Administrative Use

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act provides two narrow exceptions that allow motorized or mechanized uses in wilderness for administrative purposes:

1) in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area; and
2) when a motorized or mechanized action is necessary as the minimum requirement for proper protection and administration of the area as wilderness

Emergencies:

Agencies sometimes argue that motorized activities are necessary to protect the health and safety of people living outside the wilderness. This goes beyond the narrow exception in the Wilderness Act and should be opposed. The Act does not allow motorized actions to prevent potential future emergencies, it only allows such use during an existing emergency, and only to aid people who are located inside the wilderness.

An increasingly common “emergency” proposal is to use aircraft and chainsaws to “thin” wilderness forests to decrease wild fire risk for nearby communities. The Wilderness Act does not authorize agencies to reduce potential dangers in wilderness nor does it allow motorized use for purposes of protecting people who are located outside the wilderness (Sierra Club v. Lyng).

Minimum Requirement:

Wilderness administrators can use motorized or mechanized equipment in wilderness when it is the only way (i.e. the minimum means) of carrying out an action that is absolutely necessary to protect the area’s wilderness character and prevent degradation of the wilderness. This does not mean that managers can lawfully use motorized equipment for activities that are unrelated to protection of the wilderness, although there is widespread disregard for this fact within the agencies. Activities unrelated to wilderness protection include fire suppression, restoration of old structures, building or removing fences for livestock management purposes, trail and bridge maintenance and construction, most scientific research, fish stocking and game management.

To determine whether an action is necessary, assess whether the area’s wild character would be diminished or degraded if that action were not undertaken. For example, motorized use for wildlife management is usually only justified as the minimum required action if it is necessary for protecting a threatened or endangered species. This is because the loss of a native species would diminish the area’s wild character.

Motorized use may be justified if it is the only way to halt or prevent damage to the wilderness. It must be the minimum required means for accomplishing an action that is necessary for protection of an area’s wilderness character. Motorized use cannot be justified for administrative purposes simply because it may be faster or easier. Contrary to what the agencies often claim, motorized uses are also generally more expensive and less safe than non-motorized tools and modes of transport.

Special Exceptions Allowing Motorized Uses by Other Agencies:

Unfortunately, a few wilderness bills have included provisions that explicitly allow state game and fish agencies to routinely use motor vehicles, aircraft, and sometimes heavy equipment such as backhoes in wilderness for management of game species. The Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984 allows motorized access in the Fitzpatrick Wilderness in Wyoming for management of bighorn sheep. The California Desert Protection Act of 1994 and the Clark County, Nevada wilderness bill of 2002 are even broader, allowing state game managers to drive motor vehicles and use helicopters to maintain or restore fish and wildlife populations in the dozens of wildernesses designated by these two Acts. The Clark County bill authorizes state game managers to construct new water developments called “guzzlers” in wilderness to augment bighorn sheep populations for recreational hunting purposes. Guzzler construction requires use of motor vehicles, a motorized cement mixer, and a backhoe, and then recurring motor vehicle or helicopter access for maintenance.