Wilderness Thoughts

[MichaelJ]

Fires are already forbidden in the Great Gulf Wilderness. Of course, one still sees evidence of them.

Interestingly enough, in looking that up in the 2010 Backcountry Camping Rules, it appears that the 200' off-trail camping regulation is only listed as applying to the Dry River, Pemi, and Great Gulf Wilderness areas. In particular, you explicitly only have to be 200' off-trail for the first mile south of the Wild River Trail from the campground.

PS - the regulations against geocaching and letterboxing are included in this pamphlet.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Er, I think they used steam engines to drive the trains, not draft animals.

Not to get too far off-thread, but - am quite sure they used draft animals on the skidder roads to bring the logs down to the valleys where the trains were located.

Some loggers use a similar technique today, particularly with horses, but instead of a train, the logs are skidded to a yard to be picked up by truck. Those who know how to handle a horse say they they can make as much money using a horse. Granted, they can't skid as many logs, but maintaining a horse is far less than skidder payments and maintenance. And, a horse doesn't tear up the landscape as much as a skidder.

 

[Stan]

Some of the differences in vegetation on those old logging roads is probably due to horse, mule and oxen manure. Keep in mind, that at least in the Whites which was logged-over on more than one occasion, that draft animals trudged up and down those road hauling logs. Under those conditions, they're prodigious poopers, and that fertilizer changes the soil chemistry in the immediate area, so different plants and trees might grow, and at different rates, than in other areas away from the roads.

What a lot of bullshit ... the post? no, that makes some sense, the quantity ...

IMNSHO it is likely a combination of factors including two more:

1) These old rail lines still get foot traffic and, cumulatively, that keeps some vegetation under control ... like herd paths.

2) If those engines pulling the logs were anything like Old Peppersass then they did leach some oils and coal dust into the soil, already weakened as described by peakbagger, having the same effect as herbicides.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Were the ties treated with creosote? If so, I think that poisons the soil.

 

[TEO]

Not to get too far off-thread, but - am quite sure they used draft animals on the skidder roads to bring the logs down to the valleys where the trains were located.

Indeed, they did. I second TDawg's recommendation of "J.E. Henry's Logging Railroads: The History of the East Branch & Lincoln and the Zealand Valley Railroads" by Bill Gove.

 

[FARMER]

I would think that the main reason that the abandoned railroad grades, roads and camps lack any substantial regrowth is due to extreme soil compaction from logging activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_compaction

and for the more scholarly folks http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...xqOgyw4Y0kldHh_1qQNDyvzYk#v=onepage&q&f=false

Just thinking back to my days as a Forestry major at UNH although the memories are a bit fuzzy

 

[Mike P.]

Were the ties treated with creosote? If so, I think that poisons the soil.

It is & is no longer used on railroad or landscaping ties.

It's likely a combination of many of these things, manure, soil compaction, invasive materials like chemicals, manure (from other non forest animals)

 

[ChrisB]

Hey,

If you want to learn about how logs were harvested from New England woodlands and mountains, read, "Tall Trees Tough Men."

It is an amazing history of logging and the folks and animals (mostly horses) that worked the woods.

Some of the techniques used to get logs down the hill were amazing, and certainly not for the faint of heart. More than one teamster and his horses lost their lives being "sluiced" on an icy-covered downhill stretch of haul road by 20 tons of logs on a sled.

And can you imagine driving logs by water way from Pittsburg NH to Hartford CT?
Crazy, but they did it regularly.

A great read!

cb

 

[The Hikers]

I would think that the main reason that the abandoned railroad grades, roads and camps lack any substantial regrowth is due to extreme soil compaction from logging activities.

QUOTE]

I agree. many old woods roads are still visible everywhere

free from the stigma of oil droppings or other chemical help.

 

[Billy]

...OK last point: The bridge removal projects are supposed to be partly to bring the wilderness to its wild state yes? So why then are all of the bridge parts still littered all over the trail? The wood is stacked up and covered in lovely green tarps and the cable is lying stretched out over 100 yards of trail. Seems to me if you are trying to return to wilderness you practice LNT for your bridge removal. This one doesn't bother me so much, but does seem a little hypocritical.

This is a textbook case of someone (or a group of people) having authority but no responsibility/accountability. People with real jobs can't behave like this. Imagine people in the real working world doing this kind of half-assed job...how long would they last? The question answers itself. So they remove a perfectly good bridge and then leave piles of crap in the forest...everyone who is surprised by this say "aye". (insert sound of crickets here)

 

[psmart]

This is a textbook case of someone (or a group of people) having authority but no responsibility/accountability. So they remove a perfectly good bridge and then leave piles of crap in the forest..)

I'm sure it will get cleaned up - just not as quickly as many of us would like. And the USFS is certainly responsible and accountable for the cleanup. Just because it's taking a while doesn't let them off the hook.

Also, to correct the record, this was not a "perfectly good bridge". According to the scoping, the "wood components of the bridge, with the exception of the towers, have deteriorated and need to be repaired or the bridge should be closed". Certainly, the removal decision was controversial, but the action was prompted by a real safety concern.

See the decision memo and previous threads for details.
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/whi...sments/pemi_wilderness_bridge/pemi_bridge.htm
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=29572

 

[Stan]

This is a textbook case of someone (or a group of people) having authority but no responsibility/accountability. People with real jobs can't behave like this. Imagine people in the real working world doing this kind of half-assed job...how long would they last? The question answers itself. So they remove a perfectly good bridge and then leave piles of crap in the forest...everyone who is surprised by this say "aye". (insert sound of crickets here)

Public projects often justifiably deserve criticism but I accept the notion that it will be easier and less damaging environmentally to remove the debris in winter. That is not an unusual practice in cold climates and remote locations.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I think the objection (beyond the object to the project in the first place) is to the

A) Swiftness with which the bridge was torn down
B) Apparent lack of swiftness with which the materials were removed, i.e., they had last winter to move it out.

Tim

 

[psmart]

I think the objection (beyond the object to the project in the first place) is to the
A) Swiftness with which the bridge was torn down
B) Apparent lack of swiftness with which the materials were removed, i.e., they had last winter to move it out.

Tim

Understood. Not to defend the speed of the dismantling, or the delay in removing the debris, but remember that the dismantling was done by local USFS employees who were immediately available, while the removal has to be done by a contractor with special capabilities (horses or whatever means is ultimately decided.) This means it has to go through purchasing, contracting, and whatever else before it actually happens.

 

[Quietman]

While I understand the wilderness concept and the rules involved, why don't they remove it by the cheapest easiest way possible? Having a helicopter or other motorized equipment remove it in a day or two vs. waiting year(s) and potentially paying more to have animals haul it out?

The decision memo states: Though there are trade-offs between extended pack stock trips on the trail and a helicopter to sling load materials to and from the site, pack stock are compatible with wilderness values and character, while helicopters are not.

Losing one or two days of "wilderness character" vs. paying more and have to look at the remains longer?

This makes me wonder, if there was a life threatening injury inside the wilderess boundary, let's say on Bondcliff, would policy require that the injured person be carried to wilderness boundary before being mechanically transported (helicopter) to maintain the wilderness character? I certainly hope not, but I could not find any exceptions in the wilderness policy regarding injuries.

 

[cushetunk]

The decision memo states: Though there are trade-offs between extended pack stock trips on the trail and a helicopter to sling load materials to and from the site, pack stock are compatible with wilderness values and character, while helicopters are not.

Losing one or two days of "wilderness character" vs. paying more and have to look at the remains longer?

Personally, I am happy that we have a Forest Service that is even willing to consider the concept of "wilderness character". Considering that peakbaggers and other hikers are a small fraction of the USFS constituency (i.e. all of the USA), recreationalists might want to reflect that at present, the grass is pretty darn green on our side of the fence.

 

[psmart]

why don't they remove it by the cheapest easiest way possible? Having a helicopter or other motorized equipment remove it in a day or two vs. waiting year(s) and potentially paying more to have animals haul it out?

USFS guidelines require a "minimum tool" approach that has the least impact on Wilderness character, even if it is more expensive. In some cases (such as the repair of the Dry River bridge) using a helicopter was considered to have the lowest impact, precisely because of the short duration and minimum ground disturbance. In the end they may make the same decision for the Pemi.

This makes me wonder, if there was a life threatening injury inside the wilderess boundary, let's say on Bondcliff, would policy require that the injured person be carried to wilderness boundary before being mechanically transported (helicopter) to maintain the wilderness character? I certainly hope not, but I could not find any exceptions in the wilderness policy regarding injuries.

The USFS will try to encourage a carry-out where feasible, but the FS has the latitude to use motorized equipment for emergency purposes when there is no viable alternative. I'm paraphrasing from memory - the Forest Plan has the exact wording.

 

[McRat]

Can't say this doesn't add to the perception that the main impetus for removing the bridge was to do so before it achieved the arbitrary historical status within the arbitrary wilderness designation (like the decrepit remains of the old railroad bridge a short distance away from it).

Anyone from the U.S.F.S. who disagrees with this is welcome to pm their opinion during the authorized 'comments period' which ends in two weeks... at which time your opinions will be read, consolidated into a report, and then promptly ignored.

 

[Billy]

Question: what was the date of completing the dismantling of the bridge? (not a trick question...I googled it and couldn't find the exact date)

 

[psmart]

Can't say this doesn't add to the perception that the main impetus for removing the bridge was to do so before it achieved the arbitrary historical status:

There seems to be a common myth that age alone conveys historic status. This is not true. Although the age of a structure may dictate an evaluation of historical value, age alone does not automatically convey historical status or protection. In any case, the USFS, in consultation with SHPO, conducted an evaluation of the bridge's historic value as pat of the decision process, so the outcome would have been the same at 49 years of age or 51. There are plenty of instances of structures much older than 50 years being removed from the WMNF.

From the decision memo:

6.1 This structure is being removed because it is unsafe for use and it does not conform to management direction in the Wilderness Act. The age of the bridge was considered though it was not a determining factor in the timeliness of the proposal. The Forest Archeologist was consulted and a cultural reconnaissance report was completed and submitted to the NH State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO). SHPO plays a critical role carrying out many responsibilities in historic preservation. Surveying, evaluating and nominating significant historic buildings, sites, structures, districts and objects to the National Register is one such key activity. A report describing our proposal was sent to SHPO and concurrence was given with the project proposal.