I don't believe there are any lumber sales from the Wilderness Area, so I don't think that was a factor here.The only input considered in the whole discussion was "amount of board feet of lumber to be sold to the highest bidder."
I don't believe there are any lumber sales from the Wilderness Area, so I don't think that was a factor here.The only input considered in the whole discussion was "amount of board feet of lumber to be sold to the highest bidder."
I'd be curious how many people provided a formal opinion to USFS.
There are many quoted in the appendix of the decision document, and an unscientific scan of them shows at least a simple majority in favor of keeping the bridge.
There was a long thread discussing this action when originally proposed. A few references to articles and op/eds written in local papers which, while providing viewpoint, likely wouldn't "formally" be considered in the decision. I'd be curious how many people provided a formal opinion to USFS.
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=29572
Appendix A said:This plan will greatly increase the effects and impacts of human use in
other areas of the Pemigewasset Wilderness.
The hike required to reach some points within the wilderness from certain trailheads will be longer with the removal of the bridges, but access will not be restricted to any area located within the Pemigewasset Wilderness. Areas beyond the bridges will still be accessible via the East Side Trail, and areas located in the northern Pemigewasset Wilderness can be accessed by the Wilderness Trail. Since the access is not limited, it is expected that all areas of the Pemigewasset Wilderness will see the same use patterns prior to the bridges removal. See 3.10 for patterns in existing recreation use.
Makes perfect sense, and I also mentioned this in my opinion letter to the forest service. My guess is those that seek true solitude will be able to find it and then some in the Desolation Trail area. In another 20 years I see most of the trails in the eastern Pemi becoming very hard to follow, much like the section of trail north of the Owl's Head slide past the height of land. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of personal opinion.erugs said:How and why should people care about areas that are protected so much that folks can't be there to appreciate the jewells that these locations are? (Does that last sentence make sense? Should read: Can't go there, why should I care?)
giggy said:I just find it all laughable his thing to create the illusion of wilderness when you have a road with major traffic less than 10 miles in either direction
Molly Fuller said:"I can recall my first visit to the bridge, after hiking almost six miles, three of those miles in wilderness, and arriving at the site. It does take one back for a moment to have such a large and substantial structure before you. This experience is out of context with a wilderness experience, both from the visual impacts of the presence of the bridge to the experience of making a long, dry crossing on a man-made structure over the East Branch of the Pemigewasset River.
Molly Fuller" said:With the exception of one bridge on the Thoreau Falls Trail, virtually the entire wilderness appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, and the imprint of man’s work is substantially unnoticeable.
Molly Fuller said:The Wilderness Trail and the suspension bridge are in Zone D, which the Forest Plan describes as the most heavily used and most highly developed trails and areas within the WMNF Wilderness. It goes on to state that bridges may exist for public safety or resource protection.
And it is this very mismanagement of the wilderness that has caused the present destruction of the vegetation and soils on Owls Head. If they used their heads for a moment, and encouraged the use of one trail / herdpath to access the summit of the peak, a lot of time and wasted resources could be applied elsewhere. From what I hear, the endless pissing match has lead to the destruction of trees on another portion of the mountain as the result of the construction of a rogue trail to the summit. The forest service should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen by being so steadfast in their resolve to disguise a well trodden route up a mountain.But, it seems that there has been an attitudinal change of view by the USFS the past few years, which led to the destruction of the wonderful cairn on top of West Bond, not to mention the ridiculous waste of resources in attempting to remove the side trail to Owls Head.
which led to the destruction of the wonderful cairn on top of West Bond
If you agree with me, please let it be known here. Thanks to those that have already done so.
I sent a congratulatory message to District Ranger Fuller a few days ago. Reading these inflammatory ad hominem comments only reinforces my satisfaction in having done so.
If you agree with me, please let it be known here. Thanks to those that have already done so.
... I don't think it's right to call the agency people involved stupid. They are doing as they're directed by politics from above.
TCD
I'd be curious how many people provided a formal opinion to USFS.
I sent a congratulatory message to District Ranger Fuller a few days ago. Reading these inflammatory ad hominem comments only reinforces my satisfaction in having done so. If you agree with me, please let it be known here. Thanks to those that have already done so.
That depends on whether they are there for Wilderness flavor or because the want a nearly level 11-mile loop hike away from roads which as far as I can tell exists nowhere else on the Forest. [Here's your challenge - name one.] (Their list of alternates is laughable and indicates the preparers don't hike very often as they are mostly narrow and rocky with steep sections.I also don't understand why people that can get to that location can't simply ford the river.
The Wilderness guidelines were changed in the last Forest PlanBut, it seems that there has been an attitudinal change of view by the USFS the past few years, which led to the destruction of the wonderful cairn on top of West Bond, not to mention the ridiculous waste of resources in attempting to remove the side trail to Owls Head.
I think 3 of the quotes are from a single letter I wrote.There are many quoted in the appendix of the decision document, and an unscientific scan of them shows at least a simple majority in favor of keeping the bridge.
The FS did a good job of making a difficult decision. Remember that the bridge had become unsafe, so doing nothing was not an option. They had to choose between removal and repair, each with it's own drawbacks.
For the detractors, I would ask: How many government agencies actually ask for your opinion about a project, and then respond to it directly in their decision? Even when we don't like the decision, we should be grateful for this level of participation in an administrative process. Would we rather that the FS made these decisions with no public input?
Enter your email address to join: