Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 179

Thread: Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project

  1. #1
    Banned Kevin Rooney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,671

    Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project

    It looks like the suspension bridge over the Pemi.

    Here's the official link:

    It's an incorrect decision, and leaves one wondering why we pay those parking passes for maintenance.

    Edit - removed incorrect reference to location of bridge.
    Last edited by Kevin Rooney; 09-14-2009 at 04:16 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member psmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Chocorua, NH
    Posts
    557
    Just so no one is confused, this decision concerns the bridge on the Wilderness trail, and not the pedestrian bridge at the start of the Lincoln Woods trail.

    I realize that active VFTT members will be aware of this distinction, but others might be confused by the text of the OP.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Tobit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by psmart View Post
    Just so no one is confused, this decision concerns the bridge on the Wilderness trail, and not the pedestrian bridge at the start of the Lincoln Woods trail.
    Correct. The bridge, and trail, in question is the 0.7 mile segment of the Wilderness Trail near the Bondcliff Trail. This 0.7 mile segment of trail will also be closed and reclaimed. The I-beam bridge that spans Black Brook will also be removed as part of this project.
    "The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready." - Thoreau

  4. #4
    Senior Member MichaelJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Outside
    Posts
    5,141
    As a result, any visitor who opts to try to ford the river is doing so at their own risk. Removal of the suspension bridge does not force someone to ford the river.
    Crossing the river is always a personal choice. It is incumbent upon the hiker to decide whether or not they are comfortable with crossing.
    Any visitor that opts to try to ford the river is doing so at their own risk. Our removal of the suspension bridge is not forcing them to ford the river.
    While these statements are *technically* true I find them to be horribly naive and not in keeping with the reality of management of the public. The fact they are repeated so many times in the document simply serves to reinforce my opinion of this. Nobody forces anyone to walk out of the parking lot and into the woods, either, but we're not eliminating all the trails.

    With the closure of the .7 mile section of the Wilderness Trail, the loop will no longer exist.
    This is a designated Wilderness Area. Despite being Zone D, you are still expected to be capable of, and perform, off-trail navigation. The loop will most certainly still exist and people will simply find a way to route around the "closed" trail. This closure is not going to "remove access to the bridge location." They even acknowledge that fact:

    Visitors, as in any part of the wilderness, may still choose bushwhack along the banks or cross the river. It is not part of our wilderness management policy to restrict off trail travel.
    One other point:

    Many of the users of the popular [ Bondcliff - Thoreau Falls ] loop are looking for a relatively easy experience on flatter trails. We deem it unlikely that this type of visitor would make the considerable effort of bush whacking for more than 1.5 miles.
    I somehow doubt that the person doing the Bondcliff-Thoreau falls loop is looking for an easy experience on flatter trails.
    May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

  5. #5
    Senior Member TCD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,887
    I wouldn't worry about comparing the quoted phrases to reality. The phrases are recognizable as "lawyer speak." They are plugged in there: to establish that the forest service is not inviting visitors to do anything; to establish that they have no duty to maintenance; and to establish that their actions have been taken on "reasonable" grounds. All this is just laying defensive bulwarks that can be trotted out in court the first time someone drowns in the river, and survivors sue based on the removal of the bridge.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Waumbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Avatar: "World's Windiest Place" Stamp (5/27/06)
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by TCD View Post
    All this is just laying defensive bulwarks that can be trotted out in court the first time someone drowns in the river, and survivors sue based on the removal of the bridge.
    I think we just threw out the baby and saved the bath water. As if this will make the Pemi "wilderness" again.
    Sigh.

  7. #7
    Senior Member arghman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Goffstown, NH Avatar: No Once-lers or thneeds
    Posts
    1,352
    So it is what it is.

    I'd suggest expressing your views to your congresspersons in regards to the Wilderness mechanism in general.
    --Jason
    moose plates help conserve New Hampshire's natural heritage
    New book from NHNHB: The Nature of New Hampshire

  8. #8
    Senior Member Becca M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pelham & Bristol, NH
    Posts
    871

    Thumbs down

    Why did they bother "gathering" any input whatsoever? I know, I know,... a legal requirement. Who are they serving? I thought that *we* pay the bills, why isn't our input counted?>?>>? What country are we in??
    --Becca

  9. #9
    Banned Kevin Rooney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,671
    In the email I rec'd from the USFS, it said, in part " Implementation of this project is scheduled to commence on 21 September, 2009."

    While the Forest Service is certainly within its rights to remove the bridge this rapidly, I question their wisdom in doing so. Typically, the implementation of a controversial plan is delayed after a final decision in order to give the political process time to play out. To disregard the political process only serves to create the impression the Forest Service is accountable to no one, and damages the perception they're being good stewards of the public lands entrusted to them.

    If the FS is concerned about the safety of the bridge, then it can block access to it, while allowing appeals of their decision thru the various regulatory and political processes. It would be in their longterm interests to delay the removal of the bridge until spring.

  10. #10
    Senior Member sardog1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    If it ain't snowin' there, we ain't goin' there.
    Posts
    2,581
    Somewhere tonight Bob Marshall, Sigurd Olson, Olaus and Mardy Murie, Harvey Broome, and Howard Zahniser are all smiling. As I am.

    Kudos to District Ranger Fuller for "getting it."
    sardog1

    "Å! kjære Bymann gakk ei stjur og stiv,
    men kom her up og kjenn eit annat Liv!
    kom hit, kom hit, og ver ei daud og lat!
    kom kjenn, hot d'er, som heiter Svevn og Mat,
    og Drykk og Tørste og det heile, som
    er Liv og Helse i ein Hovedsum."

    -- Aasmund O. Vinje, "Til Fjells!"

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Thornton, NH
    Posts
    2,232
    [QUOTE=MichaelJ;293270]While these statements are *technically* true I find them to be horribly naive and not in keeping with the reality of management of the public. The fact they are repeated so many times in the document simply serves to reinforce my opinion of this. Nobody forces anyone to walk out of the parking lot and into the woods, either, but we're not eliminating all the trails.QUOTE]

    Not only a terrible decision, but her grammar is atrocious; how do these people who cannot write the King's English get promoted to such power positions? Even much worse than "lawyer speak."
    Last edited by Dr. Dasypodidae; 09-14-2009 at 09:57 PM. Reason: typo

  12. #12
    Senior Member Snowflea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,103
    Whether the decision is correct or incorrect is a matter of opinion. I can appreciate both sides of this issue and don't feel passionately one way or the other. (There are way bigger fish to fry IMHO.)

    "Atrocious grammar" aside, I thought Ranger Fuller did a good job of explaining her decision.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Waumbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Avatar: "World's Windiest Place" Stamp (5/27/06)
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Dasypodidae View Post
    Not only a terrible decision, but her grammar is atrocious;
    Grammar and logic go hand in hand, but I'm more concerned about the latter in statements like this one:

    "it would be speculative, at this point, to conclude that removing the bridge would cause more search and rescues."

    Would it not also be speculative, at this point, to conclude that removing the bridge would cause the same number or fewer searches and rescues? Or, indeed, at this point to conclude anything?

    The decision constantly falls back on the assertion that when the .7 mile trail is removed, there will be no traffic to the bridge site, hence no crossing, no safety concern.

    I wonder.

    But so does the decision in its provision to "monitor" what happens on the "removed" trail.

  14. #14
    Senior Member SAR-EMT40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Eastern Connecticut Avatar:I Like my Jeep
    Posts
    1,354
    I'm not sure why I care if they remove them or not. Especially if it frees up funds to be used in other more heavily trafficked areas. I like doing off trail navigation more than trail walking any ways. And anything that reduces the number of people out there means that everyone that is out there gets more of the wilderness experience.

    Keith
    "The real work of men was hunting meat. The invention of agriculture was a giant step in the wrong direction, leading to serfdom, cities, and empire. From a race of hunters, artists, warriors, and tamers of horses, we degraded ourselves to what we are now: clerks, functionaries, laborers, entertainers, processors of information."- Ed Abbey

  15. #15
    Senior Member DougPaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bedford, MA; Avatar: eggs anyone?
    Posts
    10,704
    Quote Originally Posted by SAR-EMT40 View Post
    And anything that reduces the number of people out there means that everyone that is out there gets more of the wilderness experience.
    I rather doubt that removal of the bridge will decrease the number of people out there. It will most likely just move some of them elsewhere.

    I personally prefer that the bridge stay. It is part of a traditional route into/through the backcontry and have some nice memories of trips that went over it.

    Doug

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-12-2015, 01:43 PM
  2. Removal of suspension bridge in Pemi Wilderness
    By psmart in forum Q&A - New England
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 12:26 PM
  3. Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project - Scoping Period Extended
    By Kevin Rooney in forum Q&A - New England
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 02:22 PM
  4. Pemigewasset Wilderness Bridge Removal Project
    By RoySwkr in forum Q&A - New England
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-07-2009, 04:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •