By Heather MacSlarrow, Conservation Director
Years of Wilderness
Summit Lake, looking into the Mount Evans Wilderness. Photo by Janice Bennett
Preservation vs. Extraction
I
n 1492, when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, the lands now comprising the United States of America were inhabited by peoples who lived very close to natural systems. Some tribes subsisted on hunting and gathering, essentially dispersing the impact of their use across vast expanses. Some built longhouses and managed fisheries, containing human use to aquatic zones. And some cultivated crops and thinned forests, operating as an understated precursor to modern day land management agencies. Even with this use, Europeans found a continent largely driven by natural processes and rife with wildlands. Less than 500 years later, only 2% of the 2-billion-acre landmass of the U.S. would remain undeveloped, and a human population estimated to be as low as 1 or 2 million would grow to over 200 million (present-day population is more than 300 million). European settlers, accustomed to smaller territories long turned agrarian, viewed these stretches of unbroken woodlands as foreboding, even sinister, something to be tamed and utilized for resources from which to build the new life they sought. This rela18
Trail & Timberline
tionship with the land around us can still be seen today in our manicured lawns, paved parks, and successful timber and oil industries. European settlement introduced individual land ownership, reinforced houses, vast clearing and ploughing operations, and large town construction projects. In 1900, one of the first public preservation vs. extraction debates emerged. The City of San Francisco, growing rapidly, was interested in damming the Hetch Hetchy to augment the municipal water supply. The Hetch Hetchy, being located in Yosemite National Park, was a public good. John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club and widely renowned as one of America’s founding conservationists, fought long and hard to protect the Hetch Hetchy. In the end, although the valley was dammed, a preservation movement had begun. When the United States Forest Service (USFS) and National Park Service (NPS) were created (in 1905 and 1916 respectively), they were the first established public preservation and management systems in the U.S. Even their creation personified the push/pull of extraction and preservation— their dichotomy of purpose was written into agency legislation. The mission of the USFS is: “To sustain the health, diversity,
and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.” The NPS is tasked to: “Conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of future generations.” While it is obvious that meeting the needs of present and future generations requires a healthful resource, there is no easy answer as to what constitutes such a thing. How much productivity should be pursued? Does more enjoyment happen in a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)-built lodge or an open meadow? As the nation continued to grow, pressure on public lands and the preservation vs. extraction debate grew also. National parks became an ever-increasing public attraction, sparking a phase of intense development of recreation infrastructure in parks, especially after the invention of the automobile. Suddenly roads pierced to the heart of the wilds, and rustic lodges and chalets dotted the backcountry. In response, during the 1930s, conservation ethics were introduced into public land management. Interior Secretary Harold Ickes pushed to establish national parks that would be managed as wilderness as opposed to recreation meccas. The Everglades, Kings Canyon,
