Chainsaws in Wilderness

Posted on July 1st, 2026 in Wild Issues

In May, the U.S. Forest Service authorized the use of chainsaws by commercial outfitters and guides for seven months a year (January 1 to August 1) for three years on 542 miles of trail in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness on the Salmon–Challis National Forest in Idaho. The Forest Service made this decision after a year of secret, behind-closed-door negotiations with the Idaho Outfitter and Guides Association with no public comment or environmental review, and little regard for federal laws, including the Wilderness Act.

Additionally, on July 7, 2026, the U.S. Forest Service authorized the use of chainsaws by commercial outfitters and guides for seven months a year (January 1 to August 1) for three years on 542 miles of trail in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness on the Payette National Forest in Idaho. Yet again, the Forest Service made this decision after a year of secret, behind-closed-door negotiations with the Idaho Outfitter and Guides Association with no public comment or environmental review, and little regard for federal laws, including the Wilderness Act.

We absolutely do not believe these authorizations are legal under the Wilderness Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. Not only does this move go against the mandate of the Wilderness Act prohibiting the use of motorized equipment in Wilderness, it could also set a dangerous precedent for the management of Wilderness across the country.

While we weigh our next steps, including possible legal action, there are several things you can do right now:

FAQ:  THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S PUSH FOR CHAINSAWS IN WILDERNESS

INTRODUCTION

What is really going on?

In May 2026, Heather Degeest, Forest Supervisor for the Salmon-Challis National Forest in Idaho, authorized Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association to use chainsaws to clear over 500 miles of trails in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness for seven months every year for three years. This is one of the largest motorized intrusions into designated Wilderness we’ve ever seen, and it was done, unapologetically, through a backroom deal with commercial interests and zero public involvement. This authorization is highly concerning on its face, but its broader context reveals a much more troubling problem for the National Wilderness Preservation System in the Trump era.

In a public statement, former Forest Service Chief Randy Moore resigned last year stating: “As you have likely read in the news or are personally experiencing, the federal government is undergoing a significant transformation. How agencies are structured, staffed and operate is shifting, and the Forest Service is not exempt from these changes.”

Following Moore’s resignation, President Trump appointed Tom Schultz—former vice president of the Idaho Forest Group, one of the largest lumber producers in the U.S.—as the new Forest Service Chief and appointed Michael Boren—an Idaho rancher and tech billionaire—as Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, a department overseeing Forest Service operations. Under this leadership, the Forest Service has undergone significant restructuring and shifting priorities.

Around this same time, Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association—a commercial business trade association—began quietly lobbying the Chief for chainsaw use in Wilderness—something previously off-limits because of the Wilderness Act’s ban on motorized use. Together, the Forest Service and IOGA started working up a plan, avoiding public notice and oversight until Wilderness Watch began receiving anonymous tips from concerned citizens, Forest Service employees, and even IOGA members.

Because Supervisor Degeest declined to provide details of the request and the Forest Service’s analysis, we submitted a series of Freedom of Information Act requests. The records we received revealed direct letters from IOGA and the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association to Chief Schultz requesting chainsaw use in Wilderness, and that the Chief was hiring a contractor to consider the issue on a national scale. Wilderness Watch—joined by roughly 100 conservation groups, trail groups, and agency wilderness specialists—wrote our own letter to the Chief expressing urgent concern. Neither Chief Schultz nor anyone else in the Forest Service responded to that letter. Instead, we received word through an IOGA press release that the Forest Service authorized 21 months of chainsaw use in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness, calling it a “limited” authorization, and IOGA kicked out a barrage of pre-packaged press in an attempt to win over the public narrative.

This FAQ explains why we believe the chainsaw authorization in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness is neither “limited” nor legal under the Wilderness Act or the National Environmental Policy Act. It also highlights the problems of improper industry influence on Forest Service decision-making. As you’ll read below, incredibly, FOIA documents indicate the Forest Service allowed IOGA to draft the Forest Service’s specialist analysis–the analysis determining whether the Forest Service could legally authorize IOGA to use chainsaws in Wilderness for seven months out of each year, conveniently ending just before the fall hunt season. 

We also sensed a camel’s nose slipping under the tent. In an unreleased, leaked memorandum, the Secretary of Agriculture, who oversees the Forest Service, details a new directive for public lands, which includes designated Wilderness. The memorandum cites to and coincides with President Trump’s recision of long-standing Executive Orders protecting public land from the adverse effects of motorized use and access. 

Among other things, the Secretary’s memorandum directs the Forest Service to:

  • Revise Travel Management regulations to increase and improve motorized public access.
  • Prioritize actions that expand year-round outdoor recreation access for the largest number of people, promote rural economies, improve customer service and cut through bureaucratic processes and red tape.
  • Working with states and stakeholders, complete an assessment to identify and prioritize which closed or limited use National Forest System roads, trails, areas, airstrips  and waterways on each National Forest may be considered for potential re-opening.
  • Immediately develop direction in accord with applicable federal law to manage for no net loss in outdoor recreation access on NFS lands. Any future permanent closure orders that decrease outdoor recreation access must be offset by new access opportunities.
  • Immediately direct local line officers to prioritize opening trails, roads, airstrips, trailheads, areas that have been closed, and other access infrastructure and maintain them using all available budget resources, including utilizing fire crews, partners and volunteer organizations. Line Officers will be authorized to use all means at their disposal for this activity, including chainsaws.
  • Initiate development of projects for National Trails Day (June 6) on a minimum of 250 Ranger Districts.
  • Engage user groups and the outdoor recreation industry to “be part of the solution” by encouraging partnerships with the U.S. Forest Service on trail maintenance, with a goal of maximizing National Forest System trails open and accessible to the public.
  • Work with stakeholders, neighbors and local government entities to identify options to increase community-based trail clearing efforts, including a simplified trail clearing permit, streamlining of the sawyer certification process and minimizing administrative costs for partner purchased and maintained equipment (e.g., fleet costs).

And, as suspected, we’ve started receiving more anonymous tips that the Trump administration is now directing other Ranger Districts to authorize chainsaws in Wilderness and that the Forest Service may even be pressuring employees to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. 

In case it needs stating, the Trump administration is no friend to Wilderness, other public lands, and environmental protection. The long game is clear: Strip federal agencies of long-time staff and ground personnel, transfer functional administration of federal lands to state and local control, increase the influence of commercial interests, and cut out public oversight and environmental review. Wilderness has always been a target of anti-environmental leaders, and they are more than happy to play the “access” card if it furthers their long-game. There is a reason notoriously anti-environment senators like Utah’s Mike Lee and Idaho’s Jim Risch are happy to support legislative and other efforts for groups like the Access Fund and Sustainable Trails Coalition to exempt certain recreation activities from the Wilderness Act’s prohibitions—these things erode the Wilderness Act and they’ve found a way to do it that gets less opposition from recreators who might otherwise oppose their efforts.

We have to call the spades, and we need citizens—now more than ever—to hold the line for these special places and for all of the wildlife finding increasingly scarce refuge there. We’ve prepared the FAQ below to explain why Congress prohibited both motorized uses and commercial enterprise in Wilderness, why transparent review and public participation are essential, and why we believe the IOGA / Trump administration push for chainsaws in Wilderness violates both of these important statutes and the values they protect.  

For more information, contact Dana Johnson, Wilderness Watch’s policy director at [email protected].

CHAINSAW USE AUTHORIZATIONS BROAD CONCERNS

Can I see the FOIA documents?

Yes! You can find them here. We’ll continue to update the link as we receive responsive documents.

Why are chainsaws prohibited in Wilderness? Why does this matter?

The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964 during a time of rapidly increasing development, road building, motorization, mechanization, and industrialization. The tools we had available to alter the land, and in many cases decimate it, were becoming more powerful and more accessible, and public lands were suffering the impact. So, Congress passed the Wilderness Act “to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition.” 16 U.S.C. § 1131. Congress defined Wilderness “in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape.” Id. To that end, Congress prohibited the tools of that domination in Wilderness, including mechanized and motorized uses, absent narrow administrative exception where the use is necessary to meet minimum requirements for administration of the area as Wilderness. 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c). 

The Wilderness Act, more than anything, codifies restraint and recognizes a natural right for “earth and its community of life [to be] untrammeled by man.” 16 U.S.C. § 1131. The Act devotes Wilderness to human use and enjoyment “as wilderness,” id., and it directs Federal agencies to “administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character,” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(b) (emphasis added). For people to enjoy Wilderness, the area must be preserved as Wilderness.  As the Ninth Circuit stated:

Although the Act stresses the importance of wilderness areas as places for the public to enjoy, it simultaneously restricts their use in any way that would impair their future use as wilderness.

High Sierra Hikers Ass’n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 648 (2004). 

Less than 3% of land in the Lower 48 is protected as Wilderness. It’s no big surprise that those three percent are some of the most secure spaces left for wildlife trying to persist in the middle of overwhelming human activity. Wilderness is the line in the sand, and we should be very concerned about commercial interests erasing that line.

You can read more about why this all matters here and here and here.

What is legally required for an agency to authorize chainsaw use in Wilderness and can the Forest Service meet that standard with its chainsaw authorizations?

Chainsaws—like any motorized use—are strictly prohibited in Wilderness unless they meet the Wilderness Act’s narrow exception—each use must be “necessary to meet minimum requirements for administration of [wilderness] for the purpose of [the Wilderness Act].” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c). Clearing trails with chainsaws is simply not necessary to meet minimum requirements for administering Wilderness. Many Wildernesses have minimal to non-existent trail systems; wilderness character, and the wildlife who rely on it, will not suffer with the natural blockage of trails. Further, the Forest Service has been using trail crews with crosscut saws in Wilderness for as long as the National Wilderness Preservation System has existed, and even before that, including during high blow-down years. And while efficiency is not legally relevant under the Wilderness Act, studies conducted by the Forest Service indicate that trained crosscut saw teams can be as efficient, if not more efficient, than motorized chainsaw crews deep in the backcountry because they don’t have to haul large amounts of fuel, safety gear, and heavy chainsaws. Finally, visitors have thousands of miles of other wilderness trails that they can enjoy while trails with heavier downfall are cleared. The Forest Service simply cannot meet the stringent standard of necessity under this reality.

Further, commercial outfitters and guides can adjust operations to accommodate conditions on the ground and to accommodate the pace of wilderness-compatible, non-motorized trail work. It shouldn’t be the other way around, where Wilderness is compromised to appease a commercial interest. Part of the wilderness experience is meeting Wilderness on its own terms—an experience that is increasingly rare in our tech-dominated, overly curated world. Visitors may not be able to access everywhere they desire as easily as they desire due to blowdown on trails, but that, too, is part of a wilderness experience. As the Forest Service Wilderness Manual explains:

Where a choice must be made between wilderness values and visitor or any other activity, preserving the wilderness resource is the overriding value. Economy, convenience, commercial value, and comfort are not standards of management or use of wilderness.

In addition to the Wilderness Act’s requirements, the agency must also satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for actions that may “significantly effect” the environment, 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C), and “carefully weigh environmental considerations and consider potential alternatives to [a] proposed action before the government launches any major federal action.” Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts, including federal courts in Idaho, have consistently held that authorizations for normally prohibited uses in Wilderness require more rigorous NEPA review, which includes the preparation of an EIS as well as public notice and the opportunity to comment. The Forest Service is not doing that here. They categorically excluded the River of No Return proposal from NEPA review (they have indicated they don’t even have documentation of the categorical exclusion), and they have not initiated a NEPA analysis at the national level.   

This is a precedent-setting consideration that significantly impacts the National Wilderness Preservation System, legally and practically, by systemically degrading wilderness character and outsourcing the Forest Service’s statutory duties of wilderness administration to third parties, including those with significant commercial conflicts of interest. The decision cannot legally be made behind closed doors. The public must be properly notified and given the opportunity to comment.

Why does public participation matter?

Public notice, participation, and oversight is a hallmark of environmental protection and an essential component of the National Environmental Policy Act. Public participation ensures that federal agencies take into account environmental concerns and important information before decisions are made that impact the environment, and public oversight is an essential check on improper influence and corruption. Public lands are a public trust, and the erosion of transparency and public engagement should be of incredible concern to anyone who cares about public lands and democratic systems. 

Can the trails be cleared without chainsaws?

Yes, absolutely. The Forest Service has been using trail crews with crosscut saws in Wilderness for as long as the National Wilderness Preservation System has existed, and even before that, including during high blow-down years. And while efficiency is not legally relevant under the Wilderness Act, studies (see page 13) conducted by the Forest Service indicate that crosscut saw teams can be as efficient, if not more efficient, than motorized chainsaw crews deep in the backcountry. This is likely partly because they don’t have to haul large amounts of fuel, safety gear, and heavy chainsaws. One Forest Service employee, discussing this study stated (see page 1):

Let[s] all be very aware, and ensure that the approving official is aware of, and has reviewed the “production rate” of the efficiency of traditional tools vs power saws. In short it has been evaluated that in [] remote locations with long travel times to, from, and in between work locations, traditional tools out pace power saws due to a variety of reasons. I have attached the production rate study. It seems contradictory, but I can attest that as a person who has been personally using crosscuts, and chainsaws for over 20 years in a variety of environments this study is accurate and true. The hitch here is that the expert usage of traditional tools is less common than power saws, thus there is a perception of an advantage.

In addition to Forest Service crews, there are volunteer trail associations who partner with the Forest Service to clear trails via non-motorized means. The Selway Bitterroot Frank Church Foundation just finished a non-motorized trail clearing hitch in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness clearing 279 trees from the Big Creek / Bear Creek loop. That same organization recently announced it would continue to use crosscut saws to clear trails in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness as well. The Siskiyou Mountain Club recently cut nearly 170 logs, brushed 2.9 miles of trail, and conducted a quarter-mile of detailed tread repair during an eight-day hitch in the Siskiyou Mountain Wilderness. When thanked for doing this work the “wilderness way,” the organization replied, “This is nothing. We have been quietly restoring trails, sometimes with thousands of down trees per mile, the right way for 15 years. My crews would eat those Idaho trails for lunch, chew em up and run a marathon after.”

To the extent the Forest Service wants to clear trails for access but is understaffed to do so, the lack of non-motorized trail crews is a problem of the Forest Service’s own making and one it should fix. Over the last decade or two, the agency has been systematically abandoning and defunding its wilderness program and increasingly outsourcing wilderness administration to volunteers and third parties. The wilderness program losses over the last couple of years are simply the final nail. The result has been a catastrophic loss in trained, experienced wilderness leadership staff at the national, regional, and local levels, significant loss of experienced wilderness rangers, and the gutting of seasonal wilderness crews. The solution to this problem is to recommit to Forest Service wilderness programs and wilderness-compatible stewardship rather than resorting to chainsaws and other prohibited activities that degrade wilderness character and values.           

Does efficiency matter?

No. Efficiency is not legally relevant, and it in fact undermines the goals of the Wilderness Act. The Wilderness Act was passed “to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition.” 16 U.S.C. § 1131. Congress prohibited chainsaws precisely because they are tools of domination and efficiency. See “Why are chainsaws prohibited in Wilderness?” above for more discussion.As the Forest Service’s own Manual explains:

Economy, convenience, commercial value, and comfort are not standards of management or use of wilderness.

While efficiency is not legally relevant under the Wilderness Act, studies (see page 13) conducted by the Forest Service indicate that well-trained crosscut saw teams can be as efficient, if not more efficient, than motorized chainsaw crews deep in the backcountry. 

What about electric chainsaws?

The Trump administration has also indicated it is looking at the use of electric chainsaws in Wilderness, but electric chainsaws don’t eliminate the problem of domination. Motorized tools are the antithesis of restraint—they allow humans to transform (and oftentimes decimate) the landscape quickly and easily to meet our ends rather than transforming our attitudes to accommodate the landscape. Chainsaws, electric or gasoline powered, embody the attitude that human convenience, impatience, and demand come first, and that no place is beyond the reach of our appetite to dominate and control. All chainsaw use fundamentally undermines the goals of the Wilderness Act.

You can read more about why this all matters here and here.

Is commercial enterprise prohibited in Wilderness?

Yes. Wilderness is one of the only places statutorily protected from commercial enterprise. We can’t overstate just how rare, valuable, and increasingly at risk that protection is.

A unanimous 11-judge panel of 9th Circuit judges explained the Wilderness Act’s ban as follows:

The Wilderness Act’s opening section first sets forth the Act’s broad mandate to protect the forests, waters and creatures of the wilderness in their natural, untrammeled state. Section 1133, devoted to the use of wilderness areas, contains a subsection entitled “[p]rohibition provisions.” Among these provisions is a broad prohibition on the operation of all commercial enterprise within a designated wilderness, except as “specifically provided for in this Act.” The following subsection of the Act enumerates “special provisions,” including exceptions to this prohibition.

Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 353 F.3d 1051, 1061-1062 (2003)(internal citations removed). The panel went on to explain the Wilderness Act’s “statutory declarations show a mandate of preservation for wilderness and the essential need to keep commerce out of it.” And, “[i]n light of the clear statutory mandate, the Wilderness Act requires that the lands and waters duly designated as wilderness must be left untouched, untrammeled, and unaltered by commerce.” The Wilderness Act’s ban on commercial enterprise is one of the strongest prohibitions in the Act. Howard Zahniser, the Wilderness Act’s primary author, testified to Congress that “[g]reat and precious as the wilderness is its values are not to be estimated in the market. Its price is above rubies.” Hearings before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, United States Senate, Eighty-Fifth Congress, First Session on S. 1176. June 19 and 20, 1957, p. 191. 

As a practical matter, commercial interests tend to act on behalf of their economic interests, and when commercial interests and environmental protection collide, commercial interests almost always win. At least in Wilderness, Congress chose to protect a few areas from this influence. There is a narrow special provision for commercial services (outfitters and guides) in wilderness, but that provision, like all exceptions to a statute, must be construed narrowly and cannot be read as nullifying Congress’s broader concern. This is why it is the Forest Service’s statutory duty to oversee commercial service permits and ensure economic interests don’t override wilderness protection. As one outfitter recently stated in justifying chainsaw use, “I have a business to run. It’s an economic reality for us, because we’re already committed to our clients.” Outfitters’ obligations are to market demands. The Forest Service’s obligation is to the Wilderness Act and the public interest. 

See “Didn’t they complete a Minimum Requirements Analysis under the Wilderness Act? Isn’t that a “formal” process? below discussing how the commercial conflicts of interest played out in the Frank Church-River of No Return authorization. 

Why do commercial outfitters and guides get to operate in Wilderness? Are they allowed to use chainsaws as part of their permits?

To get the Wilderness Act bill across the finish line, Congress agreed to some special provisions, which are exceptions from the Act’s general statutory scheme. These provisions include allowances for things like domestic animal grazing and mineral prospecting activities. The special provision found at 16 U.S.C. § 1133(d)(5) states “Commercial services may be performed within the wilderness areas designated by this chapter to the extent necessary for activities which are proper for realizing recreational or other wilderness purposes of those areas.” This is commonly known as the outfitter and guide provision.

Outfitters and guides are allowed to provide commercial services in Wilderness, at the Forest Service’s discretion, only insofar as their services are both necessary and proper in Wilderness. Courts have reined in commercial outfitter and guide services that weren’t necessary and proper as well as those that caused damage to the environment. See, e.g., High Sierra Hikers Ass’n v. Blackwell, 390 F.3d 630, 648 (2004) (“Although the Act stresses the importance of wilderness areas as places for the public to enjoy, it simultaneously restricts their use in any way that would impair their future use as wilderness,” and Forest Service cannot “elevat[e] recreational activity over the long-term preservation of the wilderness character of the land.”).

Outfitters and guides cannot use chainsaws, ride ATVs, or employ any other motorized uses in Wilderness under this provision. Those motorized uses are subject to the Act’s prohibition clause, 16 U.S.C. § 1133(c), and its narrow test of administrative exception.

Why should we be concerned about commercial business associations making closed-door deals with the Forest Service to use chainsaws in Wilderness?

If you read the question out loud, you’ll probably feel the answer in the pit of your stomach, but let’s walk it through. First, see the discussion in “Is commercial enterprise prohibited in Wilderness?” above. Second, commercial interests have always had an outsized influence on public lands administration, largely to the detriment of the lands’ protection. The Wilderness Act requires the Forest Service to protect Wilderness from commercial influence and its inherent conflicts of interest, but we have an example here of what happens when the Forest Service abandons that duty and outsources its statutory duties. See “Didn’t they complete a Minimum Requirements Analysis under the Wilderness Act? Isn’t that a “formal” process” below. The result is the slow erosion of the public interest where public lands are, in a de facto sense, privatized, the public is cut out, and “partners” are given an outsized role in both wilderness decision making and administration. Public lands belong to everyone, and everyone should have an equal say, but the rapidly accelerating trend is public exclusion and lack of environmental review under the guise of “cutting red tape.” IOGA has capitalized on this trend, relying on the anti-Wilderness and anti-democratic values of this administration to quietly push through a massive motorized use authorization without public involvement.

Are other people concerned about this?

Yes. Wilderness Watch—joined by roughly 100 conservation groups, trail groups, and agency wilderness specialists—wrote a letter to the Chief expressing urgent concern. You can read our opposition letter here. Additionally, we continue to receive a growing number of tips and messages of concern from citizens, current and former Forest Service staff, and even members of IOGA.

Will the trees stop falling after the chainsaws clear the trails?

Great question – and the answer is no! It’s hard to overstate the potential impact and scope of this issue. The Trump administration is pushing an astonishing amount of chainsaw use not just in the River of No Return Wilderness but broadly across the National Wilderness Preservation System. We do not expect to see public notice and environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act for future authorizations. Instead, we expect to see a repeat of what happened in the River of No Return–more closed-door deals with commercial associations to use chainsaws for 6+ months per year for multiple years. Once those initial authorizations are done, there will be more downed trees blocking trails, the Forest Service will have continued to gut its wilderness program and crosscut teams, and we’ll see another round of the same thing. Over and over. Ultimately, this is a question about whether the Wilderness Act’s ban on motorized use means anything, whether the Forest Service is capable of fulfilling its statutory duty to protect these incredible places, and whether we have enough public pressure to demand accountability. 

What’s going on with Forest Service staffing?

To the extent the Forest Service wants to clear trails for access but is understaffed to do so, the lack of non-motorized trail crews is a problem of the Forest Service’s own making. The Forest Service has been using trail crews with crosscut saws in Wilderness for as long as the National Wilderness Preservation System has existed, and even before that. However, over the last decade or two, the agency has been systematically abandoning and defunding its wilderness program and increasingly outsourcing wilderness administration to volunteers and third parties. The drastic wilderness program losses over the last couple of years are simply the final nail. The result has been a catastrophic loss in trained, experienced wilderness leadership staff at the national, regional, and local levels, significant loss of experienced wilderness rangers, and the gutting of seasonal wilderness crews. The solution to this problem is to recommit to Forest Service wilderness programs and wilderness-compatible stewardship rather than resorting to chainsaws, outsourcing, and other prohibited activities that degrade wilderness character.

If the Forest Service is no longer willing to fund and operate its wilderness program in accordance with the Wilderness Act, perhaps it is time to ask Congress to establish a separate Wilderness agency, whose sole focus would be the stewardship of the 112 million-acre National Wilderness Preservation System across all four federal agencies that currently have wilderness stewardship responsibilities. Our Wilderness System deserves that focus, rather than neglect and antipathy.           

Has the Forest Service issued national direction on chainsaw use in Wilderness?

Sort of.  See the introduction for discussion.

Does Wilderness Watch have any other concerns about chainsaw use in Wilderness?

Yes. Wilderness Watch has long been concerned about the risk of fire ignitions with chainsaw use. The Forest Service recently issued a press release on a fire incident near Ely, Minnesota noting that the fire was likely started by a chainsaw:

A Minnesota Department of Natural Resources-State Fire Investigator has determined that the Birch Bay Fire (started June 1, 2026, eight miles northwest of Ely, MN) likely originated during chainsaw operations associated with fuels reduction and prescribed fire preparation work being conducted by U.S. Forest Service personnel. Chainsaws can easily ignite wildland fuels when their hot engines, scorching exhaust, or sparks from chain strikes contacting dry grass, needles, or woody debris. Even brief contact with these fine fuels can trigger a fast moving wildfire.

FRANK CHURCH-RIVER OF NO RETURN WILDERNESS AUTHORIZATION: THE TALE OF THE FOX DESIGNING THE HEN HOUSE

What did the Forest Service authorize?

In May, 2026, Heather Degeest, Forest Supervisor for the Salmon-Challis National Forest in Idaho, authorized Idaho Outfitters and Guides Association to use chainsaws to clear trails on over 500 miles of trails in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness for seven months every year for three years. The months approved for chainsaw use are January 1 to August 1 each year, ensuring chainsaw use will be done by the time the outfitters’ and guides’ busy season starts up for the fall hunts (never mind the disruptions to other visitors and wildlife earlier in the year). There was no public notice, no opportunity to comment, and no opportunity to engage an administrative appeal or objection to the agency.

Is this a narrow/limited authorization?

No. This is one of the largest motorized intrusions into designated Wilderness we’ve seen, and it was done, unapologetically, through a backroom deal with commercial interests and with zero public oversight. Further, the authorization allows IOGA to operate the chainsaws without any direction on which of its thousands of members can do the work, who is accountable for the results of that work, what the oversight will be, etc. 

This authorization is part of a much broader push by Outfitters and Guides Associations and the Trump administration to use chainsaws in Wilderness for trail and camp clearing. This broader push is reflected in the leaked Secretary of Agriculture memorandum, in FOIA records demonstrating similar requests in Wyoming, and from multiple tips stating the Trump administration is directing other National Forests and Forest Service Ranger Districts to authorize chainsaws in Wilderness while possibly even pressuring Forest Service employees to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements.

 See “Will the trees stop falling after the chainsaws clear the trails?” above for additional discussion.

Is the authorization justified by the amount of blocked trails?

No. The Forest Service has been using trail crews with crosscut saws in Wilderness for as long as the National Wilderness Preservation System has existed, and even before that, including during high blow-down years. And while efficiency is not legally relevant under the Wilderness Act, studies (see page 13) conducted by the Forest Service indicate that crosscut saw teams can be as efficient, if not more efficient, than motorized chainsaw crews deep in the backcountry. This is likely partly because they don’t have to haul large amounts of fuel, safety gear, and heavy chainsaws. One Forest Service employee, discussing this study stated (see page 1):

Let[s] all be very aware, and ensure that the approving official is aware of, and has reviewed the “production rate” of the efficiency of traditional tools vs power saws. In short it has been evaluated that in [] remote locations with long travel times to, from, and in between work locations, traditional tools out pace power saws due to a variety of reasons. I have attached the production rate study. It seems contradictory, but I can attest that as a person who has been personally using crosscuts, and chainsaws for over 20 years in a variety of environments this study is accurate and true. The hitch here is that the expert usage of traditional tools is less common than power saws, thus there is a perception of an advantage.

In addition to Forest Service crews, there are volunteer trail associations who partner with the Forest Service to clear trails via non-motorized means. The Selway Bitterroot Frank Church Foundation just finished a non-motorized trail clearing hitch in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness clearing 279 trees from the Big Creek / Bear Creek loop. 

In addition to that, there are thousands of miles of other trails in this and other Wildernesses that people can use and enjoy if they want to avoid trails with heavier downfall until they are cleared. 

To the extent the Forest Service wants to clear trails for access but is understaffed to do so, the lack of non-motorized trail crews is a problem of the Forest Service’s own making and one it should fix. Over the last decade or two, the agency has been systematically abandoning and defunding its wilderness program and increasingly outsourcing wilderness administration to volunteers and third parties. The wilderness program losses over the last couple of years are simply the final nail. The result has been a catastrophic loss in trained, experienced wilderness leadership staff at the national, regional, and local levels, significant loss of experienced wilderness rangers, and the gutting of seasonal wilderness crews. The solution to this problem is to recommit to Forest Service wilderness programs and wilderness-compatible stewardship rather than resorting to chainsaws and other prohibited activities that degrade wilderness character and values. Otherwise, we may very well be facing a scenario where the Forest Service abandons its wilderness stewardship role in favor of outsourcing, including to commercial interests and motorization, which is a worrying move toward de facto privatization.

If the Forest Service is no longer willing to fund and operate its wilderness program in accordance with the Wilderness Act, perhaps it is time to ask Congress to establish a separate wilderness agency, whose sole focus would be the stewardship of the 112 million-acre National Wilderness Preservation System across all four federal agencies that currently have wilderness stewardship responsibilities. Our Wilderness System deserves that focus, rather than neglect and antipathy.           

Did the Forest Service comply with NEPA? 

The Forest Service circumvented a NEPA analysis by categorically excluding the proposal from NEPA review (using a secret categorical exclusion that the Forest Service has declined to disclose) and did not notify the public of the proposal or invite the public to comment. Wilderness Watch only found out about the proposal through tips and a subsequent Freedom of Information Act request. The proposal, its negotiations and analysis, and the input provided, was an effort between the Forest Service and IOGA with months and months of secret meetings and communications. The Forest Service had plenty of opportunity to notify the public and invite public input, but it did not. In fact, it actively excluded the public from these deliberations, forcing concerned citizen groups to obtain information via FOIA requests. The Forest Service posted very limited information on its website after a decision was made, though it did not post a formal decision document because it excluded the project from NEPA review. This trend toward public exclusion and closed-door decision-making should be concerning to all who care about public lands.

Didn’t they complete a Minimum Requirements Analysis under the Wilderness Act? Isn’t that a “formal” process?

The Forest Service and IOGA claim to have followed proper procedure, noting they completed a Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA), but an MRA is simply an internal tool the agencies use to determine whether a proposal for prohibited activities might meet the Wilderness Act’s test for narrowly allowing prohibited activities in Wilderness–they are an agency tool used to inform a more robust (and public) analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. They are absolutely not a substitute for it. That the Forest Service is utilizing an MRA at all indicates a more robust NEPA review is required because the agency only does MRAs for activities that, by their very nature and by statute, degrade wilderness character and are prohibited by the Wilderness Act. Multiple courts have held as much.

An MRA itself is not indicative of stringent analysis, and the preparation of one does not mean the Forest Service has complied with the Wilderness Act. Wilderness Watch has challenged a multitude of agency authorizations in court that relied on an MRA, and courts regularly find that the agency authorizations violate the Wilderness Act. In reality, MRAs are often used to validate the agency’s pre-determined decision, and we believe this MRA falls into that category. See “What is legally required for an agency to authorize chainsaw use in Wilderness and can the Forest Service meet that standard with its chainsaw authorizations?” above for more discussion on lack of compliance with the Wilderness Act and NEPA.

MRAs  are supposed to be a staff report from an agency wilderness professional, like a wildlife report prepared as part of a broader NEPA analysis on a logging project. We’re increasingly seeing many cases including this one, where the staff preparing the report had no wilderness expertise. Even wilder yet, we learned from FOIA documents that IOGA, not the Forest Service, likely drafted the MRA in this case! These are supposed to be completed by wilderness specialists within the agency, not the commercial interests seeking the exemption. Making matters even more absurd, we’ve also learned through various channels that multiple MRAs have been completed analyzing the legality of chainsaws in Wilderness, and they’ve all come to different conclusions.    

The MRA in this case contains a laughable discussion on “mitigation  measures,” noting two: 

  1. Gas powered chainsaw use would be limited to a 3-year period.
  2. Gas powered chainsaw use would be limited to January 1st to August 1st.

It reasons, “Limiting the performance window to August 1 to complete deadfall clearing minimizes the impact to the natural character of wilderness to the extent possible and reduces the likelihood of noise impacts to visitors.” Last time we checked, many visitors (not to mention wildlife) enjoy this Wilderness before August 1 each year, but those aren’t the outfitters’ paying fall hunt customers. Additionally, authorizing chainsaws for seven months out of the year every year for three years (after which they’ll likely do the same thing all over again) is the damaging activity itself–that’s not a mitigation measure. And lastly, the MRA asks the drafter to list any monitoring and reporting requirements in the mitigation section. This MRA is loudly silent on these. 

Does the Central Idaho Wilderness Act allow chainsaws to clear trails?

No. The Central Idaho Wilderness Act—the 1980 Act that designated the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness—does not mention chainsaws at all. The Act states:

“In administering the River of No Return Wilderness, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the management plan required by this section, clear obstructions from all of the national forest trails within or adjacent to the wilderness on at least an annual basis.”

The management plan for the Wilderness likewise does not authorize chainsaw use. Thus the “maximum extent practicable” is informed by existing statutory limitations, including the Wilderness Act’s prohibition on motorized use.

It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that Congress knows how to make exceptions when it wants to, and courts cannot read exceptions where they do not exist. In the Central Idaho Wilderness Act, Congress did include express exceptions for things like aircraft landing strips, but it chose not to provide a special provision for chainsaws and instead left the Wilderness Act’s provisions operative.

IOGA has referenced statements about chainsaws by members of Congress in the statute’s legislative history, but again, Congress ultimately chose to exclude any chainsaw reference in the statute. “[R]egardless of any tradeoffs considered by Congress in enacting [a statute], we interpret and apply the language chosen by Congress, for that language was chosen in order to incorporate and effectuate those tradeoffs.” Wilderness Society v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife, 360 F.3d 1374 (9th Cir. 2004); see also American Ass’n of Retired Persons v. E.E.O.C., 823 F.2d 600, 604 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“[S]tatutes are records of legislative compromise, and the best guide to the purposes of a statute is the language of the statute itself.”).

What can I do?

Speak up! The Forest Service might be cutting the public out of the usual channels of engagement, but we still have a voice. We can demand accountability. Phone your U.S. Representative and both U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 and demand they rein in the Forest Service. Look up your local Forest Supervisor and Ranger District offices and pay them a visit and tell them you want them administering Wilderness for its own sake and for the public, not commercial interests. If they meet with the outfitters, they can meet with us too. And keep an eye out for our action alerts. 

If you are a concerned former (or current) wilderness ranger or wilderness specialist, and you’re not already working with us on this issue, reach out. We’ll figure out how to plug you in, even if anonymously. For those able to speak publicly, you can also write op-eds, or we can connect you with a host of reporters covering this issue. Your voices are essential.

If you’re a concerned IOGA member, reach out. Let’s work together. So many people, of all political and economic persuasions and backgrounds, care about these places and see the escalating threats they are facing. Responsible outfitters and guides can have a huge impact. 


For more information, contact Dana Johnson, Wilderness Watch’s policy director at [email protected].

Photo: U.S. Forest Service