poll: WMNF Wilderness deconstructed

[arghman]

I am curious as to the support among the hikers/backpackers of this forum for the various impacts of new Wilderness in the WMNF. (specifically the proposed expansion of the Sandwich Range Wilderness and the proposed creation of a new Wild River Wilderness) These impacts come as a package (see below for more details). If you could approve or disapprove these impacts individually, which ones would you support?

Please answer this question specifically considering the proposed additions to Wilderness, and not the existing Wilderness areas. (e.g. if you support a Wild River Wilderness but don't like the Caribou-Speckled Mountain Wilderness, forget about the C-S Wilderness since that's not what this poll is about.)

If you have additional clarifying comments not covered by the poll options, post them but please be civil... I don't want to see this thread get locked.

=============

The USFS in its Forest Plan Revision (see also the plan index), has recommended two increases in Wilderness area for the WMNF: an expansion of the Sandwich Range wilderness and a new Wilderness area in the Wild River Valley. It is expected that the NH Congressional Delegation will propose a bill this year to implement this recommendation (with possible modification depending on public input and the whims of federal politics...).

Wilderness on USFS land comes with a package of impacts. These are restrictions mentioned in the Forest Plan (see pp. 3-9 to 3-18 of the Management Area Direction section of the Plan) that are under the Forest Service's jurisdiction. The Wilderness Act itself leaves it up to the administering agencies to figure out the fine details, but does mention a few major specifics -- from section 4-3B and 4-3C of the Wilderness Act:

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.

PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES
(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.

All of the impacts listed in the poll appear to be mentioned in the Forest Plan or the Wilderness Act, with the exception of the item on removal of shelters, though this has been the WMNF policy in the past (e.g. Dry River shelters, Camp Shehadi, Heermance). I'm trying to get some clarifying info from USFS. Page 3-14 of the Forest Plan doesn't say whether or not individual shelters will be removed or retained, only that they must be assessed for removal/retention. It's also not clear whether Blue Brook Shelter is inside/outside the proposed Wild River area (it appears to be right on the boundary... Spruce Brook and Perkins Notch shelters are inside the boundary).

edit: re: the "other" choice -- If you support any particular impact of Wilderness not mentioned in the other sections (e.g. opposition to geocaching, for example, which is prohibited in Wilderness in the new Forest Plan), click "other" & feel free to elaborate.

 

[jjmcgo]

Making a living

How much will this impact local people's efforts to make a living and how much do local people support this expansion of Wilderness?
As to the removal of shelters, I've said it before but it bears repeating as the subject has come up again: Those in favor of removing the shelters are those with upwards of $700 or more of outdoor sleeping equipment, so there is definitely the repugnant air of elitism involved in advocating for this.
That's the basis for my first sentence: How much is the Wilderness designation supported by those who live in the area and how much of the enthusiasm is generated from Boston?

 

[vegematic]

There were two that I didn't click:
removal of bridges & structures in need of maintenance. Although I generally don't mind their removal, the presence of modest bridges and lean-to shelters does not negatively impact my "wilderness" experience.

other. This category is a bit broad for me to wholeheartedly support, but as with the above, I don't mind its inclusion as a rule for Wilderness area management.

I'm very much in favour of the remainder of the selections.
-vegematic

 

[blacknblue]

Interesting that (so far) the least voted upon is the maintainence of bridges/structures. I agree with vegematic that a modest bridge or shelter does not hamper my wilderness experience to much of a degree. While I wouldn't pop them up all over the place, really don't mind passing the occasional Liberty Springs or Guyot or 13 Falls or even the old Desolation Shelter in my travels. I understand their role in the big picture of preserving the wilderness.
Roads and mining, though? Two big thumbs down.
Great poll idea, by the way. Should generate some discussion. I guess for me it comes down to 2 questions: 1) What does/doesn't impact my wilderness experience (and at least approximates a general consensus)? and 2) What does/doesn't impact the health of the forest/wilderness/environment?

 

[forestgnome]

The only impact in this poll I did not support is the removal of bridges and shelters. Yes, they clash with "wilderness" in a purest way, but I don't expect true 100% "wilderness", and that's just fine with me. I find the footbridges and lean-tos romantic.

Happy Trails!

 

[percious]

I'm a big fan of wilderness bridges. They are interesting pieces of architecture, and they provide a safe way to cross at rivers that would be dangerous during spring runoff. I wish they would repair the Dry River bridge, as it is in serious need of help.

My favourite bridges are in the adirondacks, which blend nicely into the scenery, as they are built from materials found near the work site.

-percious

 

[dave.m]

afka_bob and I were sitting on the suspension bridge over the Pemi this weekend eating our lunch and talking about just this issue. We both more or less came down in the same place on this. We would definitely miss the bridges, especially during ski season when their presence (or lack thereof) sort of makes or breaks the feasibility of a ski route. Speaking only for myself, I don't see the addition of bridges as any more artificial than a well maintained trail. Hard to look at, say, a nice water bar or set of rock steps on a trail and not see the handiwork of humans.

But we both agreed that if our committment to big 'W' Wilderness meant no bridges, we could definitely live with that. I would rather have more Wilderness and less bridges.

 

[WhiteMTHike]

I agree with the previous two posters about wilderness bridges. I say keep and maintain them if needed. A small,well built and maintained wilderness bridge is attractive and I feel enhances the trails.

I hate ATV's and what they do to the trails. A few ATV riders seem to enjoy intimidating hikers. In my home state some ATV riders don't care about the signs that prohibit them from riding on the trails.

I'll share a quick story. I was hiking with my son in the Keltie Carrier one afternoon when this guy on an ATV comes roaring upon us. I made a stop signal with my hand and told him that DEM rules did not allow ATV's on this particular trail and I asked if he saw the sign. His reply was for to me go "F" myself. I walked away and continued my hiking as he drove away and ripped up the trail. I thought I'd seen the last of him when all of a sudden here he comes again, this time he's WAY too close for comfort. I stepped aside, reached out and clotheslined him. He went flying off the ATV and I continued my hike. I never bothered to see if he got up and back on the ATV and frankly I don't care.

I guess that sums up how I voted.

 

[Stan]

Interesting poll and topic. Thanks.

One suggestion I have is to recalculate the % column ... 82% of us think a ban on motorized equipment etc. is appropriate to the Wilderness.

For my part I voted for most of the items but not all. I don't object to appropriate built structures or the preservation of existing; I think their impact, if done correctly, can not only be miniscule but can perhaps be conducive to the preservation of Wilderness.

 

[sierra]

To me the need to support any addition to Wilderness area's is critical, yet I try not to be selfish in doing so. While I love wilderness area's simply from a purist and preservation standpoint there are some by products that could seriously affect the local people, who I would not want to adversly affect just to have more wilderness. Local economy's reliance on wooded lands is a concern I apprieciate, because many urban lands are the primary source of revenue for the local people. Wilderness areas eliminate that resource and while hiking pristine lands is awesome, I grew up in the Whites and have shared the land with loggers and locals peacefully over the years. Forgive me but I do not know the impact the above thought would have as I have no logging stats to support wether the areas would harm local economy.
As far as bridges and structures ie.shelters Im torn here. While I have no problem with exsiting bridges and shelters being left in place, I wouldnt be to bummed out if they where removed either. Not to sound ambivelant, but I can see it both ways, I like the wilderness bridges and shelters due to there character, BUT I could do without them. Imagine crossing a wide river far from roads, Ive made crossings like that in mountains across the country, some crossings require much effort and time, but the rewards in doing so inspire adventure and ingenuity that bridges do not offer. The long bridge in the Pemi is a tough one, while that would make for a great crossing, who doesnt love sitting on that bridge on a nice day listening and watching the water flow beneath you.
Things IM not for, atvs of any kind, building of new stuctures that in any way detract from the wilderness experience. There are many areas where huts and various modes of civilization are at hand for those who want them, much more then areas of complete wilderness for those who seek that experience.
I guess there are times where not everybody wins, the Wild river valley is one I support, the C-S region is a toss up, if no adverse affects on the local economy resulted, I would say yes, but if that one didnt pass, I could live with it.

 

[arghman]

OK, a few subtle clarifying comments. (I've got some responses / editorial comments in mind, but I'm going to try hard not to state my opinion here, at least while the poll's open. I've already stated my position on Wilderness, for the most part, in another thread.)

I probably could have done a better job framing the question... My intent was to try to understand support / lack of support for these specific impacts (considered separately) as they would potentially being applied to the specific areas proposed for new Wilderness (Sandwich additions, Wild River). For the purposes of this poll I'm not interested in what people think about the existing WMNF Wilderness areas or Wilderness in other U.S. states, or Wilderness in the abstract...

I had hoped that this poll might be answered considering the pieces of the package separately from each other and from the package as a whole, even though psychologically this is probably hard to do...

But we both agreed that if our committment to big 'W' Wilderness meant no bridges, we could definitely live with that. I would rather have more Wilderness and less bridges.

Is that considering a restriction on bridges as something appropriate in and of itself for the areas in question, or a restriction on bridges as part of the Wilderness package/philosophy? The intent for the poll was to ask about the former (e.g. in an alternate universe where you could ask USFS/Congress for restrictions A,B,C and not X,Y,Z, and they could all be put into place independently.) Probably the answers wouldn't change much, but I wonder.

jjmcgo: re: local support of Wilderness, I'm not sure any poll has been done to assess opinion of locals... if there were, I would definitely like to see it. re: economic impact -- for informational purposes, you might check w/ USFS for its figures on timber value / useable timber acreage, which I don't have at the moment but I've seen them. The acreage of the raw Wild River area being proposed as Wilderness is about 30,000 acres or slightly less than 4% of the entire WMNF. I do not know the % of the timberable acreage of the WMNF that is in the proposed Wild River area. That may or may not have an economic impact for local forestry... my understanding is that the bottleneck on timbering is not any particular area being taken out of timbering, but the total ceiling on annual timber harvestable throughout the forest (the "Allowable Sale Quantity" or ASQ)... SPNHF for example supported the Wilderness areas but thought that the ASQ could be higher without a negative impact on the forest health. This opinion (about the ASQ, not necessarily Wilderness) was also expressed by the NH Timberland Owners Assoc, NH Fish & Game, NH Division of Forests & Lands, NH Wildlife Federation, the North Country Council, the Town of Lincoln, the City of Berlin, and the Town of Conway. Other towns such as Jefferson and Randolph seemed to support the USFS's judgement on the ASQ. (see FEIS appendix A p. A-262, A-257, & nearby pages) The Town of Lincoln (through its Town Manager) supported Sandwich Range expansion but felt "that further studies should be done for other expansion of wilderness areas in the WMNF." Tamworth through its Conservation Commission supported more Wilderness as proposed in Alternative 3. [caveat: the preceding is not meant to express my opinion, merely a statement of some known facts relating to the topic of local support]

Stan -- I agree but I think there's a bug in the % calcs for multi-choice polls. They're done automatically, I have no control. I've posted a comment/question in site help.

 

[dave.m]

But we both agreed that if our committment to big 'W' Wilderness meant no bridges, we could definitely live with that. I would rather have more Wilderness and less bridges.

Is that considering a restriction on bridges as something appropriate in and of itself for the areas in question, or a restriction on bridges as part of the Wilderness package/philosophy? The intent for the poll was to ask about the former (e.g. in an alternate universe where you could ask USFS/Congress for restrictions A,B,C and not X,Y,Z, and they could all be put into place independently.) Probably the answers wouldn't change much, but I wonder.

Both afka_bob and I were/are confused on the point of whether or not these ways of looking at the problem are, in fact, seperate or not. That is, if an area is designated as Wilderness by the USFS, does this mean a one-size fits all management regime that ultimately forbids the existence of bridges and shelters? This is purely ignorance on our parts. Given that, it's pretty hard to make that distinction.

In the end, we both agreed that if designating the area as Wilderness meant the removal of the bridge, then we could live with that. That is, our commitment to the philosophy of Wilderness trumps our own personal desire for the bridges.

An additional note.... I am somewhat fascinated by an essay by David Foreman that appeared in Backpacker many (many) years ago. He argued that Wilderness Areas should be maintained as unmapped regions. As in, no published topo maps. He argues, somewhat persuasively, that maps are articial aids and that Wilderness should be confronted on its own terms with out such aids. IMO, this argues against trails too. This quickly raises even more fundemental questions in my mind. Should a Wilderness area provide things like trails that localize or minimize human impact? Are shelters or tent platforms an extension of this thinking? Are bear boxes? Or, should the USFS limit access through a permitting system to minimize human impact?

 

[jjmcgo]

Insanity on the run

Glad you mentioned Foresman's article because it shows how whacked out you can get when you try to label a former industrial site a Wilderness.
We've all had these conversations before but the govt. is going to do what it wants or what the most powerful ask it to do.
A guy with a small forestry biz doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this arena.
Again, some controls are necessary because of the large numbers availing themselves of the beauty of the woods but I am against the destruction of work done by great stewards of the past who wanted MORE people to come into the woods, not fewer.
I am not a fan of the elitists who want fewer people to enter their "cathedral," as it's been referred to, and so lay waste to beautiful bridges, shelters and trails.
I'm also posting this on this site so any outsiders will know there are differences of opinion regarding expanding draconian Wilderness regulations to well-trod places.
In one of these conversations some time back, somebody made a reasonable suggestion about "rings" of protection, saying Wilderness areas should start no less than seven miles from a road. I can go for that, but not 250 feet from the parking lot.

 

[Jasonst]

I agree with the previous two posters about wilderness bridges. I say keep and maintain them if needed. A small,well built and maintained wilderness bridge is attractive and I feel enhances the trails.

I hate ATV's and what they do to the trails. A few ATV riders seem to enjoy intimidating hikers. In my home state some ATV riders don't care about the signs that prohibit them from riding on the trails.

I'll share a quick story. I was hiking with my son in the Keltie Carrier one afternoon when this guy on an ATV comes roaring upon us. I made a stop signal with my hand and told him that DEM rules did not allow ATV's on this particular trail and I asked if he saw the sign. His reply was for to me go "F" myself. I walked away and continued my hiking as he drove away and ripped up the trail. I thought I'd seen the last of him when all of a sudden here he comes again, this time he's WAY too close for comfort. I stepped aside, reached out and clotheslined him. He went flying off the ATV and I continued my hike. I never bothered to see if he got up and back on the ATV and frankly I don't care.

I guess that sums up how I voted.

Yeah, and I have a bridge for sale...

 

[arghman]

In the end, we both agreed that if designating the area as Wilderness meant the removal of the bridge, then we could live with that. That is, our commitment to the philosophy of Wilderness trumps our own personal desire for the bridges.

Valid point & reasonable position.

Just want to make clear that my intent for the poll was not to gauge the support for the Wilderness philosophy but rather the support for the various separate tangible impacts of Wilderness in the WMNF, independent of any overall philosophy.

 

[sleeping bear]

That is, if an area is designated as Wilderness by the USFS, does this mean a one-size fits all management regime that ultimately forbids the existence of bridges and shelters? This is purely ignorance on our parts. Given that, it's pretty hard to make that distinction.

IMO, this argues against trails too. This quickly raises even more fundemental questions in my mind. Should a Wilderness area provide things like trails that localize or minimize human impact? Are shelters or tent platforms an extension of this thinking? Are bear boxes? Or, should the USFS limit access through a permitting system to minimize human impact?

I think a lot of these ideas (maybe not the map one) have been tried in different areas. My favorite place in MI was a Forest Service designated wilderness areas (25 square miles with three miles of trails!). It was formerly a resort type "camp" in the early 1900s. The buildings were all removed at the time of designation, however the foundations still remain, as well as some other structures inlcuding a pump house and artesian well, some OLD bridges, and occasionally you can pick up the almost 100 year old trails if you know where to look. None of this stuff can be found on maps you can buy, and is a BLAST to explore, as it's all off trail. However, none of it is maintained, not even the trails, which become more and more overgrown every year.

The Forest Service has a system of public land designation called the ROS, or Recreational Opportunity Spectrum, which provides designation for everything from campgrounds with showers and accessible trails to wilderness areas. Most people tend to like the IDEA of wilderness much better than what they get with that actual designation.

Land magagers, in this area especially, will have to manage a very high user impact, and may find that shelters, bridges, and bear boxes are necessary to keep the area from showing too many signs of overuse. It's a delicate balance, probably best helped by Leave No Trace education and being sure that a true wilerness experience is truley what one is looking for. If you want bridges, shelters, bear boxes, well marked and maintained trails and/or ATV access, then a true wilderness experience (by USFS definition) is likely not what you want.

 

[forestgnome]

Aughman, I understand that you're wondering specifically about individual impacts, and also about the new wilderness areas specifically.

I know the general areas of Wild River and Sandwich Range, but where can I find a detailed description of the new boundaries, or even a highlighted map, to determine exactly what shall become wilderness (if it passes)?

Thanks much.

 

[arghman]

I know the general areas of Wild River and Sandwich Range, but where can I find a detailed description of the new boundaries, or even a highlighted map, to determine exactly what shall become wilderness (if it passes)?

Very good question. I called the Laconia office of the WMNF (603) 528-8721 to ask the same thing. They referred me to the "GeoBooks" area on their Plan Revision Page, which is some software that lets you explore the GIS info they have posted. I don't think it even comes close to a map, and I asked them to please try to post some kind of map that shows the Wilderness boundaries, and some important landmarks, e.g. roads, mountain peaks, trails, and shelters -- so that people can understand what's inside and what's outside. It took me a while to get this point through to the person I talked to. She seemed to think that the GeoBooks, or the non-detailed maps in the Forest Plan PDF files would be sufficient....

One option which I took (for those that are comfortable w/ the complexities of computers) is to download the free GIS viewer (ArcExplorer) from ESRI, then take the shapefiles that are in the GeoBooks .zip files, and turn on various layers accordingly. It takes a while to figure out what's what; I could probably walk someone through it quickly (though I don't have much free time these days ). Anyway when I get a chance I'll post a screenshot of the Wild River & Sandwich areas...

One thing I noticed from the USFS GIS data is that the entire UNH Trail to Hedgehog Mtn seems to be outside the Sandwich Wilderness (both existing and proposed). If you have the "Map Adventures" map of the WMNF, it shows the summit & a small portion of the trail as being inside the existing Wilderness. One of these two data sources is wrong....

 

[Greg]

Keep shelters and bridges?

As one who spends a lot of time in the Wild River area hiking and doing trailwork, I have always felt that if these shelters were removed one by one, there are not many other options for those who enjoy the shelter experience. Baldface gets a lot of use as it's the only game in town, ditto for Blue Brook. While I understand that Wilderness means no disruptions from outside forces, I see that the reason of having wilderness areas is for our enjoyment, and without shelters, that enjoyment will be lessened somewhat. I personally like shelters and camping alone, and would like to have the option on a cold, rainy night. To remove them when they are in need of great repair would be a pity, I think.
The Sandwich range, now, has no shelters, so for someone who has bad knees that can only hike so far in a day, that area is limiting and out of reach. I'd love to see two to three shelters spread out over the range so that the option is there to use them.

 

[RoySwkr]

The Forest Service has a system of public land designation called the ROS, or Recreational Opportunity Spectrum, which provides designation for everything from campgrounds with showers and accessible trails to wilderness areas. Most people tend to like the IDEA of wilderness much better than what they get with that actual designation.

In fact many of the heavily-used hiking areas (Presidentials, Franconias, Chocorua) have been deliberately excluded from Wilderness because genuine Wilderness management would not be compatible with what hikers expect. Unfortunately the designations are not uniform from Forest to Forest, but Scenic Areas, non-motorized primitive recreation areas, and now a proposed management area for the Appalachian Trail might be closer to what most hikers prefer.

Unfortunately I have come to believe that most "people" prefer even more stringent Wilderness rules, because most people never visit Wilderness and don't care what hikers like. I am not talking about only extreme environmentalists but also typical urban dwellers who are easy to sell on the concept of a preserve where plants and animals aren't disturbed.

- lost in the McCormick