Road to Burnt Lake - Getting Worse.

[greenjello85]

The problem with the hypothetical scenario is that you are working from the assumption that all trail miles are equal and that as trailheads are moved backed, new trails are created in that new roadless area which I haven't seen as the case yet. The new road hike section of salmon butte isn't nearly as nice to hike as the rest of the trail. There are a lot of wildflowers on that section but the butte is no longer accessible to most families/seniors. There is a larger area but the new trails aren't being constructed so actual hiking destinations (lakes, viewpoints, etc.) are reduced by moving trailheads.

[Grannyhiker]

The fallacy of that argument, mcds, is that adding more roadless area by pulling back trailheads and does not increase the number of trails. Nor is hiking on "disestablished" roads very enjoyable (example: the first stretch of the Elk Cove trail is pretty unpleasant, full of ups and downs and slide alder). Move the Burnt Lake trailhead back a couple of miles and I won't be hiking it again. Nor will families with young children, who don't have that many lakes to hike to in most of the MHNF.

I agree about not compromising the Wilderness Act, but if we are to have future generations of hikers and conservationists, we do need genuine scenic wilderness--such as lakes and other interesting places--accessible by short (1-4 mile) hikes that can be done by young children--and their parents, who are handicapped by having to act as sherpas. Discontinued road "trails" just don't cut it! Never mind the effect on old bats like me. It's vital to get the next generation involved with the outdoors!

Looks like greenjello got ahead of me with the same argument! Thanks!

[mcds]

greenjello85 and grannyhiker - A generalization cannot be disproved by an example. That is the fallacy here. The argument I presented is 'in general', 'on average'. As I noted in my post (and provided the example of Badger Lake), of course there will be particular real-life situations where some hypothetical short-distance dayhiker will lose out (which I noted in my post).

More generally, it is in the nature of laws that they create a demographic that loses out.

The most obvious pertinent case is that ALL wilderness is not accessible to non-hikers. For example, Lyndon Johnson, who loved nature and signed the Wilderness Act into law, was cognizant that he was creating legislation that would make it impossible for him to visit the areas he was protecting. See for example, historian David Brinkley's presentation posted in this thread. If I remember correctly, Brinkley quotes/paraphrases Johnson when signing legislation for Maine & Mt Kathadin.

The most obvious pertinent case is that ALL wilderness is not accessible to non-hikers. For example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who contracted polio in 1921, was cognizant that he was signing legislation that would make it impossible for him to visit the areas he was protecting. See for example, historian David Brinkley's presentation posted in this thread. At 37:15 into that video, Brinkley talks about FDR signing legislation in 1940 that created Kings Canyon as a roadless National Park. See also the PBS page on the Ken Burns documentary film:

Ansel Adams' "1938 book, Sierra Nevada: The John Muir Trail, captivated President Franklin Roosevelt after Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes showed it to the president. Roosevelt would not only designate Kings Canyon as a national park in 1940, but as a roadless park, leaving it completely undeveloped. Due to his handicap, Roosevelt's only access to the splendor of Kings Canyon would be through Adams' photography.

If the argument I presented is to be debated, then it requires showing that the general situation is not general, or that there is another equally arguable general situation that contradicts the one I proposed, or ....

Also please re-read the opening sentence:

"Consider a hypothetical round area of statutory wilderness within a larger region of USFS land that has 1) a uniform trail density (miles of trails per square mile of wilderness) and 2) a uniform distribution of lakes.

grannyhiker - My apologies. I don't have time this evening to reply to your second paragraph, but I promise that i will get to it this week in a post here.

[greenjello85]

In general, trailheads are moved, new trails aren't built cutting off destinations that might actually interest people reducing the overall interest in hiking, reducing funding and leading to a lack of maintenance and deteriorating trails.

[mcds]

greenjello - your post has two parts: A) a proposed generalization, and B) a set of proposed consequences.

In general, trailheads are moved, new trails aren't built cutting off destinations...

That is your part A. I agree that trailheads are moved. The argument that I proposed does not depend on new trails being built.

The generalization you propose leaves out some aspects of wilderness expansion. For example, that, in general,

1) wilderness expansions increase the number wilderness trails, and increase the number of miles of wilderness trails

2) wilderness expansions increase the number of trailheads located at the wilderness boundary

3) wilderness expansions shorten the distance to the wilderness boundary from other trailheads

4) wilderness expansions increase the number of wilderness destinations (for example lakes)

Intentionally or not, you have selected only aspects of wilderness expansions that suit your aims. That leads to your fallacy.

For example, one person may look at the general population and find that adults are between 5 and 6 feet tall, generally speaking. A second person may look at NBA players and find they are between 6 and 7 feet tall, generally speaking. It would be an error of logic - a fallacy - for the second person to extend their findings to the general population and claim adults are between 6 and 7 feet tall, generally speaking. Your post amounts to the later.

For you to similarly debate the argument that I proposed, you would need to identify aspects of wilderness expansions that I neglected and that change the conclusions I deducted, that short-distance dayhikers gain more than they lose in terms of accessible: wilderness square miles, wilderness trail miles, wilderness destinations (e.g. lakes), and solitude.

That's not the only way to debate the argument that I proposed. There are others.

Your part B, "... destinations that might actually interest people reducing the overall interest in hiking, reducing funding and leading to a lack of maintenance and deteriorating trails" requires a lot of questionable assumptions. For example, 80% of USFS trails are not in wilderness. Like wilderness trails, those trails suffer from a lack of maintenance and include deteriorating trails ... even though maintenance is not restricted to traditional tools.

[Koda]

The problem here is that funding, legislation, democracy etc. massively overpower the ideal solution for everyone. Mcds has a good point, that someone is going to lose out.

More generally, it is in the nature of laws that they create a demographic that loses out.

One advantage to moving the trailhead back at Burnt lake is one might be able to find a campsite in the peak season.... improved opportunity for solitude.

While I agree that we need easy scenic objectives to encourage future generations I also believe that population growth is unstoppable and thus generally support increased wilderness protections for future generations.

[greenjello85]

Oh I was under the impression one can make whatever unrealistic claims one wants as long as it is a generalization. Troll on brother.

[mcds]

I was under the impression one can make whatever unrealistic claims one wants

That is correct. One can make whatever assumptions one wants. The issue is that given a set of assumptions, any deductions that stem from that set are vulnerable to dismissal by an argument founded on a more realistic set. That is just the way debate proceeds.

It sounds like you are saying that the way I set up my hypothetical scenario is unrealistic. So your task would be to propose a more realistic scenario. You have not done that, in my opinion, and in my post above, I wrote out reasons why I'm of that opinion.

Or, if you don't want to take a theoretical approach, your task would be to run the numbers for some of the wilderness expansions established by the 2009 Omnibus Lands Bill. As before, anyone of those expansions might have caused reductions for short-distance dayhikers. My claim is that in general, wilderness expansions significantly benefit short-distance dayhikers in the ways I mentioned above. I haven't run the numbers, but I'd be willing to accept an average net gain/loss calculated based on all the 2009 expansions.

I am waiting ...

[pdxgene]

Moving back the trailhead at Burnt Lake might not be a bad idea if that's where the trail ended. But it's not. It continues on to many other potential destinations and directions. Some of them miles away (Cast Lake for just one example). I really can't see any benefit to adding a mile and a half stretch of road that really can't ever be much more than a mile and a half stretch of road. You might get a few more trilliums but there certainly won't be a mass of wildflowers in a place that remains shaded most of the year. I certainly could be wrong but that road doesn't appear to have been built for logging but for recreation. If that road shouldn't be made safer and more drivable, why should any of them?

[Koda]

My guess is the road was built to fight the forest fire.... And would otherwise not be there at all.