So is Wilderness always a good thing????

[OldHouseMan]

As an avid hiker, mtn biker and BC skier I appreciate Wilderness. It's funny how anal-retentive people are about "W" but there are places like the Wallowa Mts that have pockets of private land with cabins, places in Idaho with airstrips and "W" with boundary's up to roads. My wife and I were backpacking in the Sawtooth Mts several years ago. After setting up camp someone with the FS came through to notify us that they would be blasting with dynamite soon. I've even read of groups trying to exclude BC skiing in "W" due to the mechanical advantage of skis and bindings.

[Aimless]

there are places like the Wallow Mts that have pockets of private land with cabins

Because these are private lands, they are clearly not 'W' wilderness, so I don't quite see how they fit into the discussion.

Some history. Back when the national forests were first formed there were many thousands of private parcels interspersed throughout the public lands. These private parcels were generally claims made under the Homestead Act or else were mining claims. As the NFs became better organized in the early 20th century there was a decades-long effort to swap land parcels with homesteaders in order to consolidate all the lands within a forest boundary under federal ownership. A look at modern maps shows this effort was extremely successful, but these private parcels do still exist. Periodically, when these lands come up for sale or have a change of ownership, the FS makes offers on them, but it continues to be FS policy not to seize these without the owner's consent.

[OldHouseMan]

I understand why and how the private land came to be. My only point of reference in the Wallowa Mts is the private land with cabins at Aneroid Lake. I just find it a little ironic the strict rules in the wilderness but just on the other side of the boundary the private land is covered in stumps. I'm assuming the trees were used for firewood. Ultimately, I could care less about the pockets of private land in the Wallowa Mts, it's just an observation on my part.

[Koda]

I'm not sure if you're talking about what the Wilderness Act says or what you wish it said. If it's the former, I don't read it quite that way. It says, "“[W]ilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(b) (2006). If it's the latter, I understand your point but see it a little differently.

thank you for clarifying that, I'm mistaken in part. My impression of the definition only saw the conservation part. Some of the smaller wilderness areas I've recently visited I read were noted to protect the river system in it, but I read too much into that description.

So I was thinking about this and wondered where I got the impression that Wilderness areas have nothing to do with recreation. It comes from a few years ago when I looked up the definition of Wilderness and read...

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

the key word there untrammeled meaning the forces of nature operate unrestrained and unaltered. My own impression of this was that we can visit (recreate) but but cant leave a permanent impression on the ecosystem (bridges, new trails/shelters etc. with existing features grandfathered in)

So while its obvious now that Wilderness also includes recreation opportunities its clear it must be done in a manner that does not influence the ecosystem.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness_Act

I like this idea and want to support it. Seems like its working so why change it?

[Crusak]

Firstly I'll lay my cards on the table I'm not a wilderness with capitol W guy. I don't support the zero machinery rule, in my opinion spending hours upon hours hand sawing fallen trees from trails instead of being able to chain saw that would clear them in minutes does nothing to enhance the wilderness long term & just means that more wilderness trails disappear.

I don't want to see more permanent bridges & structures in the wilderness but I do want to see more simple rope bridges over large canyons, sand ladders, temporary planks that can be thrown over creeks when needed.

I support wilderness I just don't think it needs to be an all or nothing option.

Looking back at Guy's original post, I think he's got some good points. Allowing very limited use if chainsaws to clear trails wouldn't mean that anyone and everyone could grab a chainsaw and start mowing down the trees.

If they made very specific rules about who could use chainsaws, when they could be used, where they could be used and how they could be used, it would make trail maintenance much easier.

Say, for example, how about limiting the use of chainsaws to FS employees and/or their designated/appointed volunteers involved in maintaining FS trails? Limit use of chainsaws to specific months? Limit use of chainsaws to trail maintenance, and not allow them to be used for any other purpose? Any other use of chainsaws would still be forbidden. I think that's sort of what Guy was hinting at.

I think it takes a lot longer to remove trees from trails if you're using non-mechanical methods. Chainsaws are pretty fast, and over time more trails could be maintained. Imagine if a very limited use of chainsaws allowed them to re-open decommissioned trails, or keep more trails open and in good condition. All users would benefit from that.

It seems to me that a bit of common sense adjustment to the rules would allow the Forest Service to get more trail maintenance done.

[Steve20050]

This has been one such problem with the Wilderness Act. Concessions. Another one to me seems to be that this wilderness is established for humans. I don't believe it's primary purpose is for mankind. Just the opposite. It is for the protection of endangered flora and fauna and 157 types of ecosystems that are represented within these areas. (The US has something like 260 types of basic systems, I think).

Thanks Koda, I probably didn't help your thoughts on this when I posted this. It is more a spirit of the law issue with me than what is really written, I apologize if I went too far. My intent is for folks to also look at the conservation issues that were paramount to many before this Wilderness Act was passed. I think it was rewritten 60 odd times? In 1964 I don't think you would have found support for something like this if it had been more about ecosystems than human use.

I realize that the wilderness only encompasses about 5% of the US at present. The ecosystems while widely represented, I expect would have little impact on our total ecosystem. Myself, I just think ahead a couple hundred years and wonder to what extent the rest of the unprotected areas will be like. Obviously the National Parks and to some degree National forests now too are becoming sensitive to the flora fauna and entire ecosystems issues as much as human use. To me it is what that Wilderness represents. Kind of a last stand against man if you will.

I realize wilderness areas are actually within National forest and National Parks, but obviously the National Parks and forests also have other priorities and different rules of use. I'm afraid we don't have another Alaska to add many millions more acres so at present we are coming to terms with a finite amount of land and what we can do with it. I am happy that there has been enormous success in recreational use of lands instead of extractive use. Unfortunately other places on the planet are now the targets of the exploit part of the human condition. Again with Kurt Vonnegut: "Exploit, Consume and Excrete". Have a good weekend and happy September 3rd.

[vibramhead]

If they made very specific rules about who could use chainsaws, when they could be used, where they could be used and how they could be used, it would make trail maintenance much easier.

Say, for example, how about limiting the use of chainsaws to FS employees and/or their designated/appointed volunteers involved in maintaining FS trails? Limit use of chainsaws to specific months? Limit use of chainsaws to trail maintenance, and not allow them to be used for any other purpose? Any other use of chainsaws would still be forbidden. I think that's sort of what Guy was hinting at.

I think it takes a lot longer to remove trees from trails if you're using non-mechanical methods. Chainsaws are pretty fast, and over time more trails could be maintained. Imagine if a very limited use of chainsaws allowed them to re-open decommissioned trails, or keep more trails open and in good condition. All users would benefit from that.

It seems to me that a bit of common sense adjustment to the rules would allow the Forest Service to get more trail maintenance done.

I agree. When I hiked the Eagle Cap a couple years ago, I met a horsepacker who was frustrated by all the blowdown on trails. If you think it's hard getting past blowdown when you're hiking, imagine how tough it would be for a loaded pack train. He said the outfitters do a lot of trail clearing that benefits everyone, but they're really limited by the Forest Service's chainsaw restrictions in wilderness, and wondered why they couldn't have a window of a week or two at the beginning of the season when they'd be allowed. The irony is that if the Eagle Cap were administered by the Park Service, the outfitters would probably be allowed to use chainsaws.

[backcountryhunter]

If the Eagle Cap was administered by the Park Service those outfitters wouldn't waste their time because those outfitters guide hunters and you cannot hunt in a National Park.

[vibramhead]

If the Eagle Cap was administered by the Park Service those outfitters wouldn't waste their time because those outfitters guide hunters and you cannot hunt in a National Park.

Good point. Although they do also pack in fishermen, and they do "drop camps" for hikers. And I ran into one pack train carrying in some ODFW biologists for some research project. But I imagine hunters are their bread and butter.

[Splintercat]

Just for the record, folks, "joesef" is a troll -- a banned user coming back under a fake name to mess with the community. This account ID has now been closed. Sorry to have an otherwise thoughtful and interesting thread crashed. Thankfully, we don't have too much of that kind of thing on this forum -- and thanks again to those who PM'd me today to report this.

Carry on..!

Tom