What is wilderness? Dave W provides some insights…
IT is a place that is not under human control: a place where people might pass through, but not stay: a land where the wild beasts rule. Before people existed, the world was one vast wilderness. Since we’ve been around, wild areas are less and less common. An antonym would be city or any other noun defining more or less permanent human habitations, e.g. town, village, campsite. A campfire is a very basic method of keeping wilderness at bay.
This, I think, has been the generally accepted meaning of wilderness. I find it a more robust and useful word than ‘nature’, which is usually debased by the attempt to exclude people from the definition. People are part of Nature – we evolved here and we haven’t left yet. People are not part of a wilderness.
Of course, once ‘wilderness’ has been defined by legislation, other definitions may apply, but at least the US Wilderness Act (1964) seemed to follow the general sense: "an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammelled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
I think it is reasonable to define wilderness as a continuum, rather than an absolute. Areas are more or less wild depending on how much control people are able to exert. I don’t think that pollution, exotic weeds, or similar effluvia of human life are of any relevance to defining wilderness. Those do not result from attempts to control an area. Also, I don’t demand that everyone respond the same to wilderness. Some may find it exhilarating and renewing, others may find it terrifying. I’ve been lost in wild areas, so I’ve felt both extremes.
The picture/image is of a wild place, but not a wilderness: White Spruce regenerating in Alberta Aspen Parkland thanks to fire suppression regime (favours spruce), the reintroduction of beaver (eat aspen), and increasing moose populations (eat aspen before spruce) thanks to hunting regulation and extermination of wolves. Click on the image to see more, to gain perspective.
Dave W is a biologist who has worked in North America and Australia and has about 150 scientific publications including one in Ecological Modelling on climate change that Google Scholar tells him is his 13th most significant publication, but that he thinks was just an interesting 'what if?' exercise with little or no relevance to any actual ecosystem.
****
For some other perspectives on wilderness click and scroll here https://climatelab.com.au/tag/wilderness/
Perhaps send me your thoughts on wilderness...
jennifermarohasy at gmail.com
Hi Dave,
You're right about the Saltwater Crocs. Being taken by one of these beasties would not be a fun way to go. For any hiking in NT or in the far Nth of Qld, I'd want the company of someone with local experience.
I've seen Rattlesnakes on hikes. I respect them, but am not afraid of them. Since Australia is the poisonous snake capital of the world, I'd be very hesitant to walk through tall grass there.
And as I mentioned earlier, I'm well prepared for Drop Bear attacks in Eucalypt forests. 🙂
Hi Larry - the most dangerous thing most hikers do is drive to and fro the trailhead. Driving is much more likely to kill you than a back country predator, but it is a mistake to consider them harmless. Many of the Black Bear attacks recorded are in remote areas. One in particular that I remember was a guy with a cabin and an outhouse who got taken on the way to the loo. Canadian newspapers often report Black Bear attacks in the spring. Put together a hungry bear coming out of hibernation together with a bit of testosterone and an incautious human and you have a gripping story.
We seem to have a real logical disconnect with mammalian predators. I would bet you'd be far more afraid of a Saltwater Crocodile or Taipan than a Black Bear or a Dingo. Our ancestors viewed large predators as competitors and threats. We seem to view them as entertainment provided by nature. I think that is why Spangled Drongo and others are having problems getting Dingos culled.
Comment from: DaveW March 16th, 2014 at 5:15 pm
"Black Bears are large enough to eat you if they feel like it and you can’t scare them off."
Many years ago, a Black Bear got too close for comfort. I couldn't see him, but I could hear the air going in and out of his nostrils. He was after our food, and was probably not motivated by a craving for human-burgers. Could I have mistaken a Bigfoot for a Black Bear? Yes, that's theoretically possible, but unlikely.
This was AT NIGHT in the Trinity Alps Wilderness, in Nth California. One of my back-packing companions yelled at him as loudly as possible. Then I could hear the Black Bear scurrying off. Yes, my companion scared off the big, bad Black Bear! The BB left us alone for the rest of the night. It's possible that your similar efforts were unsuccessful, because your command of specialized Anglo-Saxon vocabulary was not equal to the task. 🙂
"Those stories fit the general Black Bear meme, along with my nighttime experiences with Black Bear raiding campsites in several national parks (even in the Yosemite back country behind Hetch Hetchy), but it isn’t that simple."
I've only been to the Yosemite back-country twice. The first visit, many years ago, was a weekend peak bagging trip -- Mounts Lyell and McClure -- starting form Tuolumne Meadows. The second visit to the Yosemite backcountry was some 25 years later. From the Owens Valley side, we back-packed in to Peeler Lake, which is near the W boundary of Yosemite. Surprise, surprise! No Black Bears on either trip.
The Yosemite back-country is not my favorite place for a wilderness experience. It's too crowded.
I've never been hiking in the Eastern part of the US. My educated guess is that Wilderness Areas there are more heavily used than most of the ones in California. Use Factor #1: large population centers (as in California), and nearby small towns (whose residents do not bear-proof their garbage cans). Use Factor #2: wimpier uphill stretches on trails in the molehills that Easterners call mountains.
If I'm right about the relative usages, this has given the local Black Bears more opportunities to habituate to humans, and to overcome the natural reluctance to pursuing the yummy-smelling food items in the backpacks that people carry.
"Most fatal attacks on people by Black Bears are the result of male bears in hunting mode."
I have no doubt that headline-grabbing incidents of this kind have happened. The $64 question is: How often? How big is the risk for a typical backpacker in one of the less-crowded Wilderness Areas in California?
Pitbulls have received similar bad press. Some of it is accurate. And some of it is BS, in which the reporter did not have a clue about the breed of the dog involved in the attack. Oh yes, it must have been a Pitbull. /sarc
In my limited experience, PBs are mostly nice to people. In my not-so-humble opinion, Breed Specific Legislation is as much an over-reaction, as the irrational fear of Black Bears in California's less-crowded Wilderness Areas. Here's an old joke that puts things into perspective.
You're hiking in Yellowstone, and you see bear scat on the trail.
Q: Is it Black Bear scat, or is it Grizzly Bear scat?
A: Grizzly Bear scat contains bear bells, and smells like pepper spray.
Here's a link to two amazing (and probably true) bear stories I heard that I wrote up at HubPages, an online community of writers.
http://larryfields.hubpages.com/hub/My-Favorite-Bear-Stories
Hi Larry - I've encountered Black Bear during the day. One cherished memory is rounding a corner on the Appalachian Trail in the Great Smokey Mountains National Park and running into a large Black Bear. We both stopped, took a long look at one another and bolted in opposite directions. Another is a week long canoe trip in Algonquin Provincial Park. After pulling ashore to camp, out wandered a black bear cub and then mama. Throwing hunks of wood, banging pans, puffing out our chest were no matter and 4 young male Homo sapiens were soon back in their canoes well off shore with campfire and dinner a fond memory.
Those stories fit the general Black Bear meme, along with my nighttime experiences with Black Bear raiding campsites in several national parks (even in the Yosemite back country behind Hetch Hetchy), but it isn't that simple. Most fatal attacks on people by Black Bears are the result of male bears in hunting mode. See this for a synopsis and Herrero's papers are well worth a read:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/black-bear-attacks-north-america-110511.htm
Black Bears are large enough to eat you if they feel like it and you can't scare them off.
Comment from: DaveW March 15th, 2014 at 11:19 am "People even think bears aren’t really dangerous, in spite of numerous records of Black Bears hunting people and Grizzlies regularly taking people for dinner."
I've spent a lot of time in Wilderness Areas. Surprise, surprise! I have never even seen a Black Bear there DURING THE DAY. However I have seen Black Bears in the crowded, very un-wildernessy part of Yosemite. They're the vanguard of a new subspecies, Ursus Garbagiensis.
My experience jibes with what I've read. Unlike Grizzlies, Black Bears are smart and cautious. A typical Black Bear response to seeing a human IN A WILDERNESS AREA is:
Who are these strange 2-legged creatures? Until I get more info, I'm keeping my distance!
I feel very Bear-safe on all of my local day-hikes. However I agree with the conventional wisdom about protective mama Bears. If you see a Bear cub on a day-hike, turn around immediately, and make an orderly retreat.
The larger and more aggressive Grizzly Bears are a different ball of wax. Notwithstanding California's state flag, we don't have any in the wild. Grizzlies need huge territories in order to survive, and our state is too fragmented for that. Our Grizzlies have been locally extinct since 1920 or so.
It's a similar story in most of the contiguous USA. The main exceptions are parts of Montana, Wyoming, and perhaps Idaho. If you're backpacking in Yellowstone NP, you may feel safer 'packing heat'. And yes, it's legal there.
Cougars are a much bigger concern. Here's the opening 'hook' paragraph and the link to an article that I wrote on the subject at HubPages.
"Back in the early 2000s, I was hiking with friends on the Clementine loop in Northern California's Gold Country, near Auburn. During a rest stop, we met a woman who was mountain-biking alone. In my inimitably charming way, I expressed concern for her safety. I told her that earlier in the day, we had seen a mountain lion who was sporting a blue T-shirt. She didn't think that Wet Blanket Larry's tall tale was the least bit funny. Nevertheless it underscores the most important principles of personal safety in cougar country."
http://larryfields.hubpages.com/hub/Larrys-Tips-for-Hiking-Safely-in-Cougar-Country
I have seen a couple of situations like that where people have been able to exclude feral apex ground-dwelling predators [still aerial ones]. In the Bunya Mts they have a moratorium on dogs and have been able to keep foxes and dingoes under some control and the marsupial numbers are quite impressive. Rednecked wallabies [mainly, no roos as it's mountain country] lazing around the houses, streets and parks. Very diverse wildlife but no apparent problems.
I also used to work on a sheep station that was over a million acres, with 137 miles of dog netting and electric fencing around the perimeter. It was mainly thick mulga scrub and some paddocks were over 300,000 acres. After a reasonably clean muster we would get say 10,000 sheep and 25,000 roos in the bottom corner. Mulga is very drought-proof country and we never did anything about the roos because the sheep were fat even if it didn't rain but those roo numbers were out of control.
I've never seen dogs/dingoes control plague numbers of roos to any extent. Not like the way a pack will wipe out a colony of isolated wallabies. I doubt if thylacines would have either. I think they just thin out in dry times. The problem was, on this property, there was always fodder in the mulga leaves and after a while the roos would have to have been shot out.
We didn't do it because they weren't a problem and most of the time they weren't visible.
Huge areas of Australia didn't have roos all year round or dingoes at all, before white settlement because there was no permanent water.
Dingoes didn't get into the channel country until around the time of WW2. It was all unfenced sheep country till then. There were no thylacines so there were no apex predators in that notw.
But thylacines or devils would be far less destructive than dogs/dingoes/foxes. The thylacines in Tas when the whites arrived were mostly killed by domestic dogs from what I've read.