“Wilderness, a word with a kind of electric charge; merely to mouth it produces a vague thrill and an image of some place enchantingly alien to our daily lives: a perfect mountain meadow, a swamp that no path penetrates, a desert mesa under a trumpet-blast of stars” (qtd. in Dunec 1). Today more than 100 million acres of legally designated wilderness provides wonder, hope for ecological health, and natural beauty for humans and all other beings thanks to the Wilderness Act. While these wild places may be questionable to some, they are vital to sustaining the sliver of natural order that we still have in this world. If these protected areas are consumed by society, what will the future hold for the species of this planet? Contemporary threats to wilderness areas such as damaged ecological health, climate change, and an increasingly complacent society make it imperative that we look at the Wilderness Act from a presentist point of view.
The Wilderness Act became law in 1964 after almost ten years of work from author Howard Zahniser and a signature from Lyndon B. Johnson. The intention behind this act was to create a legal process that designated wilderness, provided specific protection to those areas, and used hands off management whenever possible in order to allow nature to reign. Wilderness is legally defined as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (Wilderness Act, sec. 2, c). With presentism in mind, this act is regarded by present day attitudes and experiences. This perspective is valuable because issues that threatened nature in 1964 are not the same as issues that face nature now. This act is well known as one of the most restrictive in the United States in order to protect outside influences on nature. However, abundant restriction inevitably creates challenges for governing agencies to protect their land.
Wilderness in the United States is among the most prominent legal victories for environmentalist, conservationists, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts against those that would do harm to the natural world. Among the supporters of legal wilderness, Dr. Darla DeRuiter of the Environmental Studies and Outdoor Recreation Leadership departments at Feather River College says: Wilderness has allowed me to get into places in the western U.S. where I can spend multiple days to weeks with close friends and with student groups and find incredible beauty. It gives me hope that humanity hasn’t taken over every part of the planet. There are still places where nature rules. That’s encouraging for me because we don’t see that in day to day life. I don’t know what I’d do without it. If we don’t have the legislation to set aside those areas, industrial mechanized society would eat away at all those places. (Darla)
Desire for outdoor recreation will continue growing with innovations of tools that provide access to the outdoors and with increasingly diverse contemporary lifestyles (Cordell et al. 333). With an increase of visitors in wilderness areas since 1964 there has been an increase in understanding and values for wilderness. “The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), was developed and administered in 1995 to the US population of individuals 16 years or older. The public in 2000 placed the greatest importance on ecosystem services, existence value, recreation, and future use options” (Cordell et al. 334). This study, as well as many other studies, suggests that public opinion is in favor of a contemporary view of wilderness.
Ecological concerns are an undeniable argument for why the Wilderness Act must be considered with present day issues in mind. “Since passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the US National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) has grown from 54 units [of land] and 9 million acres to 758 units and nearly 110 million acres” (Burroughs et al. 352). It is well known that nature is a dynamic beast and in order to manage such a beast the governing body must also be dynamic. The four organizations that manage wilderness are the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States Forest Service (USFS), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Ironically, “recreation visitation, while recognized in the Wilderness Act as a core traditional use of wilderness, is also a principal internal threat to wilderness preservation” (Burroughs et al. 352). In wilderness, one way or another, visitors “inevitably degrade natural resources intended for protection, creating tension between recreation provisions and resource protection goals and mandates. Vegetation is trampled, soil is eroded, water quality is altered, and wildlife is disturbed” (Burroughs et al. 352). Damage to frequented wilderness areas must be addressed by the managing agencies. However, with an act as restrictive as this one, where is the line drawn for hands off management strategies?
One of the most important factors that affects the health of wilderness is wildfire. Fire is often thought of as a tool of destruction but the health of many ecosystems depends on natural cycles of fire. Fire suppression was the norm in the past until it became evident that total suppression is unhealthy and dangerous for ecology. “Early observations of wilderness fire and it's important role in sustaining ecosystems led directly to the Leopoldo Report and the Wilderness Act of 1964, both of which recognized the role of natural ecological processes, including fire, in shaping primitive wilderness landscapes” (Aplet and Miller 373). Living organisms like the Lassies Lupine are threatened because of reduced wildfire and do not have a bright future. Unnatural, excessive fire suppression has endangered the flower’s habitat and restrictive wilderness policies prevent effective measures from rangers that wish to save the plant. “The plants face threats from encroaching forest to severe drought...ironically, wilderness may hinder wildflower conservation” (Tobias 2). Vegetation that is normally kept at bay by wildfire has been allowing vermin access to the seeds of the Lupines as food which are one of California's rarest flowers that only total to about 350 plants left on the planet. If the Lupines are going to be saved, the governing agencies must use active management in the wilderness the flowers live in which brings about a number of hurdles to jump through and gives the wildflower an ominous looking future. The plants face threats in every direction with nowhere to go (Tobias 1).
With all of this in mind, the historical importance of the act cannot be denied. Before the middle of the twentieth century, wilderness was regarded as wasteland and subjugating the wild unknown to civilization was celebrated (Leshy 3). Preserving wild places did not gain substantial support until the automobile which gave access to citizens especially in the post-WWII economic boom. After severe losses like the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park and the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam, conservationists began organizing to fight a better legal fight in the name of wilderness. This movement was benchmarked with the historical Wilderness Act becoming law in 1964. Without persistence of heroes like John Muir, Aldo Leopold, and Howard Zahniser, over 100 million acres of the most beautiful, abundant land in this country would not be protected. Opposition of the past was formidable, but no foe of wilderness can measure up to the potential destruction that a changing climate has.
Climate change is the biggest threat the Wilderness Act has ever seen. “Effects will not stop at federal wilderness boundary signs, and in response there have been specific calls to make the act more flexible to allow for climate change adaptation” (Biber and Long 1). The unsustainable lifestyles of the past few decades have caught up with one of the crown jewels of this country and presentist related action must be implemented to save it. “Rigid constraints in existing environmental law are incompatible with adaptation to climate change because they constrain the experimentation and novel active management tools needed to deal with unprecedented changes in natural systems” (Biber and Long 4). Furthermore, climate change forces us to interpret the Wilderness Act with present and future concerns in mind.
In light of all the issues the Wilderness Act faces today, presentism is paramount over historicity. Wilderness is a treasured item in this country but the past 150 years have taken a toll on the entire planet which we see in climate change. If wilderness is going to be able to survive another century, active management strategies will have to be implemented. The most logical way to move forward with the Wilderness Act itself is to adapt to survive.
The Wilderness Act became law in 1964 after almost ten years of work from author Howard Zahniser and a signature from Lyndon B. Johnson. The intention behind this act was to create a legal process that designated wilderness, provided specific protection to those areas, and used hands off management whenever possible in order to allow nature to reign. Wilderness is legally defined as “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (Wilderness Act, sec. 2, c). With presentism in mind, this act is regarded by present day attitudes and experiences. This perspective is valuable because issues that threatened nature in 1964 are not the same as issues that face nature now. This act is well known as one of the most restrictive in the United States in order to protect outside influences on nature. However, abundant restriction inevitably creates challenges for governing agencies to protect their land.
Wilderness in the United States is among the most prominent legal victories for environmentalist, conservationists, and outdoor recreation enthusiasts against those that would do harm to the natural world. Among the supporters of legal wilderness, Dr. Darla DeRuiter of the Environmental Studies and Outdoor Recreation Leadership departments at Feather River College says: Wilderness has allowed me to get into places in the western U.S. where I can spend multiple days to weeks with close friends and with student groups and find incredible beauty. It gives me hope that humanity hasn’t taken over every part of the planet. There are still places where nature rules. That’s encouraging for me because we don’t see that in day to day life. I don’t know what I’d do without it. If we don’t have the legislation to set aside those areas, industrial mechanized society would eat away at all those places. (Darla)
Desire for outdoor recreation will continue growing with innovations of tools that provide access to the outdoors and with increasingly diverse contemporary lifestyles (Cordell et al. 333). With an increase of visitors in wilderness areas since 1964 there has been an increase in understanding and values for wilderness. “The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE), was developed and administered in 1995 to the US population of individuals 16 years or older. The public in 2000 placed the greatest importance on ecosystem services, existence value, recreation, and future use options” (Cordell et al. 334). This study, as well as many other studies, suggests that public opinion is in favor of a contemporary view of wilderness.
Ecological concerns are an undeniable argument for why the Wilderness Act must be considered with present day issues in mind. “Since passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, the US National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) has grown from 54 units [of land] and 9 million acres to 758 units and nearly 110 million acres” (Burroughs et al. 352). It is well known that nature is a dynamic beast and in order to manage such a beast the governing body must also be dynamic. The four organizations that manage wilderness are the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States Forest Service (USFS), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Ironically, “recreation visitation, while recognized in the Wilderness Act as a core traditional use of wilderness, is also a principal internal threat to wilderness preservation” (Burroughs et al. 352). In wilderness, one way or another, visitors “inevitably degrade natural resources intended for protection, creating tension between recreation provisions and resource protection goals and mandates. Vegetation is trampled, soil is eroded, water quality is altered, and wildlife is disturbed” (Burroughs et al. 352). Damage to frequented wilderness areas must be addressed by the managing agencies. However, with an act as restrictive as this one, where is the line drawn for hands off management strategies?
One of the most important factors that affects the health of wilderness is wildfire. Fire is often thought of as a tool of destruction but the health of many ecosystems depends on natural cycles of fire. Fire suppression was the norm in the past until it became evident that total suppression is unhealthy and dangerous for ecology. “Early observations of wilderness fire and it's important role in sustaining ecosystems led directly to the Leopoldo Report and the Wilderness Act of 1964, both of which recognized the role of natural ecological processes, including fire, in shaping primitive wilderness landscapes” (Aplet and Miller 373). Living organisms like the Lassies Lupine are threatened because of reduced wildfire and do not have a bright future. Unnatural, excessive fire suppression has endangered the flower’s habitat and restrictive wilderness policies prevent effective measures from rangers that wish to save the plant. “The plants face threats from encroaching forest to severe drought...ironically, wilderness may hinder wildflower conservation” (Tobias 2). Vegetation that is normally kept at bay by wildfire has been allowing vermin access to the seeds of the Lupines as food which are one of California's rarest flowers that only total to about 350 plants left on the planet. If the Lupines are going to be saved, the governing agencies must use active management in the wilderness the flowers live in which brings about a number of hurdles to jump through and gives the wildflower an ominous looking future. The plants face threats in every direction with nowhere to go (Tobias 1).
With all of this in mind, the historical importance of the act cannot be denied. Before the middle of the twentieth century, wilderness was regarded as wasteland and subjugating the wild unknown to civilization was celebrated (Leshy 3). Preserving wild places did not gain substantial support until the automobile which gave access to citizens especially in the post-WWII economic boom. After severe losses like the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park and the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam, conservationists began organizing to fight a better legal fight in the name of wilderness. This movement was benchmarked with the historical Wilderness Act becoming law in 1964. Without persistence of heroes like John Muir, Aldo Leopold, and Howard Zahniser, over 100 million acres of the most beautiful, abundant land in this country would not be protected. Opposition of the past was formidable, but no foe of wilderness can measure up to the potential destruction that a changing climate has.
Climate change is the biggest threat the Wilderness Act has ever seen. “Effects will not stop at federal wilderness boundary signs, and in response there have been specific calls to make the act more flexible to allow for climate change adaptation” (Biber and Long 1). The unsustainable lifestyles of the past few decades have caught up with one of the crown jewels of this country and presentist related action must be implemented to save it. “Rigid constraints in existing environmental law are incompatible with adaptation to climate change because they constrain the experimentation and novel active management tools needed to deal with unprecedented changes in natural systems” (Biber and Long 4). Furthermore, climate change forces us to interpret the Wilderness Act with present and future concerns in mind.
In light of all the issues the Wilderness Act faces today, presentism is paramount over historicity. Wilderness is a treasured item in this country but the past 150 years have taken a toll on the entire planet which we see in climate change. If wilderness is going to be able to survive another century, active management strategies will have to be implemented. The most logical way to move forward with the Wilderness Act itself is to adapt to survive.
Works Cited
Aplet, H., Carol Miller. “Progress in Wilderness Fire Science: Embracing Complexity.” Journal of Forestry, vol. 114, no. 3, 20 Aug. 2016, pp. 373-383, http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-008. Accessed 20 Oct. 2016.
Biber, Eric, Elisabeth Long. “The Wilderness Act and Climate Change Adaptation.” Environmental Law, vol. 44, no. 2, Spring 2014, pp. 623, http://www.lclark.edu/org.envtl/.Accessed 6 Oct. 2016
Burroughs, Kaitlin, et al. “A Review and Synthesis of Recreation Ecology Research Findings on Visitor Impacts to Wilderness and Protected Natural Areas.” Journal of Forestry, vol. 114, no. 3, 22 Mar. 2016, pp. 352-362, http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-498. Accessed 20 Oct. 2016.
Cordell, Ken, et al. “The Evolution of Wilderness Social Science and Research to Protect Experiences, Resources, and Societal Benefits.” Journal of Forestry, 9 Jul. 2015, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 329-338, http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-145. Accessed 20 Oct. 2016.
DeRuiter, Darla. Personal Interview. 7 Oct. 2016
Dunec, JoAnne. “Wilderness Act.” Natural Resources and Environment, vol. 31, no. 1, Summer 2016, pp. 61-62, http://search.proquest.com/docview/1817025519/fulltext/FF619A5A8974D74PQ/1?accountid=26242. Accesssed 6 Oct. 2016.
Leshy, John. “Legal Wilderness: Its Past and Some Speculations On Its Future.” Environmental Law, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 549, http://www.lclark.edu/org/envtl/. Accessed 6 Oct. 2016
Tobias, Jimmy. “In Wilderness, A Wildflower Barely Survives.” High Country News, 12 Oct. 2015, http://search.proquest.com/environmentalscience/docview/1774551551/37784B1FDC1E4DD3PQ/8?accountid=26242. Accessed 20 Oct. 2016
Zahniser, Howard. The Wilderness Act. 3 Sept. 1964
Biber, Eric, Elisabeth Long. “The Wilderness Act and Climate Change Adaptation.” Environmental Law, vol. 44, no. 2, Spring 2014, pp. 623, http://www.lclark.edu/org.envtl/.Accessed 6 Oct. 2016
Burroughs, Kaitlin, et al. “A Review and Synthesis of Recreation Ecology Research Findings on Visitor Impacts to Wilderness and Protected Natural Areas.” Journal of Forestry, vol. 114, no. 3, 22 Mar. 2016, pp. 352-362, http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.15-498. Accessed 20 Oct. 2016.
Cordell, Ken, et al. “The Evolution of Wilderness Social Science and Research to Protect Experiences, Resources, and Societal Benefits.” Journal of Forestry, 9 Jul. 2015, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 329-338, http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-145. Accessed 20 Oct. 2016.
DeRuiter, Darla. Personal Interview. 7 Oct. 2016
Dunec, JoAnne. “Wilderness Act.” Natural Resources and Environment, vol. 31, no. 1, Summer 2016, pp. 61-62, http://search.proquest.com/docview/1817025519/fulltext/FF619A5A8974D74PQ/1?accountid=26242. Accesssed 6 Oct. 2016.
Leshy, John. “Legal Wilderness: Its Past and Some Speculations On Its Future.” Environmental Law, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 549, http://www.lclark.edu/org/envtl/. Accessed 6 Oct. 2016
Tobias, Jimmy. “In Wilderness, A Wildflower Barely Survives.” High Country News, 12 Oct. 2015, http://search.proquest.com/environmentalscience/docview/1774551551/37784B1FDC1E4DD3PQ/8?accountid=26242. Accessed 20 Oct. 2016
Zahniser, Howard. The Wilderness Act. 3 Sept. 1964