The Trouble with Wilderness,” by author William
In the book “The Trouble with Wilderness,” the author William could have done great if the book was based on a fictional story that did not need any research. The author either got his facts wrong; he was not thorough on his research, he just chose to ignore the facts, or he has no knowledge of historical events. The author’s work has focused on historical events, which involved the disagreement involving Muir, and Pinchot. The other one involved the Hetch Hetchy dam, and the Yosemite National Park. The author as an historian should have done better than this. Some of his historical analysis are wrong, and cannot be supported by any historical fact.
In his book William criticizes the “Endangered Species Act”. He suggests that the act which was put in place to protect the landscapes is not the best strategy in the preservation of species. William terms the act as a “poor strategy” which is not “holistic”. This statement by William shows the historical ignorance of the Author. The author should have researched about the history of the Act, when it was put in place, the reasons why it was put in place (Arundhati, 240). The act was put in place after some environmentalists saw the importance of protecting the whole ecological systems, and not just a single species. The species depend on one another preserving one and ignoring the other one does not make any ecological meaning. The endangered species as is today focuses on a single species is what was legislated, but it was not what was intended by the environmentalists (Arundhati, 260).
William goes into analyzing how some places such as Yellowstone, and Mount Rainier should have been parks, but were reduced to sceneries. William alleges that the conservationists did not take into consideration less scenic areas, but took into consideration areas with more biological importance (Arundhati, 230) . His reasons for the allegations are that, from his observation he has not seen any grassland parks, or desert parks. William concludes by saying that the environmentalists were only interested in preserving nice places for vocational and recreational purposes, he furthermore says that the environmentalists did not have any clue in biology (Arundhati, 250) .
The argument’s by William goes on to show his ignorance, had he done his research properly then , William should have noticed that the areas he regards as highly scenic were identified severally as areas worth protecting. The power to place an area under protection is for the congress to decide, some areas which now form parks, such as the glaciated peaks become parks as a result of politics. The areas were not developed; the areas that had “no use” were turned into parks as the congress took lack of development as a reason for designating san area as a protected area (Maathai, 200).
In his book William criticizes environmentalists such as Muir for not being broad minded, which is not true. For an area to be protected there must be a reason as to why the area should be put under protection. When writing his essay on the sublime scenery, Muir did so not because the importance of the area was the scene, but it was the only reason that could have attracted the political support (Arundhati, 220). There were other reasons for the area to be put under protection, but Muir knew that was the only one that could have attracted attention at the time. Muir could have talked of conserving the various animal species in the area, but back then the animals were very many that they were considered a nuisance (Arundhati, 210).
Many environmentalists have given various for preserving certain areas. The first time Muir was proposing that Yosemite be put under protection, his intention was not just to put the Yosemite, but the whole of Sierra Nevada, alpine, and walker. In the 1930’s an environmentalist by the name of Bob Marshall had proposed that the northern part of the Yukon area be protected.
At the time the area was mosquito ridden.wet all through, and was a flat land (Maathai, 180). The area was not attractive in any way but Marshall had his own reasons. Other environmentalists such as, George Catlin proposed that the whole of the northern part of the Great Plains be preserved in the 1830s, later in the year 1890 a similar proposal was made by Wesley to protect the plains (Maathai, 220).
By looking back at the history of Environmentalists, their proposals, one cannot conclude that their reasons were not sufficient or biased. The reasons that the environmentalists back then do not seem valid today, but they were back then. Some environmentalists are calling out for some areas to be protected to protect some animal species from becoming extinct. Back then this could have not been a reason as the animals were not extinct, but were very many that they had to be hunted. With that in mind William could have known as a historian that back then the land was not as it is today.
In his book William states that the idea of wilderness was created by civilization, which is absurd because actually wilderness came first before civilization. The wilderness movement was actually created to counter the fast pace at which industrialization was spreading (Maathai, 200). Williams argues by saying about 250 years ago people were not going around looking for wilderness, which is true. The observation that William failed to take into account is that 250 years ago people did not go around looking for wilderness because it was every where.
Today people are wandering looking for Wilderness because it is not in plenty as it was back then, thus the more reason to protect it before it disappears completely. Such an argument should not come from an historian as he should know the effects of industrialization to the modern world (Maathai, 190).
The weather pattern change is as a result of depreciating forest cover, in most countries in Africa that rely on rain to do their farming is finding it hard to prosper (Maathai, 210). In Kenya most rivers originate in forests, the Mau forest in the rift valley is a source of several rivers. The destruction of the forests due to activities such as logging, and charcoal burning, has brought some weather changes, and drying of the rivers (Maathai, 150). As a result of the destruction many people who depend on the rivers from the forests have to walk very far to find water, rain patterns has also changed leading to starvation as the crops are not doing as well as they were doing because of the unpredictable rains (Maathai, 160).
William plunges into the issue regarding Hetch Hetchy, without first doing proper research, and looking at the vital issues of the issue. Muir was not entirely against the putting up of a dam to supply water to Francisco, he was just proposing that the dam could be built at a different place. Muir was looking at the effects of building the dam at the Canyon, even though Mir worry was the destruction of the beauty of the Canyon. Mir argument was valid as the beauty of the Canyon was irreplaceable, while the dam could have been built at a different site. At the same time Muir was trying to defeat the notion that a park was open to development, which could have affected other parks. From that point the significance of Muir’s effort can be seen (Arundhati, 160)
William in the book is not honest when giving Pinchot’s view from historical perspective. Pinchot supported the construction of the dam, because at the time the water of San Francisco was being controlled by private companies (Arundhati, 200). Pinchot even proposed that the government should acquire all land under forest, even those belonging to private people. Pinchot felt that private developers could not do much. Looking deep into the argument between Muir, and Pinchot one can make a conclusion that both men had valid reasons for their argument. Both Pinchot and Muir had no selfish interests (Arundhati, 240).
Conclusion
In summary, William should have done more to prove his points, conservation of the wilderness is important as much stands to be gained from preserving the wilderness. If the wilderness is not conserved, in the future children will have to be taken to the zoo to see animals even as common as rats. The heading of the book should read “The benefits of Wilderness”
Work Cited
Maathai, Wangari. The challenge for Africa. New York: Pantheon Books, 2009. Print.
Roy, Arundhati. Walking with the comrades. New York: Penguin Books, 2012. Print.
