What THEY Will Tell You

What the Advocacy Groups Will Tell You

(And What They Won’t)

Advocacy groups like Alaska Trails are actively promoting the Alaska Long Trail and its potential National Scenic Trail (NST) designation. However, it’s important to understand their motivations: these groups have a financial interest in the trail's development.

The trail will provide long-term funding for these organizations, including salaries for their staff. Their advocacy is not neutral—it is designed to push the best-case scenario while ignoring the long-term consequences of NST designation.

We, on the other hand, are a group of volunteers with no financial gain. We are concerned about landowner rights, motorized access, and the expansion of federal control over Alaska’s public lands. Unlike advocacy groups, we are here to provide the full picture.

This page breaks down the claims made by trail advocates—and the real impact NST designation could have on Alaskans.

🚨 Claim #1: “The Alaska Long Trail will be for everyone, including motorized users.”

🔍 The Truth:

The National Scenic Trails System prioritizes non-motorized recreation—which means ATVs, snowmachines, and other motorized vehicles could be phased out over time.
The CDNST (Continental Divide NST) was initially open to some motorized use, but over time, federal agencies restricted and closed motorized sections.
Even if some sections of the Alaska Long Trail start off open to motorized use, federal land managers could later remove access through travel planning.

✅ Ask them: Will you commit to keeping all existing motorized access areas remain open in writing? (They won’t.)

🚨 Claim: “More people on the trail won’t cause problems.”

🔍 The Truth:

Increased foot traffic leads to:
- More trash & human waste left behind
- Greater wildfire risk from careless hikers
- More trespassing issues on private land
Trails like the Pacific Crest Trail and Appalachian Trail have seen serious overuse problems, requiring new restrictions and closures.

✅ Ask them: How will you prevent increased litter, trespassing, and wildfire risks?

🚨 Claim: “The trail won’t impact private landowners.”

🔍 The Truth:

The National Trails System Act (NTSA) allows for land acquisition, easements, and right-of-way expansion to secure a “continuous” trail corridor.
The Optimal Location Review (OLR) process is used to justify rerouting trails onto private lands when federal agencies determine that a trail’s “scenic integrity” is not sufficient. OLRs have been used on the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) to relocate sections away from motorized routes and onto or near private land.
Similar NST designations in the lower 48 led to private landowners being pressured into selling land or granting easements to keep the trail “protected.” Landowners who resisted were often left with restricted property rights or increased regulations.

✅ Ask them: Will you guarantee in writing that no landowners will be pressured to sell or give easements for the trail? (They won’t.)

🚨 Claim: “NST designation won’t increase federal control.”

🔍 The Truth:

The National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, or BLM will have final authority over how the trail is managed, not local Alaskans.
NST designation requires a Comprehensive Management Plan—which means federal agencies can restrict certain uses over time.
Decisions will be made in Washington, D.C., not by local trail users.

✅ Ask them: Will you guarantee that local Alaskans will always control trail decisions? (They can’t.)

🚨 Claim: “The trail will boost local economies.”

🔍 The Truth:

The economic benefits are speculative and depend on seasonal tourism.
Communities along the trail will bear the costs of Search & Rescue operations for lost hikers, emergency responses, and increased trail maintenance.
Many towns along the proposed ALT do not have the infrastructure to handle large-scale tourism—leading to problems like overcrowding, waste management issues, and increased trespassing complaints.

✅ Ask them: Will you take responsibility for funding emergency rescues, increased maintenance, and private land conflicts?

🚨 Claim: “NST funding will benefit all users.”

🔍 The Truth:

Once a motorized trail is removed from the NST system, it loses funding.
NST funds only go to designated trail segments—if a motorized segment is relocated, it gets no NST funding.
Motorized trails will be deprioritized in funding applications compared to non-motorized sections.

✅ Ask them: Will you ensure motorized trails receive equal funding long-term? (They won’t.)

🚨 Claim: The Misleading Use of “Multi-Use” 🚨

Advocacy groups pushing for the Alaska Long Trail and National Scenic Trail (NST) designation frequently use the term “multi-use” to make it sound like the trail will accommodate all users, including motorized recreationists. However, the reality is that “multi-use” in federal land management does NOT necessarily include motorized access.

🔍 What They Say: “This will be a multi-use trail for everyone.”

⚠️ The Truth: “Multi-use” usually excludes motorized users.

🚫 “Multi-Use” Does NOT Mean Motorized Use

Federal land agencies define “multi-use” differently than the general public.
On National Scenic Trails (NSTs), “multi-use” almost always refers to:
✅ Hiking
✅ Horseback riding
✅ Mountain biking (in some cases)
Motorized users—like ATVs, dirt bikes, and snowmachines—are typically excluded.

👉 Example: The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDNST) is officially a “multi-use” trail, but in reality, motorized use has been severely restricted or eliminated in many areas under federal management.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse