From: crs@beta.lanl.gov (Charlie Sorsby)
Subject: Re: Wilderness and Wolves
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: 12 Jan 93 07:17:36 CST
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

In article <1993Jan11.074339.20396@doug.cae.wisc.edu> motto@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (mary.rita.otto) writes:
= 
= But hold on a second.  I never said that because these are people
= defined areas that we should try to ge the most USE out of them!
= I'm with you on the BENEFIT picture (even if we don't agree on the
= spelling!).  I just don't think we are viewing the "wilderness"
= areas in light of the bigger picture.  We need to be concerned
= about a *possible need* to intervene in that ecosphere in order
= to protect and enhance the benefits the area provides.  For example,
= if acid rain is destroying a lake in a wilderness area, does it
= make sense to try to rescue the lake with a water treatment plan,
= even though it is in a "wilderness" area?  I would argue yes;  other
= people disagree with me, saying we should not intervene at all in
= such areas.  These areas may from time to time need the help of
= concerned habitat/environmental managers in order for the detrimental
= effects of events outside of the area to be countered.  That's what
= I was talking about.
= 
= I am not opposed whatsoever to "development-free" zones, and you can
= even call them wilderness if you want to.  But I don't want to sit
= idly by while they are destroyed by influx from surrounding areas
= and nothing is done about it in a mistaken assumption that it is best
= to do absolutely nothing proactively or reactively in those areas.

I, at least, think that Mary's points about the effects of external
influences on "wilderness" areas are good ones.  It is one thing to
have a policy of noninterference as it pertains to internal events;
quite another with respect to the internal effects of external events.

Clearly the issues are complex and there are no simple solutions to
all problems--nor will there be.  It seems to me that we must
consider each situation individually.  In all probability, even so
not everyone will agree on what is the best course of action (or
nonaction).

I believe that the decision to do or not to do something must be
based on the objective of keeping the "wilderness" area *as though*
it were untouched, even if that means we must intervene in some
cases.  When there were few humans and only primitive technology,
there were limits to how badly we could screw things up--such
things as, for example, mass slaughter of bison herds by primitive
peoples by driving them over cliffs not withstanding.  Now we have
the technology to screw things up remotely, globally.  No area of
the planet is safe from our actions.  Unless and until we can find
a way to minimize our impact on the *global* environment, we will,
I believe, *have* to try to "unscrew" things even in areas that we're
not supposed to "touch."  I think of it as "untouching" those
areas.  If, somehow, we could prevent remote events from affecting
"wilderness" areas, and if they were large enough that a single
"natural" event such as a forest fire would *not* wipe out the
entire area,  I would be all for the hands-off approach.  But I
don't see how that can be accomplished.  Mary's acid-rain example
is an excellent case in point.

Consider another example:  Suppose that we have a "wilderness" area
that is a small patch within, say, a National Forest.  Suppose a
forest fire in the National Forest threatens to burn that entire
patch.  Should we intervene or not?  Yes, the new-growth area is
part of nature--and, globally, a necessary one--but if the entire
"wilderness" patch becomes new growth, what then?  Do we want that
to happen?  Or do we want to keep a patch of (I'm hesitant to say
"virgin") old growth as the "wilderness" patch with the new-growth
area in the surrounding National Forest?  One thing that I think
that we should keep in mind is that, since we can never instantly
stop a forest fire, it doesn't seem to me that we will ever be too
short of new-growth areas even if we do our best to stop the forest
fires--if, at least, we permit nature to take it's course in the
area that *is* (unavoidably) burnt.

Well, just a few more things to think about.


-- 
Best,

Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby				"I'm the NRA!"
	  crs@lanl.gov


Newsgroups: rec.hunting