The Place of Recreation in Wilderness, and Wilderness in Recreation: Exploring the Tension

From the 2015 Flathead National Forest NVUM Report. This shows perceptions of crowding by visitors in different forest areas.

Many thanks to everyone who commented on Monday’s post! You were full of information and (mostly) civil. I’ll build on some of the ideas from Monday in this post.

George Wuerthner said here “Wilderness is not about recreation. Therefore, if you are concerned about protecting wildlands and wildlife, you would support wilderness designation.” Others have commented on this.

There seems to be some disagreement about the relation of recreation to Wilderness. I wrote about this in an essay for the book “193 Million Acres: Toward a Healthier and More Resilient Forest Service” published by the Society of American Foresters and  edited by our own Steve Wilent (and with essays by other Smokey Wire contributors).  Since my essay was written, The Wilderness Society has changed its website to remove the “Why Wilderness” page I quoted from  below.

Here’s what I said in the essay:

“On its “Why Wilderness? web page, the Wilderness Society (TWS) states that “Wilderness is a haven from the pressures of our fast-paced society. It provides us with places where we can seek relief from the noise, haste and crowds that too often confine us. It is a place for us to enjoy with friends and families — strengthening our relationships and building lasting memories.”

However, NVUM numbers show that only .05 of national forest visits are in wilderness. And later, on the same webpage, TWS notes that: “Wild places are a great source of economic activity, especially in the rural communities that surround them. Outdoor recreation contributes more than $646 billion annually to the economy, supports 6.1 million jobs, and generates nearly $80 billion in federal, state, and local taxes.”

As part of its advocacy for increasing wilderness, TWS equates “wild areas,” where most people recreate, with legislated Wilderness. Since mountain bikes are not allowed in Wilderness, a push for more Wilderness necessarily reduces the diversity of recreation opportunities. As John Fisch comments in “Do Bikes Belong in Wilderness Areas?” in the December 20, 2017, edition of Sierra, the national magazine of the Sierra Club: “…bikes don’t belong in the backcountry… and all backcountry must become designated Wilderness. Ergo, the ultimate goal results in mountain bikes losing all backcountry access….”

It may be that increasing the numbers of acres in legislatively-designated wilderness areas and increasing access for the kinds of recreation that most visitors prefer (in NVUM data) are ultimately on a collision course.”

A couple more thoughts.  Many of those “recreation benefits” studies usually include all outdoor recreation, including skateboards, soccer balls, RV’s and OHV’s, so it’s difficult to argue for more Wilderness based on those benefits (if people are paying close attention).  Wisely, TWS has removed that. Are people in or out of Wilderness? Or only some people? Do we generally want to attract people to Wilderness, or try to keep them away, as George says, above. Perhaps it’s really the outdoor industry, not just MBers, and some Wilderness advocates that may come to a parting of the ways..

And if the idea is to keep people out, then the Som Sai proposes here, for Extreme Wilderness makes a lot of sense.  Let’s just convert all the current Wildernesses to Extreme (except where their Congressional designations allow grazing, motorboats, etc.).

As to solitude, let’s look at the graphs for the Flathead on the 2015 NVUM  above.  The NVUM has a great deal of information and is easy to access, including gender, socioeconomic status, distance traveled and so on.  I have heard criticism of these data, and this might be a good time to bring this up, since MBers are paying attention and some of the critiques were from that community. Nevertheless kudos to the Forest Service for doing this! I wish other information were as easy to access! Folks are encouraged to look at the NVUMs from their neighboring forests and share observations. Here is the link.

17 thoughts on “The Place of Recreation in Wilderness, and Wilderness in Recreation: Exploring the Tension”

  1. So I reviewed the 2012 NVUM data for the Bitterroot NF, and in my opinion when have 40 and 50% confidence intervals you have basically waving your hands. While the estimates of use show that most users are in the general forest, most of the responses are from developed sites. In this case 70% of responses are either from developed day use or overnight use. This makes sense since developed use in the BNF is mostly likely concentrated at Lake Como in the summer and Lost Trail Ski Area in the winter.

    One other issue I have, is the potential for selection bias depending on the areas selected for monitoring, especially in the low density general forest. This is addressed somewhat, but trail use may not be random and depending on the trailhead or road monitored use could be skewed towards horses, bikes, or motorized use. Unfortunately, the data doesn’t not document where the monitoring sites were located. Including this would be helpful for identifying this bias.

    Overall, this data is probably useful for identifying use in the developed areas of the forest. But, extrapolating this to backcountry trail (semi primitive motorized or non motorized) is questionable. By its very nature, the use is substantially less than in the developed areas of the forest, and those users may vary from general population. Unfortunately the NVUM does not have the statistical power to assess use patterns in areas the we might be most interested in, especially if the question is bikes in recommended wilderness or wilderness study areas. For example if the look at the use there is snowmobile use, yet anyone who drives around the valley can see that is not the case. The summer use simply swamps winter use patterns. Potentially, developed site use swamps backcountry use patterns.

    In summary the NVUM should not be used for management of low density, undeveloped side of the recreation opportunity spectrum outside wilderness.

    Reply
  2. Juicy stuff. I tend to agree with Wuerthner that Wilderness is “not about recreation”. At least the framers of the Wilderness Act were not intent on making the wilderness and recreation co-dependent. But to suggest that wilderness recreation should be opposed, diminished, shut down, etc is just plain wrong. But recreation activity should remain subordinate to the purposes of Wilderness as articulated in the Act. I don’t have a problem with keeping MB out of designated wilderness; they have ready access to the other 80% of national forests, incl 60 million acres of roadless areas — 30% of nf’s. Roadless areas are already, in effect, “wilderness light.” I don’t find it necessary for recreation lovers of all stripes to get their dukes up over this issue.

    Reply
    • Weurthner wasn’t a member of the 88th congress, and the 88th congress didn’t agree with Weurthner.

      https://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/documents/publiclaws/PDF/The_Wilderness_Act.pdf

      “DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS
      (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of RECREATION; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”
      ……
      “Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of RECREATIONAL, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.”
      …….
      “(5) Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this Act to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the RECREATIONAL or other wilderness purposes of the areas.”
      ………

      Without recreation, there likely wouldn’t be a National Wilderness Preservation System. You’re not going to have many Wilderness supporters and defenders if people aren’t allowed to first and foremost experience it.

      “The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders.” ― Edward Abbey

      Reply
      • Thanks for providing a link to the test of the Wilderness Act. I was just going to do that myself.

        Right before the “Definition of Wilderness” section that you quote, was this entire section:

        SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the “Wilderness Act”.

        WILDERNESS SYSTEM ESTABLISHED

        STATEMENT OF POLICY SECTION 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as “wilderness areas”, and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as “wilderness areas” except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act. (b) The inclusion of an area in the National Wilderness Preservation System notwithstanding, the area shall continue to be managed by the Department and agency having jurisdiction thereover immediately before its inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. No appropriation shall be available for the payment of expenses or salaries for the administration of the National Wilderness Preservation System as a separate unit nor shall any appropriations be available for additional personnel stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because they are included within the National Wilderness Preservation System.” [emphasis added]

        And then, of course, you left out this section:

        PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

        (c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area. [emphasis added]

        Reply
    • Whether it’s Marshall’s “The Problem of the Wilderness” or Stegner’s Wilderness letter, or any of Leopold’s advocacy culminating in the formation of the Wilderness Society it seems obvious that recreation is integral to the concept of wilderness. One might say wilderness is where we to go to be reminded that we are part of nature and that is where we are most alive

      Now I know that later wilderness advocates such as Zahniser were more immersed in the deep ecology roots of wilderness where humanity is mostly considered a plague and Mr Wuerthner appears to be from that school. So depending or who you consider the patron saints of wilderness you find arguments for both positions.

      Personally I think both wilderness and humanity is best served by acknowledging that humans are animals and part of nature. That we are healthiest when when our humanity is connected to spaces. Wilderness is there to keep us alive.

      To accomplish finding our place in nature, its best to approach it as unfiltered as possible. Sometimes bikes get in the way, and sometimes they enhance the experience. The same in true for horses, tents, canoes, GPS, and waterproof synthetic clothing. No tool we use comes without compromises.

      As an aside the the commented who said we have plenty of other places to ride. First that assumes that riding in forest that has been logged and road is fundamentally equivalent to riding in wilderness. If that was true, we wouldn’t debating the need for wilderness to being with. Clearly they are distinct aesthetic experiences. Regarding IRAs. I agree that IRAs could potentially be treated as wilderness + bikes equivalent. Personally I think that would be reasonable option except that IRAs keep getting the “recommended for wilderness” designation, or have been set aside as Wilderness Study Areas. After losing 1000 miles of trail access in these IRAs over the last decade, I can tell you that was the flash point that antagonized most of the Montana mountain biking community. We were perfectly content to disagree with the closure to bikes in wilderness, since we believed there was enough to share as long as we had IRAs as an equivalent experience. For many of mountain bikers it less a concern about access to historic wilderness area as it is loss of access with new Wilderness designations or the creation of de facto Wilderness in areas we have historic ridden for our wilderness fix.

      Reply
  3. I became discouraged by an individual’s intellectual dishonesty in another recent thread on this topic, namely the bobbing, weaving, and disavowing of prior statements, and the nitpicking instead of engaging with arguments. As someone else wrote, it got boring.

    But I’ll give it another try here and hope for better.

    I looked it up: The Wilderness Act says that Congress wants the following in Wilderness:

    (1) “outstanding opportunities for solitude”

    or

    (2) “a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.”

    So I don’t know what George Wuerthner is talking about if he said “Wilderness is not about recreation.” He might want to read the Wilderness Act.

    My experience with Wilderness is that many of the hundreds of Wilderness areas are visited by hardly anyone. They have few amenities that would make people want to visit. Mainly, they have few maintained trails. If the goal is to keep the public out, having no maintained trails is a good way to do it.

    Other Wilderness areas are mobbed and don’t offer much of a Wilderness experience.

    Still other Wilderness areas are sufficiently damaged by commercial packstock trains that they’re unappealing to other user groups.

    But, finally, others might be called “Goldilocks Wildernesses,” i.e., they’re just right. They have maintained trails and they’re not overrun with visitors or ripped up by profit-seeking packstock trains. They offer noncommercial solitude and recreation both, as the Wilderness Act specifies.

    It seems ironic that the Wilderness purists aren’t much interested in environmental impact, but rather obsess over their aesthetic and quasi-religious values. Horses-and-packstock businesses have ruined many a Wilderness meadow, stream, trail, and campsite. But only Wilderness Watch (which is principled in its dourness) seems to object to this. Bicycles are environmentally insignificant and I’ve read or at least skimmed legal arguments that the Wilderness Act doesn’t prohibit them. But they offend the Church of Wilderness on some sort of quasi-religious ground.

    Sharon, I compliment you on your civility and open-mindedness. I would like to reply to a comment you made in another thread: that mountain biking isn’t needed in Wilderness.

    In a free society, we don’t allocate rights and responsibilities in response to someone’s perception of what’s “needed” someplace, presumably according to that individual’s personal preferences. Rather, people are free to pursue what they want to unless it causes objective harm, and in that case, but only then, the activity should be regulated to mitigate or quell that harm.

    For example, I might say that NASCAR racing, professional soccer, and backpacking are not “needed.” I certainly don’t need the first two of the three. And if I were a commissar in the former East Germany, society would respond according to what I say is needed or not. That’s not the case in a free society like the U.S.

    In fact there was an interesting comment by one of the e-scooter companies along this line recently. Some city agency demanded to know why the company was offering an e-scooter service without asking permission. The company replied that in a free-enterprise society, enterprises don’t ask permission unless a governmental rule has been set down that would require it. I thought that was well stated.

    Reply
    • I also looked it up: The Wilderness Act says that Congress wants the following in Wilderness (which, by the way, you didn’t include in your (1) and (2) above when you simply boiled down the following to be “outstanding opportunities for solitude” and “a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.”

      (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.”

      If the federal land management agencies are incorrectly, or illegally, interpreting the Wilderness Act, a lawsuit should be filed immediately.

      Finally, have to say, I find many of the civil rights, human right and equality allusions made by some people who want to ride their bicycles in designated Wilderness remarkable and curious.

      Reply
  4. Thanks, Matthew, for providing that additional text. I don’t see how bicycles are incompatible with it. I did see your note about no mechanical transport above, but I keep reading on Facebook that back at that time mechanical meant motorized. Is there some source where the people who wrote The Wilderness Act said mechanical includes bicycles? I understand that the Forest Servicevice has said this but I’d like to know if Congress ever did.

    Obviously bicycles are mechanical, but so is lots of climbing equipment and I don’t think it’s prohibited. So I question whether all mechanical transport is disallowed, and that’s why I ask if bicycles specifically were.

    Reply
    • Hi Lourenço Marques (interesting anonymous handle by the way): Can you please give an example of this: “but I keep reading on Facebook that back at that time mechanical meant motorized.” Thanks.

      Reply
      • Happy to. I’ve seen references to this more than once, I think on the Wilderness B and STC Facebook pages, but my poor brain recalls with precision only this recent one, from the Wilderness B page. I hope I can paste it here:

        . . . . [tried to paste image]

        No, I don’t seem to be able to, but here’s a link:

        https://www.facebook.com/WildernessB/

        Scroll down to a post from February 12.

        I realize that this business of congressional intent is tricky, and I bet no one will ever find out what long-deceased members of Congress thought about bicycles in 1964. I doubt they thought of them at all. Bikes back then were the Schwinn Varsity, Peugeot PX-10, and beach cruisers. Perhaps someone knows of a reference.

        To me this debate is somewhat abstract and metaphysical, because, based on my own observations and things I’ve read over the years, the only practical ways to keep mountain bikers out of Wilderness areas and off the Pacific Crest Trail are (1) have no or lousy trails, which many a Wilderness suffers from, but that disadvantages all visitors, (2) have law enforcement, which seems to be all but nonexistent (really, why should the Forest Service care about an inoffensive activity, unless someone is mountain biking rudely?), or (3) crowd an area with so many hikers that mountain bikers are deterred—but then you don’t have a Wilderness experience. From what I’ve personally seen and read or heard about, if you don’t have one of those three conditions, there’s plenty of mountain biking in Wilderness anyway. I’ve even seen motorcycle tracks in a Wilderness (I don’t approve of that).

        There was a guy who a few years ago kept posting that he would ride Wildernesses around Lake Tahoe on summer weekends simply to interact with as many hikers as possible. Perhaps he wanted to provoke them and get hostile interactions. But it seems no one cared, or hardly anyone (I suppose he was disappointed by hikers’ friendliness). Or maybe he wanted to be cited and challenge the ban in court. But if that happened, I haven’t read about it. I often think this debate is among people sitting in offices in New York or Seattle, but people out in Wildernesses are mostly indifferent.

        Reply
        • Thanks for the link. I checked it out and the exchange is between Rep. Compton White of Idaho and Reynolds Florance, who is identified as a USDA attorney. It’s clear that the discussion is centered on how private landowners can access their land-locked property inside designated Wilderness. This discussion took place before the Wilderness Act was even passed and before the National Wilderness Preservation System was even created.

          All the exchange appears to show is that the USDA spokesperson didn’t know the difference between mechanical and motorized. Congress obviously did. And again, the discussion was about access to private inholdings, not general travel. I would say that folks at the Sustainable Trails Coalition are pretty desperate for “evidence” when they start relying on this sort of stuff to try to prove that bicycles should be allowed in officially designated Wilderness areas. Maybe this is what STC has never filed a lawsuit on this issue.

          Also, it’s interesting that you seem to be admitting (based on what appears to be some pretty solid first-hand knowledge) that “there’s plenty of [illegal] mountain biking in Wilderness anyway” and “There was a guy who a few years ago kept posting that he would ride Wildernesses around Lake Tahoe on summer weekends simply to interact with as many hikers as possible. Perhaps he wanted to provoke them and get hostile interactions.” Wow. Good to know I guess.

          Maybe there are some Wilderness advocates sitting in offices in New York or Seattle. I won’t know. For the most part, all the Wilderness advocates I know (and I likely know more than most) are very connected to the land and nature and generally lead some pretty simple lives.

          Reply
          • You’re welcome. I imagine we can all agree that Congress’s view (to the extent it had one) back in the 1960s doesn’t much matter today. It only matters, as far as I can tell, if a mountain biker files a lawsuit (unlikely), the Forest Service sees reason and repeals its creaky old ban (also unlikely) and someone countersues to enforce it, or someone is cited and challenges the ticket in court (somewhat unlikely).

            What really matters is what Congress thinks today, and as someone who’d like to see a law passed to fix problems with federal employees’ interpretation of how people can visit Wilderness, I have the impression Congress doesn’t want to touch it with the clichéd 10-foot pole.

            This is from a columnist in today’s Wall Street Journal: “When Congress cannot resolve tough domestic-policy issues, it delegates decisions to executive departments and agencies. … American government depends on each branch carrying out its constitutional role. The inability and unwillingness of Congress to uphold its duties has led to pathological distortions as the executive, the judiciary and administrative agencies all expand their reach to fill the void.”

            To some extent that unfortunate congressional abdication of duty benefits mountain bikers who want to protect the trails we ride from neo-Prohibition. Now that we’ve raised a stink, I don’t see Congress easily depriving us of many more trails via Wilderness. It’s become too much of a hot potato. (Sorry for another cliché.) As Lance Pysher points out, a more serious problem is the Forest Service doing it in Montana, with its own rules. I understand that this is being wrangled over in court.

            Reply
  5. Ah, the complexities of the topic of Wilderness! Thanks to folks for posting thought provoking comments. I’ve been engaged with wilderness on National Forest land since 1974 when I went to work for the Appalachian Mountain Club on the White Mountain NF in Hew Hampshire. One of the first things I did was read Roderick Nash’s excellent book Wilderness and the American Mind. I encourage you to read it if you haven’t yet.

    Politics have long been a part of wilderness; the framers of the Act realized that when they looked for allies in the effort to pass the Act in 1964. If I recall correctly that may be one reason why hunting is allowed in Wilderness Areas; sports groups were an important ally.

    In recent decades, politics have affected wilderness designation in a different way. Capital W Wilderness is the only really permanent land allocation of NF land. The FS administrators can’t reverse it and thus it has become the go to tool for protecting parts of the National Forests. Sometimes, those areas might not look as prime as the lands that were first included in the Wilderness Preservation System but are now being designated as Wilderness because some constituents want them protected from logging, roads or other activities that are not allowed in designated Wilderness.

    My sense is that’s one reason surrounding the debate about wilderness and mountain bikes (btw – I ride a mountain bike on trails that are open to me). Some trails that used to be open to bikes have been swept up in recent wilderness proposals. As a former USFS wilderness mgmt. specialist I have long thought that we need a non-Wilderness land allocation that gives permanent protections while allowing bikes, chainsaws for trail maintenance and some other non-conforming uses. I have friends I ride with who want to have a wilderness-like experience in remote areas where there are fewer people. And where they can be assured that if they volunteer to build and maintain a trail it won’t be wiped out by a new road or timber sale unit. Those seem like pretty reasonable desires and may be why something like a wilderness-lite allocation would be useful. Again, in my mind it MUST provide permanent protection otherwise it isn’t worth much.

    Reply
  6. To echo comments already made, NVUM data is wildly innacurate. That said, if you can determine exactly where and when surveys were taken, this information may be useful for this specific topic. NVUM data should never be used to determine forest or even district level recreation opportunity/preference.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Matthew Koehler Cancel reply