New Wilderness in the Whites killed in Washington

[Mattl]

I was under the understanding that an increase in wilderness in the whites didn't happen because of them not wanting more wilderness in vermont..I guess cause the plan was a multi part plan. That really isn't fair to anyone. I would like to know more.-Mattl

 

[darren]

I am going to try to make this clear. NO POLITICS ON THIS SITE. That means no mention of political parties or specific politicians.

Political discussions quickly turn heated and people get angry and then us moderators end up dealing with it. I have had the no politics rule on this site since I started the site 12 years ago. If you do not like the rule then you are always free to go somewhere else and have your discussions there.

Discussion about the good and the bad and exactly what is entailed with a wilderness designation is a great topic for discussion on this site. People need to get more information on winderness designations and what it means for users. However, I will not allow politics to be entered into this or any other topic.

Please follow the rules or this thread will be closed.

- darren

 

[RoySwkr]

I read the Union Leader article. It was interesting to note that Bernie Sanders said in his letter that the proposed Wilderness bill would not actually add any protection to the WMNF. Does anyone have more details on why he believes that?

Right now the FS is in effect treating it as Wilderness because they expect the bill will eventually pass. [A can tell you the MA #] Hence the bill will not add protection except to ban mtn bikes which are still allowed. Of course if the bill was resoundingly defeated on its merits rather than on procedural issues the FS might change this policy.

Can someone please provide a brief outline of the main results of passage of big W legislation? ie...

Effects on logging
Effects on other uses (snomobiles, bikes, skis, hunting)
Effects on hiking trails
Effects on existing structures (including cairns?)

No more logging or downhill ski areas
No vehicles including snowmobiles and mtn bikes
No groomed X-C skiing
Hunting allowed but must carry out game, no carts
Number of hiking trails reduced and maintenance reduced
Shelters & bridges removed as they decay, summit cairns removed and those marking trails downsized
At least this is what I've observed in WMNF, other Forests seem more lenient on structures

 

[Waumbek]

Can someone please provide a brief outline of the main results of passage of big W legislation? ie...
Effects on hiking trails
Effects on existing structures (including cairns?)
[/list]

Trail signs will be "naturalized" in appearance (no painted wood), the number reduced, and the information on them simplified (no mileage distances).

Shelters may be demolished immediately, before they require maintenance (see SOPA link earlier in this thread), and tent pads substituted for platforms.

 

[arghman]

RoySwkr and Waumbek have covered most of it, I think, except the 10-person rule. (groups within Wilderness Areas must have at most 10 people. AMC interprets this strictly, e.g. you can't split an official AMC hike into sub-groups of under 10 people to get around this.)

I was under the impression that logging was not, in fact, strictly prohibited on technical grounds -- there definitely couldn't be any mechanized logging, but it would theoretically be possible to go and harvest timber the "old" way with axes & drag it out with a horse and sled of some type. But the "spirit" of Wilderness would probably mean that WMNF would never even try to do that (even if it were economically feasible).

from the Wilderness Act, p. 4:
(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

edit: oops, duh, logging is generally a commercial enterprise & would be prohibited.

 

[RoySwkr]

(groups within Wilderness Areas must have at most 10 people. AMC interprets this strictly, e.g. you can't split an official AMC hike into sub-groups of under 10 people to get around this.)

Except for camping, I believe group size is a guideline not a regulation, and it varies by where you are: 10 people max on trails but only 4 off-trail which means AMC trips to Isolation & Owls Head should be 4 or less since those aren't official trails

The FS says groups must be independent, presumably club hikes can be split into separate independent groups and at least some AMC leaders ignore this entirely

What is the MA# for Wilderness Study Area or whatever it's called?

 

[Peaks]

RoySwkr and Waumbek have covered most of it, I think, except the 10-person rule. (groups within Wilderness Areas must have at most 10 people. AMC interprets this strictly, e.g. you can't split an official AMC hike into sub-groups of under 10 people to get around this.)

It's my understanding that AMC (or at least their New Hampshire Chapter) has been fined for having more than 10 in a group. So, that's why they are pretty strict about the 10 people max.

Maybe others can plead ignorance of the size limit and get away with it.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Generally speaking, I'm almost always in favor of increasing the size of national forest, but like to look carefully at Wilderness designations because they bring with it so many restrictions. Sometimes a Wilderness restriction is necessary because development pressures are so great that without it the conditions in the forest will be in jeopardy. By development I mean coal, gas and oil exploration, not condos and shopping malls.

In terms of the Union Leader and its mention of congressional leaders - for whatever reason that paper loves to point out just about anything remotely attached to Vermont that it deems negative, whether it's newsworthy or not. Most of the time it can be chalked up to friendly rivalry between the two states, but sometimes it seems to go beyond that. Occasionally my mother-in-law will mention some totally off-the-wall news factoid related to Vermont and ask me about it and my reaction is "Huh?" I'm a news hound, but often have no knowledge of that particular tidbit.

The Union Leader occupies an unusual niche. I enjoy reading it from time-to-time, but have to temper some of its observations a bit more than many other newspapers.

 

[David Metsky]

Except for camping, I believe group size is a guideline not a regulation, and it varies by where you are: 10 people max on trails but only 4 off-trail which means AMC trips to Isolation & Owls Head should be 4 or less since those aren't official trails

I know about the 10 person rule, but I've never heard the 4 person rule. The online rules don't mention the off trail restriction. And it says Hiking and Camping, so it appears to apply to dayhikes as well.

I've lead AMC bushwacks in the Dry River Wilderness and we split the group into two and took different paths to the same summit, then split up again for the reverse trip. But each party was 7-8 people.

-dave-

 

[arghman]

What is the MA# for Wilderness Study Area or whatever it's called?

Existing Wilderness is MA 5.1 and Recommended Wilderness is MA 9.1. This is found in the latest Forest Plan, section 3 Management Area Direction, p. 3-9 and 3-75. These sections dictate essentially all of the specific rules, in addition to the brief general restrictions I quoted from that paragraph in the Wilderness Act.

I know about the 10 person rule, but I've never heard the 4 person rule.

There is no 4 person "rule" but the Forest Plan does mention a preference toward smaller groups in the different zones (a new feature of the Forest Plan). The 10-person rule is a standard (S), not a guideline (G) in the new Forest Plan (see p. 3-11 item S-3), and applies to all Wilderness areas. Standards are mandatory as per the plan, I'm not quite sure what guidelines are for, they are either left up to the individual administrators of the various districts, or they give more flexibility to the WMNF as a whole to change things over time as they see fit.

If you look at appendix E of the Plan, it outlines 4 different zones depending on use intensity, and each has a different "education message". Zone D includes a few specific high-traffic areas (summits, certain trail junctions, tentsites). Zone C includes the more frequented trails. Zone B includes the less frequented trails. Zone A includes everywhere that is at least 500 feet from trails. For zones B-D, the "education message" is that group sizes should be "preferably six or fewer" and in zone A "preferably four or fewer" (see p. E-27).

Interestingly enough, the number of people allowed in a group in Wilderness apparently varies in different forests, which I didn't realize... I just ran across some Wilderness regs for out West which allow 12 or 15.

I do wish they would have given some rationale for these particular numbers & why they are beneficial, they only give this sort of verbiage (p. E-26):

Upon entering Wilderness there will be noticeable differences from the land left behind—the signs don’t have as much information and are fewer in number, the trails may seem less distinct, there aren’t large groups on the trail or at campsites. All of this is part of the Wilderness experience that the Forest Service has strived to maintain.

 

[David Metsky]

I knew that it varried in different areas of the country. I was just in several Wilderness Areas in Wyoming and the numbers were quite a bit larger (and included up to 20 stock animals).

-dave-

 

[jjmcgo]

USFS WMNF policy

will be to remove the shelters quickly if the legislation passes, as Waumbek said. The policy of waiting until they nearly rot out will not be resumed, I was told when I called.

 

[RoySwkr]

I know about the 10 person rule, but I've never heard the 4 person rule.

I think people would agree that DM knows more about WMNF rules than most, so if he's never heard of this I'd say it's something the FS is trying to sneak in rather than something adopted after lengthy public discussion.

See
http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/whi.../pdf_documents/PLAN_PDF/E_PLAN_wilderness.pdf
The size limit for Zone A is in section 5.3.3 (page E-27), this has been slightly toned down from the draft plan so maybe my nasty comments had some effect
Map showing Isolation in Zone A page E-37
Map showing Owls Head in Zone A page E-39
Note also that the monitoring plan requires the FS to visit one trailless peak over 2999' per year for evidence of campsites.

The AMC operates under an outfitter/guide permit so the FS may require them to operate under more strict interpretation than the general public

 

[bikehikeskifish]

New Hampshire Sunday News, Oct 8, 2006 section B

Looks like, according to the NH Sunday News, this is not yet dead.

http://www.unionleader.com/pda-article.aspx?articleId=715e331a-c42c-4d33-a5df-a4eaf19c84ab
http://www.unionleader.com/pda-article.aspx?articleId=5ff2a133-0bd8-4047-8656-c012f94f3ec5

(The former references the latter)

Tim