| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
kiliki
Member
Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Posts: 2326 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
kiliki
Member
|
 Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:22 pm |
|
|
Who is saying people can't go? People will just have to start planning when they want to go during certain times of year. Not the same at all.
Campfire restrictions are another matter entirely, and there are threads about this if you want to read the arguments.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
mgd
Member
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 3143 | TRs | Pics
Location: Full Moon Saloon |
|
mgd
Member
|
Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:38 pm |
|
|
Exactly. Like I can go the first week in August, while touron goes the first week in March.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA |
Perhaps I'm being too pedantic, but I can't reconcile "the only sign of humans was a campfire ring near the outlet" and "the lake had no damage from man." Did you mean to say "the lake had minimal damage from man" or do we have completely different ideas of what damage is?
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Allison
Feckless Swooner
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes |
|
Allison
Feckless Swooner
|
Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:57 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | My brother and I spent a day getting to the lake where the only sign of humans was a campfire ring near the outlet. |
Did you break it up?
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
www.allisonoutside.com
follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
|
Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:45 pm |
|
|
| kiliki wrote: | | Who is saying people can't go? People will just have to start planning when they want to go during certain times of year. Not the same at all. |
I think JS was refering to several posters here who speculated on the feasibilty of closing off places completely for several years at a time to permit recovery from overuse. Here's some examples:
"Someone upthread mentioned the idea of closing off entire areas for recovery and restoration. "
"I like the idea of zoning off an area altogether for a few years to let it recover. "
"I would personally support an entire closure of certain places to allow them time to reveg."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric
Peak Geek
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics
Location: In Travel Status |
|
Eric
Peak Geek
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:22 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think JS was refering to several posters here who speculated on the feasibilty of closing off places completely for several years at a time to permit recovery from overuse. |
Well given that he said:
"I think fencing off abused areas would be the best alternative."
it looks like that would be a contradiction if your interpretation is right or else the permit system is being characterized as a total lockdown because he feels the planning required is too much of a burden for him. I think we can alll empathize with that because nobody likes bothering with the permit system but it's really not that hard to play within the rules and still get to the one permitted USFS area in WA.
As far as the comments that:
"I do not mind restrictions like campfire restrictions around totally overused places"
part of the point of having restrictions is to prevent places from getting trashed, not just to help those that are already trashed. If people were following those regs then your lake experience would have been even more pristine as there would have been no campfire ring at the lake. An ounce of prevention blah blah blah. Even if few people go there that doesn't mean it is cool to do whatever you want, or else those few people who do go there will find what you found which is debris from past visitation and that a place that could more easily to be in good shape because of remoteness will not be and thus will be more of a disappointment for those hoping that because of that remoteness that that lake would still be wild.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Damian
Member
Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Damian
Member
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:01 pm |
|
|
What is so bad about a campfire ring? Right, they don't belong everywhere. Some places they should not exist. In other places they are fine. If the place can support an occasional campfire, break up the ring and someone will do even more damage and erosion by yanking new rocks and rebuilding it. Not all fire rings should be destroyed nor considered an inharmonious relationship between nature and man. The opposite can be true, in fact. I don't consider the smallest evidence of man to be destruction.
Having said all this, I have broken up many a fire ring. Point is, there is no one-size-fits-all. Remember the old Caterpiller slogan? There are no simple solutions, only intelligent choices.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:12 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | "I like the idea of zoning off an area altogether for a few years to let it recover. "
"I would personally support an entire closure of certain places to allow them time to reveg." |
assuming a general inelasticity in demand, all this achieves is making other new areas less pristine. is it to our advantage to revegetate trampled areas to already trampled status, at the cost of devegetating other areas?
these popular places serve as sacrificial buffers for the many places feet will otherwise go. no area will ever be closed off enough to approach pristine, IMO, and all you do is permanently damage new areas by dispersing people and making them spread out. you cause damage in more pristine areas in order to move already damaged ones from overused to used.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:52 pm |
|
|
| Art Not wrote: | | Remember the old Caterpiller slogan? |
No. Compared to you, I am just barely born.
"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate."
Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate."
Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Damian
Member
Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3260 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Damian
Member
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:01 pm |
|
|
MtnGoat makes a good point. This in contrast to the lousy point Quark makes.
I recognize that closing off areas entirely is not likely to happen, and would have the effect of pushing folks elsewhere. But zoning off smaller trampled areas next to lakes as no camping/dog/horse/fire zones has worked well in some places, without forcing people to trample new places.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
Joined: 27 Mar 2003
Posts: 16874 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Slugman
It’s a Slugfest!
|
Sun Mar 12, 2006 10:16 pm |
|
|
| Eric wrote: | | Quote: | | I think JS was refering to several posters here who speculated on the feasibilty of closing off places completely for several years at a time to permit recovery from overuse. |
Well given that he said:
"I think fencing off abused areas would be the best alternative."
it looks like that would be a contradiction if your interpretation is right ... |
But he also said "Fencing off SMALL areas that are overused is always preferable to denying access to areas as a whole."
So his statement that abused areas should be fenced doesn't seem to mean that entire hikes should be closed off, but rather that the most impacted areas of a popular hike should be fenced.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don't fence me in
Member
|
Cordoning off small areas and multiple paths to the same place----Yes!
Closing off lakes or limiting day access-----No!
I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences
Gaze at the moon until I loose my senses
I Can't look at hobbles and I can't stand fences
Don't fence me in
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA |
| Art Not wrote: | | What is so bad about a campfire ring? Right, they don't belong everywhere. Some places they should not exist. In other places they are fine. If the place can support an occasional campfire, break up the ring and someone will do even more damage and erosion by yanking new rocks and rebuilding it. Not all fire rings should be destroyed nor considered an inharmonious relationship between nature and man. The opposite can be true, in fact. I don't consider the smallest evidence of man to be destruction.
Having said all this, I have broken up many a fire ring. Point is, there is no one-size-fits-all. Remember the old Caterpiller slogan? There are no simple solutions, only intelligent choices. |
The word used up-thread was damage, not destruction. And yes, any fire ring or other evidence of man, no matter how small, is damage. Because we can't eliminate all damage from man we are led to several important questions. How much damage is acceptable and where? How do we limit damage? I agree with your central point that not all places should be treated equally and I do agree that fire rings should be left in some places but I don't try to justify that by fooling myself into thinking that fire pits are ever harmonious with nature.
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric
Peak Geek
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 2062 | TRs | Pics
Location: In Travel Status |
|
Eric
Peak Geek
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:01 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | assuming a general inelasticity in demand, all this achieves is making other new areas less pristine. is it to our advantage to revegetate trampled areas to already trampled status, at the cost of devegetating other areas?
these popular places serve as sacrificial buffers for the many places feet will otherwise go. no area will ever be closed off enough to approach pristine, IMO, and all you do is permanently damage new areas by dispersing people and making them spread out. you cause damage in more pristine areas in order to move already damaged ones from overused to used. |
It would all depend on how people respond. I agree that generally you are just shuffling people around with such a system. But even assuming that inelastic demand of visitation doesn't necessarily mean inelasticity of impact.
It's worth noting that both of the common workarounds for the Enchantment permit system don't involve going somewhere else but going to the same place using what are probably less impactful methods of visitination. If you do the Colchuck to Snow Lakes TH thru hike then you see the place but you don't camp, you probably don't have a campfire etc. Likewise if you go outside the permit window at 6/15-10/15 then there is a good chance that you are visiting before snowmelt.
If people go to somewhere else then it becomes a question of how many go where and what the character of htis places is. Is it Snow Lake or White Rock Lakes? Ideally I think you'd want to quantify that before starting a permit system as that does make the permit system of no significant net benefit if the dispersion is just to other fragile areas. In practice I dunno how hard it is to calculate that sort of hypothetical with any decent amount of accuracy.
Pristineness is all a matter of gradients. Places this accessible and this close to this many people will never be totally wild but certainly things can be improved or damaged to varying extents.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kleet
meat tornado
Joined: 06 Feb 2002
Posts: 5303 | TRs | Pics
Location: O no they dih ent |
|
kleet
meat tornado
|
Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:15 am |
|
|
| Eric wrote: | | It's worth noting that both of the common workarounds for the Enchantment permit system don't involve going somewhere else but going to the same place using what are probably less impactful methods of visitination. |
I note that in a Seattle Times article on this (Sunday), they suggest the following: | Quote: | | Those who don't get an overnight permit can look at other alternatives such as Chiwaukum/Larch Lakes; Lake Augusta; Blackjack Ridge/Cradle Lake; and Chain/Doelle Lakes. |
I wonder how that might impact those areas?
A fuxk, why do I not give one?
A fuxk, why do I not give one?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
