When I worked for the U.S. Forest Service I strongly believed in expanding wilderness designations in the United States. There's something so compelling about the idea of supporting and conserving wild and untrammeled landscapes. I'd hazard that most Americans have never heard of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and think of the term "wilderness" as a vague description of a landscape characteristic rather than a rigid set of legal protections, and I bet that even fewer understand the scope of how many acres of land fall under these protections. It can be intoxicating to be in the know, and there are few things as satisfying as disappearing into the backcountry for a week or two and truly finding refuge from modern life.

But, the author is fundamentally correct about the relationship between humans and natural areas. The untrammeled nature of officially designated wilderness areas is a myth. The degree of trammeling of course varies by area and over time, but it's there no matter where you look. To the extent that we continue to put stock in this concept of "untrammeled by man", we do a disservice to the history and continued existence of indigenous Americans. Also, we needlessly hamstring our own management actions which compound into real threats on the very thing the act set out to protect. Increasingly I think to myself "no more wilderness" and advocate for proposed wilderness study areas to have a management designation more closely aligned with their intended use: National Recreation Areas.