For those of you more interested in Wilderness than wildfire management details, DOI is having a public comment period on creating a standard approach to recreational rock-climbing across designated landscape areas.
I found it in Bloomberg Government, which didn’t cover the news itself in the part I can read (five lines) but covers that Senate Democrats are “worried t worried the Trump administration will use a review of federal wilderness areas to roll back protections on public lands and undermine congressional authority to make future designations.” The headline is “Interior Review of Wilderness Triggers Public Land Concerns“..
Whether they have a reason to worry or not is paywalled.. so let’s look for ourselves.
Conceivably (and I’m not a lawyer) Congress has the ability to say whatever it wants in Wilderness designations, even future ones. But I’m sure the staff has excellent legal counsel, so maybe someone can explain how Congressional authority can be undermined by rock climbing regs.. if Congress doesn’t like them after the fact, there’s a solution.
Here’s a link to The Horse’s Mouth. It says that they are seeking public comment:
The Department is seeking public input on two important efforts: First, establishing a consistent approach to recreational rock climbing management across designated wilderness areas and second, evaluating whether existing wilderness study areas and lands with wilderness characteristics policies should be updated, clarified or revised to improve management and use of some of America’s most treasured landscapes.
Together, these efforts support the Department’s commitment to expanding access to outdoor recreation while ensuring public lands remain well managed, accessible and preserved for future generations.
So, rock-climbing and WSAs (and lands with wilderness characteristics). But not anything other than rock-climbing in Wilderness.
Hmm. if we go down to the agencies, it appears that the public comment period is related to Congress requiring Interior to issue guidance via Section 122 of the Explore Act. But this Facebook post by the Access Fund says it was the PARC Act. So Interior is doing what’s required by Congress, and Senate Democrats are worried that doing what Congress requires will undermine Congressional authority. The Access Fund also said that the FS would be issuing their draft national guidance.
The draft climbing guidance released earlier today from NPS, BLM and FWS is a result of the Protecting America’s Rock Climbing (PARC) Act. This law was passed in January 2025 to override the 2023 proposals to prohibit fixed anchors in NPS and USFS Wilderness. With the passage of PARC Act, Congress was able to permanently protect over 50,000 threatened climbing routes including all the climbing on El Cap, The Diamond and countless world class climbing areas in America.
Now I’m not a fan of moving the FS to Int, but it does seem to me that some policies could be intentionally harmonized.. like this one.
What’s interesting to me about the news story is that it focuses on the reaction, which can be totally different from what’s actually in the notice.
Wilderness in Idaho, the West is subject to review by Trump administration, Wilderness Society says
Public has until Aug. 14 to comment on review of wilderness management policies undertaken by U.S. Department of Interior
Carroll, from the Wilderness Society, said he is concerned the review and changes will go farther.
“The review of those policies seems very open-ended, but it includes language we have already seen very clearly from this administration when it wants to eliminate policies, rollback protection or outright eliminate designations. By that I mean ‘streamlining,’ ‘removing barriers’ and ‘looking for efficiencies in management.’”
Carroll encouraged Idahoans to make public comments that support keeping public lands public and oppose rolling back protections and policies governing wilderness areas.
It’s interesting how this story elides Wilderness and WSAs.
Michael Carroll, BLM campaign director with the Wilderness Society, said current wilderness policies prevent development, oil and gas drilling and motorized use in wilderness areas. They also preserve the natural and primitive qualities of wilderness land. Carroll also said the existing policies and management practices provide clarity for outfitters and guides, agriculture users who graze animals in wilderness areas and the public at large.
“They are dependent on management by federal land management agencies that is outlined in all those policies the current administration is reviewing and potentially rolling back,” Carroll said in a phone interview. “Without those management practices in place, or with significant rollback of those management policies, you could see wilderness across the West be under threat from potential development, potential road building and the potential handing over to the private sector.”
*******
It sounds like TWS is worried about the WSA part, but not so much about the climbing part. Others probably know more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Screenshot from Cindy’s website 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.
I recently read an excellent piece (but I can’t find the link) about AI that basically said “we need to start using it to develop our own skills” so to that end, I thought “let’s ask AI about the differences between the Park Service and the Forest Service on chainsaw use in Wilderness?”
First I tried Google AI- they cite Facebook and The Smokey Wire as sources .. kind of scary..
*************************
The National Park Service (NPS) generally prohibits the use of chainsaws in designated Wilderness areas under the Wilderness Act of 1964, which bans motorized equipment. Instead, trail crews and rangers typically use “primitive” hand tools like crosscut saws and axes to maintain trails and clear downed trees.
However, there are specific, limited exceptions where the use of chainsaws may be authorized:
1. Administrative Exceptions (“Minimum Tool”)
The Wilderness Act allows for motorized equipment if it is determined to be the “minimum tool” necessary for the administration of the area.
Emergency Response: Chainsaws are frequently authorized for life-saving search and rescue operations or for fire suppression (e.g., cutting fire lines).
Significant Storm Damage: If catastrophic events like ice storms or widespread “blowdowns” create hazards that cannot be cleared by hand tools in a reasonable timeframe, a park superintendent may issue a temporary exception. For example, Shenandoah National Park has previously approved short “windows” of chainsaw use to clear major trail damage before peak hiking season.
2. Differing Agency Policies
While the law is the same, application can vary slightly between agencies:
National Park Service (NPS): Is often cited as having more discretion to use chainsaws for specific management goals, such as large-scale tree cutting for fire risk reduction.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS): Traditionally maintains a stricter “no-chainsaw” stance for routine trail maintenance, though it has recently faced internal proposals and public pushback regarding limited chainsaw use to address massive backlogs of downed timber in some regions.
Summary Table: Chainsaw Use in Wilderness
User/Activity
Allowed?
Rationale/Conditions
General Public
No
Prohibited for campers, hikers, and hobbyists.
Trail Volunteers
No
Must use certified crosscut saws and hand tools.
Fire Crews
Yes
Authorized for active fire suppression/emergencies.
NPS/USFS Staff
Rarely
Only with high-level approval as the “minimum tool” for specific tasks.
********************
Grok was a bit more detailed and wonkish- but also linked to The Smokey Wire (forestpolicypub) and I don’t know if some of its conclusions are accurate..
*****************
The core difference is one of interpretation and application of the same law, not a difference in the underlying statute. Both the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are governed by the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Section 4(c)), which prohibits motorized equipment—including chainsaws—in designated Wilderness areas, except as necessary to meet the minimum requirements for administering the area for the purposes of the Act (including emergencies involving health or safety).
Shared Legal & Analytical Framework
Prohibition with narrow exception: “…except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act … there shall be no … use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats…” (16 U.S.C. § 1133(c)).
Decision process: Both agencies use a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG / MRA) to evaluate whether a prohibited tool (like a chainsaw) is truly the minimum needed. Economic convenience, speed, or ease alone cannot justify it (explicitly stated in USFS policy; NPS applies the same principle).
Sawyer certification: Both have formal training/certification programs for chainsaw and crosscut operators (and even a 2022 interagency MOA granting reciprocity for volunteers/cooperators), but this governs who can operate a saw, not whether one can be used in Wilderness.
USFS Policy & Practice (Generally Stricter)
Default: Crosscut (hand) saws only for routine trail maintenance, hazard tree removal, etc. Chainsaws are not allowed except in very limited, site-specific circumstances.
Key policy reference: Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2320.6 and 2358. Chainsaws may be approved only if non-motorized options are impossible due to time/season limits, safety, or other material restrictions—and only after full MRDG analysis. The manual explicitly forbids approving motorized equipment “solely on a rationale that the method or tool is quicker, cheaper and easier.”
Real-world result: Most USFS Wilderness trails are cleared exclusively with crosscuts. Attempts to allow temporary chainsaw use (e.g., 2019 beetle-kill cleanup in Colorado wildernesses or recent Idaho proposals) have triggered lawsuits from conservation groups and were often rescinded. Chainsaws remain “currently not allowed … except under extremely limited circumstances.”
Rationale emphasized by USFS: Preserving the “untrammeled” and primitive character of Wilderness.
NPS Policy & Practice (More Permissive)
Default: Chainsaws are routinely used when the park superintendent determines they are the minimum tool necessary.
Key policy reference: NPS Director’s Order #41 (Wilderness Stewardship) and Management Policies 2006 follow the same MRDG framework, but the agency more frequently concludes that chainsaws meet the “minimum requirement” standard—especially in larger, high-use, or old-growth areas where crosscuts would be impractically slow or unsafe.
Real-world result: Chainsaws are “freely used” in many NPS Wilderness areas (e.g., Olympic National Park’s Daniel J. Evans Wilderness for massive Douglas-fir/cedar logs; Yosemite, etc.). Trail crews in NPS Wilderness commonly carry and use chainsaws.
Bottom line: The law is identical, but the USFS applies a stricter “only crosscuts unless absolutely impossible otherwise” standard, while the NPS more readily finds chainsaws to be the minimum tool needed to keep trails open and the area administrable. This has produced noticeably different on-the-ground outcomes: many USFS Wilderness trails rely exclusively on hand tools, while NPS Wilderness areas see regular chainsaw use.
If you’re planning work, volunteering, or visiting a specific Wilderness area, always check the local unit (forest or park) for its current site-specific decisions—policies can have narrow exceptions.
*********
Finally, ChatGPT just makes stuff up that isn’t true. Again…
*******************
🔧 National Park Service (NPS): stricter, preservation-first
Emphasizes natural conditions and non-intervention
Chainsaws are rarely used
Strong preference for:
Crosscut saws
Non-motorized tools
Even for trail clearing, staff are expected to maintain traditional wilderness methods
👉 Chainsaws typically show up only in:
Emergencies (immediate threats to life/safety)
Very limited, highly justified management actions
🌲 U.S. Forest Service (USFS): more flexible, use-oriented
The USFS manages under a multiple-use mandate, which subtly shifts how wilderness is handled.
Still follows the Wilderness Act—but:
More willing to approve chainsaws through the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide (MRDG)
👉 In practice, chainsaws are more likely to be used for:
Trail clearing after major storms or blowdowns
Maintaining access to large wilderness trail systems
Fire management or fuel treatments (in limited cases)
Situations where crosscut saw use would be:
Unsafe
Impractically slow
Logistically infeasible
⚖️ Why the difference?
It comes down to agency culture and mission:
NPS: preserve wilderness character, minimize human imprint
USFS: balance wilderness with access, infrastructure, and broader land-use responsibilities
So even though the legal standard is identical, USFS tends to approve chainsaw use more often than NPS.
**************
So that’s rating of -2 out of two tries for ChatGPT. It also doesn’t tell us where it got the info.. which is hardly better than using TSW and Wilderness Watch as the sources of info. The whole thing is a bit discouraging.
Here are my thoughts based on what I read in the post and the comments, both things are true:
A. We want some places with less direct human influence- “don’t do stuff where you don’t have to.”
B. How exactly that manifests (is expressed) will never be straightforward. It will always be political in terms of designation, and influenced by staff and externals. Some users and uses will be allowed and others not, and some decisions at different levels will appear to be fairly random.
So perhaps we are always going to talk past each other if one side leads from the idea (A) , and the other from (B) “as the idea plays out in the world.” Unlike the clip from Fiddler on the Roof above, I think in this case, both sides are right.
Or you could say Wilderness is like Roadless. but with much better articulated philosophical underpinnings, and much better, and longer term, marketing.
Since this is a religious time of year for the Jewish and Christian traditions, I thought I’d weigh in on what people might mean when they say “religious” in the context of Wilderness (that is, Wilderness on federal lands). Anyone who uses that terminology (as well as others) are welcome to weigh in.
By “religious” people could mean:
1. Adherence to unprovable beliefs. I don’t think that this is particularly relevant, as I think most of us would agree with this statement of Anonymous:
The crux is not managed versus unmanaged or manipulated versus non-manipulated, not really. Granting that these terms are ready to hand and often useful shorthand, more precisely the wilderness act is as you say, that is an aspiration towards a type of human nonintervention in order to obtain goods that more typical and intensive forms of human intervention would render unobtainable. Aspirational doesn’t mean unreal – many realities begin in just that, human aspiration.
As a inherently picky person about words, I’d only add “services” to “goods” in his statement. I really like Anonymous’ use of the word “aspirational”. Fire suppression, jets flying above, pollution, grazing, trails, bridges and the host of other interventions that do take place, in my view are different expressions of that aspiration. Even the idea, that I think we heard before, that NPS has different expressions (e.g. chainsaws) than the FS.
Norm’s comment, it seems to me, says basically the same thing, that the expressions of that aspiration sometimes don’t seem like they follow a logical course. But of course, being aspirations, we wouldn’t expect them to. Perhaps this is a bottom-up (“what I see as OK vs. not OK doesn’t make sense”) vs. top-down (the aspirational part) approach to the question. As Norm stated:
But the difficulty is that there is no true condition of non-manipulation left to choose. To say that Wilderness should simply be left alone is, at this point, more aspiration than reality. Human beings are already in the system. If people are permitted to enter wilderness, they inevitably alter natural processes. They stock lakes and streams, introduce exotic plants and animals, and reshape fire regimes directly or indirectly. Wildfire itself complicates the ideal of “letting nature take its course.” If a fire begins inside Wilderness and spreads into the wildland-urban interface, intervention suddenly becomes necessary. If a fire begins outside Wilderness and burns inward, is it still “natural,” or has it already been shaped by human land use, suppression history, and climate effects?
The choice, then, is not between management and non-management. It is between different forms of human management, each with consequences. Wilderness may be described as unmanipulated, but in practice its boundaries, permitted uses, and protection are already products of human judgment. The Act itself was passed for human purposes—for what we value, preserve, and wish to pass on to future generations. The question is not whether humans will manage Wilderness, but how honestly we acknowledge that we already do.
2. The existence of a priesthood that governs these expressions- and these priests have all the power to determine their application. Having good goals is and has always been frequently used to gain power. Think Europe’s religious wars which led to the promotion of religious tolerance in the founding of the US. Maybe you have not witnessed this, but decisions of this group are sometimes questioned by agency peers and outfitters (of course, they are regulating outfitters so some tension is necessary and appropriate). There is even a pejorative expression for some wilderness employees related to this which I won’t repeat here.
3. The tension between aspiration and on-the-ground practice has long been noted by… religious people such as Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):
Although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects… In matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all, as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles; and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail, it is not equally known to all… The principle will be found to fail, according as we descend further into detail.
4. Or perhaps religious figures make judgments that do not fit all situations, nor as time changes the world. I think that may be what people mean by “scriptural.” Or they may not seem to make sense or seem relatively trivial (think of food laws in Leviticus). For example, there was a certain event that went through Wilderness which taken in total had more than 20 heartbeats (or whatever the number is).. the Wilderness folks decided to have clumps of 20 separated by some distance. It could be argued that it would be less of an impact on others to let them all go through in a clump and be done with them. Who knows?
Then there are matters of interpretation Here is what Wilderness Connect says about wildfire:
Lightning-caused fires are sometimes allowed to burn in wilderness and thus to allow fire to play its natural ecological role. These fires are managed to reduce, to an acceptable level, the risks and consequences of catastrophic wildfire and of fire escaping from the wilderness. In order to let naturally-ignited fires burn in wilderness, there must be an approved fire management plan, and the fire must meet and remain within established criteria.
Prescribed fires, those ignited on purpose by qualified personnel, may be used to reduce fuel buildups within wilderness, when approved in fire management plans. These plans detail fire goals for the area, historic fire occurrence, the natural role of fire, expected fire behavior, appropriate fire suppression actions and techniques (ex. dropping water or retardant from airplanes), smoke management, and possible effects on adjacent landowners and wilderness visitors.
Most fires are detected from aircraft overflights and lookouts located outside the wilderness boundary, although some lookouts are maintained within wilderness. Fire suppression crews protect natural and cultural features, such as historic cabins, by using suppression tactics that minimize the lasting evidence of suppression actions. Motorized equipment is used only when essential, water is used instead of fire retardants, when possible. Watershed restoration in burned areas is allowed where conditions cause unnatural resource loss or threaten life or property outside wilderness.
5. Or a kind of preachy tone when talking about it. This is harder to describe but can be offputting and may remind people of (some) religious institutions. An example is when preachy people talk about other people need to be more humble.
************
For me the whole climate-humans-wildfire-natural thing was confusing until I read this in a Wilderness Watch response to comments, which I think articulated a position very well (page 6).
Lucas (1973, p. 151) stated, “If ecological processes operate essentially uncontrolled within the Wilderness frame of reference, the results, whatever they might be, are desirable by definition. The object is not to stop change, nor to recreate conditions as of some arbitrary historical date, nor to strive for favorable change in big game populations or in scenic vistas. The object is to let nature ‘roll the dice’ and accept the results with interest and scientific curiosity.”
It seems to me, though, that wildfire necessitates deciding what is “rolling the dice” and what is not. If a fire starts in a Wilderness area or is moving into on. the only reason to stop it would be risk of undesirable wildfire effects as it moves out of Wilderness, which I think is more or less current policy, and has been. But if our wilderness areas are intended to be reference conditions, why would we need more? Those don’t seem to be the arguments politicians use when they argue for more acres to be included. so I’m still a bit confused.
***************
And of course, Wilderness designations are (very) political. Hence the very non-dogmatic set of nonconforming uses when Congress designates Wilderness. These were summarized in a 2022 CRS report.
Nonconforming Uses or Conditions7
Lands do not have to be untouched by humans to be eligible for statutory designation as wilderness. Specific statutes designating wilderness areas may terminate or accommodate any existing uses or conditions that do not conform to wilderness standards (commonly referred to as nonconforming uses). Many previous wilderness designations have directed immediate termination of nonconforming uses, whereas other bills have directed the agencies to remove, remediate, or restore nonconforming conditions or infrastructure within a specified time frame.
Alternatively, many nonconforming uses and conditions have been permitted to remain in designated wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act explicitly allows continued motorized access by aircraft and motorboats in areas where such uses were already established. The Wilderness Act also permits motorized access for management requirements and emergencies, and for fire, insect, and disease control. Numerous wilderness statutes have permitted existing infrastructure (e.g., cabins, water resource facilities, telecommunications equipment) to remain and have authorized occasional motorized access to operate, maintain, and replace the infrastructure. A few statutes have also allowed new infrastructure developments within designated wilderness areas. Although such authorizations are usually for a specific area, some statutes have provided more general exemptions, such as for maintaining grazing facilities or for fish and wildlife management by a state agency in all areas designated in the statute. Various existing wilderness statutes have included special access provisions for particular needs. For example, several statutes have included provisions addressing possible military needs in and near the designated areas, particularly for low-level military training flights. Similarly, statutes designating wilderness areas along the Mexican border commonly have allowed motorized access for law enforcement and border security.
Then there’s Alaska,
In recognition of the special conditions that exist in Alaska, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) allows many activities that are otherwise prohibited in wilderness areas outside Alaska. Most notable are motorized access (ex. vehicle, snow machine, bush plane) for traditional uses and subsistence activities (often by Native Alaskans), modification of fish habitat and establishment of fish hatchery programs, construction of recreation cabins and shelters, cutting of trees for house logs and firewood, and commercial salvage of beach logs. Temporary facilities, such as tent platforms and shelters, may also be established for hunting and fishing.
Here’s a little more (added to this) on the Nez Perce-Clearwater revised forest plan. Mostly I wanted to share this graphic of how they are “reaching out” to the public. They ask an important question: “What can you do?” The obvious meaning seems to be what can you do about the forest plan, and the answer for most people is “nothing.” They say that the plan is in the objection period, but don’t tell us that the only people who can participate are those who have already done so. They invite us to “learn more,” about this nearly-done deal, which they misleading label as a “draft Forest Management Plan.” (At the draft EIS stage, the Planning Rule refers to it as the “proposed plan,” and at the objection stage it is just the “plan.) While they have must have included similar outreach at earlier stages in the process, for those encountering this for the first time, it’s almost disingenuous.
But while I’m at it , there was also another article recently that focused on the State Line Trail, which runs through the Hoodoo Recommended Wilderness Area in the Great Burn between Idaho and Montana. (I’ve been there but haven’t been directly involved in the planning, so know only what I read.)
“It used to be a marquee backcountry ride for mountain bikers, too. That ended in 2012 when the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, which controls the Idaho side of the trail, approved a new travel management plan that barred bicycles from its portion of the trail. On the Montana side, the Lolo National Forest has long allowed bicycles on the trail.”
A new revised forest plan for the Nez Perce-Clearwater could change that, by determining that bicycles are an appropriate use in the portions of Idaho around the trail, which would mirror access on the Montana side. If the changes in the plan are finalized, possibly later this year, that would set the stage for the Nez Perce-Clearwater to revisit and alter its 2012 travel plan to formally re-allow bicycles on the trail.”
The rationale behind these changes, according to the forest supervisor, don’t seem to include consistency (more on that later): “We have these types of very primitive, amazing, out in the middle of nowhere experiences that you can get to no matter what your matter of conveyance is.” No apparent agency recognition that the conveyance is part of the experience for those who encounter it, and for some it makes it feel unpleasantly more like “somewhere.”
One of the supporters added, “It’s a small segment of the sport that this is going to appeal to,” he said. “It’s not that close to Missoula. It’s hard. The trail’s in deteriorating condition. But this opportunity is, for certain people, something they really, really want.” That small segment of certain people (who apparently want to deteriorate the trail even more) must be pretty special to get this kind of personalized attention.
“Some mountain bikers are drawn to remote, rugged, and challenging backcountry trail experiences on wild and raw landscapes,” a group of supporters commented. “These are places where it is uncommon to see other trail users, and where riding requires a high level of physical fitness and technical skill — in many cases it involves pushing a bike instead of riding at all.” That would be like hiking, wouldn’t it? So, it’s not like closing the area to this use would exclude these physically fit people from these wild and raw landscapes. I’ll admit that I don’t understand the rationale of wanting to experience a “wild and raw landscape” on a machine, which (to me) reduces the rawness and wildness of the experience.
The aura of personal opinion and politics behind these wilderness debates is why I focus my energy on other things. Here there is also talk about snowmobiles and mountain goats, and why mountain goats are treated differently in adjacent national forests.
As for the effects of snowmobiles on mountain goats, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game blamed them for disappearance from one part of this area, but the founder of the Backcountry Sled Patriots says otherwise (citing other research). The Lolo National Forest cited the negative effect of motorized over-snow machines as reason for designating them a species of conservation concern. The Nez Perce-Clearwater is not concerned about mountain goats. The Forest Service minimizes the importance of the areas at issue to mountain goats (though they apparently used to be some places they are not found now).
About the Lolo, Marten, the regional forester, who determines which species are SCC, wrote:
“Compared to other ungulates, the species appears particularly sensitive to human disturbance. Motorized and non-motorized recreation, as well as aerial vehicles, are well documented to affect the species, particularly during winter and kid-rearing season, with impacts ranging from permanent or seasonal (displacement), to changes in behavior and productivity.”
The regional director for ecosystem planning said that she didn’t see the different listing decisions as being in conflict with each other. Rather, she said, they reflect that mountains goats are doing better overall on one forest than the other. This may be technically/legally possible since SCC are based on persistence in an individual forest plan area. However, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to manage one national forest to increase the risk to, and to contribute to SCC designation on, another forest. Moreover, the Planning Handbook states that “species of conservation concern in adjoining National Forest System plan areas” should be considered by the regional forester in making this designation. This all has kind of an arbitrary ring to it.
As for consistent management across national forest boundaries, The Nez Perce-Clearwater plans to change the shape of the Hoodoo RWA to remove the key snowmobile areas from it, so that boundary between the national forests becomes a boundary for the RWA. The Forest Service points out that the plan revision process in the hands of forest supervisors, not the regional office. The forest supervisors disclaim any obligation for consistency, and even suggest that travel planning may produce a different result, and “forest plans and travel management plans are continually updated and amended” so they could change again. That doesn’t square well with history. The every-third-of-a-century Forest plan revision should be the time to get it right. Even if the regional forester doesn’t want to say what the plans must do, that person could simply order them to be consistent along this boundary.
The details of this plan are outside my range of knowledge, but I thought this story was interesting. First of all the headline, “shrinks Great Burn Wilderness”. Of course, forest plans can’t actually do that, so I looked further and the plan reduces the Recommended Wilderness. Which of course is not the same thing. Headlines.. sigh.
The Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest supervisor trumpeted her new forest plan as the best compromise for all, but when it comes to proposed wilderness, both advocates and opponents disagree.I’m not a fan of using the word “trumpeted”. It seems like there’s been “emotional wording” inflation since folks discovered that emotions drive engagement which drives bucks in internet world.
The story has many quotes from Probert, the Forest Supe, the Great Burn Conservation Alliance executive director Hayley Newman, and other ENGO folks.
“The Forest Service has sat back while illegal motorized use has encroached on the Great Burn for years, and now it’s decided to reward illegal use by rewriting the forest plan to make it okay,” said Maddy Munson, Wild Montana Public Lands director.
Newman said one forest – the Nez Perce-Clearwater – shouldn’t be allowed to diminish a wilderness that’s partially managed, and managed differently, by another forest: the Lolo. For example, the Lolo Forest recently designated the mountain goat as a species of concern while the Nez Perce-Clearwater has not. Plus, one forest plan might sway another, said Katie Bilodeau, Friends of the Clearwater staff attorney.
Yes, plans done on a forest by forest basis may not harmonize across boundaries. The idea of “swaying” is interesting. Conceivably earlier plans may make it easier for the next plan to make the same kinds of choices. I don’t see that that is good or bad necessarily unless you don’t like ideas in the earlier ones.. but that could work both ways “hey that forest gave us an extra 100K of RW, so you should too!”
I thought that this was interesting.
In her decision rationale, Forest Supervisor Cheryl Probert said the question of what to recommend as wilderness garnered the most public interest of all aspects of the draft forest plan released in December 2019, accounting for 18% of almost 20,000 comments.
Different forests have people interested in different things during planning and apparently wilderness is big there.
Probert said she’d heard about the need to protect wolverine and mountain goats but also heard complaints from snowmobile users who said that “there are no replacements for the opportunities provided here.” She asked opposing groups to come up with a compromise, but none came. So she carved the area up to create one.
I don’t know if it’s just the way it’s reported, but it sounds like she herself did it. I’m thinking it’s likely that her staff and she had many discussions and they probably didn’t all agree. It sounds kind of dismissive “she carved up” versus, say, “after a series or far-ranging discussions with members of the public, interest groups, elected officials, she and her staff came up with this proposal as a possible solution.”
In fact, wilderness groups want the Forest Service to enlarge the Great Burn Wilderness to encompass adjacent roadless areas to the west, an addition of 40,000 acres. But, Probert bypassed three plan alternatives with more recommended wilderness – between 309,000 and 857,000 acres – preferring an alternative with just 197,700 acres of proposed wilderness.
However Probert did propose one new wilderness, Meadow Creek, with almost 73,000 acres adjacent to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness south of the Selway River.
Hopefully some TSW readers, including motorized folks (apparently not interviewed for this article) will weigh in and add their perspective. Just a thought.. there seem to be forest vegetation collaborative groups where people who disagree reach compromises.. this doesn’t seem common in recreation disputes (or is it?). Maybe our social science friends have studied why that might or might not be the case.
Finally, did opening up the decision about Recommended Wilderness via plan revision lead to a better on-the-ground outcome in some way? Did it encourage groups to work together, or just open a new arena for the same old battles?
Mounted wilderness ranger and packer Jim Leep on patrol.
By Les Joslin
With the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station at the primary eastern entrance to the Three Sisters Wilderness up and running, I spent the summer of 1993 training volunteer wilderness information specialists to staff that station, staffing it myself on days a qualified volunteer was not available, and patrolling the trails when the station was staffed.
Late that summer I met the other volunteer wilderness ranger on patrol a mile or two north of the Green Lakes—some six trail miles north of the Green Lakes Trailhead—while I was surveying campsites in that relatively remote stretch of the wilderness. I knew this volunteer mounted ranger and packer had begun service that summer, but this was the first time our trails had crossed.
We introduced ourselves. Jim Leep was a retired Portland, Oregon, police officer who, by all reports, was doing a superb job that summer doing what mounted rangers and packers do—serving wilderness visitors and transporting trail crew camps, equipment, and such materials as signs, sign posts, and water bars. And he was doing it for free, using his own saddle stock and pack string.
We compared notes. In response to his questions, I explained how and why I was serving as I did on a contract—almost as a forest patrol officer but without enforcement authority. Then, recognizing competence and professionalism when I saw it, I noted he labored under so such federal government employment restrictions as I did. “You should be a seasonal employee of the Forest Service,” I told him.
For the next dozen years he was, epitomizing the “forest ranger” on wilderness trails as he and his saddle and pack stock patrolled the Deschutes National Forest third of the Three Sisters Wilderness, always available and able to handle any assignment or challenge that came his way. Jim and I worked closely together, sometimes against unexpected and unnecessary odds, to do a full range of real jobs well. Jim had great people skills, and related especially well to the many equestrian wilderness visitors.
Years later, after our Three Sisters Wilderness years were behind us, Jim and I sectioned the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail through Oregon—from the California line to the Washington State line–together. And, when my book Three Sisters Wilderness: A History was published by The History Press in 2021, Jim was the wilderness ranger on the cover and in half a dozen of the photographs which illustrate the book.
This was submitted as a comment to an article posted June 27 by Steve Wilent titled “Forest Service denies pleas to chainsaw logjams in the Pasayten Wilderness.” It is running as separate post to include photos which show examples of neglected trails in Forest Service wilderness. The author has also written on the “perfect storm” of climate change-damaged trails and less field presence by the Forest Service on this blog inspired by fire-damaged trails in the Gila Wilderness (https://www.wildernessneed.org/the-gila-wilderness-at-age-95-losing-a-legacy/)”
WILDERNESS COMMENT
Based on personal experience, the Forest Service’s strict interpretation of Wilderness Act to use only “minimum tool”…e.g., only crosscuts in wilderness—is resulting in many legacy trails becoming lost in Forest Service wilderness. Here are some examples.
White Cloud Wilderness, Idaho—big avalanche to cross into a lake basin.
In Sawtooth Wilderness in Idaho, a legacy trail loop suitable for stock followed Big Queens-Little Queens rivers. The 1992 Idaho City Complex Fire burned Johnson Creek Trail connecting the two river trails; resulting overgrowth of ceanothus is now chest high for two miles of trail crossing the creek. A trail crew with power brushcutters could clean up the trail in a few days.
In northern part of Sawtooth Wilderness, lots of down trees on Redfish Ridge Trail
A few miles north on same trail near Redfish Lake as soon as we passed the wilderness boundary we saw excellent clearing of the trail—open to mountain bikes—with chain saws.
One more example from the East: down logs in Mary’s River Wilderness on the George Washington-Jefferson National Forest in Virginia. A wilderness manager told me a lack of certified hand-sawyers was forcing abandonment of certain trails.
By contrast, the National Park Service uses chainsaws if needed. For instance, only crosscut saws are used in the Saguaro Wilderness near Tucson because the area is small and minimal “logging” (cutting out logs) is needed. By contrast, in Olympic National Park (Daniel J. Evans Wilderness), chainsaws are freely used to clear the huge old- growth Douglas-fir and western red cedar. This is an extreme example of a person-size chainsaw cut many years ago!
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) also uses some discretion in wilderness to carry out its main mission which is wildlife protection. In the Kofa and Cabeza Prieta wilderness areas in southern Arizona, FWS uses “cherry stem” (excluded from wilderness) roads to drive and maintain water sources, improves natural tanks (like the one below) and even hauls water to human-made tanks and pools in dry periods for desert bighorn sheep.
All three agencies base their management practices on Wilderness Act: Section 4. (c) Prohibition of Certain Uses, which states no motorized equipment in wilderness.
However, Park Service and FWS seem to make liberal use of a disclaimer which starts the list of restrictions: “except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act.” According to Section 2. (a), the purpose of wilderness is the use and enjoyment of the American people. We think it is necessary to keep trails open for public “use and enjoyment,” and so does the Park Service. Fish and Wildlife Service reasons that its main purpose for large wilderness areas it manages (which are also wildlife refuges) is wildlife, hence a broad interpretation of the wilderness restrictions.
The wilderness “purpose statement” in Wilderness Act of 1964 comes in where Congress explains why it was establishing the wilderness preservation system. The Act’s STATEMENT OF POLICY SECTION 2 (a) states an intent to “secure for the American people…the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness,” and to designate wilderness areas which “shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people.” Therefore, the purpose for wilderness is people’s use and enjoyment—e.g., wilderness experience.
The task of management agencies is also spelled out: “these shall be administered in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness…” Unimpaired could be called wilderness quality. “In such manner” is the job of wilderness administration with wilderness quality the means for achieving the Act’s purpose or end: people’s use and enjoyment of wilderness (experience). Much wilderness research, management and activism have focused on wilderness quality—and particular overused areas have received the most study and management concern. We have argued that focus only on wilderness quality or character—the means—if ignoring the overall purpose or end—wilderness experience— could treat the wilderness visitor as a threat or nuisance.
Many environmental groups that fight agency exemptions such as chainsaws for clearing excessive down trees after fire or microbursts see themselves as protectors of wilderness quality or character. However, they have a conflict of interest on this issue since they are funded by donations from the public solicited for various battles to “protect the wilderness” from allegedly harmful federal agency management practices. This is an easy sell to people who want to support wilderness emotionally and financially but may not know much about policy details of the Wilderness Act.
A towboat operator tied a canoe to an overhead rack ahead of taking a camping party into the BWCA. TONY KENNEDY, STAR TRIBUNE
Ah.. Wilderness. Based on the ongoing discussion here, I looked up the Act and at amendments.
There seems to be a 1978 amendment on the Boundary Waters that said existing motorized boat use could continue.
Then I looked up the current status and it looks like there is a court case to reduce the number of motorized towboats.
“Older visitors and visitors with limited mobility-use towboats, and an injunction would risk reducing these visitors’ opportunities to experience the BWCAW,” Brasel wrote in her 27-page decision on the injunction. “Moreover, a total ban would likely disrupt Forest Service’s work of gathering and analyzing data regarding motorboat and towboat usage.”
The judge had ordered Wilderness Watch and the U.S. Forest Service, which manages the BWCAW, to work out an agreement on towboat use before a trial is held. But the two sides so far haven’t been able to agree on how much use is too much, and Brasel said she wouldn’t make that ruling at this point.
“Because the record is completely muddled as to how such a limit should be calculated, the Court declines to pick what would be an arbitrary number,” Brasel noted. “But a limit may be appropriate upon a further‐developed record.”
To me, it seems like the court case should start a public process in deciding how many boats and where, with NEPA and public comment. Such decisions, about federal lands, would be best informed by all the experiences, views and research that can be brought to bear not a few folks in a closed room. That’s how it often works.. litigation kicks off a public process, and doesn’t replace one.
