Essay from High Country News. An experienced trail crew leader argues that, in today’s forests, the rigidity of the regulation buries what it’s designed to protect.
“As we sawed through yet another fire-scarred fir that had fallen across a backcountry trail, my trail crew and I would sometimes hear a hiker, pause our work and brace for the inevitable question: “What, they don’t let you use chainsaws?” ”
IMHO, the use of chainsaws would be less intrusive than the constant sounds of aircraft, which one hears on or off trails, in meadows, on the shores of remote lakes, etc.
I’ve said it before, but the vast majority of the American public has never heard of “wilderness characteristics” and cares nothing for Wilderness ideology. The only real value of Wilderness to the general public is as backcountry hiking and backpacking areas. As long as the Forest Service keeps their favorite hiking trails open and clear of debris fall, the general public doesn’t care how they do it.
If Wilderness ideology is preventing the FS from maintaining trails and causing those trails to dissappear from the landscape out of neglect, it is failing the public that Wilderness was meant to serve and is destroying the very thing that makes Wilderness valuable to the American people. Preserving wild places for posterity sounds all good and noble until the posterity can’t even go there anymore without having to climb through massive tree snags every 100 feet.
Personally I think it’s high time to replace the Wilderness Act with a new system that gets rid of the pseudo-religious ideology and mysticism and focuses on actively managing Wilderness as backcountry hiking areas to allow the American people to enjoy nature.
I agree. Much of the Act reads like scripture. Scripture is nice to read—the King James Version of the Bible is marvelous just as literature, leaving alone its religious message—but scripture is a very thin reed on which to determine how Congress meant for these vast areas of America’s public lands to be managed.
The High Country News essay ought to be required reading for all members of Congress who serve on natural resources committees and all Forest Service employees. (The National Park Service uses chainsaws in Wilderness, so its staff need not be bothered.)
I have a couple of questions.
As the article points out, the Wilderness Act of 1964 doesn’t prohibit chainsaws, nor does it require elaborate Forest Service internal procedures before they can be used.
As many people have observed numerous times, in blog posts, magazine and newspaper articles, and even law review articles, the Act also doesn’t prohibit bicycles, game carts, or baby strollers in Wilderness. It’s only agency policies that do.
It makes me wonder about the agencies’ internal workings. The first question is whether their lawyers are competent. If they are, how have they not successfully explained the Wilderness Act to their superiors? Is it that the superiors have bought into the Wilderness-as-religion movement? Or that they think the best policy is the least possible access for ecological reasons? Or that they are insufficiently competent? Or some combination? And thus they ignore the legal advice given to them?
My second question is, What do the people who have posted here in recent weeks that they are going to fight tooth and nail against chainsaws, in administrative proceedings and later in court, say about the High Country News article? Will they dismiss it as nonsense? I await any answers most eagerly.
LM, perhaps you’ve overlooked a possibility..rocking the boat is not a selected-for attribute in any bureaucracy, be it the FS or DOJ. Strongly felt ideological beliefs can get folks to rock the boat, but the reasonable and moderate don’t want to stick their necks out for the ideological to attack. In the presence of the ideological, laying low tends to be the safest policy. So..the need for change needs to come from outside.
Thanks, Sharon. I’ve also had that sense over the years, and I should have included it in my post. I myself have worked in public bureaucracies. It is as you say. For many people, the goal is to do one’s job, not attract unwelcome attention from within or controversy from without, and eventually retire with a comfortable pension. Things like chainsaws and bicycles in Wilderness are, I won’t deny it, controversial.
I haven’t read the article yet, but according to my digging… 43 CFR Part 6300 Subpart 6302 bans motorized vehicles and equipment. It seems to me a chainsaw would qualify as motorized equipment. It also bans “other forms of mechanical transport.” Would a bicycle be considered mechanical transport? Maybe I need to read the article as it may have an answer to both.
You might be surprised or not at the number of times this issue has come up at field trips, post fire recovery projects, and meetings that I have been at and the growing number of “older” conservation/enviro leads that have stated (off the record)… “maybe the time has come to allow the use of chainsaws in Wilderness areas that have been impacted by many of the large mega fires the West has seen over the last 15 years or so.”
Has there been any collaborative stakeholder group meetings where this issue was fleshed out?
If you go to the High Country News Facebook page or Instagram page you will find plenty of discussion about this opinion essay, including many comments from current and former Wilderness Trail workers who disagree with the opinion expressed in this essay.
In the past 24 hours, Wilderness Watch has been contacted by a number of current and former USFS Wilderness Rangers, Wilderness Managers, and Wilderness trail crew leaders/members who have expressed to us their strong disagreement with the opinion expressed in this HCN essay.
Also, this sign on letter to USFS Chief Schulz, from late April 2026 (https://wildernesswatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-4-28-Sign-on-Letter-to-FS-Chief-Chainsaws-in-Wilderness.pdf), was signed by over 30 current or forest agency Wilderness specialists, including Wilderness Rangers, Regional Wilderness Program Managers, Wilderness Trail Crew leaders, etc. The letter was also signed by a number of Wilderness trail organizations. Admittedly, the sign on letter was put together with on a minimal amount of time allowed for sign ons (because it was clear the USFS was about to authorize private, commercial outfitters to use chainsaws in the River of No Return Wilderness from January 1 to August 1 for the next 3 years), so we are very confident that many more current and former agency Wilderness experts would have signed on.
So, plenty of other “experienced” Wilderness Rangers, trail workers, managers, disagree with the opinion expressed by author of the HCN essay posted above. In fact, a USFS Wilderness Manager who wrote to us yesterday said the author of the HCN essay was co-leader of a “chainsaw rebellion” on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
Once again, here is some basic background information:
In May, the U.S. Forest Service authorized the use of chainsaws by private, commercial outfitters and guides for seven months a year (January 1 to August 1) for three years on 542 miles of trail in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness on the Salmon–Challis National Forest in Idaho. The Forest Service made this decision after a year of secret, behind-closed-door negotiations with the Idaho Outfitter and Guides Association with no public comment or environmental review, and little regard for federal laws, including the Wilderness Act.
Additionally, on July 7, 2026, the U.S. Forest Service authorized the use of chainsaws by private, commercial outfitters and guides for seven months a year (January 1 to August 1) for three years on 542 miles of trail in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness on the Payette National Forest in Idaho. Yet again, the Forest Service made this decision after a year of secret, behind-closed-door negotiations with the Idaho Outfitter and Guides Association with no public comment or environmental review, and little regard for federal laws, including the Wilderness Act.
We absolutely do not believe these authorizations are legal under the Wilderness Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. Not only does this move go against the mandate of the Wilderness Act prohibiting the use of motorized equipment in Wilderness, it could also set a dangerous precedent for the management of Wilderness across the country.
At the link below, you can also read a very detailed fact sheet and FAQ document, as well as review all the documents we obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, which includes a link to a Forest Service study assessing the efficacy of using crosscut saws vs. chainsaws in Wilderness, which found that well-trained crosscut saw teams can be as efficient, if not more efficient, than motorized chainsaw crews deep in the backcountry.
https://wildernesswatch.org/chainsaws-in-wilderness/
Finally, if anyone is following the work of Wilderness trail groups, such as the Siskiyou Mountain Club, Selway Bitterroot Frank Church Foundation, Southern Appalachian Wilderness Stewards, and others, you will see that much progress is being made this season across various Wilderness areas doing the hard work “The Wilderness Way.”
I looked and found a mere 20 comments on the High Country News Facebook page. Leaving aside the three from Wilderness Watch itself, there are 17. Nine of these 17 confuse the Wilderness Act with the Antiquities Act (i.e., National Monuments) and are irrelevant.
Of the remaining eight, two support the original author. Another two are profane rants. And finally we have three from a woman who belongs to the Church of Wilderness, to wit: “Wilderness is NOT about catering to human visitors. It was designated in a time when the philosophy of wilderness meant more than it does today. Untrammeled, untouched, unformed by humans.”
Matthew’s claim about what’s being said on the Facebook page is at odds with what I saw there.
I realize that nothing I write can persuade people associated with Wilderness Watch or the woman who seems to think humans need not visit Wilderness. The Forest Service will have to proceed on the basis of reason, not religion, ignore the unpersuadable, and allow maintenance with chainsaws. The Wilderness Act allows them and that is undeniable from the text of the Act.
Geez Lourenco Marques, I said FB AND Instagram. Yes, I 100% realize that the FB post doesn’t have nearly as many comments as the Instagram post.
If you go to the HCN INSTAGRAM page (200+ comments and counting), “you will find plenty of discussion about this opinion essay, including many comments from current and former Wilderness Trail workers who disagree with the opinion expressed in this essay.” That’s what I said. I stand behind that.
Anyway, sort of strange (but entirely predictable given your history of commenting here on this blog) how a sign-on letter is signed by nearly 100 conservation groups and trail maintenance groups, as well as over 30 USFS Wilderness specialists, including Wilderness Rangers, Regional Wilderness Program Managers, Wilderness Trail Crew leaders, etc. is boiled down to just Wilderness Watch and one woman, but so be it. I get it, that’s how play.
Once again, here is the sign on letter. Anyone can check it for themselves. Thanks.
https://wildernesswatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-4-28-Sign-on-Letter-to-FS-Chief-Chainsaws-in-Wilderness.pdf
On your clarification that Facebook wasn’t really relevant despite your invocation of it, I went to Instagram and found the usual debate.
I’m partial to this comment (next paragraph), but I will always maintain an open mind, and I’m not an expert. I only know that Wilderness trails are vanishing left and right, perhaps in the thousands of miles.
“We in British Columbia would simply not have a vast number of trails if chainsaw use was banned. If you were to ban saws you might as well ban humans from the trails as well and that’s not going to happen. It’s a silly rage bait topic really. 🙌. P.S. crosscut saws are not the answer.”
In maintaining an open mind, however, I give no deference to statements about “humility and restraint” and “the Wilderness way.” Those belong in a religious tract or a Mark Trail cartoon.
I think Mike’s 43 CFR reference pertains only to the BLM. Per a post on a previous thread, Forest Service policy is in the Manual (2320.6 and 2358). Which means when the Forest Service gets rid of its Manual, problem solved. Except for the question of what the Wilderness Act requires.
From the Wilderness Act:
PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing
private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road
within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet
minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this
Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety
of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor
vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other
form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such
area.
So the question would be, as I see it, does maintaining tails “… meet the minimum requirements for administration of the area for the purpose of this Act”? Perhaps, since recreation is spelled out in the act as ONE of its uses. Does maintaining trails require the use of motorized chainsaws? Maybe sometimes in some situations which is why there is a process to get authorization to do so rather than have a blanket policy.
Calling people names or saying they are part of a religion because they don’t agree with a blanket policy of allowing chainsaws to be used in designated wilderness areas administered by national forests is a methodology used by those who are frustrated that some don’t agree with them and not statements of truth.
If the FS allows the use of explosives in Wilderness to remove large hazard trees, why can’t we even have a discussion or review of this issue?
You are right! I just Googled it and confirmed it. That is amazing. I had no idea.
It’s another irony among so many involving Wilderness management.
Again, amazing . . . .
Presumably following the “process to get authorization to do so” that Mike has pointed out.