Should the shelters in Wild River be removed?

[MichaelJ]

Michael, I respectfully disagree with your logic here. The same logic could be used to oppose nearly any conservation project. The "Wilderness Trail", a potential analogue to the Wild River Trail, may not be the most remote wilderness, but to say that it's not worth conserving as Wilderness

The rationale behind eliminating the shelters is that because they're on the trail, the hiker on the trail does not have a "wilderness experience." I'm simply saying that's a load of hooey, because if you're walking a 10-foot wide former railroad grade you are not anywhere near a wilderness experience to begin with, regardless of what the little sign markers say.

I'm not against conserving the area, I'm all for it. However, I am in favor of managing the area and trails. Suddenly not replacing bridges and tearing down shelters is not management. It's a demolish-and-forget mentality.

 

[dug]

Others will be blocked because they don't have the money for tents and other equipment. There's an unattractive element of elitism in all of this.

That's one opinion I personally can't agree with. Now, you're asking the Federal Government to subsidize someone's camping pleasures by providing them shelter in the woods. Man has survived for thousands of years without a tent for a USFS shelter.

 

[sleeping bear]

He will be banned from the area because physical disabilities. Others will be blocked because they don't have the money for tents and other equipment. There's an unattractive element of elitism in all of this.

Physical disabilities? I'm all for accessibility, but you have to draw the line somewhere, I mean come on, it's the woods! Mother nature isn't ADA compliant, unfortunatley.

And elitism because someone doesn't have a tent?? Buy a tent if you want to go camping! Or a five dollar tarp and some rope. Being properly prepared for a wilderness expereince, or any backcountry expereince should dictate that you have some sort of shelter with you, or have the skills/knowledge to find/make your own.

That's like saying there should be a hotdog stand at every campsite because it's elitism to assume that everyone will have a campstove and know how to cook.

 

[Snowflea]

I agree with Giggy & Sleeping Bear!

...although a Starbucks at every campsite WOULD be a welcome sight.

Just kidding of course!!! :

 

[Greg]

I agree with Arghman.

I find a shelter can get me into more remote areas than I may ordinarily be able to see. Yea, I could pitch a tent or hang my hammock, but do we want dozens of stealth sites all along every watercourse? I find that disturbing, not someone walking by the shelter that I am staying in. The lack of shelters in the Sandwich range has kinda made it so I don't go to that area anymore, since my knees aren't what they used to be. And before anyone says that if I can't get out and hike, stay home, I do a lot of trailwork in the Evans Notch area and would do some in the Sandwich range as well if they had a spot I could hang my hat at the end of the day. So, I like the shelters, if not for the social aspect, then for those of us who may not like roots and rocks poking us at three am. I think the Wilderness feel is there even with three shelters for an area of 23,700 acres. Just my views.

 

[mtnpa]

The point of view presented in the Scoping Report seems to start from the rules/criteria for Wilderness Designation and present points consistent with that objective. The points about sanitation and watershed issues are valid. However their views on managing hiker impact are short sighted and self-serving. The following are excerpts from the Scoping Report:





"What is the Forest Service Proposing?
Where appropriate the Forest Service would provide less-developed camping options in the form of native soil tent pads. The type of overnight opportunity provided by tent pads would better serve to concentrate visitor impacts in acceptable areas while more accurately reflecting the primitive character of the Wild River Valley."

"Forest visitors often develop close sense-of-place emotional attachment with recreation sites and facilities, so it is likely that any decision to remove shelters will be controversial. Large recreational parties and guided groups have often used the Wild River Valley including the shelters. The likely future
Wilderness designation will affect group size limits and removal of the shelters may change use patterns. Large groups seeking the more developed recreational experience provided by shelters would continue to have the opportunity to do so at a variety of other locations across the WMNF. Such a shift would be acceptable as it continues to concentrate use in appropriate areas."




The contention that removing shelters and replacing them with "native soil tent pads" will concentrate impact seems off base to me. More likely this would lead campers to spread further apart as numbers increased. I also suspect that the large recreational parties are usually comprised of several small parties arriving on the same day. Instead of restricting/discouraging camping in the area, the focus should be on making the camping experience and opportunities less impactful on the environment. Camping in shelters and on tent platforms does less damage than free-for-all tenting on the ground.

 

[jrichard]

no shelter, like Nancy Pond?

I'm all for stealth camping and it's usually how I camp.

However, the "stealth" camps at popular places are pretty dirty. I'm thinking of hiking by Nancy pond and seeing not just trash, fire rings, and flattened tent beds, but a partially burning fire. Oh yeah, the TP and associated articles littering the ground aren't attractive either.

I'm not sure that the shelter would be any worse and in my experience, the areas around shelters actually look better.

 

[trailbiscuit]

This has been a very interesting thread. There are so many ways to look at this issue. It feels like the biggest problem is the apparent lack of flexibility in the Wilderness designation and definition. I would like to see each shelter/camping area should be reviewed on a case by case basis. There are few enough shelters that this doesn't seem unreasonable.

I always feel that even though a shleter may create a highly impacted area, it consolidates the impact. Without a shelter, camping tends to occur more randomly. I understand they are trying to combat that with tent pads, but those don't have the same "social structure" as a shelter. I don't like people (my wife will attest to that), but I really like the shelter atmosphere. It's fun swapping stories and whatnot. To me, shelters narrow the area that is impacted. Plus, a well maintained shleter with a good composting toilet, etc. is always a good site after a long day. Of course, the solitude of the tent is comforting, too. Both have pros and cons.

If a shelter was built in an "incorrect" spot it should be relocated or removed. But, I think in the long run, removing all shelters will cause more harm than good. I don't think people will be detered from visiting places just because there isn't a shelter. And, personally, I'd rather see people visit these places to understand why they're so special and so important to protect.

 

[forestgnome]

I'm all for stealth camping and it's usually how I camp.

However, the "stealth" camps at popular places are pretty dirty. I'm thinking of hiking by Nancy pond and seeing not just trash, fire rings, and flattened tent beds, but a partially burning fire. Oh yeah, the TP and associated articles littering the ground aren't attractive either.

I'm not sure that the shelter would be any worse and in my experience, the areas around shelters actually look better.

I agree that any popular campsite can be as trashy as a shelter. However, more people will always mean more filth. So, less people will mean less filthy people. If shelters attract more people, then there will be more abuse.

Last weekend I cleaned litter at the Downes Brook Trailhead. I removed about 50 little tp wads. Lots of people = lots of trash.

Another point; shelters spawn nearby stealth sites. Every shelter I can think of has lots of sites nearby because on busy weekends lots of people show up and find the shelter occupied. So, they scout around for a site because they don't want to go on any farther.

 

[jrichard]

fuzzy math?

I agree that any popular campsite can be as trashy as a shelter. However, more people will always mean more filth. So, less people will mean less filthy people. If shelters attract more people, then there will be more abuse.

I suspect this could be modeled mathematically with queuing theory, perhaps the FS has already done this and that's why they're removing the shelter.

But my gut feeling (no Cobert jokes please) is that a certain number N of people are going to head into the woods. For various reasons, X of these will need a shelter to camp at. Y will want to stay at real stealth campsites. Z = N-X-Y are flexible but will prefer a shelter if it's available. You need to assign weights to all these to indicate the impact each group is likely to have.

I'd guess that, as you say, up to a certain point shelters absorb most of the impact of group X, until the shelter is filled. At that point, their impact goes up. Most of the time I find shelters not full, so I assume the impact of group Z will also be mostly absorbed by shelters. Group Y spreads their impact around (but I see quite a bit of poor Y campsites in places like Nancy pond). There's probably groups Y1 (good at stealth camping) and Y2 (who bring an ax and camp near ponds, streams, etc...). Y2 has high impact.

I'd hazard a guess that Y2 brings the impact of group Y up to high impact. If groups X and Z are pushed out to group Y2, then there will be high impact.

Of course, this would need a real study to see how to actually lay out the equation.

 

[askus3]

I don't think a shelter or a backpackers CG would have much difference on the impact in an area. However, without either, you will have more spreadout usage which I personally feel would cause more negative impact in an area. I feel if you are removing a shelter then you should eliminate camping in the area for complete healing of the area from overusage. I don't feel that the Wild River is overused, so I think we should leave well enough alone. Back in the late 70s there was a shelter at Greeley Pond in the Whites. I am glad they removed it with all camping options as the area was getting too frequently visited and it was no longer the wilderness experience visiting it. The area could not take the heavy overnight usage. Being an easy couple of miles in from the highway the beauty was being detracted by the excessive overnight visitation. Now I compare that with Black Mountain Pond in the southern Whites. That shelter was also removed. I was against that as they still let you camp there, so why remove the shelter. It wasn't causing any harm and the shelter did not detract from the camping outdoor experience.

Lastly, I remember when they had shelters over 3500 feet in the Catskills (there were two on the summit of Slide and one just below Giants Ledge). Here again the soil could not take heavy human overnight use and people hanging out at the higher elvation. So camping was eliminated. This was good. So my feeling is remove the shelters if you remove the camping option all together. And camping should be eliminated if it will effect the natural surroundings in a negative way. I don't feel the Wild River falls into this category.

 

[jmegillon149]

leave it for now, breaking it down, throwing the logs in the woods, etc. would do more damage and take time and money then letting it just sit there would

 

[arghman]

leave it for now, breaking it down, throwing the logs in the woods, etc. would do more damage and take time and money then letting it just sit there would

Yes, but if they remove it now, they can do it w/ motorized equipment before Wilderness rules take effect, vs. afterwards when they have to disassemble manually.

IMHO the proposed Wilderness bdy near Blue Brook shelter (since it's right near the ridge) should be tweaked so that the shelter is outside Wilderness, losing a small amount of acreage & reducing conflict to recreational use.

 

[Greg]

IMHO the proposed Wilderness bdy near Blue Brook shelter (since it's right near the ridge) should be tweaked so that the shelter is outside Wilderness, losing a small amount of acreage & reducing conflict to recreational use.

I agree again. Blue brook is in a great central location, and it would be a pity to have it gone. Haven't been to the others yet; guess I aught to really soon.

 

[McRat]

From a budget perspective, this is quite a solution. If something is expensive to maintain, simply declare it wilderness.

I wonder if they will declare a new class of 'super-wilderness' - No humans allowed. This would save a lot of funds on mainenance / patrols, help the environment and wildlife to be more natural, and reduce needless automotive traffic to these areas.

I'm glad that there are a lot of hardcore wanderers on this site, and someday I may learn enough from them to do it myself. In the meantime, I cannot avoid feeling that rushing to pay extra to remove these shelters while they are still functional is a bit exclusionary.

If they must go, fine. Wilderness will claim it in time, it always does.

I would prefer seeing the limited funding available designated for the benefit of all hikers, not just the smaller percentage of the experienced and well-equipped.

 

[sardog1]

This thread presents an opportunity to explore the meaning(s) of "wilderness" and the purpose and provisions of the Wilderness Act. Whether you favor the shelters' removal or not, knowing the history, purposes and provisions of the law under which the proposal is made could help this discussion.

One place to start is at the Wilderness Watch site. Another place, for the truly interested, is the free online Wilderness Act Handbook from the Wilderness Society.

 

[blacknblue]

I think Trailbiscuit summed it up nicely for me (post #28).

First of all, are we debating the merits/demerits of a wilderness designation on a particular location, the merits/demerits of what a wilderness designation should entail, or merits/demerits of shelters in a wilderness (lower-case w) setting?

It seems pretty clear to me that shelters provide a valuable service to a environment in that it consolidates the impact to an area that can be managed. Without them, all of that poop and trash would be spread out over a larger area, unmanagably, and probably disposed of poorly.

Would fewer shelters mean fewer people? or just that the people would be more spread out? That's hard to answer. I suppose there are those that would rather dayhike than pitch a tent - at least at times.

So while w/o shelters there may be fewer people, the per person impact would be greater. I would think that the removal of the shelters would do more harm than good to the overall health of the environment, as well as the aesthetics of the wilderness.

 

[blacknblue]

I guess I am just not sure what is meant by this or the rationale behind it...

He will be banned from the area because physical disabilities.

Yeah, just like I'm "banned" from the summit of El Capitan because I can't rock climb for crap. They removed the Cable Route from Longs Peak not too many years ago. That didn't "ban" people from attempting the route - it just necessitated a skill set that fewer people have. I'm not physically capable of running marathons anymore (thank you, compressed patella), but nobody has banned me from them.

Others will be blocked because they don't have the money for tents and other equipment. There's an unattractive element of elitism in all of this.

Backpacking isn't exactly the playground of the rich.
Again, nobody is banning anybody for their disabilities - physical or financial - by removing shelters. True, it might be a (possibly unintended) byproduct of removing shelters that more people are disinclined to venture farther into the wilderness. This is hardly elitism, though. If the debate centers around environmental stewardship, it really has nothing to do with separating the classes of outdoorsmanship.

 

[chas]

So while w/o shelters there may be fewer people, the per person impact would be greater.

I don't agree with your conclusion. I'm sure there are many here that feel, like I do, that the last place they want to stay is in a crowded (or even empty) shelter when they head out for a weekend. In other words, there are many that are already stealth camping for reasons of 'peace and quiet' even if there are shelters available. Those numbers, and their impact, is not going to change all that much. Former shelter users will probably look elsewhere or camp in a few really hardened areas.

Chas.

 

[chas]

Backpacking isn't exactly the playground of the rich.

Definitely agree here! It probably costs more to drive to the traihead these days than it does for a decent daypack, depending on where you are coming from. I backpacked for years on old or borrowed gear before I discovered REI, etc.

Chas.