[kleet]

[Slugman]

Devil's advocate: There are more effects from heavy use than just trampling. Water quality is affected by more human waste, for example. There are other benefits to a permit system besides just limiting the overall number of people. Keeping the visits spread out more also helps each visitor have a better experience. How many people have bp'd the 'Chants on a weekday just because that was the only permit they could get? End the permit system, and on some weekends the place would be mobbed by thousands of people, camping on every square foot of ground. It would be a zoo that nobody would be able to fully enjoy. I think the fact that Headlight and Ingalls are readily day-hikeable would make any camping restrictions less onerous. My personal opinion: In general I don't like these type of restrictions, but I'm willing to accept them if they make sense. They should only be considered when there is a real need. From the comments of others so far, I'm not hearing a lot of support for permits outside the core areas of the Enchantments.

[Allison]

One wonders why the district would recommend it if it were not needed. It's not like they have a lot of money and resources just lying around to implement such a program. I'd guess they've got a pretty good reason for it. That said, I am not too surprised that people don't support it, as it's inconvenient and might limit access. That's not going to be popular with a lot of people even if it's completely justified. Someone upthread mentioned the idea of closing off entire areas for recovery and restoration. I actually made that very suggestion to one of the higher-ups in the MBSNF and you know why they can't do it? Cost. Apparently even closing an area for restoration requires a full EIS, which is costly and time-consuming.

[Tom]

[RayD]

Two words. Eightmile and Caroline. I gotta do this! The old lady is twirling the frying pan and telling me that English Majors can't count...and I agree with the sweetie. Life is good and I call trips.

[Tom]

[RayD]

[Allison]

[RayD]

[Backpacker Joe]

I too am curious-ed by the Eightmile and Caroline inclusion. One would think that before they did that they would consider Snow, Ramparts, and possibly the Foss area......

[Allison]

I winder if anyone has thought to ask why Eightmile and Caroline were included, same with Stuart Lake if you really think about it. Maybe someone could look into the history?

[kleet]

[Damian]

[JimK]

The following post is one I put up in 2003 during a similar discussion. The current Enchantment permits and mandatory but unlimited day permits in the ALW were just the tip of the iceberg of what the FS wanted to implement. the key was both overuse and lack of "solitude". Adding Ingalls to the permit system pales compared to limiting most I-90 and Highway 2 trailheads to 10 parties per day with a $5.00 fee per day. This is for day use not over night. While I have some problems with the trail park system there was a much bigger problem in the recent past. When I hear about counters this is what I really fear. Back in 1993 the forest service proposed severe restrictions on the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. There were 10 options with varying degrees of severity. I attended a public hearing on this matter. The FS favored one of the more restrictive options. It would have put day use limits on 19 of 47 trailheads. These included most all the I-90 and US-2 trailheads west of the crest plus many on the east side. Imagine the Enchantments entended to most of the Alpine Lakes. The talk was $5.00 per day and 10 groups per trailhead. 70% locked up ahead of time and 3 permits available the day of the hike. At the public hearing I asked the head of the MBS National Forest how I could plan trips and he said he would have no problem getting the several trips he did each year many months in advance. I don't know about you people but I get out more than a few time a year. I often choose a destination the night before. The reason give for this plan was that the Wilderness Act mandates solitude in the wilderness. This was the rationale for severely limiting daily usage. This part of the act still exists. Even Lowell Skoog who was involved in the passage of the Wilderness Act admitted that including this provision was a mistake: Lowell Skoog Due to public outrage this plan was "delayed". It was never dropped entirely. The first step was the implementation of ulimited use day passes. This plan is not yet dead. It may come back. I think it is a much greater worry than paying $30/year or doing trail maintenance in lieu. For those interested I have posted the most severe and the enacted options from the original environmental assessment booklet. Most Restrictive Option Implemented Option Treewalkeer wants (day use?) reservations. Someday he may get them.

[Eric]