Wilderness Ideal
The development of the wilderness ideal dates back to the 19th century as a way of giving characteristics to the land that man had begun to exploit. Wetlands are a part of wilderness and as wilderness disappeared so did wetlands. Though, as people in America began civilizing the wilderness efforts to preserve and conserve the wilderness took shape.
The wilderness ideal is not only an escape for man and a way to find solitude in a chaotic world and is not only something that provides aesthetic or recreation, but the wilderness ideal now encompasses a place that can support diverse wildlife species. The Wilderness Act of 1964 marked an important time for wilderness preservation as large tracts of land and places that supported diverse life would be preserved. Also, wilderness would be a place where man would remain a guest not a resident that would help to preserve these wildlife species. The connection to wetlands and the Wilderness Act of 1964 is that it included watershed areas and it some ways did protect wetlands.
The development of environmental science and the role it plays in the wilderness ideal was popularized by Aldo Leopold, who brought focus and attention to watershed areas because of the immense amount of diverse life it supports. Biodiversity began to make its way into the wilderness ideal and the necessity of large tracts or big reserves to be preserved. The issue for wetlands: they were protected in The Wilderness Act of 1964 and they did support a large and diverse set of species yet they were forgotten. Wetlands were forgotten because they did not always provide the aesthetic beauty like the Yosemite Valley or areas like Glacier National Park nor were areas of wetlands large enough to be protected under The Wilderness Act. Further, wetlands have and continue to be places that can offer large economic opportunities for individuals and or corporations. Whether it’s used for timber, agriculture, or development of the land wetlands is continuing to disappear.
Donald Waller, in his essay, “Getting Back to the Right Nature”, discussed concepts of wild and wilderness and how we can rebuild human areas as well as rebuild wilderness that has been broken down and exploited by man. He does this by questioning, William Cronon’s ideas of protecting lands closer to home and unexciting areas of wilderness from Cronon's essay, “The Trouble with Wilderness”.
Waller argues that people who have concern for these lands closer to home like nearby oaks and wetlands will not only try to preserve these lands, but lands like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge which provides more biotic value. He goes on to give evidence of John Muir and Aldo Leopold who worked tirelessly to preserve not only small areas of land, but also large tracts of land like Yosemite Valley. But, Waller argues that these lands like the nearby oak or wetland is not actually wild because it differs from trees and wetlands in an ancient forest or ancient wetland and this tree or wetland has been changed by the city and people that surround the oak or wetland. It is not wild because its ecological and evolutionary make up has been changed. The species that inhabit these wetlands may be different and its make up is most notably going to be different. Thus these wetlands would not be wild according to Waller. If we do not consider these wetlands to be wild should we value these wetlands less than other areas of wetlands that have ancient heritage? The problem is wetlands have disappeared at such a large rate that we cannot give up the protection of wetlands that have changed in evolutionary context and that may not support the same type of organisms they once did. You could call these areas not wild, but that does not mean they do not need to be protected and even rebuilt if possible. Waller would not argue that these areas should not be protected, but he does not give them precedence and believes that certain lands have more value and it is far more pressing to protect certain areas over others. Small areas of land according to Waller fail to be able to handle natural disturbances unlike large tracts of land, which can handle natural disturbances while supporting large and more diverse sets of species. And if the most critical role of wilderness is one that adheres to the most scientific value then wetlands must not be forgotten. And if the wilderness ideal is yet again undergoing a change to encompass biotic values that differ from the aesthetic or recreational values then wetlands must be at the forefront of a new understanding of the wilderness ideal. Wetlands provide biotic value but not just in large tracts, but also in small, thus all areas of wetlands must be protected because too much damage has already been done. And to forget the smaller areas or the areas closer to home that may have been altered need protection just as those large tracts of wetland areas.
William Cronon brings to light in his essay, that the less sublime and mundane pieces of land seem to appear unworthy of protection. The Everglades in Florida for instance were not protected until 1940, and to this day we do have large areas of grasslands under federal protection. The protection and idealizing of only distant and grand wilderness comes at the expense of wilderness at home and specifically wetlands at home that have fallen victim to destruction. The wilderness ideal must fall in the middle between Waller and Cronon’s arguments and the middle is a place where we protect both the grand and distant wilderness, but also the wilderness close to home. All wildernesses large and small are important and it is up to all people to protect all areas of wilderness.
Further information on William Cronon: http://www.williamcronon.net/
William Cronon, “The Trouble with Wilderness” J. Bair Calicut and Michael P.Nelson, editors, The Great New Wilderness Debate (Athens: Univ. of Georgia Press, 1998).
Donald M. Waller, “Getting Back to the Right Nature” J. Bair Calicut and Michael P. Nelson, editors, The Great New Wilderness Debate (Athens: Univ. of Georgia Press, 1998).