After publishing an opinion piece about the use of chainsaws in a federally designated forest, many of our readers spoke out. Consider the debate here.
(Photo: Genre Images/Getty Images)
Updated July 23, 2026 04:28 PM
Earlier this month, we published an opinion piece from Idahoan and former trailworker Nathan Pippenberg about the ongoing debate over the Gem State’s public lands. In May, the United States Forest Service announced it would approve the use of chainsaws to clear trails in Idaho’s Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, the largest wilderness area in the Lower 48. Under the Wilderness Act, which bans the use of motorized vehicles and equipment in legally designated wilderness like Frank, the move is unprecedented (And, according to some critics, possibly illegal.). The decision came after a proposal from the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association, which claimed that Frank needed emergency allowances of power equipment due to excessive wear and maintenance backlogs. Frank is famous for its exceptional whitewater boating and backcountry hiking opportunities, but hundreds of miles of trail remain impassable due to wildfires, bark beetle outbreaks and deferred maintenance over the years.
The initial approval allows operators employed by the outfitters to run chainsaws to clear 542 miles of trail in the Salmon-Challis National Forest for seven months each of the next three years. More recently, in early July, the USFS expanded chainsaw approval, announcing that chainsaws could also be used to clear an additional 542 miles of trail in the Payette National Forest inside Frank.
Pippenberg writes, “(Frank’s) status as the crown jewel of the forestry system has drawn heated reactions on both sides of the chainsaw issue, with critics fearing that decisions made regarding Frank could soon become the status quo across the country.”
Opponents of chainsaw approval argue that it is a violation of the Wilderness Act, and that recreation – hence trail access – should not be the primary purpose of the wilderness. “Trail systems in many forests are minimal to non-existent; the character of the forest, and the wildlife dependent on it, would not suffer from the natural interruption of paths,” wrote jungle watch In a blog post. On the other hand, proponents argue that chainsaws are an efficient and harmless way to clear paths, and there is no point in a forest without access.
Should chainsaws be allowed to restore recreational opportunities, even on legally designated forest? Or should power tools and other motorized equipment be permanently banned in some backward areas? Hundreds of our readers reacted on Facebook in response to Pippenberg’s story.
Several people spoke in favor of the chainsaw allowance: Facebook user Michael Jurassius commented, “I have seen tailings three layers high that would have taken years to clear with a hand saw. The sooner the tailings are cleared, the less harm there will be to hikers forced through the woods.”
Commenter Mark LeCun agrees: “As long as chainsaw use is properly managed, they should be allowed for authorized individuals/groups in designated wilderness areas during specific windows of time during the year.”
Kirk Luedtke wrote, “As long as chainsaw use is properly managed, they should be allowed to authorized individuals/groups in designated wilderness areas during specific times during the year.”
Others, such as commentator Kenneth Mark Vampran, claim that “a handsaw is all you need.”
Brenda-David Morrow wrote, “There was a time when the entire lumber industry operated with hand saws.”
Many pioneers also participated. Autumn Lear wrote, “I have spent almost 20 years clearing large trees and doing trail work. I am certified in both crosscuts and chainsaws for bucking and felling. Crosscuts are efficient in terms of the human body. Cut and run crews can easily clear and maintain camping trails along the way. Chain saws weigh more, get hotter, require oil and gas and sharpening, are more dangerous and can be fatal if an accident occurs. are more likely to occur, and use more energy to control. Chainsaws should be turned off after 3 p.m. to prevent wildfires – this list continues Why we prefer sharp-tooth crosscut saws can handle smaller diameter trees without the noise and pollution of a chainsaw.
“I’ve hand crewed miles and miles in the Bob Marshall Wilderness with a 2-man crosscut on my pack. I think a balance can be struck,” commented Pat Hawkins. “Last December we had heavy rains followed by extreme winds, which resulted in huge amounts of wind. The USFS does not have the budget to bring in the staff needed to open the trails. Volunteers are great and are doing work they can’t do (so) they aren’t as productive as real employees. It seems appropriate to have exceptions or circumstantial exemptions to complete work in difficult circumstances. “But opening it up clearly could be a slippery slope.”
Still others expressed the opinion that recreation and trail access should not be the primary concern when it comes to wilderness.
“Let nature bring them back. Paths in the forest should not be permanent,” commented the former. backpacker Editor Casey Lyons.
Do you think chainsaws should be allowed in wooded areas? Weigh down.
Read more about the debate here.
