Global Warming and Intervention

¶ … Preserving the Wilderness through Non-Intervention Harm or Help Nature? In 2014, the Wilderness Act turned 50. The act was introduced to "Establish a National Wilderness Preservation System for the permanent good of the whole people, and for other purposes" (Wilderness Act 1).

The act was introduced with the aim of protecting the wilderness, and created the National Wilderness Prevention System by first defining what was meant by 'wilderness' and then laying down the rules to protect them as public land, and restrain human influences, allowing the lands to develop as naturally as possible, and maintain its primeval character (Wilderness Act 3). This approach assumed that non-intervention is the optimal strategy to retain a natural environment.

However, while direct interference was effectivity bared with an apparent "hard green line" (Solomon 1), there have been subsequent questions regarding the non-interference paradigm and if that is really the best approach. The aim of this paper is to determine whether or not this non-interventionist paradigm is best approach.

Looking at the non-intervention approach, there is little doubt that there are some forms of human interference that will have a negative impact on the environment; prohibiting permanent roads and commercial activities has eliminated the potential for direct harm created by construction, and the secondary harm, such as the pollution from cars travelling on the roads thought the wilderness areas (Long and Biber 628).

The strict prohibitions of the Act have embodied the idea of Howard Zahniser, an environmental activist who drafted the act, that man should be a guardian and not a gardener (Solomon 1). This was accepted for many years as an appropriate approach to protect the ecosystem by allowing nature to take it course without human interference.

With this in mind, it is necessary to look at the wilderness areas in a broader context; while legislation may prevent developments and actions in the protected areas, it does not, and cannot, prevent the actions across the global which will impact on the areas (Solomon 1). An important consideration is that of climate change; this is a man made influence which is having an unavoidable impact on the natural environment, including the protected wildernesses (Hobbs et al. 483).

It is possible that the assertion that leaving the wilderness alone with non-intervention is a flawed concept die to the changes in the global environment. The concepts of the primeval landscape the act was protecting has been argued as misleading (Cole 77). The way the act is phrased appears to indicate that managers of the land should be maintaining the land so it remains the same as it was in the earliest ages, and represent primitive America (Cole 77).

However, this type of land simply does not exist, the land has been changing and evolving, and has been influenced by mankind for millennia (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 5). Records indicate that centuries before settlement in the 1800s Native Americans in the Bitterroot Valley, Montana, set fires and made alterations to the landscape with the aim of improving forge for animals and preventing trees from establishing (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 5). This demonstrates the error in the assertion that the issue of the changing landscape is new.

Indeed, after the Columbian Exchange and the migrations from Europe, cheatgrass was introduced into the land, and is now commonplace in many wilderness areas (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 5). If the concept of non-intervention is correct, then it may be argued there should be attempts to undo the harm of the past, but this has not considered. It may be argued that is it's not viable to reverse changes which have occurred, and the act is forward looking, as it was seeking to prevent changes which could be avoided.

It is this latter approach which may be used to support an argument for intervention. If the aim is to maintain ecosystems within the wilderness, protecting them from changes, the non-interventionist strategy will not work. One example of this change is seen with the whitebark pine, which is declining in its presence in the wilderness (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 3). This was once an abundant species in the Rocky Mountains, but has been suffering from white pine blister rust, mountain pine beetles, and successional replacements (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 3).

This shows how change is occurring and without intervention the pine woodlands will change. However, the problem is broader than just a single, or even a few specifies, as the ecosystems have an interdependent nature. Using the whitebark pine as an example, the broader environmental impact can be considered. Whitebark pine is referred to as a keystone species as it has many ecological functions (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 7).

The seeds are an important food source for birds and mammals, from woodpeckers and jays to grizzly and black bears (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 8). The trees provide a habitat for bear communities, and prevent soil erosion while regulating runoff from watersheds (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 10). If the non-intervention strategy associated with man being a guardian rather than a gardener is pursued, these trees may disappear, or at least continue to decline, impacting on the ecosystems in which they are a keystone species.

However, it may be argued that this is a natural process, and the maintenance of the 'wild' values are an important concept (Garmestani and Allen 16). Opponents may also argue that the outcome of an intervention may never be fully known,, and unexpected, negative, outcomes may emerge which would not occur if nature were left alone (Garmestani and Allen 19). The issue here is a different concept of what is natural (Hobbs et al.

483) However, when considering this issue, it is also important to note that the case of the whitebark pine is not alone, there are many other examples, it has been estimated that up to 90% of the Joshua Trees at Joshua Tree National Park in Southern California could disappear by the end of the century (Solomon 1). If there is no intervention, this process will occur unabated.

To save the trees and the ecosystems that were seen as primeval, there is a need for intervention., However, it may be argued that when the act was introduced in 1964, many of these issues may never have been considered (Solomon 1). The knowledge of global warming, and the impact it might have had not been developed and the main threat from human was perceived as the development of road and the undertaking of commercial activities (Solomon 1).

Critics who adopt the view that non-intervention should still preferred, and nature will take care of itself, may be surprised to find that although there was protection granted for the wilderness areas, the act does not prohibit acts to protect it from threats which may cause change, the restrictions in the act may be waived to control fire, insects, and disease (Long and Biber 628).

This has resulted in proactive management of some areas of wilderness, such as prescribed pesticides to control insects, the introduction of non-native fish, and timber harvesting to eradicate beetle infestations (Long and Biber 629).

Another example that may be cited are the environmental management actions at Bandelier Wilderness there was an extreme intervention in the context of the Wilderness Act, with a strategy taken to protect the environment across 5,000 acres of land, seeing the use of chainsaws cutting the branches of trees to create mulch with the aim of counteracting soil erosion which had been taking place (Solomon 1). Without this intervention the natural development of the area would have suffered as more soil eroded. Generally, the interventions undertaken have been highly constrained.

However, their presence does show there is a recognition of a need for intervention to protect the wilderness status quo and reduce pressures for its decline. If this approach is accepted, this issue is no longer whether or not to intervene, as this has already been accepted, but the level of intervention that is acceptable. With global warming the natural environment of many specific will be changing. Solomon (1) poses a question regarding a more proactive approach.

For example, should trees who require a cooler climate be relocated at higher altitudes, and should invading species, such as the lodegpole pines which are moving into the meadows be removed, and should water been used to keep alive the giant sequoias in California where the climate is.