Oh the wildness of the Whites without Huts...
- Thread starter Mattl
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
--M.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,220
- Reaction score
- 83
This thread has become, um, pedestrian.
forestnome said:My esteemed colleague, what and where are we discussing? The entire WMNF?Why do we need a permit system? I see no problems with the status quo, and I definitely don't want to ask for official permission to dayhike the Bonds. "Sorry, but today was sold out months ago. Put your name on the list and hope for nice weather that day."
I think we've been talking about designated USFS Wilderness Areas only, so far. Not the entire WMNF to be sure. In particular, the OP raised the issue of the impact on the Pemigewasset Wilderness Area, which also contains the Bonds.
When places like Camp 16. Desolation or the overflow at Guyot get pummeled, it's time to limit access, imo. And I'm interested in hearing people talk about bushwacking as an answer. Humans as a group interact with the landscape in predictable ways and the result is herd paths. The one and only way to keep the Pemi as a wilderness is to limit access.
Permit systems are the most fair way I can think of to limit access. Can you suggest a more fair alternative?
MadRiver
New member
Jeff-B
New member
dave.m said:
This thread has gone bouncing a little, but DaveM's summary basically was the result of it.
Although the OP was suggesting that the AMC Galehead Hut be removed rather than restrictions on backpackers, his thoughts being that the hut crowd was too great (or inexperienced) for the area.....which is total BS.
I am in favor of backcountry overnight permit system, if the impact has reached a problem status, such as places like Guyot.
The AMC Hut system currently will maintain a predictable number of people due to bunk availability, which it has for the last 20 years or so with not much change to the environment, and probably improvements to trails.
Last edited:
forestnome said:My esteemed colleague, what and where are we discussing? The entire WMNF?
I would agree here with forestnome and I am not about to try to define Wilderness. Sticking to the original post...The Huts are there and they are not going away. IMO they coexist in the Whites and serve a function; although not Perfect. No offense intended Mattl, but if you don't like huts there are plenty of ways to avoid them.Personally I am not a big fan of huts and I am actually psyched to say that I have never stayed in an AMC hut and don't plan on it any time soon.Away from the original Post...I am very much against a Permit process in the Whites. The Whites are a National Forest which in itself defines specific uses,as does a State Park like BSP and the Daks.Leave the permitting for State and National Parks. In the theme of what a National Forests represents permitting would be to the contrary of that theme. Permitting has been tried before in the Whites and it did not work.Ironicaly....does'nt the AMC Huts operate under a Permit?
funkyfreddy
Well-known member
Pete_Hickey said:
Excellent question!
From what I've seen, most would prefer the illusion...... a Mcwilderness with handrails, bears with radio collars, and helicopters on standby.....
David Metsky
Well-known member
I could see overnight permits being a useful tool in parts of the Whites, but I'm sure it would have major resistance from all sorts of parties. I think it would be better than the alternative, which is the current overuse we see at places like Guyot on a Saturday night.
But it would be a hard pill to swallow when you have to book a hike weeks in advance, especially for those of us who often do our hike planning on Friday nights.
I think the main theme here is that we all are loving parts of the Whites to death. You and I are just as much a part of the problem as people who are hiking for the first time in sneakers and with a 6 lb summer sleeping bag. To deal with the problem of overuse, everyone needs to be involved in the solution. That may mean that you don't go to the Bonds as often, so that others have the opportunity.
Baxter is an example of how this may look. Red tape and hoops to jump through, and difficult to get reservations for when you want, making reservatiosn months in advance, etc. But Baxter delivers on the Wilderness promise. I think in a National Forest with so many entry points it would be much harder to enforce, however.
The huts effectively have their own permit system to limit overnight guests, although obviously these permits cost a lot of money. But these aren't the folks having the biggest impact on places like Guyot.
-dave-
But it would be a hard pill to swallow when you have to book a hike weeks in advance, especially for those of us who often do our hike planning on Friday nights.
I think the main theme here is that we all are loving parts of the Whites to death. You and I are just as much a part of the problem as people who are hiking for the first time in sneakers and with a 6 lb summer sleeping bag. To deal with the problem of overuse, everyone needs to be involved in the solution. That may mean that you don't go to the Bonds as often, so that others have the opportunity.
Baxter is an example of how this may look. Red tape and hoops to jump through, and difficult to get reservations for when you want, making reservatiosn months in advance, etc. But Baxter delivers on the Wilderness promise. I think in a National Forest with so many entry points it would be much harder to enforce, however.
The huts effectively have their own permit system to limit overnight guests, although obviously these permits cost a lot of money. But these aren't the folks having the biggest impact on places like Guyot.
-dave-
Mattl
New member
Sounds like in a small way this is getting geared towards limiting the access for the Pemigewasset Wilderness. Taking out desolation shelter did infact limit the access for that area completely. It is a very wild area. Having Galehead gone would not be quite the same, but would definetly limit quite a bit of the access to the Bonds and that entire area. Maybe even make that area tentsite platforms?? Thats fine, because then people that want to hike and camp, will do just that. There are many huts where if they don't want that, they dont have to have it. I guess in the end it would be nice to leave the area a little more on the primitive side. Maybe everyone could be happy with that, or most. -Mattl
ps: meant galehead
http://www.geocities.com/mattlacroix4/great_outdoors.html
ps: meant galehead
http://www.geocities.com/mattlacroix4/great_outdoors.html
Last edited:
S
Sleeping Giant
Guest
An alternative view, one sure to raise hackles, yet logical.
From what activity does the greatest environmental damage to a protected wilderness area derive? Camping.
Therefore, ban camping. With dayhikers only, there's be no need for permits. You still get to enjoy the "wilderness," the environmental impact is minimized, anyone who wants to can go whenever they want, and you can still camp if you want in areas outside the protected wilderness.
I'm only speaking of New Hampshire here. Everything in New Hampshire is accessible by dayhiking, no?
From what activity does the greatest environmental damage to a protected wilderness area derive? Camping.
Therefore, ban camping. With dayhikers only, there's be no need for permits. You still get to enjoy the "wilderness," the environmental impact is minimized, anyone who wants to can go whenever they want, and you can still camp if you want in areas outside the protected wilderness.
I'm only speaking of New Hampshire here. Everything in New Hampshire is accessible by dayhiking, no?
Jeff-B
New member
Mattl said:
Guyot alread IS tent platforms. Which is used beyond capacity forcing others to overflow area, which is getting trashed.
What good is making MORE platforms going to solve?
People will still camp beyond capacity and strain the watertable/grounds with waste.
Nobody has mentioned yet that the Guyot site is maintained by the AMC.
Perhaps it should be shut down, or at least close the overflow.
Or make this site by reservation......
The Desolation shelter was a WMNF structure which HAD to be removed because it was located in the reclassified designated Wilderness Area.
If you want "primative areas" then controlled camping is the only solution, which means PERMITS!
I have no problem with the permit system widely practiced out in the Sierras.
They reserve 1/2 of all trailhead entries for that day. You just need to get there early to get yours.
You can reserve permits ahead of time as well.
Sure, permits are not going to make it easy anymore, but this is the price we pay as a community.
Jeff-B
New member
Sleeping Giant said:
QUICK! Get your AMC Hut reservations.......
jmegillon149
New member
The idea of wanting to keep inexperienced people out is such an elitist view. Everyone needs to start somewhere. Many people have their first overnight experience at a hut. They often then "work up" to shelters, tenting, etc. Not everyone is born backpacking.
I personally know many people who hike but don't backpack. Lots of these people are in their 20's and 30's and have just started to hike in the last few years. Rather than going right out with a full pack, after having never done it before could be overdoing it and lead to some discouragement.
Many of you who want solitude are the same people who recomend good places to go. These two attitudes are totally contradictory.
I personally like meeting newbies, to see someone enjoy something I have enjoyed for quite some time is a good feeling for me. The huts, while not true wilderness (neither is a marked trail if you want to be a real stickler), are certainly a decent introduction to the activity/area.
Keep in mind, I am not encouraging jumping in over your head which leads to problems, but as long as you know both your limits and your goals, then steadily adjust the two in accordance with each other, you will be fine.
The one thing I will agree with is that maybe they should have been placed further from each other when built years ago, but thats probably just the architect in me, I have to at least question all buildings on some level!
I personally know many people who hike but don't backpack. Lots of these people are in their 20's and 30's and have just started to hike in the last few years. Rather than going right out with a full pack, after having never done it before could be overdoing it and lead to some discouragement.
Many of you who want solitude are the same people who recomend good places to go. These two attitudes are totally contradictory.
I personally like meeting newbies, to see someone enjoy something I have enjoyed for quite some time is a good feeling for me. The huts, while not true wilderness (neither is a marked trail if you want to be a real stickler), are certainly a decent introduction to the activity/area.
Keep in mind, I am not encouraging jumping in over your head which leads to problems, but as long as you know both your limits and your goals, then steadily adjust the two in accordance with each other, you will be fine.
The one thing I will agree with is that maybe they should have been placed further from each other when built years ago, but thats probably just the architect in me, I have to at least question all buildings on some level!
I have stayed in the huts a few times, when I was kid, then with friends and then with my kids. But I mostly back country camped when overnighting. My kids like both. I do understand what Matt is writting but I think the huts and Pemi are good the way they are right now.
Mike P.
Well-known member
Without the AMC, how many trees would be in the Whites? Who would speak for the trees? Logging would be more prevalant because websites don't carry much clout in Washington or is anyone here running for office?
People who are organized carry clout, the AMC, Sierra Club, are two among many. As long as there are peakbaggers there will be sustantial traffic, even if just dayhikers. Sites near 4K peaks would attract more people if there were no huts, maybe not many but how many empty spots are there now at Guyot, Garfield & Liberty Spring on a Saturday night?
Is anyone here offering to maintain those sites if the AMC disappears tomorrow? Or are we okay with the AMC as long as they maintain the type of activity we enjoy, ie maintain shelters & platforms not huts.
If the choice is loving it to death or be unorganized so logging, mining, hotels (Some hotel chain could make $$ with a big conference center along Bear Notch Road if there were no rules or groups against it) can commerialize it even more or destroy it, it seems like a pretty easy decision.
I have AWD & although not in a pick up now, I could get another so while not in favor of ripping up the Interstate system, leaving some ice & snow on it & letting it so cars with less than 8" ground clearance couldn't use it would be just fine
People who are organized carry clout, the AMC, Sierra Club, are two among many. As long as there are peakbaggers there will be sustantial traffic, even if just dayhikers. Sites near 4K peaks would attract more people if there were no huts, maybe not many but how many empty spots are there now at Guyot, Garfield & Liberty Spring on a Saturday night?
Is anyone here offering to maintain those sites if the AMC disappears tomorrow? Or are we okay with the AMC as long as they maintain the type of activity we enjoy, ie maintain shelters & platforms not huts.
If the choice is loving it to death or be unorganized so logging, mining, hotels (Some hotel chain could make $$ with a big conference center along Bear Notch Road if there were no rules or groups against it) can commerialize it even more or destroy it, it seems like a pretty easy decision.
I have AWD & although not in a pick up now, I could get another so while not in favor of ripping up the Interstate system, leaving some ice & snow on it & letting it so cars with less than 8" ground clearance couldn't use it would be just fine
giggy
New member
just curious - in the last week or so, I have heard of places getting trashed and trails beat to "s**t", etc....
What does this mean? I don't think guyot is trashed, I was there in June and the overflows - while there - didn't make me cringe in horror. I don't get this. These area are major backpacking areas with guidebooks, trailguides, maps, etc...
And I certainlly don't think the trails are in bad condition - I recently went back and looked thru my copy of forest and crag and the one thing I recalled is that the whites are likely much better shape now (2006) than they were in past years. At least that is how I read it.
If the huts were removed tommorow - I don't see how anything would change really. Due to price, they might even help by keepng some folks away!
What does this mean? I don't think guyot is trashed, I was there in June and the overflows - while there - didn't make me cringe in horror. I don't get this. These area are major backpacking areas with guidebooks, trailguides, maps, etc...
And I certainlly don't think the trails are in bad condition - I recently went back and looked thru my copy of forest and crag and the one thing I recalled is that the whites are likely much better shape now (2006) than they were in past years. At least that is how I read it.
If the huts were removed tommorow - I don't see how anything would change really. Due to price, they might even help by keepng some folks away!
Jeff-B
New member
giggy said:
I have seen Guyot when there was NO overflow camping. So in my eyes I now see a region which gets used all too frequently, with all the associated catholes being dug.
I mean, who "really" goes all they way down to the designated camp zone to poop in the crapper shack where it is maintained responsibly.
I have never camped in the Guyot overflow, but have seen a city of tents there and not much foot traffic down to the pooper.
So, I presume otherwise....
(you're busted you woodland pooper.....)Unless of course folks are "crap it in..pack it out..."
I mean, I s**t in the woods all the time, but if everyone does it in the same region all the time, then a place like Guyot overflow has got to be taking some abuse.
This is also true of my favorite tent platform site at the Perch on Mt Adams.
This has made a visual impact, therfore is not LNT.
You are right, its not to be "cringed in horror", just considered observation/advice for those whom have not understood the changes taking place over the years.
To me its obvious. To new folks maybe not so.
EDIT:
Fact: In Yosemite, the single most important management at the popular designated backcountry campsites are WASTE CONTROL.
Last edited:
giggy said:
Well put and thankyou for saying it. I was at Guyot last week and I too question if this area is being trashed. I guess it could be one's own subjective interpertation of what "trashed " is but here is my interpretation: I first went to Guyot in the late 60's in August. Guess where I camped...in the overflow area on the Ridge. When I walked by this area last week my impression was that it looked in better (grown in) shape than it did fourty years ago. I visit this area quite regularly and if anything it has improved over the years. I agree with the GUYS (Waterman and Giggy)!!
Take a walk up Cannon on the Kinsman Ridge Trail, it's a trough about 3' deep. That didn't used to be there.
First time I went to Guyot, there was nobody on the ridge on a summer weekend. Now, walk through there and it's like ReggaeFest. There was easily 50 tents. Get up in the middle of the night, you gotta pee. Yup, the water supply for the tentsites are downstream. Another thing to note, certain areas of the Pemi are actually more grown in now than they were in the 60's. Logging had only been gone for twenty years or so......
First time I went to Franconia Falls, it wasn't very well marked. In fact, we had gone to 13 Falls for the weekend. On the way out, we took a flyer over there to check it out. There was nobody there. A few weeks later, we camped at the sites, and only saw TWO people at the falls. Now, you need a permit!
Go to any peak in the springtime. Count the toilet paper along the trail. I am not commenting that we should or shouldn't be there, just pointing out how areas get overly used.
The Whites aren't unique here. This happens everywhere.
First time I went to Guyot, there was nobody on the ridge on a summer weekend. Now, walk through there and it's like ReggaeFest. There was easily 50 tents. Get up in the middle of the night, you gotta pee. Yup, the water supply for the tentsites are downstream. Another thing to note, certain areas of the Pemi are actually more grown in now than they were in the 60's. Logging had only been gone for twenty years or so......
First time I went to Franconia Falls, it wasn't very well marked. In fact, we had gone to 13 Falls for the weekend. On the way out, we took a flyer over there to check it out. There was nobody there. A few weeks later, we camped at the sites, and only saw TWO people at the falls. Now, you need a permit!
Go to any peak in the springtime. Count the toilet paper along the trail. I am not commenting that we should or shouldn't be there, just pointing out how areas get overly used.
The Whites aren't unique here. This happens everywhere.
giggy
New member
its all subjective as to whats trashed I guess. I don't know who is playing butt trumpet in the woods, so can't comment if thats hurting the water, etc.. My guess is there is probably more than you think using the can down in the site.
Toilet paper left on the trail is a different subject all together - thats just irresponsible littering.
Toilet paper left on the trail is a different subject all together - thats just irresponsible littering.
