Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Wilderness Designation - Change it or Keep it?
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
#19
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 6:24 am 
Stefan, Perhaps you could elaborate on what you mean by saying the wilderness designation is outdated? (in the Trip Reports thread) IMO, we in this state are pretty lucky, if not blessed, to have 3 National Parks, the Pasayten, Glacier Peak, and Alpine Lakes Wilderness Areas (not too mention the smaller ones). So whatchu talkin' about? What changes would you be in favor of and why?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 8:03 am 
I have edited this from the similar post that I directed to Stefan with regard to remark about wilderness being outdated, because I think it applies to all of us here, as we enjoy the wild environs for what they are. We all might not be so lucky in having what we now have to enjoy if it hadn't been for "wilderness designation" my friends. Those environs would have surely been raped for commercial uses if land had not been set aside somewhat in a pristine state for us to enjoy and climb/hike in. I don't believe the wilderness designation is outdated, as it provides the aesthetic value to mankind and the nourishes the creatures within it, climbers and hikers alike. "If our children and furture generations never experience the grandeur of these environs (be it wilderness designations) surely then they and mankind will suffer for it in the end." "I should not want to go thru life without having never experiencing solitude within wilderness as we (humanity) describes it, whether that is in the past or present." Wilderness is just that, something still somewhat a wild state, lets not forget it even with the restrictions that come with it, and that is not all such a big deal. Hell, there are more restrictions in your neighborhood. McPil

in the granite high-wild alpine land . . . www.alpinequest.com
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5082 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 8:49 am 
I need actual quotes from the term "wilderness" to accurately refute against it. But here is my knowledge and my opinions. No motorized anything per the "wilderness" designation. That means people who maintain the trails CANNOT use chainsaws to remove trees. I think there should be an exception allowing motorized use for maintaining all facilities (including trails) within the wilderness, that includes fighting forest fires. I believe allowing motorized use for maintaining trails would also lower the cost to maintain trails. No permanent structures allowed per the "wilderness" designation. I think there should be huts in certain areas where there are "large populations" of people. I have seen it in the Alps and I have come to appreciate it better than what we have. There areas in the Alps are still pristine because of having huts. I would rather see the same people concentrated in one area rather than spread out. It controls feces and loss of vegetation. Limited people allowed in certain areas due to the "wilderness" designation so they get that "wilderness" feel. I think this part of the Wilderness Act was too 60's in its thinking. Good for that time--not for now. This kind of goes with the permanent structure above, but I believe once you limit people and NOT allow them to go to certain areas then you have limited your "park". I believe since people already paid for this "park" then they should come and go as they please. The Enchantments and parts of the NCNP and Mt. Rainier come to my mind. We don't have to recreate the wheel. It has already been done. In the Alps. The Alps are beautiful and if you think our area is more pristine than the Alps, then I would have to strongly disagree with you. A lot more people use the Alps (probaby 40 times as much) and it is still beautiful there even without "wilderness" designations I put above.

Art is an adventure.
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
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 8:59 am 
Stefan is absolutely correct about trail maintenance and allowing the use of mechanical devices (e.g. power saws). A trail crew with power equipment can work five times as fast as those with crosscut and bow saws. The added noise would only be present for perhaps a weekend per year. It is a helpful solution to keeping trails clearer.

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
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 9:57 am 
Quote:
No motorized anything per the "wilderness" designation. That means people who maintain the trails CANNOT use chainsaws to remove trees. I think there should be an exception allowing motorized use for maintaining all facilities (including trails) within the wilderness, that includes fighting forest fires. I believe allowing motorized use for maintaining trails would also lower the cost to maintain trails.
seems reasonable, but I don't know much about trail maintenance....
Quote:
No permanent structures allowed per the "wilderness" designation. I think there should be huts in certain areas where there are "large populations" of people. I have seen it in the Alps and I have come to appreciate it better than what we have. There areas in the Alps are still pristine because of having huts. I would rather see the same people concentrated in one area rather than spread out. It controls feces and loss of vegetation.
Sounds very un-Cascadian. even if it were a good idea, who would pay for it? the users? can you give some examples of where these huts would be because I can''t think of too many areas that might need that. Enchantments, some of the climbing camps like Boston Bason, above Railroad Grade??
Quote:
Limited people allowed in certain areas due to the "wilderness" designation so they get that "wilderness" feel. I think this part of the Wilderness Act was too 60's in its thinking. Good for that time--not for now. This kind of goes with the permanent structure above, but I believe once you limit people and NOT allow them to go to certain areas then you have limited your "park". I believe since people already paid for this "park" then they should come and go as they please. The Enchantments and parts of the NCNP and Mt. Rainier come to my mind.
Seems contradictary to previous paragraph. If you had huts, wouldn't you need a reservation system?
Quote:
We don't have to recreate the wheel. It has already been done. In the Alps. The Alps are beautiful and if you think our area is more pristine than the Alps, then I would have to strongly disagree with you. A lot more people use the Alps (probaby 40 times as much) and it is still beautiful there even without "wilderness" designations I put above
I'm sure it works for the Alps, but we live in the WILD west - don't we want to perserve that as long as possible.?

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


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 33 | TRs | Pics
Ritter
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 10:05 am 
Stefan wrote:
I think there should be an exception allowing motorized use for maintaining all facilities (including trails) within the wilderness, that includes fighting forest fires. I believe allowing motorized use for maintaining trails would also lower the cost to maintain trails.
I disagree with this. There is a certain intrinsic value to "wilderness." It is emotional, social and very personal to most people. To me, the sound of jets cruising through the airspace above is enough of a reminder that you can't really get "true" wilderness anymore. Intrusion of chainsaws for even a week would further degrade the wilderness experience for myself and probably others. The last thing I want to hear is the buzz of a chainsaw while I'm contemplating my place in the world in the one government designated area that minimizes such intrusions. Also, my father works for two weeks in the summer with a pack outfit that does trail maintenance in wilderness areas on a strictly volunteer basis. The days are hard work but extremely rewarding. No chainsaws required. Just dedication.
Stefan wrote:
I think there should be huts in certain areas where there are "large populations" of people. I have seen it in the Alps and I have come to appreciate it better than what we have. There areas in the Alps are still pristine because of having huts. I would rather see the same people concentrated in one area rather than spread out. It controls feces and loss of vegetation. Limited people allowed in certain areas due to the "wilderness" designation so they get that "wilderness" feel. I think this part of the Wilderness Act was too 60's in its thinking. Good for that time--not for now. This kind of goes with the permanent structure above, but I believe once you limit people and NOT allow them to go to certain areas then you have limited your "park". I believe since people already paid for this "park" then they should come and go as they please.
Again, I disagree. Wilderness areas should not be managed as parks, per se. They should be managed as wilderness areas. In my opinion, this means that human impact should be limited to the extent practicable (this is my current view, I didn't exist in the 60s!). It is the role of National Parks to facilitate the objective of giving people exposure to nature via car, cabin, etc. Wilderness is a step beyond. It is a place set aside for people to enjoy without cars, cabins, etc. That is a wilderness designation's very point. To allow huts and unregulated access goes against the entire reason wilderness areas exist. I agree that the idea of quotas stink, but there doesn't seem to be a better means of limiting human impacts to such areas so I'll deal with them. These are very personal issues for me and are not intended as an attack at your beliefs. I have not experienced the Alps but I have spent enough time in the central Sierra wilderness areas to know that I don't want chainsaws, huts and unregulated people. There are enough impacts at current use levels and plenty of reminders that you're not so far from the society you're trying to get a reprieve from. Just my $.02 Ritter

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


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5082 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 12:33 pm 
Pappy wrote:
RE: Huts Sounds very un-Cascadian. even if it were a good idea, who would pay for it? the users? can you give some examples of where these huts would be because I can''t think of too many areas that might need that. Enchantments, some of the climbing camps like Boston Bason, above Railroad Grade??
The users would pay for it. Examples of locations would be in the Enchantments, Boston Basin, Sahale Arm, Railroad Grade, Snow Lake. Definitely not run by the government. Run by the AAC or some organization like they do in Canada with their hut system. The Swiss huts are most operated by the Swiss Alpine Club and there is a caretaker at each hut. Feces is hauled out by helicopter in these large plastic receptacles. The Swiss Alpine Club pays for the helicopter service to remove the receptacles and bring food into the huts.
Pappy wrote:
If you had huts, wouldn't you need a reservation system?
Depends how big the hut is. Most time no (95%). Sometimes yes. For those that cannot get into the hut, they sleep outside next to the hut thereby reducing the spread of people all over the place. The main consideration is that they could use the large toilet receptacles.
Pappy wrote:
I'm sure it works for the Alps, but we live in the WILD west - don't we want to perserve that as long as possible.?
Our designated wilderness areas are preserved for a long time. I just believe I know what the future holds.

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


Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap
Larry
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 12:49 pm 
I can sort of see the merits of having the hut systems and such...but, of course it's really a sort of Utopian dream that all the stuff would be managed properly. I still like the idea of the "hands off" approach, as evidenced by the Wonder Mountain Wilderness. No trails, no roads, no facilities, no nothing. Purely pristine, and a total playground for cross country roaming.

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


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5082 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 12:51 pm 
Ritter wrote:
RE: motorized access I disagree with this. There is a certain intrinsic value to "wilderness." It is emotional, social and very personal to most people. To me, the sound of jets cruising through the airspace above is enough of a reminder that you can't really get "true" wilderness anymore. Intrusion of chainsaws for even a week would further degrade the wilderness experience for myself and probably others. The last thing I want to hear is the buzz of a chainsaw while I'm contemplating my place in the world in the one government designated area that minimizes such intrusions. Also, my father works for two weeks in the summer with a pack outfit that does trail maintenance in wilderness areas on a strictly volunteer basis. The days are hard work but extremely rewarding. No chainsaws required. Just dedication.
I am all for the Backcountry Horsemen. Excellent outfit and I am greatly pleased with what they do. By all means, I would encourage volunteers to do trail maintenance by any means. I just know that there are a lot of trails out there. Some are getting neglected becuase there are few resources devoted to the entire area. A chainsaw will help improve efficiency of trail maintenance. Hell, we are paying for a trailhead parking pass becuase the Forest Service believes they aren't getting enough money! I say, allow a chainsaw and the Forest Service then becomes more efficient at doing the same job.
Ritter wrote:
Wilderness areas should not be managed as parks, per se. They should be managed as wilderness areas. In my opinion, this means that human impact should be limited to the extent practicable (this is my current view, I didn't exist in the 60s!).
Then given this opinion, you would be in favor of eliminating trails? That would limit human impact. I bet you are then in favor of gating the Middle Fork Road at Dingford Creek correct?
Ritter wrote:
Wilderness is a step beyond. It is a place set aside for people to enjoy without cars, cabins, etc. That is a wilderness designation's very point. To allow huts and unregulated access goes against the entire reason wilderness areas exist.
Good point. Really. Lets get rid of trails then.
Ritter wrote:
I agree that the idea of quotas stink, but there doesn't seem to be a better means of limiting human impacts to such areas so I'll deal with them.
The future is that quotas in the wilderness areas will limit your grandchildren to enjoy the wilderness. Therefore, how can the public enjoy the wilderness? I will give you an example. I had known a person that wanted to climb Mt. Whitney. Three years he applied for a permit. Three years he was denied. This is an extreme example and does not apply to the wilderness areas in Washington State yet--and probably won't be a problem in our lifetime. But it WILL be a problem for the future, and that is why I would like to change this attitude about "wilderness". Hell, North Bend used to be wilderness (it took several days to climb Mt. Si) and none of you are complaining about an outlet shopping mall there.

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


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5082 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 12:53 pm 
WOW! Can everyone SEE I posted a post that was LONGER than could fit on my screen! MtnGoat would be so proud of me!

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


Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 1084 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kitsap
Larry
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 1:15 pm 
Stefan wrote:
WOW! Can everyone SEE I posted a post that was LONGER than could fit on my screen! MtnGoat would be so proud of me!
Well, I personally enjoy your very thoughtful posts, Stefan. Even if I don't agree with all things you are saying, you have made compelling points that have made me rethink some of the things I thought I disagreed with. You write with clarity, and that is really nice.

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


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 2815 | TRs | Pics
Dante
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 1:40 pm 
If you got rid of trails it would limit human impact to almost zero. For example, in my perception about 80% of hikers are using 20% (or less) of the (most accessible) trails in the ALW. I would not advocate doing away with trails, though, because I think the Wilderness needs a political constituency and access helps create and maintain that constituency. Without a constituency, Wilderness areas would not stay wilderness (current legal definition) for long. Even I would chip away at the current definition enough to permit motorized trail maintainence and helicopter delivery of maintainance equipment. I bet those scarce trail maintainance dollars would go way farther if you could use chain saws, Dingos and the like for trail maintainance... I'd also permit motorized evacuation of hikers with non-life threatening injuries (but I'd require them to pay). Thats about as far as I would go--no cabins, etc....

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


Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 33 | TRs | Pics
Ritter
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 2:03 pm 
Stefan wrote:
Then given this opinion, you would be in favor of eliminating trails? That would limit human impact. I bet you are then in favor of gating the Middle Fork Road at Dingford Creek correct?.
If I thought there was any way in hell that an area in the US could be politically viable without trails, I'd support it, at least in a romantic fashion. It would do the heart good to know there is one place on terrestrial Earth that we are not.... The middle ground is allowing limited access via trails. And I fear I don't know where Dingford Creek is. I'm in Sonoma County, California. A lurker who likes the northern territory!
Stefan wrote:
The future is that quotas in the wilderness areas will limit your grandchildren to enjoy the wilderness. Therefore, how can the public enjoy the wilderness?
We need to limit access to wilderness to ensure remains as near to "natural" conditions as we can get. Letting the mobs in does not accomplish that preservation. I understand the conflict in this view, but how do you resolve it? If you allow unfettered access to designated wilderness areas, they won't stay wild for long. Especially not with growing population pressures. But I do agree that the public should have reasonable access to the areas. My wife will be brining our first child into this world in August and I am certainly looking forward to introducing it to the wilderness when old enough. And I want its children to have the same privilidge. But I want it to remain wilderness. So, there we have it. Oh, btw, nice long post, Stefan! Ritter

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Mal Con
Guest




Mal Con
Guest
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 2:30 pm 
I agree with Stefan in principle and advocated for huts and the like several years ago in the TT days after several trips to Canada, Likewise the ban on chainsaws for blowdown removal is absurd. unfortunately, with the present administration in control of all branches of government, I see a substantial risk for this being the nose of the camel that would doom all wilderness protection. the way legislation is set up any modification no matter how slight would entail reconsideration of the entire legislative scheme. For that reason I would have to oppose it until more enlightened officals are in charge.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote View IP address of poster
Dante
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 2815 | TRs | Pics
Dante
Member
PostThu Jul 31, 2003 3:00 pm 
Ritter wrote:
We need to limit access to wilderness to ensure remains as near to "natural" conditions as we can get. Letting the mobs in does not accomplish that preservation. I understand the conflict in this view, but how do you resolve it? If you allow unfettered access to designated wilderness areas, they won't stay wild for long. Especially not with growing population pressures. But I do agree that the public should have reasonable access to the areas. My wife will be brining our first child into this world in August and I am certainly looking forward to introducing it to the wilderness when old enough. And I want its children to have the same privilidge. But I want it to remain wilderness.
I think I've noticed accelerating impacts at the places where I go annually with my family (e.g., the Olympic coast and Mount Rainier). There used to be way more underbrush near the campground where we stay on our annual Rainier car camping trip. It's been really beaten down just in the past couple years (and it was a campground for years before that). I have not noticed any additional impact at most of the backcountry places I have gone with BPJ and other hiking buddies (80/20 rule again).
Mal Con wrote:
I see a substantial risk for this being the nose of the camel that would doom all wilderness protection.
I see your point. We might see clear cuts for a mile on each side of the trail in the name of trail maintainance wink.gif

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 > Wilderness Designation - Change it or Keep it?
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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