Debating Wilderness

The creation of the cohutta wilderness area and its impact on local humans and animals

By Katherine Owens

The Cohutta Wilderness lies within the Chattahoochee National Forest in Georgia and the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee. It consists of about 37,000 acres of forest, rivers, hiking trails, campgrounds, and wildlife habitats, and is managed by the United States Forest Service.  The Cohutta Wilderness, like most public lands, is best known today for its natural beauty and recreational use. However, for most of its history, it was considered what is known as commons; that is, land that was owned by no one and available for use by all. The people that lived in and around the area used the wilderness as a source of food and income, and some enjoyed its beauty and pleasures even before it became designated wilderness in 1975[i]. But why did the government take control of it, and what were the potential consequences or benefits of this federal oversight? The government was able to protect the area from exploitation by private industry and some reckless locals, but it also restricted the locals from using the resources that the wilderness had previously provided. There was much debate over the merits of allowing the government to take control of the wilderness. While progressives and environmentalists supported the adoption of the Cohuttas as wilderness, many locals came out to present their case against government control.

            The United States Forest Service was established by congress in 1905 in order to “… provide quality water and timber for the Nation’s benefit”[ii]. In 1911, the Weeks Act allowed for the purchase of private lands in order to create National Forests. This was essential in establishing national forests in the east[iii]. The Wilderness Act of 1964 empowered the U.S. Forest Service to set aside areas of public lands that would remain “untrammeled by man[iv].” However, the powers of the Forest Service were opposed by many parties including the locals, businesses, and political groups. The opposition of locals will be the primary focus point of this paper, as they were the most effected by the creation of the wilderness and thus were the most vocal in public debates.

            Not everyone who enjoyed the forest abused it or took it for granted. However, for much of the history of the area that would become the Chattahoochee National Forest, the land and its resources were used with little concern for sustainability or preservation, and were hurt because of it. Gold was mined in the area until the mines ran dry. Today, not enough gold or other valuable minerals remain in the area to be mined profitably[v]. The area was logged in order to extract as much valuable timber and tannic acid as possible. These logging efforts reduced much of the natural oak population in the area. This was due to the “cut and leave” practices used by industrialists, in which they cut down the trees that they needed without planting new trees to replace them. Additionally, fires, both natural and man-made, damaged the forest dramatically. People hunted and fished without limit, damaging the supply of these species. Specifically, the deer, trout, and bear populations in the area decreased drastically due to unwise land use. The animal grazing that took place there led to a depletion in the plant population, which then led to erosion and further damage of the streams[vi].

In 1911, much of the land that would become the Chattahoochee National Forest was purchased by the National Forest Service.  In the 1930’s, rangers in the area worked to restore the wildlife population in the area, to great success. Rangers planted trees and brought native fish and wildlife to the area, restoring their populations. The oak, deer, trout, and bear populations have been boosted dramatically since the government acquisition. On July 9, 1936, the Chattahoochee national forest was established by president Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the 1970’s, the Cohutta Wilderness was added to the National Forest[vii].

  The establishment of the Cohutta Wilderness was not without public debate, and opposition quickly mounted to the proposed wilderness. This opposition has come largely from residents of the area, and many of the arguments put forth were certainly compelling.

One of the most valuable sources available on public opinion about the establishment of the Cohutta Wilderness is the transcript of a hearing on the establishment of several eastern forest lands by the house of representatives, which took place over the course of several months in 1974. One of the many areas that was debated on was the Cohutta Wilderness. At the hearing, Jerry Lifsey, from Chatsworth, recounted a community meeting that he hosted where nearly 700 people came together to oppose the wilderness establishment[viii]. His testimony reflected the feelings of many locals, when he said,

“… we are here because we don’t feel like the local people that live in this area where this land is have been heard. We feel like they ought to be heard before you act, and we feel like you ought to heed what they have to say… If you ever lose the support of these kind of people, gentlemen, it’s not going to be a bunch of college students, old ladies’ garden clubs, and environmentalists that pull it back together. … The 9 to 5’ers that do their job and pay their taxes. … They want to be heard, gentlemen[ix].”

This is, without a doubt, a very moving testimony. One of the biggest concerns of government power, both then and today, is that the people most effected by that power will not have their needs and concerns taken seriously, and that they will be overlooked in favor of the government’s whims. Lifesey specifically pointed out that it would not be environmentalists and activists that could be hurt by the loss of this area, but the working-class people who enjoyed it.

These anti-wilderness arguments continued with a Nashville local named William T. Malone. He argued that, “It would seem that the Federal Government has embarked on a never-ending program of expansion,” and was striving to take control of as much wilderness land as possible[x]. Malone went on to argue that taking the Cohutta wilderness under federal protection would prevent the elderly and the disabled from being able to enjoy nature, because they would not be able to hike or camp[xi]. A Polk County man named Weyman I. Dooly, Jr. came forward and argued a similar point. Dooly worked within the timber industry and was concerned that the resources contained within the Cohutta area would be permanently lost, cutting into the profits of local businesses and eliminating timber as a power source for the local area. He also argued, like Malone, that the designation of the area as wilderness would prevent the poor, elderly, and sick from being able to access and enjoy nature. Moreover, he pointed out that some people simply preferred to experience the wilderness via taking leisurely drives, and he believed that people should have the right and the means to do so[xii]. At the root of the debates, most people were simply concerned about the welfare of their local communities.

However, there were also many people who argued in favor of the wilderness. Dr. Harvey Howell pointed out that designation of the area as wilderness would not prevent people from enjoying the area in ways that they had previously, and that much of the opposition came from the misconception about the nature of wilderness designation. Furthermore, he demonstrated that there were many people who lived in the area who were in support of the wilderness designation who were being drowned out by the opposition[xiii]. Jim Morrison, the executive director of the Georgia Wildlife Federation, also said that supporters were being overpowered by the opposition. He wrote in a letter to the chairman of the committee overseeing the hearings that his organization had not been informed of the hearing until after it was over. He represented thousands of hunters and fisherman in Georgia who felt that the land should be preserved, and said that the Cohutta area was one of the only spaces in Georgia where people who were not able to live near the wilderness would be able to escape into nature[xiv]. Others argued that persistent logging free of oversight would result in dangerous depletion of the forest which would be difficult to recover, and that fish and wildlife populations would be lost without federal protection[xv]. The Sierra Club pointed out that the largest parcel of the proposed Cohutta Wilderness area contained only 4.7% of the National Forest area in Georgia, and that its designation as wilderness would constitute a very small loss to the logging industry[xvi].

            One of the most common arguments against federal protection of land is the idea that it will prevent economic development and activity in that area. The areas surrounding the Cohuttas has seen some commercial growth, but not nearly as much as areas in which there is little-to-no federally owned land. Some, like Si Kahn in his section of the book Colonialism in Modern America, argue that areas like the Cohuttas are overflowing with economic potential that unfortunately cannot be tapped due to federal control[xvii]. However, the evidence points toward the contrary. Logging, one of the more obvious forest-centric industries, is highly supported by the United States Forest Service. In 2017, the last year that data was available, the Forest Service sold $178,752,817 of forest products[xviii].  These products include “… lumber, paper, and firewood as well as ‘special forest products’ such as medicinal herbs, fungi, edible fruits and nuts, and other natural products[xix].”  In the Cohutta Wilderness, the bill that proposed its creation specified that thousands of acres within its borders would remain open to controlled logging[xx]” The forest service also stimulates job growth; in 2019, it estimated that it would contribute about 340,000 to 370,000 jobs to the United States economy in 2020[xxi]. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Cohutta Wilderness would yield any highly profitable resources aside from timber. A 1982 evaluation on the mineral potential of the Cohutta Wilderness by the United States Geological Survey found that the area has “… minor occurrences of metallic minerals, but no known resource potential for such minerals in the foreseeable future...[xxii].”

            One of the most crucial issues of wilderness preservation is the scientific value of natural environments. Seeing as the United States is mostly developed with a small proportion of natural areas compared to developed areas, the importance of the remaining wilderness cannot be overstated. By allowing the government to protect wilderness areas, the flora of these areas can be allowed to grow and flourish. The massive Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which lies mere hours from the Cohutta Wilderness, is home to scores of scientific research projects with topics ranging from pollution to social sciences[xxiii]. The Cohutta Wilderness has demonstrated scientific value as well. The Cohuttas are home to numerous types of lichen, such as the parmotrema internexum, the study of which has proven the merit of research in wilderness areas, including in the Cohuttas. The authors of a study on this species printed in The Byrologist in 2015 argue that, even if a wilderness area is reported to be well researched, it is crucial to continue to research these areas; it is through this seemingly erroneous research that the authors discovered the frequency and spread of the population of this lichen that had been largely ignored by the scientific community for many years. Therefore, the Cohuttas, scarce though the reported research on this area is in comparison to larger and more famous wilderness areas, could hold untold scientific value for future studies[xxiv]. Other species like bacidia schweinitzii have been observed in the Cohutta wilderness and other areas. This species is interesting because the best conditions for it are humid habitats, which north Georgia certainly qualifies as, but it has also been observed as far north as Canada and on the edges of arid regions. Preserving the habitats of this lichen could present valuable scientific information in the future[xxv]. Aside from the niche topic of lichen, research has been done in the Cohutta Wilderness specifically on the importance and efficacy of control burning on pine and oak tree population and diversity. A study published in the Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society in 2005 concluded that continued controlled burning and study of the Cohuttas and the entire Conasauga watershed would be required in order to restore critical biodiversity into the area; biodiversity that would be lost if the area was left open for development and commercial use[xxvi]. A 1987 study published in Castanea found that the Big Frog Mountain area of the Cohutta Wilderness was home to 13 endangered plants alone[xxvii]. It is essential that the survival of endangered species be of primary concern in order to preserve biodiversity.

The Cohuttas aren’t just valuable for their flora, but their fauna as well. The Cohutta Wilderness is a valuable breeding ground for the small migratory songbird, the ovenbird[xxviii]. Although the ovenbird’s conservation status is cited as low concern, much of its other breeding ground is contained in the more heavily populated New England area; urban advancement puts nature areas at risk, which means that the breeding ground in the southeast should not be considered unimportant. Furthermore, the Audubon Society predicts that the ovenbird’s natural habitat would be reduced by as much as 71% is global climate change continues unhindered[xxix]. The Cohutta Wilderness also contains beautiful streams that are home to brook, brown, and rainbow trout populations, as well as the coosa or redeye bass and the blue shiner fish[xxx]. These trout were at one point very few and far between in the Cohuttas due to years of land misuse. They were restored to the area by rangers taking deliberate action to do so; this would likely not have happened if the area had been left open for sale to private corporations or free use by the public[xxxi]. The redeye bass is native to the river system which runs through the Cohuttas. The blue shiner is classified as threatened by the federal government, therefore as much of its habitat as possible should be preserved[xxxii].Wilderness claims that the most threatened watersheds in the United States lie within the east. Watersheds, it elaborates, are essential to the water supply of surrounding communities and are vital habitats for wildlife; it cites the Conasauga River watershed and the Cohutta Wilderness as a specific example[xxxiii].

            The Cohutta Wilderness is also, of course, a fantastic destination for recreation. One of the more unique activities that takes place in the Cohuttas is the Cohutta 100, a 70 mile mountain bike race run in the spring[xxxiv]. The Cohuttas contain 90 miles of trails for hiking and backpacking, which enable people to take leisurely strolls through the area’s pristine natural beauty. Not only does this include the unique wildlife and plants mentioned above, but two stunning waterfalls as well. Additionally, it contains horse trails as well as campgrounds[xxxv]. One of the primary concerns of the locals who did not support the wilderness was the fear that only avid hikers would be able to access and enjoy the area. However, it has been illustrated that there are many ways in which to enjoy the wilderness aside from long distance or high intensity hikes. Aside from the issue of the Cohutta wilderness specifically, there remain a multitude of options for people who wish to view nature from the comfort of the car. One of the biggest examples of a car-accessible nature area is the aforementioned Great Smoky Mountains National Park which lies a relatively short drive away from the Cohutta Wilderness and contains a staggering 384 miles of road[xxxvi].

            The concerns of people who live around proposed wilderness areas should be taken into consideration. If a project does not have the support of the people who will be directly affected by it, it will inevitably not do as well as hoped. However, their concerns are not the be-all-end-all of preservation debates. The conservation of wildlife, including those that are at risk or endangered, should be heavily considered when making decisions. Furthermore, the history of the Cohutta Wilderness has shown that locals and businesses do not always have the ecological consequences of their actions in mind. The forest, wildlife, and plant population of the area were all damaged by the uncontrolled use of its resources. When it came under federal control, these resources began to be successfully restored. By allowing the government to take the Cohutta Wilderness and other public lands under its protection, it can be assured that the land is preserved for the enjoyment and welfare of future generations of humans, animals, and the environment in general. As Benton MacKaye put it in his 1929 article Wilderness Ways, wilderness areas serve three main purposes: “… the economic purpose, the recreational purpose, and the cultural purpose.”  The Cohutta Wilderness most definitely fills all of these roles, making it more than worthy of being preserved. The Forest Service represents a great economic value, and the people who visit the Cohutta Wilderness in order to make use of its recreational offerings inevitably bring revenue to the outlying communities. Today, the Cohutta Wilderness is the largest wilderness area in the eastern United States, and people today and in the future are able to enjoy its endless recreational and ecological offerings[xxxvii]. However, the effects of the past use of wilderness areas can never be completely forgotten. The establishment of federal lands would not be necessary if years of misuse of natural resources and land had not occurred. The Cohuttas are still home to the stumps of cleared trees, and the wildlife populations may never be restored to their original state. The poem entitled From Bray Field, Cohutta Wilderness by Wally Smith exhibits the everlasting effects of past commercial use and abuse in the Cohuttas.

There’s not a place much lonelier

Than a second-hand wilderness.

Where the echoes of a generation past

Speak through the rumblings of a river.

Voices of old loggers at work, trees

Crashing to a dark forest floor,

The clanking of rusted iron tools.

Knowing they once filled this place

Makes the silence even thicker[xxxviii].

[i] “Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests,” USDA.gov, United States Department of Agriculture – United States Forest Service, April 4, 2020. https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/conf/recarea/?recid=10465.

[ii] “Los Padres National Forest – History and Culture,” The United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, April 13, 2020, https://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/cs/main/!ut/p/z0/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8zijQwgwNHCwN_DI8zPwBcqYKBfkO2oCADIwpjI/?pname=Forest%20Service%20-%20History%20&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&ss=110507&pnavid=150000000000000&navid=150140000000000&ttype=main&cid=null.

[iii] “Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests – History and Culture,” The United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, April 13, 2020, https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/conf/learning/history-culture.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Jacob E. Gair, Gertrude C. Gazdik, and Maynard L. Dunn, Jr., “Mineral Resource Potential of the Cohutta Wilderness and the Hemp Top Roadless Area, Northern Georgia and Southeastern Tennessee,” (United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 1982), 5.

[vi] “Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest History,” United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, May 3, 2020, https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/conf/learning/history-culture.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] “Proposed Eastern Wilderness Areas In National Forests: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives Ninety-Third Congress Second Session on: H.R. 10469: A Bill to Provide for the Addition of Certain Eastern National Forest Lands to the National Wilderness Preservation System, to Amend Section 3(b) of the Wilderness Act, and for Other Purposes, and H.R. 13455: A Bill to Further the Purposes of the Wilderness Act by Designating Certain Lands for Inclusion In the National Wilderness Preservation System, to Provide for Study of Certain Additional Lands for Such Inclusion and for Other Purposes, And Related Bills,” (Washington, D.C., 1974), 401.

[ix] Ibid., 403.

[x] Ibid., 415.

[xi] Ibid., 416.

[xii] Ibid., 419-420.

[xiii] Ibid., 403.

[xiv] Ibid., 468-469.

[xv] Ibid., 470-471.

[xvi] Ibid., 469.

[xvii] Si Kahn, “The Forest Service and Appalachia,” in Colonialism in Modern America, ed. Helen Matthews Lewis, Linda Johnson and Donald Askins (Boone: Appalachian State University, 1978), 85-109.

[xviii] “Fiscal Year 1905-20017 National Summary Cut and Sold Data and Graphs,” (United States Department of Agriculture, 2018), 2.

[xix] “Forest Products,” United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, April 19, 2020, https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/products/.

[xx] “Proposed Eastern Wilderness Areas In National Forests,” 469.

[xxi] “Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Justification,” (United States Department of Agriculture, 2019), 1.

[xxii] Gair, Gazdik, and Dunn, Jr., “Mineral Resource Potential of the Cohutta Wilderness,” 1.

[xxiii] “GRSM Most Recent Research Permits,” National Parks Service, April 2, 2020, https://www.nps.gov/grsm/learn/nature/respermits.htm.

[xxiv] James C. Lendemer, “Parmotrema Internexum (Lecanroales: Pariaceae): An Overlooked Macrolichen in Southeastern North America Highlights the Value of Basic Biodiversity Research,” The Byrologist 118, no. 2 (Summer 2015): 130.

[xxv] James C. Lendemer, Richard C. Harris and Douglas Ladd, “The Faces of Bacidia Schweinitzii: Molecular and Morphological Data Reveal Three New Species Including a Widespread Sorediate Morph,” The Byrologist 119, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 162.

[xxvi] Katherine J. Elliott and James M. Vose, “Effects of Understory Prescribed Burning on Shortleaf Pine (Pinus Echinata Mill.)/Mixed-Hardwood Forests,” The Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 132, no. 2 (April-June 2005): 248.

[xxvii] Zack Ernest Murrell and B. Eugene Wofford, “Floristics and Phytogeography of Big Frog Mountain, Polk County, Tennessee,” Castanea, 52, no. 4 (December 1987): 262.

[xxviii] “Jacks River Trail: See this,” Backpacker 37, no. 4 (May 2009): 34.

[xxix] “Ovenbird,” Audubon.org, The National Audubon Society, April 20, 2020, https://www.audubon.org/field-guide/bird/ovenbird.

[xxx] “Cohutta Wilderness – Streams,” United States Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, February 28, 2013, https://webcam.srs.fs.fed.us/psd/cohutta/.

[xxxi] “Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest History,” United States Forest Service.

[xxxii] Anna L. George, John B. Caldieraro, Kathryn M. Chartrand and Richard L. Mayden, “Population Genetics of the Blue Shiner, Cyprinella Caerulea,” Southeastern Naturalist 7, no. 4 (2008): 637.

[xxxiii] “Eastern Forests: Our Wild Back Yard,” Wilderness, (December 2005): 32-38.

[xxxiv] Harlan Price, “The Dirty Century,” Bicycling 48, no. 10, (November 2007): 62-64.

[xxxv] “Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests,” United States Forest Service.  

[xxxvi] “Great Smoky Mountains National Park – Auto Touring,” National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior, April 21, 2020, https://www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/autotouring.htm.

[xxxvii] Donald E. Davis, “Environmental History of the Georgia Mountains,” New Georgia Encyclopedia, June 6, 2017. https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/geography-environment/environmental-history-georgia-mountains.

[xxxviii] Wally Smith, “From Bray Field, Cohutta Wilderness,” Appalachian Journal 34, no 3. (2007): 315.