Should the shelters in Wild River be removed?

[blacknblue]

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.

Sure, I agree with that. Those who forsake shelters anyway aren't going to be affected.
But the removal of shelters effects those who do stay in shelters. By and large, I would venture to say that shelter-dwellers probably aren't as adept at Leave No Trace and whatnot. They (and I include myself) tend to be less experienced - and perhaps less willing - to build a proper campsite and dispose of their waste properly. Therefore, more per person impact without shelters.

 

[McRat]

Sardog, thanks for the excellent links.

As I admitted earlier, I have an extremely limited knowlege of the subject. I think I'll need to educate myself a bit more, but my gut reaction (above) is my gut reaction.

I got some reading to do. It's a fairly complex subject I've waded into... again. Please bear with me on the learning curve.

 

[cushetunk]

If the debate centers around environmental stewardship, it really has nothing to do with separating the classes of outdoorsmanship.

I think that part of the reason hiker's debates about "wilderness" land management are so intense is that, unfortunately, they have very little to do with environmental stewardship.

Really, compared to so many other ways people can be stewards of the environment, wilderness regulations are small change. I don't mean to minimize them, because if only for aethetics, LNT practices are a great idea. But it seems pretty clear we are not facing a big environmental crisis when deciding between a privy or a cathole; tent or shelter.

It seems to me that the debate centers around the rules of our game. Hiking and backpacking are a contrived interaction with nature. And because it is contrived, we decide how much of the human world we are going to allow into the experience. It is like arguing over the designated hitter rule. You can invoke some larger principles on either side, but in the end it is going to be arbitrary.

 

[arghman]

[gratuituous bump] which I don't usually do except the comment period ends next week, and I myself forgot to finish my letter until someone reminded me recently.

 

[arghman]

anyone know if there's any news on this? It's been 2 1/2 weeks, not sure when USFS makes their decision.

[begin vent, ignore if you don't want to read venting]

I got CC'd on an email message today from someone at AMC regarding AMC's position on the shelter removal. I am not aware of whether they have a public response / press release on this issue, so I will not post the email message here (and don't quote this as the absolute truth, until they do have a public statement on it), but AMC's position is apparently that they accept that the shelters should be removed because of their incompatibility with Wilderness standards.

This upsets me very much, as the shelters have been there for several decades before any proposal for Wilderness. (This reminds me of people building lots of houses around a farm and then complaining about the farm's odors...) Until the Wilderness is designated by Congress, the shelters aren't incompatible with anything. AMC has had a major hand in promoting Wilderness to both the USFS and members of Congress, and has repeatedly promoted it to its members via the AMC Outdoors magazine, asking their membership to support Wilderness. Yet I don't ever remember AMC mentioning the fact that that the Wilderness it's asking its members to support would trigger a possible removal of shelters.

This process around Wilderness designation has made me so damn cynical about the way these decisions work.

[end vent]

 

[jrichard]

apparently that they accept that the shelters should be removed because of their incompatibility with Wilderness standards.

I kinda like shelters myself. Good place to stop and rest.

Perhaps the AMC knows of good reasons to get rid of shelters. It would be nice to hear their reasoning*. The AMC seems to try to do the right thing. As they see it anyway. Perhaps there's some backroom horse-trading.

*This might get back to the question of if shelters focus too many problem campers vs letting everyone use "stealth" sites; even if that's not what the project explicitly states.

 

[sardog1]

anyone know if there's any news on this? It's been 2 1/2 weeks, not sure when USFS makes their decision.

The WMNF quarterly Schedule of Proposed Action indicates a decision this August and any implementation to be completed by June 2007.

(arghman knows this but some might not: The decision on these shelters is pretty much driven by the revised Forest Plan that was recently adopted. You can see the reasoning by referring to the scoping letter that I linked to on the first page of this thread.)

 

[jrichard]

The decision on these shelters is pretty much driven by the revised Forest Plan that was recently adopted. You can see the reasoning by referring to the scoping letter that I linked to on the first page of this thread.)

Does the AMC agree for the same reasons, or because it's politically expedient?

 

[REK]

I guess I just don't like the government deciding what's best for me. One thing that seems to keep popping up in these regs and subsequent discussions is the idea of "seeing" these structures. This will supposedly ruin my experience. This is such a subjective criteria that it hardly warrents all the time, money, and energy, spent on it. The mere sight of something does not change the physical being of it. It is as if to say that if I walk by the shelter and not look at it I'm in the wilderness, but should I happen to glance in its direction and see it "whoops, no solitude!" It just seems to be very contrived to have to remove all presecne on mankind from the forest so mankind can drop themselves in the middle of it and say, "wow so this is what it would look like if I wasn't here". Sometimes I feel like the Aflac duck listening to Yogi Berra.

I like the shelters, I use them occasionaly and it upsets me that they get removed due to unscientific and emotional reasons. We are regularly subjected to all sorts of unpleasant and disturbing images in our daily lives; photos of dead terrorists, mangled car wrecks, etc. and these are accepted without a blink. Oh, please don't make me look at that little log structure in the woods, I'll be scarred for life!

We have to manage our backcountry, there is no disputing that. Hiking and backpacking put a significant strain on the envirions and will continue to do so until its popularity wanes again and this must be addressed. I hope that this is conducted with a sense of scientific qualification and not based on what a few folks, or worse yet, the government, think we need to have important to us.

 

[RoySwkr]

anyone know if there's any news on this? It's been 2 1/2 weeks, not sure when USFS makes their decision.

Personally I think the decision was made before they sent out the notice,
but it won't be announced for a month or more due to bureaucratic
processes.

My biggest gripe is that there is far more funding for Wilderness than
non-Wilderness, if Wilderness types want the shelters removed at least
they should pay for it.

Yet I don't ever remember AMC mentioning the fact that that the Wilderness it's asking its members to support would trigger a possible removal of shelters.

There may have been a time when the AMC staff felt that it should reflect
members' opinions rather than vice versa but that was at least 25 years
ago. And I think the urban environmentalists who make up much of the
current AMC membership don't care about shelters.

 

[RoySwkr]

The Forest Service is holding a forum on this topic Sept. 29 at Dolly Copp and a tour Sept. 30 (free parking available). Call 603-466-2713 or [email protected]

 

[SLB]

I would say to leave them in place until they rot to pieces.

Aren't they doing this with shelters in Dry River Wilderness?

I think the urban environmentalists who make up much of the current AMC membership don't care about shelters.

Maine Woods Initiative?
http://www.outdoors.org/conservation/wherewework/maine/mwi-overview.cfm

 

[king tut]

Forgive me for being honest, but this idea sounds stupid. Why tear down perfectly good shelters just so an area can be deemed "wilderness"? When I go hiking, I love to see lean-to's and places to stay at, they are fantastic! If people really wanted an ultimate "wilderness" experience, they would not be walking on a wide hiking trail following painted rocks and trees to show them where to go while using a map. The whole "wilderness" idea sounds like a load of crap to me. I predict that they will tear down the perfectly good shelters that someone worked hard to build, make all kinds of moronic rules about where you can set up a tent, and then install some sort of money collection device at the trailhead so that you have to pay to park there.

 

[arghman]

Maine Woods Initiative?
http://www.outdoors.org/conservation/wherewework/maine/mwi-overview.cfm

That's only the 100-Mile Wilderness, which is owned by the AMC (not USFS) and isn't Congressionally-designated Wilderness.

 

[paul ron]

From what I have read in this thread, I don't see why they are designating this area as a wilderness. It seems the people designating this are aren't familiar with the place or type of environment it harbors.

Why not make it more accessible to non-camper type campers, noobies? If the trails are 10 feet wide with shelters directly on them, it makes more sence to keep it as "easy access" camping. We have trailer n car camping areas, day use areas, designated snowmobile trails, designated pad tentsites, huts, cog trains, why not remote "easy access" camping trails? It only makes good sence to take advantage of an already established situation instead of trying to make it something it will never really become, true wilderness. We already have wilderness areas that are truely wild.

The more experienced campers can go find their niche in the woods using their experiences. I am sure they weren't always that good till they tried this "easy" camping one time or another in their lives. Everyone has to start somewhere so lets not forget the non-campers, the bad knees, the bad back, the older folks, the people just looking to get out for a night to have some fun with their kids in the woods. Join me, or avoid me.

I say if you want to remove anthing in NH, get rid of the AMC RMC and private business in the parks first. Then lets talk wilderness designations.

Everyone pays taxes and deserves a chance to enjoy what they are paying for.

.

 

[psmart]

The original scoping to remove the shelters was initiated before the congresional Wilderness designation was complete. The USFS recognized they should wait until it was final, so the issue was put on-hold until the area was oficially designated. This occured in Decemember 2006. So the official scoping period is likely to resume shortly.

Anyone who is interested should read the propsal and submit comments. Your comment does make a difference.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/whi...elter_removal/wild_river_shelter_removal.html

 

[Waumbek]

Why aren't some of these Wilderness area shelters over 50 years old, e.g., Perkins Notch, Resolution, eligible for the National Register of Historic Places? Does an act of Congress take precedence over historical value? The Whites haven't been a wilderness for a century or more. Why not preserve its history rather than obliterate it in some fantasy about "solitude," the theoretical concept that underlies WMNF wilderness designations? I fail to see how a bunch of tent pads creates solitude. I also think the argument that the Wild River shelters destroy solitude because they can be seen from trails is bogus. With that logic, you'd also have to eliminate other hikers from the trails to create true solitude. I just don't think it's possible to recreate "wilderness" in the Whites, aside from the question of whether it is desirable, and it sacrifices the historical value of shelters on the altar of unattainable solitude.

 

[Grayjay]

I was coming down from the summit of Mount Meader to Rim Junction once and could hear a school group at Blue Brook singing through the trees. I think it's an ok idea to divert big groups from wilderness. Imagine the Great Gulf or Dry River with a line of shelters now.
My walk into Dry River Falls this summer had a lot of solitude. I just wish they would fix the stupid bridge (which is probably safe to walk across anyway, despite their liability concerns). That is about the safe crossing of a river dangerous in high water.
I liked the small signs for camping pads in there, but despise the TP mounds surrounding such spots. Thank God for winter.

 

[psmart]

Why aren't some of these Wilderness area shelters over 50 years old, e.g., Perkins Notch, Resolution, eligible for the National Register of Historic Places? Does an act of Congress take precedence over historical value?

Wilderness designation explicitly allows for historic features, so this is certainly a factor in any decision about the shelter removal, regardless of whether they are officially listed in the National Register. However, official historic status can be a double-edged sword, since the associated preservation requirements could be at odds with ongoing maintenance and repair as a hiking shelter.

 

[SherpaKroto]

My first ovenight was at the Trident col shelter when I was 8-9. I don't think it permanently scarred me from enjoying the outdoors. I took my wife into Dry River Falls a long time ago. The shelter was occupied by 25+ AMC trail workers. We managed to hike a bit further up to the Falls and made camp there. It sure felt like Wilderness to both of us.

I like it when I see a shelter, I like it when I don't. I seem to enjoy hikes more that have shelters along the way and find it real hard to pass one by. If I don't want to stay, I move on.

This is all rather foolish to me.