Forum Index > Trail Talk > TML's & Backpacker Magazine
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17835 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostTue Oct 23, 2018 12:40 pm 
Quote:
What is the difference between the accumulated impact of one person going to a pristine lake ten times and aggregate impact of ten people going to that same place once? Not much!
Are you saying those 15 tents pitched at TML have the same aggregate impact as 1 tent per year for the last 15 years?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Oct 23, 2018 12:51 pm 
RumiDude wrote:
"...the idea that the people that get more than 5 miles from the trailhead are somehow more ethical in their backcountry behavior is largely wrong as well."
^ Agreed. The claim is patently false. The claim that making an area more difficult to get to due to a road closure somehow makes it "better" is hogwash. It just makes it more difficult to get to. It makes it more difficult to do trail maintenance. In some cases, it makes it impossible for tourists to use existing infrastructure (as is the case on the Dosewallips.) I understand that many like to believe the USFS and the NPS and all the other public lands management agencies on whose lands trails exist were created solely for the use of backpackers and hikers, but that's simply a load of crap. Those places do not exist for the exclusive enjoyment of those able to hike in long distances. For that matter, most of them weren't created for hikers or backpackers at all - take the time to research why these areas, and the agencies that administer them, were created in the first place. Part of the downside of making access more difficult (or impossible) with road closures is the detrimental effect on local economies, as has happened in Brinnon, Quilcene, Carbonado, and Wilkeson. Of course, if you have no issues with paying more taxes so more people can avail themselves to social welfare programs and send their kids to inadequately-funded public schools, that's your choice.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
coldrain108
Thundering Herd



Joined: 05 Aug 2010
Posts: 1858 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
coldrain108
Thundering Herd
PostTue Oct 23, 2018 2:41 pm 
Ski wrote:
The claim that making an area more difficult to get to due to a road closure somehow makes it "better" is hogwash.
Imagine if there was no river crossing at the Queets TH...

Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Oct 23, 2018 3:11 pm 
There was a cable car over the river at the trailhead and up at Smith Place until they were removed in 1964. They weren't available for use by the public, but they were there for the rangers. Up until about 1949-1950, when Oscar Smith vacated his place and the last of the Andrews family moved out, they drove their cars across the river at the mouth of the Sams. Being at the bottom of the priority list in respect to maintenance, the trail is generally in dreadful condition until a volunteer has an opportunity to get up there and clear it out. For over a decade, that's been done by Ernie and whatever muscle he can line up. For at least a decade prior to that, most of the trail maintenance was done by Don Gores and his wife Debbie. On a few occasions over the last few decades the Park has sent a trail crew up there. I believe the last one was headed by Carl Pangratz about 12 or 15 years ago, and on occasion crews from the Student Conservation Corps have gone up and done a bit of work, but that's mostly been the construction of unnecessary bridges over small drainages where formerly none existed. Ergo: most of the time (generally until very late in the season) the trail is a sonofabitch to try to negotiate, and most people give up after a few miles. Refer to the reports on WTA for further details.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3580 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostTue Oct 23, 2018 3:21 pm 
Tom wrote:
Quote:
What is the difference between the accumulated impact of one person going to a pristine lake ten times and aggregate impact of ten people going to that same place once? Not much!
Are you saying those 15 tents pitched at TML have the same aggregate impact as 1 tent per year for the last 15 years?
Pretty much. It isn't exactly equal and in each scenario the impacts are slightly different, but in the end it's similar. I actually participated in gathering "data" for determining visitation and impacts. I didn't get to see the results but I did fill out a lot of paperwork about the impacts in different areas.
Bootpathguy wrote:
TML's for instance, "was"... largely unknown.
I would say that is incorrect. It may have been relatively less known than others from guide books, but there were plenty of people going many years ago. I found TML just by following the boot path. There was plenty of evidence that it got regular visitation. That was almost twenty years ago. That was before Google Earth, GPS*, online trip reports, NWHikers, etc. Over that period of time, the tools available for navigating have become much more sophisticated and available to the general public. Online resources for trip planning have greatly multiplied. The rise in backcountry recreation has steadily increased over all that time. My guess is that the same steady increase occurred to TML, Jade, and all the other off-the-beaten-track places we have noticed a surge in visitation. I am not saying social media like FB and Instagram don't have an impact on visitation. I am not saying that a blurb in a photo caption in Backpacker magazine has no impact on visitation. What I am saying is that it is not the only impact. We are a major factor of the impact, both physically on the ground and in numbers of visitation. Earliest TR on TML on NWHikers dates back to 2003. Blaming Backpacker, FB, and Instagram while ignoring our own impact is fooling ourselves, especially if we are returning to the same spots over and over. Rumi *there was GPS back then, but it was relatively new and much more primitive in tracking, etc.

"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
rbuzby
Attention Surplus



Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 1006 | TRs | Pics
rbuzby
Attention Surplus
PostTue Oct 23, 2018 3:25 pm 
DIYSteve wrote:
a few years ago, I opined that if the upper Middle Fork valley and high ground on either side were in all but a handful of states, it'd be a national park.
A couple months ago, I opined that if the North Cascades were in a state back east, the range would have become America's first National Park, and every kid in America would know about it, like most kids have heard of Yellowstone today.

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


Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 717 | TRs | Pics
ale_capone
Member
PostTue Oct 23, 2018 3:26 pm 
well darn... just realized I haven't been to TML once this year. I might wait and go later to avoid the crowds. maybe for Christmas.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Oct 23, 2018 3:32 pm 
Let me add: If you go back about 12 years you'll find a lengthy discussion thread, mostly between myself and brownster145, wherein brownster argued that the repair or re-route of the Queets River Road would result in an increase in user load and increased "impact" to the valley. Since 2008, when the re-routed road was opened, I haven't noticed any significant increase in user load - refer to my TRs for vehicle counts at the trailhead - nor have I seen any significant increase in "impact" to the area. Respectfully, brownster's argument that re-opening the road would have detrimental consequences was simply false, just as your claim above is. Moreover, both the Humes and Jeffers glaciers which feed the headwaters of the river have receded significantly over the last couple decades, and coupled with much warmer and drier springs and summers the result has been significantly reduced flows in the valley (see USGS 12040500 for details) over the course of about the last two decades. When I last went in, the river was running at 335 CFS. The record low flow was 281 CFS in September of 2005. Ergo: the river has been running much lower for well over a decade, making the ford at the trailhead much easier during the summer months.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
neek
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 2329 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle, WA
neek
Member
PostTue Oct 23, 2018 8:16 pm 
ale_capone wrote:
just realized I haven't been to TML once this year. I might wait and go later to avoid the crowds. maybe for Christmas.
Wasn't anyone there today (this thread convinced me to finally check it out). The thought of 15 tents on that fragile terrain is scary.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostTue Oct 23, 2018 11:28 pm 
coldrain108 wrote:
And I'm rooting hard for Mother Nature to wipe out as many roads a possible. Make getting to those places a real endeavor, cause some sweat equity to be paid for the experience. People who earn it tend to be better behaved.
It's unfortunate that without so much as a shred of empirical evidence to support this claim, people continue to support the idea that making places more difficult to get to is going to "improve" the conditions. You're talking in the context of an area that's administered by the U.S. Forest Service, founded by Gifford Pinchot, whose primary tenet was "The greatest good, for the greatest number, in the long run." The idea of making a destination site more difficult to access by closing roads or allowing them to deteriorate (as has happened on the Dosewallips) is antithetical to one of the primary tenets of Pinchot and the USFS. It serves the interests only of a very tiny minority who have the physical capacity to carry backpacks long distances to reach a destination site. It excludes a majority of American citizens, who have every bit as much right to visit those places as yourself. In the context of Olympic National Park (since you brought up the subject of a trail there) their founding legislation contains, in its opening line, "For the benefit and enjoyment of the people". It makes no distinction about people who are physically able to carry backpacks miles and miles up trails. Ergo: "people" means all people. Countless user studies conducted by the National Park Service show that over 90% of National Park visitation is what is euphemistically called "windshield tourism". That is, people who never venture more than a couple hundred feet from their automobiles. The idea of making destination sites within National Parks more difficult to access would exclude over 90% of the population, and (as with the USFS) would be antithetical to their mission statement. Again, lacking even one iota of credible evidence that any part of your argument is valid, it can be considered only the worst sort of elitism and selfishness.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
ale_capone
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 717 | TRs | Pics
ale_capone
Member
PostWed Oct 24, 2018 6:01 am 
thanks neek. i remember an argument on this forum from several years ago. it was about posting reports(here) specifically to tml, and the effect. i thought about going then.. and again when a i read a report here last summer. now, its in the front of my mind again. so, we both prove a point correct. reading about a specific place will draw you to that place. ive seen it tons here. more so in the winter when you get the" thanks x for the great boot pack" not saying its a bad thing at all. if you look online, there is a variety of choices, changing daily, if someone is looking for a hike. but a magazine that offers up one hike everyfew months seems like it would have a longer lasting effect, and a less experienced crowd. i still probably wont go until christmas. of the dozens of times ive been there, its always covered in a blanket of snow. maybe i should just not see it without, and keep my pristine vision of the area. as for route, ive never taken the trap pass way. i have hiked over trap pass, and tried to locate to the cutoff for another day. what i did find was a cache of old mre's. just burried in the ground, near the crest. likely preinternet food... so crowds are new, but the mess has been around.

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


Joined: 08 Feb 2017
Posts: 155 | TRs | Pics
Location: Montana
markweth
Member
PostWed Oct 24, 2018 8:14 am 
RumiDude wrote:
Tom wrote:
Quote:
What is the difference between the accumulated impact of one person going to a pristine lake ten times and aggregate impact of ten people going to that same place once? Not much!
Are you saying those 15 tents pitched at TML have the same aggregate impact as 1 tent per year for the last 15 years?
Pretty much. It isn't exactly equal and in each scenario the impacts are slightly different, but in the end it's similar.
Calling the impacts similar is a false equivalency. I would be shocked if anyone in the USFS or NPS concurred with your assessment that these usages create similar impacts. Consider the following scenarios: Let's say I go to the same alpine lake every summer for an overnight trip and set up my tent in the same spot -- on durable ground and well away from the lakeshore. That is 15 "visitor nights" over 15 years. And let's say I don't post about it on social media, or NWHikers, and don't really have many friends that backpack to encourage to go there. Pretty minimal impact, in my eyes. Now, consider a Saturday night with 15 tents pitched at the same alpine lake all at the same time -- set up in 15 different places, not all of which are appropriate (nearly all alpine lakes have a limited "carrying capacity" for sites on durable ground that aren't too close to the water). Let's assume that 7 of the tents are solo campers and 8 are two person tents. That's a total of 23 "visitor nights" in the area in one night. That is a lot of trips to the bathroom, human waste deposits, and just general walking around in the area. Let's then suppose that at least one or two of those people will post about it on social media, drawing more people to the area. Now, the next weekend comes along and someone starts camping on one of the newly impacted sites because it is closer to the lakeshore and "it looks like someone already camped here". Rumi, with all due respect, this really comes down to simple math. Calling the impact of 15 visitor nights over 15 years "similar" to 23 visitor nights in a singled weekend is patently absurd.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12655 | TRs | Pics
Location: here now
DIYSteve
seeking hygge
PostWed Oct 24, 2018 9:57 am 
FWIW, I discovered TMLs 25 years ago when planning to climb Slippery Slab Tower. The week following our climb, I went back for a solo trip to TMLs. I figured back then that the place would eventually get discovered by the masses (a relative term) due to relatively easy access, i.e., PCT and well-established goat tread (now human trail).

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


Joined: 05 Nov 2011
Posts: 339 | TRs | Pics
cambajamba
Member
PostWed Oct 24, 2018 10:04 am 
Ski wrote:
It serves the interests only of a very tiny minority who have the physical capacity to carry backpacks long distances to reach a destination site.
THIS, THIS, A THOUSAND TIMES THIS. Nothing grinds my gears like removal of access for all but the young, fit, healthy, and wealthy.

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 Oct 24, 2018 10:28 am 
up.gif The administrative closure of two areas has ended access for older family members for at locations we cherished, day use of the MFK from the road end, and Kendall lakes. At the formation of the ALW, we were told closures in surrounding areas due to proximity would not occur. Yet it has anyway.

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 > Trail Talk > TML's & Backpacker Magazine
  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