Early European-American settlers hunted herons and egrets, whose feathers were popular with 19th and 20th century hat-makers in New York and Paris.

When the timber industry began to operate in the area, it built railroads, and cut and hauled out most of the cypress ecosystem's old growth trees.

Big Cypress National Preserve differs from Everglades National Park in that, when it was established by law in 1974, the Miccosukee, Seminole and Traditional people were provided with permanent rights to occupy and use the land in traditional ways; in addition, they have first rights to develop income-producing businesses related to the resources and use of the preserve, such as guided tours.

"[11] It is host to an array of flora and fauna, including mangroves, orchids, alligators, crocodiles, venomous snakes like the cottonmouth and eastern diamondback rattlesnake, a variety of birds, river otter, deer, bobcat, coyote, black bear and cougar.

The preserve is also home to federally listed endangered species including the eastern indigo snake and the Florida sandhill crane.

The southern terminus of the Florida National Scenic Trail is located in Big Cypress, and provides hiking opportunities during the winter months.

Some of the most beautiful wading and walking can be found in cypress strands and prairies between the Loop Road and the Tamiami Trail.

Rangers often lead swamp walk hikes in the dry winter months, as well as canoe trips, and boardwalk talks.

Hunting within the preserve is managed cooperatively between the National Park Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

According to a 2001 study conducted by the United States Geological Survey, ORV use in Big Cypress National Preserve has impacted wildlife populations and habitats through modifications to water flow patterns (direction and velocity) and water quality, soil displacement and compaction, direct vegetation damage, disturbance to foraging individuals, and, ultimately, overall suitability of habitats for wildlife.

[16]Given these conclusions, environmental groups opposed the announcement by park officials in 2006 of a new study to determine whether the recreational benefit of more trails is worth the risk of additional damage to the ecosystem.