[Kim Brown]

I envision the trebuchet to be set up in a non-Wilderness setting. Those things launch pretty good and a donkey is just the right weight and shape - not too heavy, not too light - and if launched by a skilled trebuchet operator, the donkey would remain in an aerodynamic position of head first, it will go quite some distance. Wrap it up in some kind of friction-reducing wrap, optimize wind conditions, and you're golden.

[DIYSteve]

[Kim Brown]

I was responding more to D. Inscho's post that seemed to interpret the intention of Wilderness as free of mechanization, which is not the case with at least one huge agency charged with managing Wilderness. I don't have a problem with no mechanization; I like that we are required to build and install large bridges by hand and using rigging to hoist and put them into place. I like engineering a rock project using wood prybars and fulcrums found on site. Wilderness methods draw and unique and highly skilled set of volunteers who enjoy the work. My point is that there can be a balance. Was 67 chopper loads balanced? I don't know. I do know that at least one horse died on the trail to GMLO before it was decided that horse use wasn't feasible. That then brings up D. Inscho's point that when a project gets to the point of requiring 67 chopper loads in Wilderness , perhaps it's best to call it quits altogether; and he might have been right. The Court says so, but there are many people who disagree, and that's the beauty and frustration of folks. I'm not battering anyone's opinion on GMLO and their Wilderness ethics because the intent of Wilderness and how it's managed is still a wide, wide subject; no one's right, and no one's wrong.

[Tvashtar]

Such a large trebuchet would likely cause the donkey to break the sound barrier - an historical first, undoubtedly, but likely a messy one. And then you'd have the FAA all over your ass in addition to having your ass all over everything else.

[Tvashtar]

The sound barrier would limit your range to about 15 km, assuming a frictionless donkey and equal elevation. Add those two factors and it seems like you'd need to chopper the launch platform to an appropriate altitude for success.

[D. Inscho]

[DIYSteve]

[Kim Brown]

Haven't seen one, but I've heard USFS personnel say that they couldn't obtain a waiver for unusually large amounts of blowdown after a storm, so a particular trail (Suiattle and Elliot Creek in particular in the cases I heard them talk about) had to be logged out by hand. So though I haven't seen one, I know of those instances where chainsaw use was desired but wasn't used. I trust they went through an appropriate process, mainly because they care to do a good job for their employer and they respect the laws of land, like the rest of us do; but also because they didn't use chainsaws on those projects. You can ask to see one if you want to. Please call a Ranger Station if you have a question about anything they do.

[DIYSteve]

So, maybe there's a "waiver" that's given by the FS RS to the worker and/or maybe to worker requests a "waiver?" That's my guess because I can't find anything that talks about the FS or NPS or BLM getting a waiver from somewhere else, and it wouldn't make sense under the Act's language.

[Kim Brown]

I think chainsaw and chopper waiver is given at the District level, (i.e. Skykomish, Darrington, North Bend, Mt. Baker), but it might be at the Forest level (the Supervisor's office in Everett). (someone on this site knows, but I can't recall who; George, obviously, but someone else as well) This might be something that, if anyone wanted to challenge the practice, to see that these waivers can be bumped up to a higher level (from District to Supervisor) to ensure a District Ranger isn't too lenient. I had mentioned earlier about a mini-excavator waiver, and I understand that is granted at the National level in D.C. (USFS Chief); they nixed it the one time I know they wanted to use one not only because of public comments, but because it would have taken too long to get the waiver through the process, and then it might not have been granted anyway.

[Logbear]

Here's a story about a tree blow-down event in the Sierra Nevada. Reading the final report, it looks like about 40 miles of trails that are in wilderness areas were cleared using chain saws. http://friendsoftheinyo.org/foiD7/node/1206

[Kim Brown]

Logbear, thanks for the link. How did you happen upon such a coolistic bit of information like that! Shows the really, really hard work involved and the incredible skill and dedication of volunteers and the necessity of our equestrian freinds. Really cool pictures, too.

[RodF]

Exceptions to Prohibited Uses "The only criteria managers have for allowing exceptions to the prohibited uses is "...to meet minimum requirements for administration of the area for the purpose of this Act." as Section 4.(c) states. According to Section 2.(a), the purpose of the Act is to "...secure for Americans of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness." For example, one benefit of wilderness is recreation and trails provide access for that recreation. "While you might think a chainsaw may clear a trail faster, chainsaws are prohibited in wilderness. You cannot use a chainsaw just because it may be faster, more economical, or more convenient. You must base your decision on the minimum requirement for the administration of the area." In USFS Region 6, this minimum requirements determination decision memo (aka "chainsaw waiver") can be signed by the Forest Supervisor, not by a District Ranger. In Olympic NF, there have only been two issued in recent years: - Duckabush Trail had a couple hundred trees down on it after the 2011 wildfire. USFS fire crew spent three weeks cutting all the hazard trees using crosscut saws. WTA, BCHW and SCA crosscut many more (and did loads of tread work). A chainsaw waiver was issued for one day for the USFS fire crew to cut three logs which could not be cut safely with hand saws. - Colonel Bob Trail had several hundred large trees down on it after the 2007 windstorm. USFS refused to issue a chainsaw waiver for three years, and the trail remained impassible until a waiver was issued in 2011. Most logs were cleared with crosscut saws by WTA, BCHW and USFS. Some logs simply can't be cut using crosscut saws, because they are jammed up against other logs or against rock on a steep hillside, or because there's simply no place for a sawyer to work safely. Chainsaw can plunge-cut in from one side, but a crosscut saw can't. The "traditional means" alternative would be to auger and dynamite the log. NPS sets chainsaw policy through Director's Order 41 "Wilderness Stewardship" which went through NEPA public review in 2011. "Superintendents may approve any of the other activities or uses that are listed in section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 USC 1133 (c)) as “prohibited," provided that they are deemed necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area as wilderness, and the methods are determined to be the minimum activity for the project. The use of motorized equipment and the establishment of management facilities are specifically prohibited when other reasonable alternatives are available." Policy may also be set by a NEPA process in the Wilderness or Backcountry Management Plan of each Park. Each Superintendent then applies the minimum requirements decision through the process outlined in Directors Order 12, typically through categorical exclusion. NPS does have a less restrictive policy on chainsaw use because it has a higher priority on keeping trails open. I think this traces directly to the NPS Organic Act of 1916, which established NPS to promote the public use of National Parks for the enjoyment of the people.

[WMC]

[Kim Brown]

Thanks rod. I think the issue with chainsaws on Colonel Bob was public objection, wasn't it? (Or am I wrong yet again? )