Vermont Journal of Environmental Law

The Call and Meaning = of=20 Wilderness in a Time of Global Turmoil

Brandon Marx

May 7, 2002

"Wilderness is the antidote to an overurbanized,=20 supertechnological [geopolitically conflicted] age."

- Michael Frome, Battle for the Wilderness

"They stood in awe at the foot
Of the green = mountain. =20 Pleasure
Seemed to grow from fear for Gilgamesh.
As = when one=20 comes upon a path in woods
Unvisited by men, one is = drawn near=20
The lost and undiscovered in himself;
He was = revitalized by=20 danger."=20

- Epic of Gilgamesh[1]=20

Be it in catching a glimpse of the interstellar throws of = the=20 Perseus arm in our own Milky Way, or in a stroll through the = vernal=20 pools emerging from Vermont snows, humankind has always = sought=20 refuge in places wild. No one captured this call = of the=20 wild more gracefully than Henry David Thoreau, when he = proclaimed=20 "in wildness is the preservation of the world."[2] Thoreau's prophecy, perhaps = more than=20 ever before, rings true, as we all steep in the daily = ticker-tape of=20 warfare and its countless sufferings. And so, the = urgency=20 to experience wildness and to contemplate its beauty has = seen a=20 steady rise. On the empirical side of things, = numerous=20 studies have shown how walking in the wilds reduces blood = pressure=20 and stress, two essential ingredients on the road to = healing.[3] We also have the account of = the=20 esteemed wilderness sage himself, testifying to the = therapeutic and=20 spiritual effects of wilderness:

When I entered this sublime wilderness the day = was=20 nearly done, the trees with rosy, glowing countenances = seemed to=20 be hushed and thoughtful, as if waiting in conscious = religious=20 dependence on the sun, and one naturally walked softly and = awe-stricken among them. I wandered on, meeting nobler = trees where=20 all are noble, subdued in the general calm, as if in some = vast=20 hall pervaded by the deepest sanctities and solemnities = that sway=20 human souls.[4]

What exactly is wilderness, or the wildness in which the = seeds of=20 our own preservation are sown? One would think = the=20 concept of wilderness would not be cause for equivocation or = misinterpretation. Yet, the meaning of = wilderness, and=20 thus the implications for its designation and management = have been=20 ensnared in bureaucratic and philosophical debate since the=20 designation of the first wilderness area in 1924.[5]

In the Wilderness Act of 1964,[6] for example, there was much debate = over the=20 precise wording of the definition of wilderness.[7] The Act defines wilderness = "in contrast=20 with those areas where man and his own works dominate the = landscape=20 . . . as an area where the earth and its community of life = are=20 untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does = not=20 remain."[8] Douglas Scott, the policy = director of=20 the Pew Wilderness Center, recently investigated the = potential=20 weakening of the Act through a misreading of=20 untrammeled. He explains that the word trammel = has Latin=20 and Old French roots, "meaning a kind of net used to catch = fish or=20 birds."[9] Other definitions include=20 "unrestrained," "unrestricted," "unimpeded," "unencumbered," = and=20 "unconfined."[10] Yet, as Scott explains, = trammel is=20 often misconstrued as trample, which creates the erroneous=20 connotation that wilderness can only exist in areas that = have=20 hitherto been left untouched, unmanipulated, or undisturbed = by=20 man.[11]

Such a purist concept of wilderness reduces the amount of = land=20 eligible for designation. More importantly, a = purist=20 interpretation of wilderness was clearly not the intention = of the=20 Act's drafter, Howard Zahniser who stated,

The problem with [using instead] the word . . .=20 '[u]ndisturbed' is that most of these areas can be = considered as=20 disturbed by the human usages for which many of them are = being=20 preserved; . . . [t]he idea within the word 'Untrammeled' = of their=20 not being subjected to human controls and manipulations = that=20 hamper the free play of natural forces is the distinctive = one that=20 seems to make this word the most suitable one for its = purpose=20 within the Wilderness Bill.

Michael Frome explains Zahniser's choice of untrammeled = versus=20 undisturbed, pointing out that,=20

in this age of fallout there are no places left = on the=20 earth free of human disturbance, not even at the polar = icecaps *=20 Wilderness [rather] is where man's sounds, chemicals, and = other=20 byproducts of civilized life are not dominant. It can be = any area=20 where nature prevails or might prevail given the passage = of=20 time.[12]

Recently, a debate over the meaning and management of = wilderness=20 took root between the "wilderness manipulators" and those = who=20 advocate a "hands off" approach.[13] The manipulators, made up = of=20 conservation biologists like Michael Soul=C8 and Reed Noss, = and=20 wilderness managers from the various land management = agencies,=20 interpret the Act to require manipulations preserving or = restoring=20 the "natural conditions"[14] of wilderness = areas. They=20 dismiss the "hands off" approach with accusations that only=20 anthropocentric humanists favor such a position with a bias = toward=20 preserving "empty" alpine areas at the expense of the more=20 biodiverse lowlands.[15]

This is not a scientist versus lawyer debate,[16] although the vocal players fit = those=20 roles. As with most debates, there is science = supporting=20 both sides. The "hands off" group of wilderness=20 advocates, which is led by wilderness advocates like George = Nickas,=20 of Wilderness Watch, and Michael McCloskey of the Sierra = Club make=20 the case that wilderness is forever being abstracted from = its true=20 wild nature. This point was made most eloquently = by the=20 mountaineer-philosopher Jack Turner, in his recent book, The = Abstract Wild. McCloskey argues that the = manipulators=20 fail to appreciate the scientific and public value of = wilderness as=20 an unhumanized benchmark and, like economists, fashion = elaborate=20 webs of reductionist management techniques that often prove=20 maladaptive.[17] Scott Silver, the executive = director=20 of Wild Wilderness,[18] repeatedly explains that he = wishes the name=20 of his non-profit was not redundant, but unfortunately the = placement=20 of "wild" in front of wilderness is needed more than ever = today,=20 where recreation has become the new extractive industry for = land=20 managers with fewer receipts from the traditional industries = of=20 timber and hard-rock mining.[19] Thus, "hands off" does not = mean that=20 there should be no management whatsoever. Rather, = management should focus instead on achieving the = non-degradation and=20 solitude principles of the Act, not on engineering what we = envision=20 as being most "natural."

Philosophically speaking, "how much confidence can we = have=20 anymore in the supposition that a given association of = plants and=20 animals is "natural"?[20] McCloskey and Soul=C8 agree = that the=20 ecological theories based on nature achieving equilibrium = through=20 successional stages have been supplanted by dynamic = paradigms.[21] So for those who see no = inherent=20 value in wilderness qua wildness, it's interesting that this = recent=20 shift in theoretical paradigms favors dynamic chaos over = what the=20 majority of biologists believe will achieve wilderness qua = maximized=20 biodiversity. Soul=C8 is correct in pointing out = that the=20 goal of achieving what is most "natural" is one laid out by = lawyers=20 and bureaucrats.[22] And he is absolutely = correct in=20 describing the thrust of those seeking the hands off, or = "neglect"=20 approach, as he puts it, as anthropocentric humanists.[23] But he fails to acknowledge = the=20 practical merits behind supporting such neglect as an = initial step=20 in attaining maximal biodiversity.[24]

How many citizens in Atlanta, Georgia, New York City, = Portland,=20 Oregon, and Seattle, find solace in knowing that solitude = has not=20 been destroyed and abstracted by motorized=20 recreationists? These voters are a powerful=20 constituency. Why not placate them and in so = doing=20 accomodate the same group that is likely to support = biodiversity=20 corridors in more enlightened legislative efforts down the=20 road? What is fundamental, is that we all seek = refuge in=20 our sacred places during this time of global turmoil, and = try and=20 heal the deep wounds inflicted by so much = conflict. For=20 now, why not bow to the humanist project of protecting = wilderness=20 qua sacred wildness in hopes that we might be improved=20 thereby? We then might be empowered enough to = take the=20 next step of seeking a maximally biodiverse nation and = world.

Are the two positions mutually exclusive? No, = but they=20 conflict to the extent that the manipulators are willing to = make=20 political concessions that sacrifice solitude and = non-degradation in=20 the name of biodiversity; in one manner of speaking, = manipulators=20 favor the aesthetic of life and its services rather than = that of the=20 more austere, yet sublime places known to have a palliative = effect=20 on the human soul, not just for elitest, Patagonia- clad=20 mountaineers mind you, but for anyone with the spirit to put = on a=20 pair of boots and adventure. With all due respect = to=20 Soul=C8 and Noss and our wilderness managers, lets keep our = tinkering=20 to a minimum, for every time we tinker we further abstract = the wild,=20 especially when it means introducing exotic species vectors = like=20 snowmobiles and roads to achieve our manipulative ends.

______________=20

[1] Herbert Mason, Gilgamesh A Verse = Narrative (1970)=20 cited in Max Oelschlaeger, The Idea of Wilderness: From = Prehistory=20 to the Age of Ecology 39 (1991).=20

[2] Henry David Thoreau, Walking (1862).=20

[3] Charles Sourby, The Relationship Between=20 Therapeutic Recreation and Palliation in the Treatment of = the=20 Advanced Cancer Patient (7/2/1998) available at http://www.recreationt= herabpy.com/rt.html.=20

[4] John Muir, National Parks 325 (1913).=20

[5] Michael McCloskey, The Wilderness Act = of 1964,=20 It's Background and Meaning, 45 Or. L. R. 288, 296 = (1966)=20 [hereinafter McCloskey I]; Douglas W. Scott, = "Untrammeled,"=20 "Wilderness Character," and the Challenges of Wilderness=20 Preservation, 11 Wild Earth 72 (Fall / Winter 2001 - = 2002)=20 [hereinafter Scott].=20

[6] For a list of the bills leading up to the = final=20 passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act, see McCloskey, = supra=20 note 5, at n. 40.=20

[7] Scott, supra note 5, at 72.=20

[8] 78 Stat. 890-896, =A7 2(c) (1964) = (codified at 16=20 U.S.C. 1131-1136 (1965)). (emphasis supplied).=20

[9] Scott, supra note 5, at 74.=20

[10] Id.=20

[11] Id.=20

[12] Michael Frome, Battle for the = Wilderness 12=20 (1974).=20

[13] J. Baird Callicott, Michael P. Nelson,=20 Introduction to the Great New Wilderness Debate 1 (J. Baird=20 Callicott, Michael P. Nelson eds., 1998). The "hands off" = group=20 relies on the language in the definition section of the Act, = section=20 2(c) to support its position of limited human manipulation = of wild=20 areas.=20

[14] 78 Stat. 890 =A7 2 (a).=20

[15] Michael E. McCloskey, Changing Views = of What=20 the Wilderness System is All About, 76 DENV U. L. REV. = 369, 373=20 (1999) [hereinafter McCloskey II].=20

[16] But see, Michael E. Soul=C8, The = Social=20 Siege of Nature in Reinventing Nature 161 (Michael E. Soule, = Gary=20 Lease eds., 1995) [hereinafter Reinventing Nature].=20

[17] McCloskey II, supra note 15, at = n. 43, 55,=20 56 citing David N. Cole, Peter B. Landres, Threats to = Wilderness=20 Ecosystems: Impacts and Research Needs, 6 Ecological=20 Applications 168 , 179, 180 (1996).=20

[18] See generally http://www.wildwilderness.org/.This=20 is a common introduction for Mr. Silver at his many speaking = engagements.=20

[19] Jan G. Laitos and Thomas A. Carr, = The=20 Transformation of Public Lands, 26 Ecology L.Q. 140, = 152-60=20 (1999).=20

[20] McClosky II, supra note 15 at = 380.=20

[21] See also Reinventing Nature, = supra=20 note 16, at 159-60.=20

[22] Id.=20

[23] Id.