By Katie Bilodeau
In January, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) approved a policy change for the Tongass National Forest that will disproportionately impact Wilderness. Designated Wilderness makes up about one-third of the 17 million-acre Tongass, which spans the coastal panhandle of Alaska. The Tongass is home to the world’s largest remaining old-growth temperate rainforest and has complete wildlife communities from all five species of Pacific salmon up to the apex predators: brown bears, Alexander Archipelago wolves, and bald eagles.
The agency requested public comments on a proposed policy change for special-use permits that are issued for privately owned cabins on national forests in Alaska in spring of 2024. Wilderness Watch and about 5,000 of our members and supporters commented, and the agency approved their policy change in January 2025.
Individual, private cabins are sprinkled across the Tongass and Chugach National Forests. Before Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980—designating Wilderness and reserving public land and land for Alaska Native Corporations (i.e. Tribes)—individuals built cabins on public land. Some did so with a permit from the USFS (which we call “authorized” cabins for the purpose of this article). Some individuals built their cabins without permission (which are “trespass” cabins for the purpose of this article). The proposed policy change involved the authorized cabins.
Commenting on the policy change that the USFS pitched was difficult, as the agency did not describe the precise consequences of changing nebulous permit codes to other permit codes. The agency vaguely stated:
The Forest Service previously placed some limits on the number of times a permit for certain ANILCA cabins could be reissued or who could be listed on a special use permit. Many cabin owners and their families have long sought a change in the way the Forest Service manages special use permits for their cabins.
Without more information, the USFS proposed policy change—apparently based on the wishes of the cabin owners—made no sense with the minimal details provided to the public. The agency didn’t fully explain what the current restrictions were or why they had been there. The agency also never mentioned Wilderness when soliciting comments—it failed to mention how many cabins were in Wilderness, whether the current policy for authorized cabins was different for cabins in Wilderness, or how the proposed policy might impact Wilderness.
After the comment period closed, Wilderness Watch met with the regional forester and other USFS employees working on the proposed policy. We wanted clarification on what it would actually change, but we walked away from that meeting with more questions than answers. So, we submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, asking for the original and current permits for each of the cabins on the Tongass National Forest. We asked about the Tongass, and not the Chugach, because the Chugach has no designated Wilderness. A pattern clearly emerged from the FOIA response.
The FOIA response clarified that of the 60 private cabins spread across the Tongass National Forest, over half of those are in Wilderness. The language in the permits immediately suggested that the proposal reverses a 40-year policy specifically intended to phase out authorized private cabins in Wilderness. This policy originates out of ANILCA.
When Congress passed ANILCA in 1980, the statute recognized the authorized and trespass cabins, and treated them differently. For the trespass cabins—the ones built without USFS authorization—the owners could apply for and receive a retroactive permit, but the statute limited this permit to the life of the claimant that could be transferred only once to that claimant’s immediate family. These trespass cabins—whether in Wilderness or not—all end after the claimant’s immediate family cease to own and use the cabin.
Congress provided separate direction for authorized cabins. ANILCA states that, “subject to the provisions” of the original permit, ANILCA would not preclude “transferring such a lease or permit to another person at the election or death of the original permittee.” But, some of the original permits were based on provisions that have become obsolete in the decades since ANILCA. For example, on Admiralty Island, the USFS issued at least seven original permits in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s for hunting or trapping cabins “on the premise that it is needed to facilitate harvest of wildlife overpopulations in the vicinity” and specified that permit renewal would be “contingent upon the Forest Supervisor’s determination that there is a continuing need for control of wildlife populations….” Six of these authorized cabins are now in the Kootznoowoo Wilderness on Admiralty Island, and the new policy allows them to remain, even if the wildlife-management paradigm upon which the permit was based has been replaced with better science.
ANILCA also permitted the agencies to end permitting for authorized cabins that were a “direct threat or a significant impairment to the purposes for which a conservation system unit was established.”
Part of the proposed policy would be to allow the authorized cabin owners to request the agency treat their cabin as a trespass cabin and apply the ANILCA section that governs trespass cabins. In Wilderness Watch’s meeting with the Forest Service, agency employees could not satisfactorily answer why the agency had proposed to arbitrarily redefine authorized cabins as trespass cabins. The statute had created these categories based on whether the cabin had been built with permission from the USFS or not; these are factually clear categories. Reviewing the language in the special-use permits, however, answered some of our questions.
The most recent special-use permits for authorized cabins in Wilderness all have a provision that is absent from the permits for their non-Wilderness counterparts. This Wilderness-related provision explicitly prohibits reissuing special-use permits to subsequent cabin owners: “A new authorization shall not be issued to any subsequent person, heir, living trust, corporation, or any person holding an interest in the improvements.” In contrast, the authorized cabins outside of Wilderness have no such restriction, so the agency may issue new permits when a new owner inherits or purchases the cabin. Based on the records we received, the USFS started adding this termination provision to authorized cabins around 1984. So, for 40 years the previous policy had been planning a phase-out of cabins in Wilderness by incorporating termination language into the special-use permits, and the cabin owners agreed to these terms.
Retired USFS employees who worked on Wilderness and special-use permits on the Tongass confirmed to Wilderness Watch what the FOIA response had suggested. After the passage of ANILCA, the USFS decided it would administer authorized cabins in Wilderness differently. These former employees noted there was a one-time family transfer allowed, where many permits could be put in the name of a younger family member. As stated above, Congress allowed agencies to end permits for authorized cabins where they were a “direct threat or a significant impairment to the purposes for which a conservation system unit was established.” ANILCA defined “conservation system unit” to include Wilderness. Based on ANILCA and the agency’s long-standing policy, the USFS had correctly recognized private cabins in Wilderness to impair the purpose of Wilderness, and had been intentionally phasing out these cabins, until this year.
The FOIA response also suggested the possible motivation for a policy change 40 years later. Many of the current cabin owners are the last generation of permit holders for authorized cabins in Wilderness—the one-time family transfer has already been used. Under their current permits, these transferees have agreed that their permit ends when they die or no longer own the cabin. They have agreed the permit will not be reissued—not to an estate, an heir, or a purchaser—and they have agreed that they, their estate, or a new owner must bear the cost associated with removing the structure. These permits are starting to end now, whether it is because the permit holders are passing or because they no longer wish to use the cabin or deal with the liabilities and fees associated with owning it.
Under the previous policy, all of the authorized cabin owners in Wilderness are the last who can hold a permit for their cabin. Passing on the cabin means the new owner would bear the costs of removing the structure. Incredibly, the new policy allows authorized cabin owners to request that the agency treat their cabin as if it were a trespass cabin. While it is legally dubious to ask the USFS to reclassify a cabin under a statutory category to which that cabin factually cannot belong, the end result is that the agency could apply the ANILCA section that allows a one-time transfer to family under that new trespass category. Cabin owners would have a new opportunity to transfer their cabin that they did not have under the old policy.
These wilderness cabins becoming permanent structures in Wilderness will be fully realized one generation into this new policy. Authorized cabin owners may now ask the USFS to consider their cabin as a trespass cabin so they can benefit from a statutorily guaranteed transfer not allowed under the previous policy. The USFS will generate new permit language for the new cabin category. Once the new sunset date finally arrives, however, future cabin owners simply need to point out that their cabins had been mischaracterized—after all, these cabins had a lawful special-use permits in 1980; factually they cannot be trespass cabins. The USFS will reshuffle the cabin back to the proper statutory cabin and generate another new permit, which will have no permit language that prohibits future transfers because in one generation from now, the agency will have long forgotten its 1984-2024 practice phasing out cabins in Wilderness.
The simple hypothetical scenario above is not unrealistic given what we know about human nature. The result is structures—privately owned cabins—will become permanent in Wilderness on the Tongass National Forest. Current permit holders with cabins in Wilderness will have evaded their agreements, where they accepted the terms that they are the last permit holder, a the beneficiary of the one-time family transfer after which the cabin must be dismantled.
Besides the clear potential for negative wilderness impacts, we want to recognize there have been cabin owners—heirs or executors of estates—who have abided by this 40-year-old policy and the terms of their permit, and have removed authorized cabins in Wilderness. Furthermore, there have been USFS employees who have enforced these permit restrictions in Wilderness over the past 40 years. This change in policy not only degrades Wilderness, but it is a thumb in the eye of people who respectfully have followed the rules.
On March 21, 2025, eight former USFS employees–who spent their time managing Wilderness, special-use permits, and recreation in Alaska–sent a letter to then Regional Forester Chad Van Ormer expressing their objection to the new policy. These former agency employees have shared this letter with Wilderness Watch, and have given us permission to share it with you, clarifying that the letter represents the signatories’ personal opinions and are not related to any current work or employment.
Wilderness Watch still had enough unanswered questions to warrant submitting a second Freedom of Information Act request, which we are reviewing now. We have asked for a cabin-tracking report we understand the USFS created, information on decommissioned cabins, and policy records on Tongass cabins from the last two decades to determine what next steps might be available.
Although the details are different, the policy the USFS adopted in January 2025 is not a new story. This is a story of private individuals who accepted a limited privilege in Wilderness, acknowledging it would end when certain conditions occur. Now that the end is in sight, some of these individuals apparently want to enlarge that privilege, as reflected in the agency’s admission prefacing its proposed policy that “Many cabin owners and their families have long sought a change in the way the Forest Service manages special use permits for their cabins.” The USFS has appeared to have opted for changing the rules instead of sticking to their 40-year permit policy restricting permit reissuances, even to the detriment of Wilderness. This move has relieved them from having enforcing a pro-Wilderness policy that probably won’t be popular with some cabin owners. With this new policy, cabins in Wilderness can stay, maybe permanently, and this generation of agency employees just punted their difficult obligation onto their successors.
Top Photo: Misty Fjords Wilderness by Valeria Cancino/USFS
Katie Bilodeau is Wilderness Watch’s legislative director/policy analyst.
In 1964, the USFS permitted a 12×19 foot hunting and trapping cabin in the Kootznoowoo Wilderness in Alaska, issuing the permit “on the premise that it is needed to facilitate harvest of wildlife populations in the vicinity.” That first permit mandated that permit renewals would be contingent on the “continuing need for control of wildlife populations.” That permit language is absent from the current permit.
Photo on the right above:
When the USFS inspected this cabin in the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness in Alaska in 2015, the agency noted signs of non-use, such as boarded up windows and doors. Like the other wilderness cabins, the one-time family transfer has already occurred, and this was the last permit holder under the policy the USFS terminated in January 2025.
Both cabins pictured above are in the Kootznoowoo Wilderness, AK.
273 Comments
With the population of the world and specifically the USA, allowing cabins to be built in wilderness areas is a mistake. Especially Alaska, which, in the near future, if not currently, will have strategic value to the USA. Having wilderness areas is important and hard to keep it that way, considering the reduction of resources due to the new Executive Branch of the USA. I think having the indigenous people play a much larger role in managing these areas in Alaska, and other wilderness areas would be of great value.
Please keep the phase out. Keep Alaska wild!
Save our public lands.
Save Our Environment
There shouldn’t be any type of living structure, used or unused, allowed in this wilderness area. Both of these “cabins” should be raised and the area cleaned out to look as if it did before the cabin. This is strictly wilderness habitat and should remain so. Leaving any type of structures standing should not be allowed in these areas. If this forest has been designated as wilderness, it should remain so. No exceptions.
PEOPLE SHOULD ENJOY THE PLANET AND NOT TRY TO DESTROY IT
once you have cabins in the wild animals lose their advantage to roam the land freely. they do not have a lot of land to roam so please do not construct cabins. a lot of people come and soon there are confrontations with the wild animals which always had the freedom to roam.. people can visit the land without the camping leave the wildlife alone.
This action by the USFS is totally consistent with other federal maladministration efforts to reduce protected Wilderness areas (or, worse, to sell them to individuals or companies), opening the public, protected, lands to development or extraction (logging, mining, drilling).
Please stop trying to make it easier to recharacterize structures in Wilderness areas – the intent of the rules was (and IS) to return the land to its Wilderness state.
Do not allow people to use cabins indefinitely- it hurts the wilderness & the planet – people must not live in these cabins forever – the land belongs to the animals
ANTHRONARCISSISM is seeing the “value” of anything only in terms of attempting to satisfy grossly over-manipulative and over-consumptive human desires and myopic non-holistic attitudes and habits. Such short-sighted self-gratification is EXACTLY why we have SO MANY ENVIRONMENTAL problems on Earth now. Establishment of WILDERNESS is opportunity for humans to accept the reality that all BEINGS. ie anything that “be’s”, from rock to stream to insect to puma to other human, deserves respect and appreciation and human restraint from messing with it unless truly necessary…. and “necessary” does not mean to fulfill some petty desire for conquest or power over other BEINGS simply because we are capable of doing so for some misguided sense of “accomplishment”. We have a BAD HABIT of creeping encroachment upon wild places. Add a structure or a road or official trail = more people = more excuses to further add and “improve” until that locale is no longer wild, but becomes “disneyfied” , ie FAKE to satisfy human whims ! Humanity needs a new paradigm, not more mythological “necessary economic development”, “progress’, and “access’ to increasingly diminishing true wild places on our one and only actually necessary and beautiful planet !
Proposed new policy way too vague for implementation. Must be revised to begin to become adequate for use by anyone, including a government agency. Abandon this one and start again.
There should be no cabins in Wilderness. Those still standing should be allowed to deteriorate, (hoping they are built with natural material), and the land returned to native Alaskans where appropriate.
Wilderness should remain wild – its natural state. It should not become a resort, marred by housing and human waste. We have gone too far in our abuse of the natural environment.
Please remove all private cabins from the Tongass wilderness. Their presence is inconsistent with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980.
Let wilderness be wilderness, not watered down with private cabins!
I think it is important that the term ” Wilderness” be legally and properly defined by this Agency so that the American Public can know the basis of this discussion and issue.
As a long time outdoors person, wilderness user and P/T resident in Alaska; to me it’s important that all Wilderness areas be maintained as such. There should not be loopholes and verbiage that allows the continuance of these remaining cabins. To me, Wilderness has always been devoid of roads and structures at a minimum; with no commercialization, harvesting of resources, helicopters and planes, hunting or trapping. The less Human impact on these unique, wild and special environments going forward; the better for these true wild rugged undeveloped Wilderness Zones.
I VOTE TO REMOVE ALL CABINS ASAP.
Thank You Kindly,
Tom Kuehler
Leave the Cabins!
I support Wilderness Watch in this matter, if I understand correctly that the new alterations to the rules governing wilderness cabins should be withdrawn. However, given the reality of human nature aforementioned in this article, a compromise whereby the cabin permit holding humans could be offere to to reproduce exactly their structures in a non-wildernes area of Tongass, of the Forest Service’s choosing. The expenses would be the responsibily of the cabin “owners” in this accomodation.
No cabins should displace decades of restricting permit reassurances.
Stop the cabins !!!
The Forest Service has an obligation, first and foremost, to follow the law. If following the law conflicts with Federal Administrative goals, the law is followed. The federal administration can work to change the law to meet its’ goals. Reinterpreting law and policy must adhere to the stated objective and goals set forth in the law. Policy changes need to be clearly stated with stakeholder input and their concerns properly addressed.
Your newly approved a policy change for the Tongass National Forest will disproportionately and negatively impact Wilderness. It is heartbreaking that our government leaders couldn’t care less for our natural lands and preserving it for future generations.
Please increase our protection for clean air and everything.
To Whom It May Concern,
Please demand the removal of all “trespass” cabins in the forest. They should not be there, as they only degrade the purpose of the wilderness. Thank you very much.
Jerry Hughes
I believe all these cabins should be removed when the original agreement expires. There should be no change because some current officials either do not want to bother inspecting or confirming that the current owners meet the original requirements they agreed to.
Simple, the USFS must enforce the original policy with the 40 year permits that are now expiring. The trespass cabins should have been torn down immediately as they were illegal. The owners of these cabins knew what the original policy would end with the removal of their cabins from a protected wilderness. That is the way it should remain. Reverse the new policy and remove their cabins from cabins. No paperwork switch-aroo to allow these cabins to remain.
Very sad to hear about this change in policy! So for years you have been kicking people out of their cabins, but now they get to stay? I don’t get it. It was declared wilderness and to me that means no man made structures. How sad that we cannot allow the animals to live in peace somewhere!
pretty disturbing
I don’t think there should be so many structures built in the wild.
Thanks,
I agree — cabins, sheds and other buildings should be removed from the Tongass, especially designated wilderness areas.
Please phase out wilderness cabins
Wilderness Watch (WW) is providing these comments on the proposed changes to the Forest Service Handbook as it applies to the so-called “ANILCA cabins” on national forests in Alaska. Wilderness Watch is an organization whose focus is the proper stewardship of the lands and waters within the National Wilderness Preservation System. Our work defending Wilderness is nationwide.
Eliminate all cabins in the wilderness. People should not be allowed in the wilderness. It is for Nature.
We need to preserve the wilderness we still have left. Allowing more cabins means more people, more vehicles, more conflicts between wildlife and humans, an accelerated loss of biodiversity, and degradation of habitats. Can we please look to the future and remember that protecting and preserving is much easier, less expensive and better for the planet than trying to restore it after it has been destroyed?
This area should be true wilderness and no cabins allowed. Ever.
The Tongass is home to the world’s largest remaining old-growth temperate rainforest and has complete wildlife communities from all five species of Pacific salmon up to the apex predators: brown bears, Alexander Archipelago wolves, and bald eagles.
No private cabins. Period.
The new regulations are a gross mistake which harms wilderness in moments when animal populations are declining and climate change makes even more difficult for species to prosper. Human actions over wilderness are always risky due to the use and storage of fuels y the enhance risk of fires.
I have an idea. What if we kill the earth faster. That way, we won’t have to wonder about how long it’s going to take. Let’s all build cabins in the Tongass wilderness.
Cabins should be available to the public and used for wilderness camping opportunities
That’s a rather human supremacist attitude. Haven’t humans hogged enough of the planet without also intruding into the tiny fraction of wilderness that they haven’t already destroyed (yet)?
No private cabins on our forest and public lands. This is wilderness not a campground for people.
It Whom it may concern.
It’s vital that we preserve what wilderness we have left for the future of our environment, our flora and our fauna. Our shortsighted politicians are dictating the destiny of our future on a way that is NOT sustainable.
Please take this into consideration when allowing wilderness to become exposed to human impact.
Thank you.
Becky
I adamantly disagree on the USFS proposal to reverse the phase-out period of cabins in the wilderness designated by congress. To continue to build and give permits is utter destruction of Wilderness. Why did the USFS hold out so long on giving notification to conservation organizations and the public at large. There is not enough notice and the comment period should be extended.
I think this is a betrayal of the American people, and giving priority to the hunting ang trapping industries.
Keep the current policy of phasing out private cabins on public lands in Alasaka. Certainly don’t allow building new ones.
I support our national forest and designated wilderness areas as wilderness which means the land is left to its own devices including all of us inhabitants. If we allow logging and intrusion into these areas we will disrupt the flow and natural Balance of life in the wilderness for Flora and Fauna alike. We have historically done so much damage to the wilderness over time by thoughtlessly logging and viewing all things in nature as sources of income. No income is worth the destruction of these wilderness and Forest areas particularly in the Tongass. Please thought we consider your behavior in these areas and the cost of ill founded and scientifically unstable legislation
Please let the Tongass National Fores be wild. No more cabin permits. PLEASE. We’ve lost so much already. These permits will impact the balance of life in the wilderness.
After all, National Forests are owned by the people of the nation. Not by the forest service.
This new USFS policy that allows legally permitted cabins to be reclassified as illegal cabins thus permitting their continued existence and use beyond what would hav been their ultimate closure and removal should be legally challenged
ALL of these structures must be removed from the TNF!
remove and keep out all structures!
People should not be allowed to have cabin in sensitive wildlife areas!
Once again humans are allowed to decimate the rightful home of wildlife and marine life
Once again shameful
ALL of these structures must GO!
STOP DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY!!
Please stop taking wilderness away from the citizens. This is a clear violation of the intent of the Wilderness Act and should have been rejected outright.
These cabins are an eyesore in the wilderness.
Someone is making money on the cabins and they don’t give a hoot’n’holler for what’s best for the environment.
Leave the Wilderness for wildlife during this, the greatest biodiversity crisis in history!
No cabins in Wilderness in Alaska.
What are you thinking? Isn’t your job to protect wilderness areas? Someone has to have the moral strength to push back. Stand up!
I am also going to comment with this:
Get all cabins, sheds, buildings out of the Tongass and all public lands and forests and parks. They are PUBLIC, not private.
Hello,
I am against privately owned cabins in a wilderness area, there is no need for such a thing!
D.M. Dragon
Get all cabins, sheds, buildings out of the Tongass and all public lands and forests and parks. They are PUBLIC, not private.