https://www.wildernessneed.org/ the website has much useful info for trip planning and on other Wilderness topics.
I thought a comment by Cindy Chojnacky was detailed and interesting enough to post separately.
Just a couple of observations first.. Cindy points out what her observations are in the Wildernesses. It struck me how many of our disagreements can be framed as abstractions (Wilderness theory) vs. observations.
The second is that when a statute is a statute and agencies interpret it differently, is that a cultural artifact or based on some kind of logic? Does anyone actually remember how it came to be? Is there a utility, in this day and age for these differences? Or should we accept “whatever previous people wrote” as The Way it Should Always Be? Jon brought up the Forest Service Manual changes, and I plan to discuss those next week.
Not unrelated is the idea that if Wilderness was negotiated as a deal with then-current users, is it right to try to renegotiate after the deal is done? How much longer after the deal is done? Does it make more sense to work with those users and somehow make it worth their while to stop or change practices, rather than work for re-legislating?
Anyway, here are Cindy’s on-the-Wilderness-ground observations:
Having backpacked through 103 wilderness areas over the past 13 years, David and I resonated with Claire K. Thompson’s HCN post from trail crew perspective on need for targeted chainsaw use in some wilderness areas to address twin problems of climate change related trail damage and lessening trail staffing/ budgets. From field perspective she argued eloquently on 3 points we have raised many times (1) targeted use of chainsaws is needed to stop losing trail access, (2) National Park Service interprets the clause in Wilderness Act Section 4 (c ) on prohibiting motorized equipment in wilderness areas “except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for administration of the area” that clearing trails IS a minimum requirement and allows wilderness trail crews to use chainsaws (and Forest Service should do likewise), and (3) the entire purpose for establishing wilderness, mentioned 3 times in the Act, is providing for “visitor use and enjoyment” which cannot happen if wilderness visitors cannot access wilderness. (We noted Park Service chainsaw use in Daniel J. Evans Wilderness/ Olympic National Park where giant red cedar are so huge, chainsaws are essential to cut down logs 6-8 feet in diameter). Our fourth point is that fire crews often use chainsaws in wilderness (recently saw a new helipad cleared in the Pine Valley Mountain Wilderness during Forsyth Fire of 2025 with large old growth Douglas fir cut into neat rounds) and have argued that forest management should be able to use same exemption to “minimum tool” limits used during the fire for post-fire trail restoration. Fire crew practice of cutting every hazard tree along a fire line (often a wilderness trail) could be extended so that dead trees bound to fall within next 10 years could be dealt with immediately after the fire instead of presenting 10 years of trail maintenance challenge) as we have observed in Gila and other wilderness areas. Losing access to more obscure wilderness just channels more people into the heavily used areas with better trail maintenance.
We have been amused by Wilderness Watch’s impassioned fight to “save” the Frank Church RONR Wilderness from limited use of chainsaws by outfitters. We hiked through the Frank last summer from Marsh Creek to Poet Creek Campground (on boundary of Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness), passing through about 30 burn scars (including many reburned two or three times). We saw many people on wilderness boundaries—floating the Main and Middle forks of the Salmon River, on inholdings on the rivers, flying in to numerous airstrips grandfathered into the Frank’s enabling act, and driving the Magruder Corridor Road on the boundary of Frank and Selby. We saw 8 backpackers in the wilderness during our entire trek in the Frank, all within a day’s hike of a trailhead. We hiked 54 miles on the Magruder (and 26 on other roads) having been told that parallel trails in Frank and Selway were unusable. Even trails that had been recently cleared by non-profit or Forest Service crews often were a maze of down logs and brush—like beautiful frustrating Bargamin Creek heading from Main Salmon to Magruder; the last 13 rather mellow miles took 13 hours to the road. We suspect that WW and the folks who earnestly pass on its talking points don’t hike wilderness except the overused ones like Sawtooth, John Muir and Maroon Bells (just finished a trek there, encountering about 150-200 people near West Maroon Pass!).
In the Sawtooth Wilderness, a beautiful loop of the Big and Little Queens rivers near Atlanta, Idaho is almost unusable because a section of Little Queens through Johnson Creek has a mile of post-fire ceanothus higher than your head. Burned in the Idaho City Complex Fire of 1992, the basin was never cleared and now would require battery brush cutters, not hand tools, to clear.
Preventing chainsaw use seems to be the Holy Grail of wilderness protection for Wilderness Watch. We’d like to see WW use its litigation savvy and political muscle to go after a much more damaging special interest wilderness use that benefits a few private interests, does nothing for public enjoyment and access and does tremendous damage to the wilderness resource: public lands grazing. We were appalled to see 30-40 cows trashing a beautiful meadow on Capitol Creek in the Maroon Bells—a popular entrance from Snowmass for dozens of peak baggers, trail runners and hikers. But the cattle industry has much support in Congress. Promoting the enticing but poorly understood idea of “wilderness purity” and harassing Forest Service management may be less controversial way to engage public outrage and fulfill business model to continue donor funding.
On the website, Cindy has an interesting post with great photos called “Most Visitors on Boundaries of Wilderness.”
Thanks for sharing this. I have long thought that sometimes expert judgement should supersede absolute adherence to a regulation but with some established sideboards. Wilderness “management” as Cindy mentions falls into the perspective.
RE: “We have been amused by Wilderness Watch’s impassioned fight to “save” the Frank Church RONR Wilderness from limited use of chainsaws by outfitters.”
Well, I guess we are not “amused” that the U.S. Forest Service worked for approximately one year behind closed doors with Idaho Outfitter and Guides Association to authorize the use of chainsaws by private businesses—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 and Payette National Forest.
As we have previously stated, 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.
It is also somewhat amusing how Cindy frames the opposition of the U.S. Forest Service authorizing private businesses—commercial outfitters and guides—to use chainsaws in the River of No Return Wilderness from January 1 to August 1 for three years as only coming from Wilderness Watch.
The truth is that nearly 100 conservation groups and trail maintenance groups, as well as over 30 USFS Wilderness specialists, including former/current Wilderness Rangers, Regional Wilderness Program Managers, Wilderness Trail Crew leaders, etc. have also written to U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schulz expressing their opposition to any attempts by the U.S. Forest Service to authorize commercial outfitters to use chainsaws in designated Wilderness. Specifically, if you look at the names of the individuals who signed the letter, you will notice that it includes some of the most experienced and well-respected Wilderness Rangers and Regional Wilderness Program Managers, etc in the history of the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies that administer Wilderness.
Again, anyone can view that letter here:
https://wildernesswatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-4-28-Sign-on-Letter-to-FS-Chief-Chainsaws-in-Wilderness.pdf
One thing that I’m personally curious about is if the chainsaws being wielded by private businesses—commercial outfitters and guides—in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness will, in fact, go silent after August 1.
Furthermore, as has also been previously pointed out, 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.”
Finally, Cindy knows full well that Wilderness Watch works to defend the Wilderness Act and America’s National Wilderness Preservation System in countless ways, including taking numerous actions to rein in and end destructive livestock grazing in Wilderness, in addition to also opposing the U.S. Forest Service working behind closed doors to authorize private businesses—commercial outfitters—to run chainsaws through Wilderness.
Here’s a link to some of the many Wilderness-related issues we are working on: https://wildernesswatch.org/wild-issues/
As such, Cindy’s allegation that Wilderness Watch gives livestock grazing in Wilderness a pass is as false as it is dishonest.
Regardless, we would certainly welcome Cindy’s passion and energy to help end destructive livestock grazing in Wilderness, so please feel free to get in touch with us.
Finally, Wilderness Watch does not at all promote the idea of “wilderness purity” and I’d challenge Cindy to find Wilderness Watch even using that word.
Matthew, how can you say that using chainsaws in wilderness shows “little regard for federal laws” if the FS and NPS are under the same statute? I’m confused. Is there another law?
Why does the use of chainsaws to clear trails end each season on August 1? I suspect it has to do with not wanting to impact the wilderness experience of hunters who heavily depend on outfitters and guides when hunting in designated wilderness.
Matthew a review of that letter finds The majority of the signers are affiliated with environmental NGOs who is major funding model is litigation against government land management. While this does not disqualify their position We must recognize that these organizations have a monetary interest in the matter, and should not be viewed as pure or impartial actors. I’d say the same of the ranching interests mentioned earlier.
RE: “We suspect that WW [Wilderness Watch] and the folks who earnestly pass on its talking points don’t hike wilderness except the overused ones like Sawtooth, John Muir and Maroon Bells.”
What in the world would compel Cindy and David Chojnacky to “suspect” that Wilderness Watch staff members, board members, and members “don’t hike wilderness except the overused ones?”
What basis do Cindy and David Chojnacky have to make such an allegation?
Fact is, Wilderness Watch is headquartered in Missoula, Montana. Wilderness Watch also has an office in Moscow, Idaho.
In spite of what Cindy and David Chojnacky “suspect” and alledge (without any evidence, by the way), Wilderness Watch staff members and Board members frequently backpack in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, the Gospel Hump Wilderness.
Heck, Wilderness Watch has taken staff backpacking trips into the River of No Return Wilderness, the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness. Our staff and board backpack in the Pasayten Wilderness, the South San Juan Wilderness, and the Weminuche Wilderness (three Wilderness areas that have also faced various proposals to allow chainsaws in Wilderness). Our conservation director has done over 150 trips in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
A current Board member finished a 30 year U.S. Forest Service career as the forest-wide program manager for Recreation, Trails, and Wilderness on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Some of our staff and board members have partners who are former U.S. Forest Service Wilderness Rangers and Wilderness Trail Crew Leaders.
If you’d include our nearly 4,000 dues-paying members (over 90% of our funding comes from individuals, by the way), I “suspect” that Wilderness Watch members combined have visited nearly every Wilderness unit in the USA. Our membership of 4,000 people includes countless people who worked for the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies that administer America’s National Wilderness Preservation System. We have gotten numerous reports from our membership in the past few years specifically about their backpacking trips in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.
Again, if you look at the agency individuals who signed onto the letter to U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Schulz expressing their opposition to chainsaws in Wilderness, you will notice that the 30+ agency folks include some of the most experienced and well-respected Wilderness Rangers and Regional Wilderness Program Managers, etc in the history of the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies that administer Wilderness. Pretty sure these 30+ Wilderness specialists have spent a considerable amount of time hiking in Wilderness, and not just the “overused” ones.
So, I’d urge people to consider all these facts when you read Cindy Chojnacky making the following completely unfounded allegation:
“We suspect that WW [Wilderness Watch] and the folks who earnestly pass on its talking points don’t hike wilderness except the overused ones….”