So is Wilderness always a good thing????

[backcountryhunter]

Splint? Seriously? Who would troll a hiking forum? Especially us here at Portland Hikers. It's not like we stir up all sort of controversy or whip each other into oblivian like other hiking forum do (NWHIKERS). I think we all get together real well. We might have some differences sometimes but all in all we all get along. Even with me being what I like to do...all I can say is wow!.....and thanks for staying on top of this!

[Splintercat]

Fortunately, it's rare - and that's what makes the forum so fun! We've had a few over the years, but just a tiny minority among the 7,000+ who have registered, so pretty nice!

Thanks for being such a longtime forum member, too, Tony -- you've been here pretty much since the beginning! That's a big part of what keeps the forum feeling more like a community and less like just another flame-fest web forum: lots of membership continuity and real-life contact among the members.

Tom

[vibramhead]

It's not like we stir up all sort of controversy or whip each other into oblivian like other hiking forum do (NWHIKERS). I think we all get together real well. We might have some differences sometimes but all in all we all get along.

Right on. There's a lot of real nastiness on NWHikers, and it's great how positive PortlandHikers is by comparison.

Thanks to Splintercat for helping keep it that way.

[drm]

It's important to note that the conditions for how designated Wilderness are managed are not written in stone. The Wilderness Act is just that, a law. Every act designating wilderness is also a law - equal in stature under the law to the original act. So at the time the land is designated, any exception can be made. For example, almost all designated wilderness in Alaska allows plane and helicopter landings - it's the only way to get there, so the exception is commonly written into Alaskan wilderness designations. So does the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness in Idaho. It has a number of inheld guest ranches. The owners of the ranches didn't want to be limited to horse/hike/raft access, and the politicians in Idaho agreed, so it was a required compromise to get it passed.

The thing is that if hikers tried to get an exception for chain saws included, it is likely that other users would also seek their own exemption to whatever is most inconvenient for them. Nonetheless there are designated wildernesses in the lower 48 that use chain saws. I don't know if it was written into their enabling legislation or not. Even if not, if a park or forest decides to allow them, who is going to stop them unless somebody sues? And I've heard mention by Forest Service people of "special exemptions" for chain saws when trees are so massive as to not be possible to cut with any available cross cut saw. I don't know exactly how that works, but it has been done.

So while we can debate whether chain saws should be allowed, it doesn't seem to me like an argument against designated wilderness overall. It is possible to get the rest of the protection without that limitation, though it does not seem to be common.

[BrianEdwards]

Just wish I could use a quiet battery-powered saw on established trails. Not for firewood, just trail maintenance.

[Splintercat]

The thing is that if hikers tried to get an exception for chain saws included, it is likely that other users would also seek their own exemption to whatever is most inconvenient for them. Nonetheless there are designated wildernesses in the lower 48 that use chain saws. I don't know if it was written into their enabling legislation or not. Even if not, if a park or forest decides to allow them, who is going to stop them unless somebody sues?

...from Dean, and...

Just wish I could use a quiet battery-powered saw on established trails. Not for firewood, just trail maintenance.

...from Brian.

IMHO, using motorized equipment (not just chainsaws) IS allowed under the Wilderness Act. But as Dean points out, some agencies are interpreting the act that way, while others are toeing a very rigid line -- because of lawsuits. Unfortunately, there are wilderness advocacy groups out there that draw a VERY bright line in their view, and have been successful in persuading the courts to do so in several recent cases (most infamously, the historic Green Mountain Lookout in Washington State).

But I've also read through the excellent materials and guidelines from the National Wilderness Training Center for a blog article, and it turns out that the recent court decisions have triggered a change in thinking among some of the public lands experts at the training center. Most importantly, some at the training center are arguing for a shift from defending the use of machinery or preserving cultural resources as being in the "public interest" (e.g., keeping trails safe), and thus rising above the "purpose" of the act -- which is to preserve wilderness. This is how a series of recent cases have been lost, with the courts agreeing that the "purpose" is quite clear, and trumps all other interests.

The new approach (not sure if it has been tested yet) stems from this section of the Wilderness Act:

“... [structures and the use of motorized equipment are not allowed in designated wilderness] except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act."

This is a welcome change of thinking, as the Wilderness Act has always recognized that wilderness "may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.” Under these definitions, most of our trails fit some combination of scenic, historical and/or educational, and thus "administering" them in times of lean budgets makes the practical use of a chainsaw (under defensible guidelines, no doubt) to preserve them defensible. Likewise, I think a wilderness bridge can also be defended under this interpretation -- especially on a heavily travelled wilderness route where the trail preceded the wilderness designation (e.g., the Timberline Trail comes to mind).

My two cents! I do think we'll see some future court challenges that come down differently if the USFS, NPS and BLM actually follow this new strategy. I hope so, anyway...

Great topic!

Tom

[CampinCarl]

Great article in Statesman Journal over the weekend about this topic:

How the Wilderness Act changed Oregon (and America)

And thanks to those who enlightened me about chain saws being allowed in some wilderness areas as exceptions. I think it would make sense resource and time-wise. I wonder, though, if there is any public dislike of the noise? I would vote for chainsaw Wednesdays since that would be the furthest day from the weekends.

[drm]

Great article in Statesman Journal over the weekend about this topic:

How the Wilderness Act changed Oregon (and America)

And thanks to those who enlightened me about chain saws being allowed in some wilderness areas as exceptions. I think it would make sense resource and time-wise. I wonder, though, if there is any public dislike of the noise? I would vote for chainsaw Wednesdays since that would be the furthest day from the weekends.

In the wilderness, trail crews do multi-day trips, so you can't just choose one day. If they take a chain saw, they are going to use it every day they are out there. And no, we hikers aren't going to like the noise. But if trails get cleared more quickly . . .

[retired jerry]

According to http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nrj/51/2/Steinhoff.pdf that someone posted

You can't have machines or structures in a wilderness, which includes trails and bridges which are structures.

But the exception clause allows you to use machines and structures when it's the minimum required to manage the wilderness

The purpose of the wilderness act is to provide "the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use".

So, trails and bridges are an acceptable exception - they're the minimum required to serve the purpose of the act - recreation and so forth

Chainsaws are not, because they're not the minimum required to maintain trails, hand saws are.

Hand saws are not allowed either, but the exception clause allows them because they're the minimum.

But, it seems like lawyer could argue that if the Forest Service has a budget and can only do trail maintenace if they use chainsaws.

Maybe need change in law to make this work.

It also seems like since another purpose of the act is to provide historic use, that maintaining historic structures would be another allowed exception.

Wilderness Act has been pretty effective over-all. Hate to start making changes that undo the good parts of the law.

Regarding the Ramona Falls bridge - just put it right at the parking area outside the Wilderness Area. Easy to run trail the other side of the Sandy.

[drm]

"Minimum required" are waffle words. If you look at how many trails have hundreds of logs across them for years, essentially closing them, I think that a case can be made that chain saws are within minimum required. Sure, with sufficient motivation and effort, those trails could be opened with crosscuts. But many of them aren't in practice.