chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas

[mcds]

A question addressed to those of you who want to see chainsaws become the default tool for logging out wilderness trails: Do you also support use of motorized tools for brushing out trails?

[Lurch]

[Lumpy]

A question addressed to those of you who want to see chainsaws become the default tool for logging out wilderness trails: Do you also support use of motorized tools for brushing out trails?

Let's stop using terms like "default". I don't believe that anyone is advocating for a 2-stroke engine free-for-all in wilderness. I hope I have been clear that I believe that in certain instances a day of engine whine can get much more done on a project than well meaning volunteers or even highly experienced professionals so that more projects can be started, and hopefully completed. Just because there is a chain saw available doesn't make every stick look like timber.

If it is the best use of the time allotted, the people involved, and can be done quickly and safely, why not? A couple of days of mechanized noise and the crew can move on to other projects, versus people spending the entire summer brushing out a fraction of a trail only to see it grow back right behind them when they are done with a long stretch months later?

When I was a lad, I worked doing salmon restoration in Northern California. Working *in* the creeks and rivers. We were careful, planned well, kept a particularly serious eye towards safety and efficiency, and chain saws and engine driven drills were part of our tool choices. Sometimes, for the sake of the animals we were there to help, we would get in, make a bunch of noise for a couple of weeks, get finished and get out. Didn't take long for things to return to "normal" once we left, aquatic and land based animals would start coming around a few days after we would finish a site, according to state and federal fish and wildlife folks. Sometimes only hours. Many animals are more resilient than I thought, adjusting to the temporary changes in their routine, and adjusting back to "normal" very quickly.

Careful consideration and planning would have to be included in the decision, and the utmost care to prevent fire would have to be a top priority.

Again, no one here seems to be advocating for full scale mechanized invasion into wilderness areas.

[adamschneider]

A question addressed to those of you who want to see chainsaws become the default tool for logging out wilderness trails: Do you also support use of motorized tools for brushing out trails?

I'd support it, if it was limited to a few specific days and highly regulated.

(I may be in the minority, though.)

[raven]

The question in my mind that has to be answered before any mechanical use is how to prevent it becoming the default method. If it saves money, you can be sure the money will be used elsewhere and the mechanical method will become the default. Then motorized wheelbarrows hauling gear for trail work; then ... So hearings before each use or perhaps a vote? No, because the processes for hearings and votes would become an art of managing the energies of the nay-sayers. So I say let Lumpy lead the nose of the gasoline-hauling camel elsewhere.

[Charley]

My position in short:
If it wasn't an issue, this wouldn't be an issue.

My full position:

If the Forest Service had the budget to regularly maintain its entire network of trails with the use of 19th century technology, and did so every single year, I would see no need for modern tools- specifically chainsaws. They don't. Instead, they abandon hundreds of miles of trails, to our great detriment.

The current interpretation of the law hobbles both the agency's employees and contractors as well as volunteers. By forcing those groups to use tools that require more time, effort and skill, the agency limits the amount of trail it can maintain. That might not be a big problem on the Gorge or Mt Hood, but try visiting any of the following places:

Whetstone Ridge: http://www.portlandhikers.org/forum/vie ... 25&t=16377

Badger Creek Wilderness: http://www.portlandhikers.org/forum/vie ... =8&t=19321

There's a warning on our own Portland Hikers Field Guide about blowdown on one Badger Creek loop:
http://www.portlandhikersfieldguide.org ... _Loop_Hike

Here's another from the Boulder Lakes area:
http://www.portlandhikersfieldguide.org ... _Loop_Hike

There's a warning for the Eagle-Benson loop:
http://www.portlandhikersfieldguide.org ... _Loop_Hike

Here's a warning about the historic Cascade Crest Trail, which is a trail used by many in an area that needs more trails, in order to prevent overuse of the PCT:
http://www.portlandhikersfieldguide.org ... e_PCT_Hike

Here's a warning referring to an abandoned trail in the Bull of the Woods Wilderness, which is a nearby trail system that can absorb some hikers from the more crowded local areas:
http://www.portlandhikersfieldguide.org ... _Loop_Hike

Again, if the Forest Service wasn't abandoning trails left and right, I might argue differently. But I feel that, with a growing population and the need for fostering more environmentally-oriented citizens, we need more trails, not fewer. Anything that allows the Forest Service and its volunteer groups to maintain more trail mileage is probably a greater benefit than drawback, I think.

[drm]

We already know that chainsaws get occasional approval in National Park designated wildernesses without becoming the default there, so I think that this particular slippery slope may actually be a bit sticky.

I'm more concerned about the slippery slope of what other types of recreational wilderness users will claim is acceptable minimal use if we try to get this written into law. Nor is it less worrisome if judges just decide that it is more fitting with minimal acceptable since they can also start permitting other things as well.

So while in principle / theory I do not oppose limited use of chainsaws in wilderness areas, I do wonder if there is a practical way to bring it about in the limited way that some of us would support. Maybe not.

[Charley]

Sorry, one more thought:

Every time two environmentalists argue with each other, the industrialists get a free pass.

While we're up here debating about who and what to exclude from extremely well-protected Federal lands, the oil, gas, mining, and lumber industries quietly despoil another large chunk of wild land somewhere else.

For example, we're arguing over using hand-held chainsaws to maintain foot-paths, while the BLM is giving a free pass to companies using these machines. . .

. . . to build this LNG pipeline in Lake County:

We're taking our eye off the ball, and the ball is big, well-funded, and too-much ignored. It's much easier to fight with each other: we can sit at our computers and feel smug about being better defenders of the environment. Meanwhile, the ball rolls over everything in its path.

[Lurch]

You're also arguing to maintain trails in a wilderness zone. Which is supposed to be free of the markings of man. This is supposed to be the pristine land that's as natural as you can find in the lower 48. If it was designated wilderness earlier, those trails never would have been built. Why should there be more trails? Why should we be allowed to scar the land, just so that it's easier for us to get around, and harder to get lost?

There's nothing saying you can't recreate there, the debate isn't really "should we be able to use chainsaws", I think it should be more along the lines of do we want there to be chunks of land in the continental US that are as natural as we can make them? Personally I say yes. If someone doesn't have the skills and knowledge to recreate responsibly, there are plenty of other places to go that are more user friendly.

That said, the wilderness area in the gorge is a bit wonky, because it was so developed before the wilderness engulfed it.

On an alternative point, there has been much crying foul lately about lack of maintenance, costs associated with it, and the liability about attempting to provide a service and not doing it safely. It seems to me, no trails, and cross country travel seems like a pretty ideal solution.

My devils advocate seems to be showing

[retired jerry]

I think you can build new trails in wilderness

All trails, new and old, are an exception to the prohibition of man made structures

But that exception is allowed if it's the minimum possible to still allow access for human recreation

It's subjective exactly what's the minimum