My take on wilderness regulations and their recent enforcements

[KMartman]

What strikes me the most here is that if the need arose, the govt would take any land it deemed it "needed" and do what they wanted with it. I.E. Power lines, clear cutting, etc., even if it was once included in a "protected" environment.

Obviously this is an issue with many sides, and the way I look at most of it is that it the land isnt designated "private" then its free to use by anyone who is a citizen of this great country. No should we be building cairns to let EVERYONE know where the "new" trail is? I don't know? I'm all for protecting the environment, but against too much outside over "management".

Now what if a hiker was to take a route they had heard about from a fellow hiker and that route included a trail change at a cairn. If that cairn is removed this person might get lost, and require rescue or worse.

I don't know if I even made any sense there...I wanted to say something meaningful, but I don't think I did...eh...excuse my babbling...

M

 

[TCD]

The Sikes, I love the Finis Mitchell quote! That is exactly right!

David,

I agree that I presented a somewhat stark dichotomy. Of course, in reality, there are people all across the spectrum, from rampant real estate developers and strip miners on one end, all the way to Earth First / Edward Abbey types on the other end, who would happily injure or kill another person in the name of "preservation." And I don't think #2 was totally straw man. I've participated in threads right here bemoaning the fact that one could see an airplane going overhead while in the "wilderness." And in NY, the DEC and the APA periodically make runs at a position of "we will not replace existing trail bridges when they fail," although thankfully they have backed off from this each time.

My goal was to get a discussion going over the "draw the line" question, and I think I succeeded. You are right, each position has to be evaluated on its merits. To validate a position on this, it's necessary to identify up front the purpose of the position. Environmental protection, aesthetic preservation, and historical preservation will all result in different positions as to what should be allowed and what should not be allowed in an area.

Where the inconsistencies appear is when positions are taken to support a particular constituency, and then wrapped and veiled in an "environmental" or "preservationist" argument. A lot of the positions taken in discussions on this subject can be easily seen to be just that. Let's say I have decided that I don't like Hiking, but I do like Mountain Biking (for example). Now I will construct an argument that the trappings associated with one sport are good for the "wilderness," whereas the trappings associated with the other are bad.

Ditto with climbing, skiiing, swimming, kayaking; and on and on. So my point is that arguments have to be evaluated very carefully. Strip out the appeals to emotion and the appeals to authority. Identify the premise; what are we trying to accomplish. Then look at the actual position. Does it make sense?
Often not.

As a climber I am sensitive to this, because climbing is usually that activity most impacted by new land management regulations. For example, in large sections of the Adirondacks, bolt anchors have been banned, ostensibly because they represent a "permanent installation." Meanwhile that state is busily constructing new trails, signs, and information kiosks in the same areas (Giant Mtn. Wilderness UMP, bolts banned, but proposed new state trail to Iron Mountain). Now the bolt anchors are tiny, usually camoflaged, specks on a non-erodable cliff, which will probably not be noticed by anyone but the climbers on that route, whereas the trails are miles long cuts in the forest floor, that require destroying vegetation, and encourage erosion. This is a classic example of a decision made in advance, and then a preservationist rationale constructed to wrap around it.

Thanks for the discussion!

TCD

 

[Neil]

I don't think there is a "line" that can applied in a practical sense, not today.
Again, speaking from an ADK perspective (state vs. federal land), it seems that the DEC has taken a practical stance in the High Peaks Wlderness Unit. It looks to me like most pre-existing structures were grandfathered in with the codification of the Unit Management Plan (with the notable exception of cannisters on peaks with herd trails). This creates a sort of simili-wilderness in the high use sections but a lot of people (some would say too many) get to enjoy the mountains in a non-mechanized way. And, it is still possible for someone seeking more of a wilderness experience to do so. One just has to look at a map. Additionally, there are nearby wilderness units (Sentinel, Jay ) where there is very little evidence of the imprint of man. So we have side by side wilderness units with very different wilderness "feels" to them.

 

[David Metsky]

Can I just say how nice it is to engage in a discussion about important issues that people are clearly passionate about, without things digressing into a shouting match? This is one of those threads that make me appreciate this place.

Eastern Wilderness is a problematic concept, I agree. Out west, where there are areas that truely have not seen the hand of man, or have had very minimal impact, it's much easier to draw the lines. Still, you will get issues like climbing bolts which can be looked at from the safety or real-world impact standpoint and wonder why decisions were made.

I think there can be a good that results from "reclaiming" some land in the East as Wilderness, helping it revert to a state that if not exactly "primitive", has fewer of the comforts of home. As it happens, my recreation interests are mainly hiking and backcountry skiing, neither activity is generally impacted by Wilderness rules and regs. I personally have no problem with removed bridges, shelters, and structures, but I admit I sometimes scratch my head at the cairns and signs.

Every land use plan in the WMNF has a public comment period. I don't think the community at large really takes advantage of that. Based on the numbers listed in the last review, a small group can have a large impact in the process.

-dave-

 

[Puck]

This has been a great thread.
Neil, you said that you have followed the concept of "wilderness." Obviously this concept has evolved over time. I have done some reading, just started Nash's book. My question is; what would be the cannon literature on this topic? I would suspect the idea could be traced through Jonathan Edwards, Hawthorn and then the Transendentalists. (I have left Goethe out) What do you think the central literature is?

 

[Neil]

Puck, don't get me wrong, I'm no scholar.
I havn't read Nash yet but "Wilderness and the American Mind" it's on my soon-to-be-read list. Two books that got me going concern the Adirondacks:
Forever Wild by Philip Terrie looks at the cultural history of wilderness in the Adk's. He refers to Nash extensively in the first part of his book.
This little book is very thought provoking and outlines the evolution of the concept of wilderness. He always cuts to the chase and I can't recommend it highly enough.

Contested Terrain by the same author is not focussed on the wilderness as much as FW yet wilderness preservation versus exploitation underlies the entire book.

McMartin's latest (I think),"Perspectives on the Adirondacks" while not a treatise on wilderness per se details the battles within the park (Locals vs. environmentalists) that have gone on in the past 35 years. One gets an appreciation of the different mentalities regarding the wilderness.

Over the century attitudes have evovled greatly. Wilderness used to be seen a sinister, nonproductive and wasteful thing. People once actually believed the wilderness would cause insanity if you wandered into it.

(Hmmm, based on some of the posts on the forum maybe there is some merit to that )

 

[Periwinkle]

Okay, here’s the real lowdown, from my anonymous (since this is a public forum and I wasn’t asking him to make a public statement) official source.

The forest service is currently working in the Pemi area, rectifying long neglected violations of regulations. This includes removing the cairns, blazes, and signs on Owl’s Head and the Owl’s Head Path (“OHP”). However, they are not, and would not, pile brush or otherwise block access to the OHP, which, as noted here, would simply create more herd paths.

As previously pointed out in this and other threads, the OHP is not an official trail. Therefore, the public is not allowed to maintain it. A sign to this effect will be posted including language that states that while public use is welcome, the standards prohibit signing, cairn building, blazing, brushing, removal of blowdowns or otherwise maintaining the “user created” path which is not an official part of the trail system.

Apparently, the whole OHP issue is more about adhering to Federal regulations that apply to the entire WMNF (e.g, 36 CFR 261.10a…. “constructing, placing, or maintaining any kind of road, trail . . . on National Forest System land or facilities without a special-use authorization, contract, or approved operating plan” is prohibited.) than Wilderness regulations, though the enforcement of those regulations do come into play -- he did mention that Wilderness destinations are not marked by signs, which would include the former summit sign. This should certainly make the prior discussions about the true summit of Owl’s Head even more interesting. What a confused history!

As for cairns in general, large summit cairns are discouraged. Cairns are left for safety above treeline as route markers, but not encouraged below treeline. So, this explains my own personal nag (ranted again recently on the West Bond thread), the summit cairn on Whiteface, which is definitely below treeline and would add nothing at all as a navigational aid.

 

[Zimmer]

So they're going to put up a sign to explain why they removed the signs? And this will make it more wilderness-y?

Edited to remove comment that was covered in another thread. I can't keep up with them all! They need their own forum.

 

[Neil]

Wow! A sign to state you can't make signs.
This is a progressive Government operation after all.
What a country!

Brownie

That IS pretty funny. Imagine coming upon a sign in the backcounrty that says, "NO SIGNS!"

 

[Pete_Hickey]

When worded like that it may sound funny, but if the sign is at the entrance to the wilderness area.

"You are ENTERING a wilderness area, wherte man is a visitor. In order to maintain the wilderness character, there are no......"

Doesn'T this sound much less absurd?

 

[RoySwkr]

I would like to see a new category of land designation which is not as strict as Wilderness; I like the idea of areas with designated protection, but some of what's Wilderness in WMNF is being pushed too far, both in extent (acreage) and effect, IMHO.

In fact, the Forest Plan provides for 10+/- different zones which allow different sorts of activities, such as logging, ski areas, roaded recreation, etc. There is a category for non-motorized recreation which doesn't allow logging or other mechanized use which is where many of the heavily-used trails are placed. In my opinion, much of the so-called Wilderness really belongs in this zone, but many people believe that only Wilderness provides guaranteed long-term protection and many activitist groups tally their success by acres of Wilderness while there is no group that lobbies for more MA 6.3 or whatever it is called this cycle.

A few years ago I visited Big Bend National Park which consisted of overgrazed land acquired by the Park Service half a century ago when they removed most of the structures. More recently, they have come to realize that while the cows had to go, they needlessly bulldozed the history of an era. It would not hurt the wildlife to have left a few ranch houses any more than it would hurt the Pemi to have a few summit cairns.

While the Park Service has been juggling historic preservation with natural succession for years, the Forest Service is still in "Tear it down" mode. A few years ago, the Forest Service was soliciting comments on the removal of the old trestle near the Bondcliff Trail and my response was, "If you do, your grandchildren will hate you." It would not affect the wildlife to have a large cairn on Sandwich and wouldn't it be neat for kids in 100 years to hear about the kids who tried to make it a 4000-footer?

 

[jmegillon149]

Okay, here’s the real lowdown, from my anonymous (since this is a public forum and I wasn’t asking him to make a public statement) official source.

The forest service is currently working in the Pemi area, rectifying long neglected violations of regulations. This includes removing the cairns, blazes, and signs on Owl’s Head and the Owl’s Head Path (“OHP”). However, they are not, and would not, pile brush or otherwise block access to the OHP, which, as noted here, would simply create more herd paths. QUOTE]


Interesting, figured the recent events were along these lines, of course as I said before, it seems that taking stuff down is a different thing than putting things up.

Another poster suggested spending more time doing work on blowdowns, washouts, etc., I agree with this, but I guess they've got to do what they've got to do.

Well, I guess its out of our hands, but at least I have gotten some perspective, thanks everyone for responding to my thread. Now the only issue is: how will the weather hold up/force alterations of my pemi trip this weekend?

 

[David Metsky]

Well, I guess its out of our hands, but at least I have gotten some perspective, thanks everyone for responding to my thread.

The public comment process is an important part of any forest plan. Individuals and grass roots organizations can have a big impact. Make your voice heard.

-dave-

 

[Jasonst]

Wow, I am kind of late to this discussion, but moves like this totally get me frosted. This kind of action will ultimately lead to no one being able to enter the "wilderness areas" Period, end of story. This is called incrementalism (much like the tolls on the Mass pike were coming down after the road was paid for - yeah, it was paid for 10 years ago...) , and these types of decisions will ruin hiking for everyone. Someone will decide somewhere that stepping on a fern is bad for the environment, therefore no hiking will be allowed. Yes, this is extreme, but it will happen. Those on the fringe will not be happy until noone is hiking in the woods. I don't understand it.

Also, are they removing cairns above treeline? If so, that's pretty dangerous for foggy / wintertime travel. Imagine a storm coming up and you can't see how to get down - oops, I just descended into the great gulf... Not a place to be off trail in the winter.

Removing the Owl's head cairn - that's just plain annoying. Sorry for the rant but I am pretty fired up about this.

J

 

[arghman]

Someone will decide somewhere that stepping on a fern is bad for the environment, therefore no hiking will be allowed. Yes, this is extreme, but it will happen.

I know of at least two places in NH where sections of the AT have been rerouted to protect a rare plant, so to some extent, it has already happened. The "no hiking will be allowed" conclusion is doubtful, though... but here's a thought experiment: at the top of one of the NH4K's (say, Isolation or Eisenhower) an eagle/falcon nests or an extremely rare plant is discovered. Somewhat unlikely, but possible. (I know of at least one summit on the AT where there is a small population of a plant considered rare in that state, which is within a few feet of the true summit, within inches of the trail edge. No action has been taken by WMNF/Park Service to protect this population. Would they? Unclear. I would at least like to see a scree wall.) Trails might be relocated, whether by 5 feet or 500 feet. How much would it bother us as hikers if we were not allowed to set foot on the true summit? (I am assuming the 4000-footer committee would allow nearest possible approaches)

Not to counter your argument much, I definitely disagree with using Wilderness as a reason for cairn removal, or the philosophy that Wilderness designation means we should save the forests from any human use at all, but I do think there are legitimate ecological reasons to prevent intrusions into sensitive areas.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

Wow, I am kind of late to this discussion, but moves like this totally get me frosted. This kind of action will ultimately lead to no one being able to enter the "wilderness areas" Period, end of story.

Should tthere be anywhere on earth where there is SERIOUS protection of wilderness, or should everything be a 'wild park' for recreation? We don't want to protect it if it interferes with what we want to do with it, right? I mean at least we're not drilling for oil

This is called incrementalism

No no... incrementalism is what is destroying wilderness. Technology marches on and is destroying what little bit of wilderness ramains. Some are just trying to protect that little bit. Cell phones, GPS, high-tech gear, natural resource shortages, suburban living,... They're all destroying wilderness (small "W", Dave) little by little. And when it's gone, it doesn't really come back.

Take a bit for oil, take a bit for wood. Have trails and cell phone coverage everywhere, after all, we want to be safe, right? GPS, to make it easy for everyone to reach places they couldn't before, and high-tech clothing to protect them while doing it.

Wilderness is going, bit by bit.

News from Everest climbers used to take weeks to reach us. Now, we have live video and blogs. What happened to the wilderness.

Is what remains worth protecting?

Do you want wilderness, or do you want a wild playground?

If the last mountain on your xxx list had no route except through some rare vegetation, what would you do? Is your list more importatn than some rare plants. After all, you'll only kill a few of them.

Me? I don't know if its even worth protecting what we have. I like to think it is, but it's a loosing battle. Fighting to protect wilderness is only delaying the inevitable. It's going.

"You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone.
They paved paradice and put up a parking lot."

 

[Neil]

Very apt that Joni Mitchel is a Canadian. We have so much (unprotected) wilderness in Canada we wouldn't recognize it if it up and hit us in the face.
Pete's post is really a plea, I hope he's not just another voice in the wilderness.

 

[arghman]

You know, the odd/ironic/funny thing is the areas we're talking about are an extremely small percentage of acreage affected. (Note: I am not discounting the potential importance of such!) Another thought experiment:

Consider four square-shaped 640-acre parcels of land, one mile on a side. The map that you have shows no structures, trails, or roads. All are heavily forested, and from afar, you can see no signs of timber cuts. Each is nondescript and excludes prominent peaks or other "exciting" geographical features. The first is in a Congressionally-designated Wilderness. The 2nd is in the WMNF but not in Wilderness. The 3rd is on private land in Northern New England, but has a conservation easement on it (no subdivision, no structures permitted, timber roads allowed but good forestry practices must be observed, etc.). The 4th is on private land, unrestricted.

You're a hiker and you get put in the middle of each of these. Can you tell the difference?

Somewhere in this square mile, there may or may not be a shelter or small structure, area of impact 30'x30' (0.02 acres). Could you find it? Does its presence or absence affect you? Do you think its presence would hurt the environment? Would its removal help the environment?

If you had a favorite undeveloped square mile, which one of these would you want it to be? If you could change the status of one of these parcels, which one do you think would make the most difference environmentally? to the well-being of our country? economically? If the status of one/some of these parcels makes you uncomfortable, what are the aspects that make it so? (timbering, subdivision, roads, small structures e.g. shelters, large structures e.g. power lines or wind turbines, mineral extraction, legal public access, practical public access e.g. bridges over a deep stream, ATV use, running into lots of other people, ???)

No right answers IMHO, just something to chew on.

 

[Jasonst]

Should there be anywhere on earth where there is SERIOUS protection of wilderness, or should everything be a 'wild park' for recreation? We don't want to protect it if it interferes with what we want to do with it, right? I mean at least we're not drilling for oil

Pete, I respect your plea / opinion and this is such a huge topic. The word "protect" takes all sorts of meanings and can be interpreted anywhere from reasonable to ludicrous. Think about 2 current regulations 1- the 200 ft rule in regards to camping, and 2 - the "no man made structures" reg. If you are concerned about vegetation and "impact" doesn't it make sense to camp in those hardened spots just off the trail rather than trampeling ferns for 200 ft? Then consider #2 - We are removing a pile of rocks that is 7 or 8 miles into the woods. Bear in mind, no one except relatively few hikers go there. What are we accompishing? Are we "saving" the wilderness by removing a very small landmark? I'm puzzled!

BTW, serious protection of wilderness means that NO ONE goes there. Great. Then what do we have besides a warm fuzzy feeling that there is a tract of land that we can't explore and enjoy? I like being able to walk the land and see creation.

 

[TCD]

arghmen,

To your comment earlier about the falcon nest: climbers encounter (and respect) falcon closures every year on many of our most popular cliffs. This year, in the Adirondacks, Poko and the Washbowl cliff were both closed for most of the summer. They are major destinations, and closing them takes out a huge chunk of Adirondack climbing.

For those unfamiliar with climbing, a NH hiking analogy would be if the WMNF closed all trails out of Franconia Notch and the Kanc every year from April to August.

So that's already a reality for climbers.

TCD