Thursday June 13th 2019 " A Rough day up on the Rock Pile"

[dave.m]

Dave.m, all of your points are good. The State of New Hampshire seems to think that if you make any mistake while recreating in the outdoors, you are negligent, and should be fined. Furthermore, this decision is made by an individual, which as this case and others have shown, seem to lack an awareness of reality.

Secondly, it is disappointing that the public—including VFTTers—excoriates the hikers with little knowledge of the situation, while making huge assumptions, and a seemingly no awareness of their own fallibility.

My sense of this, and I could be very wrong on this, is that New Hampshire's position on this is reflective of the state's politics, which leans towards low taxation and fee for services. I also sense that New Hampshire is responding politically against the USFS's land management policies in the Whites, which one could argue they are operating as an attractive nuisance.

Recall, in many locations you can't just drop an in ground pool in your backyard. You generally have to have a fence enclosure around it to prevent small children from falling in unattended and drowning - an attractive nuisance.

Many places in the US have gone to permitting systems to control crowds and provide a mechanism for educating users of the hazards they face. The USFS should do the same in the same in the Whites IMO but doesn't, I suspect, because of local input on their land management policies which again are rooted in NH political biases. Live, Freeze and Die, as the joke says.

These discussions are alway perilous. I still recall the discussion of Haas/Tinkham on usenet back in the day. I think we, as humans, are always engaging in some level of risk denial and these discussions are a part of that.

Still flying the green plaid?

Eugene Miya points out that all topics are cyclical. They only differ in periodicity. This discussion will happen again as sure as shootin'.

 

[peakbagger]

The reality is a permitting solution is not going to work as there are two privately owned strips of land to the summit that could not be regulated as they are owned by private parties. Put in a permit system to limit use on the WMNF land and I expect at least one of those private land owners would respond with a permit free pay to hike option. The cog has already instituted the day use pass for accessing their property last winter.

The WMNF long ago reduced its overall staff, district ranger stations and backcountry staff well below the point where they could manage a permit system. Few folks even realize that the headquarters is hidden away off a low use exit in Campton. As it is the remaining ranger stations front desk are generally staffed by volunteers that are selected for their ability to show up and work for free or summer staff who are usually bright eyed college kids without a lot of hiking knowledge of the area. If the front desk person is lucky there may be some paid staff hiding out back trying to get paperwork done that they can call. Pinkham Notch and the Highland center is not much better, there are no paid experts to assist in hiker education, if someone does have questions the sales staff who are selected on their ability to survive on low wages and a long daily commute generally ask around the staff that is working and hope they find someone who incidentally has some knowledge that may or may not be useful. They are nice people trying to make a buck but their job is to sell stuff the hordes of tourists.

 

[DayTrip]

I'd hate to see a permit system. And as peakbagger notes there really is no staff to support much of anything right now anyway without some big staffing changes. You're not supposed to camp above treeline or in restricted areas but there are plenty of very obvious, well used camp sites in all of these areas with big camp fire pits, etc. I wouldn't think they'd wear out as thoroughly as they have if these areas were being patrolled sufficiently enough to prevent use. (I've noticed this too in the Catskills with many, many spots right on top of summits above 3500' despite the "No Camping Above 3500 Ft" signs prominently posted on every trail. I'm not up to speed on staffing in NY so I can't comment on ranger staffing,etc).

I'd imagine even with permitting many people would just go hiking anyway without a permit and chance not being caught, or like many other things in NH, people wouldn't realize they need it in the first place. There are just too many convenient access points off major roads to get in the woods and access trails. It's not like Baxter or other spots where the location is far more remote and the effort to get in and bypass the gates is more significant (not too mention the longer ride from major metro areas like Boston which is already a deterrent).

 

[dave.m]

Peakbagger,

I largely agree with you. My understanding is that the reduction of force in the WMNF largely coincided with the larger federal austerity measures that took place under Bush along the same time as the introduction of the parking fee program. As is typical with many austerity cuts, the goal is less about balancing a budget and more about trying to move state/federal run programs to private enterprise for-profit management. Documents that circulated at the time showed that the real goal of Bush USFS was to move the public towards accepting a "fee for service" way of thinking about the USFS, along with privatizing many management aspects. Which is to say that underfunding and understaffing is a feature, not a bug of the austerity measures. The goal is to force federal infrastructure into failure so that private industry can save it. A properly funded USFS could certainly manage a permitting system.

I do disagree a bit about the issue of the private property access issues of the toll road and cog. This is no different than public road access to trailheads. The permits apply to and are enforced on USFS land. No permit would be required for people to ride up to the summit (assuming there is an easement). But leaving the private lands on the summit should require a permit. IMO.

 

[JoshandBaron]

You're not supposed to camp above treeline or in restricted areas but there are plenty of very obvious, well used camp sites in all of these areas with big camp fire pits, etc. I wouldn't think they'd wear out as thoroughly as they have if these areas were being patrolled sufficiently enough to prevent use. (.

I've had a ranger come across me camped less than legally up at Norcross Pond. She didn't cite me or ask me to move, simply saying "while you might not be following the letter of the law, you're complying with the spirit of it." I've also had rangers post my campsites as reveg areas while I've been camped at them without saying a word to me. They're out there, just not sure how much they care to enforce things beyond passive education.

 

[DayTrip]

I've had a ranger come across me camped less than legally up at Norcross Pond. She didn't cite me or ask me to move, simply saying "while you might not be following the letter of the law, you're complying with the spirit of it." I've also had rangers post my campsites as reveg areas while I've been camped at them without saying a word to me. They're out there, just not sure how much they care to enforce things beyond passive education.

In the 7 years or so now that I've been serious hiking and now overnighting I've only seen a ranger in NH once on the trails. Met a guy cruising Gulf Side Trail a few years back on a day hike heading toward Mt Clay from Washington. Considering I usually do 400-500 miles a year largely in the Whites and always on weekends I figured I'd bump into someone a little more often than that. But I do tend to avoid the high use areas like Tuckerman Ravine Trail, Franconia Ridge, etc so I suppose that could be a factor.

 

[peakbagger]

They would not be just riding, I have no doubt the cog would plant a trailhead sign and charge folks to hike up on their right of way to get around the permit limits. If its revenue thing with no limits on hikers the FS will figure out a way to staff it as long as its self supporting but if its to limit usage I expect the revenue will not match the enforcement costs. The other aspect reportedly with the fee areas was that the parking fees were extra revenues for a few years so good work got done but through the budget cycle the "extra" revenue got figured into the base budget to the point where there was no extra revenue.

I have had FS personnel tell me in years past, they only cite folks if they have bad attitude or its specific enforcement campaign. Years ago we had a ranger following us from Franconia Falls to the Bond Cliff cutoff on Lincoln Woods trail. It was early evening and he hung back until we stopped for a break at the old logging camp site at Bondcliff Brook. He quickly caught up and was going in enforcement mode until we explained that we were camping in the woods up out of the RUA.

 

[CaptCaper]

I don't care what anyone says it's wrong to leave someone alone on a trail especially an 80 yr old. I don't care how many miles he supposedly says he did or does. The mountain doesn't need to be conquered it's just a rock pile. Mean time they almost lost a dear loved one. They all were wrong. The 80 yr old called it his fault as any father type would do. Take the blame so no guilt be carried by his off spring.
This is the golden rule we follow here period.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I have seen THREE rangers myself since May 2006. I average probably 3-400 miles per year. One on the Tripyramids asking questions about waste and flies. One on Guyot during my first Pemi Loop (acutally two, in a pair, one was a trainee). One on the summit of Carrigain ticketing campers.

FWIW...
Tim

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I don't care what anyone says it's wrong to leave someone alone on a trail...
This is the golden rule we follow here period.

IF you will not part ways with me at my explicit request
THEN I will not hike with you period.

If we are hiking together, I will not ever ask nor expect you to take responsibility for me for me. If I wish to turn around, it is your decision whether to go on or accompany me back.

In practice, this rarely ever happens, but I make it explicit with anyone I hike with because, like with most things, people are disappointed when their expectations ("ASS-U-ME") are not met.

Tim

 

[DayTrip]

I have seen THREE rangers myself since May 2006. I average probably 3-400 miles per year. One on the Tripyramids asking questions about waste and flies. One on Guyot during my first Pemi Loop (acutally two, in a pair, one was a trainee). One on the summit of Carrigain ticketing campers.

FWIW...
Tim

It just dawned on me I met one last year on Mt Eisenhower Trail so I guess my official tally is 2. . He had just moved out from NY and was hiking in the area to learn the trails. Actually gave him some navigational pointers while we cruised down toward Isolation camp site. He headed over to Lean To's up Dry River. I actually felt pretty good cruising down the trail at top speed step for step with him when I had a near 40 lb pack on. Was a pretty good guy. Had a nice conversation with him. Guy I met on Gulfside didn't have much to say.

 

[CaptCaper]

IF you will not part ways with me at my explicit request
THEN I will not hike with you period.

If we are hiking together, I will not ever ask nor expect you to take responsibility for me for me. If I wish to turn around, it is your decision whether to go on or accompany me back.

In practice, this rarely ever happens, but I make it explicit with anyone I hike with because, like with most things, people are disappointed when their expectations ("ASS-U-ME") are not met.

Tim

One things for sure we'll never hike together. No offense. And I'm glad you don't hike with my family.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

One things for sure we'll never hike together. No offense. And I'm glad you don't hike with my family.

And we've established that up-front so neither of us will have our expectations dashed. Win-win!

Incidentally, I wouldn't ever leave someone in distress or who wasn't truly prepared to be alone. I am always prepared to solo, and most of the time I do.

Tim

 

[JoshandBaron]

I don't care what anyone says it's wrong to leave someone alone on a trail

When I broke my foot in the GG I told my partner to leave me. Probably saved us another day in the woods or a rescue call.

 

[sierra]

I took someone new to hiking to the Tripyramid's. He fell just below the summit of North, not a bad fall, more like a trip. It really freaked him out, he then proceeded to walk like a snail. I had someone else with us for a group of three. Upon reaching the Sabbaday Brook trail junction, he stated that he wanted to descend. The other person wanted to continue on to Middle. I asked him to wait for us at the junction and we would all descend together. I also informed him, that the trail was not as easy to follow as most trails and with no experience, he could have trouble. He refused to wait, saying I just want to get down. I went on to Middle Tri with the other member. We never saw him on the descent. Now the person I'm with is freaking out. At the road before we began the road walk, he showed up with the car and picked us up. He was a grown man, I gave him the appropriate information and he made his choice, whatever happened after that choice was on him.

 

[DayTrip]

I don't care what anyone says it's wrong to leave someone alone on a trail especially an 80 yr old. I don't care how many miles he supposedly says he did or does. The mountain doesn't need to be conquered it's just a rock pile. Mean time they almost lost a dear loved one. They all were wrong. The 80 yr old called it his fault as any father type would do. Take the blame so no guilt be carried by his off spring.
This is the golden rule we follow here period.

https://youtu.be/kVu_yMEhUfM

 

[Mike P.]

Because everyone is entitled to my opinion....

Since none of us really know the others very well, although, for the most part we are the choir....

When I was trying to get people together here to do some hikes in VFTT infancy which goes back to before VFTT was rebuilt, You have to interview people, informally, to learn not just what they did, but what they turned back on. I won't crawl to the summit in 75 MPH wind and I will not turn back when the first cloud is seen on the horizon.

Washington was day three, day one was 15 miles, they must have had an early daytime start or the grandfather must have been pretty spry on day one. Since they did not have a light on Washington, I'll guess he had none for Marcy. They were lucky or quick to do Marcy in daylight. (or they stayed at ADK Loj or the near by at the Hostel or in lake Placid.)

Do we know what time they started on Washington? I've done Washington and Marcy on BtB days (almost 30 years ago) and Mansfield and Marcy with my then 52 year old Mom and it's involves a bunch of driving and decent planning on picking accommodations. I'll guess that the fall on Mansfield probably effected his speed on Washington. Depending on where he fell and the trail they were on, descending Mansfield on something like Sunset Ridge or Laurel Cowles is far different than ascending Lion's Head.

They were from Ohio, I'd be curious what planning they had other than looking at maps, maybe a trail guide and some trail conditions online. Other hiking experience? I took the write up on grandad's walking as long walks in the Dublin Ohio area. Why this trip? Was this something the elder family member had done years ago? Five layers of what? Material, thickness, gloves? rain?

I'm glad everyone is will be fine and they understand the possible financial consequences and seem willing to accept them.

(on 6/1 we were eaten alive on Vanderwacker in NY and had our group splinter on the only trail up and back. Another Dad was slow, I stayed with him, the three boys were at times more solo than grouped, the third boy did not make it to the top and he and his dad descended with them. The fast boys after being in the car for 40 minutes thinking the worst, came back looking for us. The dad's knee was a bit sore otherwise we were fine. This is a below treeline peak. Our plan that day had been Algonquin with different trails. Other reasons caused a switch in plans, however, had things lined up for an Algonquin trip and one boy couldn't have continued, the other two would have wanted to have continued and I would have been uncomfortable letting them continue.)

 

[iAmKrzys]

Somehow I have a feeling that this was not a typical family hike. While we don't have all the details, I suspect the grandfather was the enabler thanks to whom the boys could bag highest peaks in the area. Their hiking at different paces was probably part of the deal where summiting for the grandpa was optional. That seem to have worked on Mansfield but Mt. Washington weather turned out a lot rougher and the grandfather underestimated how bad things could turn. He would not be the first one to make this mistake and not the last one either. He just lives to tell the tale and be thankful to his rescuers while the media exploits the most convenient angle on the story to catch as many eyeballs as possible.

 

[dave.m]

He was a grown man, I gave him the appropriate information and he made his choice, whatever happened after that choice was on him.

It's interesting to see how differently we view things.

When I'm leading a hike with inexperienced hikers, I begin with a ritualistic affirmation that we all share a responsibility for each other's well being. I establish basic rules:
1) Who will be at the front making decisions on route.
2) Who will bring up the rear behind the slowest hiker.
3) Everybody has responsibility to wait at junctions for the person behind them to ensure route information percolates backwards.

I lost hikers before insisting on this approach and have thankfully not lost hikers since adopting it. It's not fail-proof but it allows the natural stringing along of the group that occurs with different paces while also maintaining group cohesion.

The thing about a mixed skill hike is that the strong and the experienced (who may be different) are in a better position to help the weak and inexperienced. If I were in the position you described, I would have asked your third to stay with me as a resource to potentially help with your slow hiker. Had slow hiker taken a second fall, you may have benefitted from having another stronger person with you.

Again, I'm over the top about laying down these expectations long before setting foot on the trail.

This said, I have broken off from party before. I was invited on someone else's hike and they insisted to press ahead in the face of obviously suicidal high water risks (Yosemite high country in June during melt off season).

 

[Grey J]

It's interesting to see how differently we view things.

When I'm leading a hike with inexperienced hikers, I begin with a ritualistic affirmation that we all share a responsibility for each other's well being. I establish basic rules:
1) Who will be at the front making decisions on route.
2) Who will bring up the rear behind the slowest hiker.
3) Everybody has responsibility to wait at junctions for the person behind them to ensure route information percolates backwards.

I lost hikers before insisting on this approach and have thankfully not lost hikers since adopting it. It's not fail-proof but it allows the natural stringing along of the group that occurs with different paces while also maintaining group cohesion.

The thing about a mixed skill hike is that the strong and the experienced (who may be different) are in a better position to help the weak and inexperienced. If I were in the position you described, I would have asked your third to stay with me as a resource to potentially help with your slow hiker. Had slow hiker taken a second fall, you may have benefitted from having another stronger person with you.

Again, I'm over the top about laying down these expectations long before setting foot on the trail.

This said, I have broken off from party before. I was invited on someone else's hike and they insisted to press ahead in the face of obviously suicidal high water risks (Yosemite high country in June during melt off season).

Dave, all of your points are well made and logical and I would bet that you are an excellent group leader. If I were an inexperienced hiker, I would want to have a leader like you. But I think there's a difference between leading a group and just hiking with 2 friends even if 3 people is technically a group. I can't fault Sierra at all in the situation he described and would be hard pressed to see how he could have forced this guy to stay with him and not hike out on his own. The guy made his choice and Sierra stayed with the weaker hiker, the guy who had fallen. He asked the guy to wait at the junction and gave him good information about the route of descent. The .6m round trip from Sabbaday Brook Trail to Middle Tripyramid means he would not have had a very long wait. The guy chose a solo descent. He made it down with no problem so there's no disaster or rescue to dissect, but if he got into trouble, the guy owns it 100% imo. It was good of him to get the car and save the others the road walk, which to me says that he was not a selfish jerk, just a guy determined to hike his own hike.