Dear HCN,
The article on the 40th
anniversary of the Wilderness Act (HCN, 3/3/03: The Wild Card) gave
readers the impression that, until recently, conservationists
always advocated multi-area wilderness legislative packages, that
the supposed slowdown in wilderness designation is something new,
and that compromises of the Wilderness Act have been routine (and
desirable) since 1964. Such a view is misleading at best, downright
inaccurate at worst, and is not what I have experienced over the
past 25 years of wilderness advocacy.
There have always
been slow periods in wilderness designation. Between 1965 and 1974,
about 2 million acres were added to the system. Between 1993 and
2002, about 14 million acres were added.
In his book, The
Politics of Wilderness Preservation, Craig Allin notes with regard
to the forest service’s RARE II wilderness recommendations,
“Preservationists preferred an area by area approach …”
Multi-area wilderness bills have been as much a result of industry
wanting a final solution to the wilderness question as they were
visionary wilderness proposals from conservationists.
Since about 1980, there has been an increasing number of weakening
exceptions in wilderness legislation, and that trend has
accelerated in the past decade, with some conservationists
supporting those exceptions. Recent language in bills that promote
motorized vehicle use for wildlife management purposes and for
access to inholdings are examples of the problem. While many bills
have not followed that negative trend, it seems our generation may
see the transition from wild wilderness to windshield
wilderness.
I fear the greatest threat to wilderness today
may be from the conservation movement itself. Recently, our
movement has been seduced by the lust for the appearance of success
at the expense of wilderness.
Gary Macfarlane
Troy, Idaho
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline From wild to windshield wilderness.

