| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Brian R
Member
Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Brian R
Member
|
 Wed May 26, 2021 11:38 pm |
|
|
Some random thoughts. Which orgs, exactly, are authorized to do trail work for USFS, BLM, other agencies? The only two I know of are WTA and WCC. And they both do fine work. Is there a vetting process by which other volunteers can do work on behalf of land management agencies outside of these orgs? As with any public-private-NGO type arrangement, things can get too cozy after a number of years and it's always good to shake things up. (So, in that respect, I like this guy's rouge attitude.) Then there is the problem of agencies becoming too reliant on volunteer orgs for what ought to be budgeted, paid professional work. It can create a downward spiral; a sort of cycle of dependency and perpetually reduced funding.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
fourteen410
Member
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2630 | TRs | Pics
|
| Slugman wrote: | | But they are claiming illegal activity, so they better back it up. |
^This, 100%.
I'm not finding any legal authority for WTA's claim but will stand corrected if I'm wrong.
| Randito wrote: | | The South Fork trail was abandoned long ago for a number of good reasons. |
What were the reasons? If I recall correctly, the South Fork Cascade trail is an alternate exit for the Ptarmigan Traverse (albeit currently a miserable one). Downey Creek is the usual exit for that route, right? If so, it seems that with the current Downey fire closure, there is a good reason to work on the SFCR trail.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12835 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Thu May 27, 2021 5:18 am |
|
|
| Brian R wrote: | | "Which orgs, exactly..." |
Off the top of my head (and at this hour of the morning) we could start with WTA, The Mountaineers, Backcountry Horsemen of America (Backcountry Horsemen of Washington), Student Conservation Corps...
Wild guesses: The Mazamas, maybe the Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance (?)...
I'm guessing Rod probably knows a few others.
I think one of Rod's groups does some work up on the Peninsula as well.
The National Park Service still has a "VIP" (Volunteer in Parks) program, if I'm not mistaken. Contact your favorite National Park for more information or check their website.
My own volunteer work for the National Park Service was done independently, with the authorization and approval of the administrative staff at Olympic National Park. My work in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest was authorized and approved by Margaret McHugh, who was in charge of the Cispus Adaptive Management Area.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to by "too cozy". I'm curious if you'd be willing to share some examples of such arrangements that were "too cozy". I'm also curious as to what you believe might be gained by "shaking things up".
Most public lands management agencies, from the National Parks all the way down to local Municipal and County Parks, have been heavily reliant on volunteer work for decades, in part due to ever dwindling federal funding appropriations.
| fourteen410 wrote: | | "I'm not finding any legal authority for WTA's claim..." |
Correct. WTA does not have the regulatory or statutory authority to enforce federal or state laws, or local ordinances, or federal or state regulations. That's outside the scope of their operation.
I suppose if you really wanted to get down to splitting hairs on this, I believe there's something on the books about not removing, disturbing, or damaging any animals or plants. It may or may not be in the form of a CFR (Codified Federal Regulation), but rather (in the case of the National Park Service) something in the "Superintendents Compendium". The U.S. Forest Service also has an endless list of regulations - you'd need to dig into their website or contact a local USFS Ranger Station for that information.
| fourteen410 wrote: | | What were the reasons? [for the abandonment of a trail] |
You'd have to contact the local U.S. Forest Service Ranger Station and ask them. Trails are abandoned for all sorts of reasons, each on a case-by-case basis.
As I noted above, claiming to know better than the lands management agency that decided to abandon a trail is the zenith of hubris.
==
While I sincerely appreciate and fully understand the zeal of some individuals who believe they should take it upon themselves to effect "improvements" to trail systems, our public lands would be better served if those individuals were to work with the lands management agencies, all of which (from my own personal experience) welcome with open arms those who are willing and able to lend a helping hand.
I very seriously doubt if anyone is going to object to a stick or rock being removed from a trail tread or (as I have done many times myself) snapping off the odd branch that might catch another hiker in the eye, I do not know of any lands management agency (including MetroParks Tacoma) that takes a favorable view of individuals going out on their own to clear miles of trail, as has been claimed by the WTA member whose trip report was the catalyst for this thread.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdestroyer
Member
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 1251 | TRs | Pics
Location: montana |
yawn, sorry went to sleep reading this!
|
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1422 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Thu May 27, 2021 7:19 am |
|
|
So all the people who post their trail clearing efforts on this website are criminals, right WTA?
Very poor choice of words by WTA, but I assume Ski is right that there is some CFR or administrative rule requiring any work party to be registered with the Forest Service. Would it be criminal (jail) to violate this rule? No, but it still could theoretically involve a civil (money) penalty.
This guy should just go through whatever administrative hoops are required by the Forest Service to officially clear trails. Then he can clear to his heart's desire and WTA can't do a thing about it.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9514 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu May 27, 2021 7:44 am |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1422 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Thu May 27, 2021 8:11 am |
|
|
I stand corrected, but noticed that law doesn't define "forest products." Well, I guess all those people that go out and buck trails are criminals. And Tom and this website is an accomplice to their crimes. Better shut down nwhikers.net. Thanks WTA.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rossb
Member
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 1679 | TRs | Pics
|
|
rossb
Member
|
Thu May 27, 2021 8:17 am |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | other than snapping off an odd branch here and there |
Criminal! Breaking the law, breaking the law 
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rossb
Member
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 1679 | TRs | Pics
|
|
rossb
Member
|
Thu May 27, 2021 8:46 am |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | I very seriously doubt if anyone is going to object to a stick or rock being removed from a trail tread or (as I have done many times myself) snapping off the odd branch that might catch another hiker in the eye, I do not know of any lands management agency (including MetroParks Tacoma) that takes a favorable view of individuals going out on their own to clear miles of trail, as has been claimed by the WTA member whose trip report was the catalyst for this thread. |
Ah, there we have it. This has nothing to do with breaking the law (something apparently we've all done). It has to do with whether it reaches the point that an agency would object.
But did an agency object? No. Both you and WTA are speculating. It is quite possible that a ranger would look at what has been done and go "meh". No big deal. Reading through the description of the hike, it isn't clear what they actually did. They improved the trail, but how? If it was a matter of cutting through blow downs, and trimming alders (which seems likely) it is quite likely that the agencies in charge don't care. In my talks with Forest Service people, this seems to be the case. WTA is making assumptions based on very little evidence. They are assuming a different level of work -- work that they commonly do -- instead of the tiny bit of work that was actually done.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rossb
Member
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 1679 | TRs | Pics
|
|
rossb
Member
|
Thu May 27, 2021 9:03 am |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | While I sincerely appreciate and fully understand the zeal of some individuals who believe they should take it upon themselves to effect "improvements" to trail systems, our public lands would be better served if those individuals were to work with the lands management agencies, all of which (from my own personal experience) welcome with open arms those who are willing and able to lend a helping hand. |
So you are saying all of this arguing could easily be avoided if the person (or persons) in charge simply call up the ranger station and say "Hey, I'm going to be clearing out some brush on the trail. I'm not sure when, and it might be just me, or it might include some other other people I run across. None of them have any certification or skills -- I don't know their names, either. Is that OK?"
Part of the reason that this sort of thing is popular with people is the spontaneity and lack of formality. The government doesn't need to know your name, and you don't need to be trained. Obviously it can be taken too far, and people can do some serious damage. But those cases are rare. Most of the time, it is fundamentally no different than what you and I have done, which is cut the branches off of a blowdown or two.
It is quite possible that the rangers in this area know very well what is going on, and are simply looking the other way. There is no real harm, and they don't want to deal with the paperwork either. They are overworked, and have far more important things to worry about.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7758 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Thu May 27, 2021 9:21 am |
|
|
I stepped on a leaf that feel from a tree, cracking it in the process. A leaf is unarguably a product of the forest. This is my confession.
What federal law or regulation authorizes me to damage forest products?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
altasnob
Member
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 1422 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma |
|
altasnob
Member
|
Thu May 27, 2021 9:38 am |
|
|
I assume the mens rea of the crime would be "intent." Did you intentionally damage that leaf, or was it inadvertent?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian R
Member
Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Brian R
Member
|
Thu May 27, 2021 1:35 pm |
|
|
I clear trails at a local park regularly--and without permission. Mostly clearing and stacking up Scotch Broom and ripping out Ivy--both invasive. Mostly with hand tools, but I have been known to break out the Stihl Hedger or string trimmer for the big jobs. The only time I was confronted by staff was when I used a chain saw to clear a fallen tree.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7758 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle |
|
Cyclopath
Faster than light
|
Thu May 27, 2021 1:45 pm |
|
|
| altasnob wrote: | | I assume the mens rea of the crime would be "intent." Did you intentionally damage that leaf, or was it inadvertent? |
I'm a deranged man who enjoys the crunch of dry leaves under foot. It brings me most of the satisfaction of potato chips, with none of the calories, and I can't have just one!
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fourteen410
Member
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2630 | TRs | Pics
|
| Randito wrote: | | Quote: | | §261.6 Timber and other forest products.
The following are prohibited:
(a) Cutting or otherwise damaging any timber, tree, or other forest product, except as authorized by a special-use authorization, timber sale contract, or Federal law or regulation. |
|
36 CFR § 261.6 derives its authority from 16 U.S. Code § 620, which addresses conservation of timber as a resource. Clipping brush to maintain an existing trail has nothing to do with harvesting timber. If this is what WTA is referring to, it's dubious at best.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
