[graywolf]

So, when I read their policy regarding trails, there's nothing they could do to prevent me from wandering anywhere I want, so long as I don't build or maintain trails. They could "educate" me on practicing low impact techniques, but they couldn't enforce it. Imagine all the backcountry visitors to ONP just walking anywhere they want in the high country, and the resultant damage - mission accomplished!

[RodF]

[Logbear]

Graywolf asks...

[RodF]

[NacMacFeegle]

Extremist groups like Wilderness Watch are detrimental to environmentalism as a whole. Their irrational actions mar the image of preservation and conservation. This is not to say that all extreme environmentalist groups are bad; I have a huge amount of respect for Greenpeace and their physical defense of whales, dolphins, and old growth forest. It's when such groups go completely ga-ga and start waging war over petty issues such as backcountry shelters that they go to far. Mainstream conservation groups like the Wilderness Society and the Nature Conservancy are mainstream because they are smart enough to act with moderation and intelligence. They work with the bigger picture and public opinion in mind. With the money Wilderness Watch is spending on this lawsuit they could go out and buy a little chunk of land, restore it to its natural state, and essentially create a new little slice of wilderness. Wouldn't that have infinitely more value than a doomed fight to remove a half dozen unobtrusive backcountry shelters?

[Logbear]

[JVesquire]

Nac, I think the problem with the points being made here go more toward the fundamental disagreement: does historic preservation trump wilderness prohibitions against mechanized activity and permanent human installations. I believe it is reasonable to find that the laws can exist in harmony: that historic structures can be preserved if they are done in accordance with proper wilderness management techniques. Going to court to resolve a disagreement is the American way, after all.

[DIYSteve]

[joker]

[Voxxjin]

Maybe it is just me, but I personally don't think the rebuild of shelters is a big deal. Keep them the same size and match what they were before. Some helicopter flights to ferry in supplies is again to me not a big deal. It's not like the flights to a particular spot will happen everyday, and when the work is done, no more flights would happen most likely for years. I have the same view of the park service using chainsaws, a day or two to use to clear a trail or in this case to rebuild/repair would be quicker and more efficient. Likely cheaper too. I'm sure my view isn't shared by everyone. But for little things like this I don't have a problem.

[NacMacFeegle]

I don't see the problem with restoring shelters or other backcountry structures; even ones that have collapsed/burnt down. Such extensive rebuilding is necessarily for the preservation of these structures; failing to maintain them is the same as demolishing them. I think that non-motorized/mechanized methods of maintaining them should be preferred, but if it's a choice between losing a historic structure and saving it, I think it should be saved even if that requires the used of mechanized equipment. What does Wilderness Watch have to say about backcountry toilets? They are a necessity for keeping popular areas from becoming open sewers, would this group rather see the wilderness polluted than have a few mountain thrones installed here and there? If we had enough shelters we could ban or heavily restrict tent camping, thus restricting human impact in the wilderness to a vastly smaller area. Theoretically, wouldn't a few more permanent structures be worth such a reduction in human impact? The same goes for maintained trails and their related structures (signs, bridges, etc.). Anyone who has ever hiked a popular "boot-built" trail will know that such haphazard trail creation often results in a myriad of user-made trails paralleling one-another and causing exponentially greater impact than if there were one well made and maintained trail. Where bridges are concerned, does it really impact the wildereness less not to have one, and have people and horses tramping through creeks and streams; eroding the banks and tracking mud and dung into the water? Surely have them pass above rather than through a stream causes less environmental impact? Finally, how many lives have been saved by the refuge provided by a shelter? How many people have not become lost due to a sign or a well maintained trail? How many S&R missions have not been launched due to backcountry structures? It's impossible to know, but I suspect the number is probably quite high. Think of the impact a S&R mission must have with the large number of people who may be involved. Surely a few trails, signs, and shelters are worth preventing the need for as many such missions, as well as the financial costs associated with them that might be otherwise used for purposes such as environmental preservation.

[graywolf]

[DIYSteve]

Mac, you might start the task of answering your numerous questions by reading the Wilderness Act and researching how the Act has been applied by NPS and other agencies administering the Act.

[graywolf]

[RodF]