Interesting point - and quite true. As a proponent of established wilderness areas, I would have to say that they are a modern concept - "areas where the hand of man has never set foot" per one classic definition.

I am intrigued, as an archaeologist, that many of the wilderness areas with which I am familiar, such as the Gila Wilderness in New Mexico (the first established in the current US system) bears unmistakable signs of human habitation during prehistoric times throughout the entire area.

At Channel Islands National Park, management is striving towards establishing a stable ecosystem relatively free of direct human impacts so that natural and native species can thrive and flourish. This is fine, but one should remember that this is an unprecedented situation. There is well documented evidence for a significant human presence in the Channel Islands ever since the end of the Ice Age, along with definite human influences on the surrounding natural world. The situation that is developing, with islands devoid of permanent human populations, is unique and unprecedented. That doesn't mean it is bad, just that it is unlike any historical analogue. Our various wilderness areas are very modern concepts, primarily valuable in that we recognize that certain areas of the planet should be devoid of roads and other signs of development.

The thing that caught my eye in the very informative piece was the armament carried by the biologists- a 45-70 backed up by a 44 magnum. Kind of ironic, but probably justifiable given the situation into which they were intruding.

For me, the takeaway after reading various items in the literature, is 1) that camp cleanliness and alteration of "normal" backwoods camping routines is more important than armament carried; 2) bear spray is more effective than firearms, also lighter.