trail crew book

[RoySwkr]

I have been reading "Dirt Work" by Christine Byl, who spent 6 years on the trail crew in Glacier NP and a year in Chugach NF before a long stint at Denali NP. She has a Masters in creative writing and has taught seminars so some of it is a little artsy.

Some comments:
Glacier NP crews always used chain saws in Wilderness because the superintendent said the budget was too small to use hand tools, while across the road in the Bob Marshall Wilderness the FS crews used crosscuts and couldn't keep up with the trails.

Glacier NP crews ignored the grizzly bears, while crews in the Chugach are required to carry a shotgun with periodic training on ranges.

The Forest Service allegedly has more useless paperwork and foolish rules than the Park Service.

Trail work in Denali is more mechanized, with power wheelbarrows and heavy equipment.

If you see a "Bobcat" loader tipped over or stuck, the operator must be an expert because beginners are too timid to push its limits.

 

[DSettahr]

Some would argue that allowing trails to become overgrown in Wilderness Areas through minimal maintenance better preserves the true "wilderness" experience anyways.

 

[RollingRock]

Some would argue that trails in Wilderness areas should have the same standards as other trails for safety reasons, encourage those unfamiliar with those areas to explore them and that easier access to the forest will help ensure that the next generation will care about protecting them as much as we do.

 

[DSettahr]

Some would argue that trails in Wilderness areas should have the same standards as other trails for safety reasons, encourage those unfamiliar with those areas to explore them and that easier access to the forest will help ensure that the next generation will care about protecting them as much as we do.

It's a give and take relationship. No one way is inherently better than the others. The Park Service and the Forest Service have differing managing philosophies and neither is right or wrong- they both have advantages and disadvantages.

There is value both in accessible and in untrammeled areas. When you increase access you increase enjoyment for some, and diminish it for others. The same goes for when you decrease access. Any management of our natural resources can (and should) provide a full spectrum of opportunities. As long as resource protection is a priority, overgrown, rarely-maintained trails have just as much value as well-maintained, frequently traveled trails.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

And, too, some would argue that allowing a trail in a Wilderness area to become overgrown accelerates disuse -- sort of a Catch-22 -- and provides a stronger incentive to decommission the trail altogether.

Why do you attribute these motivations to the USFS? Lincoln Brook, Shoal Pond, Great Gulf, High Water, and Dry River are all examples of remote trails in WMNF Wilderness Areas that have lower standards for brushing/blazing AND are being actively maintained or scheduled for repair.

The trails that were decommisioned a few years ago had major maintenance issues unrelated to their Wilderness Area classications. I traveled all of them after the scoping report came out [most with waders on] and their USFS decision memo was spot on IMO.

Trails are not in the same catergory as shelters and bridges.