How wild should the mountains be?

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

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

"How wild should the mountains be?" Do you have an opinion?

  • Yes, I have an opinion about this, explained in a post below.

    Votes: 17 54.8%
  • I have an opinion about this, but have chosen not to post it here.

    Votes: 9 29.0%
  • I do not have an opinion; changes in "wildness" do not affect my hiking.

    Votes: 5 16.1%

  • Total voters
    31
More like Katahdin, less like Mt Washington.

With all due respect are you kidding? that mountain is so overegulated I will never step foot in that park again. I have climbed it in the summer,quite a beautiful hill, but I was turned back from a solo attempt in the winter. ITs my life but no not on katadin. This was a few years back when soloist where not allowed in the winter, Im not even sure the regs now but forget it. I should have been able to sign a waiver and let on my way.
 
First definition of wilderness in the dictionary

"a wild and uncultivated region, as of forest or desert, uninhabited or inhabited only by wild animals; a tract of wasteland."

Another one

"An unsettled, uncultivated region left in its natural condition, especially:
A large wild tract of land covered with dense vegetation or forests.
An extensive area, such as a desert or ocean, that is barren or empty; a waste.
A piece of land set aside to grow wild."


My thoughts:
When you are in the wilderness, the only hiker amenity needed is the trail, if that....

While I agree that there seems to be some overegulation going on, including hiker amenities like bridges only add to it. When I go into any wilderness zone, the last thing I want to be reminded that I am near civilization, and in a regulated area, and bridges would ruin that for me. Safety issues seem laughable, since a wilderness isn't supposed to be safe. If I go into any wilderness regions, I don't expect the atmosphere to resemble a state or a national park. What I'm trying to say is, when I go to a wilderness area, even if it is regulated by the govt, I don't want to be constantly reminded of that.

When I hear the term wilderness, I think of the word...vulnerable. You're on your own!

grouseking
 
Last edited:
When I go into any wilderness zone, the last thing I want to be reminded that I am near civilization, and in a regulated area, and bridges would ruin that for me.
grouseking

Not to pick on what you are saying, but I laugh when I hike the Great Gulf Trail- when you get to the Wilderness Boundary sign, I think you can still hear the trucks on Rt 16 going by. That'll ruin your wilderness experience....
 
First definition of wilderness in the dictionary

"a wild and uncultivated region, as of forest or desert, uninhabited or inhabited only by wild animals; a tract of wasteland."

Versus "Wilderness":

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

Thus the crux of the matter is the definition of "untrammeled". Arguably, "in contrast with ... dominate", means that as long as man's own works don't dominate qualifies untrammeled in favor of having select bridges and select maintenance. Without the qualifying statement, one could go to the other extreme ... fully unrestrained.

Tim
 
Not to pick on what you are saying, but I laugh when I hike the Great Gulf Trail- when you get to the Wilderness Boundary sign, I think you can still hear the trucks on Rt 16 going by. That'll ruin your wilderness experience....


Heh, I've never hiked the Great Gulf Trail, though it is on my list.
 
Versus "Wilderness":

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

Thus the crux of the matter is the definition of "untrammeled". Arguably, "in contrast with ... dominate", means that as long as man's own works don't dominate qualifies untrammeled in favor of having select bridges and select maintenance. Without the qualifying statement, one could go to the other extreme ... fully unrestrained.

Tim

Untrammeled is a weird word to use in the definition for sure. Originally it sounds like man is free to do whatever they want in the wilderness area, but they mean that wilderness is completely free from man.

But even with untrammeled, I do read that as an area with no people visiting...I'm pretty sure that is the bottom line, and an idea of what the Wilderness Act people were trying to accomplish. While in theory it is a wonderful idea, there are too many people in the world to have it completely......primeval. Is that word in there somewhere? :)

I still think that the wording of the Wilderness Act has helped to limit things as much as possible, but I'm sure the writers of that knew the rule couldn't be followed to a "T" since there is always an exception.


side note: Prob gonna get a little too far off topic
Its obvious that every single person has a different take on wilderness, and like everything else in life there is always opposition to what is decided. I'm not sure how much change can occur with healthy debate, with the way it seems things are run in America. Since poli-tricks can't be discussed on this site, I'll quit while I'm slightly behind.

grouseking
 
The mountains should be just a little wilder than safe, or easy, or predictable. OK, a whole lot wilder. Otherwise, we might as well start making Aconcagua safer. Or Denali, as a guy complains to the lead climbing ranger in the June issue of Alaska magazine that just arrived here.

I'm amazed that climbers now complain that SAR is not up to their expectations for saving their sorry you-know-what. Things were indeed different "back in the day."

And as for the portion of land in designated "wilderness" in the Whites, let us consider these facts, plz:

NH area: 5,740,160 acres
WMNF area: 784,505 acres (includes area in Maine)
Wilderness area within WMNF: about 153,052 acres (19.5% of WMNF)

I'm hard-pressed to see the elitist oppression in reserving 80.5% of a national forest for non-wilderness activities . . .
 
Last edited:
The problem today is the change in " trampers". In the old days people who ventured into the hills took the time to learn the craft. Now its down to REI/EMS stock up on gear and off you go, GPS in one hand, cell phone in the other. If you go out to the Rockies or even more so the Sierra you will plainly see the difference on the people you meet far out, thier generally well prepared and rarely have had much trouble. Granted the Whites are small and very close to boston but still self sufficiency is a dieing art. I believe if you made the Whites more wild it would keep sar very busy. They should ban cell phones for one, let people get themselves out, that might make them try harder and think twice when making decisions, then again maybe not. The bottom line is, in the wilderness, your wild again, BUT, if your really civilized then being in the wild is proboly putting you out of your element and there lies the crux of it.Oh and believe me, I know Im out there in my way of thinking, but this is my 2 cents, it just bugs the crap out of me the things I see and hear about out there, I mean if your suffering and the **** is hitting the fan, that happens sometimes, deal with it, put your stupid phone down, make a litter, crawl, scrounge for food but handle it for peeps sake.
Ok my 4 cents.
 
Top