The Wilderness Act of 1964: Its Background, History, and Consequences

HIST 3950 Term Paper Hannah Nadeau

Nadeau 1 In just under 200 years, the United States of America changed from being a society of resource plundering explorers to a society of devoted defenders, implementing a widespread variety of national policies for managing the use and protection of natural resources. In the 19th century, as a budding nation grew and conquered the frontier, most Americans were eager to develop, discover, and even destroypurposefully or accidentallythe resources they came into contact with. Slowly, enlightened individuals began to recognize importance of preserving and protecting Americas remaining resources for present and future generations. In the last 125 years, the federal government has created agencies, passed laws, and implemented policies in order to halt the wholesale destruction of spectacular land. However, once newly designated parks and forests became easily accessible with the dawn of the automobile age, it became obvious that further protection was necessary to prevent overuse and keep sections of public land as beautiful and untouched as possible. One of the most radical resource protection policies implemented in the 20th century set aside pristine public land to permanently halt any human development or destruction. This land protection legislation was The Wilderness Act of 1964. In order to understand the significance of the act, it is critical to become familiar with its history and discover how what was nearly an unachievable dream to a handful of individuals became reality for an entire nation. To successfully analyze and appreciate the journey towards wilderness preservation, we must travel back in history to discover the leadership and guidance provided by the founding fathers of environmentalism. Just as scientists base their research on already proven theories and judges make rulings based on previous court decisions, environmental policies are based on the influential philosophies of environmental advocates. Environmental historians must be aware of

Nadeau 2 the impact these individuals had, because without the perseverance of these dedicated individuals, there would be no Wilderness Act and potentially no wilderness to protect and enjoy. Often referred to as Father of the National Parks, John Muir was perhaps the most influential and widely recognized conservationist of the late 19th century. A first generation American, he had a successful career as a mechanical inventor before he was temporarily blinded. When he recovered his sight, he dedicated the rest of his life to exploring Americas breathtaking wonders, eager to utilize his reborn vision. He set off across the country to explore and discovered the splendor of Californias Sierra Nevada Mountains. Muirs newly discovered adoration of wild areas led him to urge for the protection of land, simply for the sake of its beauty. Muir urged for federal protection for Yosemite Valley in California, and it was eventually designated as a National Park in 1890. Soon after Yosemites designation, he founded the Sierra Cluban environmental special interest group which exists to this day as an organization devoted to continuing John Muirs philosophies of strict preservation.1 Muirs philosophy of preservation is important to understand because it served as the foundational principle for future wilderness designations. Muirs ideological rival, Gifford Pinchot, was known as the Father of Modern Forestry. As the first Chief of the Forest Service, Pinchot championed the multi-use theory of conservation, believing resources should be managed for the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest time, and stressed that no generation can be allowed needlessly to damage or reduce the future general wealth and welfare by the way it uses or misuses any natural

Hal K. Rothman. Saving the Planet: The American Response to the Environment in the Twentieth Century (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee publishing, 2000), 19-22

Nadeau 3 resource.2 Basically, Pinchot believed that natural resources should be used, but only in a manner which sustained them for the benefit of future generations. Muir and Pinchot both desired land protection, but the methods and intents of each of their protection ideals were fundamentally different. Eventually, both Muirs preservation philosophy and Pinchots utilitarian conservation philosophy became the foundation for two separate agencies: the US Forest Service in 1905 withPinchot as chiefand the National Park Service in 1916.3 The conservationist and naturalist, Aldo Leopold, is primarily well known for his book, A Sand County Almanac, in which he described the necessity for a land ethic. However, he was also a substantial figure in the wilderness preservation movement. As assistant forest supervisor in 1921, he wrote an article in response to a proposal to create a road through an area of Gila National Forest in New Mexico. Leopold agreed with the Forest Services philosophy of wiseuse but believed that it was critical to set aside primitive areas and protect them from development. He wrote that certain pristine and unique areas should be set aside in each forest in order to preserve land that would otherwise be overtaken from industrial development. Leopold recommended that a specific area of Gila National Forest be preserved as a wilderness area to set it aside as an example of the last remnants of untouched wilderness in the southwest. By 1925, Leopolds recommendations had found a place on the Forest Services agenda five roadless areas were set aside and several more were being considered for designation. As Leopold made suggestions in New Mexico, Arthur Carhart, another Forest Service employee, was also making recommendations for wilderness preservation in Minnesota. Carharts proposals were also
2

Gifford Pinchot. Breaking New Ground (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1947), 505. As referenced in The American Environment: Readings in the History of Conservation.
3

J. Douglas Wellman and Dennis B. Probst. Wildland Recreation Policy (Malabar, F.L.: Krieger Publishing Company), 98-104

Nadeau 4 approved in 1923, creating the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness within the Superior National Forest.4 In 1929, the L-20 regulation gave administrative protection to Forest Service wilderness lands. Many residents and foresters in the West believed that the L-20 regulation locked up land for development and protested the designations, but Aldo Leopold, Forest Service Chief Greeley, and Assistant Chief Kneipp continued to press for stiffer regulations and protection. Although the L-20 designations were not widely appreciated, they were a landmark event in wilderness preservation.5 An avid hiker, backcountry explorer, and wilderness aficionado, Robert Marshall took up the banner of wilderness preservation as he led the campaign to increase the protection afforded by wilderness designations. In 1930, he published The Problem of Wilderness. He claimed that wilderness had physical, mental, and aesthetic benefits and therefore devoted his life to protecting what he believed was the last remaining wilderness in America. After working for the Department of Interior as the Director of Forestry under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, he transferred to the Forest Service to become chief of the Recreation and Lands devision of the Forest Service. His devotion to wilderness preservation extended beyond his role as a government employee. In 1935, he formed The Wilderness Society along with fellow wilderness advocates including Aldo Leopold. With the backing of The Wilderness Society and other private organizations, Marshall succeeded in reforming the L-20 regulation in 1937. The new regulations were called U-regulations and required re-examining the land preserved under the L-20 guidelines and prohibited additional activities such as timber harvesting and future road
4 5

Wildland Recreation Policy, 161-162 Wildland Recreation Policy, 164

Nadeau 5 building.6 Although he died at the age of 39, Marshall left behind a legacy of dedication and perseverance as wilderness preservation became a tangible reality through his lifetime of devotion. It is important to note that the primary individualsLeopold, Carhart, and Marshall who urged for wilderness protection were employed by the Forest Service. Clearly, the Forest Service was steadily growing to accept wilderness recreation and preservation as an acceptable use. The Second World War brought any further progress towards wilderness designation to an abrupt halt. Instead of debating the merits of preservation and conservation, America was forced to resist the dangerous philosophies of global domination, devoting every spare resource to fight off the dastardly ideals of Nazism and Fascism. Once the war ended, and the country began to recover, Americans slowly returned to discussing what to do with their natural resources. One of the first major resource management controversies after WWII was the debate over water resources in Dinosaur National Monument. The Secretary of the Interior in the 1950s was pushing for the authorization of Echo Park Dam, which the Sierra Club claimed would needlessly destroy the value of the canyons within the monument. 7 The dedicated efforts of the Sierra Club were successful and the Colorado River remains free-flowing in Dinosaur National Monument to this day. However, the controversy served an additional, and perhaps even more important purpose: bringing natural resource protection back into the public attentionand one man was about to use this to advance federal protection of wilderness areas.

Craig W. Allin. The Politics of Wilderness Preservation (Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press, 1982), 80-83
7

Sierra Club Bulletin (February 1954), 3-9 As referenced in U.S. Environmentalism since 1945.

Nadeau 6 Howard Zahniser was a writer who began working for the US Department of Commerce, but eventually transferred to the USDAs Biological Survey to work as an editor, writer, and public relations specialist. In 1945, he became the executive secretary of the Wilderness Society and remained in that position until his death in 1964.8 As Wilderness Societys executive secretary, Zahniser took on the fiercest opponents of wilderness preservation. Using his talents as a writer and a speaker, he rose to the challenge of continuing the legacy of those who went before him, from the founding fathers of preservation and conservation, to some of the strongest proponents of wilderness including Leopold, Carhart, and Marshall. After the Echo Park Dam controversy, Zahniser began drafting the bill which would eventually become The Wilderness Act of 1964. The first draft was penned in 1956 and it was revised as Zahniser continued to recieve input from friends and associates in Washington. The proposed bill was intended to legislate a national wilderness preservation system to protect primitive areas. From 1956 onward, Zahniser constantly rewrote the bill in an attempt to include the perfect wording and garner the support of the Forest Service and the National Park Service.9 After re-writing the bill over 65 times, the bill was passed in 1964. Zahniser did more than simply rephrase the bill however. He attended hearings, addressed concerns, and listened to individuals who criticized the bill. He was faced with health problems, criticisms, and governmental roadblocks, but he pressed onward. Sadly, he did not live long enough to see the results of his dedication; he passed away only a few months before the bill was passed by Congress. On September 3rd, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed The Wilderness Act of
8

Mark Harvey. Wilderness Forever: Howard Zahniser and the Path to the Wilderness Act (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2005) X-XI
9

Wilderness Forever 186-187

Nadeau 7 1964 into law, legislating the process which has preserved millions of acres of wilderness on public land. The relatively concise act replaced the U-regulations of the Forest Service and permits the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to recommend portions of public land as potential areas for wilderness designation. Once the president approves the review and potential designation of these areas, he recommends their official preservation to Congress. As stated in the eloquent introduction of the act, [Wilderness], in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized 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. Therefore, human development, resource extraction, and use of motorized equipment, are prohibited to preserve the untrammeled qualities of isolated areas in public lands.10 John Muir once said, Wilderness is a necessity...They will see what I meant in time. The passage of the Wilderness Act showed that some did indeed see what he meant: Wilderness truly is a necessity if America is to provide a legacy for future generations to enjoy and treasure. However, substantial opposition to wilderness designations is not a thing of the past. Although many Americans still desire environmental protection and the preservation of public lands, many oppose wilderness designations. The Sagebrush Rebellion of the 80s seems to return to some extent whenever new wilderness areas are recommended or designated in the West, but somehow, wilderness preservation prevails each time and economic development is halted in its tracks. Today, as wilderness designations continue to be made, more notice is given to the field of environmental justice and opportunity as people begin to question the fairness of wilderness

10

The Wilderness Act. Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136) 88th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964

Nadeau 8 designations. After all, it is only logical that all Americans should have equal access to wilderness, but is it possible to provide fair access for all? Social ideas have changed and social problems have become evident since the 1960s, and these social situations must be addressed fairly as American land management becomes more focused and attempts to respond to a larger variety of issues. As populations increase and demographics change, agency managers must find a way to mitigate concerns and respond to the needs of the people as fairly as possible while they advance the legacy of the Wilderness Act and continue to shape the environmental history of resource preservation.