Abstract
To understand how a highly contentious policy process influenced a major conservation effort, I examined the origins, compromises, and outcomes of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) for the Tongass National Forest. Tongass wilderness designation was among the most controversial issues in the ANILCA debate, and it faced strong opposition from influential lawmakers, land managers, and Alaska residents. To investigate the influence of this opposition on Tongass conservation outcomes, I conducted a gap analysis of Tongass reserves and a policy analysis of the ANILCA debate and traced the influence of specific interests through the amendments, negotiations, and resulting compromises needed to enact ANILCA. Overall, I found that Tongass reserves comprise a broadly representative cross‐section of ecosystems and species habitats in southeastern Alaska. Redrawn reserve boundaries, industry subsidies, and special access regulations reflected compromises to minimize the impact of wilderness conservation on mining, timber, and local stakeholder interests, respectively. Fragmentation of the Admiralty Island National Monument—the most ecologically valuable and politically controversial reserve—resulted from compromises with Alaskan Native (indigenous peoples of Alaska) corporations and timber interests. Despite language to accommodate “reasonable access” to wilderness reserves, ongoing access limitations highlight the concerns of Alaska residents that opposed ANILCA several decades ago. More broadly, the Tongass case suggests that early and ambitious conservation action may offset strong political opposition; compromises needed to establish key reserves often exacerbate development impacts in unprotected areas; and efforts to minimize social conflicts are needed to safeguard the long‐term viability of conservation measures.