethat“…the
board’sreportposesaseriousthreattothewildernesswithinthenationalparksystemand
indeedthewildernessconceptitself.”It“…iscertainlyincontrastwiththewilderness
philosophyofprotectingareasattheirboundariesandtryingtoletnaturalforcesoperate
withinthewildernessuntrammeledbyman.”Heconcludedtheeditorial:“Withregardto
areasofwilderness,weshouldbeguardiansnotgardeners”(Zahniser1963a).
Ourrationaleforassertingthatwildernesscharactershouldbedefinedaswildness,as
opposedtoallfiveofthewildernessvaluesintheKIW2definition,reflectsourbeliefthat
wildernesscharacteristheessenceofwilderness—noteverythingaboutwilderness.Itis
alsoconsistentwithourbeliefthatwildernesscharactermustprovideaninternally
consistentstewardshipgoal,ratherthanconsistofseparatequalitiesthatconflictwitheach
other,forcingstewardstochoosewhichqualitiesofwildernesscharactertoprotect.
WildernessCharacteristheEssenceofWilderness—NotEverythingabout
Wilderness
Whyshouldwildernesscharacterbeconfinedtotheessenceofwilderness,itsuniqueand
distinctivequalities,ratherthaneverythingintheWildernessAct’sdefinitionof
wilderness?Thedictionarydefinitionsof“character”include“acombinationofqualities
thatmakesomethinguniqueordistinct”and“themainoressentialnaturethatservesto
distinguish”something.So,charactercanbeeitherthemainoressentialqualityora
combinationofqualities.Whatisconsistentinthevarieddefinitionsofcharacteris
uniquenessanddistinctivenessandwhatismostuniqueanddistinctiveaboutwilderness
isitswildness,particularlyitsuntrammeledcondition.Manypubliclandsareundeveloped;
manypubliclandsaremanagedfornativefloraandfaunaandthenaturalecological
processesthatsustainthem;manypubliclandsaremanagedtoprovideprimitiveand
undevelopedrecreation,aswellassolitude;andvirtuallyallpubliclandsaremanagedto
protectotherfeaturesofvalue.Butoutsidewilderness,fewpubliclandsaredeliberately
administeredwithhumilityandrestraint,asthelastplacesthatlie“beyondthecontrolof
humaninstitutionsandculturalimperatives”(Kammer2013),asplaceswhereeventhe
goalofrestoringdegradedecosystemsisnotasufficientjustificationforhumancontroland
manipulation.
OurperspectiveonwildernesscharacterisinfluencedbyabeliefthatCongresschosethat
phrasecarefully.TheWildernessActdescribestheconditionsthatdefinewildernessand
thatstewardsareresponsibleforprotecting:“primevalcharacterandinfluence,”lackof
“permanentimprovementsorhumanhabitation,”“naturalconditions,”and“outstanding
opportunitiesforsolitudeoraprimitiveandunconfinedtypeofrecreation.”Itstatesthat
wildernessareasmaycontain“ecological,geologicalandotherfeaturesofscientific,
educational,scenicorhistoricalvalue.”Havingclarifiedthesetangiblequalities,theAct
goesontostatethataboveallelseagenciesaretopreservethe“wildernesscharacter”of
thearea.WhydidCongressnotstatethegoaltobepreservationofwilderness,whichthey
definedinconsiderabledetail,unlesstheymeantthepreservationofwildernesscharacter
tomeansomethingmorethansimplypreservingthelistofqualitiesthatdefinewilderness?
WemustassumethatwhenCongresssaidthatmanagersmustprotectwilderness
charactertheymeantsomethingmorethanthatmanagersmustprotectwilderness.
Otherwisetheword“character”wouldbesuperfluousandtheSupremeCourtinsists,asa
basicprincipleofstatutoryinterpretation,thatstatutesshouldbeconstrued“soastoavoid
renderingsuperfluous”anystatutorylanguage(AstoriaFederalSavings&LoanAss’nv.
Solimino,1991).Courtsmust“giveeffect,ifpossible,toeveryclauseandwordofastatute,
avoidinganyconstructionwhichimpliesthatthelegislaturewasignorantofthemeaningof
thelanguageitemployed”(Montclairv.Ramsdell,1883).Sincewildernesscharactermust
meansomethingdifferentfromwilderness,itisamistaketoassertthatthedefinitionof
wildernessisthedefinitionofwildernesscharacter.Todoso,asKIW2(Landresetal.
2008,inpress)does,stripswildernesscharacterofitsspecialandintendedmeaning.
Thosewhodevelopedwildernesscharactermonitoringtakegreatprideinhavingelevated
theimportanceofwildernesscharacter.Weagreethatwildernesscharacterhasbeen
elevatedinimportanceandapplaudthisoutcome.However,itisironicthatthishasbeen
accomplishedbydefiningwildernesscharacterinsuchawaythatprotectingitmeans
nothingmorethanwhatprotectingwildernessgenerallyhasmeantforthepast50years.A
trulymeaningfuloutcomewouldbeelevatingtheimportanceofwildernesscharacter
definedinawaythatfocusesattentiononprotectingtheessenceofwilderness,whichwe
believeisitswildness.
TheEssenceofWildernessCharacterisWildness
AssumingCongressintendedthemandatetoprotectwildernesscharactertomean
somethingmorethansimplyprotectingallthewildernessvaluesmentionedinthe
WildernessAct,whydowebelievethatessentialsomethingisrootedintheconceptof
wildness?Therearemultiplelinesofevidenceandreasoning.Wehavealreadynotedthat
themostuniqueanddistinctiveattributeofwilderness—thegreatestcontrastbetween
wildernessandotherpubliclands—isitswildanduntrammelednature.Togainanother
perspectiveonCongressionalintent,onecanlooktothestatementofpurpose,inSec.2(a)
oftheWildernessAct,whichspeakstoensuringthatalllandsarenotoccupiedand
modifiedbyhumans.Finally,onecanlookathowCongressdefinedwildernessasanideal,
beforeincludinginthedefinitionthecharacteristicsanareathatqualifiesforwilderness
mayhave.Tounderstandthedefinitionofidealwildernessonemustunderstandthe
structureofthedefinitionofwildernessintheActandhowthatdefinitionevolvedoverthe
yearsittooktopasstheAct.Scott(2001-2002)providesadetaileddiscussionofpointswe
brieflysummarizehere.
Subsection2(c)oftheActcontainstwosentencesthatdefinewilderness.Thefirst
sentence,“Awilderness,incontrastwiththoseareaswheremanandhisworksdominate
thelandscape,isherebyrecognizedasanareawheretheearthanditscommunityoflife
areuntrammeledbyman,wheremanhimselfisavisitorwhodoesnotremain”originated
intheWildernessBillintroducedin1956.AsScott(2001-2002)notes,slightwordchanges
weremadetothefinalclause,buttheuseoftheworduntrammeledtodefinewilderness
didnotchangeovertheensuingeightyears.In1960,however,whenanewversionofthe
WildernessBillwasintroduced,asecondsentencewasaddedbySenatorJamesMurray,
whoexplaineditwasadded“inresponsetorequestsforadditionalandmoreconcrete
detailsindefiningareasofwilderness”(Scott2001-2002).Thissentenceincludes
“undevelopedFederallandwithoutpermanentimprovementsorhumanhabitation,”
“imprintofman’sworksubstantiallyunnoticeable,”“outstandingopportunitiesforsolitude
oraprimitiveandunconfinedtypeofrecreation,”andotherfeaturesofvalue.Following
Murray,subsequentsponsorsofnewversionsoftheWildernessAct(SenatorClinton
AndersonandRepresentativeJohnSaylor)statedthatthefirstsentencedescribesthe
natureofwildernessasanidealconceptwhilethesecondsentenceprovidespractical
detailonareasthatshouldbeconsideredforwildernessdesignation(Scott2001-2002).
Thetwosentencesthatdefinewildernesshavedifferentfunctions.Thefirstsentence
defineswhatwildernessshouldideallybe,whatstewardshiphopestoattainormaintain;
thesecondsentencedefinescharacteristicsthatwildernesslandsmayhave.Wherewe
differfromKIW2isinourcontentionthatthesentencethatdefinestheidealismore
relevantthanthesecondsentencetounderstandingwhatCongressconsideredtheessence
ofwildernesstobe—toanappropriatedefinitionofwildernesscharacter—landswhere
humansdonotdominate,thatareuntrammeledandwithouthumanoccupation.
Ourperspectiveonwhichpartofthedefinitionofwildernessiscentraltowilderness
characterisnotoriginal.Althoughitisnotofficiallegislativehistory,manyofusrevere
HowardZahniser,authorandchiefadvocateoftheWildernessAct,andlooktohis
explanationstofullyunderstandthislaw.Intheonlyexplicitstatementofwhatwilderness
characteris,heexplainedatoneofthefinalhearingsonthebill:
Inthisdefinitionthefirstsentenceisdefinitiveofthemeaningoftheconceptof
wilderness,itsessence,itsessentialnature—adefinitionthatmakesplainthe
characteroflandswithwhichthebilldeals,theideal.Thesecondsentenceis
descriptiveoftheareastowhichthisdefinitionapplies—alistingofthe
specificationsofwildernessareas;itsetsforththedistinguishingfeaturesofareas
thathavethecharacterofwilderness….Thefirstsentencedefinesthecharacter
ofwilderness,theseconddescribesthecharacteristicsofanareaofwilderness
(emphasisadded)(Zahniser1963b).
WildernessCharacterShouldbeDefinedinanInternallyConsistentManner
WeagreewiththeKIW2teamthatwildernesscharacterisaholisticconceptandthat
wildernessstewardshipshouldbeaboutpreservingwildernesscharacterasawhole,not
simplyoneofitsqualities.Thatiswhywehavedevelopedadefinitionofwilderness
character—withitsemphasisonthecomplementaryattributesofwildness,untrammeled
andundeveloped—thatisinternallyconsistent.Italsoexplainsourconcernwiththe
internallycontradictorynatureoftheKIW2conceptionofwildernesscharacterasfive
separatequalitiesthatoftenconflictwitheachother.Wildernessstewardshaveacomplex
jobthatcaninvolvedecidingamongcompetingwildernessvalues,butthosechoicesshould
notbeinternaltotheoverridingprincipleguidingwildernessstewardship,the
preservationofwildernesscharacter.
SomemightquestionhowprotectingwildnesscanbereconciledwiththeAct’sdirectionto
preservenaturalconditions.Muchhasbeenwrittenaboutthedilemmaofchoosing
betweenmaintainingwildness(untrammeled)andrestoringnaturalness(Cole1996).
Landresetal.(2008,inpress)consideruntrammeledandnaturaltobetwoseparateoften
conflictingqualitiesofwildernesscharacter.However,naturalcanbedefinedinmultiple
ways(ColeandYung2010).Itcanbeconsideredequivalenttountrammeledandmeannot
deliberatelycontrolledormanipulatedbyhumans.Alternatively,itcanbedefined,asKIW2
does,tobeequivalenttoundisturbedratherthanuntrammeled.AccordingtoKIW2,
naturalconditionsprevailwhere“ecologicalsystemsaresubstantiallyfreefromtheeffects
ofmoderncivilization,”,where“forexample,indigenousplantandanimalspecies
predominate,orthefireregimeiswithinwhatisconsidereditsnaturalreturninterval,
distributionoverthelandscape,andpatternsofburnseverity.”
Interpretingnaturaltomeanundisturbedinsteadofuntrammeledviolatesseveralrulesof
statutoryconstruction.The“traditionaltools”ofconstructionrequireinterpretationofan
entirestatute“asasymmetricalandcoherentregulatoryscheme,”Gustafsonv.AlloydCo.,
513U.S.561,569(1995).AsKammer(2013)states,inanarticleonwildliferestorationin
wilderness,“Termsinastatuteshouldnotbeinterpretedsoastocreatecontradictions
withotherterms…wheneveritispossibletoavoidthemusinganotherreasonable
interpretationbasedonaplainreading.”FortheWildernessAct,thismeansthat“natural
conditions”mustbedefined—asitcanbe—inamannerthatsupplementsratherthan
contravenestherequirementthatwildernessretainitsuntrammeledwildness.Kammer
(2013)offersthefollowingexplanationforwhyuntrammeledandnaturalshouldnotbe
consideredtwoseparatequalitiesofwildernesscharacter:
Whatevercanbesaidregardingthecontinuedmeritsofpreservingthewildnessor
naturalautonomyofprotectedareasattheexpenseofcertainenvironmentalvalues
(suchasbiodiversity,ecologicalintegrity,orresilience)whichmaybethreatenedby
pervasivehumaninfluence—thisispreciselywhattheActrequires.AsPeter
Landresandotherswrotein2000,theActcodifiedastrictnature-cultureduality,
onethatstrictlyprohibitsinjectionsofcultureintonature,suchasthoseembodied
inso-called‘ecologicalinterventions’undertakenforthepurposeof‘redress[ing]
someofthe“sins”ofculture’and‘mak[ing]thingsrightinourrelationshipwith
nature.’ThisiswhyGordonSteinhoffrecentlyconcludedthat“[t]heWildernessAct
doesnotpresentmanagerswithconflictingrequirements,’(Landres1999)andthat
‘[t]hedilemma[managersfind]withintheAct—toeithermaintainwildnessor
restorenaturalness—arisesonlybecause“naturalconditions”hasbeen
misinterpreted.’(Steinhoff2010).
Wildernesscharacter,definedaswesuggest,providesasinglecoherentstewardship
goal—mostsuccinctlystatedastheprotectionofwildness.Thatsaid,weconsiderwildness
tobeconsistentwithboththeuntrammeledandundevelopedqualitiesofKIW2(Landres
etal.(2008,inpress)andevenwithnaturalness,definedproperlytomeannotdeliberately
controlledormanipulatedbyhumans.Ourconceptionofwildernesscharacter
encompassesbutshouldnotbedividedintothesequalities.Theotherqualitiesthatdefine
wilderness,suchasoutstandingopportunitiesforsolitudeoraprimitiveandunconfined
typeofrecreationareimportantcharacteristicsofwildernessthatshouldbeprotectedto
theextentthatdoingsodoesnothavesubstantialadverseeffectsonwildernesscharacter.
WildernessCharacterandWildernessStewardship
Wehaveheardconcernsthatourdefinitionofwildernesscharacterwillleadtothe
derelictionofmanagerialdutyanddegradationofwildernessbecauseitdoesnotinclude
alltheconditionsCongressmentionedinitsdefinitionofwilderness.Itleavesoutmanyof
thewildernessattributesthatwildernessstewardsaresupposedtoprotect.Thisconcern
wouldbevalidiftheonlyresponsibilityofwildernessmanagerswastoprotectwilderness
character.Butthisisclearlynotthecase.
Wildernesscharacterdoesnotdefinetheentiretyofthewildernessmanager’sjob.Rather
itestablishestherelativeimportanceofvariousmanagementobjectives,someofwhich
conflictwitheachother.Wildernessmanagersaregivenawidearrayofthingstoprovide
andprotect,themostimportantofwhichiswildernesscharacter.Theyaresupposedto
provideopportunitiesforvariouspublicpurposes,suchasrecreation,researchand
education.Theyaresupposedtoprotectwildernessqualitiesthatareimportantbutnot
centraltowildernesscharacter,suchasrockart,paleontologicalfeaturesandpopulations
ofnativefloraandfaunathatarestressedbyeverythingfrominvasivespeciestolandscape
fragmentation,firesuppressionandclimatechange.Wherethesecanbeprovidedforand
protectedwithoutsubstantialadverseeffectonwildernesscharacter,managersare
requiredtodoso.
Wehaveheardconcernsthat,withourdefinitionofwildernesscharacter,wilderness
managerswouldbeunabletoactivelymanagewilderness.Theywouldbeunableto
addressrecreationimpactissues,removedevelopmentssuchasstockponds,removenonnativespeciesorreintroduceextirpatedspecies.Nothingcouldbefurtherfromthetruth.
Whileweadvocatecautionandrestraint—particularlywiththereintroductionofa
species—suchactionsareentirelyappropriateiftheyarenot“ofacharacterandscopethat
hampersthefreeplayofnaturalecologicalprocesses.”Thatsaid,wildernessstewardship
foundedonourdefinitionofwildernesscharacter—withitsemphasisonprotectingthe
wildanduntrammeled—wouldbelessactiveandinterventionistthanstewardship
foundedontheKIW2definition.Ourperspectiveismoreatoddswiththetraditional
managementethos—onethatemphasizesdoingthingsandinwhichthereisnorewardfor
inaction.ItismoreinlinewiththenotionofNationalParkServiceinterpreterFreeman
Tildenthatwepreservethingsbestthroughinactionandtheassertionofwildlifebiologist
AdolphMuriethat“administratorsshouldbetoldthattheirsuccesswillbemeasured,not
byprojectsaccomplished,butbyprojectssidetracked”(Zahniser2014).
ConclusionsandRecommendations
Oneofthegreatestchallengestokeepingwildernesswildisovercomingtheimpulseof
managerstointervene—toassumethatdoingsomethingwillmakethingsbetter.Congress
directedwildernessstewardstostepoutsidethetraditionalmanagementethosof
manipulationandcontrolandtreatwildernessdifferently.Theydidsobymakingthe
protectionofwildernesscharactertheoverridingprincipleofwildernessstewardshipand
equatingprotectionofwildernesscharacterwithprotectionofwildnessanduntrammeled
conditions.OurgreatestconcernwithhowKIW2conceivesofwildernesscharacteristhat
itbolsterstheinnatedesireofmanagerstoact—tomanipulateandcontrol.Bymaking
protectionofthewildanduntrammeledjustoneoffivequalitiesofwildernesscharacter—
ratherthantheoverridingqualityofwildernesscharacter—itnegatesthestrongest
argumentthatcanbemadeagainstconstantactionandinterventioninwilderness.
InKIW2,Landresetal.(inpress)statethatwildernesscharacterisa“holisticconcept”that
includesintangiblevaluesaswellasthetangible,thatactionsbasedonwilderness
charactershouldreflect“humilityandrestraint”andinvolve“preservingwildernessasa
whole”ratherthan“balancingtrade-offs.”Wecouldnotagreemore.However,overthepast
decadeofapplyingtheirdefinitionofwildernesscharacterbothtomonitoringand
stewardship,weseenoevidencethatthisisthecase.Ratherthanbeingholistic,wilderness
characterisdividedinareductionistmannerintofivequalities,eachofwhichismonitored
andevaluatedseparately.Ifmonitoringdatashowthatmorequalitieshaveimprovedthan
degraded,thenwildernesscharacterissaidtohaveimproved.Touseahypothetical
example,inawildernesswheretrammelingincreasedsignificantly,fromamajorecological
intervention,thetrendinwildernesscharacterwouldstillbeconsideredpositiveifthere
wereimprovementsintwootherqualities,perhapsprotectionofanhistoriclookoutand
providingmoreopportunitiesforunconfinedrecreationbyeliminatingarestrictionsuch
asabanoncampfires.
Asimilarapproachistakentomakingstewardshipdecisions.Forexample,ananalysisof
effectsonwildernesscharacteriscentraltotheframeworktheagencieshavedevelopedto
assistmanagersinmakingdecisionsrelatedtowildernessstewardshipactions,the
MinimumRequirementsDecisionGuide(Landresetal.2011).Thisanalysisisconductedby
individually(ratherthanholistically)evaluatingeachofthefivequantifiablequalitiesof
wildernesscharacter(noneofwhichreflectthehostofintangiblevalues),deriving
summaryratingsbasedontradingoffthesequalities,asiftheywereofequalimportance.
Thismakesiteasytojustifyanactionthatdegradeswildnessbutbenefitsseveralofthe
valueslesscentraltowildernesscharacter.Inthismanner,actionsthatdegradewhatis
mostuniqueanddistinctiveaboutwildernessareencouraged—notbymanagersabusing
theprocess,butbymanagersfollowinganinappropriateprocessbasedona
misinterpretationofwildernesscharacter.Theinevitableresultisdegradationof
wildernesscharacterandharmtoWilderness.
WeagreewithLandresetal.(inpress)thattheWildernessActdefineswildernessusinga
diversearrayofwildernessconditionsandvalues,fromuntrammeledconditionsto
opportunitiesforsolitudeandvariousfeaturesofvalue.WealsoagreethattheActrequires
managerstostrivetoprotectallthesevalues,althoughitisnotalwayspossibleto
simultaneouslymaximizeprotectionofallofthem.However,wedonotbelievethatitis
necessarytoincludeallthesevaluesinthedefinitionofwildernesscharacterinorderto
mandatetheirprotection.Infact,bydoingsotheydefeatthepurposeoftheconceptof
wildernesscharacter,whichistoidentifythemostdistinctiveandimportantofwilderness
conditionsandvalues,thosetobegivenpreferencewhenitisnotpossibleto
simultaneouslyprotectallvalues.Givenourconcerns,wehavetwoimportant
recommendations.
1.KIW2’sfive-qualitydefinitionofwildernesscharactershouldbereplacedwitha
definitioncenteredontheconceptofwildness.Wesuggestdefiningitasthedegreeto
whichwildernessisfreefromdeliberatehumanmodification,controlandmanipulationof
acharacterandscopethathampersthefreeplayofnaturalecologicalprocesses.This
definitiongivesmanagersasingleholisticandinternallyconsistentoverarching
stewardshipgoal,basedonprotectingtheessenceofwilderness.Thefivequalities,
properlydefined,canbemaintainedasausefulvocabularyfortalkingabouttheconditions
wildernessstewardsarerequiredtoprotect,buteveryonemustunderstandthattheyare
notallqualitiesofwildernesscharacter.Theyvaryinhowcentraltheyaretowilderness
characterandshouldnotbeconsideredequallyimportant.Sincethesefivequalitiesof
wildernesscharacterhavealreadybeenincorporatedintoagencypolicy,agencyreports
andplansandwildernesstrainingmaterials,thismustinvolvemorethansimplyrevising
KIW2.
2.Theprogramofcomprehensivewildernessmonitoringbegunadecadeago(Landreset
al.2005)shouldcontinue.Thatprogramwiselymonitorsmanyoftheconditionsand
characteristicstobeprotectedinwilderness—notjustwildernesscharacter—to
understandwhetherwildernessconditionsareimprovingordegrading.Aswehavesaid
repeatedly,ourconcernswithKIW2arenotthemonitoringmeasuresandtechniques,itis
withtheassertionthatwhatisbeingmonitorediswildernesscharacter.Theprotocol
needsanaccuratename,perhaps“wildernessconditionmonitoring.”Theoutputof
monitoringshouldbemoreappropriatelyreferredtoastrendsinwildernessconditions,
trendsthatreflectthesuccessofwildernessstewardship,includingtheprotectionof
wildernesscharacter.Narrativesthatdescribethespecialvaluesofeachwilderness
(Landresetal.inpress)canberetained,buttheyarewildernessvaluenarratives—not
wildernesscharacternarratives.Again,wildernesscharacterhasbeenconfusedwiththe
listofvaluesthatmanagementwishestoprotectinwilderness.
Werecognizethatneitherofthesechangeswillcomeeasily.Thefivequalitiesofwilderness
characterarestandardnomenclatureandwidelyaccepted.However,thefuturewildnessof
ourwildernesssystemisatstake.Withthechangeswehaverecommended,thetwogoals
espousedbytheKIW2groupcanstillbeaccomplished.Theconceptofwilderness
charactercanbegiventheattentionitdeservesand,throughmonitoring,theoverall
conditionofthewildernesssystemandtheeffectivenessofstewardshipcanbeassessed.
Moreimportant,bydefiningwildernesscharacterappropriately,wildernessstewardswill
beencouragedtoexerciserestraintandhumility,betterprotectingthewildnessof
wilderness.TheresultwillbeaNationalWildernessPreservationSystemthatadheresto
theidealsoftheWildernessAct,itsauthorsandtheintentofCongress.
References
ArthurCarhartNationalWildernessTrainingCenter.nd.MinimumRequirementsDecision
Guide,2014Revision.RetrievedJuly3,2015,fromhttp://www.wilderness.net/MRA.
AstoriaFederalSavings&LoanAss’nv.Solimino.1991.501U.S.104,112.
Burks,D.ed.ThePlaceoftheWild.1994.WashingtonDC:IslandPress.
Cole,D.N.1996.Ecologicalmanipulationinwilderness:anemergingmanagement
dilemma.InternationalJournalofWilderness2(1):15-19.
Cole,D.N.andL.Yung,eds.2010.BeyondNaturalness:RethinkingParkandWilderness
StewardshipinanEraofRapidChange.WashingtonDC:IslandPress.
Gustafsonv.AlloydCo.1995.U.S.561.569
Harvey,M.2014.WildernessWritingsofHowardZahniser.Seattle,WA:Universityof
WashingtonPress.
Kammer,Sean.2013.Comingtotermswithwilderness:theWildernessActandthe
problemofwildliferestoration.EnvironmentalLawReview43:83-124.
Landres,P.,C.Barns,S.Boutcher,T.Devine,P.Dratch,A.Lindholm,L.Merigliano,N.
Roeper,andE.Simpson.Inpress.KeepingItWild2:AnUpdatedInteragencyStrategyTo
MonitorTrendsInWildernessCharacterAcrossTheNationalWildernessPreservationSystem.
GeneralTechnicalReportRMRS-GTR-inpress.FortCollins,CO:U.S.Departmentof
Agriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.
Landres,P.,C.Barns,J.G.Dennis,T.Devine,P.Geissler,C.S.McCasland,L.Merigliano,J.
Seastrand,andR.Swain.2008.KeepingItWild:anInteragencyStrategytoMonitorTrendsin
WildernessCharacterAcrosstheNationalWildernessPreservationSystem.GeneralTechnical
ReportRMRS-GTR-212.FortCollins,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,
RockyMountainResearchStation.
Landres,P.,S.Boutcher,L.Merigliano,C.Barns,D.Davis,T.Hall,S.Henry,B.Hunter,P.
Janiga,M.Laker,A.McPherson,D.Powell,M.Rowan,andS.Sater.2005.MonitoringSelected
ConditionsRelatedtoWildernessCharacter:aNationalFramework.GeneralTechnical
ReportRMRS-GTR-151.FortCollins,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,
RockyMountainResearchStation.
Landres,P.,M.Brunson,L.Merigliano,C.Sydoriak,andS.Morton.1999.Naturalnessand
wildness:thedilemmaandironyofmanagingwilderness.InWildernessScienceinaTimeof
ChangeConference.Vol.5:WildernessEcosystems,Threats,andManagement,edD.N.Cole,S.
F.McCool,W.T.Borrie,andJ.O’Loughlin(pp.377-381).ProceedingsRMRS-P-15-VOL-5.
Ogden,UT:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearch
Station.
Landres,P.,W.M.VagiasandS.Stutzman.2011.Usingwildernesscharactertoimprove
wildernessstewardship.ParkScience28(3):44-48.
Leopold,A.S.,S.A.Cain,D.M.Cottam,I.N.Gabrielson,andT.L.Kimball.1963.Wildlife
managementinthenationalparks.AmericanForests69(4):32-35,61-63.
Montclairv.Ramsdell.1883.107U.S.147,152.
Proescholdt,K.2008.Untrammeledwilderness.MinnesotaHistory61(3):114-123.
Scott,D.W.2001-2002.“Untrammeled,”“wildernesscharacter,”andthechallengesof
wildernesspreservation.WildEarthFall/Winter2001-2002:72-79.
Steinhoff,G.2010.InterpretingtheWildernessActof1964.MissouriEnvironmentalLaw&
PolicyReview17:494-535.
Zahniser,E.2014.Wildernesscharacter,untrammeled,humanknowing,andourprojection
ofdesire.InternationalJournalofWilderness20(3):4-7.
Zahniser,H.1963a.Guardiansnotgardeners,TheLivingWilderness,83(Spring/Summer):
2.
Zahniser,Howard,1963b.SupplementarystatementinNationalWildernessPreservation
Acthearings.AscitedinD.W.Scott,2001–2002.“Untrammeled,”“wildernesscharacter,”
andthechallengesofwildernesspreservation.WildEarthFall/Winter2001-2002:72-79.
DAVIDCOLEisaretiredscientistwhoconductedextensiveresearchonwilderness
stewardshipover25yearswiththeForestService.
DOUGSCOTTisalong-timecongressionallobbyistandadvocateforwildernessandauthor
ofseveralbooksonwilderness,includingOurWilderness:America’sCommonGround.
EDZAHNISER,wholobbiedontheearlywildernessbillsonSaturdaysinthelate1950s,
editedHowardZahniser’sAdirondackwritingsasWhereWildernessPreservationBegan.
ROGERKAYEisanauthorandwildernesscoordinatorfortheUSFishandWildlifeService
inAlaska.
GEORGENICKASisexecutivedirectorforWildernessWatchinMissoula,Montana.
KEVINPROESCHOLDTisconservationdirectorforWildernessWatchinMinneapolis,
Minnesota.