Wilderness and the Leave No Trace Ethic
Katie Jones

Abstract:

This paper is an examination and defense of the Leave No Trace Ethic, an ethic that is currently employed by many outdoor recreators. The ethic is comprised of seven principles that each has to do with how humans should behave in the wilderness; each one of the principles also has a set of specific corresponding guidelines. First I begin with an exploration of wilderness and the spirit of the wild, and explain that almost every individual has his own concept and definition of wilderness. I also explore the consequences of human presence in the wild, and investigate the tradeoffs we find ourselves facing when we value both the wild, and human experience in the wild. The Leave No Trace Principles have both an anthropocentric and a non-anthropocentric basis, meaning that they aim to protect both human experience in the wild, and the wild itself.
After this initial discussion of the Leave No Trace Ethic and some of the ideas we hold about the wilderness, I defend the ethic against a claim made by Lisa Gerber. Gerber argues that environmentalists and outdoor recreators often fall prey to misanthropy when they think about humans and the wilderness. She defines misanthropy as a "mistrust, hatred, and disgust of humankind." Gerber criticizes the Leave No Trace Ethic itself, and I defend the ethic against her claims. Wilderness and regulation is the next topic that I address. I examine four principle regulators (the law, the market, architecture, and social norms) that all influence how humans interact with the wilderness. I conclude that the Leave No Trace Ethic has the potential to be the most influential regulator, based upon its status as an emerging social norm.
From regulation, I address the notion of supererogation, which can be defined as doing more than what is expected or morally required. I examine the Leave No Trace Ethic in terms of supererogation, and defend it against claims that the standards it imposes are set at too high or too low of a level. I conclude that following the ethic is not a supererogatory action, and that it is indeed something that is morally required of outdoor recreators. The paper ends with a section entitled "Is Leave No Trace the RIGHT Ethic?" This section ties together my defense of the ethic, and explains that yes, indeed it is. I also discuss the fact that the ethic is still in its infancy, and that as it develops it will most likely be slightly adjusted as we learn more about the effects of outdoor recreation on the environment.