Wilderness regulations

[Jasonst]

I read recently in a post that the Rocky branch shelter #2 will not be maintained due to Wilderness regs. Can someone fill me in as to when these regs were passed and the wisdom behind this decision? I understand that we don't want the Marriott building a hotel on the isolation trail but maintaining an existing shelter doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[dug]

I'm sure someone will chime in with the exact terminology, but the jist is that you cannot provide any man-made shelters and/or improvements in an Wilderness Area. This is part of the act from many moons ago. Therefore, whenever a shelter falls into disrepair (i.e. Desolation) it will be removed instead of rebuilt.

Interesting troublesome spot, however, is the bridge past the Bondcliff/Wilderness Trail intersection. One one hand, you have this Wilderness Act saying it must be removed once it's in disrepair -which it is. On the other act, the National Historical Society was saying it is part of our national heritage and must be saved. I believe Wilderness is winning out on that one....

 

[RoySwkr]

Generally there are to be no man-made structures in Federal Wilderness, but they sometimes remain awhile unless the area gets trashed.

This is reasonable if you accept the premise that Wilderness is to be natural. If you want facilities, the area should not be classified as Wilderness, note that the AMC carefully kept all the huts out. The National Forest has a special category for lands for non-motorized recreation but the Sierra Club, etc. keep score by acres they get designated as Wilderness so a lot of land winds up that way that probably shouldn't. Wild River is the next area on the hit list.

 

[David Metsky]

Interesting troublesome spot, however, is the bridge past the Bondcliff/Wilderness Trail intersection. One one hand, you have this Wilderness Act saying it must be removed once it's in disrepair -which it is. On the other act, the National Historical Society was saying it is part of our national heritage and must be saved. I believe Wilderness is winning out on that one....

Which bridge are you referring to? The old railroad trestle is still there, even though there was talk of removing it years ago. It is, however, decrepit and a danger to itself and others. The suspension bridge about .5 miles further up the river is still in fine shape. Not sure what the plan for that is once it falls into disuse, but that won't be for a few years yet.

Other shelters that have been removed include Camps Rich, Shehadi, and Heermance, Dry River #1 and #2, Isolation shelter (not sure about this one), Camp 16, and wasn't there one in the Great Gulf?

-dave-

 

[dug]

Yes, Dave, I was referring to the trestle.

I have a "USDA" map of the White Mtns. that shows a shelter just south of the intersection of Lincoln Brook Trail and Franconia Brook Trail. Not the fairly-recently removed Franconia Falls Campsites. Does anyone recall that?

 

[stopher]

Old Shag Camp on Paugus was the first victim of Sandwich Range Wilderness. It was removed shortly after creation of the wilderness in 1984. Structures within Wilderness can be spared if they are deemed historically significant. I can't think of any in the White Mountains but there are numerous examples out west. There was a minor attempt to save Heermance, Shehadi and Rich using this ploy but in spite of the fact that the NH Office of Historical something-or-other said the shelters qualified for inclusion in the National Registry of Historic Buildings, there was no grassroots groundswell and the USFS removed them. Just as well -- time and entropy had already done most of the work.

 

[Jasonst]

Something tells me that the people who created these rules never had to duck in out of a downpour and thus never saw the usefulness of these shelters. It's sad in a way - I believe in all things that there should be balance...

 

[David Metsky]

Something tells me that the people who created these rules never had to duck in out of a downpour and thus never saw the usefulness of these shelters. It's sad in a way - I believe in all things that there should be balance...

I think the people who wrote the rules know exactly about getting out of downpours. Wilderness is about self-reliance, not man-made structures. There are plenty of places to have shelters, it's kind of nice to have some places which don't. I think the Wilderness Areas help create balance.

Do you really need a shelter to get out of the rain? No one argues about their usefulness. The question is, is it appropriate to have places without them?

-dave-

 

[sp1936]

...and wasn't there one in the Great Gulf?

According to Nicholas Howe, there were three. See Chapter 11 of "Not Without Peril."

Wilderness is about self-reliance, not man-made structures.

Agree 100%.

Steve

 

[MichaelJ]

In looking through maps I've seen annotations for major bridges in both the Pemi and in the Dry River Wilderness. Considering that they were put there not so much for convenience but for safety considering the rivers at those locations, I would be very disappointed if, because of wilderness regs, they ended up being closed and removed (keep in mind that you can't keep a bridge in use once it starts falling into disrepair; the moment its integrity is compromised it has to be closed, again for safety).

 

[Jasonst]

Wilderness is about self-reliance, not man-made structures.
-dave-

I would normally agree but the difference between wilderness areas and non wilderness areas is a decree of government. Again, I would not necessarily advocate building new structures but maintaining existing structures doesn't seem unreasonable. IMHO, I don't think that there are too many shelters out there in the "Wilderness". I do understand that many will disagree with my "humble" opinion

 

[afka_bob]

The lack of shelters and tent platforms in Wilderness Areas will help cut down on traffic without prohibiting access. Works fine for me -- if I want to sleep in a shelter, there are plenty of places in the Whites where I can -- if there aren't too many, there aren't to few, either.

The "decree of government" thing -- what's up with that? The Bill of Rights is a "decree of government," too.

As for "not necessarily advocat[ing] building new structures" in Wilderness Areas -- does that mean sometimes allowing new structures in W.A.s? Then W.A.s would truly be just a largely-meaningless "decree of government" with no real distinction from any other kind of land use designation:
[to be read in Mayor Quimby voice] "Today the town of Springfield is a Federally-designated Wilderness Area."

 

[kalless]

Subtle difference

The Bill of Rights is NOT a decree of government, but a decree of the people of certain unalienable rights which shall not be infringed upon by government.

Regarding designation of wilderness areas, I do believe that it has become a blatant "numbers game" by certain non-profit organizations, as mentioned previously. Designating something a "wilderness area" only denotes a management style (or lack thereof)...

It's sort of the antithesis of management in the 1950's and 1960's when every acre was considered for logging/resource extraction. At what point will the pendulum swing too far?

 

[Jasonst]

Perhaps "DECREE OF GOVERNMENT" was a poor choice of words. I couldn't remember if the designation was done by congress or by the executive branch or both. The distinction I was trying to draw is that in my mind a "wilderness" area would be a vast area, unreachable by conventional means, and perhaps speading for hundreds of miles (like Alaska). Some of the "wilderness" areas in Nh are no larger than 10 miles square. Smells of politics to me...

 

[Jasonst]

As for "not necessarily advocat[ing] building new structures" in Wilderness Areas -- does that mean sometimes allowing new structures in W.A.s? Then W.A.s would truly be just a largely-meaningless "decree of government" with no real distinction from any other kind of land use designation:

That's what I hoped...

 

[trailbiscuit]

I'd rather be caught in a downpur in a wilderness area without a shelter than see that same area spout roads, condos and gift shops.

 

[maineguy]

"The lack of shelters and tent platforms in Wilderness Areas will help cut down on traffic without prohibiting access"

I agree. However, I note that when applied to the huts, this obvious fact (in my mind anyway) does not seem to apply with many people. That is, many don't accept the fact that huts "attract" people.

By the way, I recently hiked across the suspension bridge between The Bondcliff and Thoreau Falls trails, and it is quite a structure. It will be with us for a long, long time. It was built to last.

 

[afka_bob]

Subtle -- and easily confused -- difference

The Bill of Rights is NOT a decree of government, but a decree of the people of certain unalienable rights which shall not be infringed upon by government.

Well, if ours is a government of the people, any decree of that government is a decree of the people. Even our courts often say "the people versus so-and-so." Knowing this, as we all should, the Bill of Rights is both a decree of the people and a decree of our government. Just as any good person will need some self-restraint, any good government -- especially one of the people -- must restrain itself.

...in my mind a "wilderness" area would be a vast area, unreachable by conventional means, and perhaps speading for hundreds of miles...

That would be nice,* but since you and I and millions of others have decided to either own or rent our homes in the midst of this former wilderness, should it all just be tossed out the window? I'm glad for the Wilderness Area designation on the few un- or less-developed acres left to us. That there aren't more is regretable, but hardy a reason to not preserve the little we have -- in fact, it seems a great reason to preserve them all the more.

* In my mind, my "car" is a '53 Jaguar C-type and my "commute" is several times around the road course at le Mans in the darkness, the whine of my high-revving DOHC straight six and the squeal of skinny bias-ply Dunlops on the dew-moisened tarmac, the predawn air rushing over my racing windscreen redolent of gasoline, leather, and smoke from my last unfiltered Gauloise in the pits, fighting sleep and holding a fragile lead over the fastest Aston -- sadly, the reality is quite different.

I agree. However, I note that when applied to the huts, this obvious fact (in my mind anyway) does not seem to apply with many people. That is, many don't accept the fact that huts "attract" people. [/B]

I think I agree with you too. I have sometimes been struck with a sense of entitlement from the AMC and its members, a sort of "I-hope-you-enjoy-your-visit-to-our-mountains-but-do-try-to-stay-out-of-our-way" sort of thing that is hard to put my finger on exactly. Probably hard to avoid, but distasteful, all the same.

 

[jjmcgo]

This is an argument that was, wrongly, lost long ago. I'm 56 and first visited the Kancamagus area when I was 11 and hiked and camped there in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I think it is terrible and phony what they have done to the Pemigewasset area and the area surrounding Mt. Washington by removing the shelters and fire towers.
The area the federal government and AMC are trying to make into a "wilderness" was heavily used by man and there are signs of that throughout the area, foundations, tracks, bridges, lumbering equipment, etc.. One hundred years from now you will find human artifacts there.
If you put earrings and a nice dress on a pig, it will not become Miss America. A pig in a dress is a pig in a dress. An area hard-used by man is not pristine.
That doesn't mean that the Pemi is not a great location for outdoor activity. It is. But it isn't and won't ever again be a wilderness no matter how many Washington government bureaucrats, government local officials and profit-oriented non-profits conspire.
There is a natural wilderness north of the White Mountains and that's where the federal wilderness should have been established.
The non-virginal area I'm talking about should have had further residential and commerical building halted but the existing structures (those that were solid enough not to endanger users) should have been kept and maintained.
To those who disagree with me, no amount of self-delusion can alter the fact that was a staircase you just used to walk by a foundation into which saws and railroad spikes have fallen. You walk on railroad logging roads through most of the forest.
You can't get virginity or wilderness back. Somebody will argue with me and then get cut by a metal rod sticking out of a rock the next time they're up there.
What the people around Lincoln and Conway, and around Hancock, N.Y. and Yellowstone know is that you forever rue the day Washington took an interest in you.

 

[Jasonst]

Well said.