Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project

[DougPaul]

It is the 11-mile near-flat Wilderness/East Side loop that was a favorite of skiers that will be the real loss.

This will be a real loss, IMO.

Doug

 

[sardog1]

This will be a real loss, IMO.

Doug

So was the construction of the Kanc, in my mind. But then I'm apparently in the (shrinking?) minority, at least in these parts.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Correct. The bridge, and trail, in question is the 0.7 mile segment of the Wilderness Trail near the Bondcliff Trail. This 0.7 mile segment of trail will also be closed and reclaimed. The I-beam bridge that spans Black Brook will also be removed as part of this project.

Shades of Owl's Head all over again. With the closing of the .7 mile segment here come the herd paths. Let's face it. It wouldn't be a "wilderness experience" without herd paths all over the place.

 

[SAR-EMT40]

So was the construction of the Kanc, in my mind. But then I'm apparently in the (shrinking?) minority, at least in these parts.

I agree with this also. The area must have been something before they pushed the Kanc through. I have often thought I wish I had gone in that area back then. Of course I wanted to be there in the 1700's.

I also don't understand why people that can get to that location can't simply ford the river. I don't remember that area being difficult to ford though there may be times when it is. Isn't that part of the wilderness challenge? Skiers may have an added challenge but still definitely not an impossible task. Good decision making and planning will come into play. Adds to the wilderness flavor.

I can see the historic component to this and I usually don't like seeing the historic items removed but I can live with this decision because it should allow resources to be used in other areas and should make the wilderness experience more, well, wilderness like.

Time will tell if there will be even a small increase in number of rescues in winter or summer. There might be an initial increase but after a while I would suspect that would go back to what it was before the removal as more people don't know they need to make accommodation for the bridge missing and just use the trails.

Keith

 

[dr_wu002]

I agree with this also. The area must have been something before they pushed the Kanc through. I have often thought I wish I had gone in that area back then. Of course I wanted to be there in the 1700's.

I also don't understand why people that can get to that location can't simply ford the river. I don't remember that area being difficult to ford though there may be times when it is. Isn't that part of the wilderness challenge? Skiers may have an added challenge but still definitely not an impossible task. Good decision making and planning will come into play. Adds to the wilderness flavor.

I can see the historic component to this and I usually don't like seeing the historic items removed but I can live with this decision because it should allow resources to be used in other areas and should make the wilderness experience more, well, wilderness like.

Time will tell if there will be even a small increase in number of rescues in winter or summer. There might be an initial increase but after a while I would suspect that would go back to what it was before the removal as more people don't know they need to make accommodation for the bridge missing and just use the trails.

Keith

There's still a big difference between a road that 10 trillion people drive on a year and some bridge that a few people -- at most -- walk in a day. Seems like a waste of resources to me, one which will in reality not make that area at all more Wildernessy (nor will it likely contribute to deaths or anything) but will simply serve to annoy the few people it served. Do you really think that removing that bridge is going to significantly enhance the Wilderness character of the area? Or is it just going to frustrate people.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Snowflea]

*Everything* is "historic," is it not? I'm always uncomfortable when "history" and "tradition" are used to debate a point. (And believe the report states that the bridge is actually less than 50 years old, for what that's worth...)

I agree with SAR-EMT on the Kanc!!

 

[Neil]

Somewhere tonight Bob Marshall, Sigurd Olson, Olaus and Mardy Murie, Harvey Broome, and Howard Zahniser are all smiling. As I am.

Kudos to District Ranger Fuller for "getting it."

Yeah but, what will happen if this bridge removal impacts the records for wilderness speed records?

 

[jniehof]

So was the construction of the Kanc, in my mind. But then I'm apparently in the (shrinking?) minority, at least in these parts.

Agree with you on both counts...I just try not to state my opinion too strongly on these matters since opinions tend to be deeply held.

I hope people that disagree are at least reading the decision memo closely. Quotes from it are showing up in this thread, which is an encouraging sign.

 

[spongebob]

The only thing that bugs me is (which has been mentioned.)

They always have enough money to immediately scrape blazes off trees, remove bridges, and devote resources to taking out unruly cairns......

To me it seems there is someone in the ranger district that is using her/his job to push their agenda and resources not always in the most benerficial way for the forest.

I hope in the removal of the bridge that they follow the wilderness rules.

-No mechanized equipment or mechanical transport (including bicycles, carts, and wagons. Wheelchairs are allowed)<---and I would guess helicopters.
-Hiking and camping group size must be limited to 10 people or less.


Or we could just torch the sucker old school 1907 style.

 

[MichaelJ]

I hope in the removal of the bridge that they follow the wilderness rules.

As noted in the document, they're planning to use pack animals, and to do it in winter when the ground is frozen to minimize soil disruption.

I hope they're not removing the bridge just because removing a bridge in a wilderness area using primitive methods sounds like a fun project.

 

[spencer]

I nominate Dr. Wu to go there after the removal and try to ford the river, only to twist an ankle an get dragged under water...















...just long enough to make the point!

I don't actually care if they remove it or not. if I want to go to the other side I'm still going to go. It just might take longer - and who can argue about spending a bit more of our precious time in the backcountry?

 

[SAR-EMT40]

There's still a big difference between a road that 10 trillion people drive on a year and some bridge that a few people -- at most -- walk in a day. Seems like a waste of resources to me, one which will in reality not make that area at all more Wildernessy (nor will it likely contribute to deaths or anything) but will simply serve to annoy the few people it served. Do you really think that removing that bridge is going to significantly enhance the Wilderness character of the area? Or is it just going to frustrate people.

-Dr. Wu

I believe your case is made worse if you think that it is rarely used.

Why spend any resources on such a little used item? If it is in disrepair and it would seem conflict with the directive of wilderness area then to me it makes much more sense to never need to worry about it again and especially to not expend scarce resources on it. Especially when alternatives for the users are so easy.

It just might take longer - and who can argue about spending a bit more of our precious time in the backcountry?

My point exactly.


Keith

 

[SAR-EMT40]

I nominate Dr. Wu to go there after the removal and try to ford the river, only to twist an ankle an get dragged under water...


...just long enough to make the point!

I don't actually care if they remove it or not. if I want to go to the other side I'm still going to go. It just might take longer - and who can argue about spending a bit more of our precious time in the backcountry?

And the cool rushing water returning his twisted ankle immediately to its prior untwisted state.

 

[dr_wu002]

And the cool rushing water returning his twisted ankle immediately to its prior untwisted state.

Doubtful. Spencer knows I'd be nude and covered in bacon grease. So either the ranger would slip trying to pull me out of the water or the piranhas would get me. Or both.

Save me save me! I'm naked and there are piranhas eating me!

Come to think about it -- I think Spencer wants to "save" me!!!

-Dr. Wu

 

[erugs]

Dr. Wu is creative and funny. I wish the people responsible for the Wilderness Bridge Removal Project were, too. While it would be nice to go back to the days when the world was pristine, that is unrealistic. How and why should people care about areas that are protected so much that folks can't be there to appreciate the jewells that these locations are? (Does that last sentence make sense? Should read: Can't go there, why should I care?)

 

[Stash]

Souvenir bridge parts

An idea. Sell the bridge parts as souvenirs. Proceeds go to trail maintenance. Key is you have to retrieve your own parts and use a primitive (walking) method of retrieval. Self-contained bridge removal at no added cost.

 

[giggy]

I just find it all laughable his thing to create the illusion of wilderness when you have a road with major traffic less than 10 miles in either direction

 

[Bob]

-- at least I can say that I haven't paid the WMNF fees at any TH in more than 4 years now and frankly don't intend to start after this either.

-Dr. Wu

right on dr. wu!

 

[smitty77]

I'm not sure why I care if they remove them or not. Especially if it frees up funds to be used in other more heavily trafficked areas. I like doing off trail navigation more than trail walking any ways. And anything that reduces the number of people out there means that everyone that is out there gets more of the wilderness experience.

But does it reduce the number of people? I contend (and did so publicly in a formal reply to the scoping letter) that removal of said bridge will further concentrate use of the wilderness through the Lincoln Woods corridor. I'll grant you, the number of people traveling east-west through the wilderness or entering the area from any place other than Lincoln Woods is likely a small percentage of the yearly visitor count. But on a visit to Lincoln Woods in July of 2008 I was shocked, and in some ways appalled, by the relentless amount of traffic crossing the suspension bridge at LW and heading north towards the Wilderness. One would think that the Forest Service, being the ultimate stewards of the wilderness, would seek to reduce the amount of heavy traffic through one location and promote the dispersion of users to other entry points around the Wilderness. This project does exactly the opposite. A couple of times in her document, Ranger Fuller fully admits the users of the wilderness will have to plan trips accordingly to ensure they are "starting on the side of the river which leads to your intended destination", further implying that all access to the Wilderness is, and should be, through Lincoln Woods.

 

[dr_wu002]

But does it reduce the number of people? I contend (and did so publicly in a formal reply to the scoping letter) that removal of said bridge will further concentrate use of the wilderness through the Lincoln Woods corridor. I'll grant you, the number of people traveling east-west through the wilderness or entering the area from any place other than Lincoln Woods is likely a small percentage of the yearly visitor count. But on a visit to Lincoln Woods in July of 2008 I was shocked, and in some ways appalled, by the relentless amount of traffic crossing the suspension bridge at LW and heading north towards the Wilderness. One would think that the Forest Service, being the ultimate stewards of the wilderness, would seek to reduce the amount of heavy traffic through one location and promote the dispersion of users to other entry points around the Wilderness. This project does exactly the opposite. A couple of times in her document, Ranger Fuller fully admits the users of the wilderness will have to plan trips accordingly to ensure they are "starting on the side of the river which leads to your intended destination", further implying that all access to the Wilderness is, and should be, through Lincoln Woods.

Most of the people I see walking Lincoln Woods are dog walkers or people going for a 3 mile walk on the old rail road grade. Honestly, what percentage actually even go further than the Bondcliff Junction on any given day? My guess is < 1%.

-Dr. Wu