WILD has worked for almost 40 years to protect and sustain wilderness and wild places around the world. An important aspect of our work has always been a commitment to partnerships with native peoples. Over many years, we’ve worked in numerous countries and situations to strengthen the links between indigenous and non-indigenous partners in order to create a network of people working to protect and sustain the global treasure we call wilderness–it is both our collective heritage and the key to a healthy and prosperous future for all people.

The NLWC began at the 8th World Wilderness Council (2005, Anchorage Alaska – 8WWC) and since that time has provided a critical platform for the meeting of indigenous and conservation agendas, highlighting conservation approaches and providing opportunities for dialogue and information exchanges.  Following 8WWC, WILD published and distributed the first-ever volume of indigenous authored case studies on native approaches to stewarding wild nature: Protecting Wild Nature on Native Lands: Case Studies by Native Peoples from around the World (Volume I).

>>View the E-book

>>Download the PDF

>>Purchase the hard copy

The Tuareg nomads of Mali have a saying: “We live with the elephants, and the elephants live with us.” The Dogon, Fulani, and Tuareg peoples share land with the last remaining herds of desert elephants. For hundreds of years, the elephants have followed a 300-mile circular path in Mali, West Africa, the longest migration route of any elephant in the world. Once a year, they must pass through the Elephants’ Doorway in the cliffs on their way to find water. But what happens when that doorway is blocked? The local people are determined to continue their peaceful coexistence with the elephants, and they communicate with each other—over the radio and under the palaver tree—to solve these kinds of problems. Small changes can make a big difference!

Helen Cowcher shows that, when everyone works together, it’s possible to preserve the delicate balance of life in the desert and protect these magnificent desert elephants.

Advance Praise for Desert Elephants:
“Desert Elephants is a valuable and urgent book. It is a seminal contribution that will help save this unique elephant population”
–Dr. Mike Chase, founder & director of Elephants Without Borders

“Desert Elephants presents this potentially complicated ecological case study in the most simple and delightful terms. It’s a pleasure to experience this book–we will certainly use it in our work.”
–Vance G. Martin, president of The WILD Foundation

“Helen Cowcher captures the great beauty, harmony, and wisdom embodied in the extraordinary coexistence of elephants and people.”
–Joyce Poole, Ph.D., Director of ElephantVoices

>>Buy Helen Cowcher’s Desert Elephants book

>>Visit our Publications and Gear store

>>Learn more about the Mali Elephant Project

WILD9 technical proceedings,  Science and Stewardship to Protect and Sustain Wilderness—9^th World Wilderness Congress (Mexico, 2009) are now available for no charge by download or order form!

WILD9 met in Meridá, Yucatán, Mexico in 2009. The symposium on science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values was the largest of multiple symposia held in conjunction with the Congress. The papers contained in this proceedings were generated at this symposium or submitted by the author or authors for consideration for inclusion in this proceedings, and have been organized into six major topics:

1. Empowering young people,
2. Promoting involvement of local communities,
3. Enhancing transboundary conservation goals,
4. Exploring wilderness meanings,
5. Monitoring and predicting change, and
6. New directions in wilderness stewardship.

>>Science and Stewardship FREE download

>>Science and Stewardship FREE order form (hard copy)

Introduction

A deeper understanding of public values regarding the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) is of interest to researchers and managers. Wilderness values were defined in the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE) (Cordell, Betz, and Green 2002; Cordell, Tarrant, and Green 2003a; Cordell, Tarrant, and Green 2003b) and it is conducted periodically by the U.S. Forest Service in part to track public attitudes toward the natural environment and public lands (Cordell et al. 2003a). The NSRE has provided a rich quantitative examination of wilderness value trends since 1995 using a module of wilderness value questions. Eighteen separate wilderness value questions have been developed and used. This article focuses on three values in particular: (1) cultural, (2) existence, and (3) bequest values.

Cultural value refers to the importance of wilderness as a source of symbols affecting human culture. The development of American heritage can be linked to wilderness and nature (e.g., Native Americans, pilgrims, pioneers, cowboys). An appreciation of national origins is important for an individual’s sense of self-identity and is aided by wilderness symbols (Hammond 1985). Present-day culture is also evolving through wilderness. The phenomenon of wilderness activities reshaping culture is represented by the popularity of wilderness recreation. In addition, many basic cultural traditions shape our society and are of high value. A parent teaching a child to fish or how to make a campfire is a culturally rich experience. Wilderness is a means to pass cultural and family traditions between generations. Cultural value was measured in the NSRE by an individual’s response to the following statement: Wilderness is important because nature and wildlands are important symbols of American culture.

Existence value is the satisfaction felt by an individual just knowing that wildlands exist (Cordell et al. 2003a). An individual may express existence value for the resource without having visited the wilderness in the past or have future intentions to visit. Originating from economic concepts, existence value was first described as the amount one would be willing to pay to preserve wilderness, regardless of visitation (Blomquist and Whitehead 1995). The current definition has been expanded to include an altruistic desire to preserve the wilderness for the good of humanity and the spiritual well-being that may result from wilderness existence. Finally, it was conceptualized that intrinsic meaning could be expressed as part of the existence value of a resource. Existence value was measured in the NSRE using the following statement: It is important just knowing that wilderness exists.

Bequest value encompasses elements of both cultural and existence values in that it is the value derived from being able to hand down natural resources to future generations so they can also experience wilderness values (Mountford and Kepler 1999; Rolston 1985). Bequest value was conceptual-ized as having an element of stewardship or responsibility for the resource. Bequest value was measured in the NSRE by asking how important it was to the individual knowing that future generations will have wilderness areas.

Exploratory Study

In an attempt to better understand these three wilderness values, qualitative in-depth interviews (Rubin and Rubin 1995; Taylor and Bogdan 1998) were conducted to explore the original wording of the NSRE questions. Each participant was read the introduction to the wilderness module used on the NSRE and the value statements. Interviewees were asked to elaborate on what they understood the value to mean. Interviews were conducted in the spring of 2004 and ran approximately 30 to 60 minutes in length. Fifteen interviews were conducted. This exploratory research used a purposive sampling method through posting calls for participants on the Internet, in newsletters of volunteer organizations, and at local libraries. The current study attempted to pull a diverse sample that was not dependent on recreation participation.

Because the NSRE wilderness modules specifically address federal wilderness values, the respondents’ understanding of context was examined. Each participant was read the following paragraph, similar to one from the NSRE survey, providing an overview of the NWPS: The purpose of this interview is to help us understand how American citizens value wilderness, and the benefits people receive from these areas. When we talk about wilderness we mean federal land that the Wilderness Act of 1964 allowed Congress to preserve as part of the NWPS. These lands cannot then be used for purposes such as timber harvesting, developing ski resorts,  or building highways. To date, Congress has added over 660 wilderness areas to the NWPS to protect wildlife, scenery, water, and recreation opportunities, and to keep these areas wild and natural. Although participants were instructed to answer the interview questions with the NWPS in mind, references to designated wilderness were rare. Frequent references to activities not allowed in federal wilderness areas, such as driving automobiles, suggested a lack of understanding of the NWPS. However, the results may still accurately measure wilderness values. Respondents may value all types of wilderness and other protected or otherwise undeveloped areas in the same ways.

When analyzing data concerning cultural, existence, and bequest values the following three themes emerged: preservation of wilderness, modern society’s connection to wilderness, and off-site inspirational use of wilderness. Interviewees used these themes to provide context for how social values were realized from wilderness. Thus, the themes provide context for understanding the values and support their existence.

Preservation of Wilderness

Although participants were not explicitly asked questions regarding the amount of wilderness in the United States, all expressed opinions on the matter. The range of responses to this issue bore most directly on existence and bequest values. Some, such as Mike, a 51-year-old business consultant, lamenting a quickly diminishing wilderness resource, felt uncomfortable endorsing only an existence value. We have to work hard to keep existing wilderness areas and to add new wilderness areas. It’s not enough to know that they’re there.

Others, such as Ted, a 58-year-old attorney, while recognizing potential threats to the quality of wilderness, saw no urgency regarding the question of quantity. Notwithstanding my perception that human beings are just voracious animals that consume everything in sight like army ants, I still think that America’s wilderness is simply so vast that I don’t think that it’s ever going to be expended. … In other words, I just don’t see even America at its most aggressive ever really exhausting wilderness as a resource.

Responding negatively or positively to the amount of designated wilderness had an impact on how respondents viewed their responsibility toward future generations. Participants that sensed peril to wilderness resources were more likely to refer to intrinsic wilderness values and view their bequest as not just a gift, but also as a responsibility. For example, Derek, a 22-year-old student, expressed the following: It should be something that preserves it, as I preserved it for them. They should preserve it for their children. On the other hand, Jennifer, a 39- year-old real estate agent, who remarked that wilderness is not in peril because nothing “terribly stupid is going to happen anytime soon,” saw the bequest simply as an opportunity for future generations to enjoy the same recreational experiences as she has: My kids and grandkids should have the opportunity to see these things and not lose them forever. It’s just a great experience that I would want to have continued.

When they felt that wilderness resources were threatened, respondents spoke of an ongoing, bequeathed responsibility, as well as the intrinsic worth of wilderness. When immediate  threats were not perceived the respondents referred to enhanced recreational opportunities for their children and grandchildren. Both viewpoints stated that preserving wilderness for future generations was extremely important.

Modern Society’s Connection to Wilderness

The concern that contemporary society has lost touch with wilderness surfaced in reference to all three values and was expressed in two different ways. Several respondents indicated that society is no longer connected to its biophysical roots. Jim, a 38-yearold minister, spoke of this severance from the natural world: I took my son down south [to wilderness] so he could see how things are. That everything ain’t mainstream, nothing but cars. I think that’s what our kids are missing. Missing that connection with nature itself…. It was the first time he’d ever seen a real horse. He said, “Dad, look at that big ol’ dog!” “That ain’t no dog, boy!”

Derek agreed: The whole frontiersman ideal was pivotal … and even in the early 20th century that sort of adventurous frontier spirit persisted. But recently, as we’ve moved away from wilderness, I think we’ve lost touch with what it really means. … I guess we don’t really have a picture of what the wilderness is anymore  because we’re not in regular contact with it. We don’t know how to deal with it as we did 100 or 200 years ago. I think the image has changed. The loss of cultural significance was more important to the majority of respondents than the diminishing knowledge of the natural world. Concern for a societal disconnection to wilderness, coupled with the ability of each interviewee to name cultural symbols derived from wilderness, revealed the personal importance of wilderness as a source of cultural symbols.

Off-site Inspirational Use of Wilderness

The off-site use of wilderness as a source of inspiration was common to all of the respondents. Many used this idea to respond to the existence value statement. All respondents expressed that it is important to simply know that wilderness exists, whether or not they actually ever visit it. Several explanations were given. First, an intrinsic value of natural systems and organisms was recognized by some. Second, the off-site use of natural areas as sources of inspiration, visualization, or objects of meditation was important to many.

Finally, the statement was often interpreted to encompass option value, as with Steve, a 34-year-old retail store manager: It’s very important to know that it’s there. It’s great to  know that that could be your outlet or your place to look forward to going to. It’s a preserved option.

Using wilderness as a source of inspiration or an object of meditation was the value most often expressed in response to the existence value statement. As Ted stated:It provides an opportunity for inspiration that’s rare enough. I mean, I’m guilty of being a couch potato, but I think it’s a way to simply remind people that there’s more to life than MTV and the Super Bowl.

Barbara explained that if you put your head in there [wilderness], you’re more peaceful.

Derek even described the meditative experience he was having during the interview: For a second there I thought of being miles away from everything else and being at peace and all that other stuff we use nature for.

All 15 respondents referred to such offsite use at various points in the interview. Many interpreted the existence value statement by referring to such use. Regardless of whether this was applied to existence value or not, however, the majority of respondents reported a powerful off-site inspirational component of wilderness.

Cultural Value

When read the statement “Wilderness is important because nature and wildlands are important symbols of American culture,” six participants’ initial responses were negative or ambivalent. However, respondents readily provided symbols from nature and wildlands relating to American traits during the interviews. Initial negativity appeared to be based on the  perceived society–nature disconnect previously discussed. Respondents interpreted the cultural value statement as referring to the value that society as a whole places on wilderness, not their own personal valuation.

Existence Value

For nine of the 15 participants, existence value was interpreted as meaning that wilderness can provide spiritual or personal inspiration without having to visit the area. Because existence value encompasses a variety of off-site use values, the interpreted meaning comports with the researcher-intended meaning of existence value as the satisfaction one feels that a wilderness exists regardless of whether one visits the area. Respondents did not refer to other components of the theoretical underpinnings of existence value (intrinsic worth and altruism). This statement was interpreted as intended. However, respondents’ interpretation was narrower in scope than the theoretical definition of the construct.

Bequest Value

Most participants spoke of bequest value as a gift carrying responsibility. Interviewees indicated that future development options should not be exercised and that future use should be consistent with current value systems. Thus, participants made it clear that the bequest of wilderness was of the holistic wilderness and not simply of undeveloped land for future use. The bequest of wilderness was seen as the bequest of cultural ideas to future generations by interviewees who expressed discontent concerning societal disconnect with nature. Although all respondents regarded ecosystem benefits of wilderness as important in other questions, such benefits were not referred in relation to the bequest question. The reason given by most  participants to preserve wilderness for future generations was regarding recreational opportunities and the opportunity for spiritual inspiration.

Conclusion

The interview data indicated that the initial responses to the NSRE questions differed little from the intended meaning. Overall, the results of this project suggest that the wilderness value questions used on the NSRE are understood by the public and are valid indicators of the underlying constructs they were intended to represent. However, minor modifications may improve validity of the NSRE instrument. Future use of the cultural value question or similar questions should include modified wording to direct the respondent to consider personal values. Existence value was often interpreted as having a component of option value. In addition, the existence value statement was most often interpreted as relating to spiritual or meditative values, which were only one component of its multidimensional definition. Finally, recreation and other direct-use values were the most frequently cited reasons for preserving wilderness for future generations.

Respondents expressed that wilderness had intrinsic worth and directly linked the value of wilderness to society as a source of inspiration, means of understanding human relations to nature, and a cultural symbol. Respondents noted a concern that contemporary society has lost touch with wilderness. This disconnect resulted in the loss of an important cultural symbol and a diminishing knowledge of human biophysical roots. Respondents perceived the importance of preserving wilderness for future generations and that future generations had an ongoing, bequeathed responsibility to preserve it. This sentiment was best expressed by Jennifer: “My kids and grandkids should have the opportunity  to see these things and not lose them forever.”

In general, the salience of wilderness value and respondents’ perception of the current state of wilderness was best expressed through a quotation from Mike “We have to work hard to keep existing wilderness areas and to add new wilderness areas. It’s not enough to know that they’re there.”  Read more from the International Journal of Wilderness >

REFERENCES

Blomquist, G. C., and J. C. Whitehead. 1995. Existence value, contingent valuation, and natural resource damage assessment. Growth and Change 26: 573–89. Cordell, H. K., C. J. Betz, and G. T. Green. 2002. Recreation and the environment as cultural dimensions in contemporary American society. Leisure Sciences 24: 13–41. Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, and G. T. Green. 2003a. Is the public viewpoint of wilderness shifting? International Journal of Wilderness 9(2): 27–32. Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, and G. T. Green. 2003b. PVF: A scale to measure public values of forests. Journal of Forestry 101(6):24–30. Hammond, J. L. 1985. Wilderness and heritage values. Environmental Ethics, 7(summer): 165–70. Mountford, H., and J. H. Kepler. 1999. Financing incentives for the protection of diversity. The Science of the Total Environment 240: 133–44. Rolston, H. 1985. Valuing wildlands. Environmental Ethics 7(spring), 23–48. Rubin, H. J., I. Rubin. 1995. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Having Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Taylor, S. J., and R. Bogdan. 1998. Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource, vol. 3. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

RUDY M. SCHUSTER, Faculty of Forest and Natural Resource Management, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 211 Marshall Hall, One Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA.

H. KEN CORDELL, Project Leader and Senior Scientist Outdoor Recreation, Wilderness and Trends Research Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Office 238, 320 Green Street, Athens, Georgia, USA 30602.

BRAD PHILLIPS, former graduate student, State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse.

• Tuesday 12 April 2011
• 7-9pm
• Unity Church of Boulder
• 2855 Folsom Street, Boulder CO
• $10 donation to benefit The WILD Foundation (you can pay at the door with cash or check or pre-pay online using a visa/mastercard)

Our ancestors saw the world as a living being. This idea has been similarly articulated for our modern age in James Lovelock’s “Gaia Theory.” David Spangler takes it another step, and helps us see Gaia as more than science, and as a renewed type of relationship between each of us and the natural world. “Thinking Like a Planet” is a way to address the growing environmental concerns and our sense of increasing imbalance between human society and nature.

In this talk, David Spangler explores what this means and how we may accomplish it by drawing on his personal experience of the spirit of Gaia and his many years of contact with beings and allies within the spiritual worlds—what he calls the “second ecology” of the earth.

About David Spangler

David Spangler has been a spiritual teacher since 1964. From 1970 to 1973 he was co-director of the Findhorn Foundation Community. He is also a co-founder of the Lorian Association, a spiritual educational foundation, and a director of the Lorian Center for Incarnational Spirituality.

His work involves enabling individuals to develop an incarnational intelligence. He is the author of Blessing: The Art and the Practice; Subtle Worlds: An Explorer’s Field Notes, and Facing the Future. Information about his online courses, books, and workshops can be found at www.Lorian.org.

An International Forest Film Festival competition to mark the International Year of Forests, 2011 has named Vance Martin, the president of the WILD Foundation, Jan McAlpine, director of the United Nations Forum on Forests Secretariat, and iLCP’s Cristina Mittermeier as the judges who will select winning films from 18 finalists in six categories.

The International Forest Film Festival competition, launched by the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival and the United Nations Forum on Forests Secretariat, will announce the finalists in December 2010, and the winners will be honoured at the global launch of Forests 2011 at UN Headquarters in New York in February 2011.

“The International Forest Film Festival offers a unique opportunity to bring the issues and objectives of Forests 2011 to a global audience,” said Ms. McAlpine, director of the United Nations Forum on Forests Secretariat. “The power of cinematic art is universal. It connects with people all over the world on a personal level. The International Forest Film Festival will spread the message of Forests 2011 in that same powerful manner.”

Winning films will first be showcased at the global launch of Forests 2011 in New York, and will then be screened at other festivals and events around the world throughout the year. The film festival is part of a global effort to raise awareness on the importance of forests, their relationship with people and the sustainable management, conservation and development of all types of forests.

While the overall theme for the film submissions is “Forests for People,” specific film categories will explore the multitude of ways that people interact and benefit from forests. From the social, cultural, economic or spiritual aspects of the “360 Degrees on All Things Forest” category to highlighting uniquely dedicated individuals in the “forest heroes” category, the competition seeks to take an all-encompassing approach to forest issues.

A full description of guidelines and categories is available at www.forestfilmfestival.org.

Films made since 2000 are eligible for entry, and submissions will be accepted until November 30th 2010, through www.WithoutABox.com.

Reposted from EXPOSE, the fantastic blog by the iLCP.

17 August, Lessons from Lake Erie: Traveling the Anacostia river by kayak through the mist of a summer dawn, it becomes suddenly apparent what we are working for on this RAVE. Why I got up at 4:30am to meet Lee Cain of the Anacostia Watershed Society….

11 August, Middle-aged Tarzan: Remember when every kid had a swimming hole and every river a rope swing?….

27 July, Chesapeake Bay RAVE Video Blog: The video blog, created by Jenny Nichols at the iLCP, details a morning out of the Chesapeake Bay RAVE….

23 July, Rediscovering the Anacostia: “I’ve lived in the Chesapeake Bay watershed for more than 10 years. I’ve hiked many of the mountains, hills and fields that drain into the Bay, and paddled some of its tributaries…….

Editor’s Note: This “Farewell” essay was written by George Duffy to fellow wilderness stewards after he learned he had a rare and fatal cancer. This letter reflects how George lived his life: full of verve and passion for wilderness, and always striving to improve wilderness stewardship. George was the steward for several wildernesses in California, pioneering new education programs that reached the hearts and minds of thousands of young people, helping them understand and appreciate their wilderness legacy. George was known for always speaking up for the right decision for wilderness. For his effort and commitment, George received two U.S. national awards: the Bob Marshall Wilderness Award and the Trapper Lake Wilderness Award. Out of respect for such a distinguished career, the chief of the U.S. Forest Service, on learning of George’s illness, took the extraordinary step of writing a personal letter praising him, saying, “You are a leader in every sense of the word, and your ‘Farewell’ essay will be a guiding light to everyone who works for wilderness in the future. I will personally see that it is shared widely across the agency.” Many people will mourn the loss of George, who died July 8, 2010, but he would want us to think of him with his boots on the ground, walking faster than most of us are capable, head held high, and loving every minute of a life dedicated to wilderness! It is tragic to lose George’s passionate reminders to always do the right thing for wilderness, and through this essay George’s memory and his urging to keep our feet close to the wilderness fire will live on in the soul of the wilderness. Editorial note by Peter Landres, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Montana.

As my life comes to a close, I feel compelled to express my gratitude to those of you who have journeyed together with me in wilderness and contributed to my understanding of wilderness and subsequently of myself. I hope you will indulge me a few moments while I try to share with you what I have learned on our journey together.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 marked a turning point in America’s attitude toward wild places. It was an acknowledgment that wild places were not only coming under the plow and the paving machines, but that their loss by such means was accelerating and would soon lead to a society impoverished by the loss of the fundamental relationship between humans and the lands which defined them. As Roderick Nash said, “It was time for restraint—restraint in our exploitation of natural resources, and restraint in our attitudes about the place of other creatures and natural forces in our lives.”

The language of the act is like few other laws we have enacted. It reads more like poetry than law and evokes an emotional response that invites introspection and envisioning of a future expressive of our concern for restraint and accommodation of other life-forms. This, in contrast to a precise formulaic law, was the genius of the act’s principle author, Howard Zahnizer. He fixed the concept of wilderness in our minds rather than just in law or on a piece of real estate— and compelled us to look for and understand the characteristics of wilderness in our lives as well as in our landscapes.

The Wilderness Act will challenge and enrich scholars, legal experts, wilderness managers, and wilderness advocates for as long as there is wilderness. We can only hope that the spirit that created this awareness of our place in the natural order prevails in our thinking. For, as Joseph Wood Krutch said, “Wilderness is the permanent home of the human spirit.”

Wilderness Policy Evolves

Although the Forest Service had been administratively managing wild and primitive areas within the national forests since 1924, the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 created a National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) within the national forests, and assigned responsibility to the Forest Service for managing 9 million acres of wilderness in accordance with this new law. The Forest Service quickly pulled together a team of staff and line officers who had some experience in managing wild areas, and charged them with writing management policy and direction to administer this new NWPS—Forest Service Manual Section 2320. It consisted of 34 pages. Today it is 55 pages and in the process of being revised.

When you hold that Forest Service Manual Section 2320 in your hands, you hold a precious symbol of the Forest Service’s commitment to America’s wilderness—one which is being challenged by all manner of argument.

Within the agency, there are those who are impatient with the idea of the minimum tool and craft arguments to justify the use of chain saws, trail machines, jackhammers, helicopters, and other expedients for the sake of convenience or economy.

There are those who are wedded to the idea of mitigating the challenges of wilderness by constructing improvements, identifying and removing hazards, writing detailed guidebooks, and publishing detailed maps. There are those who feel that the existing definition of wilderness may be inappropriate to an evolving social conscience rooted in technology, urbanization, and speed, and that management must be modified to reflect those changing social values. There are those who feel that human intervention in natural processes within wilderness is necessary when those processes don’t fit their perceptions of what is natural. There are those who hold an anthropocentric rather than biocentric view of wilderness— and accordingly suggest that accommodation for human use, rather than preserving an untrammeled wilderness resource, be the paramount consideration when shaping wilderness policy.

Outside the agencies, there are those who, in their eagerness to see more public lands gain the protection of wilderness, have agreed to legislative provisions which compromise the wilderness quality of the very lands they wish to preserve as wilderness.

There are those who think of wilderness as beautiful landscapes or wildlife sanctuaries or recreation areas rather than as places that integrate the enduring physical, biological, and spiritual dynamics of an untrammeled part of the Earth.

The authors of the Wilderness Act held no such views. They were keenly aware that there were but few remnants of the landscapes that had shaped the American character, and they wanted to ensure that these were preserved in the condition of wildness which confronted and influenced our early pioneers. They knew that wilderness had to remain a point of reference in both our natural and cultural histories, an enduring benchmark for our journey through time and space, unchanged by human intervention and subject only to natural forces. They knew that wilderness was an indispensable part of our humanness and was critical to our understanding
our place in the universe.

Today, the American public can be grateful that you have been vigilant and stood shoulder to shoulder with the dedicated group of wilderness advocates within the public land management agencies to assure that these challenges to wilderness are being resolved in favor of the constructionist philosophy so well articulated in the manual direction.

Wilderness Stewardship

You are the stewards of America’s wilderness and I want to speak to you of stewardship. Webster’s Dictionary defines a steward as: “One called to exercise responsible care over the possessions entrusted to him [her]; One who manages another’s property.”

I am extremely grateful to you for having chosen to be stewards of these lands. You have assumed a sacred trust, to be executed with reverence, humility, and a profound sense of responsibility. You are not engaged in a business or delivering a product or providing a service or producing a commodity. You are engaged in no less than preserving the nation’s precious remaining repositories of wildness and guarding the permanent home of our human spirit.

Over the years, I have watched as the growth and complexity of the NWPS has presented you with new stewardship challenges. You have met those challenges with care and deliberation and resolved them with uncanny respect for the language and intent of the Wilderness Act.

Today, you can be proud that since the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, which designated 9 million acres (3.6 million ha) of Forest Service
land as wilderness, the people of the United States have respected your stewardship and repeatedly petitioned the Congress to entrust to you the care of more wilderness areas. Their efforts have placed more than 109 million acres (44.3 million ha) in your care.

You can be proud that the federal land management agencies have created the Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center to provide training in wilderness philosophy and wilderness stewardship for federal employees. You can be proud that the federal land management agencies have created the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute to conduct social and biological research to support and improve wilderness stewardship, and you can be proud of your role in preserving that “enduring resource of wilderness” envisioned by the authors of the Wilderness Act.

As you enter another year of wilderness stewardship, please be as caring of yourselves as you are for wilderness. Take the time to open yourselves fully to the dynamics of wild landscapes and their effects on your mind, body, and spirit. Share your passion with your colleagues and the Earth—become fully alive.

Wilderness Experiences

These days you share with wildness are gifts you will treasure forever.

My fondest memories are of those times when nature’s influences were at the end of my nose: being picked up by a gusty ridgetop wind and pitched through the air like a rag doll; huddled on the lee of a rocky summit during a storm and feeling hypothermia trying to rob me of my abilities; being carried along in the tumbling whiteness of an avalanche; walking out of the snow and ice of high mountains and again smelling the green of the earth; lying in a sunny meadow and sensing that all the spirits there were filling my being with strengths unknown and unknowable; sensing the unseen presence of the others in the landscape; and feeling a timeless wisdom trying to order my thoughts to wholeness.

For most of us, our connection with wilderness is commonly understood to be rooted in the cultural and aesthetic responses that evolved from
the experiences of early explorers and settlers on the new landscapes of America. We have recently discovered, however, that the underlying basis for our responses to wilderness goes deeper—much deeper—going to the wilderness is going home.

Anthropologists and others have been suggesting for a long time that we are still the wild creatures we were in the Pleistocene. We haven’t changed. Only our circumstances have changed. Paul Shepard, perhaps the most insightful scholar of the history and evolution of human ecology wrote: “The discovery of the DNA by Watson and Crick was hailed for its implications for human health and well being. Soon it is expected we will be able to create the perfect banana or the perfect cow and clone it forever. We may soon be able to change the order of genes in our chromosomes to make us taller, thinner, stronger—maybe even less maladapted to our current circumstances.” But more importantly, the mapping of the human genome confirmed that, genetically, we are still wild, Pleistocene creatures. Finally, an answer as to why we feel so at home in wilderness.

Shepard declared: “The home of our wildness is both etymologically and biologically wilderness. Although we may define ourselves in terms of
culture and language and so on, it is evident that the context of our being now, as in the past, is wilderness—an environment lacking domestic plants and animals entirely, and to which, one might say, our genes look expectantly for those circumstances which are their optimal ambience.” “The time is coming,” he said, “to understand the wilderness in its significance, not as adjunct to the affluent traveler, to an educated, esthetic, appreciative class, or to thinking of nature as a Noah’s ark in all of its forms, but as the social and ecological mold of humanity itself, which is fundamental to our species.” To understand the significance of wilderness, we must take the time to separate culture from biology, learning from instinct and to search deep within for those ancient gifts that truly inform our humanness.

I have but one request of you: Go—find yourself in the wilderness— be at home.

Let your genes once again find expression in the world that defined them. Rejoice in your humanness. You are a genetic library of gifts informed
by centuries of life in wilderness, gifts from the experiences of antecedent creatures—ichthyic, reptilian, and mammalian—that lie still in your brain stem. Gifts from the struggles of the naked ape with neither fang nor claw who was able, not only to survive, but to adapt and flourish—simply and elegantly—in wild landscapes.

When we first walk into wilderness, we feel like alien creatures, intruding into the unknown—but if we stay a while, usually about a week, and pay attention to ourselves, those gifts become apparent. We become aware that our eyes see better—we can pick things out in the landscape more keenly; we can measure distance more accurately; and shape, color, and contrast are vividly apparent. Our noses discriminate and identify the odors on the wind, the smell of a bighorn is a lot different than that of a bear, there is a marsh upwind. The sounds we heard on our first day came from a general direction, but now our binaural senses are so keen we can almost pinpoint the source and distance of a sound—and identify it. The awkwardness we first felt when moving over broken ground has been replaced by a fluid economical rhythm of movement that seems almost
effortless. Our spine flexes, gathering and releasing energy; our pelvis tilts, our center of gravity is keenly felt, and we are again those confident primal animals on the landscape.

We sense our relationships with the other creatures with whom we share these landscapes—relationships which reaffirm our humble role as members of the vast community of life. These are not new skills learned, they are ancient abilities— pulled from the shelves of that genetic library deep within our being. As we peer into campfire flames, the comfort of thousands of fires, in thousands of caves, over thousands of years, warm us from the inside as well from the outside.

The diminuendo of the canyon wren and the raucous scolding of the Steller’s jay invite our hearts to sing. The warmth of the sun and the snap of
the cold affirm that we are alive, and vulnerable. The mountains, the deserts, the storms, and the rivers challenge our cunning and demand our respect. The vastness of the landscape humbles and fixes us in scale. As we lie on the Earth in the evening, the march of Orion across the heavens fixes us in time. We are still those Pleistocene creatures, at home and full of the wonder of being. This is the wildness in our genes, found manifest in a simple, bipedal hominid— surrounded by a peace that transcends time, and in a place we shall
always need: Wilderness.

Thanks for the ride.

References
Krutch, J. W. 1958. Grand Canyon: Today and All Its Yesterdays. New York: William Sloane Associates.

Nash, R. 2001. Wilderness and the American Mind, 4th ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shepard, P. 1993. Wilderness is where my genome lives. Presentation at the 5th World Wilderness Congress, Tromso, Norway.

In our yearning to connect with nature, understand and be kind to animals, save the natural world, and retain our sanity, one of the enduring divides is that between the animal welfare and conservation movements. It is a damaging dialectic, and one not necessary…but humans too often seem to be drawn to polarity, and to defining what is different and opposed, rather than what may be different but complimentary and/or mutually important and enhancing.

Sanctuary is one of the first publications that consciously addresses that divide, and through concept, words, and images communicate a core quality and metaphor that is the same within environmental science, compassion, animal welfare, and field conservation – be it domestic or wild.

The divide that Sanctuary quietly and indirectly addresses is neither minimal nor facile. It is substantive and conceptually challenging…but not insurmountable. Therefore this book could only have been produced by a person who “has been there”– in the field, in the ashram, in the lab, and behind the camera. The depth of the book’s discourse amply demonstrates that Michael Tobias and Jane Gray Morrison have been there and back.

Sanctuary is more than a good metaphor. It is also a practical condition. Its message is about strength in unity, in all ways. We need it.

More About Sanctuary

Written and Photographed by Michael Tobias and Jane Gray Morrison

Foreword by The Queen of Bhutan, Her Majesty Ashi Dorji Wangmo Wangchuck

A Dancing Star Foundation Book; Council Oak Books

This stunning photographic odyssey spanning two-dozen extraordinary animal and habitat sanctuaries throughout the world is a celebration of the worldwide Sanctuary Movement.

SANCTUARY embraces the rescue of endangered and urban species, as well as the rehabilitation of abused “farm animals” in the United States, of brown bears, Iberian wolves and the last great old forests in Europe, of Asian and Southeast Asian forests and swamps and the exquisite indigenous peoples dependent upon them; of rare plant species, reptiles, avians, ungulates, big cats, and other elusive mammals and invertebrates from Yemen to Namibia, from Suriname to Brunei. Orangutans in Borneo, butterflies in Malaysia, cheetahs in South Africa, and the remarkable people working to save them.

Featuring over twenty sanctuaries in twenty countries, this museum-quality book celebrates the sheltering of innocence in all its forms, with stunning photography and intimate, lyrical prose. From Alaska, Rajasthan, Poland, and rarely revealed eastern Bhutan, to the very heartlands of France and New York City, these pockets of Eden preserve and protect what is most precious to us all, and to the Earth.  To purchase >

Earlier this week, the newest issue of the International Journal of Wilderness was sent to subscribers!  This great issue includes articles about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Inter Sinkyone tribal wilderness lands.  Vance Martin and Dave Parson also reflect on WILD9, the 9th World Wilderness Congress (6-13 November 2009, Merida Mexico).  Several articles are available online, but to get the full IJW experience, subscribe today and we’ll send you this issue right away!

Did you know that more than 2 million hectares of the Amazon under private ownership is protected by some form of conservation effort?  It’s a pretty amazing fact — and the Amazon is a pretty amazing place.   One in ten known species in the world live in the Amazon Rainforest.  The Amazon is under great threat from deforestation, destruction and development, which not only destroy the forest and the animals and plants living there, but also releases stored carbon into the atmosphere.  Since the industrial revolution, at least 25% of all all emissions have come from destroying wild nature - destroying forests and other natural land, such as the Amazon, is a huge component to global climate change. 

Bruno Monteferri (Peruvian Society for Environmental Law), a friend of WILD’s and WILD9 delegate, recently published a book highlighting the private conservation efforts in the Amazon.  Private Conservation in Amazonian Countries presents how private, voluntary initiatives are being promoted and the obstacles and challenges faced in these initiatives.

The book is a great resource for furthering conservation efforts in the Amazon.  It contains country reports from Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, French Guiana, Peru, Suriname and Venezuela, and a comparative analysis on the state of private conservation in Amazonian countries – providing an overview of the legal and economic incentives of conservation efforts in the Amazon.  You can download the comparative analysis (English) and the complete book (Spanish) online.  To learn more about this book, you can contact Bruno (bmonteferri (a) spda.org.pe).

Here are few excerpts from Daniel B. Smith’s “Is there an Ecological Unconscious?” (NY Times):

” “There’s a scholar who talks about ‘heart’s ease,’ ” Albrecht told me as we sat in his car on a cliff above the Newcastle shore, overlooking the Pacific. In the distance, just before the earth curved out of sight, 40 coal tankers were lined up single file. “People have heart’s ease when they’re on their own country. If you force them off that country, if you take them away from their land, they feel the loss of heart’s ease as a kind of vertigo, a disintegration of their whole life.” Australian aborigines, Navajos and any number of indigenous peoples have reported this sense of mournful disorientation after being displaced from their land. What Albrecht realized during his trip to the Upper Valley was that this “place pathology,” as one philosopher has called it, wasn’t limited to natives. Albrecht’s petitioners were anxious, unsettled, despairing, depressed — just as if they had been forcibly removed from the valley. Only they hadn’t; the valley changed around them.”

“In a 2004 essay, he [Albrecht] coined a term to describe it: “solastalgia,” a combination of the Latin word solacium (comfort) and the Greek root –algia (pain), which he defined as “the pain experienced when there is recognition that the place where one resides and that one loves is under immediate assault . . . a form of homesickness one gets when one is still at ‘home.’ ”  In the past five years, the word “solastalgia” has appeared in media outlets as disparate as Wired, The Daily News in Sri Lanka and Andrew Sullivan’s popular political blog, The Daily Dish. In September, the British trip-hop duo Zero 7 released an instrumental track titled “Solastalgia,” and in 2008 Jukeen, a Slovenian recording artist, used the word as an album title. “Solastalgia” has been used to describe the experiences of Canadian Inuit communities coping with the effects of rising temperatures; Ghanaian subsistence farmers faced with changes in rainfall patterns; and refugees returning to New Orleans after Katrina.”

“Albrecht’s philosophical attempt to trace a direct line between the health of the natural world and the health of the mind has a growing partner in a subfield of psychology. Last August, the American Psychological Association released a 230-page report titled “Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change.” News-media coverage of the report concentrated on the habits of human behavior and the habits of thought that contribute to global warming.”

“….just as Freud believed that neuroses were the consequences of dismissing our deep-rooted sexual and aggressive instincts, ecopsychologists believe that grief, despair and anxiety are the consequences of dismissing equally deep-rooted ecological instincts.”

“Ecopsychologists are not the first to embrace a vital link between mind and nature. They themselves admit as much, emphasizing the field’s roots in traditions like Buddhism, Romanticism and Transcendentalism. They point to affinities with evolutionary psychology — to the idea that our responses to the environment are hard-wired because of how we evolved as a species.”

“Recently, a number of psychiatrically inflected coinages have sprung up to represent people’s growing unease over the state of the planet — “nature-deficit disorder,” “ecoanxiety,” “ecoparalysis.” The terms have multiplied so quickly that Albrecht has proposed instituting an entire class of “psycho­terratic syndromes”: mental-health issues attributable to the degraded state of one’s physical surroundings.”

“Support for ecopsychology’s premise that an imperiled environment creates an imperiled mind can be found in more established branches of psychology. In a recent study, Marc Berman, a researcher in cognitive psychology and industrial engineering at the University of Michigan, assigned 38 students to take a nearly three-mile walk — half in the Nichols Arboretum in Ann Arbor and half along a busy street. His purpose was to validate attention-restoration theory (A.R.T.), a 20-year-old idea that posits a stark difference in the ability of natural and urban settings to improve cognition. Nature, A.R.T. holds, increases focus and memory because it is filled with “soft fascinations” (rustling trees, bubbling water) that give those high-level functions the leisure to replenish, whereas urban life is filled with harsh stimuli (car horns, billboards) that can cause a kind of cognitive overload. In Berman’s study, the nature-walkers showed a dramatic improvement while the city-walkers did not, demonstrating nature’s significant restorative effects on cognition.”

The article reference’s a few good reads on the subject, such as:

Peter Kahn’s blog on Psychology Today

“Steps to an Ecology of Mind” by Gregory Bateson (1972)

Books & essays by Glenn Albrecht

This week PAN Parks released a new publication “Last of the Wild: Overview of the status and monitoring of some wilderness related species in the NATURA 2000 Network,” which presents the current status of iconic species such as the lynx, brown bear, wolf, ibex and others to help further protection of habitat for these species and advocate for large-landscape scale conservation efforts in Europe.   The general conclusion of the publication is that wilderness is good, and interconnected wilderness is even better — which aligns with WILD’s new vision “At Least Half Wild.“ 

The best science tells us that protecting wild-nature is essential for biodiversity conservation and mitigation & adaptation to climate change.  Protecting wild-nature is also essential for human societies, in countless ways ranging from ecosystem services to spiritual well-being.  The new publication by PAN Parks provides us with one more tool in advocating for protecting wilderness, and is an especially powerful tool in Europe given the EU legislation encouraging re-introduction of extinct species to wilderness areas and support of improved wilderness protection, approved last February and supported by the convening of the Conference on Wilderness and Large Natural Habitat in Prague (May 2009).

Read more about the “Last of the wild” publication and all of PAN Parks work for wilderness in Europe >

One of the many outcomes from WILD9, the 9th World Wilderness Congress (6-13 November 2009, Merida, Mexico), was the formation of the International League of Conservation Writers.  A development of the 3-day Writers Seminar Series, an esteemed group of environmental writers have joined together.  Thus far, the group is a loose collection of environmental writers, with the ‘hub’ of the group at Fulcrum Publishing in Golden, Colorado.  The group aspires to provide mentorship for up-and-coming writers, provide camaraderie among top wilderness writers and recognize the importance of writing within the conservation movement.  Within the next few months, they will post information on www.ilcwriters.org.  Stay tuned for more details from this group!

Introduction

My purpose here is to reflect on a happy career as a wilderness researcher, teacher, and enthusiast, and to offer concerns, insights, and recommendations about an idea, a system of special places, and a profession that are very dear to me. This essay is organized into four parts. First, I outline my own background, and the persons, ideas, and events that spurred my lifelong excitement for wilderness. This information will help the reader make sense of and assess the value of my ideas.

It is also a thanksgiving for those who have nurtured me and a plea for wilderness visionaries to stay the course. I fear the numbers of wilderness supporters, at least in academia, in the world of ideas, scholarship, and teaching, are dwindling.

Second, I discuss the vital experiences—from the broad array of valued experiences in wilderness—that I believe we as a profession have mostly overlooked. I see these experiences as deep connections with nature resulting sometimes in (or from) transcendent experiences; some would call these spiritual experiences. Related to these experiences, and perhaps facilitators of these experiences, are solitude and primitive living. We have emphasized solitude but have done little on understanding and fostering the primitive. Given broad cultural shifts and changes in leisure activities, I think these experiences of the primitive—of merging with wild nature—and perhaps transcendence are known less than in the recent past. Hence, I call these wilderness experiences endangered.

Figure 1—Sunsets remain an attraction in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Photo by Joseph W. Roggenbuck.

Third, I turn to the major challenges of the wilderness idea and to wilderness values that have shaken my own solace during my career. Some of these challenges trouble me still; others have fostered creative growth. The first challenge was that the American ideal of wilderness, of which we were all so proud, might not be an exemplary or even a relevant model for wildland protection of the world. The next challenge was a bombshell: our wilderness idea might not be appropriate or ideal even for ourselves. Indeed, the environmental philosophers Callicott and Nelson have noted that our wilderness idea is under siege, and is “alleged to be ethnocentric, androcentric, phallocentric, unscientific, unphilosophic, impolitic, outmoded, even genocidal” (1998, p. 2). This was a real stinger and news to me (even after I looked up all those words in my dictionary). Callicott and Nelson (1998) and Cronon (1995) go on to suggest that our wilderness idea, on which our wilderness movement and our Wilderness Act (1964) are based, might not be an ideal way for humans to relate to nature, for humans to protect or enable nature (see figure 1).

Fourth, I conclude with some concerns and suggestions about the future. I come home to where I started. For me, the wilderness is a special place; it is a special experience. It endures.  Continue reading >

The publications have been produced by IUCN’s World Commission of Protected Areas Specialist Group on Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Areas (CSVPA), a group of experts of the World Commission on Protected Areas. The first edition in English was prepared in collaboration with UNESCO and launched at IUCN’s World Conservation Congress in 2008.

Natural areas that are held sacred by people are found all across the Earth, and many of them contain high natural values. They have been preserved by traditional communities as precious places of land and water that have particular significance to their cultures. The book helps conservation professionals and the custodians of sacred sites interested in the role of cultural and spiritual values in nature conservation to ensure the long-term survival of such valuable sites.

William A. Schambra’s column in the current Chronicle of Philanthropy — “The Philanthropist Rebuts Grant-Making Professionals” — is an insightful review of a new television show, The Philanthropist, that provides perceptive comment on philanthropy today. It caused me to reflect.

It has been a long time since “The Millionaire” was on TV, and I surely date myself by referring to it. As a kid I was of course fascinated with the weekly scenario where a polite character named Michael Anthony (personal assistant for industrialist John Beresford Tipton) turns up at someone’s door and hands over a check for $1 million from “…a benefactor who must remain anonymous.” Besides the fact that in the late 1950′s a million USD actually meant a great deal more than it does today, the show was an exploration of individual philanthropy and the effect of money.

I surely had no idea at the time that I would spend my career exploring the same questions on behalf of nature conservation for my own organization and often on behalf of many others, but primarily on the “other side” of the philanthropic spectrum from grant-maker Mr. Tipton.

Philanthropy has come a long way since the ‘50′s, and the US can be very proud of the philanthropic legacy that continues to grow in its society, its role as a model for other nations, and the positive impact it has had on many sectors, conservation and wilderness included. That said, one of my overall impressions after 35 years of grant-seeking and some grant-making, is completely in accord with Schambra’s piece and the core issue he sees explored by The Philanthropist.

In simple terms, and in my own words, keep space in the grant-making process for the individual, the impulse, and the non-linear. While evaluation, measured objectives and formality are key elements of successful grant-making, they often overwhelm other, equally important aspects such as a subjective sense of what is right; entrepreneurial approaches to problem solving; the need for experimentation; and more.

I like this book because it addresses global warming, provides practical suggestions and focuses on community.  Having not yet read it (just some excerpts on the web), I hope that she includes some information on how protecting wild-nature is a crucial part in our approach to the climate issue.   While making green-friendly choices in your day-to-day living is extremely important – if we ignore protecting wild-nature, we’re ignoring at least 20% of the problem!

Read more about Kris’s work with Conservacion Patagonica >

Read more about “Wildlands Philanthropy, The Great American Tradition” by Tom Butler >