arghman
New member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,352
- Reaction score
- 153
I have mixed feelings about posting this, but here goes:
I'm curious about other people's thoughts on the wilderness question, specifically the proposed alternatives in the WMNF forest plan. Some of these include increased areas of wilderness, notably the Wild River area near the Maine border which is in the "preferred alternative"
1) are you in favor / not in favor / not sure whether more land should be Wilderness (that's Congressionally-designated Wilderness with a capital W)?
2) have you hiked/camped a significant distance off-trail in Wilderness Areas? (I am assuming most people here have hiked on-trail in Wilderness Areas)
3) would the creation of new Wilderness Areas provide you with a more positive hiking/camping experience? less positive? not sure?
I'm also interested in the reasoning... (careful thoughts are valued more than gut reactions) I haven't sent in a formal comment to the WMNF yet, would like to get some perspective from other people first.
my personal answer at present [and this is not intended to try to persuade/anger anyone -- I respect other people's opinions whether or not I agree with them, please give me the same courtesy]
1) I'm not in favor of more designated Wilderness in the WMNF
2) no, I haven't hiked/camped off-trail
3) I'm not sure whether more Wilderness would lead to a more positive hiking/camping experience
I find myself somewhat uneasy about this issue, despite being a proponent of land conservation. I've gone & read the text of the Wilderness Act and am even less certain now. What has me most confused is thinking about the intent of preserving "wilderness character" which is mentioned in the Wilderness Act, and the way it has been implemented in the Wilderness areas, and the way it already exists in non-Wilderness areas.
When I go hiking, the "wilderness character" I look for is:
* no cell phone towers, cafeterias, gift shops, tramways
* no ATVs, cars, snowmobiles, or anything else with an engine
* no visual advertisements or notices or anything with written words (beyond minimal trail signs)
* no audible music, loud voices, cell phone conversations
* no houses, toys, or other signs of modern society
* no vandalism, graffiti, trash, or fires
* solitude (whether by myself or a small quiet group, maybe more than 10. I've hiked more than once behind a loud group of 2 and that was *not* solitude.)
I've encountered lots of places that meet these that are not in Wilderness. I suspect that the more heavily used trails on the Pemigewasset Wilderness get crowded sometimes where they feel very un-wilderness-like. (Haven't been there myself; I have been on Mt. Caribou in Evans Notch with enough people at the summit & on trail that it doesn't offer solitude)
I guess I'm OK with the existing Wilderness Areas. As a practical matter, we have a few large areas which outlaw roads and mechanized transport; timber harvesting is prohibited (is it? or is it just impractical because you have to use an axe or handsaw and drag it out w/o mechanized transport?) as is trail maintenance with mechanized things like chainsaws. Shelters/tentsites get taken down instead of being repaired. Hikes in the WMNF are supposed to be with 10 people or less.
I'm concerned about the reasons for formally declaring more land off limits to forestry. Is it to protect wildlife? Is it to protect the health of the forest? Is it so that our sense of forest aesthetics is not affected? I support responsible logging; out of all my hikes in the WMNF I have never encountered an active logging operation (for trails that go through private land it's a different story) and yet I've noticed the patches of regrowth on various hillsides, but only if I look for them. I think the USFS, at least in NH, does a good job of keeping logging on a scale that doesn't negatively impact the forest's recreational value, and I trust their forestry judgement.
Having said that, I'd like to see a large buffer zone around most (if not all) trails to separate the areas used for recreation from the areas with forestry value. I'd also like to see the sensitive areas near bogs, brooks, and wetlands off limits from forestry, with a decent enough upland buffer for ecological reasons. I'd like to see clearcuts limited in size and in coverage (e.g. <X% of land should be logged at any one time, where X = 0.5% or 1% or some number that could be agreed upon). And there should be hefty penalties when logging companies practice non-responsible forestry. If for some reason we don't trust the Federal government by itself to make good forestry decisions, perhaps the WMNF ought to report to a local forestry advisory committee.
I don't have a problem with mechanized trail maintenance, or maintenance of shelters/tentsites; it seems like it could be limited to a few days a year, publicized well in advance, so that if you don't want to hear loud noises on the trail or see sawdust, you can pick another time.
If the reason for adding more Wilderness is so that people can go anywhere off-trail within thousands of acres and never encounter a road or a logging operation as long as they stay within the Wilderness line, that seems a bit vain for me. We already have 14% (114000 acres) of the WMNF in five Wilderness areas.
I think there should be some Wilderness but a public outcry of "more Wilderness" sounds to me like more of a bandwagon, one that's well-intentioned but not necessarily fully thought out. I am disappointed at AMC's position on this (it makes me uncomfortable that I'm a member) -- they have been spreading the message that "more Wilderness is good, you should ask for more of it" and "if we don't declare more Wilderness, there will be a threat of logging", without going much into details, or whether there is a reasonable other side to the issue.
I'm in favor of increased protection of the aesthetic and environmental quality of our public forests, but the Wilderness label (at least in this case, in the WMNF; not sure if I'd feel different about national forests in places where there are more open spaces like out West) seems too absolute for me.
posting this doesn't make me feel any better.
I'm curious about other people's thoughts on the wilderness question, specifically the proposed alternatives in the WMNF forest plan. Some of these include increased areas of wilderness, notably the Wild River area near the Maine border which is in the "preferred alternative"
1) are you in favor / not in favor / not sure whether more land should be Wilderness (that's Congressionally-designated Wilderness with a capital W)?
2) have you hiked/camped a significant distance off-trail in Wilderness Areas? (I am assuming most people here have hiked on-trail in Wilderness Areas)
3) would the creation of new Wilderness Areas provide you with a more positive hiking/camping experience? less positive? not sure?
I'm also interested in the reasoning... (careful thoughts are valued more than gut reactions) I haven't sent in a formal comment to the WMNF yet, would like to get some perspective from other people first.
my personal answer at present [and this is not intended to try to persuade/anger anyone -- I respect other people's opinions whether or not I agree with them, please give me the same courtesy]
1) I'm not in favor of more designated Wilderness in the WMNF
2) no, I haven't hiked/camped off-trail
3) I'm not sure whether more Wilderness would lead to a more positive hiking/camping experience
I find myself somewhat uneasy about this issue, despite being a proponent of land conservation. I've gone & read the text of the Wilderness Act and am even less certain now. What has me most confused is thinking about the intent of preserving "wilderness character" which is mentioned in the Wilderness Act, and the way it has been implemented in the Wilderness areas, and the way it already exists in non-Wilderness areas.
When I go hiking, the "wilderness character" I look for is:
* no cell phone towers, cafeterias, gift shops, tramways
* no ATVs, cars, snowmobiles, or anything else with an engine
* no visual advertisements or notices or anything with written words (beyond minimal trail signs)
* no audible music, loud voices, cell phone conversations
* no houses, toys, or other signs of modern society
* no vandalism, graffiti, trash, or fires
* solitude (whether by myself or a small quiet group, maybe more than 10. I've hiked more than once behind a loud group of 2 and that was *not* solitude.)
I've encountered lots of places that meet these that are not in Wilderness. I suspect that the more heavily used trails on the Pemigewasset Wilderness get crowded sometimes where they feel very un-wilderness-like. (Haven't been there myself; I have been on Mt. Caribou in Evans Notch with enough people at the summit & on trail that it doesn't offer solitude)
I guess I'm OK with the existing Wilderness Areas. As a practical matter, we have a few large areas which outlaw roads and mechanized transport; timber harvesting is prohibited (is it? or is it just impractical because you have to use an axe or handsaw and drag it out w/o mechanized transport?) as is trail maintenance with mechanized things like chainsaws. Shelters/tentsites get taken down instead of being repaired. Hikes in the WMNF are supposed to be with 10 people or less.
I'm concerned about the reasons for formally declaring more land off limits to forestry. Is it to protect wildlife? Is it to protect the health of the forest? Is it so that our sense of forest aesthetics is not affected? I support responsible logging; out of all my hikes in the WMNF I have never encountered an active logging operation (for trails that go through private land it's a different story) and yet I've noticed the patches of regrowth on various hillsides, but only if I look for them. I think the USFS, at least in NH, does a good job of keeping logging on a scale that doesn't negatively impact the forest's recreational value, and I trust their forestry judgement.
Having said that, I'd like to see a large buffer zone around most (if not all) trails to separate the areas used for recreation from the areas with forestry value. I'd also like to see the sensitive areas near bogs, brooks, and wetlands off limits from forestry, with a decent enough upland buffer for ecological reasons. I'd like to see clearcuts limited in size and in coverage (e.g. <X% of land should be logged at any one time, where X = 0.5% or 1% or some number that could be agreed upon). And there should be hefty penalties when logging companies practice non-responsible forestry. If for some reason we don't trust the Federal government by itself to make good forestry decisions, perhaps the WMNF ought to report to a local forestry advisory committee.
I don't have a problem with mechanized trail maintenance, or maintenance of shelters/tentsites; it seems like it could be limited to a few days a year, publicized well in advance, so that if you don't want to hear loud noises on the trail or see sawdust, you can pick another time.
If the reason for adding more Wilderness is so that people can go anywhere off-trail within thousands of acres and never encounter a road or a logging operation as long as they stay within the Wilderness line, that seems a bit vain for me. We already have 14% (114000 acres) of the WMNF in five Wilderness areas.
I think there should be some Wilderness but a public outcry of "more Wilderness" sounds to me like more of a bandwagon, one that's well-intentioned but not necessarily fully thought out. I am disappointed at AMC's position on this (it makes me uncomfortable that I'm a member) -- they have been spreading the message that "more Wilderness is good, you should ask for more of it" and "if we don't declare more Wilderness, there will be a threat of logging", without going much into details, or whether there is a reasonable other side to the issue.
I'm in favor of increased protection of the aesthetic and environmental quality of our public forests, but the Wilderness label (at least in this case, in the WMNF; not sure if I'd feel different about national forests in places where there are more open spaces like out West) seems too absolute for me.
posting this doesn't make me feel any better.
