[Brian R]

[Cyclopath]

[Cyclopath]

[Brushwork]

It’s a no for me on permits. I haven’t been to the Enchantments for at least 25 yrs, and am not inclined to subject myself to the process of getting a permit , or camping illegally. But if was inclined to go somewhere requiring camouflage, i’d go as a snake. Yea. Sorry, no pictures.

[Bedivere]

[Randito]

[Bedivere]

But can you imagine how many people would be camped up there on any given night if there were no permit system? It's a real catch-22. Of course, the root of the problem is population but that's not something we can really do anything about.

[joker]

Seems like a much more crucial question is how to spread understanding of and respect for low impact travel practices in the era of learning everything from Facebook, YouTube, and the tags that came with your outdoor products that weren't stolen from your doorstep.

[Randito]

[slabbyd]

Couple people have mentioned road closures as the solution and I agree! Between a lack of timber harvesting, increasing extreme weather and declining FSR budgets you’d think it would be happening. But the FSR seems surprisingly adept at maintaining roads well enough. One can dream.....

[Cyclopath]

People (including respected nwhikers) howled while the Suiattle Road was closed. Closing roads isn't a good solution. The public should be able to access public land. Now that eBikes are becoming common and cheap, closing roads won't have the effect you hope for anyway.

[slabbyd]

By that argument maybe access isn’t good enough. I’d guess 90% of our humble co-citizens are unable to acquire a selfie at Colchuck Lake due to physical inability. A tram would bring equity and access to all citizens ( this argument was a primary one when the Squamish Tram was proposed to be directly on the Chief). We’re all fortunate (I guess) to have a series of FSR roads built deep into mountain valleys specifically to limit the extent of land that would be designated Wilderness in the 1960s. Middle Fork Nooksack, Canyon Creek, Suiattle? And many more. I don’t see why that should be considered baseline for continued access. I don’t buy the idea that closed roads wouldn’t result in a decrease in access. Even with e-bikes. I think people hate the idea of a road walk/ride. Places like say N Twin Sister would be slammed with people if it weren’t for the gate at 1200’.

[Cyclopath]

It amazes me that so many hikers are against hiking, but the truth is they're only against other people hiking. Tram is a cool strawman by the way.

[neek]

The issues being discussed here aren't black and white. Sometimes it's not cost effective to maintain roads (e.g. the Carbon road), and sometimes permits are the only way to facilitate humans' continued enjoyment of a small and unique place (e.g. Paria canyon). Eliminating all forest roads would be bad, and turning all trails into roads would be bad, so obviously there's a middle ground. But there's no silver bullet for the overuse problem. It'll have to be a package of solutions, each with winners and losers. I'd maybe support a limited expansion of existing permit systems if you could, say, fast-track the process by obtaining some sort of LNT certification (sort of like a TSA precheck for hiking). Or maybe you could earn volunteer credits through an org like WTA that increase your chances. Clearly no matter what your stance is you should be concerned about the funding issue and think about how your advocacy and votes might make a tiny difference. More trails (and ways to access them) means more opportunity to spread out, better maintained trails means less damage. Also, the overpopulation gripe to me is anti-human. There is no reason to think we can't reach a sustainable plateau; you can argue that some developed countries already have. In addition to shaming people for being born we shame them for being unhealthy and then say oh but you can't hike because it's too crowded, or you can't drive to the trailhead because it pollutes, etc. IMO, if everyone hiked, the world would be a happier place.

[Brian R]