Wilderness regulations

[afka_bob]

...To those who disagree with me, no amount of self-delusion....

Well, obviously, those who disagree with you are delusional, but that aside, should there be no cleanup of toxic waste sites?

By your level, undelusional, and (allegedly) perfect logic, there's no going back, once a dangerous toxic site, always a dangerous toxic site, case closed.

Should there be no reintroduction of wildlife into former ranges? No way, we exterminated them fair and square!

Should there be dam removals and river restorations? Hell no! I don't even like salmon.

Should people (and sometimes government) act responsibly even if it might inconvenience me once or twice in my life by getting rained on in less-than-pristine woods where some idiot hikers like to play make believe? Nothing ever should inconvenience me, no matter what good could otherwise be accomplished for my children and their children and their children.

...federal government and AMC are trying to make into a "wilderness"....

I have no idea what the heck the AMC is trying to do. I think the federal government is trying to let nature reclaim the Wilderness Area as well as it can in this limited context. But heck, if your throwing out the bathwater anyway, why try to save the baby?

...There is a natural wilderness north of the White Mountains and that's where the federal wilderness should have been established....

Yeah. I mean, since all the trees grew back up there, that would make an excellent reclaimed wilderness area. Or are you talking about Canada? They log quite a bit up there, too, and they probably get all bent out of shape when the US Government designates their land areas for them. Other than that, somebody would have to be delusional to disagree with you. Ever. About anything. Other than that.

...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....

Are you trying to establish a causal relationship between arguing with you and getting cut with metal rods? Well, heck, then I don't think I want to argue with you -- I mean, that would be, like, delusional.

Thanks for setting me (and everyone who would disagree with you) straight!*

Well said.

Well, no.




* The (delusional) sarcasm light was on during this entire post.

OWWW!!! Knock it off with the metal rods, will ya!?

 

[Jasonst]

Once again another incoherent argument from Afka_bob. Sounds like more questions than answers

 

[afka_bob]

Jasonst,

When you started this thread, you asked if someone could fill you in on "when these regs were passed and the wisdom behind this decision."

The Wilderness Act dates from 1964 which stipulated that any roadless area of 5,000 acres or more was eligible for the wilderness designation and consequent protection. The Pemigewasset checks in around 45,000 acres. No, not "vast area, unreachable by conventional means, and perhaps speading for hundreds of miles," but pretty big, especially for the eastern US (By the way, what area is "unreachable by conventional means"? I know of star systems that would require star-trek warp drive and transporter technology, but just about everywhere on this planet can be reached by conventional means, as far as I can tell).

That should cover the "when," I apologize both for any incoherence and for any delusional disagreement with your position.

Some of the posts above cover the perceived wisdom or lack of it. Of course, since those that agree with the wilderness designation do not agree with jjmcgo, they are obviously delusional, and as you point out above, largely incoherent.

Without challenging the irrefutability of that logic, might I posit that the second part of your question seems disingenuous in that you seem to be unprepared or unwilling to accept that there might actually be some wisdom and validity in a wilderness area that could actually be reached by people?*



* For what it's worth, I have visited Gates of the Artic NP and Wrangells-St. Elias NP -- both have millions of acres of federally-designated wilderness area -- but since I used conventional means to get there, I guess they wouldn't qualify as wilderness in your mind. jjmcgo would no doubt be disappointed to learn that Wrangells-St. Elias even contains stairways and other substantial artifacts of human industry and habitation.

 

[Jasonst]

The original point of this thread was that I wanted to whine about the fact that someday there wouldn't be a Rocky Branch shelter. I was also questioning the wisdom of calling a tract of land "wilderness", just because we said so and to satisfy a special interest.

 

[afka_bob]

Oh, you are a whiner and disingenuous .

OK.

Do you define all citizens of the US, present and future, as just a "special interest?" You are probably right -- any group that large and important must be very special.

Could I define those who wish to go out in the woods but are afraid to get rained on as a special interest? or just whiners? or both?

 

[jfb]

Here's a link to some Wilderness Act info: Rules

 

[Jasonst]

Thanks JFB, that's the kind of useful info I was looking for.

Oh, you are a whiner and disingenuous .

OK.

Do you define all citizens of the US, present and future, as just a "special interest?" You are probably right -- any group that large and important is very special.

Actually I was referring to "special interest" as environmentalist groups such as the Sierra Club. Judging by your comments I am guessing you are a member?

 

[afka_bob]

It is unclear whether or not I am a member of the S.C. (since I'm not saying, we have only your presumedly vituperative accusation to go on there).

On the other hand, I am smart enough to google "wilderness act" for myself.

Go figure -- or, if necessary, go ask someone else to do your figuring for you.

 

[Jasonst]

My SC assessment was not a beratement or intended to insult. I was simply trying to figure your angle on the argument. You have made your opinion abundantly clear, along with your disdain for those who disagree with you.

 

[afka_bob]

My SC assessment was not a beratement or intended to insult. I was simply trying to figure your angle on the argument. You have made your opinion abundantly clear, along with your disdain for those who disagree with you.

Oh, good -- I was afraid it was just -- how did you put it ?

...another incoherent argument from Afka_bob...

And as far as "disdain for those who disagree with you," well, I am a rank amateur next to the "well said" jjmcgo:

Originally posted by jjmcgo
To those who disagree with me, no amount of self-delusion can alter the fact...

As far as insult, none taken -- though, perhaps, I delude myself.

 

[jjmcgo]

Ooops, I didn't mean to imply that people who think the Pemi is a Wilderness are delusional in all things, simply that incorporation of so many man-made roads, staircases, etc., into the total "wilderness experience" in the Whites argue that the area is not a wilderness and are examples of flexibility by the USFS when it suits its needs and whims. The tearing down of shelters, campsites and fire towers are examples of when it doesn't suit its needs. All in all, a record of inconsistency and refusal to listen to others.
Second point: True, the area north of the Whites was also logged. Since it is more remote, it returned faster and more fully to a wilderness-like state. It is further from Boston and other populated areas and gets fewer visitors. You know, more of a wilderness experience.
Third: This will drive you nuts. I'd like to see the bears in the Whites removed to that northern area. There's no sense risking accidents in such a popular tourist area as the Whites. If you've never met a bear, close up, in the woods, you have no idea of how much, afterwards, the thrill of nearby bears is gone. I don't think I went into the woods for a year after that and I did everything right and avoided confrontation from about 30 yards.
Fourth: Long, long ago, it was known that trails would erode from foot traffic and alternate routes would have to be developed. That's good forest management. But to make the majority of Mt. Washington climbers use an emergency-vehicle rock path for half the climb is abusive to the users and diminishes the "wilderness experience" by forced travel on an obviously man-made path. Yes, they need the emergency road but a series of trails, alternated year-to-year, from Pinkham through the forest, would enhance the experience. For instance, has the old trail recovered enough to be restored? Could two or three nearby trails be cut and used for one year every four years?
So, with staircases, logging roads, rock paths, AMC and Randolph huts, has the USFS truly given us a wilderness or a hodge-podge with rules that limit the number of people who will use the area? Not "can" use the area, will use it, given the current rules.

 

[afka_bob]

I think that it is (and I truly mean no insult) rather niave to equate USFS Wilderness Areas with a "total wilderness experience." Even you note that the area you wish to see as a Wilderness Area is not wilderness in the pure sense you use to disprove the wilderness status of the Pemigewasset/Presidential areas. Simply put, if you condemn one area for not meeting your standard, you cannot hold up another area that does not meet your standard.

Remove the bears? Hey, thanks for laying your cards on the table. I give you points for honesty but don't like your hand. You seem to wish more of a wilderness experience (farther north, where, may we assume, you will not hike, or not nearly as often?) at the same time that you wish less of a wilderness experience (in the Whites where, may we assume, you wish to hike?). If you don't want that wilderness experience, there are many bear-free areas without further restricting their already-curtailed range. Doesn't drive me nuts, just makes me sad.

What do you care about the "diminshed wilderness experience" on Mt. Washington? You already want to exterminate the bears. Are you for this or against this?

I think the USFS is doing a very difficult and thankless job balancing a lot of conflicting needs and desires. I don't agree with everything they do, but I don't have to.

And there are a lot of bears alot closer to Boston and NYC -- should they be eradicated also?

The Pemigewasset/Presidential area is not real Lewis-and-Clark wilderness (nor will it ever be again as long as there are people around here) but it is a step in the right direction to protect something that is not yet entirely destroyed.

In my mind, one less shelter is better than one less bear -- otherwise, I would just plant some more trees in my yard, stop mowing the lawn and have my outdoor experience there for a lot less effort. Or maybe I would chop all my trees down, kill the squirrels, and have my neighbor's yard designated a Wilderness Area.

As far as the limited access, if I try to make the effort and take into account that there are other people sharing this earth, I have what I think is a much-more-than-reasonable chance of enjoying almost any area in the Whites that I choose. I'm part owner there, not the exclusive owner, so I have to share, too.

By the way, I never thought the Pemigewasset was a wilderness -- I thought it was a federally-designated USFS Wilderness Area. I really see no great conflict of concepts there. I do see tremendous potential for lasting preservation of vanishing natural areas in a complex world where recreation and industry, while important, are not the only considerations.

 

[jjmcgo]

"In my mind, one less shelter is better than one less bear -- otherwise, I would just plant some more trees in my yard, stop mowing the lawn and have my outdoor experience there for a lot less effort. Or maybe I would chop all my trees down, kill the squirrels, and have my neighbor's yard designated a Wilderness Area."

Great response. Why didn't I think of that? Thanks.
BTW, I was being facetious about the bears. Not that I'm anxious to again see a nearby bear stand up and start sniffing to figure out what I am and where I am.

 

[dug]

For quite some time, the AMC maps even showed the Pemigewasset "Wilderness" with quotations. The area certainly wasn't true wilderness after what the previous 100 years had seen.

 

[captain]

Wow...

I didn't know hikers could get so hostile. Personally I'm 100% with afka_bob...we should do all that we can to repair damage done in the past. Just finished reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. Something everyone on this board should check out.

Cheers.

 

[Jasonst]

That's great Captain, but some of that "damage" actually enhances the "wilderness" experience. Shelters that provide refuge (and safety at times), bridges that allow us to cross impassable waters without risk etc. Now, before I am berated by AFKA_Bob, let me just say that I am not a purist. I love the woods, I love being alone and enjoying solitude. Logging a renewable resource is not a bad thing. Designating a parcel of land as "off limits" to loggers or recreational vehicles is not a bad thing either, but repairing a bridge or a shelter?

 

[jfb]

I think you'll find that some of trails in designated wilderness areas have been rerouted and solid suspension bridges have been built to allow safe access for recreation. Also, for example, the ladders on the Six Husband's Trail in the Great Gulf Wilderness are relatively new and I fully expect that they will be maintained. Shelters that are in good shape, like the Dry River #3 and presumably Rocky Branch #2 (which I have never visited), will remain until they need major repairs.

Many of these shelters were built back before lightweight tents were available and were pretty much the only way for normal people to go camping in the woods. With today's lightweight tents, there is much less need for shelters. Also, there are many places where you can camp right at the edge of a designated wilderness area in a hut, tent platform or shelter and still hike in the wilderness area to get back and forth.

 

[captain]

one or the other...

Well I don't consider bridges and shelters "damage"...the damage I spoke of were the logging operations of many moons ago. But I don't see how bridges and shelters enhance the wilderness "experience". Wilderness is defined by Websters as:

1. an uncultivated, uninhabited region 2. any barren, empty or open area as of ocean 3. a large, confused mass or tangle 4. a wild condition or quality

So how does a man-made structure enhance a sense of uncultivatedness, or barrenness or a wild condition?? By making it easier for you and I to wander through these areas?? I think that by definition takes away from a wilderness experience...the wilderness should be wild. I don't hold any ill-will toward the folks who erected these structures, they do make my hikes a little easier, but now that congress has designated these areas as to be free of any construction, then we should let these structures decay. I think we should be delighted with any small attempts our government makes to heal this planet. They have a lot to rectify. I don't know what kind of safety a shelter provides that I don't already carry with me on my back. Or any river that can't be crossed without a bridge. If I come across one such stream/river, I guess that is as far as I can go, or I will seek another route across...

 

[trailbiscuit]

enhances the "wilderness" experience.

I guess it depends on how you define "wilderness experience." Personally, I love a nice bridge over a stream and a nice comfy shelter. But, to me that's not a true wilderness experience. If I ford the stream and camp witout a shelter, to me, that's more of a wilderness experience.

In reality, all the Wilderness Act really does is designate some places as slightly more wild than others. (Oh yeah, and the whole land protection thing.) "Look, I'm follwoing a trail through the Pemi...I'm a wilderness guru and true survivor." Not so much. But, hey, I'm not that tough either.

Edit: It looks like the Captain and I were posting (and thinking) at the same time.

 

[jjmcgo]

Well, I'm looking back over some of my posts from last month when I was approaching a cancer operation and I think I was rather argumentative and dismissive of others. I thank Afka_Bob, Captain and others for their reasoned responses.
I think my real frustration with current rules stems from the fact that I'm not 12 years old and it's not 1960 when there were fewer rules and fewer people (and likely fewer bears!).
The second frustration is living nine hours away from my favorite place and it rained all four days in May when my wife and I were there. She had bronchitis so we sat around rather than hiked.
It's probably fair to say all involved (State, USFS, AMC, etc.) do the best they can most of the time. I wish everybody loved everything I do at work but I have to make some tough decisions, too. So it's best I extend others that courtesy.
I'd like to see the shelter situation reconsidered but it seems to be a matter of law rather than a decision.
Good luck to everyone. Thanks for making this a lively and informative BB.