Published July 17, 2026 01:28 pm
Are chains in the forest? If we’re talking about federally designated wilderness areas in the United States, the answer is generally “no.” Since the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964, wilderness areas, where almost all types of development are prohibited, have represented the gold standard for protecting public lands. In the five percent of the United States that is legally defined as wilderness, people cannot pave roads, erect buildings, drive vehicles, or operate any motorized equipment, including chainsaws. But in a surprise announcement this spring, the United States Forest Service approved the use of chainsaws in Idaho’s Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness in an emergency effort to remove thousands of fallen logs that are blocking the trail. The decision follows a proposal from the Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association, which argued that clearing trails in Frank is now so difficult that the USFS should reconsider what equipment is allowed.
In May, the USFS announced that approved operators employed by outfitters would be authorized to use chainsaws to clear 542 miles of trails in the Salmon-Challis National Forest for three years from January 1 to August 1. Last week, the Payette National Forest, which is also located inside Frank, approved a similar chainsaw authorization on an additional 542 miles of trail. Overall, these approvals will allow chainsaws on approximately 40 percent of the 2,616 miles of trail in the Frank. Although this is not the first approved emergency use of chainsaws in a wilderness area, it is one of the longest and most comprehensive approvals since the Wilderness Act was passed. Conservation supporters like jungle watch They have come out in protest against the authority, saying that it is a violation of the Forest Area Act.
The Frank is the largest wilderness area outside Alaska, and is a must-see list destination for whitewater boaters, backpackers, and horseback riders. Its status as the crown jewel of the Wilderness System has drawn sharp reactions on both sides of the chainsaw issue, with critics fearing that decisions made regarding the Frank may soon become the status quo in Wilderness nationwide.
The USFS claims this is a one-time emergency approval, designed to restore recreation opportunities in one of the nation’s premier wilderness destinations. Is that really the case? Or is it an attack on wilderness protections that could lead to more motorized incursions across the country, as wilderness advocates have warned?
The answer may very well be that both of these are true. The Forest Service has correctly identified that Frank has a serious trail maintenance problem. The hundreds of miles of trails there are not only unkempt and rugged – they are virtually impassable. Over the past two decades, many trails have disappeared not only from the ground but also from official Forest Service maps, meaning the agency has no plans to revive them. Something needs to be done to ensure that no more pathways disappear.
Forest advocates are also right to sound the alarm. There was no public comment period or environmental review process prior to approval; Everything we know about it is from a Freedom of Information Act request Published by Wilderness Watch. It’s also far from ideal that the agency is placing these chainsaws in the hands of outfitters rather than Forest Service employees. Finally, the fact that this approval comes amid numerous other attacks on public lands, including drastic staff cuts and repeals, is concerning. 2001 roadless rulesIt is worrying.
I’m an avid backpacker living in Idaho and have worked as a trailworker, wilderness ranger, and firefighter for the Forest Service and various non-profits. Frankly, I find the arguments on both sides of this debate flawed. I am troubled by the fact that Frank’s trail system is in such disrepair that the Forest Service is not only resorting to sanctioning chainsaws, but placing them in the hands of private organizations and guides. I also don’t entirely agree with wilderness purists who would rather see Frank’s extensive and historic trail system disappear than allow some restricted use of power tools. But above all, I do not believe that chainsaws are a miracle cure for maintenance problems in Frank or anywhere else on America’s public lands. Power equipment can’t replace people, and years of budget cuts and layoffs have left the Forest Service short of field-going workers.
legal question
Are chainsaws always prohibited in wooded areas? The answer to that question is vague at best. Historically, the Forest Service has maintained that hand tools like pulaskis, axes, and crosscut saws – the long, two-handed tools loggers used to cut down trees before the invention of the chainsaw – could get the job done. But there have been some exceptions too. Federal agencies sometimes approve the use of chainsaws during wildfires. And the National Park Service has historically been more generous than the Forest Service in allowing the use of some chainsaws for trail work. after a major storm or wildfire.
Opponents of chainsaw approval in Frank claim that the Forest Service is intentionally misreading the language of the Wilderness Act. Staunch conservationists say that maintaining trails is not the primary purpose of the Wilderness, and therefore there is no legitimate reason to approve chainsaws. As Wilderness Watch wrote in a blog post, “Many wildernesses have minimal or nonexistent trail systems; the character of the wilderness, and the wildlife that depend on it, will not suffer from the natural disruption of trails.” They also warn that the Forest Service is shirking its responsibility by placing chainsaws in the hands of private organizations rather than federal employees. Ultimately, whether this specific chainsaw authorization is legal is a question that will be answered in court, should wilderness groups choose to take legal action.
Forest Service issue
To me, there are two glaring flaws in the Forest Service’s argument in favor of chainsaws. A: The disrepair of Frank’s trail system is not a sudden emergency, but the long-term result of years of budget cuts, workforce reductions and redirected funds. And two: While chainsaws can indeed clear fallen trees faster than crosscuts, there is little evidence that chainsaws alone will provide any permanent solution to the trail maintenance problem.
On the first point, most chainsaw releases in the past were the direct result of one-time events such as fires, floods or hurricanes. They are also short, like using a chainsaw for a few weeks straight after an emergency incident. But Frank’s trail system isn’t disappearing because of a single devastating wildfire or terrible storm — it’s been deteriorating for years. And the Forest Service’s schedule for chainsaw approval is not two or three weeks, but 21 months. Forest Service trail staff, along with a collection of hard-working outfitters, non-profits, and volunteers, have been unable to maintain the trails at Frank as they have fallen into disrepair over the years. I argue that what the agency calls an emergency is actually a backlog of routine maintenance issues. The problem is that routine maintenance in Frank Church, the largest wilderness area in the Lower 48, is a huge effort. The landscape has been scarred by dozens of burn scars and bark beetle infestations. In many parts of France, dead trees outnumber living trees. And the roads are incredibly inaccessible.
Which leads to the second point: Can three seasons of chainsaw work make a substantial difference compared to using a traditional crosscut saw? I’ve used both extensively, and there’s no doubt that the chainsaw cuts faster. However, efficient backcountry trail work depends on much more than cutting speed. Chainsaws are heavier, require sharpening more often, are more prone to mechanical repairs, and require gas and bar oil – more supplies for going into the backcountry. When you’re logging out a 30- or 40-mile path, the extra travel and maintenance time required for a chainsaw can easily outweigh the cutting efficiency. I’m speaking from experience, but you don’t have to take my word for it :A forest service study published in 2024 reached similar conclusions. After tracking dozens of trail work projects using chainsaws and crosscut saws, the study found that travel time, tree size, crew size, and tree density (how many trees needed to be removed) all had a greater impact on how long it took to clear the trail than the type of saw the crew used. If crosscuts were the primary issue, our trail maintenance problems would be limited to the wilderness areas where they are used. but it’s not like that. There are maintenance backlogs on every type of trail in this country, many of which are maintained by crews wielding chainsaws and driving ATVs.
Is recreation in the woods a priority?
I also see flaws in the arguments of forest proponents. Although it is tempting to take a purist view that wilderness should be left alone, management of wilderness areas has rarely accomplished that goal. Frank himself includes several backcountry airstrips, where planes deliver supplies to trail crews and wilderness rangers. According to the USFS email, land managers at Frank Church have approved the use of motorized equipment several times in the past to maintain airstrips, remove airplane debris, install radio repeaters, maintain water diversions, and treat noxious weeds. Although I don’t agree with Frank requiring this three-year chainsaw approval, I think clearing trails is as good a reason to ignore the rules as removing airplane wreckage or setting up radio towers.
This decision by the Forest Service makes one thing very clear: Wilderness area is not a guarantee, and the Wilderness Act is not as stringent as I would have liked. The best way to ensure that wild areas continue to exist in this country is to make sure Americans have a reason to protect them. To me, that means we need to be able to see it for ourselves, and the trails are our way out. Does this mean we need to add paved trails and established campgrounds? Absolutely not. But we should give priority to clearing the existing paths in the forest.
Why is funding a real problem?
Most Americans do not want private contractors running chainsaws freely in wooded areas. They also don’t want forest paths to be clogged behind a maze of fallen trees because we can’t find a way to remove them. How can we prevent both of those things from happening? We fund our trail system.
A few well-staffed, professional trail crews stationed throughout France will put this whole debate to rest. In forests and parks across the country, the career trailworker is a dying breed. The Forest Service still employs some trail crews, but far fewer than before. Today, we have replaced thousands of professional trailworkers with a host of outfitters, volunteers, and nonprofit and for-profit contractors who cannot keep up with the demand for maintenance.
Most volunteer trailworkers in Frank make the five-hour drive from Boise, then return to their regular jobs after a few days of work. Outfitters clear the way by the time their customers arrive, leaving projects partially completed. The AmeriCorps program — which has also faced budget cuts in recent years — is a revolving door of giving new, untrained workers stipends, not living wages. Only career trailcrews, who are stationed in the area full-time, have the ability to keep the trails clear in Frank. Yet, somehow, we have become convinced that trailworkers and public lands are mere line items to be removed from the budget.
They are not. National forests and national parks are our best examples. They are a legacy we can pass on for generations, not to mention an excellent career path in rural communities and a great source of recreation and tourism income. If we remember this, all of these trails can become clear in no time – no matter what tools we put into the hands of trailworkers.
