Behind the decision to allow chain saws in Southwest Colorado wilderness areas

[PrairieHunter]

Guess in some cases chainsaws will be allowed in wilderness.

https://durangoherald.com/articles/...KTSVSYp0x5R9tpC-PMCcoE7uZQrV14sr3yxWNby2KTUl0

 

[marshman]

For one six week period, the work seems justified to me. Providing access to the wilderness is a good thing.

 

[Ajax2744]

Right now Southwest Colorado is at 768% snowpack a year after EVERYTHING was on fire. A lot of that wilderness is dead beetlekill. My buddy farms down there and is just waiting for the horrible flooding that's going to happen. If chainsaws will help clear out some dead trees and old growth to allow new growth and help hold the soil down on years like this then I'm fine with that.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm torn on this one, I don't like exceptions to wilderness rules but I think we are nearing a crisis point and need to discuss options.

There is a massive amount of down fall in dog hair forests in a number of different places in CO, it's so thick in many areas it's impassible to deer, elk, moose, bear, etc. Many of these wilderness areas are so close to homes that they will never be allowed to burn.

 

[Matty B]

I am a little torn but I think this would be the year to do this with the moisture SW CO has received this winter/spring. Seems like it will be well regulated as long as no rouge outfitters think that they can just go out and clear trail. The article was pretty clear that a FS employee must supervise any chainsaw use, there are specific dates that the chain saws will be allowed and a detailed report must be made stating the miles of trails cleared and number of trees cut.

 

[RobG]

They are just going to clear trails with them - no fire prevention. Trail crews and private parties can use traditional hand saws like the rest of country. That "detailed report" should be made before they make a decision on this.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

They are just going to clear trails with them - no fire prevention. Trail crews and private parties can use traditional hand saws like the rest of country. That "detailed report" should be made before they make a decision on this.

Curious what your break point would be if any...500 trees a mile, never and just let that trail be given back to the forest... etc?

 

[RobG]

Curious what your break point would be if any...500 trees a mile, never and just let that trail be given back to the forest... etc?

500 trees/mile would be a tree every 10' and I doubt anything of any size would grow that thick. The break point would have to be extraordinary. You can leave trees that are close enough to the ground for horses and people to walk over. I walked through seven miles of dead fall two years ago. Ducking under those trees 4' off the ground gets old, but us buttercups sucked it up . On the other hand, a friend and I took hours to walk one mile through a "short cut" of old growth spruce deadfall in the Selway Bitterroot 25 years ago. Those trees were 4-6' or more in diameter. For that one they rerouted the trail.

 

[375H&H]

I remember hearing my dad talk about the FS fighting a fire in a Washington wilderness area which they aren’t supposed to, but the fire almost got out of hand so some suppression was necessary. He said it was very eery hunting with orange retardant on the vegetation everywhere, but after a year it was all gone. Sometimes those things are necessary and most forget about them after a few years goes by with no further infringements on the wilderness laws.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

500 trees/mile would be a tree every 10' and I doubt anything of any size would grow that thick. The break point would have to be extraordinary. You can leave trees that are close enough to the ground for horses and people to walk over. I walked through seven miles of dead fall two years ago. Ducking under those trees 4' off the ground gets old, but us buttercups sucked it up . On the other hand, a friend and I took hours to walk one mile through a "short cut" of old growth spruce deadfall in the Selway Bitterroot 25 years ago. Those trees were 4-6' or more in diameter. For that one they rerouted the trail.

So never then?

 

[PrairieHunter]

After reading the article a few things jumped out at me. One was the fact the USFS would supervise the work, not be doing it themselves. It never fails that when real work needs to be done the USFS almost always has to hire a contractor to do the actual work. Even when in many cases the USFS has the equipment and people who should be able to complete the task. But they will send hundreds of people to a fire and sit around running up the bill while very little work gets done. So wasteful.

Another is I wonder who is really pushing this to get done. I have to think outfitters are one of the primary reasons behind this. Tourists are unlikely as most don't really venture far from the trailhead or visit remote wilderness areas like this but I'm sure there are a few. For something like this to get pushed through there certainly had to be someone with clout behind it.

I have little sympathy for the millionaires who bought land adjacent to wilderness and build mansions on the property line and now don't want to pay for managing the land around their estates or deal with the risk involved with building expensive homes in these areas. When you build homes in high risk areas that just comes with the territory, same with coastal areas prone to flooding/hurricanes, Oklahoma tornadoes, So Cal fire/flood at the same time, etc...

 

[MTGomer]

I don’t see a problem with trail crews using saws for trail clearing in general. If a little chainsaw noise for half a day, once every couple years is the biggest human encroachment that’s pretty good. It’s much more efficient. Literally a way to do ‘more with less’

I think the issue is the slippery slope precedent it may set, not the actual usage of the chainsaw.IE: if chainsaws for trail clearing, why not fire prevention. Maybe a little helicopter logging. Maybe... the direction it could lead is what I don’t like. The idea of FS employee or contractor running a stihl, I can live with if that’s where it stops.

 

[RobG]

So never then?

I said the circumstances would need to be extraordinary. How many trees are down? How important is this trail? What is different than other areas where hand saws have been used? Basically to violate the Wilderness act the trail would be necessary and chainsaws the only possible way to get it done.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I have little sympathy for the millionaires who bought land adjacent to wilderness and build mansions on the property line and now don't want to pay for managing the land around their estates or deal with the risk involved with building expensive homes in these areas. When you build homes in high risk areas that just comes with the territory, same with coastal areas prone to flooding/hurricanes, Oklahoma tornadoes, So Cal fire/flood at the same time, etc...

What's the f**k-um threshold?

A bunch of those houses are under $500k... for context my parents were teachers and built there house 25 years ago for 290k... it's worth 700k now (similar but different county)... Colorado growth is insane. Some of the wilderness area boundaries in that specific area were changed in 2010, those homes were built before it was wilderness... if it wasn't wilderness the FS would have come in and created "defensible space", this pic is from the opposite side of the valley that backs up to national forest not wilderness.




It's pretty easy to be callus about other peoples lives when it doesn't effect you, there is a lot of nuance to all of these situations.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I said the circumstances would need to be extraordinary. How many trees are down? How important is this trail? What is different than other areas where hand saws have been used? Basically to violate the Wilderness act the trail would be necessary and chainsaws the only possible way to get it done.

I think that's were I would put my bar as well... although I know for a fact a ton of outfitters carry chainsaws in CO and use them to illegally clear trails. Per the article many parts of these trails have down trees every 50ft, I think outfitters have a right to make a living and I can see how not being able to get to your hunting area because the FS can't open the trail would constitute an emergency for them.

 

[Pelican]

I’m not sure if I agree with this being necessary or not. I do see some potential for resource damage if outfitters or hikers reroute trails into meadows, etc on their own do to the downed trees. Is noise better or worse than users creating multiple trails to the same area which would negatively affect the wilderness character for a long period? At least the noise from the saws would be temporary.

 

[RobG]

What's the f**k-um threshold?

<snip>

It's pretty easy to be a dick about other peoples lives when it doesn't effect you, there is a lot of nuance to all of these situations.

This is just for trails. They aren't removing fuel so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Plus, after the needles drop a few studies have shown beetle kill is less of a fire hazard than a living forest in a drought year.

 

[rideold]

For every rule we have a propensity to justify an exception. Death by paper cut. Mechanized is mechanized and wilderness is wilderness. I'm just a curmudgeon on this but I don't see why we can't leave some places untouched. I get it that some may be influenced or potentially threatened by natural forces extending off the wilderness areas to adjacent development. That's the price of living/building where they have. Just like getting injured in a wilderness area, you accept the risk. I'm probably missing some language in the act that allows some uses in some situations. I don't mean to take things out of context.

SEC. 2. (a) In order 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, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as "wilderness areas", and these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness; and no Federal lands shall be designated as "wilderness areas" except as provided for in this Act or by a subsequent Act.

DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS (c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This is just for trails. They aren't removing fuel so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Plus, after the needles drop a few studies have shown beetle kill is less of a fire hazard than a living forest in a drought year.

I'm getting at when, if ever, is it okay to make an exception to the rule?

Per Pelican, does a half dozen alternative paths being created outweigh the use of chainsaws for a month? Is it better to bomb a wilderness area with fire retardant summer after summer rather than allowing chainsaws and trucks to remove fuel from the edges so it can be left to burn?

I don't know honestly... there's lots of nuance when you dig into the details, and it's pretty easy to paint with a broad brush when your looking at the problem from 30k feet.

 

[PrairieHunter]

What's the f**k-um threshold?

A bunch of those houses are under $500k... for context my parents were teachers and built there house 25 years ago for 290k... it's worth 700k now (similar but different county)... Colorado growth is insane. Some of the wilderness area boundaries in that specific area were changed in 2010, those homes were built before it was wilderness... if it wasn't wilderness the FS would have come in and created "defensible space", this pic is from the opposite side of the valley that backs up to national forest not wilderness.

View attachment 107540


It's pretty easy to be a dick about other peoples lives when it doesn't effect you, there is a lot of nuance to all of these situations.

LOL. You are pure entertainment.

****um threshold??? LOL

I still think you best one was explaining how Colorado taking tags from the resident draw and giving them to landowners to sell was helping reisdent hunting opportunities. OR that there was no logging in Northern Colorado. Or that you never hunt near subwway. You have a lot of greatest hits so far.

So what are you so upset about here to the point of cussing? Your mad because I think people who build next to wilderness need to take some responsibility for the risk involved? K

There is nothing about being a "dick" in my post. If you own homes next to wilderness there are risks and responsibilities, just like Florida from hurricanes, Louisiana from flooding, Oklahoma from tornadoes, Hawaii, etc..