Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Green Trails' Way trails - Since When?
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Randy
Cube Rat



Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 2910 | TRs | Pics
Location: Near the Siamangs
Randy
Cube Rat
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 10:31 am 
I'll send you an e-mail, I don't have the time to monitor and debate this here.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 11:14 am 
Not being outspoken about lake routes or conditions has nothing whatsoever to do with folks being "untrustworthy" in any way. The problem is not trust, it's differing beliefs and attitudes on both the practices of dissemination of certain kinds of personal knowledge or data, and it's effects. I can trust someone a lot, but if they believe that dissemination has no impact or that even if it does, it doesn't matter, it cannot help but influence how they deal with any info I provide. For tiny or lonely places where as a fishing fool, the difference between a great trip and a washout is 4 more parties per year or merely *one* with 3 folks bait fishing and keeping every fish, even one slip on someone elses part, even unintentional, becomes too much risk for me. I have no illusions this situation will improve as information becomes more widespread and populations increase, but I do know I can at least do my part to delay it.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Mike Collins
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 3086 | TRs | Pics
Mike Collins
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 12:03 pm 
Resuscitated? Can we get a spell check program added?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
lopper
off-route



Joined: 22 Jan 2002
Posts: 845 | TRs | Pics
lopper
off-route
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 12:22 pm 
Speaking of the Rainy Lake/Preacher Mtn neighborhood..... If GT would add a dotted-line along the south shore of the MFK between the Taylor and Pratt confluences, perhaps we could speed up the defacto realization of that trail. More boots are always welcome in the fight against the low-elevation devils club fortress.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5085 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 12:44 pm 
I like the topic. Should we keep secret some places—and hope less people go that way. Or should we blurt them out and let other people enjoy the backcountry gems we have found. If we keep hiking destinations secret, then limited people will visit those destinations. If the destination lays outside of a Wilderness Area then the destination will be subject to future logging. Maybe not in our lifetime, but definitely sometime. On the one hand you have almost no visitors to the destination in the short term, but you probably will lose the destination in the long term to logging. If we publicly broadcast a place then definitely more people will visit the destination. A frequently visited hiking destination would then be subjected to possible areas for future Wilderness Areas. Logging a frequent hiking destination would be political suicide for logging companies not only now but definitely in the future. On the one hand you have more visitors in the short term, but you probably will save the destination in the long term. I wonder what the Mt. Si hillside would look like if there never was a trail.

Art is an adventure.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 1:13 pm 
The idea that only wilderness areas "save" an area from logging is something we see again and again, yet it's completely arbitrary IMO. We could also save areas from logging by banning logging in those areas without closing it to other uses. This is not a popular idea in environmental circles, perhaps because many folks see any users but foot traffic as unacceptable impact. Using "wilderness" as a blunt tool for protection serves some folks purposes very well, but an alternative form of protection, that is not as drastic, may serve a larger constituency *and* be easier to pass, thus "saving" larger areas might be more practical. I should think it's far easier to get support for merely ceasing logging in an area, than not only ceasing logging but closing roads, curtailing access, causing inholders all kinds of headaches, and removing all users except hikers. The way the situation is now, if you oppose a Wilderness designation, those in favor claim you don't care about saving the forest, because a wilderness designation is all or nothing. You either shut off all access except foot travel and ban all mechanized activities, all logging, and all use, or there is no alternative. There needs to be a midway point where we can preserve trees and environment *and* access by many user modes so we are not forced into a legislative all or nothing game. If we have to get an area trampled to "save" it, something is haywire. If we can protect it from logging without resorting to vastly increased use, why not do it.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
#19
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 1:49 pm 
I like the topic too because I can easily take either side. Pro route info: I don't ever recall climbers, scramblers and hikers being secretive about routes and destinations. Quite the contrary. Most climbers will spill their guts to perfect strangers about a route. I have never written a trip report for a magazine or web site, but I've obtained route info from EVERY SOURCE POSSIBLE when needed for my own benefit. And I can't see how anyone can criticize someone for being on either end of that info. ANYONE that has ever read a guidebook, web site, magazine, bought a map or asked acquaintances or anyone else for route info, ever, is a hypocrite to criticize others for doing so - even if it's a map company that adds new dotted lines on a map that they object to. IMHO. And for the life of me, I can't see how it's ok to have old maps with old (gone) trails and not new maps with new trails. But more to the point, the damn was broken long ago. You will see more dotted lines on maps and more people following them. There is no turning back on this. Read some of the recent post by Old Timer and read between the lines his references to "how it was". Some of you are old enough to remember those days, others of us were on the fringe of those day. But they are gone. Sure there are "trailess" lakes left. But there are far more trailess peaks and I don't hear anyone sqaubbling over whether to keep secret those places. I not sure what the motivation is for planting lakes and the secrecy that follows?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 2:01 pm 
Route info doesn't matter to climbers, because other than traffic on route, the climb is basically the same no matter how many folks visit it. The peak does not get shorter, the view does not change, the vertical gain doesn't change. There may be small changes on tech routes like pro left in place and chalk marks, but the reason they climb still remains. Fishing is an entirely different situation. Lakes that support a population when lightly used become barren when heavily used. The amount of usage directly impacts the resource being used. We can argue about wether to plant or not plant of course, but the fact that the usage changes the resource is why climbing routes differ from fishing routes.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Dslayer
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Jan 2002
Posts: 652 | TRs | Pics
Location: Home:  Selah  Work: Zillah
Dslayer
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 2:48 pm 
I want every single one of you to get up on Tatoosh Ridge right now!!! It's my favorite place on earth-I love it because its beauty and its solitude...and because I like it so much I want others to experience it as well...I have run into a number of hammerheads there-unfortunately that's the nature of the beast that is public lands...or public anything... And there's a lot of fish in Tatoosh Lake, too!!!! I'm guessing that for places that are closer to higher concentrations of population-i.e. Seattle...that the 'broadcasting' of cool places and their resultant tracshing might be a more significant problem but this argument about "not-telling" on a website more or less dedicated to cool places in the wilderness seems rather self-defeating. I don't think increased usage bothers me as idiotic usage-and only takes one of those. And when my hunting brethren trash a spot it really torques me.

"The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is my concealed weapon permit."-Ted Nugent
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
#19
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 2:51 pm 
[The peak does not get shorter, the view does not change, the vertical gain doesn't change] Guess it's all about whether to plant or not then, because a lake is still cold, the view of the lake is still grand and the bushwack is still available without fish. [ Route info doesn't matter to climbers, because other than traffic on route, the climb is basically the same no matter how many folks visit ] Speak for yourself. I'd rather walk up 6700' high point in the middle of no-where than stand in line for the Tooth. But "most people" wouldn't have a problem giving directions to the 6700' high point in the middle of no-where.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 3:02 pm 
"Guess it's all about whether to plant or not then, because a lake is still cold, the view of the lake is still grand and the bushwack is still available without fish." You're right about that, because the fish aren't available without fish!

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 3:04 pm 
But brushwack does go away. It is gone to Rainy Lake. It took me 6 hours to get in there, now they are doing it in less than 2. I don't even want to know what the shoreline looks like now. All because someone decided to put up flags and the route was broadcast. I know, I could still go through the brush and not take the trail and I should still be happy, but I'm not because it isn't the same place it used to be. Dslayer, Tatoosh Lakes are an interesting example because they have suffered from severe overuse. Overnight camping and horses are both banned from the lake basin. Unfortunately, too many people can love a fragile area to death.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
#19
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 3:20 pm 
Like I said I can take either side. The best high lake fishing tip I ever got was second hand from a president of one of the clubs. But I've never told (anyone who'd be interested) the name of the lake. I think fishermen have "want their cake and eat it too" attitude more than other backcountry users. Me included.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 3:34 pm 
Well, I agree. I remove engineer tape WHENEVER I find it! How can anyone argue that it's NOT polution? It's garbage and irresponcible! If you need it you shouldnt be out there! especially since the damn stuff is almost ALWAYS associated with an exsisting trail of some type!

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Jan 09, 2002 3:50 pm 
"I think fishermen have "want their cake and eat it too" attitude more than other backcountry users. Me included. " I disagree. The state pays for the planting and I pay the state. The state provides the names of the lakes that are planted and I agree with that, because they are paid for by the taxpayer and it should be public knowledge *which* lakes are planted because of that. But that's a far cry from everyone having a "right" as some have put it, to *personal* experience. Any joe or jane can see lake X was planted and when. That's public knowledge. What's personal knowledge is route info, recent conditions, and suchlike, which is what we're discussing here. I've not seen anyone claiming those resources funded by taxpayers not be mentioned, noted, or mapped. I'm not sure where I, for example, expect to have my cake and eat it too, because I sure as heck support planting and state reported public info on where they do so.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Green Trails' Way trails - Since When?
  Happy Birthday noahk!
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