Should the shelters in Wild River be removed?

[dr_wu002]

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.

I agree: the pretense of these "wilderness" areas seems rather contrived to me in the Northeast. I'm not buying that any of these former logging areas now called "wilderness" will become any more remote without shelters. Give me a break... open yer eyes, yer never more than a few miles from a road. And not even a road: usually a major highway. Removing the shelters only creates an illusion of "wilderness" but what you really should do if you're worried is bushwhack around them so that you don't have to see them.

-Dr. Wu

 

[arghman]

commenting here is fine for the general-understanding-of-different-views, but if you want to make a difference, send your comments to USFS.

 

[Stan]

Ah! More proof that common sense is an oxymoron.

 

[arghman]

public dialogue

Well, I went to the discussion forum that Roy mentioned; I found out about it from a letter they'd sent to people that commented on the shelter removal project & I'd been waffling about whether to go.

I am glad I went, for a couple of reasons that I will share before posting much about the meeting itself (I've got a time deficit ). There were 8 people at the discussion forum:

4 from USFS:
Katherine Stuart, Androscoggin District Ranger
Dave Neely, Assistant District Ranger
Justin Preisendorfer, District Wilderness Manager
Nate Peters, Backcountry Ranger

2 w/ other affiliations:
Fred Lavigne, Friends of the Sandwich Range
Andrew Norkin, AMC Trails Manager

2 unaffiliated people
someone named Jimmy from MA who has spent a bunch of time in the Wild River area
me

I was rather disappointed that more people didn't attend. Public meetings and hearings are important, at least when they're not dominated by political bantering the way they probably do in our Congress. It gives you the opportunity to state your opinion in the context of detailed facts and other opinions. It gives you an opportunity to learn and to ask questions. It gives you an opportunity to see other people involved as human beings rather than an anonymous "they". It gives some of our public officials the opportunity to engage in a dialogue and understand some of the reasons why people have certain opinions. I've been to a lot of my town's Planning Board meetings, and though I may or may not agree with their end decision, the process usually seems to work well. I felt the same way about this meeting.

The short answer is that District Ranger Stuart will be making a decision sometime around December 2007 regarding the potential removal of one or more shelters, based not only on public comment but on information gathered by Forest Service staff on the potential costs/benefits of removing the shelters to the nearby ecology and to those nebulous "Wilderness values" which the 1964 Wilderness act speaks to.

If you would like to comment, there is no formal cutoff date for public input, so call up the Androscoggin Ranger's office & ask what's the best format (phone call/email/letter). Keep in mind that just stating "I want the shelters to stay" or "I'm happier if you get rid of them" won't do very much. They are looking for substantive comments regarding the costs/benefits of leaving/removing each of the particular shelters, so if you have visited or stayed at the shelters and can provide new information or a different perspective to the Forest Service, that would help them.

If I have time in the next week or two, I'll try to summarize what was discussed at the forum this weekend.

 

[Waumbek]

In the electronic age (or is it post-electronic now?), it is not realistic to expect a lot of people to show up at Dolly Copp campground for a talk fest, however pleasant it may be to sit around and discuss the pros and cons of shelters and despite the targeted audience.

Over 100 people participated in this poll, and maybe half that many commented. The large majority of remarks are substantive.

If the USFS wants to take the pulse of a hiking community, I hope it has been reading this thread.

 

[forestgnome]

Arghman, thanks for the report and the participation.

Happy Trails

 

[RoySwkr]

A couple days ago I went to a lecture by artist-naturalist David Carroll who received a Macarthur grant for his research on turtles
(Digression 1: budding naturalists should hear him if they can)
(Digression 2: there is an exhibit of his works in the lobby of the NHTI library in Concord, http://www.nhti.edu/library/ , one shows a moose in an "alder carr" which someone with a master's in botany had to look up in the OED)

One of his many points was that it is very important to have some habitat undisturbed by humans, he is unhappy that many land trusts immediately build trail systems on new acquisitions and he refuses to aid fund-raising for such "preserves"

Hence it would appear that future NF Wilderness areas would be better for both hikers and animals if they were selected from unknown and undisturbed areas of the Forest rather than from heavily-trailed areas familiar to urban yuppies

 

[jrichard]

A couple days ago I went to a lecture by artist-naturalist David Carroll who received a Macarthur grant for his research on turtles
(Digression 1: budding naturalists should hear him if they can)

He is a great lecturer. I heard him recently on NHPR talking about his "Swampwalker's Journal." (http://www.nhpr.org/node/13552)

Hence it would appear that future NF Wilderness areas would be better for both hikers and animals if they were selected from unknown and undisturbed areas of the Forest rather than from heavily-trailed areas familiar to urban yuppies

Ouch!

But I think "Wilderness" is more of a political designation than an actual human-free wilderness area. It doesn't seem to be about the animals, but about how the people who visit it perceive it. And, can you imagine trying to get the funding to buy land that will be rendered inaccessible? I think it'd be a really tough sell.

 

[arghman]

And, can you imagine trying to get the funding to buy land that will be rendered inaccessible? I think it'd be a really tough sell.

All the Wilderness areas in the WMNF have been in existing forest land; no tax $$$ spent for acquisition. Roy never said anything about rendering land inaccessible, and I don't think David Carroll has either; "undisturbed by humans" just means land left in its natural state, no trails, no structures, no nothing. It doesn't necessarily mean no access by people. There are many places in the state of NH like that, especially on property owned by SPNHF (through its "eco-reserve" program) or The Nature Conservancy; some ecologically-sensitive areas do not allow public access, but most are open & the point is to allow people to approach the land as a respectful visitor.

I happen to agree with Roy -- IMHO it's a lot easier to get consensus on putting Wilderness designation on land that has no recreational improvements at all, since the Wilderness designation effectively makes no change in the status quo for land management; in terms of WMNF rules the only changes are the 10-person limit and prohibitions on motorized equipment -- both of which pose far less of a conflict for unimproved lands than for lands with pre-existing recreational use.