Forum Index > Stewardship > More hidden hikes debate
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11034 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 11:58 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
For some reason the old thread is locked.....

Admin note:  the original thread was locked due to the imfamous problem with the initial posts starting to disappear with each new reply.  Feel free to continue the discussion here.  Apologies for the inconvenience.

We should question the practice of allowing anyone at all in the backcountry, anywhere, which undeniably damages pristine areas, if we're going to play the "what about *your* iimpact game.

There is no reason whatsoever anyone "needs" to be at peaks, meadows, or lakes for that matter. Allowing these unnatural influences to be present in the wild is hardly consistent with an attitude based in pure preservation.

Personally, I've made it clear my stance is not an absolutist reduction of all impacts, but their *dispersal*. This frees me from having to play games where I defend my usage, or my support for adding nonnative animals, because I do not claim to be interested in protection from an absolute standpoint in the first place. If one is making noises about absolute wilderness, as before I urge those persons to prove their commitment to such principles or admit that they make the very same compromises anyone else does in order to do what they want to do.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5123 | TRs

MCaver
  Top

Founder
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 12:23 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Who said anything about absolute wilderness? My comment was a reference to a past thread where I questioned the logic of stocking lakes then trying to keep that information secret because it would lead to impact of the lakes (sparked by someone posting fish information), when it seemed to make sense to not stock the lakes if impact the amount of impact was a consideration. The fact that the lakes didn't naturally support fish and some the stocked fish were non-native to the area just seemed to accentuate the artificiality of it. I never got an answer other than "because people want to fish" (which doesn't answer the question) and I don't expect to get one now. I was just being a smartass, as usual.  tongue.gif
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
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2206 | TRs

#19
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 12:42 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brain, I understand why a Trailblazer would relate to lakes.  That doesn't explain why no one has ever, during any of these discussions,  voiced these same "impact concerns" about any place but lakes.  I thought possibly some of you might feel and see the same hypocracy that  I do.  I thought just possibly someone else might fess up to wanting to keep a place "secret" -  for themselves.  It is a normal human condition.  But not you guys, nope.  Altruism is you.

Ben,  The description "an easy way trail decends east along the ridge" isn't precise enough for you?  Just because lakes and lakeshore receive the brunt a lot of impact, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of non-lake places that receive adverse impact due to over use.  You really don't want me to recite a list of places for you.........
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
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1500 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Pappy, you make an interesting comment here: "I thought just possibly someone else might fess up to wanting to keep a place "secret" -  for themselves.  It is a normal human condition.  But not you guys, nope.  Altruism is you." I think it shows up some implicit assumptions that may or may not be true depending on the person involved. I can only speak for myself, but I don't have any places I keep secret for myself. I love to explore. My favorite thing is to go someplace I've never been and even better if I know nothing about it. Not everyone is like me. Lots of people like to find a special place and they like to keep going back there. I don't.

--------------
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
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
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2206 | TRs

#19
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Cool.
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
Benjamin
Member
Member


Joined: 20 Dec 2001
Posts: 146 | TRs

Benjamin
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
Ben,  The description "an easy way trail decends east along the ridge" isn't precise enough for you?

Maybe you need to read this excerpt from Brian one more time.  
Quote:
Other guidebooks haven't written up the Bathtub Plateau as a specific destination. In the 100 hikes series it was mentioned in a one sentence blurb as a side trip from the summit of Pilchuck. Well, that certainly isn't the shortest or easiest way to get up there. Now a guide book comes along, describes the area in glowing terms as a primary destination and gives a different route in. Do you honestly believe that the area will receive NO more traffic?

Do you get the point?

Quote:
Just because lakes and lakeshore receive the brunt a lot of impact, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of non-lake places that receive adverse impact due to over use.

I am in full agreement.
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
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11034 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:12 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I don't have anyplace I keep secret "for myself" either. Number one, everyplace I go is shown on the same maps everyone else has access to just like I do, a point constantly ignored, and number two, I do share info. You just have to earn the trust that comes with the info. If I could be sure some natural process would insure usage is dispersed evenly, I'd be happy to blab away.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sawyer
Guest





Sawyer
  Top

Guest
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
I haven't read the route description to the alleged lakes. However, I have been there from the summit via the ridge. There is one section that is a tad exposed and a bit of a scramble move. I think that's what has kept the masses away.

The lakes are indeed pristine and I'd hate to see them trampled. Too bad someone splotched orange paint along the route. 'Tis ugly and unlike ribbons or cairns can't be removed easily.
Back to top
Search for posts by this user Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1500 | TRs
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
  Top

Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
My comment was a reference to a past thread where I questioned the logic of stocking lakes then trying to keep that information secret because it would lead to impact of the lakes (sparked by someone posting fish information), when it seemed to make sense to not stock the lakes if impact the amount of impact was a consideration.

It has been found, over the years, that you can provide a high quality fishery in remote lakes without leading to excessive environmental degradation if you plant the lakes by doing so without undue publicity. Note that this thread is really about information dissemination. In the one case a hiking guide book, and in this case fish information. It has also been found that you can provide a high quality remote hiking experience if you don't publicize specific locations but that high quality is degraded if too many people go there. The key in both situations is information dissemination that helps control how many people go to a destination. As far as fish are concerned, if it is found their presence is attracting too much use then the planting can be stopped until the use has decreased. This is exactly why, when we do angling surveys, lake use is noted along with fish information. These are important considerations. If a fishery can be provided without damaging the environment then I think we should provide it. If it is causing environmental problems then it should be curtailed. And many lakes aren't stocked because of overuse concerns. That doesn't mean we should get rid of the entire program, just that we need to be careful about what we do.

--------------
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
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
spanky
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 13 | TRs
Location: Washougal, WA
spanky
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
they must "earn the trust" -- oh, puhlease!
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sawyer
Guest





Sawyer
  Top

Guest
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:25 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
Hey, speaking of trampled lakes... the worst I've seen that are "off trail" are the Lime Ridge lakes. Even in the 60's, it is described as being pounded in Routes and Rocks. And yet the route up there is fairly hidden, albeit well travelled from what I gather from the trail register. The trampling is even worse than popular Rampart Lakes.
Back to top
Search for posts by this user Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
Randy
Cube Rat



Joined: 18 Dec 2001
Posts: 2858 | TRs
Location: Near the Siamangs
Randy
  Top

Cube Rat
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Lime Ridge Lakes trampled? Worse than Rampart? Hard to imagine, but what a bummer. That looks like such a neat area.
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
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5123 | TRs

MCaver
  Top

Founder
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 1:55 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Thank you for the calm, rational and logical reply, Brian. I really didn't want to bring the issue completely to a head again since it is different than the current topic, as you mentioned, I was just clarifying my statement. What you posted does make sense, and I would agree with it. In the original thread about this, my goal wasn't to say we should stop stocking, but to question why they are stocked. There's a difference.

Anyway, that horse is dead.  smile.gif
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
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2206 | TRs

#19
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 2:00 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ben, If you can't contribute more than quotes from others, maybe you should just read along.
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
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 4487 | TRs

Stefan
  Top

Member
PostWed Mar 13, 2002 2:12 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Finally, something is HOT on this board!  Hot!

I have only seen very limited places where "pristine" places have been trampled by people in the high country (meaning off trail).  This usually occurs in the zone above treeline but below the rock/snow zone.  Anything in the rock/snow zone and tree zone in cross country areas are totally void of any sign of human habitation.

And as far as flagging goes, I think you are all wasting a bunch of time.  Flagging usually will fall off a tree (where they are usually placed) and will disintigrate in 10 years.  The real pollution in the backcountry is the mylar ballons.  Those suckers last longer and are bigger.

Mylar balloons can suffocate baby squirrels when they play with them!

--------------
Art is an adventure.
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 > More hidden hikes debate
  Happy Birthday Steven, Grizzy, ossyoos, lovetowonder, Lakes&Summits!
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