Comparing the Wilderness Message of U.S.
Land Management Agencies
C. Griffin
S. Januchowski
J. Hooker
E. Isely
E. Daniels
C. Lucas
R. Feuerstein
M. Bosma
Abstract—Websites from three U.S. agencies that manage wilderness were examined to determine what type of message is being
communicated to the public about wilderness. Some websites contain
almost no information about wilderness while others discuss it
extensively. Most of the references to wilderness are in administrative documents. The second most common audience is prospective
wilderness visitors. These messages were analyzed in detail. The
dominant value of wilderness appears to be recreational rather
than ecological, geological, educational, or scientific. Many websites
talk about wilderness as being scenic, wild, natural, primitive, or
pristine. As the likelihood of injury rises, agencies focus on the increased need of visitors to these wildernesses to be responsible for
their own safety. There are many positive things being said about
wilderness. For some websites, the wilderness message is highly
compartmentalized and may not be in a place a recreational visitor
would access. Agencies’ wilderness messages are often rule-based
in an effort to modify visitor behavior. More extensive use of agency
websites to communicate the values and uniqueness of wilderness
could help influence visitor attitudes as well as modify their behavior,
which could help preserve wilderness character.
Introduction_____________________
People visit wilderness for spiritual, inspirational, scientific, and educational reasons, but most commonly they
visit for the recreation opportunities. Recreational visits
to wilderness areas continue to increase, despite the aging
population in the United States (Cole 1996). One of the
greatest management challenges for wilderness managers
C. Griffin, Associate Professor of Natural Resources Management, Grand
Valley State University, MI, U.S.A.
S. Januchowski, J. Hooker, E. Isely, E. Daniels, C. Lucas, R. Feuerstein,
and M. Bosma, students (current and former), Grand Valley State University,
MI, U.S.A.
In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet; Dean, Liese, comps. 2007. Science and
stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: eighth World Wilderness Congress symposium: September 30–October 6, 2005; Anchorage, AK.
Proceedings RMRS-P-49. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-49. 2007
is to simultaneously allow recreational use, which is allowed
by the Wilderness Act, while still leaving the wilderness
resource unimpaired. In the Unites States, wilderness is
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), Forest Service (FS), and the
National Park Service (NPS).
The main internal threat to wilderness is caused by recreational users (external impacts such as air pollution can
be more significant, but they are frustratingly beyond the
control of the wilderness manager) (Cole and Hammitt 2000).
Managers focus most of their efforts on either regulating or
educating wilderness campers. There are impacts associated
with the much more numerous day-use hikers but since
managers believe campers to have the greatest impact, most
management efforts are directed at these overnight users
(Papenfuse and others 2000; Watson 2000).
Managers try to avoid regulating use in wilderness areas in
an effort to provide recreational visitors with more freedom
as required by the Wilderness Act (areas should allow an
“unconfined type of recreation”); thus, they tend to rely on
education as the preferred technique to minimize impacts
(Hendee and Dawson 2002). Wilderness visitors also prefer
this approach (Manning and Lime 2000).
If the wilderness resource is being impacted or is fragile
(for example, alpine areas), managers may have to use regulatory measures to reduce or prevent impacts. Rules focus
on locations of campsites, party size limits, stove-only areas,
and even designated campsites and quotas in heavily used
areas. In some cases, visitors must obtain permits (free or
fee-based) to camp in the backcountry or wilderness. Hiking
in wilderness remains a fee-free activity although fees may be
charged for camping, access to public land, or parking (Griffin
2004). The use of permits varies widely by agency with the
National Park Service utilizing it the most. Permit systems
can be used to regulate the number of users, to provide users
with information about their upcoming trip, or to determine
use levels. Regulatory messages are communicated in many
of the same ways as educational efforts.
One of the pitfalls associated with rules is there is seldom
an accompanying explanation as to why they are necessary
to protect the natural resource or the social conditions that
visitors expect, despite the fact that research shows the
411
Griffin, Januchowski, Hooker, Isely, Daniels, Lucas, Feuerstein, and Bosma
increased effectiveness of regulations if there is an accompanying rationale explaining the basis for the rule (Manning
and Lime 2000). Regulations, particularly those without the
accompanying rationale, are designed to modify behavior
rather than visitor attitudes.
Several wilderness researchers have emphasized the
need to evaluate the information communicated to potential
wilderness visitors (Cessford 2000; Stankey 2000; Watson
2000). Either official (agency) or unofficial sources of information can be examined. Official ways to communicate
with users include one-on-one communication with visitors,
printed brochures, trail signs, maps, and Internet webpages.
Prospective wilderness users also obtain information from
unofficial sources such as friends, clubs, books, magazines,
and the Internet.
To be most effective in reducing impacts, some wilderness
messages must be communicated prior to arrival (for example,
use of cook stoves or avoiding times of peak usage). One of
the most easily accessed pre-trip sources of information for
potential wilderness visitor is the website of the agency
managing the wilderness. Manning and Lime (2000) found
that the effectiveness of a land management agency’s message is high because visitors judge the agency to be a credible
source of information. Additionally, Burgess (2000) predicts
the increasing importance of the Internet in communicating
information about wilderness. Hiking and climbing magazines, books about specific areas, and recreational websites
are commonly consulted during pre-trip planning, but we
would not expect these communication venues to focus on
the unique aspects of wilderness.
Most educational efforts focus on changing behaviors of
individuals that can cause resource impacts in wilderness
areas rather than changing attitudes or instilling a sense
of appreciation for wilderness (Hammitt and Cole 1998).
The Leave No Trace program (LNT 2005), adopted by a
Memorandum of Understanding with all four agencies, seeks
to instill both behavior and attitude changes. Their recent
name change to Leave No Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics
clearly indicates their interest in changing attitudes.
At the 2001 George Wright Conference, Dick Ring, Chief
of National Park Service Operations noted that the NPS
focuses on what one cannot do in a wilderness; they seldom
say what wilderness is “for.” His concern is that the NPS,
and by extension the other three wilderness-management
agencies, will not be able to maintain long-term support for
wilderness unless they can generate a positive impression
in both wilderness users and non-users alike. Similarly,
Wright (2000) notes that a popular wilderness education
curriculum needs more emphasis on what wilderness is
“for” instead of what it is against. Some authors argue that
without an increased emphasis on educating people about the
uniqueness and value of wilderness, long-term preservation
is likely to be unsuccessful (Manning and Lime 2000).
This research focuses on analyzing what public land
managers in the Unites States say about wilderness on their
agency websites. Specifically this research was designed
to answer three questions. First, do wilderness messages
focus on what wilderness is against, rather than what it is
for? Second, do public land managers present information
about the uniqueness of wilderness? Finally, do wilderness
regulations have any accompanying explanation as to the
necessity of such regulations?
412
Comparing the Wilderness Message of U.S. Land Management Agencies
If a positive message about the uniqueness of wilderness is
not portrayed and if regulations are used but not explained,
the following results may be expected: Compliance with
existing wilderness guidelines and regulations may be low,
biophysical impacts may persist or increase, social impacts
may persist or increase, more management actions may be
needed which may lead to less primitive and unconfined
recreation, and the enduring resource of wilderness may be
eroded.
Methods________________________
This research focuses on three of the four public land
management agencies in the Unites States: the Bureau of
Land Management, USDA Forest Service, and the National
Park Service. The FWS was not examined because their
websites were created in a way that would not allow us to
download them in their entirety. The complete website for all
NPS units with wilderness and a random sample of 18 BLM
and 11 FS websites were downloaded during the summer of
2004 using Adobe Acrobat. A search was made for the word
“wilderness.” Since the context where we found the word
wilderness was important, information in paragraphs preceding and following the word “wilderness” were copied and
pasted into MS Word. Each time wilderness was mentioned
it was hand-coded into various categories. The categories
come directly from the Wilderness Act. Information that
was administrative in nature was placed in a separate document and not analyzed. Administrative documents included
Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, Fire Management Plans, Wilderness or Backcountry
Management Plans, Annual Reports, Monitoring Reports,
and other reports.
Results_________________________
The results of this research are reported qualitatively
rather than quantitatively due to the volume of material and
the widely differing format of websites. Each agency uses a
similar system to organize its website; thus, it is easier to
analyze differences among units of the NPS and it is far more
difficult to compare information between agencies, at least
quantitatively. Previous work focused exclusively on NPS
units, which made it possible to produce both quantitative
and qualitative data (Griffin 2003).
Information found on agency websites varied widely in part
due to agency mission, resources allocated to maintaining
the website, importance managers place on the website, how
much wilderness exists, how long ago the wilderness was
designated, and visitation, among other things.
Rather than produce a census of material gleaned from
our research, a sampling of information is included to show
the types of information contained on agency websites. The
information is broken down into categories according to
language contained in the Wilderness Act.
Ecological Values
…attributes…associated with wilderness, such as clean
air and water (Petrified Forest NP).
Preserving Wilderness and wild places may someday be
seen as the most important contribution human society has
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-49. 2007
Comparing the Wilderness Message of U.S. Land Management Agencies made to the health of the global environment—our home
(Yosemite NP).
Geological Values
Wilderness ... precludes any development and human intervention, thus ensuring the preservation of the geological
formations for future generations (Chiricahua NM).
Scientific Values
… wilderness areas are key places to conduct scientific
studies because of their relatively pristine state (Lassen
Volcanoes NP).
Historical Values
…visitor stops at a row of fieldstone—mute testimony to
a cultural past (Shenandoah NP).
Scenic Values
Spectacular scenery awaits the visitor (Rio Grande NF).
Solitude Values
Trails…in this wilderness and most other wildernesses
are heavily used. You may not find solitude on them (Grand
Mesa-Uncompaghre NF).
Hikers, backpackers, horseback riders and others venturing into the wilderness are rewarded with solitude (Arizona
BLM).
Structures in Wilderness
… wilderness cabins are available in the summit area
(Haleakea NP).
This cabin … is in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness (Tongass NF).
Safety in Wilderness
In order to enhance wildness, any obstacle that can be
stepped over, ducked under, or walked around without unacceptable damage to the environment or reasonable risk
to safety is left in place (Monongahela NF).
Wilderness Areas Have Rules
Motorized and mechanical equipment…is not permitted…
….This comes directly from the Wilderness Act of 1964 and
we cannot change it, no matter how much you may want us
to (Monongahela NF).
Wilderness Is Wild or Pristine
Here, nature is the dominant force (Sequoia KCNP).
In wilderness, preservation of the land, its natural processes, native vegetation and wildlife is the first priority . .
. (Los Padres NF).
Wilderness provides...the highest level of protection for
some of the most pristine and least manipulated wildlands
in the U. S. (Olympic NP).
Discussion______________________
At first glance, the material listed above indicates that
a lot is being said about wilderness. In fact, it should be
pointed out that the information comes from 73 websites.
If each website contained the volume and diversity of
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-49. 2007
Griffin, Januchowski, Hooker, Isely, Daniels, Lucas, Feuerstein, and Bosma
information listed above, then this would cease to be an
interesting research topic.
Another caveat is in order when analyzing the results.
Based on the volume of NPS references noted above, it appears that the NPS is doing a better job of communicating
information about wilderness. This may or may not be true.
Our dataset is skewed by the fact that 44 NPS websites
were available to choose from and only 18 BLM and 11 FS
websites. Since this is part of an ongoing research project,
all of the wilderness areas represented in the NPS system
were downloaded and analyzed because they had the smallest number of wilderness areas.
We expected the NPS wilderness message to be more
clearly and positively articulated than other land management agencies because they have the luxury of not being
a multiple use agency like the FS or the BLM (wilderness
designation precludes traditional resource-extraction activities such as logging, and new mining or grazing). A larger
sample of BLM and FS sites must be analyzed before it can
be accurately claimed that the NPS has more wilderness
information or “better” wilderness information than other
agencies. Although the FWS has historically not been viewed
as a recreational organization and we might expect them to
devote less space on their website to wilderness, it should
be remembered that recreation is only one of the values of
wilderness. We need to develop an alternative procedure to
evaluate what is on FWS websites.
In general, as we stepped back and looked at all the material we had analyzed, the following highlights were gleaned
from the material. Some websites have no information, some
have a lot, but most have something in the middle. Without
analyzing each website in detail and comparing it to visitation
level and size, it is not possible to draw many conclusions
about why some sites have more information than others.
Most of the messages about wilderness are contained in
administrative documents. This is not unexpected given
the volume of material contained in these legal documents.
Increasingly, agencies are putting these public documents on
their websites, particularly for the NPS and FS. The target
audience for these documents is not the recreational visitor;
instead it is individual citizens, user groups, or other agency
personnel. The target audience of the non-administrative
references to wilderness is mainly the potential recreational
visitor. There are a couple of websites that contained material for teachers or students.
Based on our analysis of websites, the dominant value of
wilderness communicated appears to be recreation. Although
the NPS and a smaller number of BLM and FS websites list
recreation and wilderness separately on their home pages,
many of them combine them into a single page. Some of the
best verbiage about the value of wilderness is contained on
pages entitled “wilderness.” It is good that the information
is contained on the website—anywhere—but its placement
on a page dedicated only to wilderness may mean that potential recreational users don’t get a sense of the uniqueness
of wilderness.
Wilderness information found on many websites includes
the name of the wilderness, size, and to a lesser extent the
date of creation. Previous research focusing on the NPS
found that only 57 percent of their homepages contained
information that their NPS unit even contained wilderness
(Griffin 2003).
413
Griffin, Januchowski, Hooker, Isely, Daniels, Lucas, Feuerstein, and Bosma
If a permit is needed, how and when a visitor can acquire
one is described. When quota systems exist, there is seldom
an explanation for their use despite the fact that the Wilderness Act contains verbiage about providing visitors with an
opportunity for an unconfined recreational experience. There
are compelling reasons for the use of quotas and permits but
websites could help users better understand wilderness and
the reason quotas are needed.
Wilderness is almost universally described as being scenic.
Certainly a goal of many recreational visitors is to recreate
in a scenic area; thus, it makes sense for agencies to note a
wilderness area’s scenic qualities. An additional problem of
linking scenic and wilderness in a potential visitor’s mind
is the fact that it may make it more difficult to create new
wilderness areas if they are not scenic. Hendee and Dawson
(2002) point out that the biological diversity of wilderness
areas in the National Wilderness Preservation System is
limited. If proposals to designate new wilderness areas focus on biologically significant attributes rather than scenic
qualities, it may be hard to engender public support.
The ecological values of wilderness tend to focus on wildlife. Many areas list wildlife a visitor might see. They often
highlight rare (typically on the Threatened or Endangered
species list), charismatic megafauna such as bears and
cougars. Some websites focus on the value of wilderness as
providing one of the last habitats for these large animals.
Fishing opportunities are also discussed. Less emphasis is
placed on ecological services wilderness provides such as
clean air and water, and soil development.
Some websites use specific language from the Wilderness
Act, but very few specifically mention the Wilderness Act.
That is probably less important than the fact that very few
websites mention that it is part of the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
Wild, natural, pristine, undeveloped, and primitive are
often used to describe wilderness. Wild, natural, pristine and
primitive are evocative words whereas undeveloped seems
much less inspiring. Although the Wilderness Act talks about
primitive in terms of recreation, its use on most websites is
usually not in relationship to primitive recreation. Instead
the focus is on a primitive landscape.
Visitor safety is stressed in large wildernesses or where
the perils due to weather and other biophysical factors are
large (for example, in Alaska). Many websites emphasize
that visitors need to be personally responsible for their own
safety. In some cases, websites are explicit about the kinds
of things you won’t find in their wilderness (for example,
no or few trails, trails maintained to a lower standard, no
facilities) and they invite the potential visitor to determine
if that is the experience they want and if they have the skill
necessary to be successful in their trip. If bears exist in the
wilderness, visitors are often given explicit instructions as
to how to avoid bear encounters. As the area becomes more
remote, websites discuss the time it will take to be rescued
and the likelihood of cell phone reception.
There is little focus on historic, geologic, or scientific values. A few administrative documents discussed how to get
a permit to do research, but otherwise research is discussed
rarely. When it is mentioned it is in terms of wilderness
providing an environmental baseline.
Most of the visitor-directed messages are designed to influence user behavior rather than attitudes. The messages
414
Comparing the Wilderness Message of U.S. Land Management Agencies
designed to affect user attitudes or to explain the values of
wilderness, if they exist at all, tend to be in a single section
separate from recreation.
Messages designed to influence behavior, either as a
guideline or a rule, fall into two categories—either there
is a listing of some or all of the Leave No Trace principles
along with varying degrees of explanation for their use or
they simply state a set of activities that are not allowed (no
pets, no fires, etc.). Due to their more preservation-oriented
mandate, recreational visitors to NPS wilderness areas are
likely to encounter more restrictions than to FS or BLM wilderness areas. Some areas include accompanying explanation
as to why the rules are in place—either due to biophysical
or social impacts, but most do not. Most websites clearly
indicate that motorized vehicles are not allowed; to a lesser
extent they mention banning mechanized transport such as
bicycles
Unless the wilderness contains rare geologic features such
as volcanoes, geology is seldom mentioned.
Where structures exist in wilderness, particularly ones
usable by a visitor as opposed to historic structures, there
is almost never an explanation of why they exist despite
the fact that the Wilderness Act bans structures. Historic
resources such as structures or Native American artifacts
are rarely mentioned. Occasionally websites indicate it is
illegal to remove historic artifacts.
Many websites mention the possibility of achieving solitude
in the wilderness. Several are explicit that in their wilderness, solitude is seldom achievable. Although the actual loss
of one of the defining features of wilderness character is
discouraging (see Landres and others, 2005, for an explanation of other criteria that can be used to define wilderness
character), the agency should probably be commended for
providing an accurate account of the experience a visitor is
likely to have. Even in many of these wildernesses a visitor
might find solitude by recreating during non-peak times
or traveling off-trail, but these create their own sets of
problems.
In summary, wilderness messages focus more on rules that
seek to modify behavior, rather than on changing attitudes.
It is seldom presented as a unique and valuable resource.
Conclusion______________________
Many good things are being said about the uniqueness of
wilderness and the positive attributes of it. It is clear from
even a cursory analysis of websites that the wilderness message being communicated is incomplete. Preservation of the
wilderness character of existing areas and efforts to designate
new areas can be more effective if the public can accurately
describe what wilderness is and the values it has. For much
of the public, the sociological definition of wilderness—any
forest or park—dominates their understanding. At the very
least, recreational visitors to wilderness areas should gain
a deeper appreciation of the unique and positive attributes
of wilderness, in part because of their potential impact.
Additional efforts are needed to increase the amount and
type of information on agency websites. Most of the messages about wilderness are directed at these potential and
actual recreational visitors, but efforts could be expanded
to reach other audiences as well. Most wilderness messages
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-49. 2007
Comparing the Wilderness Message of U.S. Land Management Agencies are designed to influence user behavior rather than their
attitudes. While changing behavior may be necessary, it is
not sufficient. Agencies must also focus on changing visitors’
attitudes if they want to preserve wilderness character and
the enduring resource of wilderness.
References______________________
Burgess, C. 2000. Wilderness on the Internet: identifying wilderness
information domains. In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.;
Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness
science in a time of change conference—Volume 4: Wilderness
visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 1999 May 23–27;
Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station: 187–192.
Cessford, G. R. 2000. Identifying research needs for improved
management of social impacts in wilderness recreation. In: McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin,
Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change
conference—Volume 3: Wilderness as a place for scientific inquiry;
1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station: 231–238.
Cole, D. N. 1996. Wilderness recreation use trends, 1965 through 1994.
Res. Pap. INT-RP-488. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 10 p.
Cole, D. N.; Hammitt, W. E. 2000. Wilderness management dilemmas: fertile ground for wilderness management research.
In: Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Freimund, Wayne A.;
O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time
of change conference—Volume 1: Changing perspectives and
future directions; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings
RMRS-P-15-VOL-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 58–63.
Griffin, C. B. 2004. Telling the truth about wilderness. A call for
honesty. International Journal of Wilderness. 10(3): 47.
Griffin, C. B. 2003. NPS contribution to increasing a virtual visitor’s
appreciation of wilderness. Proceedings, protecting our diverse
heritage: the role of parks, protected areas, and cultural sites; 2003
April 14-18; San Diego, CA. George Wright Society: 281–286.
Hammitt, W. E.; Cole, D. N. 1998. Wildland recreation: ecology and
management, 2nd Ed. New York: John Wiley. 361 p.
Hendee, J. C.; Dawson, C. P. 2002. Wilderness management:
stewardship and protection of resources and values (3rd edition).
Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. 640 p.
Landres, P.; Boutcher, S.; Merigliano, L.; Barns, C.; Davis, D.; Hall,
T.; Henry, S.; Hunter, B.; Janiga, P.; Laker, M.; McPherson, A.;
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-49. 2007
Griffin, Januchowski, Hooker, Isely, Daniels, Lucas, Feuerstein, and Bosma
Powell, D. S.; Rowan, M.; Sater, S. 2005. Monitoring selected
conditions related to wilderness character: a national framework.
General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-151. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station. 38 p.
Leave No Trace. 2005. What is the Leave No Trace Center for
Outdoor Ethics? [Online]. Available: http://www.lnt.org/about/
index.html. [June 5, 2006].
Manning, R. E.; Lime, D. W. 2000. Defining and managing the quality
of wilderness recreation experiences. In: Cole, David N.; McCool,
Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000.
Wilderness science in a time of change conference—Volume 4:
Wilderness visitors, experiences, and visitor management; 1999
May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station: 13–52.
Papenfuse, M. K.; Roggenbuck, J. W.; Hall, T.E. 2000. The rise of
the day visitor in wilderness: should managers be concerned? In:
Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin,
Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change
conference—Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and
visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings
RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 148–154.
Stankey, G. H. 2000. Future trends in society and technology:
implications for wilderness research and management. In: Cole,
David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Freimund, Wayne A.; O’Loughlin,
Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change
conference—Volume 1: Changing perspectives and future directions; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P15-VOL-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 10–23.
Watson, Alan E. 2000. Wilderness use in the year 2000: societal
changes that influence human relationships with wilderness. In:
Cole, David N.; McCool, Stephen F.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin,
Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time of change
conference—Volume 4: Wilderness visitors, experiences, and
visitor management; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings
RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 53–60.
Wright, V. 2000. The Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute:
a national wilderness research program in support of wilderness
management. In: McCool, Stephen F.; Cole, David N.; Borrie, William T.; O’Loughlin, Jennifer, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in
a time of change conference—Volume 3: Wilderness as a place for
scientific inquiry; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings
RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 260–269.
415