720 JOURNAL OF FORESTRY 



ings. It will be much easier to keep wilderness areas than to create 

 them. In fact, the latter alternative may be dismissed as impossible. 

 Right here is the whole reason for forehandedness in the proposed 

 wilderness area policy. 



It is obvious to everyone who knows the National Forests that even 

 with intensive future development, there will be a decreasing but in- 

 exhaustible number of small patches of rough country which will re- 

 main practically in wilderness condition. It is also generally recog- 

 nized that these small patches have a high and increasing recreational 

 value. But will they obviate the need for a policy such as here pro- 

 posed? I think not. These patches are too small, and must grow 

 smaller. They will always be big enough for camping, but they will 

 tend to grow too small for a real wilderness trip. The public demands 

 for camp sites and wilderness trips, respectively, are both legitimate 

 and both strong, but nevertheless distinct. The man who wants a wil- 

 derness trip wants not only scenery, hunting, fishing, isolation, etc. — 

 all of which can often be found within a mile of a paved auto highway 

 — but also the horses, packing, riding, daily movement and variety 

 found only in a trip through a big stretch of wild country. It would be 

 pretty lame to forcibly import these features into a country from 

 which the real need for them had disappeared. 



It may also be asked whether the National Parks from which, let 

 us hope, industrial development will continue to be excluded, do not 

 fill the public demand here discussed. They do, in part. But hunting 

 is not and should not be allowed within the Parks. Moreover, the 

 Parks are being networked with roads and trails as rapidly as possible. 

 This is right and proper. The Parks merely prove again that the 

 recreational needs and desires of the public vary through a wide range 

 of individual tastes, all of which should be met in due proportion to the 

 number of individuals in each class. There is only one question in- 

 volved — highest use. And we are beginning to see that highest use is 

 a very varied use, requiring a very varied administration, in the recre- 

 ational as well as in the industrial field. 



An actual example is probably the best way to describe the workings 

 of the proposed wilderness area policy. 



The Southwest (meaning New Mexico and Arizona) is a distinct 

 region. The original southwestern wilderness was the scene of several 

 important chapters in our national history. The remainder of it is 

 about as interesting, from about as large a number of angles, as any 



