Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project

[TCD]

Thanks for the pics, pb-paul. Those bridges look beautiful to me, even though I know my w(W?)ilderness sensibilities are supposed to be offended. Is anyone offended that I am not offended? Jabberwocky?

I wish we had more bridges like that in the Adirondacks.

 

[erugs]

In our society I think we're used to expecting (not that we have) more rights not fewer, but that's not the case. I liked it when I could go into my child's elementary school without signing in. I liked it when I didn't have to lock my doors. I liked it when I could go into my local post office and ask anyone there when "so-and-so" would be back from vacation. And yet I appreciate the reasons (safety) the comes with those "rights" being gone.

I keep going back and forth on this issue and have concluded that I just don't like having things taken away from me. I used to be able to cross the river on this bridge and use a section of trail that will now be gone. I'm sad and upset that options that have been available to me will be removed.


"In the end, we conserve only what we love. We will love only what we understand. We will understand only what we are taught." Baba Dioum

I'm not convinced this denial of access is right or necessary.

 

[arghman]

I called up Senator Shaheen's office and a staff member got back to me and said basically what Waumbek quoted, namely that for whatever obscure legal reasons are implied by the Earth Island precedent, the USFS has final say.

With all due respect to those who feel that application of Wilderness doctrine in a strict sense is appropriate, you at least have organizations e.g. Wilderness Society, and to a large extent the Appalachian Mountain Club, that will lobby for your views. Those of us who feel differently do not, or at least I'm not aware of any.

I guess the thing that frustrates me the most about this whole thing, is that I have a view which I consider neither extreme nor anti-environmentalist, and by far I'm not alone in my views based on this thread, and yet there is nothing I can do but write a letter and hope it doesn't just disappear down a bureaucrat's wastebasket or get stuck as an appendix in a Memorandum of Decision.

 

[Neil]

Who wrote this?

In America our wilderness areas are defined as a place "where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." In essence, wilderness areas are areas that lack humanity and the influences of humanity. They are areas defined by our absence. However, there are very few surviving areas that lack human influence. In response to this, the National Forest Service will tear down evidence of human habitation, such as old fences or miners cabins, that happen to be found inside a wilderness area. This is not nature preservation, and I can think of few old miners’ cabins or broken down fences that interfere with the flora or fauna of any area. Instead of preserving the natural world, the Forest Service is re-writing history to achieve a certain modern ideal: Wilderness.

Closed off to the past, this wilderness is also not open to the present. The experience of wilderness areas is limited to those who have the knowledge, equipment and time. Individuals with these opportunities far too often fall in the middle to upper class, and the notion of wilderness begins to exclude the poor or marginalized. Wilderness becomes a playground, or an escape, only for those who can afford it.

The problem with the American notion of wilderness is not the wilderness itself, but the responses that idea generates. American wilderness is untouchable. Visitors may not light fires, must pack out all trash, and are strongly encouraged to "leave no trace" of their visit. In short, a human visit to the wilderness is always destructive and always requires cleaning up and covering tracks. The best thing humanity could do for this environment would be to stay home, to never venture into this sacred area which will ultimately suffer as a result of a human visit.

 

[Amicus]

So I'm walking through the Wilderness yesterday and this, like, person-made object obtruded itself on my horrified gaze.

I held my nose as I crossed to the other side of the East Branch - not such a smart strategy on a wavery suspension bridge.

But seriously, both of those bridges looked fine and in need of no maintenance I could see. Count me firmly in the pro-bridge camp.

 

[arghman]

Neil--

you got me thinking: is there a Canadian equivalent to USA Wilderness policies? if so, what is it like?

 

[Waumbek]

Who wrote this?

In America our wilderness areas are defined as a place "where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." In essence, wilderness areas are areas that lack humanity and the influences of humanity. They are areas defined by our absence. However, there are very few surviving areas that lack human influence. In response to this, the National Forest Service will tear down evidence of human habitation, such as old fences or miners cabins, that happen to be found inside a wilderness area. This is not nature preservation, and I can think of few old miners’ cabins or broken down fences that interfere with the flora or fauna of any area. Instead of preserving the natural world, the Forest Service is re-writing history to achieve a certain modern ideal: Wilderness.

Closed off to the past, this wilderness is also not open to the present. The experience of wilderness areas is limited to those who have the knowledge, equipment and time. Individuals with these opportunities far too often fall in the middle to upper class, and the notion of wilderness begins to exclude the poor or marginalized.

Bob Marshall, Wilderness Soc. founder, 1930's (?)

 

[Waumbek]

Another press (AP) announcement of the bridge removal beginning today, plus a NEW trail in the Pemi:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...HOL-?SITE=NHCON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

[smitty77]

Another press (AP) announcement of the bridge removal beginning today, plus a NEW trail in the Pemi:

A lot of effort being expended to keep people away from the former bridge site. Closing one trail, and now creating a new one?!?! Yeah, I know it's a short section, but I thought we were trying to reduce the imprint of human activity in the Pemi? So few people go there anyway, is it necessary? Especially where there's a well established route up a certain peak that the Forest Service refuses to consider as an official trail. Just sayin.....

Anyone know how long this new re-route is? I assume it cuts off the corner between the East Side and Cedar Brook trails.

 

[Amicus]

Another press (AP) announcement of the bridge removal beginning today, plus a NEW trail in the Pemi:

I wonder - the sign posted at the Lincoln Woods trailhead Saturday morning (posted earlier in this thread, but this may be a slightly clearer photo) says nothing about a new section:

Perhaps they are merely referring to the East Side/Cedar Brook alternate route?

 

[Waumbek]

I'm assuming that the short new section of trail will make a more direct connection between the ES Tr and Cedar Brook Tr, rather than directing traffic to the bank where the bridge was and then away from it to Cedar Brook.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

A lot of effort being expended to keep people away from the former bridge site. Closing one trail, and now creating a new one?!?! Yeah, I know it's a short section, but I thought we were trying to reduce the imprint of human activity in the Pemi? So few people go there anyway, is it necessary? Especially where there's a well established route up a certain peak that the Forest Service refuses to consider as an official trail. Just sayin.....

Anyone know how long this new re-route is? I assume it cuts off the corner between the East Side and Cedar Brook trails.

My guess is that this new section will be a very short re-route to deter folks from visiting the site of the suspension bridge (R.I.P.). I am also sure that the USFS will be tacking fluorescent "NO CAMPING" signs that glow in the dark on every tree within about 1/4 mile of the site. "Ok, folks, let's move along, nothing to see here......."

 

[roadtripper]

Saw for myself how much of a heated issue this was over the weekend. There was some nasty graffiti on one of the warning signs and a few people we talked to on the trail were extremely upset.

The ranger @ Lincoln Woods also mentioned that they had been reading this.

 

[TCD]

It's kind of a sad laugh that they are cutting trees and building a trail to make the wilderness more like a wilderness.

The same madness is in the water in Albany. Over here, the Giant Mountain Wilderness unit management plan calls for the banning of climbing bolts (perhaps a bushel of tiny hardware in the entire wilderness), but calls for the building of a new trail (involving the cutting of hundreds of trees), and an information kiosk (!) for Iron Mountain in that same unit.

 

[Amicus]

There was some nasty graffiti on one of the warning signs and a few people we talked to on the trail were extremely upset.

The only hiker we met Saturday morning in the vicinity of the two bridges knew nothing about their imminent removal. He'd taken a wrong turn heading from Lincoln Woods to 13 Falls campsite and gone several miles out of his way! We set him straight, and I believe he was telling the truth when he told us how happy he was to have met up with us.

I saw no graffiti, so unless I missed it, that happened after Sat. morning. There were three Rangers sitting together near the start of the Lincoln Woods Trail, and it occurred to me that might have something to do with a concern about some kind of protest. They asked us for our IDs, but it turns out that was in jest. They asked us our destination also (Zealand Road by the Wilderness, Shoal Pond, Ethan Pond and Zealand Trails), and I don't think that question was in jest. I did mention that we had chosen that route so as to be able to use those bridges before their removal, and that didn't elicit any particular reaction from them.

 

[peakbagger-paul]

The only hiker we met Saturday morning in the vicinity of the two bridges knew nothing about their imminent removal. He'd taken a wrong turn heading from Lincoln Woods to 19-Mile Brook campsite and gone several miles out of his way!

Did you mean the 13 Falls Campsite? If he was looking for the 10-Mile Brook Trail, he had REALLY gone out of his way?

 

[McRat]

The ranger @ Lincoln Woods also mentioned that they had been reading this.

How comforting. They may not appear to be listening to us, but at least they read VFTT. It's a start...

Before taking a farewell hike across the bridges on Saturday, I spoke to one person who suggested there were a couple of deaths near the bridge area as people tried to cross at high water before it was built (anyone have any info on this?). We discussed the situation for a bit and he actually summed up the argument better than I could -

"Wilderness experience, when talked about by outdoorsy types, is about getting away from the civilized world and exploring the outdoors. Wilderness experience, when talked about by folks in Washington who have never been hiking, is about what the WILDERNESS experiences... and they have concluded that the Wilderness doesn't like people."

Having recently visited the two bridges, I felt they were useful... but not entirely necessary, particularly in low water conditions. Though it will be problematic for XC skiers, I do not see their removal greatly affecting any of my future hiking plans.

That said, I'm unimpressed with how this has been carried out. My perception is that the decision to remove the bridge was made and that the comment period was merely a formality. It seems like yet another example of an unresponsive federal bureaucracy costing more and offering less. I'm not exactly surprised, but I am getting the feeling that the only input my government wants from me is financial.

I understand and appreciate the dedication and hard work of many in the forest service, and I know that this decision is far from unanimous among them. I simply disagree with the decision and the process - mostly the latter. I wish the bridge removal expense went towards many of the other underfunded projects in the area, but that is all just water under the bridge.

...And to the bridges, So long! You will be missed. I can hardly wait to find out how much will be spent removing you.

 

[Amicus]

Did you mean the 13 Falls Campsite? If he was looking for the 10-Mile Brook Trail, he had REALLY gone out of his way?

Yup - 13 Falls. Just a dyslexic moment.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...That said, I'm unimpressed with how this has been carried out. My perception is that the decision to remove the bridge was made and that the comment period was merely a formality.

I think many people share your point of view.

Personally, I find it regrettable that the hiking community has no formal voice/organization in representing its interests in the WMNF. Some might argue that organization is the AMC, and I would agree - to a point. However, the AMC needs the periodic approval of the USFS to maintain its hut system, so that makes one wonder whether that need impacts on the level of advocacy they may be willing to expend.

 

[TEO]

Unlike many of you, I think that in this instance, the Forest Service is doing what they're supposed to do and, while many of you may not agree at the moment, they're doing something for our benefit.

The first step to understanding is to discover and recognize the benefits of wildness. In other posts, Laura & Guy Waterman's Wilderness Ethics has been suggested. They in turn, recommend Roderick Nash's Wilderness and the American Mind, among other volumes.

Federal Wilderness, or simply, Wilderness, is an attempt to preserve and even recreate areas of wild land. This means getting rid of somethings that we find convenient or even like. It means that there are somethings that we enjoy doing that will not be allowed in these areas. Because our country has decided that wildness is something worth protecting, it means that money will be spent to do so.

What do we get in return? We get a few protected places where nature is the dominant force, not humans.

The following are some selected quotes from Wilderness Ethics that address some of the concerns that have been raised in this thread.

"What else is wildness? Certain attributes come to mind: remoteness, inaccessibility, uncertainty, mystery. A wild place can be a difficult place, uncomfortable for humans. And we should seek to keep it that way, not try to make it safer, more comfortable, more like the civilization we leave behind." (p. 35)

"[The Pemi Wilderness] and any wilderness gains much of its wild character precisely from being not that readily accessible. It is right that we should have to go the long way around, or undertake the trailless approach, or simply stand and watch and rejoice in its inaccessibility, honor the citadel left free to nature." (p. 100)

"...True wildness certainly does not require large space. It does require commitment to a situation where wild nature is in charge, where tiny humanity is exposed to genuine risk, where the deck is not stacked in our favor but the wild gods of nature hold all the aces." (p. 37)

Some of you have suggested that since the Pemi was thoroughly logged, the notion of calling it wild is laughable. The Waterman's ask the question in such away as to challenge us to do so:

"Can we reverse the civilizing momentum and reclaim a touch of wildness even on land that appeared lost to the development or recreation mania?" (p. 28)

Others have suggest that Wilderness and wildness is an elitist concept. On pages 100 & 101, the Watermans address this issue. They point out that there is an abundance of easily accessible natural wonders, but that it is the number of difficult-to-access places that are in danger of disappearing and are worth protecting.

Later, they address the issue of bridges specifically:

"Crossing swollen mountain streams can provide some of the most hair-raising interludes along the trail. We recall with relish many a precarious crossing--teetering on narrow tree trunks over raging torrents of swift water, or hopping from boulder to moss-slippery boulder, occasionally dropping a boot (or more) into the icy waters. Great memories of exciting moments. Sometimes terrifying. Sometimes hilarious. Always memorable.

"But there are sober, serious bridge builders at work in the backcountry who'd like to exorcise such moments form the backpacker's experience. These overeager engineers will slap a huge log bridge, complete with cement foundations on both sides, over any flowing water too wide to jump. Instead of experiencing an interesting challenge, the hiker just puts his head down and plods over a tailored bridgeway. The mentality that regards such offenses as trail 'improvements' can only be achieved by crossbreeding a beaver with a deskbound colonel from the Army Corps of Engineers.

"We should take lessons from our western hiking brethren. Out West, difficult river crossings are accepted as part of the game. In Alaska they can be really wild. Sometimes you even have to improvise a raft." (pp. 209 & 210)

In regards to this bridge, the Forest Service is following the policies and laws that guide them, which, in this case, seeks to restore and protect what little wildness remains. So I look at this as a step forward. A small step towards the realization of the ideal of wildness. I say bravo and thank you for trying to make life a little more difficult for us in the Pemi Wilderness. I accept that this has and will cost us money.