By Suzanne Cable
Contradictory to what is advocated for in a recent article by U.S. Forest Service research fellow Clare E. Boerigter about protecting Wilderness by purposefully “tending it,” the best approach to the overall stewardship of federally designated Wilderness managed in the United States is to do as the 1964 Wilderness Act dictates: leave it alone.
As a retired Forest Service wilderness manager, reading this article really hit a nerve with me—or I should say several nerves. This approach of advocating for management of Wilderness is contradictory to the intent and letter of the law and disturbing. Attempting to stop the ecological clock by human manipulation of Wilderness areas to achieve human-determined preferred conditions through “tending” (as proposed by Ms. Boerigter) is detrimental to the continued responsible stewardship of federally designated Wilderness areas as intended by the Act.
Effective wilderness stewardship takes the long view, and “leaving it alone”—such as limiting direct human control and deliberate manipulation of the ecology of Wilderness areas—is foundational to the long-term preservation of Wilderness. Quoting directly from the Wilderness Act, “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man.” Key concepts of this statement are “in contrast” and “untrammeled by man.” Wilderness must be allowed to be in contrast with other areas of earth that are dominated by humans and free from direct human ecological intervention.
Manipulation of Wilderness to achieve a condition based on a point in the long arc of ecological time to achieve human interests is the antithesis of humility and restraint, hallmarks of wilderness stewardship. It’s a tragedy that climate change caused by humans burning fossil fuels is radically and rapidly changing natural environments and is a key driver of the global biodiversity crisis. However, overlooking the legal mandate to keep Wilderness wild to achieve short term interventionist objectives of manipulating natural conditions—or tending it—is not the answer.
The less than 3 percent of land in the contiguous United States designated as Wilderness, or about 5 percent of all lands including Alaska, is worth protecting from the manipulative arrogance of humans to control natural conditions for the “benefit” of those systems as well as humans. That 5 percent deserves to be left alone, allowing nature to rule, and to be protected from perhaps well-intentioned, but ultimately regretful ecological interventionist actions. Is 5 percent of the over 2 billion-acre U.S. land base too much to leave uncontrolled by humans since humans have decided to have their way with the other 95 percent? I say no, and in fact, I’d argue 5 percent is not nearly enough.
The article uses the example of manager-ignited fire as necessary tending. Manager-ignited fire damages the very qualities that define wilderness character in all Wildernesses: untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, and offering outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. And once started to achieve specific desirable conditions, manager-ignited fire and other interventions must continue in perpetuity to hold back the trajectory of change to achieve the historical condition of one point in time. Thereafter, what about the place remains Wilderness and in contrast to other National Forest System lands? It fundamentally changes the place, loses the qualities that define why it is protected as Wilderness, and becomes another landscape controlled and manipulated by humans.
Rather than promoting wilderness “tending,” it would be great to see the Forest Service conduct research that provides land managers and the public with useful information consistent with the Wilderness Act vs. proposing strategies that would lead managers to take actions that are destructive to the intent of the Act. For example, providing decision support tools to managers about how to allow more naturally ignited fire to burn in Wilderness, rather than being suppressed, would really help.
The article feeds the metaphorical fire of human action bias—to try to fix things that aren’t meeting their desired conditions. Wilderness is one land designation where the action bias is both prohibited by law and also contradictory to achieving its preservation objectives.
Suzanne Cable is on the Wilderness Watch Board of Directors. She retired in January 2024 after a 30-year career with the Forest Service, finishing her career as the forest-wide program manager for Recreation, Trails, and Wilderness on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
Photo: Eagle Cap Wilderness by Leon Werdinger
59 Comments
I absolutely agree and appreciate such a well-written, thoughtful, and spot-on post.
Amen!
Leave nature as it is.
My heart feels a little tender to post this response, but I believe the premise of untouched ‘wilderness’ is flawed from the outset – these lands were never ‘pristine’ and untrammeled, as John Muir and others erroneously assumed – they were tended for millennia by Indigenous peoples. Sometimes modestly, but always with care, understanding, and deep relationship with place. These relationships across what many would call Turtle Island included cultural burns, coppicing, seed dispersal, planting, waterway tending…
This tending shaped the land into the beauty Europeans encountered when they arrived. Yosemite Valley, for instance, was once an open landscape of black oak savannah – spacious enough for deer and humans to browse and travel through freely. Without the cultural burns that maintained that openness, conifers have moved in, closing the canopy, crowding out the oaks, and creating the dense, high fire-risk thicket we now call natural.
Yes, Mother Nature does a beautiful job of regenerating herself in the absence of extractive land use such as Europeans brought – but that is not the only way to be in relationship with the land. Nature also flourishes – sometimes even more so, and for the benefit of many nonhuman others – with careful stewardship by those who know they belong to the land.
I appreciate that the people commenting and reading here love nature – and clearly very deeply. But we don’t need to let that love narrow us from a wider and more nuanced perspective.
Perhaps the question is not whether the land should be tended, but how, and by whom.
Agree wholeheartedly!
Well said! I couldn’t agree more–thanks so much for speaking out!
Leave the wildnerness alone. Havent we taken enough and disturbed/eliminated enough wild life?
I totally agree.
You are so right. Leave wilderness alone or by definition it will not be wilderness!
I couldn’t agree more.
Only the latest iteration of human hubris—that notion that “managing” a landscape, e.g. national forest or given resource is a priori necessary, let alone somehow beneficial.
The best genuine approach to wilderness preservation is to leave it alone, emphasizing humility, restraint, and minimal human intervention, as mandated by the 1964 Wilderness Act. This “hands-off” philosophy advocates for allowing natural ecological processes to prevail, rather than managing, manipulating, or “tending” wild areas, ensuring they remain truly wild.
The best genuine approach to wilderness preservation is to leave it alone, emphasizing humility, restraint, and minimal human intervention, as mandated by the 1964 Wilderness Act. This “hands-off” philosophy advocates for allowing natural ecological processes to prevail, rather than managing, manipulating, or “tending” wild areas, ensuring they remain truly wild.Core Principles for Genuine Wilderness
Preservation Minimalist Stewardship: Focus on preventing human intervention rather than manipulating ecosystems for desired outcomes. This includes minimizing suppression of lightning-ignited fires and avoiding the introduction of non-native species.
Leave It Alone Strategy: The most effective approach, often championed by advocates such as Wilderness Watch, is to restrain the urge to manipulate Wilderness areas.
Adherence to the 1964 Wilderness Act: Following the spirit of the law, which defines wilderness as areas “untrammeled by man”.
Leave No Trace Principles: Adopting ethical behavior for recreational use to reduce human impact, such as packing out waste and staying on trails.
Scientific Monitoring: Using sound science to monitor, rather than disrupt, natural changes, guided by institutions like the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute.Protection through Designation: Securing permanent legal protection for wild lands to prevent development.
Stick to the tenets of the 1964 Wilderness Act and leave wilderness alone. Humans do not know better than nature itself and how so many natural forces work together for the welfare of the planet. We need to stop working against those forces and let wilderness and Nature be what they are.
I could not have said it better! ❤️
BRAVA!!!
I totally believe in the “leave it alone approach yo wilderness. The white man has meddled with every possible “fix” in America and mucked up most of their projects. If it ain’t broke en, don’t fix it.
Right on!
Love it and leave it alone!!!
Rather than promoting wilderness “tending,” it would be great to see the Forest Service conduct research that provides land managers and the public with useful information consistent with the Wilderness Act vs. proposing strategies that would lead managers to take actions that are destructive to the intent of the Act.
Well, two things come to my mind. First off, if devastating climate change is truly due to human intervention, maybe it requires human intervention to protect wilderness from its impacts. Maybe some human intervention isn’t inherently bad.
Secondly, I just don’t care if naturally caused fire is what’s in vogue right now. I don’t want to see ancient redwood groves leveled by fire for the sake of germinating seedlings, for instance. Ok so maybe some of the redwoods would survive, you might say. For me, that’s not worth the risk. I am not alone in this belief. So many of us are still sad and angered by what was allowed to happen in the Yellowstone fires.
Just thoughts for your consideration, from a concerned citizen with no real clout except that altogether me and others like me do have a voice.
Letting forest fires naturally burn out is not in vogue it is in the natural balance for such fires to occur. If you want to fix something that will have a lasting impact on the preservation of beloved groves, stop treating them like groves, put your energy into supporting climate change policies that can actually do some good, and work with your neighbors to eliminate local carelessness that starts some fires.
The statement, “The best approach to the preservation of Wilderness continues to be to leave it alone”, says it all.
I agree with the article, leave the wilderness alone!!
Thank you for the insight and thoughtful recommendation to “Leave it alone” — YES, YES, and YES!!!
I lived in Alaska 1968-1972 and have seen what “big oil” greed and the money they taunted the public and military personnel up there with, to get permits to drill and build and do what they wanted. Seeing what that has done to “my” beautiful Alaska — and it can’t be “undone” now.
THEN, I left Alaska, spent a few years in the over-run, boring mid-west, divorced my “non-visionary” husband, and moved to Colorado in 1976 and made a life for myself and my young son, centered around the beauty and joy of these mountains, spending the last 50 years instilling a love and respect for “the wild places”, and participating with many environmental organizations and their projects to protect all that is natural and good here. My son free up appreciating and respecting nature, and he imparted that same love and respect of nature to his children. I am very pleased, and proud, of all of them. They learned respect for nature, appreciation of unspoiled nature and wildlife habitats, and are active in preserving wilderness lands, and the issues to preserve these special, and irreplaceable, wonders that cannot be replaced. That respect for nature is necessary for all of us to embrace!
My current efforts are heavily involved in an effort to get the Upper Crystal River (South and west of the Snowmass Wilderness Area near Aspen) to become federally designated as “Wild & Scenic”. Among other projects and events I participate with, I have vigorously opposed the careless and poorly restricted oil/gas drilling and many other destructive endeavors.
I never fail to stop and admire all the natural and beautiful sights! Even the urban areas in Colorado are not toooooo over-run, and a “nod” to preserving views, open spaces, trails, and nature is almost always present, (even when not enough effort is made), which is still SO important to me!!! I will always vote, advocate, and work hard to preserve wild places, natural beauty, wildlife, undamaged Public Lands and wilderness, here in Western Colorado where I live, all across Colorado, in every state in the US, and everywhere in the world! As they say, “There is no Planet B”. I truly believe that maintaining wilderness areas is a vital core value that leads to preserving all that is good for all of us!
“Leave it alone”. If only our government agencies would stop doing their own thing when it comes to wilderness management. But, they take their direction from a different source than I.
Thank you for your very informative article. I hope you get a million responses.
Right on Susan!
As Zahniser said, Guardians, not Gardeners.
This is an excellent article. This beautiful planet will be destroyed if we don’t do all that is necessary for protecting nature.
I agree.
Leaving wilderness alone is, indeed, the WHOLE POINT of our push to save it! Excellent article! Thank you. Let’s keep fighting for our public lands and National Parks — they’re all we’ve got left! Once their gone we CANT bring them back.
True . Keep the wild alive . And let nature take its own course. We are invading their land not the other way around.
Fully agree! The only thing humans should be doing in natural areas is restoration where humans have caused harm destruction, or reduction or extirpation of natilife there. Otherwise, leave it alone. And to the agencies advocating all this harmful management: Stop acting as shills for industries and start doing your jobs!
Super article! I certainly agree. The issue that apparently cannot be understood is Wilderness exists for itself NOT for the benefit of humans. Human “management” or “tending” is responsible for far too much of the destruction of nature, habitat and wildlife – almost as if nothing or nowhere has any reason to exist IF humans dont receive a benefit from it.
Obviously, I could ramble on but you said it so much better.
Thank you
What a breath of fresh air. Your headline can apply to 99% of human activity. Most problems have a straight forward fix that our grandfathers and grandmothers taught, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
Thank you is not enough for all your hard work.
Sincerely
RIGHT ON TARGET! HUMANS RARELY MAKE A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE WHEN THEY TRY TO “MANAGE” EVERYTHING FROM WILD SPACES TO WILD ANIMALS
If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it!
I totally agree with all of your points. We need our government to leave the wilderness areas alone. Please let us have those areas protected from human intervention, hubris, and most importantly greed.
As the daughter of a forester, I couldn’t agree more with the outlook that “leaving it alone” is the best policy. Thanks.
Im one of many red voters, that agrees with you. Open spaces and pristine outdoor experiences are not just vital, they are mandatory for humanity. The environment must always be our first concern.
The land and animals that live here need it protected. Humans benefit from the protection as well.
Wilderness has its own “wisdom”. It’s been existing for millions/billions of years and by now, knows how to survive——–without human intervention. Just leave it alone!
Thank you Suzanne Cable, Let’s use the Wilderness areas as “control groups” to the managed lands near by. Scientific studies usually require a “control group” where nothing is done, so it can be compared to another area where some sort of action is taken by humans.
Setting aside 5% or better yet 10% of our Public Lands as protected “control groups”, so that we can see and compare these lands to those next door, that are managed my humans. My educated guess is that Wilderness Areas hold more Biodiversity and species compared to the human managed lands nearby.
Thanks Suzanne. Your board membership in Wilderness Watch is so valuable. We need to continue the wilderness education approach even as we forge ahead as retired and passionate wild land advocates.
The wilderness is beautiful and critical to our survival on Earth. Naturally, people are curious about it, but often don’t interact with it respectfully. I cringe every time I see a person approach a bison too closely — for the bison, not the human who very likely might get hurt. The same is true when you see videos of people grabbing a baby animal and moving it somewhere it shouldn’t be. This is a lack of education and a lack of empathy for other creatures and their instinctive struggle for survival. Animals should find sanctuary in their habitats and the people who visit those habitats must learn to be respectful to wildlife, plants, and other organisms present.
ABSOLUTELY LEAVE WILDERNESS TOTALLY ALONE!!!!!!
LEAVE THE WILDLIFE ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LEAVE WOLVES AND BEARS AND ALL WILD ANIMALS ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO MANAGEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO POPULATION ‘CONTROL’ as IN MURDERING WOLVES OR BEARS BECAUSE YOU THINK THERE ARE TOO MANY AND STINKING HUMAN HIKERS GET THEMSELVES INJURED BY HIKING AND WILDLIFE HABITAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM FED UP THE THE GILLS WITH DETESTABLE TRUMP AND HIS MINNIONS DESTROYING LANDS AND HABITAT AND DESTROYING THE ENDANGERES SPECIES ACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DUMP TRUMP!!!!!! IMPEACH!!!!! IMPEACH!!!! IMPEACH HIM AND ALL HIS “CABINET” FLUNKIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Things here are slowly reaching a state almost like in Germany, where I live. The people here have become so alienated from nature that they no longer have any idea what true wilderness is—and are incapable of allowing it to exist. Life is also made incredibly difficult for numerous wild animals—such as wolves, bears, elk, beavers, otters, jackals, European bison, large birds of prey, fish-eating birds, and others—or else they are displaced, eradicated, and/or face conditions that make their reintroduction difficult, if not impossible. Personally, I am deeply connected to nature and cherish true wilderness. It breaks my heart to find no nature or wilderness left in a highly industrialized and prosperity-blinded Germany. It would be an absolute tragedy if America were to embark on that same path now. Then again, it wouldn’t surprise me all that much—after all, Trump is German! 🙈🙈🙈
Best wishes for you and thank you so much for your wonderful and indispenable work!
Jörg🙋♂️
Thank you so much for this informed piece on trusting Nature explicitly. Excellent contribution to the growing awareness that human tinkering and manipulation only creates problems. Appreciate your articulate expression and will pass on.
I totally agree!
Thank you for a very thoughtful article. I basically agree manipulating nature is a result of human arrogance, even if well intentioned. But I wonder if there are exceptions. For example, condors were on the brink of extinction due to human causes. Capturing the remaining birds was very controversial. In the end the recovery program was successful. Although not in Wilderness, the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone in the 90s was also a success returning nature to something more resembling the region prior to the extermination of the wolves. I think we can agree that the Yellowstone ecosystem has benefited.
Your thoughts?
Yes I totally agree! You are right on.
Marvelous!! Superb article, sound perspective. Will be sharing with any and all I know who seek deeper understanding of the importance of Wilderness and ‘actual’ best practices to preserve it.
Thank you for this!
Adam Hockey
New Mexico, USA
Few of us get to experience Wilderness, as the rule/law states for the title; “Wilderness”. And this is OK. If manipulated by man to reach some thoughtful other state, we no longer will have Wilderness. What a loss that would be…
Couldn’t agree more with you
In total agreement. Thank you for your opinion.
Excellent article. We all should have her perspective of the wilderness.
nature survived for hundreds of years without humans bothering it. Let’s quit getting involved and let nature do its thing. Survived without us so Nature will survive without us now.
I really appreciate this wonderful essay that clarifies the difference between preservation and conservation, with the later being a euphemism for human manipulation of wilderness to serve human interests, often at the expense of wildness. You say it so well…
“overlooking the legal mandate to keep Wilderness wild to achieve short term interventionist objectives of manipulating natural conditions—or tending it—is not the answer.” I wish more people could read this, especially those who have influence on the decisions that are made about how to we approach (or don’t approach) wilderness.
leave Wilderness Act alone
I agree with you 700%. Maybe that’s a number the Administration understands. It means giving back, instead of taking away which is what human domination is all about: me, myself and I, with my and mine as exponential multipliers.
I agree with you 100%! Only things we can fix are those that we’ve made ourselves. And surely, we did not make Nature…
It’s like they don’t know the word “virgin” for forests!