IS "WILDERNESS" AN OUTMODED CONCEPT?

The concept of Wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act and as was understood by those who are responsible for there being a Wilderness Preservation system today, is as valid as ever.

Wilderness was never about saving trees. It was never about preserving biodiversity and it sure as heck had nothing to do with preventing grazing.... though many would prefer that the Wilderness Act did have much more to do with all of those things. The Act contains almost no reference to biological values and none to biodiversity. So, on those topics, the Wilderness Act never had much to offer. Perhaps you view that as the basis for now saying that the concept of wilderness is outmoded.... but please don't forget to acknowledge that the concept of what Wilderness should be to some is at odds with the purposes for which Wilderness was established.

There are many of us who would still defend those original purposes.... even if Abbey said that such defense was unnecessary. There is no denying that the ecosystems on this planet are in flux -- including those found within designated Wilderness. But all ecosystems have, for all of time, been in flux. That is the nature of this planet and would be its nature even if humans did not themselves contribute to flux. What the Wilderness Act provides, is a clear (albeit imperfect) statement that Man would not go into areas protected by this act and deliberately manipulate the land, or attempt to freeze conditions in some preferred state or bring about some other, currently non-existent, desired state.

The Wilderness Act's purpose is to assure that in a world with increasing population, expanding settlement and growing mechanization, some parts would not remain beyond the DELIBERATE reach of manipulative Man --- even though the impact of Man might waft over those protected areas.

The founders of the Wilderness Act never hoped that all of the biological pieces would be housed within a Wilderness Preservation System. They never attempted to establish such a museum or ecosystem repository. They set out to ensure that for all times and for all generations to come, there would exist places on this planet where Man would be humble, where man could come only as a visitor to experience a milieu that operated differently than did the rest of the world.

It is possible that we may screw up ever last inch of this planet. We as a species may now choose to deliberately attempt to manipulate the oceans or the atmosphere in an effort to regulate climatic conditions and fix the problems we've helped create. We may try to maintain certain forests or grasslands so as to "restore" them to some former condition that we happen to like. We may try to "promote" forest conditions that are anticipatory of future climatic conditions --- conditions we think will someday prevail. We may try to do all of that and it might be fair to assume that some manipulations will succeed while others will fail. In Wilderness, if we remain true to the original concept, we will do NONE of those things. We will permit the forces of nature to do their own thing. And while we may be perverting the forces of nature on a global scale and our perversions may indeed be impacting Wilderness we will, if we respect Wilderness, refrain from manipulating at least that one specially designated portion of this planet.

There are currently a little over 100 million acres of such Wilderness or about 10 times more than was originally protected in 1964. When we've done our experiments on all of the rest of the planet, those few acres of protected lands may (or may not) serve as a nucleus for re-establishing a viable planet once again. Will those few acres be enough? --- perhaps not. Would we be better protected against such disasters if we had many more protected acres including much greater biodiversity? Absolutely. Should we, if required, SACRIFICE or FORFEIT the original purpose for which we have a Wilderness Preservation System if so doing increases the chances that protected Wilderness lands might re-seed the world for a fresh beginning? My short answer is NO --- we should not.

There is much confusion within our community about what is the value of Wilderness and why do we even have a Wilderness Preservation System. There is, likewise, confusion as to WHAT is being preserved. There are some (including some within our community) who don't much care for that original Wilderness concept. There are a growing number of activists within the conservation community who have come to look upon Wilderness Designation as a tool that can be used for a variety of purposes ranging from kicking cows off public lands, to saving old-growth trees, to creating motorized-free recreation zones, to landing a PEW grant.

Correct me if my understanding of the history of the Wilderness Act is incorrect, but here's how I look at Wilderness. Here's what I believe was in the minds of those who left us this legacy. I say:

Wilderness is a place, a path, a portal where those who are prepared can throw off their encumbrances and reconnect with their humanity. If you believe that I got that even vaguely correct, then perhaps you'll agree that wilderness is really not such an outmoded concept.

A MESSAGE FROM CANDIDATE SCOTT SILVER

Since 1991, I have served as the Executive Director of Wild Wilderness -- a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization. Wild Wilderness is strictly prohibited from endorsing candidates and nothing in this message should be construed as an endorsement. This message is of importance to the supporters of Wild Wilderness and I encourage you to read on to learn what is happening.

On February 8th, I declared my candidacy as a Democratic candidate running for the US House of Representatives in Oregon's 2nd Congressional District. If I win the primary in May, I will go on to face incumbent Greg Walden in the general election. Between now and the primary election, I intend to serve Wild Wilderness and its supporters as I have long done. Wild Wilderness' Board Members will be providing additional assistance during this period to ensure that all of Wild Wilderness' work is accomplished.

If I should lose in May, my Wild Wilderness efforts will resume as if nothing had ever happened. If I should win the primary, it may become necessary to streamline my Wild Wilderness work. As for what might happen following the November election .... that's a long way away. I am using two e-mail addresses for communication unrelated to Wild Wilderness. The addresses are:

scott@scottsilver.org

scott@silverforcongress.org

There is also a campaign website. I thank everyone for the support they have given Wild Wilderness. No matter what happens in the campaign, I would like to assure you that Wild Wilderness will continue to represent your interests.

Scott