Wilderness Preservation: Non-Intervention or Active Management?

Introduction: The Non-Intervention Paradigm

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). Its aim was to protect the wilderness by first defining what was meant by "wilderness," and then laying down rules to protect designated lands as public property, restrain human influences, allow the land to develop as naturally as possible, and maintain its primeval character (Wilderness Act 3). This approach assumed that non-intervention is the optimal strategy for retaining a natural environment. However, while direct interference was effectively barred with an apparent "hard green line" (Solomon 1), subsequent questions have arisen regarding whether the non-interference paradigm is truly the best approach. The aim of this paper is to determine whether the non-interventionist paradigm remains the most appropriate strategy for preserving America's wilderness.

Looking at the non-intervention approach, there is little doubt that some forms of human interference have a negative impact on the environment. Prohibiting permanent roads and commercial activities has eliminated the potential for direct harm created by construction, as well as secondary harms such as pollution from vehicles travelling through wilderness areas (Long and Biber 628). The strict prohibitions of the Act embodied the idea of Howard Zahniser, the environmental activist who drafted it, that humankind should be a guardian and not a gardener (Solomon 1). For many years this was accepted as an appropriate way to protect ecosystems by allowing nature to take its course without human interference.

Limitations of the Non-Intervention Approach

With this in mind, it is necessary to consider wilderness areas in a broader context. While legislation may prevent developments and certain actions within protected areas, it does not — and cannot — prevent actions across the globe that will ultimately affect those areas (Solomon 1). An important consideration is climate change: a human-caused influence that is having an unavoidable impact on the natural environment, including protected wildernesses (Hobbs et al. 483).

It is possible that the assertion supporting non-intervention as a remedy is a flawed concept, given the profound changes occurring in the global environment. The notion of the primeval landscape that the Act was designed to protect has been argued to be misleading (Cole 77). The way the Act is phrased appears to indicate that land managers should maintain the land so that it remains as it was in the earliest ages — representing a 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 humankind for millennia (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 5). Records indicate that centuries before European settlement in the 1800s, Native Americans in the Bitterroot Valley, Montana, set fires and made alterations to the landscape with the aim of improving forage for animals and preventing trees from over-establishing (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 5).

This demonstrates that the issue of a changing landscape is far from new. Following 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 were correct, one might argue there should be attempts to undo the harm of the past — but this has not been seriously considered. It may be argued that it is not viable to reverse changes that have already occurred, and that the Act is forward-looking, seeking to prevent changes that could be avoided. It is this latter interpretation that may be used to support an argument for intervention.

The Whitebark Pine: A Keystone Species at Risk

If the aim is to maintain ecosystems within the wilderness and protect them from further change, the non-interventionist strategy will not suffice. One clear example is seen with the whitebark pine, which is declining in abundance throughout the wilderness (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 3). Once an abundant species in the Rocky Mountains, the whitebark pine has been suffering from white pine blister rust, mountain pine beetles, and successional replacements (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 3). This demonstrates how change is occurring, and without intervention the pine woodlands will continue to deteriorate.

The problem, however, is broader than a single species, because ecosystems are interdependent by nature. Whitebark pine is referred to as a keystone species because of its many ecological functions (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 7). Its 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 habitat for bear communities, prevent soil erosion, and regulate runoff from watersheds (Tomback, Arno, and Keane 10).

If the non-intervention strategy — the idea of man as guardian rather than gardener — is pursued, these trees may disappear or continue to decline, impacting the ecosystems in which they serve as a keystone species. Opponents of intervention may argue that this is a natural process and that maintaining "wild" values is an important principle (Garmestani and Allen 16). They may also argue that the outcomes of intervention can never be fully known, and that unexpected negative consequences may emerge that would not arise if nature were left alone (Garmestani and Allen 19). The crux of this disagreement lies in differing concepts of what is truly "natural" (Hobbs et al. 483).

The case of the whitebark pine is not isolated. 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). Without intervention, this process will occur unabated. To save the trees and the ecosystems considered primeval, there is a need for active management. It may be argued, however, that when the Act was introduced in 1964, many of these issues could not have been foreseen (Solomon 1). The knowledge of global warming and its potential impacts had not yet been developed, and the primary perceived threat from human activity was the construction of roads and the pursuit of commercial activities (Solomon 1).

Conclusion: Guardian and Gardener

It appears that some intervention is needed, and that in being a guardian of the wilderness, there is also a need to be a gardener. As seen with the case of the whitebark pines, to be a true guardian to the birds and mammals that rely on these trees, the role of gardener is essential. However, the need for intervention should be understood as an aid to nature in adapting, while minimising harm to ecosystems. A careful balance must be struck, and the actions seen at Bandelier Wilderness suggest that this shift has already begun to take place.

Works Cited

Cole, D. N. "Paradox of the Primeval: Ecological Restoration in Wilderness." Ecological Restoration 18.2 (2000): 77–86. Print.

Garmestani, Ahjond S., and Craig R. Allen. Social-Ecological Resilience and Law. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014. Print.

Hobbs, R. J., et al. "Guiding Concepts for Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Global Environmental Change." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8.9 (2010): 483–490. Print.

Long, E., and E. Biber. "The Wilderness Act and Climate Change Adaptation." Environmental Law 44 (2014): 623–694. Print.

Solomon, C. "Rethinking the Wild." The New York Times, 2014. Web.

Tomback, D. F., S. F. Arno, and R. E. Keane. Whitebark Pine Communities: Ecology and Restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2001. Print.

Wilderness Act. United States, 1964. Web.