ORION,
MAY/JUNE 2003
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/03-3om/Cronon.html
WILLIAM CRONON
The Riddle of
the
How do you manage a wilderness full of human
stories?
PHOTOGRAPH |
LAURENCE PARENT
The
There is nothing especially
dramatic about the Apostles. In some places, they meet the lake with narrow,
pebble-covered beaches rising steeply to meet the forest behind. Elsewhere,
they present low sandstone cliffs, brown-red in hue, that
have been so sculpted by the action of wave and ice that one never tires of
studying their beauty. In a few places where the geology is just right, the
lake has widened crevices to form deep caves where kayakers can make their way
into darkness and listen to the rise and fall of water on stone. Northern
hardwood forest, swamp, marsh, and shore are the primary habitats, with nesting
bird colonies in the cliffs and a peripatetic population of black bears that is
surprisingly unfazed by the need to swim from island to island despite the
notoriously cold temperatures of the lake.
For nearly thirty-five
years, these lands and waters have been protected by the federal government as
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore -- a legacy of Wisconsin Senator Gaylord
Nelson, father of Earth Day in 1970. Sometime later this year, the National Park
Service will issue recommendations for future management of the park. Although
the NPS study recommending wilderness designation for the Apostles (spearheaded
by another Wisconsin senator, Russ Feingold) has not thus far attracted much
attention, its implications reach far beyond the
In the 1970 act that
created it, the Lakeshore was dedicated to the "protection of scenic,
scientific, historic, geological, and archaeological features contributing to
public education, inspiration, and enjoyment." Since then, millions of
Americans have come to appreciate the subtle, ever-changing beauty of the
islands. Designating the Apostles as wilderness will be a milestone in the
ongoing effort to protect them for future generations, and will constitute an
important addition to our National Wilderness Preservation System in a region
where far too little land has received such protection. Look at a map of legal
wilderness in the
In the early
twentieth century, this dock linked
PHOTOGRAPH |
NPS ARCHIVES
On the surface, there seems
little reason to doubt that many of the Apostles meet the legal criteria
specified by the 1964 Wilderness Act. Most visitors who wander these islands,
whether by water or land, experience them, in the words of that Act, "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." Permanent improvements and
human habitations are few, and those that do exist are often so subtle that
many visitors fail to notice them. Whether one sails, kayaks, boats, hikes, or
camps, opportunities for solitude are easy to find. Wild nature is everywhere.
And yet: the
All of this would seem to
call into question the common perception among visitors that the Apostles are
"untouched," and might even raise doubts about whether the National
Lakeshore should be legally designated as wilderness. But although most parts
of these islands have been substantially altered by past human activities, they
have also gradually been undergoing a process that James Feldman, an
environmental historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who is writing a
book about the islands, has evocatively called "rewilding."
The Apostles are thus a superb example of a wilderness in which natural and
human histories are intimately intermingled. To acknowledge past human impacts
upon these islands is not to call into question their wildness; it is rather to
celebrate, along with the human past, the robust ability of wild nature to
sustain itself when people give it the freedom it needs to flourish in their
midst.
Should Apostle
Islands
National Lakeshore become part of the National Wilderness Preservation System?
Emphatically yes.
A young
forest disguises an old road.
PHOTOGRAPH |
WILLIAM CRONON
But to answer the question
so simply is to evade some of the most challenging riddles that the
If this is true, then the
riddle we need to answer is how to manage the Apostle Islands as a historical
wilderness, in which we commit ourselves not to erasing human marks on the
land, but rather to interpreting them so that visitors can understand just how
intricate and profound this process of rewilding
truly is.
Among my favorite places
for thinking about rewilding is
But the path you walk to
reach this lighthouse is in fact a former county road. If you look in the right
place you can still find an ancient automobile rusting amid the weeds. Frank
Shaw homesteaded the southeastern corner of
How did Sand Islanders
support themselves in this remote rural settlement? Fishing was of course a mainstay.
Logging went on occasionally, and from the 1880s forward the summer months saw
a regular stream of tourists. But for several decades islanders also farmed.
Few who visit this "pristine wilderness" today will recognize that
the lands through which they hike are old farm fields, but such in fact they
are. Indeed, look closely at the encroaching forest that was once Burt and Anna
Mae Hill's homestead and you will quickly realize that the trees are not much
more than half a century old. Indeed, some of the oldest are apple trees,
offering mute evidence -- like the lilacs and rose bushes that grow amid ruins
of old foundations elsewhere on the island -- of past human efforts to yield
bounty and beauty from this soil.
The old orchards are in
fact a perfect example of rewilding, since Burt
Hill's farm still shapes the local ecology. As James Feldman describes the
process, "In some areas of the clearing, willow, hawthorn, mountain ash,
and serviceberry have moved into the sedge meadow in straight, regular lines,
following the drainage ditches dug by Burt Hill when he expanded his farming
operations in the 1930s." Nature alone cannot explain this landscape. You
need history too.
The dilemma for the Park
Service, then, is deciding how much of the Apostle Islands to designate as
wilderness, and how to manage lands so labeled. More bluntly: should Burt
Hill's orchard count as wilderness? And if it does, should park managers strive
to erase all evidence of the Hills' home so visitors can imagine this land to
be "pristine"?
What makes these
questions so
difficult is that the 1964 Wilderness Act and current National Park Service
management policies draw quite a stark -- and artificial -- boundary between
nature and culture. The implication of this boundary is that the two should be
kept quite separate, and that wilderness in particular should be devoid of
anything suggesting an ongoing human presence. Under the 1964 Act, wilderness
is defined as a place that "generally appears to have been affected
primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially
unnoticeable." Strictly interpreted, this definition suggests that the
more human history we can see in a landscape, the less wild it is. A curious
feature of this definition is that it privileges visitors' perceptions of
"untrammeledness" over the land's true
history. It almost implies that wilderness designation should depend on whether
we can remove, erase, or otherwise hide historical evidence that people have altered
a landscape and made it their home.
A block of
sandstone quarried at
PHOTOGRAPH |
JEFF RENNICKE
Because this strict
definition can exclude from the National Wilderness Preservation System too
much land that might otherwise deserve protection, the
less-well-known 1975 Eastern Wilderness Act offers an important counterpoint
that is especially relevant to the
For instance, current NPS
management policies adopt a strict definition of wilderness comparable to the
1964 Act in declaring that "the National Park Service will seek to remove
from potential wilderness the temporary, non-conforming conditions that
preclude wilderness designation." The bland phrase "non-conforming
conditions" generally refers to any human imprints that diminish the
impression that a wilderness is "untouched" -- imprints, in other
words, that constitute the chief evidence of human history. As Laura Watt has
suggested in her valuable study of Park Service management at Point Reyes in
At both Point Reyes and
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, Park Service managers have ironically
become the principal vandals of historic structures -- tearing down ranches at
Point Reyes, removing farms, fishing camps, and cottages at Apostle Islands --
in an effort to persuade visitors that land remains untrammeled. Park visitors
deceived by this carefully contrived illusion not only fail to see the human
history of the places they visit; they also fail to see the many features of
present ecosystems that are inexplicable without reference to past human
influence. As Laura Watt points out, although the Park Service has long opposed
the reconstruction of historic buildings and sites as inherently false and
misleading, it shows much less compunction about false and misleading
reconstructions of "natural" landscapes.
NPS management policies do
call for the protection of "significant" cultural resources even on
lands designated as wilderness, but such resources must meet very high
standards of significance -- generally, listing on the National Register -- to
merit protection. As a result, NPS generally forces managers to choose between
two mutually exclusive alternatives, wild and nonwild.
One either designates an area as wilderness and tries
to remove "non-conforming conditions" so as to manage it almost
exclusively for wilderness values; or one designates an area as a cultural
resource and manages it for values other than wilderness. The heretical notion
that one might actually wish to protect and interpret a cultural resource in
the very heart of wilderness so as to help visitors better understand the
history of that wilderness is pretty much unthinkable under current
regulations.
All of this may seem
abstract and academic, but it has very practical implications for how Apostle
Islands National Lakeshore and other parks are managed when designated as
wilderness. Under NPS policies, "improvements" are to be held to a
bare minimum in designated wilderness. This means that even if historic human
structures and artifacts are permitted to remain (most would typically be
removed or destroyed), the best one could hope for them would be stabilization,
not active protection, restoration, or interpretation. Trails would be kept to
a minimum, and their routes would emphasize nature over culture to encourage
visitors' perception of untrammeled wilderness -- even when, as at
Tourism has
been a major force shaping the natural and cultural landscape of the Apostles.
PHOTOGRAPH |
JEFF RENNICKE
Why does this bother me so
much? Because I can't help seeing the straight lines along which willows and
serviceberries are invading Burt Hill's orchard. I
can't help caring about all the dreams and hard work with which he planted
these apple trees so long ago. For me, Burt and Anna Mae's story makes this
wilderness all the more poignant, and I cannot understand why we think we need
to annihilate the record of their lives so we can pretend to ourselves --
pioneer-like -- that no one before us has ever stood here.
What
alternatives do we have? How might we combine designated wilderness with an equal
and ongoing commitment to interpreting the shared past of humanity and nature?
If we can answer this question for the
Most importantly, we should
commit ourselves to the notion that Apostles Islands National Lakeshore is and
always will be a historical wilderness: for centuries in the past, and
presumably for centuries still to come, human beings have played and will play
crucial roles in these islands. Visitors should come away from the park with a
deepened appreciation not just for the wild nature they find here, but for the
human history as well.
The interpretive framework
that can best integrate the natural and cultural resources of this park is
James Feldman's concept of rewilding. It should be at
the heart of what the park offers to visitors. Here is a natural landscape that
has been utilized for centuries by different human groups for different human
purposes: first by native peoples for subsistence, then for fur trading, then
in turn for fishing, shipping, logging, quarrying, farming, touring, and other
activities. Natural resources here have long been exploited as commodities, and
island ecosystems have changed drastically as a result. The shifting
composition of the forest, the changing populations of wildlife on the land and
in the lake, the introduction of exotic species, the
subtle alterations of geomorphology: all of these "natural" features
also reflect human history. Visitors should come away with a more sophisticated
understanding of them all.
Furthermore, these changes
have not all been in one direction, which is why Feldman's narrative of rewilding can be a source of hope for all who support
efforts at ecological restoration. Although parts of the
One of the most attractive
features of Feldman's concept of rewilding is that it
avoids the negative implication that past human history consists solely of exploiting,
damaging, and destroying nature. As Feldman puts it, "rewilding
landscapes should be interpreted as evidence neither of past human abuse nor of
triumphant wild nature, but rather as evidence of the tightly intertwined
processes of natural and cultural history." When we use words like
"healing" to describe the return of wilderness to a place like the
Apostles, we imply that past human history here should be understood mainly as
"wounding" and "scarring." Such words do no more justice to
the complexity of human lives in the past than they do to our own lives in the
present. They implicitly dishonor the memories of those like Burt and Anna Mae
Hill who once made their lives here and who presumably loved these islands as
much as we do.
In keeping with the
principle that the Park Service should not be in the business of promoting
illusions about a pristine wilderness with no human history, the default
management assumption should be that existing human structures and artifacts
will not be removed even from designated wilderness. No erasures should be the
rule except where absolutely necessary. Even in instances where there are
safety concerns about a collapsing structure, other solutions for protecting
visitors should always be sought before resorting to destruction and removal.
In a rewilding landscape, old buildings, tools,
fencerows, and other such structures supply vital evidence of past human uses,
without which visitors cannot hope to understand how natural ecosystems have
responded to those uses. Moreover, such artifacts today stand as romantic
ruins, haunting and beautiful in their own right. Far from diminishing the
wilderness experience of visitors, they enhance and deepen it by adding
complexity to the story of rewilding.
Wind- and
water-shaped sandstone formations such as this one beckon beachcombers.
PHOTOGRAPH |
LAURENCE PAREN
Moreover, not all structures
and artifacts should be permitted to go to ruin. The Park Service has already
worked hard (with far too little funding) to preserve the beautiful historic
lighthouses that are among the most popular destinations on the islands. But a
grave weakness of current Park Service interpretation is its extreme emphasis
on lighthouses and fishing as if these constituted the sum total of past human
activities in the islands. Equally important phases of island history remain
almost invisible. Ojibwe and other native histories
are only beginning to receive the attention they deserve, and the histories of
later island residents often go entirely unmentioned.
An NPS commitment to
interpreting all phases of
The bias of historical
interpretation in the
If I had my druthers, I
would also permit limited signage and interpretation as tools for educating
visitors and managers alike that the presence of cultural resources such as
fishing camps and cottages in the midst of wilderness does not automatically
degrade wilderness values or the wilderness experience. Does Aldo Leopold's
shack or Sigurd Olson's cabin diminish the wild lands
surrounding it? I honestly believe such cultural resources can enhance visitor
appreciation of the complex history of rewilding
landscapes. If we're to tell stories about ecological restoration, as surely we
need to do if we're to envision a sustainable human future, we need to leave
evidence on the ground that will bear witness to such stories.
I'm nonetheless willing to
acknowledge that standardized bureaucratic rules and regulations may not easily
accommodate the kind of interpretive ambiguities that I prefer. So the wiser,
easier strategy is probably to think of wilderness in the Apostle Islands as existing
along a continuum, from areas that will be treated as "pure"
wilderness (even though they are full of historical artifacts that should not
be removed) to highly developed sites like the lighthouses that are managed
almost entirely for nonwilderness values.
I would argue for a few
locations outside of the designated wilderness which, although still managed to
protect wilderness values, could be modestly restored and actively interpreted
so as to help visitors understand the historic landscapes of logging,
quarrying, farming, and early tourism. One might consider designating them as
"historical wilderness areas" to signal that they should be managed
with an eye toward balancing natural and cultural resources more evenly than
would typically be true in "designated wilderness."
Sand and Basswood islands
are the obvious candidates to be designated as historical wilderness, because
their histories are so rich and varied -- encompassing fishing, logging,
quarrying, farming, and tourism in addition to Ojibwe
subsistence activities -- and so can serve as microcosms for the whole
archipelago. These islands could be regarded almost as classrooms for
historical wilderness, where visitors can learn about the long-term cultural
processes that have in fact shaped all of the Apostles. Then, when they visit
the designated wilderness where much less interpretation is permitted, their
eyes will be trained to see the rewilding process
they will witness there.
What are the
chances that
this new approach to protecting wilderness might actually succeed in the
Like Krumenaker, I favor
educating visitors so they will recognize that wilderness can have a human
history and still offer a flourishing home for wild nature. If we adopt such a
strategy for managing wilderness in Apostle Islands National Lakeshore, the
park can offer a truly invaluable laboratory, with implications far beyond its
own boundaries, for rethinking what we want visitors to experience and
understand when they visit a wilderness that is filled equally with human and
natural histories.
Indeed, among the most
precious experiences that Apostle Islands National Lakeshore can offer its
visitors are precisely these stories. Management policy in the National
Lakeshore should seek to protect wilderness values and historic structures,
certainly, but it should equally protect stories -- stories of wild nature,
stories of human history. It is a storied wilderness. And it is in fact these
stories that visitors will most remember and retell, even as they contribute
their own experiences to the ongoing history of people and wild nature in the
|
|
|