By Michael Hoyt, Corvallis
Every day it is becoming more apparent that our planet’s wild lands must be preserved if the human species is to survive. Those lands filter the water we drink, help supply the oxygen we breathe, and buffer changes to the climate.
Wilderness areas contribute to the lifeblood of our planet. Unlike some, I do not believe that humans should stay out of wilderness areas except when conducting research. Unless we all have a vested interest in the survival of wild lands — something best gained by visitation — wilderness will continue to disappear at an ever-increasing pace.
However, visitation does not mean access by any means available. If designated Wilderness and places designated as Wilderness Study Areas are to remain as wild as the legislation intended, access must be limited to those methods that do not significantly change the wild lands or the plants and animals that reside there.
The existing legislation for Wilderness and Study Areas is ambiguous in its wording and is often interpreted in drastically different ways. Because of that ambiguity, it falls upon our courts to determine meaning. So, the Forest Service should not be condemned for following the direction of court cases that stipulate exactly what actions should be taken regarding Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas. If fault must be placed, it should be with the legislation and not with the agency instructed by a court decision to act in a specific way.
Each of us shares the responsibility — acknowledged or not — for ourselves, our families, peers, the society that supports us, and the earth as a whole.
Given the importance that wild lands and wild things play in our survival on this planet, it’s far past time for humans to stop attempting to reshape nature for the sole purpose of satisfying OUR demands. It is time to begin learning how to moderate our way of living and fit smoothly into the biophysical limits that nature and the earth provide.
If an individual accepts responsibility and understands the extreme importance of untamed wild lands to the survival of all forms of life on our planet, it is reasonable to err on the side of overprotection, even if that means accepting that some modes of travel in Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas are eliminated.