He has little patience for the Clinton administration's efforts to balance the Endangered Species Act with economic growth. How the Wildlands Project accommodates humans or doesn't has become a lightning-rod issue for property rights advocates nationwide. And some critics question just how much damage humans really wreak on wildlife. Animals thrive in some areas because ranchers and farmers provide food, water and protection, said Kathleen Benedetto of the National Wilderness Institute, a group that advocates private land stewardship. Even some environmentalists wonder if the project is too focused on theory.
Some scientists agree.
Internal dissent surfaced this summer with a split between project leaders and executive director Steve Gatewood, who will leave this fall. For many supporters, however, that big-picture vision is what makes the Wildlands Project valuable. Dan Simberloff, professor of environmental studies at the University of Tennessee, has questioned some premises of the project but recently contributed to an anthology outlining its views. If we act as if we can't do anything about it, then we're surely going to lose. Connecting the dots More than two dozen regional efforts across North America are part of the Wildlands Project, a controversial movement to link wilderness areas with corridors to keep ecosystems in balance and protect animals against extinction.