My take on wilderness regulations and their recent enforcements

[jmegillon149]

here is my thought on the removal of signs, and even moreso cairns that have been discussed in regards to Bond and Owl's

the wilderness designations are supposed to prevent the ADDING of new stuff, not getting rid of old, hence the Dry River and Similiar shelter sites being allowed to remain(as long as they can do so while still safe and not needing maintenance)

Being that I work in the architecture field, there are situations all the time where buildings violate ordinances(environmental and otherwise) that are newer than they are, yet are allowed to remain, as their demolition would likely lead to more damage, or at least more time, energy and inconveniance than grandfathering them in would.

further if a cairn is there already, won't throwing rocks into the woods potentially be worse for short term killing vegetation and causing minor rock slides than simply leaving it in place.

At the very least having someone performing the tasks requires more effort than leaving them there.

One solution I would like to suggest is an actual maintained trail(if it is in fact an unofficial herd path) to Owl's Head(whichever summit is the true one). All 4k's in NH have trails. As a one of many peakbaggers who don't really bushwack(though I MAY be getting involved in it) there really should be a trail. Afterall trail-less peaks(which Owl's Head will become if they block or eliminate the trail/herdpath) often have spread out the impact of hikers, rather than the singular area of impact of a trail (which is a legit argument made by anti-bushwhacking advocates)

Well thats it for now. Either way I hope to have a good long weekend in the Pemi, cairns or not!

 

[dr_wu002]

One solution I would like to suggest is an actual maintained trail(if it is in fact an unofficial herd path) to Owl's Head(whichever summit is the true one). All 4k's in NH have trails. As a one of many peakbaggers who don't really bushwack(though I MAY be getting involved in it) there really should be a trail. Afterall trail-less peaks(which Owl's Head will become if they block or eliminate the trail/herdpath) often have spread out the impact of hikers, rather than the singular area of impact of a trail (which is a legit argument made by anti-bushwhacking advocates)

Well thats it for now. Either way I hope to have a good long weekend in the Pemi, cairns or not!

I would respectfully dispute this. I do not think the Forest Service should have to approach Owl's Head any differently because it is >4000' Other than some numerical curiosity (3500', 4000'? is a 4000'er really any more significant than a 3000'er?) it's still a mountain that falls under the jurisdiction of the Wilderness Rules and Regulations, and not that of the 4000'er Committee to make things easier for hikers.

If you were in the Adirondacks you'd find yourself doing a whole lot more bushwhacks to complete the ADK46 BTW.

The Owl's Head Slide Trail will remain the nominal route because it's a slide and easy to follow. The route itself is so well-established that other than finding it from the Lincoln Brook Trail, there aren't any issues in following it.

I agree though, let's have a good weekend. However, cairn or no cairn, forestry weird rule or not, I hope that people don't go in and rebuild the cairn.

-Dr. Wu

 

[dr_wu002]

Dr. Wu -



Not to be argumentative, but when I completed the ADKs a few years ago, none of the peaks required bushwhacks. On the so-called "trail-less" peaks the only challenge was finding the beginning of the herd path for the first few hundred yards or so after leaving a main trail. With the possible exception of a few sections (Hough & Pough come to mind) these herdpath trails are as distinct as most other formally maintained trails in the Northeast.

Kevin

Agreed! My mistake! It seems to me though that the ADK's 'trailless' peaks are a little more difficult than Owl's Head though. I guess that's the point I was trying to make. By default, any mountain on any one of the NE US 4000'er lists is going to have a trail or a well-defined herd path, I think. The ADKs just seem a little harder.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Neil]

jmegillon, You have raised a very big point. I speak from an ADK perspective and as a (very) amateur student of the history of "wilderness". Wilderness, as most people on this forum know, is a place where the imprint of man is absent, where man is a visitor that does not remain.

Nevertheless, destroying cairns seems like the act of a desperate fanatic, dosn't it? In the ADK's Marcy Dam sprung a leak and the beautiful landmark pond turned into a pile of smelly mud. While I havn't read the Unit Management Plan I would think they should let the smelly mud become a gorgeous meadow but they would never do that. Beautiful Duck Hole OTOH will likely be left to revert to its BWM staus (BWM= before the white man).

The ADK High Peaks Wilderness Unit has the imprint of man all over it including Boardwalks, Lean-to's, Bronze plaques, Outposts, Maintained trails and whatever I'm missing. To allow these man-made structures to remain yet to remove cairns (I know it's another state, another reality but its the same country, the same era) is an example of how difficult grappling with the concept of wilderness is and most importantly illustrates our uncertain attitude towards wilderness.

I hope this thread goes on for a long time and I look forward to reading many thoughtful and informed posts.

 

[dr_wu002]

The ADK High Peaks Wilderness Unit has the imprint of man all over it including Boardwalks, Lean-to's, Bronze plaques, Outposts, Maintained trails and whatever I'm missing. To allow these man-made structures to remain yet to remove cairns (I know it's another state, another reality but its the same country, the same era) is an example of how difficult grappling with the concept of wilderness is and most importantly illustrates our uncertain attitude towards wilderness.

I hope this thread goes on for a long time and I look forward to reading many thoughtful and informed posts.

Neil, you raise some good points regarding the things you find in the "Wilderness Area." However, one point (that you point out as well) is that (I believe) the parts of the Whites in question are a National Wilderness Area while in the ADK's it's a state thing. Different rules and regulations.

If I recall, you will find less bog bridges, new lean-to's, and newly cut trails in the wilderness areas in NH.

I do agree that perhaps it's (taking apart cairns) a questionable call in terms of priorities but, maybe the forestry service is trying to be more forceful in terms of the enforcing the rules. And, I realize that Owl's Head is part of the beloved 4000'er list but I don't think the Forestry Service views it that way... it's a mountain in their jurisdiction and they're going to handle it accordingly.

Good Post!!

-Dr. Wu

 

[SAR-EMT40]

maybe the forestry service is trying to be more forceful in terms of the enforcing the rules.

Just a question. Are we certain that it was USFS that did this and not just someone on the lunatic fringe? I didn't see were someone saw an actual Ranger remove it. I didn't know if the "Ranger Dick" comment was an attempt at sarcastic humor or an actual eyewitness account of a real ranger removing it.

Keith

 

[Neil]

one point (that you point out as well) is that (I believe) the parts of the Whites in question are a National Wilderness Area while in the ADK's it's a state thing. Different rules and regulations.
-Dr. Wu

National vs. state: Different rules and regs. Definitely. One would hope (dream) that the idea of "wilderness" will one day transcend all of that. Wilderness in New York versus wilderness in New Hampshire should be the same shouldn't it? Not that I'm so naive as to think that as of today they are.

 

[dr_wu002]

Just a question. Are we certain that it was USFS that did this and not just someone on the lunatic fringe? I didn't see were someone saw an actual Ranger remove it. I didn't know if the "Ranger Dick" comment was an attempt at sarcastic humor or an actual eyewitness account of a real ranger removing it.

Keith

Good Point! We might be ruminating and meanwhile, Sherpa Kroto is out there destroying all the cairns in the WMNF. Where has he been?

-Dr. Wu

 

[dr_wu002]

Just a question. Are we certain that it was USFS that did this and not just someone on the lunatic fringe? I didn't see were someone saw an actual Ranger remove it. I didn't know if the "Ranger Dick" comment was an attempt at sarcastic humor or an actual eyewitness account of a real ranger removing it.

Keith

FWIW, I've heard from a (usual disclaimer) "friend of a friend of a friend of a friend..." that it is indeed a forest ranger.

Interesting enough... I wonder if they're going to take down the sign say on, NW Hancock? Or are they unfairly targeting popular peaks like Owl's Head and West Bond?

-Dr. Wu

 

[David Metsky]

My friend hike Owl's Head two weeks ago with a ranger who removed a rebuilt cairn at the base of the slide and one at the summit. So yes, I think we can be sure that the rangers are doing this. She didn't report on the sign, but I think that probably was the rangers, too.

-dave-

 

[SAR-EMT40]

My friend hike Owl's Head two weeks ago with a ranger who removed a rebuilt cairn at the base of the slide and one at the summit. So yes, I think we can be sure that the rangers are doing this. She didn't report on the sign, but I think that probably was the rangers, too.

-dave-

Now we are getting somewhere. Continue ruminating.

Keith

 

[Clown]

If all goes well, I will be hiking Owl's Head this weekend. I've haven't done it yet and heard the view isn't all that great. I'll let you know if the sign is still there, and if there are any cairns.

 

[dr_wu002]

I'll let you know if the sign is still there, and if there are any cairns.

Nah, just give the 'secret sign' to all us weirdos lurking in the woods!

-Dr. Wu

 

[Clown]

Nah, just give the 'secret sign' to all us weirdos lurking in the woods!

-Dr. Wu

I would but.... last time I was in the Whites I was yelling "Alligator Egg!!" and flippin the "v" sign with my hands and I got arrested...

 

[arghman]

Without going into too long a diatribe on where I stand on the Wilderness Act and its implementation by USFS... I think there needs to be a discussion, both nationally and within the scope of the WMNF, as to the goals of Wilderness and aspects of it which are seen as "good" or "bad". I would like to see a new category of land designation which is not as strict as Wilderness; I like the idea of areas with designated protection, but some of what's Wilderness in WMNF is being pushed too far, both in extent (acreage) and effect, IMHO.

This is my personal opinion. I respect others' opinions and ask that you do the same for me.

 

[TCD]

Neil is right on the money. In the East, almost all "Wilderness" areas have the heavy imprint of man.

There seem to be two schools of thought:

1. One school understands and accepts that our little "wildernesses" have the imprint of man (such as trails, trail markers, signs, leantos, bolts, dams, even cairns, etc.

2. The other school hates all things man made and tries to force fit a "no sign of man" ethic onto areas where people recreate.

A great example of school #1 is in Switzerland, where I just came back from hiking. There's plenty of wild country, and also plenty of man made roads, trams, funiculars, etc. No one seems to be all tied up in angst over the juxtaposition of these things. There is harmony.

School number two has trouble with their position, because while many people will support "wilderness" if polled, they may not understand the inconvenience of real wilderness, like Greenland or Antartica. As the various man made things are removed under the latest management plan, the "wilderness adherents" begin to drop off. Ban the bolts, you lose the climbers. Ban the trail signs, you lose many hikers. Ban and brush out the trails, and only the bushwhackers remain in your camp. Close the roads and the parking lots, and you'll have just about no one supporting you.

So the problem with position number two is how to conjure up a justifiaction to draw a line somewhere, where certain things (trails, maybe?) are "OK," but other things (bolts, maybe?) are horrible intrusions in the "wilderness."

Thoughts?

TCD

 

[RoySwkr]

When I started hiking, the only Wilderness in NH was the Great Gulf. It was heavily overused (funny how it is overused and not wild areas that are often selected) and it seemed reasonable to remove the leantos and let it revegetate.

Then they passed a new law that areas with railroad tracks and even active logging roads could become Wilderness, and the list keeps growing. Some environmental organizations measure their effectiveness in new acres of Wilderness so there is always pressure to designate more regardless of actual appropriateness. And there are many people who never actually visit the wilds who like the idea of land being preserved for animals and would be happy to see all the cairns gone along with all the trails and parking lots. They may even outnumber actual hikers. Then there are people who see Wilderness designation as keeping out logging and ski areas, but don't mind or even prefer trails and huts. My sister said if mountain bikes had become popular a few years earlier they would be allowed in Wilderness because so many environmental types like them but nobody thought about them when the Wilderness rules were written.

I can remember when the first 4000-footer was included in Wilderness (Isolation). The 4K club received at least one letter requesting that it be removed from the list because peakbagging was incompatible with the quiet contemplation that Wilderness was for. As someone who has done 5 different bushwhack routes on Owls Head and is looking at a couple more, it would not greatly inconvenience me personally if the trail was thoroughly barricaded. However I think the Forest Service may be overplaying its hand and their heavy-handed activities may result in less support for more Wilderness and pressure to relax the Wilderness guidelines.

 

[David Metsky]

There seem to be two schools of thought:

1. One school understands and accepts that our little "wildernesses" have the imprint of man (such as trails, trail markers, signs, leantos, bolts, dams, even cairns, etc.

2. The other school hates all things man made and tries to force fit a "no sign of man" ethic onto areas where people recreate.

Is it possible that there is a something in between those two? Your #2 is pretty much a strawman argument, as I have never heard people say that about the Wilderness Areas in the White Mountains.

My concern is that your #1 has little to distinguish it from the rest of the Whites, it just removes chainsaws and mountain bikes. I like that there are areas close by where there aren't all the trappings of civilization. No one has ever argued that we should remove trails, or signs, or even some bridges. But I can certainly accept the idea that there are no shelters, suspension bridges, or trailsigns with mile markers. Summit signs and cairns on unofficial trails I can go either way.

To me it's about where to draw the line, many people disagree over what constitutes an unneeded intrusion of man, even if the trails run along 100 year old railroad beds. To label people who choose to draw the line in a different place than you as someone who "hates all things man made" eliminates the ability to have a discussion of the subject. I think you should look closer at the actual arguments being presented.

-dave-

 

[arghman]

since we're talking about "drawing the line", I think the root of my objection is that there seems to be only one line, only one standard that encompasses all Wilderness areas. Never mind that some portions of those Wilderness areas are trailless; some portions have trails; some include 4K peaks with a tendency for lots of visitors; some include (or used to include) shelters & tentsites; some are high in ecological value; some are low in ecological value; some are high in timber value; some are low in timber value.

There are some areas that are not in Wilderness which have been excluded perhaps because they contain (in a small portion) man-made structures like powerlines or forest roads, or perhaps because they don't make up the requisite minimum acreage (5000acres?). Does a gated, little-used dirt road detract from potential Wilderness value? In some ways, yes, in some ways no, perhaps.

With so many diverse goals as to what Wilderness is supposed to accomplish (as RoySwkr points out), I just don't see how one uniform type of Wilderness is enough, how "one size fits all".

 

[The Sikes]

I have missed a bit on the Owl's Head deal but from what I'm getting, they want to take away the markers?

I ran across a ranger when we were hiking Mendon in Vermont a couple years ago that was upset that we were hiking that mountain. He wanted it to be preserved. I agree that we want to keep what we have but I'm a little confused as to preserving it for what....to look at from a distance?

If you have one trail going up a mountain, it seems there is less damage than if people bushwack up different roots. In NY, they put little cairns and that seems to work. What is wrong with a small rock pile to mark something if it stops people from going a million different ways to the same point? Then we can enjoy the mountains and keep them from being too ruined and we can have a small marker that is not too obnoxious.

I would think there has to be a happy medium. I'm glad we did all the hiking we did because at the rate we are going, we won't be allowed to hike anymore.