Peter Miller said:
Nearly all trails in the Whites are severely eroded. We take the rocks and roots for granted, but the terrain wasn't this way when Edmands and his cohorts did the pioneer trail building in the Presidentials. (cut, paste and rearrange a bit....)Treadways need to be refilled and hardened, trails need to be better engineered for water runoff control, and some trails need to be completely rerouted - better routes exist, and putting severely eroded trails to bed allows nature to eventually heal itself.
This is an interesting assertion that, in my mind, raises an interesting question about land management.
Q: Is it better to distribute impact or is it better to localize impact?
Clearly the answers depend on the frequency of use and the land types, so no hard and fast rules that apply in all conditions can be found. Still, I think this has bearing here.
Given the amount of traffic in the Whites and the reasonable assumption that traffic will continue to creep upwards, I think localization of impact is the on sensible approach, both in terms of trail routing and campsite locations. 2 quick examples....
1) I would rather see one totally hammered, root and rock infested trench called a trail (think Valley Way or Lowe's Path) than to see these trails rerouted. Given the amount of damage already done, I don't see these trails recovering anytime in my children's lifetime.
2) I've never understood the arguement for instituting RUAs in the Whites with respect to campsites. In particular, I don't see the wisdom of covering up common-use campsites just off trail often found just below treeline. I would rather a single totally hammered campsite that is commonly used than see the general degradation that comes when too many people thrash about in the boreal forest trying to get far enough off trail to be "legal".
Peter Miller said:
The White's trails are long overdue for repair. Back when parking passes were instituted, I thought the money was going to be used toward this end.
Naw. I don't think anybody really believed that. As is often the case with such fees (parking meters, bus and train fares, highway tolls), the fee programs are often revenue neutral or just barely profitable. Remember, you need to spend a significant amount of money to collect and enforce the fees.
The goal of the fee program was to get people used to paying fees. This way they could, in the words of one USFS top dog, make the USFS brand like the Disney or McDonalds of outdoor recreation. This effort was backed big time by a) motorized recreational groups who saw an opportunity to get increased access for their constinuents (snowmobiles, ATVs) who are already used to paying $$s for licenses and fees and b) industrial camping companies like KOA, SAMs who saw a chance of acquiring the management rights for USFS campgrounds.
In terms of budget while the fee program was pitched as providing funds for trails and such, any revenues they got or will get are only just replacing what was previously cut. In fact, many have argued that Gingrich and company intentionally slashed USFS funding to create a huge, percieved need for the fees. If any of the fee demo money has made it into USFS coffers (unclear), those revenues would only replace what as previously taken away.
