Interpreting the Wilderness Act of 1964

• Author: Gordon Steinhoff
• Pages: 19-44

19

Chapter 2

Interpreting the

Wilderness Act of 1964

The Wilderness Act of 1964 includes a denition of w ilderness. e

rst sentence in the denition is probably the most frequently quoted

sentence from the Act:

A wilderness, i n contrast with those are as where man and his own works

dominate the la ndscape, 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.1

e meaning of “untrammeled by man” is, of course, critical and not obvi-

ous. is denition of wilderness is merely a denition; it does not provide

management direction. is denition in itself does not mandate the preser-

vation of untrammeled wilderness.

Explicit management direct ion is found in other sections of the Act. In a

later section, the Act states,

Except as otherwi se provided in this [Act], each agency ad ministering a ny

area designated as wilderness shal l be responsible for preserving the wilder-

ness character of the area and sh all so administer s uch area for such other

purposes for which it may have been est ablished as also to preserve its wilder-

ness character.2

Explicit management direction is also found in the Act’s opening statement

of policy, which states that wilderness areas

shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of t he American people in

such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as

wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preserva-

tion of their wilderness ch aracter....3

1. 16 U.S.C. §1131(c).

2. Id. §1133(c).

3. Id. §1131(a).

Note: is chapter is adapted from Interpreting the Wilderness Act of 1964, 17 M.

E. L.  P’ R. 492 (Summer 2010).

20 Naturalness and Biodiversity

e Act ma ndates the preser vation of wilderness character, but surpris-

ingly does not indicate what is meant by this expression. In this chapter, I

will discuss in deta il how wilderness character should be understood. It is a

rich concept, and cer tainly does justice to our intuitive idea of what w ilder-

ness is. Problems a rise, however, in the application of this concept in the

actual management of wilderness. As I will discuss, leaders in wilderness

management interpret the Wilderness Act as mandating preservation of only

limited aspects of wilderness character, or they interpret the Act as present-

ing contradictory requirements. In their interpretations, wilderness character

has been relegated to the role of an ideal that hopefully guides management

but is not required in management. Managers are a llowed and even encour-

aged to extensively manipulate w ilderness for desired ends. ere has been

much interference in natural processes and loss of naturalness. I will argue

that such interpretations are not accurate. I will argue for the contrary view:

the Wilderness Act requires the preservation of wilderness character in all its

richness, including natura l conditions with unhindered natural processes.

is is not merely a n ideal. I w ill conclude by joining with others in u rging

stricter adherence to the Wilderness Act.

Wilderness Character

As discussed in Chapter 1, “wilderness character” is best interpreted as refer-

ring to those properties that make up wilderness and distinguish it from

other kinds of land. Such an interpretation ts well with the meaning of

“character.”4 e constitutive and distinguishing properties of wilderness are

used to dene wilderness within the Wilderness Act. ese are t he essential

properties of wilderness. Again, without any one of them an a rea could not

be wilderness.

e denition of wilderness within the Act consists of two sentences. e

rst was written by Howard Zahniser, the primary author of the Wilderness

Act: “A wilderness ... is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and

its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visi-

tor who does not remain.”5 Zahniser purposively chose the word “untram-

meled,” which has led to much confusion. As will be discussed below,

“untrammeled” does not mean pristine. When the proposed legislation was

introduced into t he U.S. Congress, debated and revised, lawma kers sought

to clarify the denition. Sen. James Murray (D-Mont.), a lead sponsor of

4. M-W, available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/character.

5. 16 U.S.C. §1131(c).