THE WILDERNESS — RECREATIONAE POLICY 719 



be an issue with respect to recreation. It is the fundamental function 

 ot foresters to reconcile these conflicts, and to give constructive direc- 

 tion to these issues as they arise. The purpose of this paper is to give 

 definite form to the issue of wilderness conservation, and to suggest 

 certain policies for meeting it, especially as applied to the Southwest. 



It is quite possible that the serious discussion of this question will 

 seem a far cry in so ne unsettled regions, and rank heresy to some 

 minds. Likewise did timber conservation seem a far cry in some 

 regions, and rank heresy to some minds of a generation ago. "The 

 truth is that which prevails in the long run." 



Some definitions are probably necessary at the outset. By "wilder- 

 ness" I mean a continuous stretch of country preserved in its natural 

 state, open to lawful hunting and fishing, big enough to absorb a two 

 weeks' pack trip, and kept devoid of roads, artificial trails, cottages, or 

 other works of man. Several assumptions can be made at once with- 

 out argument. First, such wilderness areas should occupy only a small 

 fraction of the total National Forest area — probably not to exceed 

 one in each State. Second, only areas naturally difficult of ordinary 

 industrial development should be chosen. Third, each area should be 

 representative of some type of country of distinctive recreational value, 

 or afiford some distinctive type of outdoor life, opportunity for which 

 might disappear on other forest lands open to industrial development. 



The argument for such wilderness areas is premised wholly on 

 highest recreational use. The recreational desires and needs of the 

 public, whom the forests must serve, vary greatly with the individual. 

 Heretofore we have been inclined to assume that our recreational de- 

 velopment policy must be based on the desires and needs of the ma- 

 jority only. The only new thing about the premise in this case is the 

 proposition that inasmuch as we have plenty of room and plenty of 

 t'.me, it is our duty to vary our recreational development policy, in 

 some places, to meet the needs and desires of the minority also. The 

 majority undoubtedly want all the automobile roads, summer hotels,, 

 graded trails, and other modern conveniences that we can give them. 

 It is already decided, and wisely, that they shall have these things as 

 rapidly as brains and money can provide them. But a very substantial 

 minority, I think, want just the opposite. It should be decided, as soon 

 as the existence of the demand can be definitely determined, to provide 

 what this minority wants. In fact, if we can foresee the demand, and 

 make provision for it in advance, it will save much cash and hard feel- 



