Introduction

Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act defines Wilderness, in part, “as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man…” Remaining untrammeled is a key quality that differentiates designated Wilderness from other undeveloped lands. To be untrammeled means that natural processes in Wilderness are left free to function without intentional human interference and manipulation. Protecting Wilderness as untrammeled landscape is a key statutory intent of the Wilderness Act.

The Act further defines wilderness as “an area to be “protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable…” The Act envisioned the Wilderness system to be governed by natural processes, retaining its “primeval character and influence…” The hands-off approach directed by the Act provides that management decisions and activities must strive to minimize the level of human interference in the Wilderness ecosystem.

Despite the statutory intent that Wilderness be self-willed or self-shaping landscape, a variety of intentional human manipulations do take place in Wilderness, many of them unrelated to protecting Wilderness character. Examples of common manipulations include fish stocking, fire management, wildlife transplants, endangered species management, management of game populations, predator control, and invasive weeds and insect infestations.

Limited manipulation under certain circumstances may be acceptable if the project is necessary for the administration of the Wilderness, i.e. if its purpose is to preserve the area’s Wilderness character. An example is manipulation needed to preserve the presence of a threatened or endangered species. All proposals that include the manipulation of natural processes in wilderness should be supported by an environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and include public involvement. Approved projects should be carried out through Wilderness-compatible means, with any proposal for motorized equipment or permanent installations subject to a rigorous minimum requirement / minimum tool review.

Manipulation of natural processes in Wilderness is becoming increasingly common. This trend can be partly attributed to ambiguity concerning whether some actions result in more harm or more benefit to an area’s Wilderness character. Examples of such dilemmas include whether to use herbicides in Wilderness to combat non-native invasive plants and weeds, and proposals to poison lakes and streams to remove non-native introduced fish in order to re-introduce non-endangered native fish species.

The Wilderness Act does not direct managers to restore conditions that may have existed in the past, before the area was designated Wilderness. Managers often interpret the phrase “natural conditions” to mean ecological conditions that existed prior to white settlement. This interpretation is often used to justify a wide variety of manipulations on the premise that we must intervene to return an area to its natural condition. Such an interpretation implies that Wilderness is a static museum piece, managed as a replica of a certain snapshot in time, rather than as a product of dynamic natural processes that continue shaping the existing landscape.

To assure that wild, self-willed landscape continues to exist, it is critical that every proposal for artificial manipulation in Wilderness be carefully weighed to assess whether the action is really necessary for protection of Wilderness character, in other words, do the ends justify the means?