60 Years since the Wilderness Act

“The wonder of Nature is the treasure of America.”

These words opened US President Lyndon Johnson’s message to the 89^th Congress’ first session in February 1965, announcing the passage of the Wilderness Act. Signed a few months before, the act created the National Wilderness Preservation System and designated federal lands across the nation as wild areas to be protected from human incursion. It defined wilderness as “an area where earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” Johnson’s capitalized “Nature” evokes the sublime, mystical meaning attached to wilderness when the act came into being, a meaning rooted deeply in a culture of conservationist and preservationist rhetoric spanning back to the 1800s. The act remains crucial for the continued protection of so-called wild areas in the US, yet cultural interpretations of wilderness have also adjusted to modern times. What has been the lasting impact of the Wilderness Act? How has the meaning of wilderness changed over the years? Would we still define nature with a capital ‘N’ as President Johnson did?

Wilderness and Its History

Lyndon Johnson was not the first President to be interested in saving America’s wilderness. Famously, Theodore Roosevelt was a naturalist and pioneer of the conservationist movement, creating a lasting legacy of federally protected natural resources. The notion of protecting wilderness became a federal-level practice in the era of Roosevelt’s presidency (1901-1909) with the formation of the US Forest Service, multiple National Parks, and the Antiquities Act (creating the new classification of National Monuments), which laid the foundation for future, more integrated federal systems of nature protection.

This developing federal system of nature protection was driven by growing societal concerns about preserving the beauty and practical uses of American nature towards the end of the 19^th and the beginning of the 20^th century, particularly in the face of accelerating US industrial growth. Preservationist and conservationist groups emerged to protect the nation’s so-called wild and untouched areas from industrial and corporate encroachment, though they differed in both their philosophies and goals. Preservationists, unlike conservationists (the two terms are sometimes mistakenly used interchangeably), aimed to protect wildlife and natural landscapes for their ecological, aesthetic, and recreational value, advocating for the complete safeguarding of these areas from human interference. Conversely, conservationists sought to manage and conserve natural resources in a way that aligned with the nation’s economic growth, emphasizing responsible use rather than strict preservation and balancing environmental protection with the nation’s industrial development.

Although preservationist and conservationist factions had been active since the late 19^th century, it was not until the mid-20^th century that their persistent pressure for stronger nature protection laws at the national level culminated in the creation of the Wilderness Act. The real impetus for this federal statute came from post-World War II era population growth and industrial expansion, which heightened fears that American wilderness would quickly disappear. Even then, it took over sixty drafts to agree on a legal definition of wilderness due to the conflicting demands of conservationist and preservationist interests. While the Wilderness Act was primarily researched and written by Howard Zahniser and Margaret Murie of the Wilderness Society (a leading preservationist organization), both factions felt a sense of ownership over the legislation despite having often diverging interpretations of its aims. Conflicting priorities between these groups would frequently lead to tension over subsequent environmental policies. One notable clash occurred in 1968 over the proposed dams on the Colorado River, where preservationists and other environmental advocates opposed large-scale water projects that threatened natural landscapes.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 primarily empowered Congress to designate federal lands as wilderness areas. This process involves the introduction of bills proposing new designations, which Congress then considers. If approved, the classification of a wilderness area prohibits commercial activities, motorized access, and infrastructure construction within its boundaries. Currently, four federal agencies administer these protected federal lands under the system established by the Act: the Forest Service (FS), the National Park Service (NPS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). When the Act was first passed in 1964, it designated over 9.1 million acres of federal land as wilderness. Since then, more than 100 additional wilderness laws have been enacted, expanding the total protected area to 111.7 million acres by 2024. Sixty years after its creation, the Act remains vital to preserving and protecting the United States’ natural resources.

Concerns, Criticism, and Controversy

The Act has since spurred important developments in protecting natural landscapes and vulnerable ecosystems in the US, although federally protected areas are not entirely free from threats. In 1980, for example, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act was passed, in part due to pressure from preservationist pioneer Margaret Murie. This legislation designated over 100 million acres of Alaskan federal land as wilderness, home to a wide array of species, including caribou, polar bears, musk oxen, and more than 100 bird species. However, despite its protection under national law, parts of this federal land became vulnerable to oil and gas extraction due to a provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act promoted during the Trump administration (2016-2020). The federal government, therefore, continues to grapple with balancing resource extraction and environmental protection – an evolution of the historical struggle between preservationists and conservationists.

At the same time, since the Wilderness Act’s establishment in 1964, there has been a growing, more intersectional understanding of global environmental challenges. The Act, along with preservationist and conservationist movements more broadly, has faced criticism for perpetuating a colonial and discriminatory legacy in designating ‘wild’ areas. Using terms like “unspoiled rivers” and “virgin wilderness” to describe regions once inhabited by Native American populations, for instance, effectively erases their presence and land rights. In recent years, calls for a more inclusive redefinition of wilderness have grown louder. Environmental justice organizations have pointed out the inherent racism of conservation culture, particularly in how it adheres to a white, elitist perspective on who gets to define wilderness. The marginalization is harmful, as it often excludes indigenous knowledge of land stewardship and limits access to wilderness to the economic and social elite. Organizations like the Bob Marshall Wilderness Foundation are working to address these gaps in wilderness management, seeking to redefine what intersectional, eco-social relationships with nature can and should look like.

Legacy

The Wilderness Act aimed to secure “for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.” The rhetoric of protecting nature for future generations remains familiar and more relevant than ever, often invoked by governments, organizations, and individuals calling for environmental protection. However, changing interpretations of the Act reflect how American attitudes toward ecological preservation have evolved. The romanticized, distant, capital “N’ nature of President Johnson’s era seems outdated in the face of our current global climate crisis, which forces us to realize the interconnectedness of our ecosystem beyond any sectioning off and designation of “wild” areas.

The 1964 Act played an important role in establishing a national-scale system that limited the reaches of industrial growth, allowing spaces for wildlife and ecosystems to thrive. However, today, environmental policymakers and advocates must take on the challenge of fostering a more equitable understanding of natural resources and rethinking the global system of extractive capitalism. Only then, sixty years from now, may we still speak of the “enduring resource of wilderness.”

This article was written using the following collections available at the RIAS:

Trends & Policy: U. S. Environment, including documents from:

The Congressional Research Service
House and Senate Documents
Congressional Hearings
The New York Times Newspaper Collection

The RIAS Library Collection

Additional sources consulted: