Forum Index > Stewardship > Oregon Wilderness Permit Restrictions
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
mb
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 442 | TRs

mb
  Top

Member
PostSat May 19, 2018 8:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Looks like the USFS OR wants to create lots of new restrictions to manage the overuse of wilderness trails.

Comments due Monday.

Anyone following this here?

This is the best article I've seen:
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/permit-only-entry-plan-for-5-oregon-wilderness-areas-in-final-stages/283-545171903

Others:
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/travel/outdoors/2018/05/17/oregon-wilderness-permit-plan-facts-know/615686002/
http://www.bendbulletin.com/localstate/5414285-151/comment-period-for-wilderness-permit-plan-running-out
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
dla
Member
Member


Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 185 | TRs

dla
  Top

Member
PostSun May 27, 2018 5:44 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
This what preservationists do - lock people out.
They're always quick to limit public enjoyment of a resource.

--------------
Kel Tec PF-9 Review
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
boot up
Old Not Bold Hiker



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 4745 | TRs
Location: Bend Oregon
boot up
  Top

Old Not Bold Hiker
PostMon May 28, 2018 7:17 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Just another way to make the Great Outdoors more unaffordable for those with restricted incomes, and they don't have to be held accountable for what happens to the money and/or "processing fees" they collect. 

I have heard it could be an extra $10 for each visit.   These are actually some pretty significant trailheads that are jumping off points for a lot of hikes.   So, now I am retired, and after paying full bore for my outdoor activities my entire life, I figure at least I have my (now pricier) Old Geezer pass for cheap entertainment on my now much restricted income, and instead hiking the really nice trails gets pushed out of my financial reach for something I could regularly do.   

Their rationale is if you carpool with 12 people in your car, its not a big deal of extra cost. 

Oregon has ridiculously small parking areas for all of their hikes.   And their idea here of "crowded" is pretty silly.   They figure if you see half a dozen people on a hike, it is way overcrowded.   The only areas getting really beat up are the overnight backpacking spots, not the day hiking trails.

--------------
friluftsliv
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5211 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon May 28, 2018 3:12 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
dla wrote:
This what preservationists do - lock people out.
They're always quick to limit public enjoyment of a resource.

Much of this comes from conservation, not preservation.

So what did you think of their studies and outreach efforts discussed in the Environmental Assessment?

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5211 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon May 28, 2018 3:26 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
boot up wrote:
I have heard it could be an extra $10 for each visit.

Did you read that in a USFS document, or did you hear it from someone else? According to the EA, the fee discussion won't take place until the decision has been made to implement a fee. But yeah, I bet it won't be cheap.



boot up wrote:
Oregon has ridiculously small parking areas for all of their hikes.  And their idea here of "crowded" is pretty silly.  They figure if you see half a dozen people on a hike, it is way overcrowded.  The only areas getting really beat up are the overnight backpacking spots, not the day hiking trails.

They have analysis on sites, including trails and places, and alternatives range from no limits on day hiking to limits on all types of hiking; so they have considered that, and it's up for comment. Looks like some limits on some proposals are very limited indeed.

Did you see their analysis of increased useage since 2014???  eek.gif  They are also working with visitor promotions such as Visit Oregon & various other sources that promote visitation.

They are saying that social media has played a role; I don't doubt that.

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
boot up
Old Not Bold Hiker



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 4745 | TRs
Location: Bend Oregon
boot up
  Top

Old Not Bold Hiker
PostMon Jun 04, 2018 8:12 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown wrote:
Did you see their analysis of increased useage since 2014???  eek.gif  They are also working with visitor promotions such as Visit Oregon & various other sources that promote visitation.

Notice they state it in percentages.  Oregonians have been spoiled, historically, for trail useage. The local hiking club has always done Sunday hikes, and was used to pulling into easy parking in the middle of the day with a bunch of cars from their club.   Then maybe seeing just a few people per hour hiking.   This is why parking lots are so tiny at trailheads.    So large percent increases is really a relative measurement, and not the conga lines you might expect on Snow Lake hike on a sunny Sunday.

The only semi-large parking lot they have is Green Lakes, which is overly busy mainly because it feeds way too many trailheads and destinations from one parking lot.   Sort of like having most of the i-90 corridor hikes all fed from one parking lot, if you could imagine that.   Poor planning on the part of the Forest Service (no surprise), but once on the trails they feel pretty sparse compared to Western WA.

Main areas I notice being overused are the backpacking campsites. Its pretty much a "do what you want" at those, with no maintenance,  and it shows a lot of wear and tear as a result.

"Visit Bend" is the marketing department for Bend and they are way overfunded as a legacy of when the area wasn't considered worth a trip over from Portland or Seattle.   It is too effective and of course no one in "Visit Bend" wants to give up their job, so they don't want to back down on promotion, or their budget.

--------------
friluftsliv
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 13978 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostMon Jun 04, 2018 8:22 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ditto.gif kind of like how Utah has made Arches such a draw by putting it on their licenses and promoting the hell out of Moab to the point that the line up to get in is miles long and there are no parking places for hiking once you get in (run on sentence with no punctuation)

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
boot up
Old Not Bold Hiker



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 4745 | TRs
Location: Bend Oregon
boot up
  Top

Old Not Bold Hiker
PostMon Jun 04, 2018 9:02 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant wrote:
ditto.gif kind of like how Utah has made Arches such a draw by putting it on their licenses and promoting the hell out of Moab to the point that the line up to get in is miles long and there are no parking places for hiking once you get in (run on sentence with no punctuation)

Funny how all this promotion of outdoor activity has backfired.  They didn't count on an actual increase of usage and the required increase of available options if the promotion worked.

Visiting my daughter in Colorado we tried hiking Rocky Mountain Natl park.   Long lines to get in, all funneled through one road to get there and one road to feed all the main trails. It was a zoo. 

I was just hiking with Central Oregon Land Watch board of directors and one of their main lawyers.    Lawyer was talking pro-large scale farming, VERY anti "recreationists", and thought Patagonia is the work of the Devil for promoting recreational use.  They were also anti Hydro and wind power.

Strange times.

--------------
friluftsliv
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 5211 | TRs

Kim Brown
  Top

Member
PostMon Jun 04, 2018 5:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I am not a fan of over-promoting either. National Parks are always pushing visitation, and the next hour they're bemoaning over crowded roads and not enough staff to deal with use.

Organizations push and push, gear companies push, local news push, hikers push on social media.

So what's the answer; do nothing?

The low hanging fruit is to permit it because social engineering isn't possible at least within the foreseeable future.

The 8th Leave No Trace idea of being responsible for your social media posts was crapped on, on this site - but I read 3 blogs in the last week about the negative impact that social media has on our lands and our search and rescue units.

So what is the answer?  confused.gif

--------------
" I'm really happy about this! … I have very strong good and horrible memories up there."  – oldgranola, NWH’s outdoors advocate.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9642 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostMon Jun 04, 2018 10:44 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
^ Simon Cowell made headlines today by announcing that he turned off his cellular phone a whole ten months ago and he's now a much happier man.
There's always a possibility that some of the lemmings will follow his example. wink.gif

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
boot up
Old Not Bold Hiker



Joined: 12 Dec 2006
Posts: 4745 | TRs
Location: Bend Oregon
boot up
  Top

Old Not Bold Hiker
PostTue Jun 05, 2018 7:07 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski wrote:
^ Simon Cowell made headlines today by announcing that he turned off his cellular phone a whole ten months ago and he's now a much happier man.
There's always a possibility that some of the lemmings will follow his example. wink.gif

You do realize you are posting on social media through an electronic device as you wrote that?  lol.gif

--------------
friluftsliv
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 9642 | TRs
Location: tacoma
Ski
  Top

><((((°>
PostTue Jun 05, 2018 11:59 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote

--------------
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. 
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
mb
Member
Member


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 442 | TRs

mb
  Top

Member
PostMon May 13, 2019 3:56 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
They announced a decision on Friday.

I haven't read the details, but from their summary letter:

Quote:
Under Alternative 3 Modified, a seasonal limited entry permit system will be implemented within the Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness areas at 19 trailheads for day use and at all trailheads for overnight use; free self-issue permits would continue to be required at the remainder of the trailheads. There would be no limited entry permit system in Diamond Peak or Waldo Lake Wildernesses. There would be an elevation campfire ban at 5,700 feet for the same three wildernesses, and 6,000 feet for Diamond Peak Wilderness. A number of site-specific restrictions, such as camping setbacks, are also included. The decision also includes an Adaptive Management Plan, which provides a means to modify the permit system in the future as needed, based on monitoring data.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50578
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 61 | TRs
Location: Fircrest WA
Brian R
  Top

Member
PostThu May 16, 2019 9:39 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Permits for day use? This is an outrage. No doubt USFS will soon put administration of this new program up for bid to some faux "institute" ala Mount St. Helens.  Artificial scarcity is not scarcity; imposed solitude is not solitude.

At some point, we have to just refuse to comply.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/105465_FSPLT3_4642701.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Oregon Wilderness Permit Restrictions
  Happy Birthday newdawnfades, sconey!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy