Both of them have thousands of miles of trails for recreational use all over the United States, and both areas are ruled by the U.S. Forest Service, but different regulations are enforced. National forests are open to commercial activities such as, logging, livestock grazing, and all recreational activities (NPS, 2012). The first chief of the U.S. Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, once said the National Forest was created “to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run” (NPS, 2012, para. 2). The difference the wilderness has is the stricter rules. There is limited commercialization, only non-motorized and non-mechanical recreational activities allowed. There are also strict camping instructions, fire restrictions, and trail use. The national forest provides a lot more freedom for the visitors to do as they please, whereas the wilderness is more protected. Important figures in history worked hard to establish and maintain the national forests and wilderness’, and the U.S. Forest Service ensures the land is protected and not diminished of its character for future …show more content…
Forest Service. The U.S. Forest Service enforces strict rules that some people may not agree with, because it takes away from their recreational activities, but it is for the good of the land. President Roosevelt and President Johnson worked hard to attain and establish the national forests and U.S. Wilderness for the enjoyment of all people. The national forests and wilderness have different regulations, and the wilderness is much more strictly monitored. The wilderness should be protected because it is home to many wild animals, cycles clean air, and helps reduce pollution. The solitude is what makes it special. There is no other place like the wilderness and it makes many Americans happy, but if it is not monitored by the U.S. Forest service it will be destroyed. “Wilderness is not a luxury, but a necessity of the human spirit,” said Edward Abbey (Famous Quotes,