The National Trails System Act: 

What You Need to Know 

The National Trails System Act (NTSA)  is a federal document that governs National Scenic Trails. It was passed in 1968 to establish a national network of scenic, historic, and recreation trails. While it may seem like a harmless policy to promote outdoor recreation, the reality is that the NTSA gives federal agencies broad authority over land use, potentially restricting motorized access, impacting private property, and shifting control away from local communities.

The Alaska Long Trail could be designated under this act as a National Scenic Trail (NST), which would bring federal oversight, restrictive land management policies, and possible land acquisitions that many Alaskans do not support.

Below, we break down key sections of the NTSA that raise serious concerns.

Concerning Provisions in the National Trails System Act 

1. Restrictions on Motorized Use (Sec. 7(c))

🔴 What It Says:

"The use of motor vehicles along any national scenic trail shall be prohibited... but limited motorized use may be allowed to: meet emergencies, provide landowner access, provide for motor vehicle crossings."

⚠️ Why It’s a Problem:

• The NTSA prioritizes non-motorized recreation, meaning ATVs, snowmachines, and other motorized vehicles could be banned from the Alaska Long Trail.

• Even historic motorized routes could be phased out, as seen with the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST), where motorized sections were gradually removed over time.

• Land managers can restrict motorized use through local planning, making it easier to close off trails.

👉 Takeaway: If the Alaska Long Trail becomes an NST, motorized users could be permanently locked out.

2. Land Acquisitions & Easements (Sec. 7(a))

🔴 What It Says:

"The appropriate Secretary may enter into rights-of-way agreements with landowners, purchase land from willing sellers, or use other means to secure trail continuity."

⚠️ Why It’s a Problem:

• Private landowners may face pressure to sell or grant easements for the trail.

• The government could seek continuous corridor expansion, making more land subject to federal control.

• Even if a landowner refuses to sell, legal loopholes could be used to limit how they use their land.

👉 Takeaway: Once land is acquired for an NST, it is no longer under state or private control.

3. Federal Management Authority Over Local Land (Sec. 5(f))

🔴 What It Says:

"The Secretary charged with administration of a national scenic trail shall develop a comprehensive plan for management and protection of the trail corridor."

⚠️ Why It’s a Problem:

• Federal agencies—not Alaskans—will control how the trail is managed.

• Land use decisions could be made in Washington, D.C., with little local input.

• Traditional uses like subsistence hunting, trapping, and off-road vehicle access could be deprioritized.

👉 Takeaway: NST designation means local voices are silenced in favor of federal decision-making.

4. Increased Federal Oversight & Regulation (Sec. 7(e))

🔴 What It Says:

"Other uses along the National Scenic Trail which will not substantially interfere with the nature and purposes of the trail… shall be permitted at the discretion of the administering agency."

⚠️ Why It’s a Problem:

• The phrase “substantially interfere” is vague, giving federal agencies broad power to decide what is and isn’t allowed.

• Hunting, trapping, and subsistence activities could be restricted if they are deemed “interfering” with the trail’s recreational use.

• The flexibility of this law allows for gradual tightening of regulations over time.

👉 Takeaway: What seems like an “optional” restriction now could become a permanent ban later.

5. The National Trail Right-of-Way (Sec. 7(a)(2))

🔴 What It Says:

"The Secretary may establish a right-of-way for the trail and determine its width, which shall be of sufficient width to protect natural, scenic, cultural, and historic features."

⚠️ Why It’s a Problem:

• Federal agencies determine how much land is needed for the trail, and this can change over time.

• Landowners near the trail may face increased restrictions on how they can use their own land if it falls within the scenic corridor.

• Expanding the right-of-way could limit logging, mining, or development projects near the trail.

👉 Takeaway: Trail expansion can restrict land use, even if you don’t live directly on the trail.