Oh the wildness of the Whites without Huts...

[Tim Horn]

Side note: One thing you can be sure of, it is a good idea to filter your water from Guyot spring. While I think most folks who are in overflow do tramp down to the site to poop and get water(Why else stay at a crowded area?) the possibility is high that someone is doing their morning thing up-stream

 

[Double Bow]

I've been trying to keep my yap shut on this thread but I can't anymore. I think that people are blowing the state of the trails way out of proportion. I'm up in the Whites just about every weekend and so I think I have a decent idea of what the current status is. They are, IMHO, far from "trashed".

I occasionally see TP on or just off the trail. This is true. I also see the occasional fire ring or illicite campsite. However, I don't see much in the way of trash. I also don't see a heavy impact from backpackers or dayhikers, aside from the wear on the trail itself. Sure, I like solitude sometimes but I know where and when to get it. I don't grudge other people for wanting to do the same thing I'm doing, even if they are wearing cotton!

To take away the huts (even just Galehead) which make the mountains safer and more accessible to those who are less experienced is incredibly elitist. It doesn't matter where you are talking about. If it's in the WMNF, everyone has a right to be there, it doesn't matter if you hike one a week of one a year. I think we are a far cry from needing a permit system for dayhiking but, perhaps one ought to be implemented to Guyot, if it is as bad as people are saying.

FWIW though, I was there 4th of July weekend last year and the overflow only had a handful of tents in it and I saw people come down from there to use the privy. Apparently, not everyone who stays there is a poop-flinging primate! They just smell that way!!

Smile, it ain't that bad out there!

 

[TCD]

Trace.......Trashed. There's a subjective aesthetic spectrum here.

Virgin old growth forest, with no herd paths, no aircraft overflights, no city light, and no acid rain, has "No Trace." There's not much of that in the Northeast.

The Interstate through Franconia Notch represents perhaps a worst case "Trace." There's a lot of that in the Northeast, but we certainly would not want all of it removed.

In between, all trails, signs, paths, huts, privies, camping areas, climbing bolts, etc., represent a trace. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion on whether a particular "Trace" means that the area is "Trashed."

Remember that even with the best practices, it is almost impossible to truly leave no trace of your visit, and we all enjoy our recreation.

Balance.

TCD

 

[mtnpa]

yep - I also see the same theme rearing its head - too many people - but let me in.

Restrict the access, as long as I can get in. Those folks are wearing sneakers, they don't belong here.....

Th huts should be remodeled and the trail system should be redesigned to be more in line with my hiking style

 

[Rik]

Th huts should be remodeled and the trail system should be redesigned to be more in line with my hiking style

Wrong. It should be more in line with MY hiking style.

 

[forestgnome]

From what activity does the greatest environmental damage to a protected wilderness area derive? Camping.

This sounds like a valid point. I've only been on Mt. Guyot a few times and I've never seen this overflow area. Is it visible from the trail? If there's a tent city situation along the trail, then I'd say it should be eliminated. Most legal camping areas are purposely not visible from the trail.

Environmental impact from hiking seems trivial in WMNF. A trail is a thin ribbon of land that has been well worn. The lack of vegetation is what defines it. Heavy traffic on a trail can cause erosion in certain places, but our excellent trailcrews handle this very well. No problems with hiking, other than the trash that some leave in their wake. We can all help by picking up that wrapper or burying that tp wad, instead of hiking past it. Forget about your trail time. Leave it nicer than you found it.

Sure, the Bonds have more hikers on a nice summer day than in years past, but so what? I've had the ridge to myself many times.

Happy Trails

 

[Lizzy]

my 2 cents......

I understand that a lot of people love hiking and love the mountains and I am cool with that. It's not sharing the summits with a lot of others that bothers me. Hey, that's what we came for, right. If I can't appreciate someone else's right to a summit view, then what right do I have to appreciate it myself. That would be pretty insane. That being said, what is tiresome to me sometimes is the sharing the hike itself up the mountain with a group of loud people, who no matter how hard you try, seem to always be either right behind or right in front of you. You know, the whole "leapfrog" effect. I know it is a probably a character flaw on my part to feel this way and not anything that others are actually doing wrong. But it is what it is and I can't always help the way I feel. What does any of this have to with being pro or anti-huts or wilderness you might wonder, well, I've come up with a pretty basic solution that works for me. If I know am I going to really popular spots, I try to go on weekdays. I save the more remote places for weekends. And for camping trips, I always try to go to places that I hope no one else will be. I enjoy camping in relative solitude, meaning only with the group of friends I hiked in with. That means I have never once used a hut or tent platform. The one shelter I ever stayed at, we had to ourselves.

So know what makes you happy, use some common sense, and you should get the experience you are hoping for.

 

[Periwinkle]

...I've never seen this overflow area. Is it visible from the trail? If there's a tent city situation along the trail, then I'd say it should be eliminated. Most legal camping areas are purposely not visible from the trail.

The overflow isn't really visible unless it's in use or you're looking for it. It's just a few beaten down areas off the trail. I've assumed that the AMC just took over the best of a bad lot of illegal campsites and began monitoring them and using them as overflow. What else would could they do with all the people they turn away when the area is full? Those people are gonna go somewhere. Might as well put them somewhere that's already been impacted that's close enough to monitor.

Which brings me to what's come to mind reading thru all the posts.

Picture a pristine Capital-W Wilderness Whites -- no tent platforms, no shelters, no huts. And no attendant caretakers. The same landscape exists, with key water sources at the springs and lakes, i.e., Lonesome, Eagle, Lakes of the Clouds, Liberty Spring, Guyot's spring, etc., etc. Where would backpackers camp? At the water sources. And what would these places look like without the constant attention they currently receive? Festering sores. That's what.

We can all profess to LNT 'til we're blue in the face, but I think the majority of people (oh, let's say, just for grins, all all of those sneaker-footed newbies that otherwise would be snug in the previously existing hut? ) would toss their tents right beside the water source -- "Oh look, Joey, what a pretty view. Just like the cover of the L.L. Bean catalog! Let's put our tent right here." Then add the usual de-forestation, fire ring, food scraps, trash, and toilet issues.

All of the currently used sites would be completely overused and abused. That's what unregulated areas look like. The most recent one I encountered was that exact kind of decimated horror show. A virtual scab. I'd hate to seen this happen all over the Whites if the AMC, RMC, USFS, etc. weren't regulating use and more so, stopping abuse.

For as much as we might all have our own personal pet peeves (and trust, me, as much as I'm playing devils advocate here, I've got my own) huts and campsites serve a valuable purpose in ensuring that constant attention is given to areas that would otherwise be trashed in short order.

 

[timmus]

Huts and shelters are very accessible. What if you make them hard to reach?

Nobody mentioned ‘’less parking spaces’’ in the previous posts (unless I missed it). And what about putting an end to the shuttle service? Maybe close few trails up Madison and Adams (never been there, but that area look like a spaghetti plate on the map).


I’m new to NH hiking, so I am going to ask: How come the WMNF have so many trails, and who built them?

 

[sardog1]

I’m new to NH hiking, so I am going to ask: How come the WMNF have so many trails, and who built them?

The short answer: 80 (yep, eighty) million people live within a day's drive. To meet the demand for hiking trails in the WMNF, the US Forest Service, the Appalachian Mountain Club, the Randolph Mountain Club, the Wonalancet Out Door Club, the Chocorua Mountain Club, and some others that I cannot recall, have built and maintained the trails.

The long answer can be found in Guy and Laura Waterman's excellent Forest and Crag -- A History of Hiking, Trail Blazing and Adventure in the Northeast Mountains.

 

[David Metsky]

I’m new to NH hiking, so I am going to ask: How come the WMNF have so many trails, and who built them?

Because people have been hiking and building trails here for nearly 200 years. Many 100's of miles were built long before the concept of National Forests existed. It's been a major vacation destination for 150 years and hiking (and mountaintop hotels) have been part of the draw.

Forest and Crag by Guy and Laura Waterman details the rise (and fall) of the hiking trails networks in the Whites, Daks, and Maine.

-dave-

 

[Jeff-B]

The overflow isn't really visible unless it's in use or you're looking for it. It's just a few beaten down areas off the trail. I've assumed that the AMC just took over the best of a bad lot of illegal campsites and began monitoring them and using them as overflow.
(snip)

We can all profess to LNT 'til we're blue in the face, but I think the majority of people (snip) would toss their tents right beside the water source --
(snip) Then add the usual de-forestation, fire ring, food scraps, trash, and toilet issues.

All of the currently used sites would be completely overused and abused. That's what unregulated areas look like. The most recent one I encountered was that exact kind of decimated horror show. A virtual scab. I'd hate to seen this happen all over the Whites if the AMC, RMC, USFS, etc. weren't regulating use and more so, stopping abuse.

Agreed!
Camp 16 in the Pemi looked EXACTLY like that 20 years ago, which was why it had been shut down. Most areas in the Pemi are only "regulated" by the need to rotate the sites to new locations.
Guyot site may seem regulated by being in the watchfull eyes of the caretaker, however it's far from actually being managed in a proper manner compared to other camps.
Overflow = overcrowded= overuse
The only way to regulate that spot would be through permiting the exisitng designated platforms, where you would obtain permit BEFORE setting out and avoiding a situation of crowding.

I understand that things really have not gone beyond a workable state at this time. However, there have been so many changes and increased overnight use in the Pemi region which I have seen in 30 years, it just makes me want to voice some observations, as long as this subject came up.

 

[miehoff]

To Avoid a Hut or to Not Avoid a Hut

There are so many trail and peaks that don't even come close to a hut, why even bother getting bothered? I have passed a hut only a fraction of the times that I have been in the woods, and as stated in the posts above, many times I have appreciated the water source or the place to set my stuff down and chill. When I was in the High Peaks a few weeks ago, I went out of my way to hang at the Loj and eat my dinner (freeze dried, but still great). I wonder how many lives have been saved because the huts existed. Experienced hikers that had some bad luck. I hope that a hut is nearby if I ever get in trouble. I just don't see the point in even considering the possibility that they add traffic or that they contribute to any issue that the mountains already have. Hike in the Sandwich Range, Evans Notch or the Pilot Range and you will be fine. Hell, move to Alaska if you want solitude. The east coast is a bad choice if you want to get away from it all.

 

[dave.m]

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.

Couple of comments...

1) Removing shelters does not limit access. It may reduce the numbers or change who will go there, but it does not stop people. Permits stop people (at the penalty of fines).

2) All improvements (or there removal) encourage or discourage use. Huts, tent platforms, trails and maps all fall on a continuum of artificial aids. Are you willing to live with no trails to the Bonds? Should we remove Guyot to reduce traffic?

3) If there were a permit system, you could triple the size of Galehead's occupancy and still see no increase in the number of visits to the Pemi.

 

[dave.m]

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?

I'm not sure this is true.

Trails are a massive undertaking and very significant impact on the landscape. Certainly a clear mark of human use.

Please note, I'm not advocating the removal of trails. Quite the contrary. Maintained trails (correctly and thankfully) concentrate impact and minimize erosion. Note the before/after pictures of the Franconia Ridge after the introduction of scree borders on the trails. Also note the multi-laned trenches along the PCT in the Sierras resulting from folks straying off of the trail center.

It seems to me that the only meaningful measure is the number of visits. And the only way to limit impact is to limit the number of visits.

 

[dave.m]

Picture a pristine Capital-W Wilderness Whites -- no tent platforms, no shelters, no huts. And no attendant caretakers. The same landscape exists, with key water sources at the springs and lakes, i.e., Lonesome, Eagle, Lakes of the Clouds, Liberty Spring, Guyot's spring, etc., etc. Where would backpackers camp? At the water sources. And what would these places look like without the constant attention they currently receive? Festering sores. That's what.

We can all profess to LNT 'til we're blue in the face, but I think the majority of people (oh, let's say, just for grins, all all of those sneaker-footed newbies that otherwise would be snug in the previously existing hut? ) would toss their tents right beside the water source --

Periwinkle,

You've hit the nail on the head.

My biggest beef with the whole LNT movement is the dispersed impact theory that underlays it. I'm sure some folks will argue that it works in the far, trailless reaches of, say, the Wind Rivers or the deep dark Cascades. But it definitely doesn't scale when the size of the area is relatively small and the number of visits goes up.

This is why I don't advocate for dispersed impact and instead, advocate for concentrated impact. This is especially true in the New England woods were even finding a place to lay out a sleeping bag can be tough. I can't tell you the number of times I've pitched my tarp/tent with bushes *INSIDE* the tarp, because I really only had one level place to put my sleeping pad!!

Reuse of logistically feasible camping spots in the Whites is a reality. Much more so than my experiences out west. I would much rather reuse an existing camping spot than to add impact to a new, more pristine spot. I would rather walk on a maintained trail than to add my footsteps to a developing herd path. I would rather use a tent platform than to cause erosion at a common use camp site.

In this way, I disagree with some implementations of the Wilderness Act. I don't so much mind the removal of the Desolation Shelter, but I would much prefer the installation of tent platforms there than to see the Desolation area become pock marked with common use camping spots like we see/saw at Camp 16 or all along in the woods along the bottom sections of the Bondcliff Trail.

Localize and concentrate impact.

 

[TCD]

dave.m,

I think you are exactly right on this part. (This discussion has been mostly about the Whites. The situation is not as challenging in the ADKs, because we are a little further from the population centers, but I'll use ADK examples, because it's the area I know.)

Years ago, I heard a knowledgable person advocate that we should build a big parking lot, and a very hardened trail to Cascade. His theory was that many people visit only to hike one "high peak." Cascade is already popular, being the easiest peak and having great views. His theory was to "give Cascade to the masses" thereby concentrating impact in one area, and relieving others. I think there was something to that idea.

In the ADKS, we have tried to disperse impact by making it inconvenient to go to the popular places, and by (half-heartedly) encouring people to go to less popular places. This has accomplished little. The popular places are popular because they are the coolest places that are easy to get to. People are going to continue to go to these places. All we're accomplishing is annoying the visitors, and weakening overall regulatory compliance by creating silly regs that we can't enforce.

(start of rant)

On a micro scale, the same is true of "trail maintenance." (Y'all knew I was going to go there, didn't you?) A mudy area develops on a trail (for whatever reason...poor routing, lack of drainage, wet season, high use...). In the interest of maintaining a "Wild" aesthetic look, we drag our feet on placing rock steps or boardwalk. Years go by. We say, "folks should walk right through the middle and not widen the trail," and then we pat ourselves on the back that we done something. Reality is that many people will not walk through the middle, but will go around the edges. And the mud area gets wider and wider. Prompt repair with a solid boardwalk would look a lot better.

At one point some years ago, NY State was taking the position that they were going to stop maintaining trail in Wilderness. When a bridge was washed out, that was it. It was gone, and it wasn't going to be replaced. Thankfully, the rabid minority that was headed that way did not prevail, and there is (a little) work being done.

But the bridge over John's Brook at the Interior Outpost is a classic example. That bridge has ben "closed" for at least 4 years. I have inside information (and if somone has better inside info, please correct me - Pete?) that the reason it's taking forever to fix is that two state agencies are in a peeing contest over how the new bridge should look, and whether it's "rustic looking" enough.

Meanwhile, in the real world, hikers are mostly just taking their chances and using the "closed" bridge, or they are bushwhacking numerous herd paths all over both banks of the brook to various crossing points.

I said on another thread that we need to decide if we want trails or not. I happpen to want trails (even though I do a lot of bushwhacking also). If we want trails, then we should maintain them solidly and promptly, andf let the trails do what they are supposed to do: concentrate impact, and allow visitors an enjoyable experience. On Rainier, I was surprise when I saw that a long portion of the trail from Paradise towards Camp Muir is paved. (Yes, it's paved. Blacktop. Like a road.) I was taken aback at this in a Wilderness area. My buddy who was a local educated me about the huge number of visits, due to Seatlle being nearby. He opinted out that there were three options: exclude people; have a deep muddy rut for a trail, or pave it. I had to agree that paving was a reasonable option.

(end of rant)

Sorry about the rant, but I have a hard time with any option that excludes people who want to visit. This belongs to everyone, not just those close enough, or adept enough, or rich enough to be first in line. There's plenty of wild land that rarely sees a visit for those of us that want solitude.

TCD

 

[dvbl]

I don't think I've ever seen so busy a thread where so many people stayed on topic. Group hug.

 

[Jeff-B]

I don't think I've ever seen so busy a thread where so many people stayed on topic. Group hug.

INDEED!

Hey, noticing your avitar makes me realize a good solution to "regulate" backpacking overnights......
I would be in favor of Grizzlies over permits.

But seriously, Yellowstone and Glacier NP are two locations I will avoid the backcountry!

 

[funkyfreddy]

Hey, noticing your avitar makes me realize a good solution to "regulate" backpacking overnights......
I would be in favor of Grizzlies over permits.

Wolves and mountain lions would be the ticket for the NE. They were very numerous on the east coast before being exterminated, and I would imagine their presence (in their former numbers) would discourage quite a few day hikers and campers