The Last Frontier:

The Deceptive Protection of the National Wilderness

National Wilderness is. . .  “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

- 1964, National Wilderness Act

The national wilderness encopasses 106 million acres of national forest and park (“Wilderness”). With the massive amount of land controlled by the forest service, it is important to examine how that land is cared for. The Organic Act of 1916, clearly stated the purpose of the national park service is to conserve the land and its resources and leave them unimpaired for future generations (United States “History...”). Those 106 million acres of land, are the inheritance of future generations. If that land is not protected, then there is no more untouched land and there are no more available resources to draw from. The recent push for outdoor activities have greatly affected that land. The rugged sections are becoming polluted with the footprints of the environmentally unconscious. As the national wilderness is slowly being stripped of its natural worth, is the forest service accomplishing its goal? Is man just a visitor in the vast wilderness? Although national parks and forests were originally intended to protect wilderness areas, federal land management has taken away the natural ruggedness of the land by the ever-increasing infrastructure, the disruption of the wildlife, and an over-emphasis on visitor experience.

Scarring the national wilderness areas, forest and park roads take away from the natural beauty of the wilderness as they damage each facet of the environment. In Yellowstone National Park, 80% of the park roads, as of 2015, do not have the capacity or the quality withhold the use they receive (United States. “Road Construction and Delays”). This lack of quality road infrastructure increases delays in national parks as well as decreasing the aesthetic appeal. Roads themselves have high environmental impacts to the water runoff, chemical balance of the soil, and the vegetation (Ament, Clevenger, Yu, and Hardy 480-496). These environmental effects of roads do great damage to the visible environment, but also the health of the microenvironment. The high traffic that some national areas receive creates habitat fragmentation which includes animal death by vehicles and the disruption animal routines (Daigle 65-89). Not only are roads a disruption the the visitors and landscape, but they also disturb the animal population and raise the animal mortality rate. The roads that fill the national wilderness areas diminish the aesthetic appeal of the area while doing great damage to each individual part of the ecosystem.

The addition of campsites and lodging to national wilderness areas takes away from the primitivity of the land, as well as leaving a large impact on the surrounding environment. Leung and Marion found that any visible camping sites or backcountry impacts attracted further overnight use ending up in multiplicative environmental strain (193-203). The continued use of campgrounds in national parks stresses the environment and decreases the rugged feel of the park. The continued overnight usage of wilderness areas disrupts the surrounding wildlife, which in turn decrease the visitor’s park experience (“Top Ten Issues...”). The mass camping sites and overnight lodges appease visitors, but they take away from the isolated, natural feel. Hamed and Laughlin found that 25.6 small mammals (per km) were killed by litter and trash containers, in Cherokee National Forest (506-515). The environmental footprint from overnight usage is extremely detrimental to the well being of the surrounding wildlife. Campsites and lodging in national wilderness areas are a harm to the environment.

The over visitation of parks disrupts the wildlife’s natural lifestyle and decreases the number of wildlife sighting. S. L. Burton studied Denali National Park and found that as vehicle traffic increased on the main road, moose sighting decreased and the distance at which Dall Sheep were sighted also decreased (146). The constant visitation of an area changes the natural patterns of the wildlife as they attempt to find places with fewer human interruptions. Repetitive human use of an area for logging, caused small animals to move from the area to nearby, non invaded habitat (Lindenmayer, D.B., et al. 2070 - 2078). Any repetitive human use, especially ones of high environmental impact will force the wildlife into a less disturbed area. Crait, Regehr, and Merav found a struggling Yellowstone food chain between lake trout and river otters, caused by  invasive species introduced from tourists (596-605). The tourist market creates destructive opportunities that can lead to the endangerment of some species. All in all, the massive human footprint on national parks disrupt the animal's natural environment which decreases the wildlife sighting in wilderness areas.

Visitors in a wilderness area often harm the local wildlife and put themselves in danger by their environmental footprint. There have been 45 bear related injuries in Yellowstone National Park alone (United States, NPS, “Bear Inflicted Human Injuries…”), and that number is combined with many yearly Bison injuries. These yearly injuries from wildlife are caused by human carelessness. “A fed bear is a dead bear” (United States, NPS, “Bear Inflicted Human Injuries…”). Because of the accessibility of up close nature experiences, ignorant visitors can do great harm to the animals, to themselves, and to future visitors by simply welcoming an animal to human environment. Not only large animals are affected, but small mammals are also affected by the carelessness of visitors (Hamed and Laughlin 506-516). There are areas such as Denali National Park that require safety training and safety equipment, especially about animals to insure the safety of the animals and the visitors. Without proper training, ignorant visitors can harm the environment and themselves.

Focused on visitor experience, national parks and forests disturb the environment by helping visitors easily visit scenic destinations through buses, trams, and motor-vehicles. Borkowski noticed the behavioral response of Bison and Elk in Yellowstone to snowmobiles and snow carriages often resulted in disruption and defense (1911). The focus on appealing visitors often puts the animals in vulnerable positions as their daily patterns are throw into disorder. Many parks are beginning to integrate public transportation to reduce traffic, but Monz suggests that these public transportation systems affect the physical environment and the ecosystem structure (27-35). While they may improve visitor experience, the massive waves of crowds bring a massive environmental footprint at each delivery. The major emphasis on visitor satisfaction has created an environmental impact.

The national parks and forests do not separate between hard and soft ecotourism which gives to much responsibility to one side and is not lenient enough with the other. Finnessey defines soft ecotourism as, “tourists without a deep understanding of environmental issues and who are more focused on their needs and wants than those of the environment.” Soft tourists are the majority of the visitors at national parks. The ignorance of soft tourism catalyzes the problems facing parks and forest. Education for those people, would protect the environment and the tourists themselves. Finnessey also defines hard ecotourism as, “tourists that have a strong connection to the environment and believe their activities should “enhance the resource base”.” These tourists are conscious of the environment. However, they face many restrictions preventing further exploration and enjoyment of the national wilderness. More opportunity for hard ecotourists would be a reward and it would motivate others to have a similar outlook. The separation of these two groups would help conserve the environment and promote clean tourism.

Hayes and Porter-Bolland both have shown that locally managed land has been better at conserving and protecting the land’s resources (2064-2075), (6-17). So why does the forest service have so much power in determining how our land is handled? Dilsaver and Wyckoff determined that there is a domino effect in developing the infrastructure of a national park (75-92). The more infrastructure is build, the more supplementary infrastructure is required. So as each national park and forest takes small steps in developing opportunities and access for visitors, the domino effect continues. So as the recreational boom continues to advance, the national wilderness continues to be tamed. How long will this violation of the last natural land take place? Maybe it is time for a conservative approach to maintaining this valuable land. Although they are supposed to protect and conserve the national land, the national forest and park services are enabling the devaluation of the national wilderness because of the growing infrastructure, the over focus on visitor satisfaction, and disturbance of the wildlife.

Works Cited:

Ament, Rob, Anthony P. Clevenger, Olivia Yu, and Amanda Hardy. "An Assessment of Road Impacts on Wildlife Populations in U.S. National Parks." Environmental Management 42.3 (2008): 480-96. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.  

Borkowski, John J., et al. "Behavioral Responses of Bison and Elk in Yellowstone to Snowmobiles and Snowcoaches." Ecological Applications 2006: 1911. JSTOR Journals. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.

Burson, S. L., et al. "The Effect of Vehicle Traffic on Wildlife in Denali National Park." Arctic 2000: 146.JSTOR Journals. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.

Crait, Jamie R., Eric V. Regehr, and Merav Ben-David. "Indirect Effects Of Bioinvasions In Yellowstone Lake: The Response Of River Otters To Declines In Native Cutthroat Trout." Biological Conservation 191.(2015): 596-605. ScienceDirect. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.

Daigle, Patrick. “A summary of the environmental impacts of roads, management responses, and research gaps: A literature review.” BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management 10. (2010): 65-89. Web. 10, Dec. 2015

Dilsaver, Lary M., and William Wyckoff. "Regular Article: Agency Culture, Cumulative Causation And Development In Glacier National Park, Montana." Journal Of Historical Geography 25.(1999): 75-92. ScienceDirect. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.

Finnessey, Lauren. "The Negative Effects of Tourism on National Parks in the United States." Johnson & Wales University, 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

!!!!Gundersen, Vegard, et al. "Linking Visitor Motivation With Attitude Towards Management Restrictions On Use In A National Park." Journal Of Outdoor Recreation And Tourism 9.(2015): 77-86.ScienceDirect. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

9 Hayes, Tanya M. “Parks, People, And Forest Protection: An Institutional Assessment Of The Effectiveness Of Protected Areas.” World Development 34. (2006): 2064-2075 ScienceDirect. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.

10 Hamed, M. Kevin, and Thomas F. Laughlin. "Small-Mammal Mortality Caused By Discarded Bottles And Cans Along A US Forest Service Road In The Cherokee National Forest." Southeastern Naturalist 14.3 (2015): 506-516. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.  

11 Leung, Y, and Marion, Jeffrey. "Regular Article: Characterizing Backcountry Camping Impacts In Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA." Journal Of Environmental Management 57. (1999): 193-203. ScienceDirect. Web. 20 Oct. 2015.

12 Lindenmayer, D.B., et al. "Small Mammals And Retention Islands: An Experimental Study Of Animal Response To Alternative Logging Practices." Forest Ecology And Management 260.(2010): 2070-2078. ScienceDirect. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

13 Monz, Christopher, et al. "The Ecological Implications Of Visitor Transportation In Parks And Protected Areas: Examples From Research In US National Parks." Journal Of Transport Geography 51.(2016): 27-35. ScienceDirect. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

14 Porter-Bolland, Luciana, et al. "Community Managed Forests And Forest Protected Areas: An Assessment Of Their Conservation Effectiveness Across The Tropics." Forest Ecology And Management 268.Multiple Use of Tropical Forests: From Concept to Reality (2012): 6-17. ScienceDirect. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.

"Top Ten Issues Facing the National Parks -- National Geographic." National Geographic. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.

United States. National Park Service. "Bear Inflicted Human Injuries and Fatalities in Yellowstone." National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 09 Dec. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2015. <http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/injuries.htm>.  

United States. National Park Service. "History (U.S. National Park Service)."National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 07 Dec. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

United States. National Park Service. "Road Construction and Delays."National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 08 Dec. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2015. <http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/roadclosures.htm>.

"Wilderness." Wilderness. National Park Service, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2015. <http://wilderness.nps.gov/faqnew.cfm>.