Should the shelters in Wild River be removed?

[RoySwkr]

The Forest Service is proposing to remove the 3 shelters in the Wild River valley in anticipation of the area becoming Wilderness:
* Human structures not compatible with Wilderness (but historic?)
* With tent pads, site capacity larger than 10 (just remove tent pads?)
* Trail closer than guidelines (easier to move trail?)
* Perkins Notch Shelter was to be repaired/moved 10 years ago but no money

The FS probably won't read this note, so if you have a strong opinion reply to them directly

 

[Warren]

* Human structures not compatible with Wilderness (but historic?)

Okay, in most cases I'm a take it out of the woods guy for wilderness. But if the area is not designated as such yet, the structure presents no immediate maintance/safety problem, why waste the time and money on it?

I mean, aren't there non-conforming structures in wilderness areas they can take down if they want to?

 

[David Metsky]

Roy,

Is that proposal online anywhere?

-dave-

 

[sleeping bear]

I beleive, according to the dept. of ag, an item (shelters?) needs to be over 50 years old to be considered a "historical artifact".

 

[sardog1]

Roy,

Is that proposal online anywhere?

-dave-

The proposal is here:
Wild River Shelter Removal .

After reading the scoping report included with the proposal, I'm voting for their removal. I agree with the central premise in the report:

Though these facilities do
serve to concentrate use as directed by the Forest Plan, they do so in areas that are inconsistent with
management for solitude. The Forest Plan states that any new shelter site should be located a minimum
of 100 feet from main trails, bodies of water and/or riparian areas. In most circumstances the desired
distance would be even farther and 200 feet is the commonly accepted goal among recreation managers.
None of the Wild River Valley shelter sites meet Forest Plan minimum criteria and their proximity to
trails creates unwanted social impacts and impedes opportunities for solitude. Any tent pads that are
constructed would be located in such a way as to shield them from the view of passing visitors, thereby
increasing the sense of solitude. Two of the three shelter sites also have current capacities that are
inconsistent with the WMNF’s regulation for a maximum group size of the ten in Wilderness. The
Forest Order creating the group size limit was created as a way to help protect opportunities for solitude
and to reduce the resource and social impacts that are inherently connected to larger groups.

 

[McRat]

Good link Sardog.

For some reason the linked photo shown here is somewhat disturbing to me. It's as if someone said, "They have a spot out of the rain, and are being deprived of a wilderness experience! This must be stopped."

It seems like another example of the letter of the law is being observed, but the spirit getting lost. Basic shelters, if nothing else, concentrate use - particularly among those least capable of LNT camping. I can't see a hundred impromptu fire-rings off trail as an enhancement to wilderness.

Maybe it could be said that I'm just not a fan of true wilderness, but three small shelters and summit markers don't seem too egregious to me.

 

[forestgnome]

I find the shelters charming, except if they are trashed and abused, but that goes for any established campsite.

If it is true that they attract large and/or sloppy groups of campers, as do the AMC huts, then I vote to remove them all.

 

[chas]

It's funny, though I don't consider myself a shelter person (I usually bring a tent), after looking at that link and the list of shelters I remembered that I have indeed stayed at two of those. Perkins and Blue Brook, it was quite a while ago. My vote is to remove them when major maintanance is needed, there is just too much concentrated use at shelters (in general) and it really shows at some of them.

Chas.

 

[MichaelJ]

I knew this would happen. I opposed the Wilderness designation exactly because of situations like this. Suddenly the Wild River Trail, a wide, flat, former railroad grade as it passes Spruce Brook Shelter, is a "wilderness experience"? Please.

Oh, and it's not Congressional Wilderness yet, right? So they'd better not touch anything.

 

[dug]

I personally never stay in a shelter or hut, so I would like to see the money spent elsewhere.

 

[arghman]

Oh, and it's not Congressional Wilderness yet, right? So they'd better not touch anything.

FS can do what they want, it's in their plan under proposed Wilderness. (e.g. any given spot lies within a region that has a management designation number in the plan) I tried to ask what would happen to the areas proposed as Wilderness in the plan if a given area were not designated as Wilderness (e.g. which management designation would they fall back under?) and didn't get a precise answer.... I get the sense that except for the enforcement of Wilderness regulations, they can forge ahead with the policy assuming it is congressionally-designated Wilderness. (e.g. they can take down shelters/bridges but can't stop you from going in a group of 11 people yet)

I was a little disappointed to find out that within the FS there doesn't seem to be the broad awareness of precisely what policy they are implementing, it's complicated enough that the 2 or 3 people I talked to, whenever I had a detailed question, they had to check w/ someone else & call me back. sigh.

I personally never stay in a shelter or hut, so I would like to see the money spent elsewhere.

That's fine, but I'm on the other side of the fence. I have foot/knee problems that vary with time as to seriousness. Last year I was able to day-hike the 18-mile roundtrip to Owls Head w/o problems; so far this year my right foot is bothering me and I'm not sure whether I will be able to do much over 6-mile hikes. Based on my health history, I know that I am never going to be able to backpack with a full pack. It's frustrating. Last year when I went to Carter Notch Hut I still had to control every pound, even though I didn't need to carry a tent or cooking gear. Presence or absence of a shelter could make or break a trip for me.

So removal of shelters, to me, is the equivalent of doors being closed in my face. I'm not asking the FS to put up new ones, but I really wish they wouldn't take the existing ones away in the name of the abstract ideology of "wilderness values".

 

[dug]

That's fine, but I'm on the other side of the fence.

It's what makes America great!!!

 

[giggy]

I honestly don't give a rats behind -

 

[Stan]

I think they get a bit anal about Wilderness designation sometimes. Come on, of all the abuse that can happen in wilderness areas, I don't see shelters as high on the agenda.

It has nothing to do with my camping preferences or anyone elses. There should be a diversity of options for everyone. That some idiots trash places like this is no excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. ... besides, I and others often don't use trails ... should we get rid of the trails, too?

 

[jjmcgo]

Listen to Arghman

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.

 

[el-bagr]

To take a contrary viewpoint that is hopefully not too unpleasant, I backpacked for years without tent or sleeping bag -- just a reflective space blanket tarp. Unusual? I guess, but it let me get deeper in the woods for cheap. I'm not sure what gear I'd leave behind if I knew there was a shelter -- maybe the tent, but what if the shelter is full?

To summarize what I would have said in the many "shelter ettiquette" threads, I have never stayed in a shelter with anyone other than one hiking partner; if someone else is there, I will definitely motor on. No one has ever showed up at a shelter in which I'm camping, but if they did, I would leave. I am a solitary creature, especially when it comes to the woods.

Those shelters (we're talking about Perkins, Blue Brook, and Spruce Brook) are right on the trail. If I was camping in the valley, I wouldn't want folks like me passing right through *my front yard at dawn and dusk (*yes, it's not "mine", it's shared by all; I mean that it's in front of me). I like privacy when camping. Likewise, when hiking through, I like the experience more when I don't walk through anyone's camp.

To respond directly to MichaelJ's point:

I opposed the Wilderness designation exactly because of situations like this. Suddenly the Wild River Trail, a wide, flat, former railroad grade as it passes Spruce Brook Shelter, is a "wilderness experience"? Please.

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 because trains once rolled through sparking wildfires in the slash piles is dangerous precedent. Much of Northern Maine's working forests were once clearcut and farmed. Now they're woods again. Sure, they aren't virgin forests, but I'm glad for the conservation projects. They make paddling through much more enjoyable than if they were still in non-timber cultivation.

Then again, I'm a radical. I'd love to see Pinkham Notch closed to motor vehicles above Glen and Gorham.

I would say to leave them in place until they rot to pieces. Use at your own risk, the way the shelters in the Sandwich Range were managed. (I helped carry out the remains of Camps Rich and Shehadi.)

By the way, the dog shown in the photo to which McRat links looks sort of like an Australian Cattle Dog. This one is particularly beautiful -- looks sort of like a coyote. Worth a look, dog lovers. Any other ideas on breed?

And Jason, I'll carry a load for you any day. Just let me know where and when, and I'll help you get there. I know of a few plant sites in the upper Wild River valley that you would love.

 

[kltilton]

I just don't understand why they can't leave the shelters in place. I can understand the policy of taking shelters down when they are unsafe, but to do it before the area is an official "wilderness" area seems pre-emptive. Have there been problems in the past with the shelters in the Wild River Valley? I have not done much hiking in the area, so I am not all too familiar with them.

 

[chas]

Then again, I'm a radical. I'd love to see Pinkham Notch closed to motor vehicles above Glen and Gorham.

The author Colin Fletcher used to talk about pushing back the boundaires to popular wilderness areas for this same reason and as an alternative to a much despised 'permit' sytem for visiting wilderness areas. Can you imagine how wild and beautiful Tucks and Pinkham Notch etc would eventually be if the roads were removed? It would be a place to visit and not avoid as it now seems (especially with the Springtime crowds).

Chas.

 

[NewHampshire]

I agree with MichaelJ. Not much more to add other than that.

Brian

 

[arghman]

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.

Well I wouldn't go that far as to state it that way... I don't feel "banned", and I don't expect USFS to go out of its way to provide new infrastructure in the backcountry to make wild areas more accessible, but if it exists already I wish they would keep it. I spoke w/ Rebecca Oreskes at USFS (one of the Wilderness policy managers) back in December to get clarification on the implications of the new Forest Plan; she mentioned one of the changes of the new Forest Plan over the old one, is that in the old plan all bridges/shelters/etc. in Wilderness were to be removed when in need of repair; in the new plan they were to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Though I'm still not in favor of most of the new Wilderness designation, that fact made things a little more palatable.

I'm disappointed to find out that they're jumping on this one so quickly, and if they don't seriously listen to comments asking for the shelters to be retained, the change to the Forest Plan is essentially meaningless as far as Wild River is concerned, because if these 3 shelters are removed & they don't rebuild Spider Bridge, then there's no infrastructure anyway.

Those shelters (we're talking about Perkins, Blue Brook, and Spruce Brook) are right on the trail. If I was camping in the valley, I wouldn't want folks like me passing right through *my front yard at dawn and dusk (*yes, it's not "mine", it's shared by all; I mean that it's in front of me). I like privacy when camping. Likewise, when hiking through, I like the experience more when I don't walk through anyone's camp.

I agree with you completely on that one, and, in my mind at least, the solution is to reroute the trail slightly or move the shelters slightly, so there's a short spur trail & the solitude/privacy values of both hikers and shelter users are enhanced. I don't understand the shelter-is-right-on-the-trail mentality that put most of them where they are. (except maybe they didn't want people to overshoot the shelters by accident) Fortunately some of them aren't. (Carlo Col, for example? I forget.)

Anyway, I guess I should stop putting my energy into this discussion & work on my letter-writing instead...