logo
The Wilderness Letter is a reminder that nature shaped America's identity

The Wilderness Letter is a reminder that nature shaped America's identity

Fast Company18-05-2025

As summer approaches, millions of Americans begin planning or taking trips to state and national parks, seeking to explore the wide range of outdoor recreational opportunities across the nation. A lot of them will head toward the nation's wilderness areas— 110 million acres, mostly in the West, that are protected by the strictest federal conservation rules.
When Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964, it described wilderness areas as places that evoked mystery and wonder, 'where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.' These are wild landscapes that present nature in its rawest form.
The law requires the federal government to protect these areas ' for the permanent good of the whole people.' Wilderness areas are found in national parks, conservation land overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, national forests and U.S. Fish and Wildlife refuges.
In early May 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives began to consider allowing the sale of federal lands in six counties in Nevada and Utah, five of which contain wilderness areas. Ostensibly, these sales are to promote affordable housing, but the reality is that the proposal, introduced by U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei, a Nevada Republican, is a departure from the standard process of federal land exchanges that accommodate development in some places but protect wilderness in others.
Regardless of whether Americans visit their public lands or know when they have crossed a wilderness boundary, as environmental historians we believe that everyone still benefits from the existence and protection of these precious places.
This belief is an idea eloquently articulated and popularized 65 years ago by the noted Western writer Wallace Stegner. His eloquence helped launch the modern environmental movement and gave power to the idea that the nation's public lands are a fundamental part of the United States' national identity and a cornerstone of American freedom.
Humble origins
In 1958, Congress established the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission to examine outdoor recreation in the U.S. in order to determine not only what Americans wanted from the outdoors, but to consider how those needs and desires might change decades into the future.
One of the commission's members was David E. Pesonen, who worked at the Wildland Research Center at the University of California at Berkeley. He was asked to examine wilderness and its relationship to outdoor recreation. Pesonen later became a notable environmental lawyer and leader of the Sierra Club. But at the time, Pesonen had no idea what to say about wilderness.
However, he knew someone who did. Pesonen had been impressed by the wild landscapes of the American West in Stegner's 1954 history ' Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West.' So he wrote to Stegner, who at the time was at Stanford University, asking for help in articulating the wilderness idea.
Stegner's response, which he said later was written in a single afternoon, was an off-the-cuff riff on why he cared about preserving wildlands. This letter became known as the Wilderness Letter and marked a turning point in American political and conservation history.
Pesonen shared the letter with the rest of the commission, which also shared it with newly installed Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall. Udall found its prose to be so profound, he read it at the seventh Wilderness Conference in 1961 in San Francisco, a speech broadcast by KCBS, the local FM radio station. The Sierra Club published the letter in the record of the conference's proceedings later that year.
But it was not until its publication in The Washington Post on June 17, 1962, that the letter reached a national audience and captured the imagination of generations of Americans.
An eloquent appeal
In the letter, Stegner connected the idea of wilderness to a fundamental part of American identity. He called wilderness ' something that has helped form our character and that has certainly shaped our history as a people . . . the challenge against which our character as a people was formed . . . (and) the thing that has helped to make an American different from and, until we forget it in the roar of our industrial cities, more fortunate than other men.'
Without wild places, he argued, the U.S. would be just like every other overindustrialized place in the world.
In the letter, Stegner expressed little concern with how wilderness might support outdoor recreation on public lands. He didn't care whether wilderness areas had once featured roads, trails, homesteads or even natural resource extraction. What he cared about was Americans' freedom to protect and enjoy these places. Stegner recognized that the freedom to protect, to restrain ourselves from consuming, was just as important as the freedom to consume.
Perhaps most importantly, he wrote, wilderness was ' an intangible and spiritual resource,' a place that gave the nation 'our hope and our excitement,' landscapes that were 'good for our spiritual health even if we never once in ten years set foot in it.'
Without it, Stegner lamented, 'never again will Americans be free in their own country from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive waste.' To him, the nation's natural cathedrals and the vaulted ceiling of the pure blue sky are Americans' sacred spaces as much as the structures in which they worship on the weekends.
Stegner penned the letter during a national debate about the value of preserving wild places in the face of future development. ' Something will have gone out of us as a people,' he wrote, 'if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed.' If not protected, Stegner believed these wildlands that had helped shape American identity would fall to what he viewed as the same exploitative forces of unrestrained capitalism that had industrialized the nation for the past century. Every generation since has an obligation to protect these wild places.
Stegner's Wilderness Letter became a rallying cry to pass the Wilderness Act. The closing sentences of the letter are Stegner's best: ' We simply need that wild country available to us, even if we never do more than drive to its edge and look in. For it can be a means of reassuring ourselves of our sanity as creatures, a part of the geography of hope.'
This phrase, 'the geography of hope,' is Stegner's most famous line. It has become shorthand for what wilderness means: the wildlands that defined American character on the Western frontier, the wild spaces that Americans have had the freedom to protect, and the natural places that give Americans hope for the future of this planet.
America's 'best idea'
Stegner returned to themes outlined in the Wilderness Letter again two decades later in his essay 'The Best Idea We Ever Had: An Overview,' published in Wilderness magazine in spring 1983.
Writing in response to the Reagan administration's efforts to reduce protection of the National Park System, Stegner declared that the parks were 'Absolutely American, absolutely democratic.' He said they reflect us as a nation, at our best rather than our worst, and without them, millions of Americans' lives, his included, would have been poorer.
Public lands are more than just wilderness or national parks. They are places for work and play. They provide natural resources, wildlife habitat, clean air, clean water and recreational opportunities to small towns and sprawling metro areas alike. They are, as Stegner said, cures for cynicism and places of shared hope.
Stegner's words still resonate as Americans head for their public lands and enjoy the beauty of the wild places protected by wilderness legislation this summer. With visitor numbers increasing annually and agency budgets at historic lows, we believe it is useful to remember how precious these places are for all Americans. And we agree with Stegner that wilderness, public lands writ large, are more valuable to Americans' collective identity and expression of freedom than they are as real estate that can be sold or commodities that can be extracted.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why are the flags at half-staff in Wisconsin today?
Why are the flags at half-staff in Wisconsin today?

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why are the flags at half-staff in Wisconsin today?

Gov. Tony Evers has ordered flags to fly at half-staff in honor of former Oneida Nation Chairman Gerald L "Jerry" Danforth, who died June 1 at age 78. 'Chairman Danforth led the Oneida Nation with integrity, dedication and a deep commitment to upholding and protecting Tribal sovereignty and culture,' Evers said in a news release. Services for Danforth will be held June 7 at the Oneida Turtle School, N7125 Seminary Road in Oneida, according to the release. Flags will be at half-staff from sunrise to sunset June 7. The U.S. flag and Wisconsin flag will be flown at half-staff at all buildings, grounds and military installations of Wisconsin, according to the release. Danforth served two terms as chairman of the Oneida Nation, and was first elected in 1999 and then again in 2005. "As chairman, Danforth prioritized Indian gaming interest and economic development, as well as issues around health care, higher education, Oneida language preservation and expanding communication between the state and the Native Nations," according to the release. Flags are usually flown at half-staff after national tragedies or deaths of government officials, military members or other first responders. Flags can also be at half-staff for Memorial Day or other national days of remembrance, according to This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Why are flags at half-staff in Wisconsin today, June 7?

Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?
Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. An explosive, and very public, feud between President Donald Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk on Thursday (June 5) has raised doubts over the future of America's space industry. The war of words could place $22 billion of SpaceX's government contracts with multiple U.S. space programs at risk, according to one estimate, although the real figure — which remains classified — could be significantly higher. Following threats from the president on his social media platform Truth Social that the U.S. could cancel the government contracts and subsidies awarded to Musk's companies, the CEO of SpaceX retorted that his space company would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Hours later, Musk responded to a follower telling him to "cool off" by saying "Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." The disagreement began on Tuesday (June 3) when Musk criticized the administration's proposed tax and spending bill on his social media platform X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk wrote on X. Related: 'No radio astronomy from the ground would be possible anymore': Satellite mega-swarms are blinding us to the cosmos — and a critical 'inflection point' is approaching This then escalated into a full-blown social media feud on Thursday, with Musk claiming that Trump's name appears in unreleased files relating to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The White House condemned these allegations. "This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted," representatives wrote on X. Trump then claimed Musk "just went CRAZY," posting: "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" SpaceX's Dragon capsule is a reusable spacecraft capable of carrying up to seven passengers and cargo to and from Earth orbit, according to SpaceX. NASA currently relies on the capsule to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), so canceling these government contracts effectively eliminates America's ability to launch astronauts to space from American soil, Live Science's sister website, reported. NASA also heavily relies on SpaceX for other space programs, having selected the Starship Human Landing System (HLS), a lunar lander variant of the company's next-generation Starship spacecraft, to carry American astronauts to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years aboard the 2027 Artemis 3 mission. NASA is investing $4 billion into Starship's development, and canceling its contract could seriously handicap NASA and the future of U.S.-led space exploration. While other competitors exist, such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin and Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, they lag far behind SpaceX. RELATED STORIES —Facing steep funding cuts, scientists propose using black holes as particle colliders instead of building new ones on Earth —Trump's 2026 budget would slash NASA funding by 24% and its workforce by nearly one third —NASA plans to build a giant radio telescope on the 'dark side' of the moon. Here's why. The Starliner capsule is not yet certified to fly operational astronaut missions and was responsible for "stranding" two astronauts on the ISS for nine months last year. The astronauts returned to Earth on March 18 aboard a SpaceX Dragon capsule, and neither Boeing nor NASA have offered any significant updates into fixes that will make Starliner flightworthy. SpaceX's lead on its competitors is reflected in the size of its government subsidies. In April, the U.S. Space Force, the military branch of U.S. space exploration, awarded the company nearly $6 billion in launch contracts, while the United Launch Alliance received $5.4 billion and Blue Origin $2.4 billion. In response to the feud between Musk and Trump, NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens declined to comment on SpaceX, but she did tell Reuters that "we will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the president's objectives in space are met." NASA's deputy administrator Lori Garver told Reuters that, as well as not being in national interests, canceling SpaceX's contacts would probably not be legal. However, she also added that "a rogue CEO threatening to decommission spacecraft, putting astronauts' lives at risk, is untenable."

Worried Northwestern lab directors describe ‘bleak' atmosphere in wake of Trump research funding freeze
Worried Northwestern lab directors describe ‘bleak' atmosphere in wake of Trump research funding freeze

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Worried Northwestern lab directors describe ‘bleak' atmosphere in wake of Trump research funding freeze

The Trump administration's freezing in April of $790 million in federal research funding for Northwestern University has left concerned lab directors without key grants from the National Institutes of Health and forced the university to spend millions to keep vital research afloat and to continue to pay graduate workers and scientists. Carole LaBonne, a professor of molecular biosciences at Northwestern, said the situation at the prominent research institution can only be described as 'bleak' as the halt in federal funds continues to send shockwaves across the Evanston campus. 'You're at risk of losing an entire next generation of scientists, and these are the researchers who are going to be driving tomorrow's discoveries and cures,' LaBonne told the Tribune. 'It has short-term impacts, it has long-term impacts — it's terrifying; it's completely senseless.' Northwestern officials did not confirm how much the university is spending to keep research going there, but LaBonne said that is widely known among the science faculty, who were recently notified by the dean of the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences in a meeting that it is costing Northwestern more than $10 million a week. 'The university is working very hard to advocate on behalf of research and our researchers,' a Northwestern spokesperson said in a statement. 'Our lifesaving research improves our society and has a multibillion-dollar impact on our economy.' In recent letters to the campus community, Northwestern President Michael Schill and other administrators said the university has received about 100 stop-work orders, mostly Department of Defense-funded research projects, and about 50 grant terminations. In addition, officials said Northwestern researchers have not received payments for National Institutes of Health grants since March, signaling that those funds have been frozen, despite no official word from the Trump administration. They also wrote that the university would continue to fund research affected by stop-work orders and the federal funding freeze. 'This support is intended to keep these projects going until we have a better understanding of the funding landscape,' the officials wrote. 'We expect and hope to recoup the costs of this research once federal funding is restored. However, this commitment places significant financial stress on the University and is not a permanent solution.' LaBonne said the scientific community at Northwestern is living in 'existential dread' as the question of how the university can continue to sustain big-budget research without grant reimbursements looms large. 'Financially, you're going to cripple universities. And when you cripple universities, you're going to cripple not only our health and scientific discoveries in this country, but also our economy,' she said. 'The federal government depends on universities to conduct the research that keeps our nation healthy, safe and economically competitive.' Part of LaBonne's lab work at Northwestern touches on pediatric cancers, and NIH funding has historically fueled breakthroughs in cancer treatments. 'Forty years ago, more than 60% of children that were diagnosed with cancer would have died within five years of the diagnosis. Today, there's a 90% survival rate,' she said. For years, work in LaBonne's lab has centered on understanding the normal development of the neural crest — a stem cell population central to the evolution of the vertebrates — and understanding how cancer can result from the aberrant development of this cell type. Such research never ends, LaBonne said, adding that she fears that some long-standing research programs won't be sustainable for much longer with federal funding in limbo. Sadie Wignall, a molecular biosciences professor at Northwestern, agrees. 'There is a lot of anxiety and apprehension because of the uncertainty of the situation, and that uncertainty is what is very difficult to navigate,' said Wignall. 'Many research labs here have NIH funding. I run my lab entirely off NIH funding. Am I going to be able to continue to pay the staff in my lab? Am I going to be able to continue to take graduate students into my lab?' Two NIH grants pay the salaries of four doctoral students and two research scientists in the Wignall Lab, which is investigating the dynamics and mechanics of how reproductive cells divide. Wignall also directs the Interdisciplinary Biological Sciences Graduate Program, which trains graduate students to get postdoctorates in biomedical science on the Evanston campus. The funding freeze affects those early-career scientists, she said, explaining that students go through three 10-week lab rotations culminating in a match system. But uncertain funding means labs can't take new doctoral students to train them, which means fewer students get the opportunity to study and work at Northwestern's myriad research facilities. 'We're right at that point of the year for our first-year class where they've been rotating through different research labs to try to decide where they want to do their Ph.D. research, but with the funding freeze and canceled grants, there are now a lot of labs that thought they wanted to recruit a student this year and now can't,' Wignall said. 'If current first-years can't find a lab to join, they'll likely have to exit the Ph.D. program.' How federal funding works At the beginning of every grant year, the NIH or the National Science Foundation sends a Notice of Award detailing approval for a certain amount of spending in the next grant year, but a check isn't sent to Northwestern. It's essentially an 'IOU,' explained Wignall. 'So as I make purchases on my grant and as I pay salaries, Northwestern sends an invoice to the NIH that says, 'Professor Wignall has charged these approved funds, please reimburse us,'' she said. 'That usually happens about every two weeks — an invoice is sent for every NIH grant to the NIH, then they send a check to cover that spending. And then at the end of the year, just like you do in a bank account, you have your balance. You try to spend down to zero on approved funds.' Northwestern recently has been submitting those requests to the NIH, hoping that the money will flow again, but nothing has been reimbursed since late March. 'All of the labs that are doing research are basically accumulating debt because we're spending money that we were promised, but it's not being sent, and the university is the one on the hook for that money right now,' Wignall said. The Trump administration's decision to freeze nearly all of Northwestern's annual federal research funding stems from federal investigations into allegations of antisemitism and civil rights violations at the university amid the school's handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus. The Trump administration also froze $1 billion in federal funds for Cornell University and stripped more than $2 billion in federal grants from Harvard University and blocked its international student enrollment. The administration also has ordered U.S. embassies and consular sections to stop scheduling new interviews for student visa applicants. LaBonne and other academics are highly skeptical of the Trump administration's reasoning, particularly the claims of widespread antisemitism on campus. 'Just about everything they're doing was clearly laid out in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 and that happened before Oct. 7 — before the encampments on campus,' LaBonne said. 'None of this has to do with any of that. It's about hurting universities, and why you would want to do that when they're so centrally important to our scientific research enterprise and the economics of the U.S. is mind-blowing.' Wignall, like LaBonne and other lab directors, said she's 'extremely grateful' to the board of trustees and the administration for helping to support their research. LaBonne said support is crucial, not just for the research itself but also because research labs train scientists, and science majors at top research universities expect hands-on training in faculty labs. 'But all of us researchers understand that the university can't support us forever and at some point they're going to have to shut down some labs. It's very uncertain if my lab will be fine a month from now or two months from now,' Wignall added. A tiny pacemaker fit for newborn babies At Northwestern's Efimov Lab in Chicago, research associate Eric Rytkin is working with a team of graduate students on several projects, including the world's smallest pacemaker. Their study, published in the journal Nature, demonstrates that the device, which is smaller than a grain of rice, can be non-invasively placed in the body. And although it is suitable for hearts of all sizes, researchers say the pacemaker is particularly beneficial to the tiny, fragile hearts of newborn babies with congenital heart defects. The project was made possible through an NIH grant, Rytkin said, and a new grant was issued recently, but the award has yet to be distributed. Still the pacemaker project remains secure, Rytkin said, thanks to Northwestern and interest from the national scientific community. But another project — a device aimed at delivering painless shocks to defibrillate the heart — is being tabled. 'I can say that everything here boils down to the quality of life of patients. Of course there are lifesaving therapies, but whether these lifesaving therapies will be well tolerated by this person, and whether it will affect their physical or moral well-being of that person is equally as important as the years of life,' Rytkin said. Rytkin said while it's common in the industry to prioritize certain research projects over others, it isn't ideal to have to put ideas on the back burner. 'As researchers we would like to have academic freedom to explore other ideas which are not aimed at immediate gain or immediate profit, but may have and may result in wonderful spinoffs and technological models at a later date,' Rytkin said. 'And if the devices are getting translated, it's the most likely path that they're going to be acquired by some big corporation like Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott — they're all American companies.' Lichao (James) Tang, a joint Ph.D. student who earned a master's in biomedical engineering from Northwestern University, performed surgeries on lab animals during the pacemaker development. Tang said the hope is for the pacemaker to be clinically tested in humans in five years, but that might now hinge on federal funding. NIH spending also supports Tang's salary. 'The freeze affects our overall lab budget, because we have a lot of money to spend, either to purchase research animals, or to purchase materials, to fabricate devices,' Tang said. 'We can only buy the things that are super necessary right now.' Like many of his colleagues involved in research labs, Tang has concerns about the future of science and research. 'I've been in the U.S. for a very long time, but prospective students will definitely have (to think about their choices). Without all the issues with federal funding and student visas, I think America would definitely be their top choice,' said Tang, who is from China. 'It's getting harder to even get a student visa right now. And even if you come here, say for a Ph.D. program where you have at least a five-year commitment, the current uncertainty would make students think, 'If I come here, what if my funding is not guaranteed?'' Attracting top talent from other countries The halt in student visa interviews and the funding freeze will make it much more difficult for the U.S. to attract top minds from around the world, experts say. 'The reality is that there is a race for global talent around the world,' said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators. 'The truth of the matter is, international students are going into fields like STEM that are in very high demand, but where there's a massive skill gap that exists in this country. These students are playing a very critical role in filling this gap that we're seeing.' A recent NAFSA breakdown looks at the national and state benefits from international students and how much money they've contributed to universities and colleges. According to the data, international students at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have contributed $567.5 million to the local economy and supported 6,158 jobs; at the University of Chicago, $428.1 million and 4,965 jobs; at Northwestern, $323.7 million and 3,573 jobs; and the University of Illinois Chicago, $184.9 million and 1,886 jobs. LaBonne said the cuts are detrimental to many sectors of the U.S. 'The government doesn't fund university labs to help universities' bottom line — it funds the best ideas and people to meet national priorities,' she said. 'The resulting discoveries spill over to benefit all of society: new medicines, new companies, new military capabilities. This has been called one of the most productive partnerships in American history.' Academics have long argued that federally funded technologies like the revolutionary-gene editing tool CRISPR, CAR-T Therapy for cancer, vaccines and research unlocking treatments for diseases such as ALS and Alzheimer's are solid arguments for why Congress and the White House should ensure consistent and robust funding for science. LaBonne said the funding decreases touch virtually every area of science and goes far beyond the diversity, equity and inclusion programs the Trump administration wants to cut. An April executive order from the Trump administration mandated the elimination of DEI-related programs in federal agencies, resulting in the NSF canceling hundreds of project grants at universities. In February, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz published a list identifying more than a third of the NSF grants that were being terminated, of which a handful were Northwestern grants. In a statement, the NSF said it has undertaken a review of its award portfolio. 'The agency has determined that termination of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities,' NSF officials said. On its website, the NSF said it is canceling awards that are not in line with its priorities, including those focused on DEI, environmental justice and 'misinformation/disinformation.' According to Grant Watch — a website that tracks the termination of scientific research grants under the Trump administration — more than 20 NIH grants related to research into HIV/AIDS, child development, substance use, vaccine hesitancy in Black communities, family planning and more were canceled at Northwestern. Lab directors at Northwestern noted there's a rigorous process for procuring federal grants each submission cycle. After a proposal is submitted, 20 to 30 scientists from across the country with subject matter expertise review the proposal and give them scores. Months later, another advisory council approves the recommendations and greenlights a federal grant. 'This is not easy money; this is highly competitive for the best ideas and the best processes,' LaBonne added. Wignall, who's said she's trying to stay positive despite the chaos, said the cost of stripping resources away from scientific research is insurmountable and will have an impact far beyond the current political situation. 'I think this is going to have a really chilling effect on future generations of students, because people will look at this career and say that science is not a safe career — It's too dependent on political whims,' Wignall said. 'Traditionally, science has been science. Support for science has been very bipartisan and we really hope that we can turn this around … otherwise we're really going to lose our excellence as a nation.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store