Tasmanian Times

Economy

REVIEW: ‘Refining the definition of wilderness’ by Hawes, Dixon & Bell

The first sentence in this booklet states that, “There is at present no consensus on how wilderness should be defined”. This is quite a bold claim given that the IUCN has had a definition of wilderness in its Protected Areas category since 1994.

So this raises the question, what is the purpose of this booklet? Given the IUCN’s membership of 1300 organisations across 170 countries it would seem very much close to a consensus. So why does this publication set out to reinvent the wheel as-it-were?

Initially, the authors declare their intention to safeguard ‘experiential and ecological values or remote natural land’. However, their focus is on the ‘experiential’ over ecocentric perspectives. What they mean by ‘experiential’ is essentially that which is experienced (principally through recreation), rather than ecological or ecocentric – in other words, utilitarianism dressed up in an artificial synthesis. This publication is not about advocating for the preservation of wilderness for its own sake, despite this being at the heart of many peoples’ concern to conserve wilderness.

This booklet is not about the ecocentric values of wilderness, but instead about anthropocentric values. It disavows, the former, and instead focuses on the interests of bushwalkers who want recreation within wilderness areas. Any benefit for biodiversity and geodiversity would, at best, be a fortuitous by-product should the perspective it presents be adopted more widely.

Preserving wilderness is not about human-defined experiences; it is about the protection of biodiversity and geodiversity – see Dinnerstein et al, ‘An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm’, Bioscience, June 2017.

As Haydn Washington says in ‘Why ecocentrism is the key pathway to sustainability’, The Ecological Citizen, Vol 1 No 1 2017, “Human experiential values are anthropocentric” – which is totally contrary to ecocentric values. The main point being missed in the Hawes et al publication is that wilderness exists without any ‘experiential’ human activity whatsoever – in fact, the less the better.

Agreed remoteness is important, but it is not always the all-defining or essential element of wilderness and an area does not need to be large to qualify as wilderness, even if its buffer does, e.g., some south Atlantic islands etc. Hence, some (but not all) areas can be small but still be wilderness. A minimum size of ‘at least 7,800 hectares’, as suggested in this volume, would exclude such islands even though these islands and many others are certainly remote. This is only one of several arbitrary requirements presented without clear justification; for example, there is reference to areas needing to be at least 5 km from the nearest major infrastructure to qualify as wilderness – but why 5 km instead of some other distance?

The use of the word ‘primitive’ is somewhat troubling as most of these areas are very complex ecologically and fragile, but hardly ‘primitive’. How can a higher plant be ‘primitive’?

Also, Tasmanian conceptions of wilderness have traditionally defined them as places where tracks and huts have no place, with earlier versions of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area management plan, for instance, not including areas with such infrastructure as being part of the wilderness zone. Yet the Hawes et al booklet, with its predominantly utilitarian perspective, blithely abandons this fundamental prohibition, even allowing vehicular tracks, provided only that they are not “open”. What manner of wilderness is it that contains a four-wheel drive track? And that either exists or doesn’t exist depending on whether a lock is fitted to the access gate on any particular day?

Similarly, huts have also been disallowed in wilderness in the past, but this booklet, with its focus on utilitarian values at the expense of the wilderness as we have long understood it, proposes that huts for the comfort of those who venture there are permissible, imposing only a size restriction – presumably so that larger commercial huts could be excluded while still allowing bushwalkers to have huts.

Such deficiencies in this volume represent a step backwards in defining and protecting wilderness, not an advance. They exemplify the very reason why the true meaning of the term wilderness needed disinterment from the distorting misuse of the term, which has increasingly occurred over recent decades at the hands of green-washing tourist operators and within the campaign tactics of some conservation activists. Kiernan drew attention to these matters in his recent book, Eroding the Edges of Nature, which included a section entitled, “If you think the end justifies the means, expect your actions to come back to haunt you”.

Another problem in the Hawes et al booklet is reference to ‘levels of naturalness’? How can ‘naturalness’ be measured and why should it be measured anyway? The same with ‘wild character’ and the suggestion that it should be calculated – what sort of bureaucratic wet-dream came up with such a notion! There is an old adage, ‘if you want to change something, first of all measure it’ – but in the case of the wilderness the objective is NOT to change it. Various measurement obscurities are suggested, including that of ‘wildness’, along a suggested continuum that has no parameters. Other suggested ‘measurements’ mentioned are for: ‘wilderness character’, ‘wilderness value’ and ‘wilderness quality’ – all without any criteria, assuming that they could be measured using unspecified methodologies. In fact, all these terms mean essentially the same thing (essentially a tautology) – just different words circulate around natural, remote and absence of modern technology.

It is disappointing that psychological (parametric), cultural and spiritual values are not discussed in this publication.

There is a very curious suggestion that ‘wilderness’ is becoming an unmentionable term ‘in some professional and land management circles’ (Sawyer quoted on page 8), but surely the term is being (mis) used everywhere else; so why is the misuse of the term is not discussed at all in this publication? This seems to suggest that the word ‘wilderness’ is meaningless – but, as Washington says, “The word is anything but meaningless but its meaning has been degraded by wrong usage”. Has discussion of the misuse of the term ‘wilderness’ been avoided because the supporters of this publication are the Tasmanian National Parks Association and the Bob Brown Foundation? Would sticking to the previous Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area definition have precluded efforts by some of their members to promote the Tarkine area by calling it a wilderness while simultaneously proposing to establish a track through it despite inevitable erasure of at least some of its wilderness values as a consequence? Similarly, the wilderness measurement technique advanced in this booklet, presumably at least partly in a bid to inhibit commercial hut infestation along the South Coast Track, could not be employed unless wilderness was redefined so as to allow the track within it. This approach seems a further example of the misguided distortion of the term wilderness in order to advance conservation objectives for which there are other values that could be more honestly invoked.

How much wilderness do we have left on the planet? On page 11 it is stated that wilderness is less than a quarter of the planet’s land area, then next paragraph says that it is approximately 15% (which is the IUCN figure) – which is it, 25% or 15%?

This publication seems essentially an attempt simply to counter ecocentrism perspectives on the preservation of wilderness. Rather than quote world recognised experts in the area of the ecocentric and intrinsic values of wilderness, such as Robyn Eckersley, Helen Kopnina and Haydn Washington the authors quote Chan et al, who use an ‘experiential values’ argument that differentiates between intrinsic and instrumental values, arguing that ‘relational values’ combines both, which it does not. Creating the new category of ‘relational’ merely extends instrumental to that of relations between people, i.e., community, so they fundamentally dismiss ecocentric values!

Meanwhile, across the world Nature is clearly gaining recognition in having intrinsic values as shown by recent rights for nature legislation in New Zealand, Ecuador, Chile and Colombia.

The key difference between so many definitions and that proposed by Hawes et al is the latter’s resistance to wilderness being determined principally on biosphere/ecocentric principles. The implication being that without actual or potential recreational attributes a wilderness area simply does not exist.

As the authors say on page 23, semantics matter – so a primary concern has to be the possible consequences of adopting their utilitarian approach to wilderness. Not only could it be used to substantiate further recreational/tourism incursions into wilderness (being as ‘experiential’ is so important) but it also defiles the ecocentric perspective of preserving wilderness for its own sake. As Kiernan points out in his book, Eroding the Edges of Wilderness, Mt Field National Park was essentially formed for the purposes of preserving nature, not using it for exploitative, utilitarian purposes such as tourism per se – after-all, if you cannot experience it then there is no experiential value. In fact, the authors state on page 23, “Areas identified as wilderness by definitions that emphasise ecological values will not necessarily have high experiential values, and reserves designed to protect the former will not necessarily protect the latter.” The authors appear not only to clearly prioritise utilitarian/experiential/recreational values but also to regard ecological values as insufficient reason to preserve wilderness. Where experiential and ecological values conflict the authors argue that ‘management interventions’ such as artificial structures, ‘controlled burning’ (oxymoron) should be applied (pages 23-24).

Finally, this booklet is visually very attractive attractive with some excellent photographs, notwithstanding a couple of practical problems. It is printed on unnecessarily thick paper which makes it difficult to keep the perfect-bound pages open without forcing it and breaking the spine, or holding it open with something heavy. Also, it would have been easier to read in a larger font, and at a retail price of $40 this publication is rather expensive for 40 pages of text.

By way of a disclaimer, the present reviewer should acknowledge having been one of those members of the former United Tasmania Group (UTG) who, concerned that the term “wilderness” had been devalued by its misuse by both antagonists and protagonists, helped re-form the UTG nearly three years ago, and then gathered together a group of wilderness devotees with the aim of redressing the situation. Regrettably, those who held ecocentric perspectives and those with utilitarian values were unable to reconcile a common wording given differences in their fundamental principles. The former published their interpretation of wilderness in the first issue of the new UTG Journal (January 2018). The breakaway group who preferred the utilitarian bushwalkers’ perspective prepared the Hawes et al booklet independently. Your reviewer acknowledges that he remained in the majority ecocentric camp, consistent with UTG’s A New Ethic. Others may think differently, but he fears that by discarding a more ecocentric perspective and, instead, presenting a definition that focuses on the exploitation of wilderness as a resource for recreation, the Hawes et al contribution may end up doing more harm than good.

image

*Dr Geoff Holloway, above was State Secretary of the United Tasmania Group (UTG) 1974-77 and again since revival of UTG two years ago. Geoff has a PhD (sociology), specialising in social movements, health and research methods; poet (4 books published); climber; traveller – two years in Chilean & Argentinean Patagonia, but also Colombia, Ecuador and Brasil, twice recently to Cabo Verde and Lisbon, fluent in Spanish, understands written Portuguese; focus over past 20 years on children with disabilities, child protection and youth justice issues.

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
13 Comments

13 Comments

  1. Geoff Holloway

    August 31, 2018 at 9:45 pm

    Thank you Annie. Like yourself, I was shocked (as were my UTG friends) to see Chris Bell and Grant Dixon shift to a utilitarian perspective on wilderness! Chris Bell, in particular, used to be a staunch advocate of ecocentricism.

  2. Annie

    August 31, 2018 at 4:26 pm

    I am looking forward to reading both publications and appreciate all perspectives. I have appreciated the review and also the discussion, as it will help me to approach both publications. I will look forward to reading the articles by Dinnerstein et. al and also Washington.

    Prior to reading either text, I agree that biodiversity protection is essential and that the original IUCN definitions are the standard.

    I agree that wilderness can do without people. One example that I can give is the mighty southern ocean and also the Antarctic. Just look what happened to Scott, and also to Shackleton.

    If ever there is a lesson about ecological systems and the awe of biodiversity in contributing to the earth’s life support systems, we can find it in Antarctica. Artists such as Alison Lester and also Grant Dixon and other iconic photographers have helped ordinary mortals understand the values and the need to protect the biodiversity.

    It is wonderful that thousands of primary school children from all over Australia understand the holistic values of Antarctica that have been communicated to them skilfully via art, science and marvellous events such as the Antarctic Festival. Where else would find artistic interpretations of penguins, one dressed in a doctor who scarf! (anthropocentric). The children are well on their way to becoming ecological citizens, as well as being interested in the earth’s life support systems.

    It will be interesting to see if the existing Antarctic Convention will be able to adequately protect the incredible far south from tourism and science research geared to extraction of minerals for resource-greedy countries. Let us hope that the Convention stands firm and that all the ecological scientists continue to act ethically.

    However, surely experiential values, without being anthropocentric, can sometimes shine a light on the values of biodiversity and the need to protect wilderness, and be helpful in the political process to support the values of ecology.

    I am absolutely no expert, however authors Hawes, Bell and Dixon are also iconic wilderness photographers who have communicated an artistic iconic holistic vision to the public as to what are some of the values of wilderness and how vital it is to protect these areas. Perhaps some of their photographs over many years have contributed to a greater awareness of the spiritual and psychological values of wilderness.

    If their publication veers towards utilitarianism rather than championing wilderness for its own sake and the protection of complex ecological regions, I wonder about the insidious effect of neo-liberalism on our modern culture.

    Oh well, happy reading and thank you for both books.

  3. Andrew Ricketts

    August 30, 2018 at 12:14 pm

    I too. would agree with the reviewer and the authors that semantics matter.

    The thing is that animals such as quolls, devils, and even relatively common animals such as wallabies and possums and even migratory ones, or ones with very limited range have no idea, no concept of remoteness.

    How does one compare the concept of remoteness which the Swift Parrot experiences with that of a worm? No matter which species, theirs is actually a struggle for survival which is facilitated by having suitable habitat, suitable feed, suitable climate, suitable places to den and sufficient prey or food, as the case may be, and a sufficient population of course, to ensure genetic diversity and resilience.

    Their (the wildlife’s) experience is centred on the life supporting characteristics of, and abundance of their habitat within the ecosystem, not around whether the experiential values are safeguarded.

    Scientists often hypothesise over such realities when they are called up and paid to model or comment upon development impacts on biodiversity. How can they accurately model or experience the values which make habitat suitable for the range of other species present in an ecosystem?

    In any case, it is keeping in mind the aims and purpose of the booklet, clearly expressed in the title of the booklet ‘Refining the definition of wilderness: safeguarding the experiential and ecological values of remote natural land’ that one can reasonably perceive the booklet and the booklet’s authors to still be struggling with the notion that nature and biological diversity does not actually need the concept of wilderness in order to survive. Perhaps this issue is indeed adequately covered. Dr Holloway, you have already raised some of these issues in fact, in your review.

    A good parallel example is the notion of ‘aesthetic naturalness’ as distinct from ‘biophysical naturalness’ when considering whether a forested place qualifies as being ‘old growth’. Do the scales which have been adopted for RFA purposes from the National Wilderness Inventory actually have any ecological relevance?

    Does an area which has some sort of minor human modification are artefact, cease to function as old growth habitat? Why do such things matter? Well, because the adequacy of biological diversity reservation is predicated on such thresholds for Australia’s CAR (Comprehensive Adequate and Representative) National Reserve System, of which Tasmania’s 840 or so secure public reserves and 850 or so private conservation reserves form a part.

    The fact that higher quality of the habitat is assumed to be achieved when it is more pristine, rather than when it is actually functioning for the resident wildlife species, is not fully taken into account. Now forestry and other land uses predicate development on an assessment some 20 years or more old.

    The reservation levels for the two differing qualities of habitat are not the same, and so by diminishing the assessed habitat of the old growth component with irrelevant considerations of human values the CAR Reserve System achieves smaller reservation of the most important elements and thus becomes inadequate because the better habitat with better life supporting character is not given adequate priority prior to its removal or reservation.

    In society there is a confusion perhaps, between identifying an area as wild, and one as a wilderness. Given the current emphasis on development and our increasingly urbanised and disconnected lives, when talking about the natural world it is hardly surprising that terms such as wild and wilderness become confused.

    I would agree that the threat to all habitats, regardless of whether it is wilderness, or simply any other natural area, continues to be people .. including those people who simply seek to experience, for whatever motive, as well those who overtly wish to liquidate the remnants of the natural world.

    There is no doubt that without the human visitation experience the wilderness area would continue, perhaps more securely than before.

    In Australia, the struggle is surely the ambivalence and apathy born out of the urban disconnect and the comfort brought about by society’s artificial consumer lifestyle.

  4. Geoff Holloway

    August 30, 2018 at 2:22 am

    Ok, sorry Andrew, I may have misinterpreted your comment. I agree. Unfortunately biodiversity does run a distant second to anthropocentric interests in concepts of wilderness – especially in the booklet that has been reviewed here.

  5. Andrew Ricketts

    August 29, 2018 at 10:56 pm

    I think you will find, Geoff (Post #8) that I did actually refer to the Australian context, as well as to Tasmanian realities.

    My concerns relate to the fact that biodiversity conservation runs a distant second to the anthropocentric concept of Wilderness in the minds of some.

    My request for a retailer was a genuine one.

  6. Geoff Holloway

    August 28, 2018 at 2:25 pm

    Thank you Joanna. I agree that we “don’t live in a balanced relationship with nature”. There will be extensive articles about this in forthcoming UTG Journals.

    Joanna and Andrew, the definition of wilderness is not just about Tasmania, just as the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) is not just a Tasmanian responsibility but is part of world-wide IUCN Protected Areas – as was the objective of the South West Tasmania Action Committee (SWTAC) and the United Tasmania Group (UTG) back in the 1970s when the campaign for the protection of this area began.

    And, like William Crooke’s campaign to preserve Mt Field as a National Park over 100 years ago, the campaign was to preserve the area now covered under the TWWHA for its own sake (ecocentrism), not for outdoor recreation (anthropocentrism) as such.

    The difference is important. Anthropocentric or utilitarian views put recreation and tourism first .. and ecological and wilderness integrity issues a convenient second.

  7. Andrew Ricketts

    August 28, 2018 at 2:16 am

    Holloway states: “This booklet is not about the ecocentric values of wilderness, but instead about anthropocentric values.” Yes, well isn’t that what it is claimed to be about in Tasmania ?

    It is bound to become a collector’s item. I wonder where one can buy a copy.

    Regarding Holloway’s statement: “Preserving wilderness is not about human-defined experiences; it is about the protection of biodiversity and geodiversity – see Dinnerstein et al, ‘An Ecoregion-Based Approach to Protecting Half the Terrestrial Realm’, Bioscience, June 2017.” Biodiversity conservation is not about wilderness at all necessarily, but rather about conserving, in situ nature.

    Re # 6 … “we risk losing vital areas of land existing for itself'” This statement appears to be not referring to wilderness. Or is it?

    However: The truth is that right now, and for some considerable time, we have been (and are) losing vital areas of land carrying the natural agglomerations of species .. ecosystems or ecological communities, as they are described in EPBC, especially those which are dangerously depleted.

    The Liberals are deliberately, in an act of bad faith, failing to protect and conserve even the most threatened biological diversity in Australia.

    Does post # 6 mean that community groups benefit from the commodification of nature brought about by the promotion of the concept of wilderness? I am unsure of her meaning. In any case, I wonder how.

    Finally, regarding post # 6’s statement: “There are limits to our human activities .. limits to what we take. In understanding those limits, we learn to live well.”

    Tasmania does not do this in any way whatsoever. There have been no limits proposed over growth, for example. Our society does not understand any limits. Even if those limits were proven beyond all contention there would remain unacceptable by a considerable portion, unless there was a very obvious calamity. A number of them post on Tasmania Times.

  8. Joanna Pinkiewicz

    August 27, 2018 at 9:49 pm

    Geoff, Thank you for writing on this subject.

    I read about the subject a few years ago. I read the Aboriginal perspective on ‘wilderness’ as well as the anthropocentric view which comes from neo-liberal think tanks such as the Breakthrough Institute. Indigenous historian, Bruce Pascoe, writes about the mutual influence of land on people and people on the land in a culture that highly valued balance, because it gave them abundance and peace.

    The neoliberal redefining of wilderness is an attempt at further commodification of nature. We don’t live in a balanced relationship with nature and we risk loosing vital areas of land existing for itself. I also believe that most environmental groups and political parties are complicit, due to compromise and benefiting financially.

    To restore our relationship we need to accept Aboriginal culture as better equipped in wisdom about this land. There are limits to our human activities.. limits to what we take. In understanding those limits, we learn to live well.

  9. Geoff Mosley

    August 27, 2018 at 2:53 pm

    Geoff and Kevin:

    Wilderness is no longer wilderness if it includes huts and man-made tracks of any kind, so obviously we need a strong campaign to ban them whenever they are proposed.

    My understanding of the main thrust of the book on wilderness definition was that it seeks to have the distinctive value of wilderness recreation added to that of the ecosystem conservation value. Unfortunately, at the international level, the main focus is on the latter. An example of this is that we have been unable to get wilderness accepted as a OUV in the Operational Guidelines for selecting World Heritage areas. Instead it is regarded only as an integrity factor.

    There are certain circumstances where wilderness areas can be made more secure by closing minor roads and rehabilitating their surfaces. This ‘wilderness reversion’ process is something we had to do in Victoria, unfortunately. The idea of closing wilderness areas to all but scientific researchers was an idea that had traction in the 1960s but fortunately it went nowhere. You will find the story of that in ‘Rescuing the Wilderness’. It really upset Myles Dunphy, but he carried on with his marvellous mission.

  10. Kevin Kiernan

    August 26, 2018 at 10:08 pm

    #1 … I don’t think it is so “obviously” the case that this proposed redefinition provides for both ecocentric and experiential values of wilderness, Geoff M. The idea of allowing tracks, locked vehicular tracks and even small huts in a wilderness is a very long way adrift from the ecocentric conceptions of wilderness that previously reigned in Tasmania. The reviewer is entirely correct in pointing out that this even contravenes the Parks Service’s pre Hodgmaniacal zoning for the WHA which specifically excluded the Overland Track, for instance, from the wilderness zone. This new proposal is all about regarding wilderness merely as something to be exploited by bushwalkers. The manner in which the increased emphasis on experiential values is delivered in this proposal fails to also seek to deliver for the ecocentric, it just disregards it.

    The endless environmental amnesia that sees each generation assume that the degraded environment they inherit is how things have always been, and then allows a little more of it to slip away, has only one possible ultimate outcome.

    Conservationists have themselves contributed significantly to degradation of the wilderness concept over recent years by seeking to bolster the case for the conservation of other areas that are by no means wilderness by claiming they have wilderness values. But claiming that various areas they might like to protect can somehow be wilderness, even if they are small and not remote, has a fatal corollary. Provided that comparably small areas were to remain undisturbed in the interstices between developments, then developers could reasonably argue that the Franklin River would not lose its wilderness status if a resort were established there, or even if a string of suitably spaced resorts was established along its banks, because the interstitial remnants of nature would still be comparable to the pocket handkerchief areas elsewhere that some conservationists have misleadingly contended are wilderness. Instead of just blaming the tourist industry for misusing and diminishing the term wilderness, conservationists need to be honest with themselves, and intellectually rigorous enough, to consider their own role in that process.

    I think that now suggesting huts and tracks are suddenly alright in wilderness is just another step along the path to death by a thousand cuts. To so demean the value of wilderness in its own right, and to establish a definition that values only what’s in it for bushwalkers .. and also without seeking to bridge both perspectives .. is just another version of conservationists confusing the issue by redefining things merely for short-sighted campaigning purposes. I have no doubt that it would be enough to make some of my wilderness colleagues from earlier days roll in their graves, or even to drive me to mine for some respite and a quiet drink!

    Maybe if we had known then, that this all some people would think wilderness was worth in 2018, then perhaps we could even have not wasted our time forming action committees and wilderness societies and things, and instead of devoting decades to trying to protect proper wilderness we could have devoted those years to putting our feet up on a nice comfy share portfolio big enough to support our indulgence in a better class of wine.

  11. Claire Gilmour

    August 26, 2018 at 9:43 pm

    The general populace don’t know/understand wilderness.

    The real reality is scary … it does not belong to a board walk.

    People scream and have conniptions when they get a leach on them for goodness sake – as if they had been bitten by a snake or shot from some unknown hunter !

    In the mean time they expect to see all the night animals just cruising around during the day for their tourism enjoyment whilst they spend all day inside and don’t even look outside their window of night, let alone take a walk on the wild night side of the animals they wish to see!

    Then on the other hand people flock to a forest fire or flood they hear about in the news … even if peoples lives and properties are at risk … how macabre is that !?

    What do you want from the wilderness?
    An easy sightseeing tour?
    A hard sightseeing tour?
    Something you and no-one will ever see?
    Money?
    Lessons in environment?
    Scientific knowledge?
    A political weapon?

    How many people live in and ‘know’ wilderness?

    Yes you can experience the real wilderness – at a personal risk !

    Yes you can live in the wild … but it takes years living in it to know how … !

    NO ONE who ever walks just the man made trail will ever know what it is like to live wild.

    It takes years living in wilderness to know wilderness …

  12. Geoff Holloway

    August 26, 2018 at 5:01 pm

    #1, Geoff … You seem to be implying that the ecocentric objective is to close wilderness area to all but scientific researchers, but that is simply not the case. I suggest that you refresh your readings of various books and articles by Helen Kopnina and Haydn Washington.

  13. Geoff Mosley

    August 26, 2018 at 2:15 pm

    The history of wilderness protection in Australia is a long one, roughly mirroring that in the USA.

    Clearly wilderness has values for both humans and nature. How these objectives can be sought together is something I addressed in my PhD research in Tasmania in the early 1960s and that has been accepted wherever provision has been made for wilderness protection in Australia.The battle was not without problems with some arguing for wilderness areas to be closed to all but scientific researchers. Obviously the new book focuses on the issue of the best boundaries for wilderness in terms of meeting both of the above objectives.

    All parts of this long struggle will be revealed in my forthcoming book ‘Rescuing the Wilderness: The History of Wilderness Conservation in Australia’.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive Our Weekly Tas Roundup

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top