Traditional Tools in Wilderness
Tools, Traditional Tools, Trail News
Why, In a Modern Day World?
Susan Jenkins, USDA Forest Service
When the Wilderness Act of 1964 was established after years of discussion and debate, it charged that all work in designated wilderness areas, with few exceptions, be accomplished through the use of
 primitive or non-motorized tools. The word “primitive†carries a negative connotation, so we use the term “traditional tools†for much of our tool work and teaching that we do today. In recent years, fires, floods, and hurricanes have wreaked havoc throughout the American wilderness system. When we take to the wilderness to perform trail work, we are often faced with serious questions. Why do we use these tools when chainsaws, rock drills, and helicopters are available? Can’t I use a chainsaw if no one else hears it? Are traditional tools safe, and economical to use? These questions require an in-depth understanding of what we can accomplish with commitment, technical expertise, high quality tools, and a serious amount of logistical planning. True, the use of traditional tools is mandated by law. But the reasoning behind their use goes much deeper. It’s not just about concerns of keeping the wilderness a place of solitude. It’s about our approach to maintenance.Since we’re motivated by a strong work ethic, it is simple human nature to make an extra five or ten cuts with a chainsaw to thoroughly clear the trail, or to remove extra rock when explosives and drills are available. As we change the trail by these efforts, we allow trail users faster and easier access, which in turn affects the character of the landscape. The authors of the Wilderness Act saw excessive change in any landscape as a distinct probability through the use of motorized tools, along the lines of what happens when a two-lane road becomes a four-lane road: increased traffic, more development. They saw the banning of motorized tools as a method to hold back that possibility of change, to preserve and protect the rare landscapes found in places like the Big Scrub.
As for the safe use of traditional tools, it’s all about training. If the rules are followed for axe and crosscut work, the work can be done safely. The use of rigging and skylines for moving heavy materials is very safe when done according to the proper guidelines.
Is it economical to use traditional tools? Field personnel often compare tools when planning complex restoration work. When you compare a chainsaw and a crosscut saw, it is obvious that the chainsaw will perform the cutting task three to five times quicker than a good, sharp crosscut. But does that mean we can complete the work at one-third to one-fifth the cost using a chainsaw? No. When planning maintenance in a wilderness area, it isn’t just a simple task of comparing tools and their intrinsic properties. Tools must be evaluated in the context of the job. While there are direct costs in planning and performing the work, there are also indirect costs of added analysis, questions, appeals, and the corresponding loss of credibility when we resort to motorized means for work in wilderness areas.
One good example of the cost of using traditional tools came up when we began clearing Juniper Run.
Large oak, bays, maples, and palms uprooted into the waterway in a tangled mess exacerbated by thousands of vines ranging from grape to poison ivy. The first mile of the run lies outside the Juniper Prairie Wilderness boundary, so chainsaws were a legitimate tool for clearing that mile. Within the first 200 yards of the put-in, we encountered a huge blow down tangled with trees and vines covering both the entire run and a small cove. It took seven people almost nine hours to clear this small section using chainsaws, handsaws, hoists, and backbreaking labor. Sixty-three person hours were involved in clearing the run and the boils. Chainsaws were used, but the total saw time was less than 15 minutes. If this had been inside the Wilderness and we had used crosscut saws, the total cutting time would have been under one hour. With skillful use and high quality tools, the crosscut saw would have added a probable thirty minutes extra work that took sixty-three person hours to finish. From an economic standpoint, the cost of using traditional tools versus chainsaws was about equal.
So why are there concerns about the use of traditional tools in wilderness? There are very few people left with the skills to operate these tools efficiently. Well sharpened and high quality tools are a rarity, and it takes a high degree of skill to maintain them. Also, it takes problem-solving skills in order to use traditional tools efficiently, given the limited amount of physical energy available. When we live in a society where we expect things to happen with a minimal amount of effort, it’s easy for folks to view traditional tools as a waste of time.
The continued use of traditional tools is a powerful example of our living heritage. They allow us time to think and rethink our actions so that the work we accomplish in wilderness areas does not alter the landscape beyond what was intended in the Wilderness Act. In an era of instant gratification, these traditional thought processes and skills help us to reestablish slow and thoughtful ties to the lands that we treasure.
Deb Blick @ August 5, 2004