Mt Hood National Forest Campgrounds

[Koda]

here is my opinion on the chainsaw to clear trails in wilderness areas debate...

IIRC a wilderness is a place where nature is the dominant force and humans are visitors.

But then we have permanent human made trails in that are technically not natural. We maintain them almost exclusively for recreational use which only creates more human impact. I'm not against trails in wilderness but IMO a true wilderness by that definition has no trails. If were going to have them, then we need to maintain them the most efficient way possible. In the end it gets done so it doesn't make any difference except it took more money and time and hard labor.... to do it without chainsaws


Edit for clarification

[retired jerry]

But there's a shortage of funds for trail maintenance (as discussed ad nauseum in this thread )

There are trails that don't get maintained.

But, listening to a chainsaw when you're in the wilderness is a major annoyance so I can see the resistance. I think organizations that have "wild" in their name would go balistic.

[kepPNW]

I'm not against trails in wilderness but IMO a true wilderness by that definition has no trails.

That would not only mean no humans, but no other mammals either...

[CampinCarl]

Random thought... restrict trail work with chainsaws to overlap hunting season, since it's already more noisy than usual (opens whole 'nother can of worms )

Ok, carry on...

[retired jerry]

ha, ha, ha,...

redirect thread to bashing each other about guns

[Grannyhiker]

My understanding is that the Wilderness Act makes no distinction between designated wildernesses in National Forests or those in National Parks. The NPS has interpreted the Wilderness Act to allow chainsaws to clear trails in designated wilderness; the FS interprets it as not allowing chainsaws for trail clearing.

Of course some organizations would probably sue if the FS changed their interpretation, so I can see why the FS doesn't. It would be different if they had worked with the NPS from the early days of the Act to use the same interpretation. Most of us are extremely sensitive to anything that might loosen Wilderness Act restrictions. But allowing chainsaws for trail maintenance would certainly reduce the cost of clearing trails.

I've hiked a number of trails that were cleared to the wilderness boundary and full of several years' deadfall beyond the boundary. Which makes the boundary very visible when on the trail! Unfortunately, the erosion created by detours around fallen logs can do more damage than a few minutes' use of a chainsaw.

I'm also very much against turning trailheads and campgrounds over to private concessionaires, but it looks as though it will take an act of Congress to change anything. Plus increased FS appropriations. Dream on!

If most of the Forest Pass dollars went for trail maintenance, I wouldn't object. Of course as a "senior citizen" I dont have to pay them, so I really shouldn't say anything.

[forestkeeper]

If most of the Forest Pass dollars went for trail maintenance, I wouldn't object. Of course as a "senior citizen" I don't have to pay them, so I really shouldn't say anything.

With your years of experience and knowledge, what you are saying is greatly appreciated and continually welcomed. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Many forest technicians agree with you. Throughout the non summer months, I take care of many campgrounds in the Clackamas River District and it saddens me each year when the concessionaires come aboard with no interest in the public but only for the mighty dollar. But the orders come from above, so we don't have any say in the matter.

[200,000']

..What I’m curious about is what has changed that federal taxes no longer cover caring for the public land? Has the USFS added that many new trails since then?

Negative. If anything there are fewer files of trails now than there were decades ago. There's been deliberate abandonment of many trails. Other trails were obliterated, or converted to skid roads or graveled roads during the cutting frenzy of the 1970s-1990. Relatively few new trails have been created. So, there's a net loss.

As I've written before, USFS is giving less support to "dispersed recreation" because it's harder to manage, as opposed to having the crowds constrained into hardened campgrounds that can be contracted to a concessionaire.

[retired jerry]

"cutting frenzy of the 1970s-1990."

I think a small amount of the funds from that went to trails

Now, less cutting, so less funds for trail maintenance

I wonder if there's any good data on this?

[200,000']

"cutting frenzy of the 1970s-1990."
I think a small amount of the funds from that went to trails
Now, less cutting, so less funds for trail maintenance
I wonder if there's any good data on this?

Yes, some timber sales money did go back to the USFS (I think it may have been termed "K/V Funds", but I might have the acronym wrong), and some did trickle down to the "Recreation" budget but it wasn't much. The USFS was fond of touting this as a "benefit" of cutting down the forest. It was a poor tradeoff.

Even with logging at its height, on the USFS's Sisters Ranger District in the late 1980's the TOTAL recreation budget was ~$18,000. That was from all funding sources. So the amount of KV money going into recreation for hundreds of millions of dollars of timber sold on that district alone was minimal.

Even back then, you weren't going to get much for $18K. And we didn't