west bond carin gone

[Variocana]

Hiked pemi loop this past weekend and the West Bond carin is gone from summit.
Can anyone tell me why?
Thanks,
Vario

 

[Chip]

I Googled it and found a thread in another forum that states;
"as the West Bond summit cairn had been knocked over by the psycho "Ranger Dick.""
No further details yet. Good question, though.

 

[David Metsky]

Again, I'm fairly sure this is the case of a non-conforming Wilderness structure. This has been going on since the Pemi Wilderness was first created and is going through a period of high enforcement again.

-dave-

 

[arghman]

If anyone finds documentation from USFS on events such as this one (i.e. that could be cited in a letter to USFS or other govt officials), please post... I support many portions of the Wilderness implementation but removal of cairns is rather extreme. What constitutes a "structure" anyway?

 

[dr_wu002]

If anyone finds documentation from USFS on events such as this one (i.e. that could be cited in a letter to USFS or other govt officials), please post... I support many portions of the Wilderness implementation but removal of cairns is rather extreme. What constitutes a "structure" anyway?

I have to agree with this. What is a "non-conforming" structure rather? There are cairns all along the Bondcliff Trail on the Bondcliff Summit. If I recall there are cairns on Bond. What makes the one on West Bond any different? Sure, the ones along the trail indicate "direction of travel" but I think that is irrelevent if you're speaking in terms of "structure" as they are both rock piles in a Wilderness Area.

If the Forest Service wants to remove them, personally, I don't care. However, I would hope people here wouldn't advocate antagonizing the rangers by rebuilding the cairn.

-Dr. Wu

 

[el-bagr]

My quick look at the Wilderness Act, 16 USC 1133, does not reveal any definition of "structure". 1133(c) provides:
[quote="Your federal legislators]Except as specifically provided for in this chapter, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this chapter and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this chapter (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.[/quote]

35 CFR 293.8 provides:

Sec. 293.8 Permanent structures and commercial services.

Motels, summer homes, stores, resorts, organization camps, hunting and fishing lodges, electronic installations, and similar structures and uses are prohibited in National Forest Wilderness. The Chief, Forest Service, may permit temporary structures and commercial services within National Forest Wilderness to the extent necessary for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes, which may include, but are not limited to, the public services generally offered by packers, outfitters, and guides.

You may be interested in the PDF WMNF Wilderness Management Plan. This designates the trail over West Bond (and the Lincoln Brook Trail near the Owl's Head route) as "Zone B". Regarding "Facilities/Infrastructure" in Zone B, the Plan says:

The trail system is the primary infrastructure. Primitive trails and trail structures consistent with WMNF Level 1 trail specifications (FSH 2309.18) may be present. No other facilities will be constructed or maintained.

You can read FSH 2309.18 here.



Interestingly, Newfoundland and Labrador have regulations which define:

"structure" means a man-made object intended to be permanent or semi-permanent in nature and includes, but is not limited to buildings, houses, cottages, cabins, wharves, docks, boathouses, slipways, trailers, mobile homes, tent platforms, camps, shelters and recreational vehicles used for any purpose

 

[David Metsky]

Wilderness Act Policies

Guidelines for USFS trail building

Wilderness Management Plan for WMNF PDF

It's in there somewhere, but I think the forest manager gets a fairly wide dose of discretion about what is non-conforming. But a man-made cairn on an unofficial trail that is not needed for safety would probably fall into that category.

-dave-

On edit: curses, beaten again!

 

[dr_wu002]

But a man-made cairn on an unofficial trail that is not needed for safety would probably fall into that category.

-dave-

On edit: curses, beaten again!

Wait, is the West Bond Trail an Unofficial Trail? I pretty sure that it isn't. I didn't take a picture of the sign (@ Bondcliff/West Bond Trail Junction) but I believe it said "AMC" on it.

-Dr. Wu

 

[David Metsky]

I was talking about Owl's Head. But the FS has removed large cairns on summits in the Wilderness Areas before where they are not needed as a navigation aid, such as on Sandwich Dome which used to have a huge cairn.

-dave-

 

[Double Bow]

But the FS has removed large cairns on summits in the Wilderness Areas before where they are not needed as a navigation aid, such as on Sandwich Dome which used to have a huge cairn.

Wasn't the issue with the Sandwich Dome cairn that it was being built to try to get a high point on the mountain at 4,000'?

 

[David Metsky]

Wasn't the issue with the Sandwich Dome cairn that it was being built to try to get a high point on the mountain at 4,000'?

That's why such a big cairn was build (by the kids at Holderness, IIRC) but not why it was removed. It was removed because it was a semi-perminant structure in the Wilderness. Again, I'm going by known faulty memory here.

It was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to get another 4000'er, that's why it was 7 feet tall.

-dave-

 

[dr_wu002]

It was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to get another 4000'er, that's why it was 7 feet tall.

-dave-

I don't understand why they don't throw a bunch of those 3900'+ peaks (Sandwich, Nancy, Blackdome & Blackhead (Catskills)) on the 4000'er list and say, "close enough". I say, everything above 3500' you round up to 4000' and be done with it.

So, basically though, what I'm getting is that it's OK to remove the cairns at the top of a mountain but not OK to remove the cairns that dictate trail location/direction? I just don't understand this because in terms of structures, they're technically the same thing: big piles of rock.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Periwinkle]

I'd love to see a good explanation of this as well. I mean really, what's the big freakin' deal about summit cairns?

Of course, I have my own personal agenda on this one after over-shooting the summit of Whiteface because I wasn't paying attention. It really aggravated me to find the little pile of rocks kicked over the side of the summit once I had backtracked.

If they're really going to push this issue, does that mean they'll be drilling out all the summit benchmarks in Wilderness areas?

 

[alpinista]

Wait, is the West Bond Trail an Unofficial Trail? I pretty sure that it isn't. I didn't take a picture of the sign (@ Bondcliff/West Bond Trail Junction) but I believe it said "AMC" on it.

-Dr. Wu

Here's The Sign pointing toward West Bond. You definitely can't miss it, with or without a cairn. And once you're at the summit, you'll know it with West Bond. It's not like Whiteface where there's any serious question about whether you've reached the top.

And Wu ... you are correct. The sign has "USFS" and "AMC" on it.

 

[David Metsky]

So, basically though, what I'm getting is that it's OK to remove the cairns at the top of a mountain but not OK to remove the cairns that dictate trail location/direction? I just don't understand this because in terms of structures, they're technically the same thing: big piles of rock.

My interpretation - apply large grains of salt as needed

Cairns along trails above treeline are safety and navigation aids. They allow hikers to navigate official trails in difficult conditions when it would be otherwise unsafe to do so. The Wilderness Act has specific instructions about structures needed for safety, such as bridges where it would be unsafe to otherwise cross or shelters in Alaska. Trail signs are also allowed under these provisions, although I think they often don't have milage numbers, to make things more remote and wild. (You could just look at a map, but I digress)

Cairns at obvious summits or on unmaintained trails to summits do not meet the safety exceptions. Their only purpose is to leave a permanent marker where one is not needed for navigation or safety reasons. That is the reason they have been and are being removed.

Again, not necessarily my position, just my guess as to the FS motivation.

-dave-

 

[dr_wu002]

My interpretation - apply large grains of salt as needed

Cairns along trails above treeline are safety and navigation aids. They allow hikers to navigate official trails in difficult conditions when it would be otherwise unsafe to do so. The Wilderness Act has specific instructions about structures needed for safety, such as bridges where it would be unsafe to otherwise cross or shelters in Alaska. Trail signs are also allowed under these provisions, although I think they often don't have milage numbers, to make things more remote and wild. (You could just look at a map, but I digress)

Cairns at obvious summits or on unmaintained trails to summits do not meet the safety exceptions. Their only purpose is to leave a permanent marker where one is not needed for navigation or safety reasons. That is the reason they have been and are being removed.

Again, not necessarily my position, just my guess as to the FS motivation.

-dave-

Then is seems to me like Owl's Head and West Bond are being unfairly targeted for sign/cairn removal just because they're above 4000'. If the forestry service wants to be consistent then perhaps they should remove the various signs/cairns we've all found on some of the more 'trailless' peaks.

I still don't advocate hikers rebuilding the cairns on West Bond and Owl's Head though!!

-Dr. Wu

 

[RoySwkr]

I will repeat my previous request that if anybody knows the District Ranger or Forest Supervisor personally they should ask if there is an official policy or whether some seasonal ranger has just decided to do it. If there is an official policy, ask if it is in writing and whether public comments were solicited.

Surely we don't need a large cairn on West Bond or Sandwich, however removal without adequate consideration of social and historic effects probably violates Forest Service guidelines. The Forest Service has felled trees to block other abandoned and unofficial trails, so the next step may be to block the spurs to Isolation and Owls Head. Considering the difficulty some people already have reaching these summits, arriving to find a trail full of blowdowns would only make it worse. And of course in a Wilderness chain saws could not be used to remove them so a rogue ranger's work might persist.

As to rebuilding the cairns, doing so is not necessary for hikers but a political statement about the actions of the Forest Service. You might offend both other hikers who are Wilderness purists and federal bureaucrats, just like other political acts.

 

[Tom Rankin]

I have to agree with this. What is a "non-conforming" structure rather? There are cairns all along the Bondcliff Trail on the Bondcliff Summit. If I recall there are cairns on Bond. What makes the one on West Bond any different? Sure, the ones along the trail indicate "direction of travel" but I think that is irrelevent if you're speaking in terms of "structure" as they are both rock piles in a Wilderness Area.

If the Forest Service wants to remove them, personally, I don't care. However, I would hope people here wouldn't advocate antagonizing the rangers by rebuilding the cairn.

-Dr. Wu

I was just talking to my girlfriend and she pointed out that cairn could be useful at a summit in bad weather, to denote that you really are at the top. If you don't see one, you might keep going, and in West Bond's case, I remember a nasty drop near the top...

 

[forestgnome]

Just a simple question along this thread, so please, all the list people, don't flame me, because I respect the wilderness rules, whatever they may be...
Aren't summit canisters on trailless peaks in violation of wilderness rules? I've never actually come across one, but I've never looked for them either. Are there any in wilderness areas?

 

[Head]

I Googled it and found a thread in another forum that states;
"as the West Bond summit cairn had been knocked over by the psycho "Ranger Dick.""
No further details yet. Good question, though.

That is soooo funny (the Ranger Dick comment...not the cairn being toppled!) Here's a link to hear what the infamous Ranger Dick stated..ON VIDEO CAMERA! I wouldnt put it past the guy! This just happens to be the 'Jamie of the North' 48 hike...congrats there Jamie