Some of you experts can perhaps clarify this but is it not true that when an area becomes designated wilderness there are federal laws that supersede agency rules such as prohibiting the use of mechanized vehicles, chain saws etc. The Smokies, for instance, is supposed to be managed as wilderness, that is part of their verbage, not mine. Of course the NPS doesn't follow those rules in the area that is supposed to be managed as wilderness so how will this change anything.

Perhaps this will help, Smokies:

“The Wilderness Act minimum requirement exception

 The Wilderness Act prohibits nine specific activities, seven of which an administering agency may waive by invoking a so-called minimum requirement exception. The prohibited activities that an agency may waive are: temporary roads, motor vehicles, motorized equipment, motorboats, landing of aircraft, mechanical transport, and structures or installations.

The Wilderness Act allows the exception “as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the (wilderness) area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area)...” (16 U.S.C.1133(c)).

Managers who seek to sidestep the act’s severe constraints may adopt a liberal minimum requirement interpretation. A now-retired National Park Service manager known to the author promoted the opinion that once NPS determined that an activity is “necessary” to administer a wilderness area, then any and all seven otherwise prohibited acts automatically pass the minimum requirement test. This convenient interpretation would remove the Wilderness Act’s constraints (the seven prohibited acts) by a simple conclusion that the proposed activity is “necessary” for the purpose of wilderness administration.  All that is needed to employ any of the prohibited means is for the manager to sign a minimum requirement analysis (MRA) that concludes an activity is necessary for the purpose of wilderness.

 This interpretation of the act is both extreme and invalid because it discards the word “minimum”….”

 http://www.georgewright.org/283buono.pdf

The smokies has never been designated as wilderness by congress, so it is technically not protected as such. This means, that many things could still happen in it without the approval of congress. Technically roads could still be built, or overlooks created.. It's not even a wilderness study area. There are however, many areas outside of the Smokies in the National Forest areas where wilderness is applied, and so they follow the rules legislated in the wilderness act where no chainsaws, or motorized vehicles are allowed. In my opinion, after visiting numerous wilderness areas in both USFS, BLM, and NPS, the NPS lands that have wilderness are the gold standard, because they also protect the wildlife from extraction. If you want to see portions the Smokies become wilderness, then perhaps we share a common wish, but I think its' a real challenge, because every time that drum is beat, republican senators out of NC flip their lids. So, the NPS is not to blame in this case. There are quite a few parks, like Yellowstone and Glacier that also don't have wilderness applied to them. While there are others like Olympic, Mt Rainer, North Cascades (the best of the gold standard), Congaree, Shenandoah, Everglades, Rocky Mountain, Sequoia, and Yosemite that have a large portion of the park designated not only as a National Park, but also a wilderness.

The NPS manages the Smokies as wilderness in spots, but it's not official wilderness, and until it is they can make the decision to cut a massive blown down with chainsaws. Don't blame the NPS for this, blame congress, and senators in NC that keep the Smokies from becoming wilderness. That's where your anger should be applied, because the NPS does a mostly excellent job protecting wilderness areas in their jurisdiction.