Beyond the Chainsaw Debate: Finding Common Ground- Guest Post by Don Amador- Plus Designing Collaborative Processes at Larger Scales

Don Amador sent the below piece last week- he explores the world of collaboration and suggests its application to wilderness management.  What struck me, though, was the difference between national efforts to collaborate and local (and state) efforts. What has been tried nationally, and how well has it worked?

Although I’ve worked with a variety of FACA committees, my everyday kind of experience was with the RACNAC, which you might recall was that national FACA committee designed to give national input on the State Roadless Rules.  I remember some of my colleagues watching one member looking at photos of dogs on his laptop while the discussion was going on.  My colleagues thought “I can’t believe taxpayers are paying his travel so he can watch dog videos.”  At the same time, folks like Ray Vaughan and Dale Harris did amazing work in trying to bring people together. I guess I’ll just call that “differing levels of commitment.”

Comparing the State effort and the national effort (yes, I attended most meetings of both), I think the difference was that the state people were, in some sense, in relationship.  This was one of many issues that the same folks at the state level dealt with.  They were also more familiar with details of the land and the practices.  They were all committed to the state and to the effort. The group did include a  representative from  TWS, who both negotiated,  and at the same time, told us his organization would never support the Rule no matter what was in it, based on principle).  And I remember John Swartout filling the role of bringing people together, one of the unsung and invisible heroes of such efforts.

I’ve seen at least four problems with efforts to collaborate at the national level- you may want to add some others.

1. Most annoying to me as a Designated Federal Official.. the regrettable FACA process.  One of many USG ideas with good intentions but the way it is designed has serious problems that are never fixed. See theme.. USG management.. not continuous improvement, not even discontinuous improvement, it’s more like accretion of incapacity.
2. National people get chosen as representatives of their groups with little or no experience at the ground level.  However ideological battles get fought (e.g. slogan-slinging), outcomes are not always practical.
3.  The voices of the people who will implement the decisions are not at the table. Nor, in the case of issues with public comment, the voices of those who actually read the public comments. The implementers may be in the room, but not allowed to take part.  Not the same as a local collaborative. Also collaborators at the local level tend to also be implementers, or implementing adjacent.
4. There is no feedback and learning over time about implementation of ideas.   There could have been for the Planning Rule FACA, but keeping a national group together over time is much more difficult due to big P political factors. The Idaho Roadless Rule has a formal process for dealing with problems and changes, and had an ongoing group to review. I heard that interest was lost and they disbanded.  Maybe someone can tell us more?

It seems to me that at least some of the above problems could be remediated by a different design.  Perhaps the USG is not the one to do it (until someone fixes FACA).  Perhaps an NGO of some kind could start something, perhaps building via groups organized by state that then submit recommendations to a national group.   It would be interesting for our social science researchers to look at a broad range of other issues and how collaborative groups are organized and funded.  Perhaps some nice foundation would fund that research?

What are your own experiences with organized collaborative efforts at local, state, and national levels?

Anyway, here is Don Amador’s guest post:

A recent High Country News article titled, “A Ban on Chainsaws in Wilderness is Performative, Not Practical" has sparked renewed discussion about one of the most sensitive issues in public land management. While the article focuses on whether chainsaws should be used to clear trails in designated Wilderness Areas following the unprecedented destruction caused by Western megafires, I believe the larger story is not about chainsaws at all. It is about finding common ground on stewardship
of designated Wilderness areas.

For decades, wilderness stewardship has been guided by principles established in the Wilderness Act of 1964, a landmark law that has served our nation well by protecting some of America’s most treasured landscapes. At the time, few could have imagined the scale of the ecological changes that would occur during the first quarter of the 21st century. Today, millions of acres of federal forests have experienced repeated high-severity wildfires, widespread insect infestations, prolonged drought, and extensive tree mortality. Across much of the West, trails that once connected visitors to remote landscapes are now buried beneath thousands of fallen trees or surrounded by hazardous stands of dead timber.

These conditions have created management challenges unlike anything previous generations of land managers encountered. The question is no longer simply whether trail crews should use crosscut saws or chainsaws. The more important question is whether our current management framework is keeping pace with the realities on the ground.

Fortunately, this is not a new challenge for public land management. Throughout my career, I have watched federal and state agencies, conservation organizations, recreation groups, local governments, industry representatives, scientists, and volunteers come together to solve difficult resource issues that once seemed impossible to overcome. Collaborative efforts addressing post-fire recovery, watershed restoration, sustainable trail management, forest health, invasive species, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation have repeatedly demonstrated that the best solutions rarely emerge from one stakeholder acting alone.

That same collaborative model should now be applied to the growing challenge of maintaining access and stewardship within our National Wilderness Preservation System.
Unfortunately, much of the current discussion appears to be occurring within isolated circles rather than through an open, transparent collaborative process. Some conversations are taking place within the Forest Service. Others involve wilderness advocacy organizations, outfitters, volunteer trail groups, or local communities. Yet there has been little evidence of a broad national dialogue that intentionally brings together the full range of interests that care deeply about America’s  wilderness.

The Forest Service has not adopted a nationwide policy authorizing chainsaw use in Wilderness, nor should anyone expect such a significant policy question to be resolved through isolated project decisions. Instead, the agency continues to evaluate requests under the long-established “minimum requirements” process authorized by the Wilderness Act. While that approach provides flexibility on a case-by-case basis, it does little to answer the larger question facing land managers across the West: How should wilderness stewardship evolve as our forests continue to change?

A collaborative forum would allow participants to move beyond the emotionally charged question of  “chainsaws versus crosscut saws” and instead examine broader issues such as post-fire forest conditions, trail sustainability, volunteer capacity, workforce limitations, visitor safety, ecological impacts, and long-term stewardship objectives. Rather than debating a single tool, stakeholders could focus on identifying management strategies capable of preserving both wilderness character and meaningful public access for future generations.

Decisions developed through open dialogue are far more likely to gain public acceptance than policies developed behind closed doors or through litigation. Even when consensus cannot be achieved, participants gain a better understanding of one another’s perspectives and often discover common ground that would otherwise remain hidden.

This issue also offers an opportunity for the Forest Service to demonstrate leadership. The agency has decades of experience participating in collaborative partnerships throughout the West. Applying that same collaborative model to wilderness trail management could help establish a thoughtful path forward that respects both the intent of the Wilderness Act and the unprecedented conditions facing today’s land managers.

None of us knows what the final answer will be. It may involve increased funding for traditional trail crews, expanded volunteer training, improved post-fire restoration strategies, additional research, carefully limited administrative flexibility, or perhaps entirely new approaches that have yet to be considered. Those solutions should emerge from collaboration rather than confrontation.

Massive wildfires in the American West have changed many forested lands dramatically over the past fifteen to 20 years. Rather than asking whether chainsaws belong in Wilderness, perhaps the more important question is this: Can we bring together the people who care most about these remarkable places and work collaboratively to ensure they remain healthy, accessible, and resilient for generations to come? – That is a conversation worth having.
# # #
Don Amador has been in the trail advocacy, post wildfire recovery, and recreation management profession for 35 years. Don served as chair of the CA State Parks Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Commission (circa 1994-2000). Don served as an AD Driver for the Forest Service North Zone Fire Cache during the 2022, 2023, and 2024 Fire Seasons.