WMNF wilderness?

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

arghman

New member
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
1,352
Reaction score
153
Location
Goffstown, NH Avatar: No Once-lers or thneeds
I have mixed feelings about posting this, but here goes:

I'm curious about other people's thoughts on the wilderness question, specifically the proposed alternatives in the WMNF forest plan. Some of these include increased areas of wilderness, notably the Wild River area near the Maine border which is in the "preferred alternative"

1) are you in favor / not in favor / not sure whether more land should be Wilderness (that's Congressionally-designated Wilderness with a capital W)?
2) have you hiked/camped a significant distance off-trail in Wilderness Areas? (I am assuming most people here have hiked on-trail in Wilderness Areas)
3) would the creation of new Wilderness Areas provide you with a more positive hiking/camping experience? less positive? not sure?

I'm also interested in the reasoning... (careful thoughts are valued more than gut reactions) I haven't sent in a formal comment to the WMNF yet, would like to get some perspective from other people first.



my personal answer at present [and this is not intended to try to persuade/anger anyone -- I respect other people's opinions whether or not I agree with them, please give me the same courtesy]
1) I'm not in favor of more designated Wilderness in the WMNF
2) no, I haven't hiked/camped off-trail
3) I'm not sure whether more Wilderness would lead to a more positive hiking/camping experience

I find myself somewhat uneasy about this issue, despite being a proponent of land conservation. I've gone & read the text of the Wilderness Act and am even less certain now. What has me most confused is thinking about the intent of preserving "wilderness character" which is mentioned in the Wilderness Act, and the way it has been implemented in the Wilderness areas, and the way it already exists in non-Wilderness areas.

When I go hiking, the "wilderness character" I look for is:
* no cell phone towers, cafeterias, gift shops, tramways
* no ATVs, cars, snowmobiles, or anything else with an engine
* no visual advertisements or notices or anything with written words (beyond minimal trail signs)
* no audible music, loud voices, cell phone conversations
* no houses, toys, or other signs of modern society
* no vandalism, graffiti, trash, or fires
* solitude (whether by myself or a small quiet group, maybe more than 10. I've hiked more than once behind a loud group of 2 and that was *not* solitude.)

I've encountered lots of places that meet these that are not in Wilderness. I suspect that the more heavily used trails on the Pemigewasset Wilderness get crowded sometimes where they feel very un-wilderness-like. (Haven't been there myself; I have been on Mt. Caribou in Evans Notch with enough people at the summit & on trail that it doesn't offer solitude)

I guess I'm OK with the existing Wilderness Areas. As a practical matter, we have a few large areas which outlaw roads and mechanized transport; timber harvesting is prohibited (is it? or is it just impractical because you have to use an axe or handsaw and drag it out w/o mechanized transport?) as is trail maintenance with mechanized things like chainsaws. Shelters/tentsites get taken down instead of being repaired. Hikes in the WMNF are supposed to be with 10 people or less.

I'm concerned about the reasons for formally declaring more land off limits to forestry. Is it to protect wildlife? Is it to protect the health of the forest? Is it so that our sense of forest aesthetics is not affected? I support responsible logging; out of all my hikes in the WMNF I have never encountered an active logging operation (for trails that go through private land it's a different story) and yet I've noticed the patches of regrowth on various hillsides, but only if I look for them. I think the USFS, at least in NH, does a good job of keeping logging on a scale that doesn't negatively impact the forest's recreational value, and I trust their forestry judgement.

Having said that, I'd like to see a large buffer zone around most (if not all) trails to separate the areas used for recreation from the areas with forestry value. I'd also like to see the sensitive areas near bogs, brooks, and wetlands off limits from forestry, with a decent enough upland buffer for ecological reasons. I'd like to see clearcuts limited in size and in coverage (e.g. <X% of land should be logged at any one time, where X = 0.5% or 1% or some number that could be agreed upon). And there should be hefty penalties when logging companies practice non-responsible forestry. If for some reason we don't trust the Federal government by itself to make good forestry decisions, perhaps the WMNF ought to report to a local forestry advisory committee.

I don't have a problem with mechanized trail maintenance, or maintenance of shelters/tentsites; it seems like it could be limited to a few days a year, publicized well in advance, so that if you don't want to hear loud noises on the trail or see sawdust, you can pick another time.

If the reason for adding more Wilderness is so that people can go anywhere off-trail within thousands of acres and never encounter a road or a logging operation as long as they stay within the Wilderness line, that seems a bit vain for me. We already have 14% (114000 acres) of the WMNF in five Wilderness areas.

I think there should be some Wilderness but a public outcry of "more Wilderness" sounds to me like more of a bandwagon, one that's well-intentioned but not necessarily fully thought out. I am disappointed at AMC's position on this (it makes me uncomfortable that I'm a member) -- they have been spreading the message that "more Wilderness is good, you should ask for more of it" and "if we don't declare more Wilderness, there will be a threat of logging", without going much into details, or whether there is a reasonable other side to the issue.

I'm in favor of increased protection of the aesthetic and environmental quality of our public forests, but the Wilderness label (at least in this case, in the WMNF; not sure if I'd feel different about national forests in places where there are more open spaces like out West) seems too absolute for me.

posting this doesn't make me feel any better. :(
 
arghman said:
Some of these include increased areas of wilderness, notably the Wild River area near the Maine border which is in the "preferred alternative"

1) are you in favor / not in favor / not sure whether more land should be Wilderness (that's Congressionally-designated Wilderness with a capital W)?
2) have you hiked/camped a significant distance off-trail in Wilderness Areas? (I am assuming most people here have hiked on-trail in Wilderness Areas)
3) would the creation of new Wilderness Areas provide you with a more positive hiking/camping experience? less positive? not sure?
In fact, all of the alternatives except 1 "Present Condition" even the "more ATV" one add the Wild River Wilderness. I feel this violates the spirit of the Forest planning process by offering no real choice in this matter.

2) I have done a significant amount of off-trail hiking in Wilderness, but no off trail camping (see for example http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3582
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3185&page=2
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2752

1) & 3) I do not particularly favor more Wilderness designation because it just leads to more bureaucratic rules which give an area less of a wilderness flavor, but it is sort of a given that more will be done in every plan to appease the environmental groups. I would prefer to see a choice of where it is however. Some of the Sandwich Range extensions may be appropriate while the old RR grades in Wild River are ideally suited for long distance mountain bike/snowmobile trails which would be forbidden.
 
1. Not in favor.
2. Yes.
3. Probably not.

Believe it or not, most people would probably classify me as pro-Wilderness. But at this point, I would rather see the existing Wilderness managed more in line with the tenants of Leopold and the Wilderness Act rather than seeing more Wilderness designated. I think most of the proposed additions to the Sandwich Range Wilderness could be better managed as Wilderness than some of the areas currently in the Wilderness (the top of Whiteface immediately comes to mind). How about a trade?
 
I hear you about more rules. That said, in the Whites, I would like to see the Kilkennys and the Baldface-Royce Range/Wild River/Carter-Moriah areas designated as wilderness. The Nash Stream is on my list as possibly third and fourth the area around Success Pond Road for wilderness designation. Why? Cut down on the logging and simply because they really are the wilderness.
 
Now that those riff-raff loggers have built and maintained a nice road to access the Goose-Eye trailhead, lets kick their butts out of there. Now we can have it all to ourselves.

My winter bushwacking motto:

Snowmobile trails rule!!!!
 
1-Yes-within reason
2-Yes,if 1/4mile is significant
3-Possibly
After slogging through the lengthy Revision Plan and trying to understand some of it,and a candid conversation with a Forestry Service ranger,I think I have a better understanding of the situation than I did before. As far as the logging part,it appears that there is a provision to continue logging in an environmentally sound way. Some types of logging,and some areas will be discontinued,but this is more of a result of a weak market for some wood products.
As much as I would like to see wilderness areas protected,I also understand the value of shelters,platforms and designated campsites in some of these areas which receive high use.Personally,I like using the platforms and shelters once in a while,although camping off trail (low impact) is my favorite.
I also understand that snowmobilers are taxpayers too,and they have a right to use the area as well. Snowmobiles have minimal ground impact on established trails,and probably don't pose a significant long term risk to the soil and water quality. Interesting note in the plan proposal is 20 additional miles of snowmobile trails-and 25 miles of foot travel trails,as well as 30 additional campsites in existing facilities.
I think the real long term target in this is fending off the impending possibility of ATV's and OHRV's in the WMNF,particularly in the areas which would be impacted the greatest.
 
Last edited:
I get it! We can kick everybody (except our exalted selves) out of the wilderness. But they all still have to pay for it! What a brilliant fiendish plan!
 
Pig Pen said:
I get it! We can kick everybody (except our exalted selves) out of the wilderness. But they all still have to pay for it! What a brilliant fiendish plan!


Excellent point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:cool:

I would add this though:

(except our self-exalted selves)
 
Last edited:
KayakDan: To clarify, the revised forest plan will still allow logging, but not in Wilderness areas, nor will it likely occur in any of the identified "roadless" areas. The Wilderness Act of 1964 disallows logging in Wilderness.

MtnMagic: Nash Stream could not be designated as Wilderness by Congress unless the State of NH deeded the land to the Feds. Of course, NH could create its own wilderness system, similar to what NY did.
 
thanks for those of you who've posted here...
I got back from the WMNF open house in Laconia -- if you are concerned about the WMNF revision plan (whether you support more wilderness or not), detailed comments are appreciated by WMNF staff. If you have Q's about the revision plan, it's worth going to one of the open houses. I had a lot of questions and they took the time to answer them. (Although they don't yet have a map which shows both the wilderness areas and the peaks/trails/shelters/rivers/etc. in the vicinity, and that's sorely needed if us hikers are going to comment.)

I'm still not quite sure what to comment; my main concern was which trails/peaks lie within the proposed Wild River area -- the WMNF rangers tonight stated that neither the AT corridor nor the Baldface Circle Trail nor the Wild River Road are in the proposed Wildnerness, and it would stretch between the AT and somewhere west of Baldface in the Wild River watershed southwest of the end of the Wild River road. Sounds like it wouldn't impact any major trails/shelters. (Although I'd feel better when I can see that on a map!!!!!!) I'm not sure about the Sandwich Range. The proposed Kilkenny Wilderness in Alternative 3 would include much of the Pliny/Pilot Range.
 
nice thread

It's refreshing to see a good discussion without degrading into a flame session, like on that *other* site...
 
Yes, very refreshing!

arghman: Great to read your post of the meeting, proposed areas, and that Kilkenny is considered. I always find it to be a wonderland. Hope that someday it will become a wilderness area. I plan to attend an open house.
 
yes

I guess I would answer yes to all three questions, though I am sure that others have far more off trail experience than myself.
I think the WMNF will be under ever increasing pressure to allow more and more motorized access into the backcountry.
My thinking is that increased wilderness areas would help maintain a 'core' area of unfragmented forest.
Noise pollution is of concern to me and while thinking we can do little about things like over head flights or distant auto drag strips or whatever, much like the Sandwich Wilderness has to deal with, I think it is prudent to try to designate increased Wilderness areas.
The peripheral edges of a wilderness area are compromised, to varying extents, and act as a buffer zone for the more interior sections of the area.
For example a wilderness area next to an atv trail or snowmobile trail would have very large areas of compromise, so my thought would be that a larger area would have to be set aside or a new area designated in an effort to have at least some area forest that would be more "natural"..or as natural as could be hoped for.
Mostly we deal with what has been invented to date, but hopefully this would also help with 'things to come'.
I don't think increasing wilderness area is paramount to kicking people off the land..I look at it as saving quality land for the future generations...generations beyond our life spans.. much as Aldo Leopold did for us.
I don't worry to much about logging in the WMNF as it is now. Though I have hiked through some of the active logging areas they are so small compared to what I've seen elsewhere that I just take it in stride. Though I know that could well change...I must admit to a certain amount of pessimissim that what ever laws and designated areas we have now could well crumble here in this country (hopefully not for many lifetimes) just as they have in some other countries. The laws are only good as long as they are honored.
I do worry about future mining operations in the WMNF, but as yet we have been spared for the most part.
I realize there are whole schools of thought as to what is offensive within a wilderness area and I think it's mostly how annal we want to get about it. Some to the extent of what color boots are objectionable....me thinks that be best left for others to ponder....
 
Last edited:
A free copy of the maps and a cd detailing the alternate plans can be found at the WMNF Ranger Stations or call the WMNF Supervisor's office 603.528.8721 to receive a map and cd in the mail.

On Monday Nov. 1 at the Androscoggin Ranger Station on Rte 16 Gorham, a team from the WMNF will be there from 2-7 pm to answer all questions.

You may send written comments to: Forest Planner, WMNF, 719 Main St, Laconia NH 03246. Email: [email protected]. Questions? Call Barbara Levesque 603.528.8743

The forest stakeholders comment period ends on December 16th. It is important to voice your opinions!
 
Boston Open House

I got this email from AMC:

White Mountain Open House
Thurs. Nov 4, 4:30-8:00pm

You are invited to a White Mountain Open House at AMC Headquarters on Thursday, November 4, 2004 any time from 4:30 to 8pm. The U.S. Forest Service will be on hand to answer questions about the new draft White Mountain Forest Plan - a blueprint for managing the White Mountains for the next 10-15 years.

The plan will layout whether there is more Wilderness allocated in the White Mountains, and whether ATV use will be allowed in the Whites, so it is very important that you make your voice heard. Stop by to talk to Forest Service Staff, examine maps, learn more about the plan, and make comments. Refreshments will be served. Email [email protected] for details.

AMC Headquarters is located at 5 Joy St., Boston MA.
 
Everyone should attend these meetings who need to ask questions. I just returned from the Gorham one asked plenty of questions and was for the most part happy with the answers.

Get the free Executive Summary Draft Envirnmental Impact 50 page book so you can compare plans side by side (page 19) or the free cd and maps of the 4 Alternative Plans. The Forest Service is strongly leaning towards plan #2. I learned they won't log larger than 30 acres and no ATV's are allowed on any hiking trails though they will be allowed in some sections.

When you send them your recomendations, the FS also asks you to give supporting reasons. As in, "I do not wish ATV's to use hiking trails as using them uphill causes soil erosion which increases greatly during rain." The postcard that came with the November issue of Outdoors neglects to mention sending supporting reasons which is a major guideline.

Also, you might want to get a copy of the 14 page A Guide for Viewing the Proposed Forest Plan which is the review guide that in part teaches you effective commenting to make sure your comments will count.

Remember your input will shape the final analysis and decision. We get to vote twice this year!
 
Without belittling the need for Wilderness (the Congressional kind with a capital W), let me ask this:

if it were up to any of you to decide how much of the WMNF should be Wilderness areas & where to put them, which areas would you choose to not include in Wilderness? (e.g. if it were going to all become Wilderness by default unless someone spoke up)
 
Top