By Kevin Proescholdt, Wilderness Watch
A recent opinion article by a U.S. Forest Service research fellow supporting manipulating designated Wilderness areas showed a profound misunderstanding about Wilderness, its history, its stewardship policies, and the Wilderness Act itself. The author’s proposed solution would result in the loss of the very quality for which Congress designated Wildernesses: their wildness.
The author suggests that we use active management interventions and manager-ignited fire in Wilderness to counter the impacts of climate change and to replicate Indigenous burning practices. In doing so, it reflects an all-too-common bias within the federal land management agencies for active management activities and projects. It also reflects a similar all-too-common hubris and arrogance in those same federal agencies that they know what’s best for Wilderness, that their choices for desired future conditions in Wilderness should take precedence over Nature’s choices.
The proposal flies in the face of wilderness policy, history, and the provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act itself. The one central purpose of the Wilderness Act, its prime directive if you will, is to preserve wilderness character, an area’s wildness. In fact, the Wilderness Act is so emphatic about that point that it says it twice: “[E]ach agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character.” The federal courts have consistently agreed that this is the central purpose of this law.
Howard Zahniser, the visionary conservationist who wrote the 1964 Wilderness Act, also wrote extensively about wilderness. In one of his well-known passages, written 11 years before the Wilderness Act passed Congress, he explained, “We must remember always that the essential quality of the wilderness is its wildness.”
Yet the author proposes to “improve” or freeze ecological conditions within Wilderness with active management and manipulation, even though doing so will result in a loss of the area’s wildness. The Wilderness Act does not direct us to preserve any certain ecological condition or forest type, but rather to preserve the area’s wildness, even if some of us humans may not always like all the outcomes that Nature might devise.
Across the nation, the federal agencies try to manipulate Wilderness to fit their desires, not Nature’s choices. The agencies are trying to poison 46 miles of Buffalo Creek in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness of Montana, for example, to plant fish that never historically lived there. In the Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness in California, the agencies want to invade Giant Sequoia groves to log out undesirable trees and plant sequoia seedlings, despite the lush natural sequoia regeneration after recent fires. In the Shawnee National Forest in southern Illinois, the agencies want to burn off the entire National Forest, including about 40,000 acres of designated Wilderness there, even though the fire history there is much different than in the arid West. And in the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests of California, the Forest Service wants to torch 842,000 acres of designated Wilderness in a panicked attempt to prevent future wildfires.
The author also wants to manipulate Wilderness to honor or replicate the practices of “Indigenous peoples, who in fact tended those lands for thousands of years.” While the intent to honor Indigenous peoples is honorable, the suggestion is off-base here as well. It cites trail networks, scarring of tree bark, and berry picking as examples of how Indigenous peoples influenced the landscapes.
Here again, the author’s misunderstanding of wilderness history, stewardship, and law comes through. The 1964 Wilderness Act defines Wilderness in part as “untrammeled.” Untrammeled does not mean “untouched” or “pristine,” as the proposal implies. The Wilderness Act does not in fact contain either word. Untrammeled rather means unmanipulated, unconfined, uncontrolled, or unrestrained. An untrammeled Wilderness would allow ecological and evolutionary forces to operate without restraint, modification, or manipulation. If Indigenous people made trails, or scarred bark, or picked berries, or engaged in myriad other activities that had impacts on these places—much like many allowed uses do today—those actions don’t violate the meaning of “untrammeled” within the context of the Wilderness Act. Nor does the law require us now to replicate those activities.
And recent research published in the journal Ecological Citizen has confirmed that the use of fire and other impacts by Indigenous people were fairly localized to Indigenous settlement areas and not universal across the entire landscape where many Wildernesses now are located.
Howard Zahniser, who thought deeply about Wilderness, often wrote that we humans need to approach Wilderness with humility and restraint. In his famous 1963 essay, he encouraged us to be “guardians, not gardeners” with respect to Wilderness, again utilizing humility and restraint to protect, not manipulate, Wilderness. The author’s approach would instead substitute the hubris and arrogance in the federal agencies for the humility and restraint that Wilderness needs, destroying the wildness that makes these areas so special in the first place. Instead of that approach, let’s instead continue trying to keep Wilderness wild.
Kevin Proescholdt is the Conservation Director for Wilderness Watch. He has worked in wilderness policy, legislation, and history for more than a half-century, including working to pass the 1978 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act through Congress and co-authoring the history of that struggle, Troubled Waters: The Fight for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
Top photo: The National Park Service plans to cut most of the trees surrounding these Giant Sequoias in the Lost Grove within Wilderness in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Photo by René Voss, Wilderness Watch board member.
49 Comments
The wilderness is a place of escape from everyday life. We have no right to destroy our natural heritage. The animals are the ones who depend on it. Some places are better off untouched.
The only way Wilderness can remain safe is to ban all human life from it. Nature will survive just fine without us.
The wilderness is an undeveloped, federally protected natural area largely uninfluenced by human activity, where natural processes dominate and people are only temporary visitors.
This land is used for protection of various types of plants and animals. There are already some of both that are currently on the Endangered Species List. If the government is allowed to destroy any of this land, they could be endangering other plants and animals, and possibly causing some plants and/or animals to become extinct.
We do not want the government to do what they want regarding the wilderness if it is not necessary.
Mankind shouldn’t destroy everything it comes across! We have to have land that is free aqn pure as can be, not only for the beings but for mother nature and Mother Earth itself
Thank you for yours, Kevin, and I couldn’t agree with you more.
As you say, this proposal reflects a typical historical myopia. Nothing like being imprisoned by only one very biassed contemporary lens.
I am grateful for this educational blog. I agree with the author of it.
With love and humility,
Sister Mary Lou, Geraets
We do not need more development, ranching and mining to destroy the homeostasis of our ecosystem
Wilderness must remain Wild and unmanipulated!
For Wilderness to remain wild
Some areas are best left untouched.
I totally agree!
Wilderness should never be “manipulated”, and the leave it alone. author obviously knows nothing about the 1964 Wilderness Act. Keep wilderness wild, and leave it alone. Human intervention is usually misinformed and harmful.
I lived on the ski mountain of Mammoth Lakes for 17 years. It is east of Yosemite. Animals do migrate around the Sierra mountains. Therefore fencing of private housing is illegal. Many bears crossed my property with no damage to my property, which was built of very strong and fireproof materials. However there are many old cabins built to burn easily. There are laws to protect human homes, but there are fire issues as well. Due to the snowfall, fires are less common year by year. I cannot imagine any national laws that would protect wild animals and foliage. There has to be decisions made locally by educated people, not those who want to remove trees for financial gain. The ecology of every wild area is unique. The original laws to maintain wilderness do make sense. Some burning may be wise, but removing forests is the opposite.
We humans are invading wilderness, and this needs to stop. I have seen the results of tree removal in Switzerland and in Africa. The result is loss of animal and plant species. I don’t want government intervention to make decisions largely based on the business needs, not what is good for wilderness itself.
Well said all around! Let wilderness alone.
Please do not cut and burn areas in Shawnee, Sierra and Sequoia National Parks.
We, humans, do well to recognize that the health of water, soil and air, as well as the presence of all living creatures great and small. ultimately allows human life to continue.
To NOT acknowledge this and to purposefully allow pollution of our environment to continue is truly a crime.
Yes Kevin…..John…
This demonstrates the incompetence of many Forest Service employees or researchers. They spew out recommendations without any research or investigation as to whether or not their actions are legal. Are there any wiser people who understand the Wilderness Act and can shut down these others down? Or they just ignoring the obvious? Seems to me that the Forest Service simply believes that the courts will sort things out while they go on their merry and oblivious way! This does not say much for the competence of those in charge of wilderness management!
Our wilderness area must absolutely be left wild and untouched by mankind, which inherently does not always make the right decisions regarding the natural world. We must respect nature’s own power to heal, and protect these wild areas. Please leave nature to nature. Mother knows best.
Thank you for this excellent and poignant article. I have been a member of many environmental organizations and I have become dismayed by how so many of them argue that it is necessary to manipulate Wilderness. I am so glad I have found Wilderness Watch.
“keep Wilderness wild”
‘Nuff said…
Thank you Kevin. It’s very impossible to keep up with every legislation
in history or herstory. I find myself in awe that this Keeping Wilderness Wild happened during LBJ’s Presidency. Caring then and now seems to point to DEMOCRACY, not aristocracy.
I think the author has summed up the intent of wilderness and its blessings to nature and wildlife. I hope there will never be any kind of human intervention to “manage” it. It would be a tragedy!
I am shocked out of my mind that the Forest Service and National Park Service want to burn 842,000 acres of forest in CA and thin non Sequoia trees from their groves. With hotter climates, if these young trees are removed, it will turn the western Sierra into drier terrain allowing desert type trees to take over like junipers and chapperal. Just look at what has happened to the western part of the San Gabriel National Forest. Starting around 2009, we have had at least 3 large fires in this forest and pines and similar trees have not come back. The ground is largely covered now in manzanita and other chapperal.
We cannot call them wilderness if we modify them. We can learn from the good and the bad fires, storms and draughts that occur naturally. Many endangered species need mature wilderness to survive and the protected areas help stabilize more than the particular animals on the list. Our souls need the chance to contemplate Mother Nature’s creations.
I agree totally. We must totally balance man’s needs with a priority for wilderness so we & future generations can enjoy. The wilderness & wildlife is the best thing this planet has to offer. 😎😎😁👍
Starting fires because some Natives did so is wrongful. Natives were far from perfect too; for example, they caused extinctions when they got here, and they had the same bad attitude about managing the land that resulted in their prescribed burns.
The problem is humans and their failure to evolve mentally and spiritually, which causes the bad attitudes toward the natural world referred to here. The natural world and the native life there should be left alone, period.
Any short term gain is not worth the long term loss and consequences for nature and environment. All remaining wilderness must be protected and preserved.
“In wildness is the preservation of the world” Henry D Thoreau
The movie Silent Running is supposed to be fiction. Why are people using it as an instruction manual?
They don’t care about wilderness. They care about the destroyers who want to exploit it. Making the wealthy wealthier is now their goal in everything, nature doesn’t matter to them.
The Wilderness Act clearly states that these areas should remain wild and unmolested by we humans. But Trump and his regime don’t seem to care about laws. We the people must do everything we can to hold them accountable!
Wilderness is not complicated. The tree killers, mining, outfitters and others like them don’t care about wilderness, they only care about what they can take from it. My motto is to protect everything that we can. Because they want it all. Without groups like wilderness watch the destruction would be even worse. Thanks
Leave it ! Leave our wilderness areas alone…Hands off USA Wilderness.
Thank You for your article Kevin. What you say is right on the mark & it inspires the rest of us.
Well said! We have seen time and time again how letting nature manage provides far superior outcomes to human intervention. Many places are trying to rebuild what nature provided to restore the benefits – such as the plants that mitigated coastal flooding.
Two wrongs do not result in a favorable outcome. Hands OFF these protected and conserved natural forest systems !
I think the Forest Service has lost their mind. Leave everything alone. It will take care of it’s self without human people doing what they do best by destroying everything they touch. LEAVE EVERYTHING ALONE!!!
Wilderness areas are crucial for preserving natural ecosystems, protecting biodiversity, and providing clean air and water, as they function without industrial development. They offer vital habitats for wildlife, act as carbon sinks to fight climate change, and provide essential spaces for human recreation, mental health, and solitude.
Key reasons why wilderness areas are important include:
Ecological Preservation: They protect endangered species and biodiversity by preserving undisturbed, large-scale habitats.
Clean Air and Water: Wilderness areas often protect headwaters, ensuring high-quality water supplies and clean air.
Climate Change Mitigation: These areas sequester significant amounts of carbon, helping to balance greenhouse gases.
Scientific & Educational Value: They serve as living laboratories for studying natural processes without human interference.
Recreation & Human Well-being: They offer opportunities for “primitive” recreation like hiking and fishing, promoting mental health and stress reduction.
Economic Benefits: They support local communities through tourism and outdoor recreation industries.
Cultural & Historical Significance: They protect cultural sites and provide a connection to the natural world, supporting a “sense of place”.
The future of the human race depends on saving the natural world, whatever it takes.
One problem is that logger’s idea of ‘thinning’ to reduce fire risk is to cut down almost all of the trees. leaving a couple of scraggly ones. When loggers are allowed to sell the trees they cut down, they want the best trees. Logging robs the forest of soil because trees, alive or dead, are what provides the soil. Trees cut down should be the youngest trees, they should be left in the forest and can be mulched to lower fire risk. This would provide jobs. Wood products can come from hemp and bamboo, not our beautiful forests!
Personally, for me, the main attraction wilderness is it’s wildness.
Please keep this beautiful area wild.
It’s such a shame that the idea of a “Wilderness” is lost on people like Donald Trump. People like that really don’t have a concept or appreciation of that term. Through wilderness, humans keep that side of the world that is actually primal and valued in our natural history. We must protect it, not only for ourselves, but for upcoming generations.
Kevin and Wilderness Watch,
I agree with you. How about inviting the U.S. Forest Service person to hike in wilderness with Wilderness Watch and have a discussion about the Wilderness Act.
I think what is confusing is specifically, for each wilderness, what is “wilderness condition”. Is it the same for each wilderness, like untrammeled, or does it vary?
I believe an article by Wilderness Watch about what “wilderness condition” is and what it’s not, would be helpful for all.
Hey Brandt,
Great to hear from you. I’ll have the chance to visit with the Forest Service research fellow soon, and will suggest that. As to “wilderness condition”, that’s not a term found in the Wilderness Act. But I think you’re right that it will vary somewhat from Wilderness to Wilderness, depending on a host of factors like topography, climate, ecological history, history of disturbances, etc. But I think wilderness conditions flow from a protected untrammeled area, and that wilderness conditions, especially for areas that have been damaged in the past, will improve with time in a protected Wilderness.
WELL WRITTEN, WELL PRESENTED……WELL DONE!
Are they out of their minds? This entire article makes me physically ill. Sequoia National Park is the most awe-inspiring place on earth — ages old living entities that are literally breathtaking to stand near. The cabin where we stayed, was directly under one, that is the best photo I’ve ever taken. They are a gift to us.
I think you would get more attention if your blog were much shorter.
You make very sound points as humans we should be as you said be guardians not gardeners. The wilderness has always protected itself and the human races so why wouldn’t we want to take care of it and the animals who call it home. Keep them all safe to best of our abilities but yet let the trees, other plant life and animals live how they were intended to.