Pemi Wilderness Bridge Removal Project

[Neil]

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

This is a good point. How many here drive a couple hours or more, get out of the car, get on a trail, do their peak(s), then get back in the car and drive home along the freeway?

I know I'm one.

 

[SAR-EMT40]

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

I don't consider distance to have anything to do with what is wilderness. 10 miles can be a very long distance when there is no one else around. And if the eco system is as it would be if no humans where there, that is probably as close to wilderness as you can get.

The amount of traffic is directly proportional to the amount of people traveling and the number of routes available. There are only four routes (or so), east to west in an area the size of the state of rhode island. Rt 112 through the middle, Rt 302 kinda of north westy to south easty and Rt 2 over the north and Rt 16 in the east. In the winter in particular there is very little traffic, especially at night on any of those roads.

Distance is a poor indicator of how alone or remote one is or could be. Time of travel is a much better one and you can spend a long time in those areas before getting to see another human if you play your cards right.

I am curious, what would be your definition of wilderness? How big does an untracted area of woods with no current human interventions need to be before it could be considered wilderness? Its not Alaska or Montana, but no one claims it is.

Keith

 

[giggy]

I am curious, what would be your definition of wilderness? How big does an untracted area of woods with no current human interventions need to be before it could be considered wilderness? Its not Alaska or Montana, but no one claims it is.

Keith

don't have a definition - but its not the pemi with old railroad tires, and old junk laying around... some call it artifacts...I call it junk... find the same crap in the town junkyard....

just telling it like it is... I know we all want to think we are in some wild place, the reality is - most dayhike the place and get back into the car to civilization before 3pm with a 8am start... all good, its just not "wilderness" that merits taking stuff down and this huge effort to remove human activity.... where 100 years ago, it was over-run by logging industry.... wilderness to me would be more than a half of a day hike.

 

[erugs]

My definition: where the hand of mankind hadn't made an impact. That's not the Pemi.

 

[Willoughby]

wilderness to me would be more than a half of a day hike.

I was struck by this while reading the decision letter (and thanks to Kevin Rooney for posting the link, I read it end-to-end). We talk about "wilderness" on this board with definitions like giggy's, or unlike giggy's, but it's all moot. To Molly Fuller, the Pemigewasset is Wilderness, period, because Congress said so. As an administrator she's not interested in an abstract definition of "wilderness", she just knows that Congress defined this area to be addressed with that noun.

The real issue is not "what is the definition of wilderness" but what are the rules laid down for administering the Pemigewasset - and how are they interpreted? At least, that's what I took away from the decision letter.

Call the Pemi Wilderness the Pemi Shopping Mall, but use the same rules for administering it, and you get the same decision.

 

[giggy]

I was struck by this while reading the decision letter (and thanks to Kevin Rooney for posting the link, I read it end-to-end). We talk about "wilderness" on this board with definitions like giggy's, or unlike giggy's, but it's all moot. To Molly Fuller, the Pemigewasset is Wilderness, period, because Congress said so. As an administrator she's not interested in an abstract definition of "wilderness", she just knows that Congress defined this area to be addressed with that noun.

The real issue is not "what is the definition of wilderness" but what are the rules laid down for administering the Pemigewasset - and how are they interpreted? At least, that's what I took away from the decision letter.

Call the Pemi Wilderness the Pemi Shopping Mall, but use the same rules for administering it, and you get the same decision.

this is a great point and 100% accurate IMO...

 

[dr_wu002]

this is a great point and 100% accurate IMO...

Still -- a mindless decision by a mindless technocrat IMO....

-Dr. Wu

 

[giggy]

Still -- a mindless decision by a mindless technocrat IMO....

-Dr. Wu

yea for sure, but - as far as the law, regs, etc..

FWIW - I don't give a ***** about the bridge anyway - leave, stay, whatever, doesn't ruin my day either way.

 

[dr_wu002]

yea for sure, but - as far as the law, regs, etc..

FWIW - I don't give a ***** about the bridge anyway - leave, stay, whatever, doesn't ruin my day either way.

It will when you and are are floating down the Pemi together, naked and covered in bacon grease...

-Dr. Wu

 

[SAR-EMT40]

My definition: where the hand of mankind hadn't made an impact. That's not the Pemi.

Thats also not the Moon, Mars or Venus.


And I'm trying to understand what remotest of areas that would be? Man has been in most areas on earth so you would have a tough time not finding some evidence of him just about anywhere. And I can't afford to go to the Antarctic whenever I want a breather from my fellow human beings.

For me, a more realistic interpretation would be areas that mans presence is now secondary and transient and mostly the domain of the natural animals and plants.


Keith

 

[MichaelJ]

I agree with a lot of these statements, and simply offer this in response: if there's going to be a trail, there might as well be a bridge. A trail by its very existence is a step (no pun intended) away from true "wild" conditions. The Forest Service even seems to acknowledge this implicitly by their decision to close the trail on one side and reroute it on the other.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

The question of exactly what IS wilderness is a good question. Every see a map of the US/North America showing all the native (i.e., non-European) tribes? The first time I saw one, and realized the scores and scores of tribes, and the hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions of people - who were living here at the time white man "discovered" this place - you're left with feeling that wilderness is indeed relative.

Just 'cause we stole the land from the Indians doesn't mean people weren't living here before we showed up.

 

[Tobit]

Ranger Molly rescuing a naked, bacon grease covered, Dr. Wu. I will not go there, I will behave, I will not go there.

 

[TCD]

This is the point:

"...the Pemigewasset is Wilderness, period, because Congress said so."

It's all about the piece of paper, not the conditions on the ground. 99% (99.9%?) of the citizenry does not know or care about this issue. No one has any valid poll of the opinions of teh few that do know and care. So we have to go with what the piece of paper says.

 

[arghman]

This is the point:

"...the Pemigewasset is Wilderness, period, because Congress said so."

It's all about the piece of paper, not the conditions on the ground. 99% (99.9%?) of the citizenry does not know or care about this issue. No one has any valid poll of the opinions of teh few that do know and care. So we have to go with what the piece of paper says.

this issue (the bridge removal) is merely a symptom of a larger problem: namely, the inflexibility and absoluteness of Congressionally-designated Wilderness, when applied to areas with existing uses. By all means declare large, undeveloped areas as Wilderness. I guess it works in Western states. But when there's something already on the ground, there's no room for flexibility.

Why the Forest Service, when it worked w/ Congress to delineate these areas for their designation, hadn't carved out small areas of compatible existing uses (like this bridge), is something I just can't understand.

 

[dr_wu002]

Ranger Molly rescuing a naked, bacon grease covered, Dr. Wu. I will not go there, I will behave, I will not go there.

Guess what? You've just been roped in as well. I'll get three packs of bacon tonight.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Why the Forest Service, when it worked w/ Congress to delineate these areas for their designation, hadn't carved out small areas of compatible existing uses (like this bridge), is something I just can't understand.

The USFS did carve out a long non-wilderness corridor into the Pemi from the north in order to keep the Guyot lean-to and tent platforms, and kept the wilderness boundary mostly south of the trail corridors and bridges to the north, including Ethan Pond Trail, etc., good decisions in my view. But, back in the 1980s, I do not think that the suspension bridge was seen as incompatible with wilderness designation in the Pemi (ditto for the bridge being removed over Black(?) Brook, although still no mention of the bridge over the south end of Thoreau Brook, which would mean essentially getting rid of the Thoreau Brook Trail). But, it seems that there has been an attitudinal change of view by the USFS the past few years, which led to the destruction of the wonderful cairn on top of West Bond, not to mention the ridiculous waste of resources in attempting to remove the side trail to Owls Head.

 

[Waumbek]

I was most struck in the decision by the subjectivity of what constitutes wilderness. There is no clear standard. Ranger Fuller acknowledges this toward the end of the document when she notes that there is no "black and white" criterion for wilderness. In the earlier sections of the decision, at least part of the argument for removing the bridge comes down to Fuller's personal perception of what constitutes wilderness, which, as she notes, doesn't in her view include coming upon a 180' bridge. She's not at all disingenuous about this. But I can see many other valid definitions of "wilderness" that are not incompatible with a near-historic (49 year old) bridge being retained (not built anew). This is, after all, reclaimed wilderness at best. Wilderness does not necessarily have to mean no sign whatsoever of "human hands" at work; if that were the case, trails and even minimal signage would not be compatible with wilderness. Would a different head ranger see "wilderness" differently? Given the inherent subjectivity of the wilderness designation, I really wonder whether it's right for one particular person, even one lawfully authorized, to make an irrevocable decision about this bridge. Once it goes, it's gone forever. One can't rebuild an historic structure. Something seems wrong here, not about this head ranger, but about the decision process itself, not to mention the lack of clear standards.

 

[GlennS]

The cynic in me tells me this is more about money than philosophy. The government’s fiscal year ends on September 30th. At year end, there is a mad rush in government agencies to spend their budget.

They have really packaged the whole thing very nicely. They do less and you get more. For one time expenditure, they get rid of two bridges and .7 miles of trail. You get more wilderness.

The whole thing seems rather contrived. Nothing says wilderness to me like teams of Oxen dragging out the old bridge to trucks waiting just outside the wildness boundary.

Of course, the reality is that the USFS doesn’t have the resources to do anything but reduce its’ maintenance workload. They have been woefully under funded for years.

I hope this isn’t a glimpse of the future.

-Glenn

 

[Paradox]

Why did they bother "gathering" any input whatsoever? I know, I know,... a legal requirement. Who are they serving? I thought that *we* pay the bills, why isn't our input counted?>?>>? What country are we in??
--Becca

The only input considered in the whole discussion was "amount of board feet of lumber to be sold to the highest bidder."