How wild should the mountains be?

[Tom Rankin]

Sorry for the mis-almost-information.

Don't get me wrong, if someone can get up there in a wheel chair that's awesome!

 

[funkyfreddy]

Actually, if you want to talk about "wilderness".....

Why not have areas put aside on this earth that aren't mapped, regulated, or ruled by governments..... and the only law is natures?

Where an animal that eats you isn't killed for it's transgressions?

just thinking...... lol

 

[Mark Schaefer]

Wildness or the illusion of it

I must admit I have never liked the word "pristine" applied to wilderness . That goes for both originally wild and recovering wild areas. I understand what well intentioned individuals mean by it, and for the most part I have no problems with that. However, wilderness is dirty, smelly, raw, and wonderful. I would not seek to change any of that. It is not "pristine" in my book.

Over the years I have occasionally worked for stock photo companies that market nature images. Among the many genres of nature photos are those idealized nature scenes that grace glossy calendars and note cards. No signs of human intrusion are wanted in those photos. Neither are dead trees, dried leaf duff, or bare twigs. With a camera you can often eliminate all such "imperfections" with just the right narrow angle of view. And voila, just what the photo editor ordered: that perfect prissy pristine look, the illusion of a pristine wilderness.

Similarly when we attempt to remove every non-conforming, unnatural element from a designated and recovering wild area -- we might just be creating the illusion of a pristine wilderness. Nothing really changes. Hikers will still come, follow a path, and ford a stream. Perhaps just in fewer numbers or at different locations. Hikers might even flounder a bit more causing more erosion in the process. So have we really improved anything?

We might be better served by properly maintaining a bridge until that becomes more expensive than removal. We should clean up or remove any human injected thing that is actually unsafe or toxic, but otherwise allow nature to recover on its own. Leave the illusions of wilderness to their proper place -- our minds.

 

[woodsxc]

I must admit I have never liked the word "pristine" applied to wilderness . That goes for both originally wild and recovering wild areas. I understand what well intentioned individuals mean by it, and for the most part I have no problems with that. However, wilderness is dirty, smelly, raw, and wonderful. I would not seek to change any of that. It is not "pristine" in my book.

Over the years I have occasionally worked for stock photo companies that market nature images. Among the many genres of nature photos are those idealized nature scenes that grace glossy calendars and note cards. No signs of human intrusion are wanted in those photos. Neither are dead trees, dried leaf duff, or bare twigs. With a camera you can often eliminate all such "imperfections" with just the right narrow angle of view. And voila, just what the photo editor ordered: that perfect prissy pristine look, the illusion of a pristine wilderness.

Similarly when we attempt to remove every non-conforming, unnatural element from a designated and recovering wild area -- we might just be creating the illusion of a pristine wilderness. Nothing really changes. Hikers will still come, follow a path, and ford a stream. Perhaps just in fewer numbers or at different locations. Hikers might even flounder a bit more causing more erosion in the process. So have we really improved anything?

That's a very good point, Mark.

When I say pristine (I think I did in my previous post), I'm talking about an overgrown, messy, dirty, chaotic scene. When it comes to wilderness, I think I speak for a lot of hikers when I say that it means untouched, pure, free from human degradation or "improvement". I say hikers here because I think you are correct that most people are looking for a Bambi scene, but most of us who spend a lot of time outside prefer the grit and "impurities" to an idealized landscape.

As far as bridges go, I'm torn. In one way, they protect the wilderness but in others they harm it. If there is a bridge across a stream, people will use it. This means that there will be less erosion of the banks and the turbidity of the water (measure of water quality) won't be affected. However, the bridge will also let more people across the stream and will cause more wear and strain on the rest of the area. In my opinion, bridge removal and construction has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I feel that it would be unwise and unjust to make a sweeping generalization on the issue.

 

[sapblatt]

there should be a mix of all things...some mega remote stuff, some stuff "everyone can do" - some easy, some hard - some trailed - some bushwhack...
This is kind of how it is really - there are plenty of places to go in the Whites - it is not all the Presis and Franconia Ridge...early start - interesting itinerary - etc...
One thing that is a bit more on topic though - I do like trails (for myself) and I think they should be marked at least minimally - there are some spots out there that due to Wilderness regs are getting harder to follow...
Bridges are nice - but I suppose if it is remote enough they should not be there...

 

[Mark Schaefer]

When I say pristine (I think I did in my previous post), I'm talking about an overgrown, messy, dirty, chaotic scene. When it comes to wilderness, I think I speak for a lot of hikers when I say that it means untouched, pure, free from human degradation or "improvement". I say hikers here because I think you are correct that most people are looking for a Bambi scene, but most of us who spend a lot of time outside prefer the grit and "impurities" to an idealized landscape.

I apologize if my comments appeared to be directed at your post. I had no problems with your usage, especially not with your further explanation. I believe those of us who hike the wilds understand the essence of these areas. I was trying to make a general point. It is the idealized use of pristine by arm chair types that bothers me most.

 

[J.Dub]

I have no problem with respectful trail users, but I do not like the "reebok hikers."

Um...I'm not familiar with that designation. Care to elaborate?

Are they different than the "LaSportiva hikers" or the "Montrail hikers" or "Vasque hikers"...?

(I'm too lazy to do a search and look up what brand of trail runners you ended up getting...)

 

[expat]

I don't see a problem with having areas of the WMNF be allowed to move toward being a wilderness, to the extent that they are able based on history, location, etc. To me, the Pemi is probably the best location in the WMNF for this to happen, partly because it has been on its way toward that for a couple decades now due to being placed in its Wilderness designation, and also because it is a large area of land that has quite a few locations where there is no view of ongoing human impact.

Other parts of the WMNF have views that overlook roads, tree cut areas, even nearby views of the buildings on top of Mt. Washington, and will do so for quite some time. Other than trails, and a small number of camping locations (and currently a couple of bridges), the Pemi is free of these insertions of ongoing human activity into the surroundings. Clearly, there are artifacts of earlier use of the land, but those now have historical value, and over time will be gone as well.

Some have discussed reduced access. I just think that it means that everyone will have to plan differently, and make plans commensurate with what the topography will allow. If a river crossing will be dangerous, don't plan to do a trip with that river crossing. It's a Wilderness (by law) so don't expect to have the Staten Island Ferry, or a bridge, or to my way of thinking, even a set of fortuitously-placed rocks to cross the river.

If you want a bridge, go to another part of the WMNF. You may have some kind of right as a taxpayer and citizen to get to the land you partly own, but you don't have a right to have someone get you there without any effort. In the case of a Wilderness the effort may be more than what's required if it's a state park.

 

[Snowflea]

I also believe that "wilderness" is ultimately a subjective concept and that it can be found in many places if you look hard enough. I have to chuckle, though, when I see the terms "wilderness" and "hiker amenities" in the same thread/conversation.

Anyone here read Roderick Nash??

 

[Little Rickie]

As always this is a matter of personal opinion and strong feelings that many differ on. Always open to interpetation and the meaning of definitions. An impossible task but O so tempting! I'll bit.

how wild should our mountains be?

As god intended them to be.... and I, in my limited human capacity, though large in my sense of self importance, have no way of knowing but try anyway.


By this I am thinking of questions such as:

How many hiker amenities do you think are appropriate? Why?

Flat, soft, dry, ground with water and firewood near by. Don't need much else.


How many hikers in the woods is too many? Why?

Tough one. Depends on what I want or how I feel. If I think too may I'l go some place else. You really don't have to go very far to get away from the crowd.


How important is a "wilderness" experience to you? Why?

I like the peace of mind it gives me. It clears out a lot of cobwebs and keeps me in touch with what is important. Then I go home and get all caught up in buzz again.


How much non-recreational disturbance (i.e. logging) is too much in hiking areas? (And you guessed it...) Why?

Heck some recreational disturbances are too much. Logging can be done smarter and is being done smarter than in the past. Preserving old growth should be a sacred thing. If we keep our heads on straight and out of our ***** we should all be able to share.


Do you feel that legal "Wilderness" designation is at odds with a wild landscape? Why?

I don't know if I can get caught up in definations. I would hope, and I know that is too much to ask, that common sense would prevail. I do believe we handle our relationship with nature better than we have but still have a long way to go. I remain confident but disturbed by how slow some things evolve.


Do you believe that you often hike in a "wild" landscape? Where (generally)? What factors go into your answer?

In my opinion anyplace void of man is wild. Feet on earth does it for me. Then it's just a matter of distance and geographic size.


I'm hoping that maybe people will just sound off on their philosophy of hiking and wilderness,

Which is as different as each of us are unique.



Oh, and the poll. I'm not trying to be a wiseguy;

I'm not so sure about that.

but this was fun.

 

[cushetunk]

I have to chuckle, though, when I see the terms "wilderness" and "hiker amenities" in the same thread/conversation.

Well, this is sort of what got me thinking this might be an interesting thread. I've posted before that I think wilderness is both a subjective human construct and a real thing, even if we can't draw a clear line that delineates when we have entered the real thing. But if very intelligent physicists can deal with inherent uncertainty, I think hikers can too!

The aspects of wilderness that are real, I think, include what Tim Seaver pointed out: objective hazards like the weather, or rockslides, or avalanches or stream crossings in some places.

But we also have a very subjective wilderness. We've (or mostly somebody else acting as our proxy) decided that we'll stop building roads, not construct cell phone towers, and generally let natural processes dominate in the wild areas -- whether or not they are legal Wilderness. Then we have smaller decisions, like no ATVs, or bicycles in places. What's important, I think, is that there is no automatic reason why any of these is prohibited -- I mean, Mount Washington is evidence that you could indeed put all sorts of things on a remote mountain summit. These are just human decisions we have made, sometimes sacrificing convenience or money in the name of the wild.

And so, when there's the smaller questions -- blazes here? bridges there? trails anywhere? -- I don't see any fundamental difference in what's at work. These are just more choices, which we need to somehow decide. Likewise, to my way of looking at this, pointing out that the Pemi used to be ravaged by logging is not an argument to preserve the current little disturbances. It's an argument that we can and sometimes should look beyond the familiar, existing circumstances to imagine what's possible.

In my own view, I lean towards the wild. But that's my own opinion. What's more important, I think, is that we view the wilderness as a series of choices, each of which impacts the overall place.

Edit: Which is why I think it is so interesting to hear what others think about these choices.

 

[adktyler]

How many hiker amenities do you think are appropriate? Why?
How many hikers in the woods is too many? Why?
How important is a "wilderness" experience to you? Why?
How much non-recreational disturbance (i.e. logging) is too much in hiking areas? (And you guessed it...) Why?
Do you feel that legal "Wilderness" designation is at odds with a wild landscape? Why?
Do you believe that you often hike in a "wild" landscape? Where (generally)? What factors go into your answer?


I think that hiker amenities should be as few as possible. Yes, I love the convenience of bridges, and the safety of huts, and the clarity of trail markings, but it is the wilderness, and I want it to stay that way. Non-conforming structures are anything not natural, in my opinion.

I think that too many hikers in the woods depends on the carrying capacity of an area, the level of regulation, the amount of environmental impact, and the education of the hikers in that area. Personally I think that wilderness area should be available for anyone, so putting a limit on it is a little unfair. However, wilderness is best designed for NATURE'S sake, not for RECREATIONAL sake. Therefore, the environment is more important than the amenities for hikers (which has a direct relationship with the amount of hikers using the trail)

A wilderness experience is very important to me. There are times when the weather becomes rough or I have injuries or am in trouble that I appreciate a small outdoor area with lots of room for easy exit. But in this world that is so populated, and with some of our most remote wilderness areas a mere 5 miles from a road, I find a true wilderness experience very satisfactory.

Why is there ANY non-recreational disturbance in hiking areas? Save for proper land management, logging really has no place in an area designated for hiking. If commercial logging is being done for the express purpose of profit, that, in my opinion, is wrong.

I am not a huge fan of terms and designations. I understand why they exist I think, but I would prefer to have one designation: wilderness.

As far as all the other issues are concerned, I think that there really is no clear answer. As long as there are people who don't respect the outdoors, as long as recreational hiking is legal, as long as hiking is something people like to do, there will always be problems.

Lets all respect nature, and remember that it was here first!

 

[woodsxc]

Um...I'm not familiar with that designation. Care to elaborate?

Are they different than the "LaSportiva hikers" or the "Montrail hikers" or "Vasque hikers"...?

(I'm too lazy to do a search and look up what brand of trail runners you ended up getting...)

"Reebok hikers" is a phrase I stole from Bill Bryson. It's the people who stop by the trail in between McDonald's stops. Those people have no knowledge of trail courtesy and no desire to learn it. I don't like having to clean up the trash that they leave behind. That's a price we pay for having easy access to the mountains.

(I went with LaSportiva's and they're great.)

 

[woodsxc]

I apologize if my comments appeared to be directed at your post. I had no problems with your usage, especially not with your further explanation. I believe those of us who hike the wilds understand the essence of these areas. I was trying to make a general point. It is the idealized use of pristine by arm chair types that bothers me most.

No worries. You raised a good point and I'm not offended.

 

[J.Dub]

"Reebok hikers" is a phrase I stole from Bill Bryson. It's the people who stop by the trail in between McDonald's stops. Those people have no knowledge of trail courtesy and no desire to learn it. I don't like having to clean up the trash that they leave behind. That's a price we pay for having easy access to the mountains.

(I went with LaSportiva's and they're great.)

Ah...thanks for the clarification.

My not having read A Walk in the Woods is coming back to bite me again...

 

[David Metsky]

My not having read A Walk in the Woods is coming back to bite me again...

No, really, it's not. But that's a further hijack that will wait for another day...

 

[ryan207]

If you guys want some good reading, choose one of the many books written by Guy Waterman. Good examples would be "Wilderness Ethics" and "Backwoods Ethics". It's the most insightful discussions on this exact subject. I promise you won't be disappointed! Considering you have designated wilderness, state parks, national parks, national forest, etc. The degree of wildness could vary due to different sets of rules for all of these places. But regardless, most people I think want to head into the woods without hearing some jack-ass on his cell phone and without passing 100 boyscouts in one group. Then you have subjects such as man-made structures and trailwork. There obviously must be some balance though, because as much as I might not want to see some trailwork which sometimes looks like a major construction project and a reminder of the outside world, I certainly do not want to see major erosion which is a constant reminder that thousands and thousands of people have been here before me trampling away. My personal opinion is that even though you can't count on not seeing other people during your "wilderness experience", everyone can at least do their part in reducing their impact for those who come after you wanting the same wildness that you seek. Trash, bootleg campsites, fire rings, cell phones, radios, super bright colored clothing that you can see from miles away, all things that can take away from the "wildness". Though I do not fully agree with what I am about to say, it is an interesting topic that can relate to what people are discussing here. Some of you might have heard about the idea of hiking licenses or permits. The White Mountains in particular see more annual use that Yellowstone and Yosemite combined, which is rediculous if you think about it. NH Fish and Game have from time to time contemplated the idea of hikers requiring a hiking license, much like a fishing license. At first I was appalled at this idea, but the more I thought about it, the more it sort of made sense. Think about it, a lot of the money that NH F&G get from fishing licenses goes into SAR operations for missing hikers. Some fisherman find this to be really unfair, understandably. If there was a requirement for an annual hiking permit then: A.) there would be a lot less people on the trails, adding to that special wilderness experience and redcing impact and B.) Hikers would pay for their own SAR.

Maybe I am way out there, but I thought this was a cool thing to bring up.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Interesting thought. The single-day use license would be severely abused, and the cost of administration/enforcement would suck up every penny and more of the fees collected. All it would really do is make casual / occasional hikers law breakers, or send them somewhere else. I think it would be quickly found illegal to license people to hike on national forest land which is owned by the public.

On the subject of funding for F&G, I have said the following before - if there was a nominal parking fee at the state-owned parking areas (Franconia Notch) which was targeted for F&G and SAR, people would probably pay that without a hitch. Monadnock and Pack Monadnock charge parking fees, as do many other state parks (all are 100% user-fee supported), so why not those in the White Mountains?

Tim

 

[funkyfreddy]

If you guys want some good reading, choose one of the many books written by Guy Waterman. Good examples would be "Wilderness Ethics" and "Backwoods Ethics". It's the most insightful discussions on this exact subject. I promise you won't be disappointed! Considering you have designated wilderness, state parks, national parks, national forest, etc. The degree of wildness could vary due to different sets of rules for all of these places. But regardless, most people I think want to head into the woods without hearing some jack-ass on his cell phone and without passing 100 boyscouts in one group. Then you have subjects such as man-made structures and trailwork. There obviously must be some balance though, because as much as I might not want to see some trailwork which sometimes looks like a major construction project and a reminder of the outside world, I certainly do not want to see major erosion which is a constant reminder that thousands and thousands of people have been here before me trampling away. My personal opinion is that even though you can't count on not seeing other people during your "wilderness experience", everyone can at least do their part in reducing their impact for those who come after you wanting the same wildness that you seek. Trash, bootleg campsites, fire rings, cell phones, radios, super bright colored clothing that you can see from miles away, all things that can take away from the "wildness". Though I do not fully agree with what I am about to say, it is an interesting topic that can relate to what people are discussing here. Some of you might have heard about the idea of hiking licenses or permits. The White Mountains in particular see more annual use that Yellowstone and Yosemite combined, which is rediculous if you think about it. NH Fish and Game have from time to time contemplated the idea of hikers requiring a hiking license, much like a fishing license. At first I was appalled at this idea, but the more I thought about it, the more it sort of made sense. Think about it, a lot of the money that NH F&G get from fishing licenses goes into SAR operations for missing hikers. Some fisherman find this to be really unfair, understandably. If there was a requirement for an annual hiking permit then: A.) there would be a lot less people on the trails, adding to that special wilderness experience and redcing impact and B.) Hikers would pay for their own SAR.

Maybe I am way out there, but I thought this was a cool thing to bring up.

I like the Guy Waterman books..... some would say they have an extreme viewpoint but I think they promote awareness.....

As far as hiking licenses go...... yuck! I'm sick of restrictions, taxes, and yielding more control to "big brother" ......

#1 the money will be wasted
#2 whatever happened to the freedom of the hills?

Seriously..... think about it..... take some time before reacting.......

We live in an overpopulated and over-regulated world, where what isn't compulsory is soon to become forbidden! Think about how many new laws and restrictions are put into effect every year by the federal government, local and state governments, zoning boards, school boards, etc.

1,000's of new laws every year....... Who do they serve and who do they protect?

I would rather see heavy duty fines placed on those that litter or otherwise abuse wilderness areas.

 

[Tim Horn]

Wild means Wild

If it is a designated wilderness then cease and desist all blazing, bridge building, trail maintenance, tent sites. In places not designated wilderness any activity that passes forest service is fine with me. Including logging, trams and even the paved special needs trails. Everything has its place and we have plenty of space for everybody to have a slice of what they want.
Happy Trails campers!