The story of West Virginia has been told and retold, usually in the positive context of the "march of civilization." Early settlers confronted a vast wilderness and set about taming it. State government has long been a partner in the process, promulgating industrial development and economic expansion through supportive legislation and policy. West Virginians have paid a price forthis economic success in the form of environmental degradation. The first victim was the vast West Virginia wilderness. Today, wild nature is viewed as a scarce commodity steeped in historic, cultural, and symbolic value. In response, the state legislature has in recent decades attempted to adopt policies to preserve portions of what little remains. Yet there is inevitably a lag time between public sentiment and government action. While change has been slow, the growing popular appreciation of wild nature has forced West Virginia's policy makers to face conservation philosopher Aldo Leopold's question, "whether a still higher'standard of living' is worth its cost in things natural, wild, and free" (Leopold 1949).

This analysis is organized around three themes. The first is an examination of the changes that have occurred in the way West Virginians perceive forested wildlands and their relationship to it. Secondly, the evolution and development of state public land management will be examined. Particular focus will be placed on comparing current public attitudes toward wildlands and natural areas with state land policy and management. Thirdly, a policy action agenda is proposed for bridging the disparities between public sentiment and lagging public land policy and management direction.

The purpose of this analysis is not to reprove the general practices of West Virginia's public land management agencies. As was pointed out by one anonymous reviewer, these agencies and their counterparts around the United States are held in high esteem around the world. The resource management paradigm underlying their activities has become a model for other countries. Rather, the focus here is on the emergence in the last several decades of wild nature as a vital social value, and the response of these agencies to this growing public sentiment.

Changing Public Sentiment

West Virginia's abundant natural resources-timber, coal, oil, natural gas-helped fuel the massive 20th century industrial growth that occurred in the United States. Expansion of a resource-based economy, aided and encouraged at every turn by the policies of state govern

ment, had three crucial effects on West Virginia. First, while it helped make the United States the world's wealthiest nation, the state itself has invariably ranked near the bottom in personal income, employment, education, and health (Williams 1993). Boosters have from the beginning promised that extraction and export of raw materials would make West Virginia a wealthy state, but it remains, as described by John Alexander Williams, "one of the poorer states, a hewer of wood and a supplier of energy to its richer neighbors" (Williams 1976).

The second crucial effect of unrestrained extraction and export of raw natural resources was the destruction of wilderness. As West Virginia nears the 21 st century, almost every acre of the state has been altered to some extent by human activity, mainly by agriculture, timber harvesting, mining, and urbanization. This activity has been continually supported by state policies that subsidize the exploitation, rather than the protection, of wild nature. Today, only a tiny fraction of West Virginia's vast primeval forests remain.

Third, immense economic growth and plentiful resources provided the setting for unrestrained business practices among the absentee owners who controlled most of West Virginia's resources. The resulting business abuses of lumber, mining and railroad companies-aided and abetted by state policy-have gained a central place in West Virginia history.

Such policies toward wild nature could not be sustained indefinitely. Resource-intensive economic systems are ultimately self-limiting. By the 1930s, most of West Virginia's landscape had been compromised to some degree by development. Loss of wild conditions created the perception of wildness as a scarce resource. Rising levels of affluence and education encouraged West Virginians to recognize the noneconomic values of nature. Combined with popular dissatisfaction with abuses by big business and absentee landowners, the inevitable result was an erosion of the "growth and progress" mentality that dominated earlier generations.

Thus began a fundamental change in the way West Virginians perceive wild nature. The meaning of nature, and the role people want it to play in their personal lives and in the life of their community has changed drastically-from the forbidden forest, viewed at best as a commodity and at worst an obstacle to progress, to the late 20th century perspective of a biotic whole providing clean air, water, beauty, and inspiration. Recognition of these values is actually not new. As early as 1911, West Virginia's pioneer conservationist A.B. Brooks mused retrospectively that:

The great forest which surrounded the homes of the pioneers left an indelible mark on their characters. It affected every act of their lives. Its influence was manifested in their manners and customs and conversations. It made [them] more thoughtful and less talkative and superficial; it furnished the inspiration for many of their great works of prose and poetry; and it breathed into them a spirit of freedom and independence (Brooks 1911, 45-46).

It is ironic that these benefits were taken for granted until progress did away with them. Only in the past few decades, as we take our repose in a landscape largely transformed to suit our human purposes, has a more positive view of nature emerged as a potent political force. The general trend has been towards preserving the last vestiges of West Virginia's wild landscape.

Since the early 20th century, a progressive reform movement called utilitarian conservation, or the "wise use" of natural resources, has dominated public environmental policy, both in West Virginia and nationally. The shift in public sentiment occurring today is the result of two converging forces that challenge the tenets of utilitarian conservation. Those forces are preservationism and biocentrism. Unlike utilitarian conservation, preservationism does not view nature as a collection of resources that can be engineered to maximize human benefit. Rather, preservationists conceive nature as a synergistic phenomenon that can be irreversibly damaged by human activity.

Nonetheless, like utilitarian conservation ism, preservationism is essentially concerned with the question "what can nature do for people?" While preservationists generally reject purely economic values and focus on benefits such as scenic beauty, solitude, escape, and character building, it is still a tool to ensure that the full measure of human value is obtained from nature. Probably the best example of the impact of the preservationist argument in state policy is the formation of the state park system.

Biocentrist ideology provides the second challenge to the utilitarian conservation paradigm. Aldo Leopold's "land ethic" illustrates this view. Under biocentric thinking, humans are not viewed as above the rest of creation, but rather as one strand in the web of life. Nature is construed "not as a commodity belonging to us, but as a community to which we belong" (Leopold 1949). Hence, human values are dependent upon these intrinsic values, and must sometimes give way to nature. For instance, a forest would sometimes be left in its wild state as remote habitat for wildlife, even if that means fewer jobs for loggers or innkeepers.

While this holistic view of nature is prevalent in the sciences and increasingly among the lay public, it has barely affected West Virginia's public land policy. For instance, the state's natural heritage and non-game wildlife programs have been defended using biocentric rhetoric that recognizes the inherent worth of every individual part of the ecosystem and its contribution to the

healthy functioning of the whole. Yet the programs are woefully underfunded as compared to the state's hunting and fishing programs. During the 1993 legislative session, considerable public support was generated for bills that would have increased funding to these programs. The funding schemes were scuttled by business and development interests, mainly the real estate lobby. Although in 1994 $400,000 in funding was secured, the amount and the source-the general fund-is unpredictable for long-term program development.

The survey's third question was: "When it is impossible to find a reasonable compromise between economic development and environmental protection, which do you usually believe is more important: economic development or environmental protection?" Sixty-four percent answered "environmental protection" and only 17 percent answered "economic development." Thirteen percent volunteered that "it depends" and the remaining 6 percent said they did not know (Times-Mirror Magazines 1992).

The survey's twenty-fourth question set forth several types of tradeoffs, one of which was worded as follows: "We could maintain our strict policies on the protection of endangered species, but this would eliminate some development and hurt chances for economic growth and more jobs." Asked whether some sacrifice of development and of chances for economic development and more jobs was worth making in order to maintain strict protection of endangered species, 58 percent of those surveyed said the sacrifice is worth making, whereas only 30 percent said the sacrifice is not worth making. The other 12 percent said that they did not know (Times-Mirror Magazines 1992).

Such survey results reflect a trend toward greater environmental concern which the Roper Organization has now been tracking for ten years. Back in 1982, only 7 percent of adult Americans reported the environment to be "one of their two or three top personal concerns." By 1991, 23 percent were calling it that (Times-MirrorMagazines 1992). Locally, in West Virginia, the consistent public rejection of large landfills for out-of-state garbage is but one example suggesting a local willingness to forgo economic benefits for environmental quality.

It is important to understand that these new pro-nature values do not represent a desire to turn back the clock to some primitive, pre-technological society. Rather, appreciation of amenity values such as wilderness represents an important part of the standard of living of an advanced industrial society; it is an unavoidable consequence of prosperity. Demand for amenity valueswhether they be the arts, literature, or wild nature-is linked to affluence, education, and urbanization; as prosperity grows and education levels rise, consumption patterns shift from an emphasis on necessities to conveniences and finally to amenities (Hays 1990).

This shift in values is supported by new technologies that allow people to live near nature and conveniently access it while still enjoying most modern conveniences. Technology has also produced an array of outdoor leisure products that let people experience nature with greater safety, ease, and mobility. Examples include chair lifts, sunscreen, lightweight equipment, helmets, and hightech fabrics that breathe while still keeping out the rain and snow. Technology has also resulted in new activities such as SCUBA diving, mountain biking, and windsurfing that broaden the ways people can experience nature.

A shift in population to urban landscapes free of the harsh realities of life directly dependent on nature has made wildness seem more appealing. In fact, nature has come to be viewed as an antidote to the problems of urban life. Today, millions of West Virginians and state visitors depend on nature as an escape from the city-a place to be revitalized, renewed, and healed. Schools, hospitals, and treatment centers are increasingly turning to nature as an effective alternative educational and treatment model.

As these shifts in public values have occurred, a rift has appeared between many citizens on one hand and many public-land policyrnakers and managers on the other. Research has consistently shown that policy makers and managers tend to be more interested in jobs, real estate values, and attracting industry, whereas the public is generally more concerned with environmental quality (Hays 1990).

So why the lag between emerging public sentiment and public land policy? Born during the Progressive reform era of the early 20th century, the forestry profession has a long tradition of utilitarian conservation. For most of this time, the public has generally accepted a paternalistic relationship in which the forester automatically knows what is best, both for people and for the land. Although public sentiment towards nature has now changed, public land management remains dedicated to the "gospel of efficiency" in which commodity and economic values dominate. Among foresters, the view persists that resource decisions should be made by the "experts" based on utilitarian formulas of the "greatest good" for society. Under this philosophy, there is little reason or need for public involvement or dialogue, effectively keeping democratic processes out of the resource-allocation decision process (Knopp and Caldbeck 1990). This has changed at the federal level, but West Virginia law continues to lag.

Today, West Virginians are less and less willing to be excluded from the resource-allocation process. The call to involve people more directly and meaningfully in decision-making processes has come from two directions. First, changed public sentiment towards nature has resulted in the perception that public land policy is more closely allied with industry than with the public interest. As a result, the public is increasingly suspicious of decisions that occur in a "black box" that conceals trade-offs and alternatives. Previously, public distrust was reserved for industry; now it is also focused on public officials. Today, a growing view is that professional resource managers should assemble data, complete analyses, and describe alternatives, but that they should not make the final policy decisions (Knopp and Caldbeck 1990).

Secondly, there is also growing belief among managers that better decisions could be made if the public were involved more effectively in the process. Once the premise is accepted that public resou rce-al location issues are value-based problems, then it can be argued that professional administrators and technicians should not make the final policy decisions. In this context, state legislatures across the country have created mechanisms for meaningful and constructive public participation in these public resou rce-al location decisions. Administrators are no longer the sole decision-makers, but rather facilitators of decision processes in which public involvement is fundamental.

In West Virginia, however, these reforms have lagged despite public sentiment for change. There are opportunities for public input in the form of public notice and comment periods for upcoming decisions on public resource allocations. Our position, however, is that these mechanisms are insufficient given the 1990s understandings of "meaningful" public participation. Under these mechanisms, public input occurs late in the process, resulting in little or no opportunity to be involved in defining problems, identifying alternative solutions, or weighing the costs and benefits of the alternatives.

In summary, a dramatic reversal of values has occurred in the way West Virginians perceive and experience nature. This shift away from extractive commodity values towards intangible amenity values is an inevitable consequence of progress. Today, the movement for wildland and natural area protection has clearly emerged from its infancy as a potent political force. Greater aff luence, education, and urbanization in coming decades will only intensify these views. As people's values have changed, distrust has increased towards public resource managers and policy makers whose views appear aligned with industry. The public is less willing to allow the professionals to make the decisions. They increasingly demand formal public participation, the identification of alternative options, and the analysis of the social and environmental impacts of those alternatives. As proof, we need only look at the increasing numbers who show up at public hearings, the proliferation of state environmental organizations, the burgeoning membership in these organizations, and the improved capacity of these groups to mobilize behind environmental issues that arise.

The Evolution of Public Land Management

Public forest management has a colorful and lengthy tradition. The profession was born during the Progressive movement of the early 20th century as a response to abuses by the resource-extraction industries that laid waste the country's virgin forests. Popular dissatisfaction with these practices led to new public policies that emphasized conservation. Later, the economic boom that followed World War I led to an enormous escalation in the demand for the amenity values of nature as people turned to the outdoors for their leisure. In response, additional tracts of cut-over and burned land in the eastern United States-seen as valueless by industry-were incorporated into a public land system made up of national and state forests and parks.

In West Virginia, the Monongahela National Forest, along with most of the state forests and parks, was established in this way. Stewardship of these areas has from the start been propelled by the ideology of resource conservation and rational scientific "management." The fundamental purpose underlying management of these areas

has been twofold: to provide a sustained yield of natural resources to fuel the economy, and to supply outdoor recreational opportunities for West Virginians and out-ofstate visitors. State government responded to this demand by purchasing parks and forests and by building scenic highways, trails, lodges, campgrounds, and restaurants.

Several events foreshadowed these actions. In the single year of 1908, one-tenth of West Virginia's land surface burned, and 3 percent of the state's standing timber was destroyed in the fires. Of the 710 fires reported that year, most were caused by sparks or hot coals from locomotives, and all but a few of the rest by sawmills and lumber camps. Hardest hit were Randolph and Tucker counties, but no county in the state entirely escaped that fall's forest fires (WV Conservation Commission 1908).

West Virginia's 1908 Conservation Commission was a temporary body inspired partly by the year's devastation, but also by Theodore Roosevelt's 1908 White House conservation conference. Like Roosevelt's initiative, West Virginia's effort focused on commodity concerns by asking "in what way [can] more economy ... be practiced without seriously or permanently retarding development" (WV Conservation Commission 1908). The Commission's proposal for establishing a system of "protective" stateowned parks and forests illustrates the disenchantment with the timber industry that was prevalent at the time, and also an increasing desire for non-economic benefits from nature. This love of nature for its own sake was conceived, however, as a commercial resort experience that would occur in a manipulated landscape. In fact, one of the Commission's suggestions was to dam many of West Virginia's streams, because "large sheets of water in the high mountains where boats could sail, and fishermen and hunters find attractive recreation, would attract people to resorts there, and the business of entertaining them might become highly profitable" (WV Conservation Commission 1908).

Action on these recommendations was delayed until after World War 1. By 1925, however, West Virginia's virgin forests had virtually all been clear-cut or high-graded (where the largest and best tress are removed), leaving behind a litter of dry slash that frequently caught fire. That sobering aftermath of "the great cut" mobilized public support for the old idea of creating state parks and forests. In 1925, 4,560 acres of cut-over land in Pocahontas County-land which would become Watoga State Parkwas purchased by the West Virginia Game, Fish and Forestry Commission. In 1927, a newly created Forest, Park, and Conservation Commission recommended that state parks or forests be created at Coopers Rock (Monongalia County), Cranberry Glades (Pocahontas County), Hawks Nest (Fayette County), Pinnacle Rock (Mercer Counter), Blennerhasset Island (Wood County), and along a strip from White Sulphur Springs to the vicinity of Lewisburg (Greenbrier County). By then, the Monongahela National Forest had been established by Congress. The same 1927 Commission also suggested designating a series of state monuments and a series of state historical parks of which the Droop Mountain Battlefield (in Pocahontas County) became the first.

Those recommendations were followed, but not with any haste until the 1930s' New Deal. At that time, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) provided the labor to build visitor facilities and trails in the Monongahela National Forest and in state parks and forests. The availability of cost-free labor for state park and forest projects prompted the legislature to create a new Conservation Commission that soon began buying lands at low Depression prices. By the late 1930s, much of today's 204,412-acre system of parks and forests was already in place. In the 1950s, West Virginia's state government began selling bonds to finance recreation-development projects on state lands. Lodges at Blackwater Falls and Cacapon (which cost $750,000 each) were soon followed by smaller lodges at Tygart Lake, North Bend and Twin Falls, and eventually by larger lodges at Pipestern and Canaan Valley. Meanwhile, most of the parks and forests were being equipped for tent and trailer camping. By 1958, the number of visitors to the system was nudging two million annually (Where People and Nature Meet 1988).

While the attitudes that shaped West Virginia's public land system have long recognized recreation, they have provided scant protection for wild nature. Although state parks and forests cover only 1.3 percent of West Virginia's surface, even within their boundaries the value of wild nature continues to be seen mostly in economic terms. The tendency has been to see public land as "worth" more when developed than when it is left wild. As a result, public land has steadily been converted to economic useswhether it be commodity use such as timber cutting or amenity use like a ski resort. Economic activities like timbering on state forests, and the construction of lodges, golf courses, restaurants, and ski areas on state parks, are allowed by the state Code and often actively encouraged by state officials. Yet, absent from the state's legal Code or administrative inclination are any mechanisms mandating (or even allowing) the establishment of "natural," "sensitive," "scientific," or "wilderness" areas as components of the system. Also, programs to develop and manage greenways and corridors, state wild and scenic rivers, state trail systems, scenic byways, or urban recreation areas of statewide or region-wide significance are weak or nonexistent.

The creation of a public land system required the establishment of government agencies. Two world wars, rapid socioeconomic growth, and deterioration of environmental quality further legitimized the growth of these agencies. Utilitarian conservation has been their operational paradigm from the start. Today, extensive state bureaucracies support this paradigm. Private-sector contractors (such as timber companies and resort concessionaires) are prominent in the plans of these agencies;

they benefit from the paradigm and actively defend it. University programs train technicians both to administer the policies and to work in the industries. All of these interests have thrived, leading to the emergence of a public-resource elite that is insulated from public scrutiny-an elite composed of academics, politicians, administrators, and technicians whose central purpose is to implement a utilitarian conservation policy. The result is a system that perpetuates the paradigm and places more importance on economic benefits than on the protection of wild nature.

From 1933 to 1961, public land management and conservation activity in West Virginia was concentrated in a state Conservation Commission that encompassed the Divisions of Game and Fish; Parks and Recreation; and Forestry. In 1961 the legislature created a Department of Natural Resources which included these three divisions, along with Water Resources and Reclamation (Acts of the Legislature of West Virginia, Regular Session 1961, Chapters 131 and 133).

The 1960s sawthefirst majorfederal aid forstate parks since the 1930s. Instead of more free labor like the New Deal's CCC's, this new federal aid came in the form of grants and loans from the U.S. Area Redevelopment Administration. West Virginia received $10 million in grants and $18 million in loans, resulting in several new parks, including the Cass Scenic Railroad in Greenbrier County. A backlash to these land purchases occurred in 1977 because separate counties feared losing their tax base by the conversion of private land to public ownership. The legislature prohibited any further land acquisitions (even if donated) except what the legislature itself authorized on a case-by-case basis. Very few acquisitions or designations have occurred since then.

The agency reorganizations that occurred during the 1980s appear to be directed more towards harnessing economic growth than protecting the environment. Agencies began playing musical chairs as West Virginia's governors devised, and the legislature approved, a dance of shifting departmental configurations. In 1985, the Department of Natural Resources (the old DNR, not to be confused with today's Division of Natural Resources) was largely dismantled. The old DNR's Division of Forestry was transferred to the Department of Agriculture, where it remained until 1989. Mine reclamation work was also transferred from the old DN R to a newly-created Department of Energy, where it remained until 1992 when it was subsumed into a new and larger Department of Environmental Protection. The old DNR's Division of Parks and Recreation was transferred in 1985 into a new Department of Commerce, where a Division of Tourism was added to complement it (Acts of the Legislature of West Virginia, Regular Session 1985, Chapter 41).

Another flurry of changes occurred in 1989. That year the 1985-1989 Commerce Department was subsumed into a larger Department of Commerce, Labor, and Environmental Resources (Acts of the Legislature of West Virginia, Extraordinary Session 1989, Chapter 3 [pp. 1741-1774]). Within the larger department, a Division of Natural Resources was endowed with some of the functions of the old pre-1 985 DNR, including sections for Wildlife Resources and Law Enforcement. But, a year later, other parts of the old pre-1 985 DN R were assigned elsewhere through the 1990 Economic Development Act. It created a new Division of Tourism and Parks and demoted the previous Parks and Recreation Division, along with the previous Tourism Division, to sections within the new division. This new Division was placed within the on-going Department of Commerce, Labor and Environmental Resources, along with the new Division of Natural Resources and the Division of Forestry.

Most recently, in 1994, the state legislature abolished the position of Secretary of the Department of Commerce, Labor and Environmental Resources, signalling yet another round of organizational change. Although these changes are still underway, the Division of Tourism and Parks' tourism promotion and parks management functions have already been split, with Parks and Recreation once again falling under the control of the Division of Natural Resources.

These changes have had a significant impact on public land policy. Most notably, resource protection effortsonce integrated in one department-are now divided among several departments and divisions. For instance, the Division of Forestry is charged with resource management of the state forests, while the Wildlife Resources Section manages the wildlife. The Parks and Recreation section has responsibility for the recreation and tourism developments on those same forests, while promotion and advertising of the developments occurs elsewhere. Little or no comprehensive planning and coordination occurs between these agencies.

Protection Versus Development in the State Park System

Many factors influence the character of West Virginia's public land system-factors such as tradition, political pressures, funding, court decisions, political personalities, and the needs and interests of state residents. The agencies managing the state's forests, parks, and wildlife areas all have legislative mandates to preserve and conserve natural resources for the enjoyment of the state's residents and visitors, but no legislative guidance is given for resolving conflicts between preservation and use. Language calling for the permanent protection of natural scenic resources is compromised and contradicted by other language allowing and/or encouraging resource extraction and facility development. The result is a system run by old-style policy making, insulated from public scrutiny and dominated by utilitarian conservation ideology-a system that places greater importance on economic benefits than on protecting wildness.

The current policy direction of West Virginia's state park

system is a case in point. The twofold mission of the system is to "promote conservation by preserving and protecting natural areas of unique or exceptional scenic, scientific, cultural, archaeological or historical significance" and to "provide outdoor recreational opportunities for the citizens of this state and its visitors" (West Virginia Code, Vol. 8 [1989 replacement volume], Chapter 20, #20-1-7 [p. 7]). For decades, managers of the system were able to strike a difficult balance between these two often-conflicting mandates.

In recent years, the growing importance of tourism in the state's economy has tipped the scales towards recreation and tourism development, at the expense of wild nature. Increasingly, parks are viewed not as the last hope for the protection of wild nature, but as an "ecofactory" that produces tourist experiences for upper-middle class customers from Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Philadelphia. One need only look as far as the agency's budget. Each year, millions of tax dollars are spent on the management and upkeep of park tourism developments (lodges, golf courses, etc.) while virtually nothing is spent on park preservation and protection activities.

It is interesting to note, however, that this new economic development responsibility is not spelled out in the state's legal Code or even in the mission statements of the Division of Tourism and Parks. Language does exist in the Code that allows construction of facilities such as cabins, lodges, resorts, golf courses, campgrounds, and restaurants. Revenues from these facilities are to be "expended ... for operating, maintaining and improving the system, or for the retirement of park development revenue bonds." This language has been liberally interpreted as permission to elevate economic development over protection. A steady shift has occurred toward a state park system that fiscally favors resource utilization and development at the expense of protection. The construction of Stonewall Jackson State Park illustrates this point. The vision for the park calls for a highly developed outdoor family vacation destination with championship golf, a marina, lodge, and campgrounds with full utilities for recreational vehicles. "Preserving and protecting natural areas. . . " seems to have been forgotten.

There are several problems with the state park system's current focus on economic development. First, measuring success by financial criteria skews the system's central preservation and protection mission. When economic decisions drive park plans, intrusive developments compromise the values of unique natural sites and fragile areas. Undesirable development may also occur outside of park boundaries, compounded by the lack of land-use planning and zoning in the state's rural areas.

Development plans for state parks have not been accompanied by environmental impact assessments, inventories of cultural and natural resources, or by the provision of any money for damage mitigation. These activities are not required by state law. Revenue dollars have largely been pumped back into the maintenance of facility developments, leaving little or no money for protection and preservation activities.

This focus on revenue-producing facilities is also exclusionary. Upscale restaurants, high-priced lodges and cabins, marinas, and conference centers wrongly exclude many West Virginians from enjoying their investment in public park land. An incremental shift has occurred away from inexpensive nature-dependent forms of recreation that, unfortunately, do not generate money for the system. The process is tending towards highly developed environments characterized by consumptive, automobileoriented, and facility/service-dependent values. Visitors seeking wild nature and solitude are displaced to a dwindling supply of remote areas. The so-called "need for more facilities" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as facility developments attract greater numbers of facility-dependent visitors who, in turn, demand more facilities.

In the United States as a whole, this emphasis on feegenerating facility development is rare, practiced only by a few state park systems in the eastern United States. Nearly 90 percent of the lodge rooms in the nation's state parks are found in only seven states-Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. In fact, 20 percent of all state-park lodge rooms in the nation are located in West Virginia. These states have also been the most active in constructing other facilities such as pools, golf courses, restaurants, aerial lifts, marinas, conference facilities, and downhill skiing. The rationale for constructing these facilities revolves around two main arguments: (1) the lack of private ly-ope rated tourism facilities and services outside the parks; and (2) the need to generate revenue to support operation of the system.

By contrast, most states have chosen to exclude or minimize fee-generating development within their state parks, choosing instead to encourage private sector development outside of park boundaries. In these systems, management's primary goal is to protect the natural and cultural features within the park. These features become appealing 'local attractions" that draw visitors to the area. Hospitality services, complementary features, and other visitor services are provided by the private sector and local municipalities. By allowing the private sector to own and operate these businesses outside the parks, the natural and cultural features within the parks are protected while the overall economic benefits to the region are maximized.

Public Involvement and the Division of Forestry

Currently in West Virginia, state land managing agencies are not required by law to include public input in the resou rce-al location process. Thus, decisions have generally been left to administrators. However, pressures are increasing for the creation of opportunities for public involvement in these decisions. Several recent propos

als have been scuttled because of public opposition, including the old Division of Forestry's timber-harvesting plans for Kanawha State Forest (which ultimately resulted in a legislative ban on all cutting there), a proposal to construct a tramway over the Cheat River at Coopers Rock, and the attempt earlier this year to privatize facilities in several state parks by leasing them to concessionaires.

The current controversy over a proposal by the Division of Forestry to cut timber in Kumbrabow State Forest is another case in point. The plan calls for a relatively small "selection" cut where only some of the trees would be removed (as opposed to a clear-cut, where all trees are harvested), From an ecological and aesthetic perspective, this method is among the most benign of timbering practices.

Trouble began with the decision process that the Division of Forestry followed at Kumbrabow. The agency sought to continue its traditional paternal relationship with the public. The public was excluded from the decision process, but the agency did go out of its way to inform the public of its decision, and to present a solid rationale for the timber cutting. Professionals in the Division of Forestry genuinely believed they were acting with integrity, honesty, and dedication. To their surprise, negative public response ensued, culminating in a lawsuit against the Division.

Where did the Kumbrabow plan go awry? Forestry officials believe the main issue was whether or not timber ought to be harvested on state forests. But, actually, the main issue was the process that the Division used to make the decision. The Division's traditional "trust us, we know best" approach proved distasteful to many people who use the forest. As far as they could see, no attempt was made to develop alternative plans or to assess the environmental and social impacts of those alternatives. They saw no attempt to consider amenity values that flowed from the forest's remote, rugged character. Thus, a decision process that was once construed as good management was now interpreted as a flippant disregard for citizen opinion.

What will the outcome at Kumbrabow be? Past disputes in West Virginia and around the country suggest that, if not given meaningful opportunity for input, interested citizens will "force" their input though litigation and legislation. This was the case at Kanawha State Forest, where citizens angry over Forestry's cutting practices were able to push though a law prohibiting the Division from doing any future cutting on that forest. For now, at Kumbrabow, the logging contract has been postponed, pending the outcome of a lawsuit filed by opponents.

West Virginia's Wildlife Program

Since the passage of the federal Pittman -Robertson Act in 1937, an excise tax has been levied on sporting arms and ammunition. The proceeds go to state wildlife agencies to aid with wildlife management. Also, the federal Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950, and more recent amendments, benefit state fishery management programs by providing revenues derived from a federal excise tax on fishing equipment and boat imports. Matched with state hunting and fishing license sales, these sources have provided the bulk of the funding for the purchase of many West Virginia wildlife-management areas. These funds also comprise the vast majority of operational funds for the DNR's Wildlife Resources Section.

There have been two primary policy outcomes of this dependence on hunting and fishing taxes and licenses. First, a state wildlife program has developed that focuses almost exclusively on game species of fish, mammals and birds. Game species include deer, turkey, black bear, and several types of trout. Protection for the vast majority of other species happens only indirectly in that, by managing for game habitat, other species may benefit. Virtually no funding is expended specifically on protection of nongame fauna such as the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Virginia big-eared bat, the northern flying squirrel, Cheat Mountain salamander, wood turtle and dozens of species of song birds. Nor are state resources available for protection of plants like the harperella, Kates Mountain clover, and running buffalo clover. This policy bias is, in part, the result of federal and state legislation that limits the way in which these funds can be expended, but it also comes from an agency culture that focuses primarily on hunting and fishing.

The second policy outcome is a tendency in the DNR to view its constituency not as the public in general, but as hunters and anglers in particular. A rationale for this bias can be found in the funding mechanisms: hunters and anglers pay for the programs and therefore they ought to be the primary recipients of benefits. Under the current funding structures, environmental groups and nonconsumptive recreation users are "freeriders" who have little, if any, stake in the agency's activities. To the DNR's credit, they have worked to obtain funding for the Non-Game and Heritage Programs, resulting in $400,000 for 1994-1995. Yet, no such relationship exists with other nonconsumptive users. Because hikers, campers and skiers pay few if any fees, no revenue is generated from their activity and the agency ignores them.

A current case in point is the controversy over whether Wild and Scenic River status should be conferred on twelve rivers in the Monongahela National Forest. Initially, the DNR used public forums, news releases, and editorials to discredit the West Virginia Rivers Coalition (which is the primary advocate for the legislation). The organization was characterized as out-of-state environmentalists and whitewater boaters who wanted to prohibit hunting and fishing along these rivers. While the rhetoric has subsided and the relationship between the groups has improved, fundamental differences remain.

Growing public sentiment for the amenity and nonconsumptive values of wildlife have yet to result in sig

nificant policy changes in the DNR. The current funding mechanisms and agency culture that focus exclusively on game species provide scant protection for wild nature. Hopefully, this year's $400,000 appropriation for Natural Heritage and Non-Game programs points a new direction for DNR. In addition, it has initiated a watershed planning program that is noteworthy in its use of state-ofthe-art public involvement techniques. It has also demonstrated new leadership direction by collaborating with the West Virginia Rivers Coalition and the West Virginia University Division of Forestry to hold the first-ever Appalachian Rivers and Watershed Symposium. With the theme "Shared Perspectives, Sharing Solutions," the gathering did much to improve the relationship between the DNR and the state's environmental community.

A Policy Agenda for the West Virginia
Public Land System

The purpose of West Virginia's public land system needs to be reconsidered. Currently, the system's management is insulated from public scrutiny and is dominated by utilitarian conservation ideology. The great weight of policy governing the management of state lands has been on maximizing the economic benefits and consumptive uses of public lands, often to the detriment of wild nature.

The principal goal of most public land management in West Virginia should be protection. As part of this protection mission, attention should be given to providing an enduring resource of wildness for future generations of West Virginians and their visitors. Public use and enjoyment of the land is also important, but it must be compatible with the protection mission. Private uses in the form of resource extraction and facility development pose even greater threats to wild nature; private uses should only be allowed when they do not reduce public benefits.

Such changes in management cannot be achieved without confronting political realities. That is why any legislative reform must change the incentives that motivate the land-managing agencies. Such forms should follow several basic principles.

1. Establish a "Conservation Passport"

Woefully underfunded, is it any surprise that state land managers give particular attention to activities that generate income for their own agencies? The Parks and Recreation section focuses on visitors who rent lodge rooms or pay greens fees. The DNR sees its clientele as the hunters and anglers who buy licenses. The Division of Forestry sells logs to the timber industry. The incentives are all in one direction, in a one-sided direction toward the exploitation of public lands and away from their protection.

What is needed is a different funding structure. Such a system should harness the overwhelming public sentiment for the protection of wildland values. A recreation fee in the form of a "Conservation Passport" offers the best option for including land-based visitors such as hikers, cross-country skiers, and sightseers. On the state's rivers, a boat license requirement would reach canoeists, kayakers, and rafters. A higher fee should exist for rafts used to carry commercial customers. Both the passport (in the form of a windshield sticker) and boat licenses could be purchased by mail or at gas stations and convenience stores, much like hunting and fishing licenses. A portion of the revenues generated from lodges, restaurants, conference centers, and golf courses, should also be dedicated to the program, since wildlands were inevitably lost or compromised in the construction of these facilities.

Proceeds would be distributed back to the land-managing agencies based on a formula of visitor use and acreage managed, and would be earmarked for resource protection and for the visitor services needed by these resource-dependent visitors. Such a system would broaden the constituency base of these agencies, eliminating their dependency on income-generating activities. The ultimate goal would be for recreation-fee income, combined with the money saved from operating expensive facilities and logging programs, to fund these agencies in their entirety. Only those who use state lands would pay, and their fees would ensure that these areas were managed in the best interest of the land. Nonconsumptive recreation users would begin to get the resources and management they increasingly desire, instead of getting the meager leftovers after the lodge guests and timber companies have been served. With a new emphasis on resource protection, agency resources could be devoted to repairing the damage done by a century of misuse.

2. Elevate the System's Preservation and Protection

Mission

Present legislation provides scant guidance to state land managers in their efforts to reconcile preservation and use issues. More explicit statutory and policy language is needed that clearly elevates resource protection and preservation over other uses of state lands. Such language would establish an unambiguous direction for the system and aid in resolving the preservation vs. use conflicts. By elevating the preservation and protection mission, greater attention would be focused on wildland values, which in turn would attract ever-greater numbers of visitors interested in these values. Fees generated from these visitors would then be directed back into further resource preservation and protection activities.

A State Lands Protection Act should spell out a "precautionary principle" designed to prevent and modify agency actions that may have adverse impacts. Such an act would require that activity on state lands be allowed only after it has been clearly determined that the action would not impair any of the values for which the system was established. The Act would assure that the state legislature's oversight role, too frequently evaded or simply left unexercised, would become a more viable and continuing part of state land stewardship. Several other states have such laws which could serve as a model for West Virginia.

3. Institute Comprehensive Planning Processes

Comprehensive, systematic, and explicit decisionmaking frameworks should guide the actions of state land-managing agencies. As part of a State Lands Protection Act, planning frameworks should be established that mandate several components, including meaningful public involvement in the planning process, resource inventories, identification of alternative actions, and environmental impact assessments of the proposed alternatives. Such planning should be carried out at the agency-wide level and also at individual park or forest levels. Creating mechanisms for meaningful public involvement in the decision process should also be stipulated. Access to information is essential to enable the public to participate meaningfully and effectively in the process. The role of agency officials in the planning process should be that of dispassionate and impartial facilitators.

Under such reforms, the public would no longer view public land policy as more allied with industry and special interests than with public benefits. Trust in public land managers would be enhanced. Also, prospects for successful implementation of programs and activities would be increased, since public interests who may otherwise have impeded the plan would now be included in the process early on.

4. Establish Resource Allocation Ratios

The loss of natural amenity and wildland values is incremental and subtle. If looked at one action at a time, the change can be imperceptible. Yet, over time, even public lands can be modified beyond recognition. In order to limit the amount of acceptable change that will occur on public lands, a "resource allocation ratio" policy should be adopted at the statutory level. This policy should explicitly state the amount of land that will be maintained in its natural condition or for cultural/historic values, and should also state the maximum amount that can be developed for intensive recreation use, resource extraction, roads, and the like.

Different ratios of natural to developed lands could be adopted for different types of units. For instance, natural areas and vacation parks might have 90:10 ratios, while forests and resort parks might have 70:30 ratios. Such an approach would establish a long-term management direction and system image that is clear and understandable. In this way, unambiguous ground rules and guidelines would be established for the longterm management of the resource.

5. Develop Alternative Types of Land Protection Units

Many imaginative strategies can be employed to accomplish wildland protection goals. First comes the need to identify and manage unique areas within state parks, forests, and wildlife-management areas as "wilderness," "natural," "scientific," or "sensitive." These areas should be managed with a distinct focus on protecting natural and cultural resources in their naturally evolving condition for present and future generations. Other innovative types of management units and programs include greenways and corridors, state river and trail programs, scenic byways, and urban recreation areas of statewide or regional significance.

The State Lands Protection Act should direct the Divisions of Tourism and Parks, Forestry, and Natural Resources to determine which lands currently under their jurisdiction are appropriate for inclusion, and should make their recommendations to the legislature for final decision. In addition, other areas of unique natural, cultural, scenic, or scientific significance should also be identified and studied as to their suitability for acquisition and inclusion in the system.

6. Payment in Lieu of Taxes

County and local governments often oppose state protection because land is removed from their tax base. In response to this concern, a payment in lieu of taxes system should be adopted whereby a portion of the income generated by user fees would be distributed to counties and local municipalities where state lands are located. Such a program-modeled after National Forest payments to counties-would eliminate a major disincentive to state land acquisition and protection efforts.

7. Nonconsumptive Uses Tax

Another option for funding wildlands protection eff orts would be a special tax on certain products with the proceeds earmarked accordingly. Products used primarily in wildland or natural-area contexts-and therefore the most logical candidates for the tax-include binoculars, bird seed, nature books, cameras, and outdoor clothing and equipment. In addition, real-estate transfer taxes earmarked for public land acquisition have gained nationwide acceptance as a method for preserving and protecting unique areas from urban encroachment. Nine states already use real estate transfer taxes to fund natural area and habitat protection programs. Including nonconsumptive users in the funding process would help

break agencies of their dependence on hunting and fishing licenses, lodge rentals, and resource extraction.

8. Develop a Natural and Cultural Resource

Inventory and Research Program

Full funding of the state's natural heritage and cultural heritage inventory programs is crucial to wildland protection. Such information is crucial to all environmental impact assessment efforts. Funding would come from the Conservation Passport or from tax strategies mentioned above, and the personnel could be provided by the state's colleges and universities.

Conclusion

It is hard to imagine West Virginia without its public land treasures-places like Blackwater Falls, Cathedral, Canaan Valley and Watoga state parks, or Coopers Rock and Kumbrabow state forests. These state lands are phenomena of an advanced society. One in four state residents experiences these lands each and every year. And it is largely through these lands that most out-of-state visitors acquire their perceptions of West Virginia.

New public attitudes have arisen regarding the role and meaning of West Virginia's public lands. These attitudes emphasize public lands as places for nature protection and nonconsumptive play rather than for commodity production. Yet public land management, with deep roots in the earlier commitments to consumptive use and economic growth, have responded to these changing public values slowly and often with resistance.

In our current task of formulating public land policy in West Virginia, guidance can be found not in the distant past, but in the massive changes in public perception and attitudes towards public lands. It is time for West Virginians to bring their state land system up to date. Nonconsumptive users of the state parks and forests are willing to pay for keeping these lands unspoiled, but they have not been given the chance to pay the bill. Creating a state land Conservation Passport system would provide them with the opportunity, as would a tax on outdoor equipment.

Furthermore, many of today's state land managers are equally ready and willing for change. They are ready to exchange their old role as paternalistic policy makers for a new role as facilitators of citizen decision-making. The public support and logistical mechanisms exist for a new vision of the state land system-just waiting for the legislature and the governor's office to set them in place.

References

Brooks, A. B. 1911. Forestry and Wood Industries. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia Geological Survey.

Hays, S.P. 1990. "Human Choices in the Great Lakes Wildlands." In Community and Forestry.- Continuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Eds. Lee, R.G., D.R. Field, and W.R. Birch, Jr. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Knopp, T.B. and Caldbeck, E.S. 1990. "The Role of Participatory Democracy in Forest Management." Journal of Forestry. 88:5: 13-18.

Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

Times-Mirror Magazines. 1992. "Natural Resource Conservation: Where Environmentalism is Headed in the 1990's: The Times-Mirror Magazines National Environmental Forum Survey." Conducted by The Roper Organization Inc.

West Virginia Code.

West Virginia, Conservation Commission [of 1908]. 1909. Report, 1908. Charleston, WV: Tribune Printing Company

Williams, John Alexander. 1976. West Virginia: A Bicentennial History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Williams, John Alexander. 1993. West Virginia: A History for Beginners. Charleston, WV: Appalachian Editions.

Where People and Nature Meek A History of the West Virginia State Parks. 1988. [By D. Andrews.] Charleston, WV: Pictorial Histories Publishing Co.

The basic assumptions concerning the history of natural resource extraction in West Virginia made in the article, "Keeping the'Wild'in Wonderful West Virginia," are valid. This is particularly true as it pertains to the authors' assessment of the early exploitation of all of our natural resources, including timber.

Timbering in the late 1800s through the mid-1940s operated on a cut-out and get-out strategy. Then, to make bad matters worse, wildfires burned unabated, usually until wet weather extinguished them. These fires burned the heavy fuels left from logging, consuming logging debris and the regeneration from seed and sprouts. They also killed or wounded the remaining trees, and in the more severe instances, consumed the organic layer of the soil.

However, since this devastation of our timberland, the wise-use (conservation) eff ort made over the past 45-50 years has exceeded the most optimistic projections. The current condition of our forest resources is fantastic! This is in contrast to practically all other resources. The volume of wood has increased several-fold during this period. And, along with the quantity, the quality has also improved. This renewal is directly attributable to conservation measures in the form of modern scientific forest management practices. Nationwide, acreage loss to wildfire has been reduced by 90 percent, thanks to foresters and to Smokey Bear on this, his 50th anniversary.

The forestry community-forestland managers, loggers, and landowners-continue to do a remarkable job. In the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) began a reforestation program with a national scope. With the federally cost-shared Forestry Incentive Program (FIP), industry joined in and literally billions of seedlings were planted. Millions of acres of erodible farmlands have been reforested under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). This effort continues and today the United States is recognized as the world's woodbasket. Fortunately, hardwood forests in the mid-Atlantic states reproduce naturally from seed and sprouts. This natural regeneration coupled with forest management have rebuilt West Virginia's forests to some 60 billion board feet of the finest hardwood sawtimber anywhere. Growth still outdistances harvests (1989 United States Forest Service inventory depicts growth exceeding harvest by 3-4 times).

Some would argue that modern forestry practices are detrimental to endangered and threatened species of plants and animals. But, if the early timber exploitation by high grading, followed by uncontrolled wildfire, did not eliminate threatened species, why would today's more

The retention and restoration of wetlands can best be served by leaving or returning these areas to forest cover. This is the most desirable "wetlands" management approach.

There is still much to be accomplished, and our professional forest land managers' planning has evolved to conserve and protect all components of the forests. This concern includes the evolution from single-use (fiber production) to doing everything practical to maintain biodiversity, protect wetlands, plan on a much larger scale (ecosystem management), enhance the forest habitat to favor endangered and threatened species of plants and animals, provide for old growth, stabilize our forest soils, and assure regeneration after harvesting of this, our only renewable natural resource.

With our burgeoning population, it is an idealistic concept that we can return a substantial portion of our country to true wilderness. The exceptions might be national and state forests in the northwestern areas of the United States, and elsewhere on a microscale. Even if more area is taken out of production in the West, this measure will require more fiber production from fewer acres in other parts of the country. And, as we are already witnessing, there will be a commensurate price increase as supplies are curtailed.

In many eastern states our national and state park systems are insufficient to accommodate everyone with a quality wilderness experience. To the extent that the majority of our people are willing to pay for acquiring additional lands from private citizens that are willing sellers, this course could be followed to increase our wilderness areas and park system.

Scientific forest management concepts are complicated and most audiences are lost in the mass informational transfer necessary to understand it. Even foresters must spend years of study and field experience to really appreciate the dynamics of forest-renewal, production, and the synergistic parameters of soils, weather, plant and animal communities, reproductive differences, tolerance or intolerance to shade, growth differentials, longevity, resistance to fire, infestation by insects, and diseasesto mention a few.

Without timber harvests (1) fire damaged trees persist (decay and insect infestation from this damage continue to destroy them); (2) trees are lost through competition; (3) growth slows; and (4) trees become overmature and regeneration is shaded out resulting in a virtual desert for most wildlife. Professional foresters know that healthy, productive forests can provide a much broader range of amenities. At the same time, timber stand improvement cutting, while temporarily not pretty, promotes greater biodiversity, enhances habitat, reduces insect and disease populations, selects the proper spacing, and affords the necessary light to the forest floor to assure reforestation.

The authors of "Keeping the 'Wild' in Wonderful West Virginia" express a valid concern as much of our natural resources are exported with limited "value added" through secondary manufacturing. However, in discussing other issues, "forestry facts" and "public opinion" surveys are presented to support the authors' position, rather than to reflect a balanced vantage. It is obvious that this position is single use as opposed to multiple use. Their single use objective is preservation. For example, the authors cite a 1992 Times-Mirror National Environmental Forum Survey:

"When it is impossible to find a reasonable compromise between economic development and environmental protection, which do you usually believe is more important: economic development or environmental protection?" Sixty-four percent answered "environmental protection" and only 17 percent answered "economic development."

However, the authors failed to recognize the value of the overall conclusion found in the Foreword of that same publication:

"However, Americans reject both extremes. Clearly, they are highly concerned about the environment. But, they are not willing to take a cost- is- no-object approach to environmental protection. This survey clearly shows that Americans are pragmatists, not idealogues on the environment. And, they believe that natural resource problems can be solved with policies that permit the multiple use of public resources. They will support government programs and candidates for public office that protect the environment through sound management, while considering the cost of protection."

This same 1992 Times-Mirror Survey asked respondents to choose between the following:

1 . The only way to preserve wildlife, natural areas, and natural resources is to prevent development and restrict most other human activity in these areas and

2. We can protect and conserve wildlife, natural areas and resources by managing these resources, while also using them for the benefit of the economy and the public.

Seventy percent of the respondents chose #2 (conservation), 26 percent #1 (preservation), and 4 percent were undecided. Even more revealing was the result of the 1993 Survey, which repeated the same questions. This time, 74 percent favored conservation and 22 percent selected preservation.

Today, using scientific silviculture, we "can have our cake, and eat it, too!" It is not a choice of preserving our forests versus economic growth! Scientific forest management does advocate the protection and enhancement of all amenities while (within the limits of the forest's ability to continue on a sustained-yield basis) also expanding the economic base. Preservationists are apparently oblivious to the nation-leading unemployment level in West Virginia.

The overall economic impact of West Virginia's forest industry has expanded to more than $2.1 billion annually (a 63 percent increase since 1985) and to more than 17,600 jobs (43 percent increase). At the same time, timber growth exceeds harvest and there is still considerable room for expansion on a sustainable basis. The 1992 Logging Sediment Control Act assures conformity to the Best Management Practices. This guarantees better stewardship while utilizing our renewable resource to the state's best advantage.

West Virginia's forest industry ranked fifth among all other manufacturing industries in the state in 1985. In 1993, the forest industry ranked third and was the only manufacturing industry showing any growth during this period. West Virginia forests are growing jobs through forest management, while retaining the Wild and Wonderful beauty that is our trademark.