So is Wilderness always a good thing????

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
Post Reply
User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

So is Wilderness always a good thing????

Post by Guy » August 28th, 2014, 5:46 pm

Not trying to start a war here this is something I've been mulling over of late & after the active discussions over the Sandy River Bridge incident I thought I'd start a new thread & see what people think?

Firstly I'll lay my cards on the table I'm not a wilderness with capitol W guy. I don't support the zero machinery rule, in my opinion spending hours upon hours hand sawing fallen trees from trails instead of being able to chain saw that would clear them in minutes does nothing to enhance the wilderness long term & just means that more wilderness trails disappear.

I don't want to see more permanent bridges & structures in the wilderness but I do want to see more simple rope bridges over large canyons, sand ladders, temporary planks that can be thrown over creeks when needed.

I support wilderness I just don't think it needs to be an all or nothing option.

Regarding the Ramona Falls incident the Forest Service employee who started the thread seemed to imply that it's wilderness & people should be prepared to deal with it. On the one hand I agree with him or her but on the other if Wilderness is going to be interpreted with a capitol W with zero intervention, no bridges etc. then areas such as Ramona Falls should not be designated Wilderness as it effectively shuts out the majority of the hiking public. Lets face it those of us who enjoy crossing fallen trees over rushing creeks may be in the majority on this web site but we are a minority of the hiking public. I think that areas so close to major populations shouldn't be state parks but they should be accessible to the majority of folks who want to visit them.

OK just my 0.2c. I'll stand back now :)
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

raven
Posts: 1531
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: So is Wilderness always a good thing????

Post by raven » August 28th, 2014, 6:27 pm

The wilderness designation stopped logging in those areas. The FS spent a lot of money putting roads in long distances to single clearcuts in attempts to diminish the sizes of Wildernesses (capital W). It worked unfortunately. Google "French Pete clearcut" -- and eventually take a hike in the area. The newer argument -- to allow some roads and clearcuts to go native and become wilderness -- had no traction at all 40 to 50 years ago. So Wilderness is needed, for political reasons.

pdxgene
Posts: 5073
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: So is Wilderness always a good thing????

Post by pdxgene » August 28th, 2014, 6:53 pm

Even county parks can become dangerous places when the wrong set of circumstances come together. A bridge at the Sandy wouldn't guarantee safety any more than a big display of (unfortunately unused) lifejackets recently did at Hagg Lake where more people died in one day than have ever died in all recent history on the way to or from Ramona Falls..

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6411
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: So is Wilderness always a good thing????

Post by kepPNW » August 28th, 2014, 7:02 pm

Yeah, what raven said. (Maybe you weren't here when Wilderness came to be?) At the time, the forest was managed almost solely for extractive purposes. The line had to be drawn.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

User avatar
adamschneider
Posts: 3711
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: SE Portland
Contact:

Re: So is Wilderness always a good thing????

Post by adamschneider » August 28th, 2014, 8:03 pm

Yes, a line had to be drawn, but I think anyone can see the difference between a clear-cut and a rope ladder! One is for extractive economic gain, one is for public safety.

User avatar
Koda
Posts: 3466
Joined: June 5th, 2009, 7:54 am

Re: So is Wilderness always a good thing????

Post by Koda » August 28th, 2014, 8:32 pm

I support wilderness (with a capital W) because when I look into the future I dont see anymore wilderness other than whats established.

which means Im on the fence on what kind of development would be allowed. On one side I feel if your going to allow a man made trail and bridges then I agree it shouldnt be an issue to maintain them with even mechanized equipment. Then there is also a part of me that says let nature take over completely with no intervention. The places Ive been where there ar no trails the experience is much more powerful....

so Im willing to compromise some but I have zero faith that any legislation changes would go in the favor of the wilderness... maybe the compromise is already there, we can build our trails and bridges but we can only use our hands....

the bottom line is yes, wilderness (with a capitol W) is always a good thing.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1834
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Milwaukie

Re: So is Wilderness always a good thing????

Post by Charley » August 28th, 2014, 10:06 pm

I think it's high time we re-orient the Wilderness regulations to allow for more amenities (bridges), more user groups, and reasonable modern tools (namely, the chainsaw). If we have any chance of taking on the truly threatening environmental challenges of our day (climate change, habitat loss), we'll need all the environmentalist voters we can get. We can only accomplish that by welcoming people into their Wilderness, not putting up barriers.

Outdoors people (hunters, hikers, riders of all kinds) are the defenders of our wild places. Roosevelt was a hunter, Muir a climber, and they worked to protect the places where they played. Show me a place where people don't play (where they are not allowed or because there are no trails), and I'll show you a place where the extractive industries will have an upper hand when they ask for access. Pebble Mine area (far away, no trails). Steens Mountain's northern reaches threatened by a gigantic wind farm (no trails). The reality is, if a piece of land is the special place of some recreationist, that piece of land is better protected.

I have such mixed feelings about the Wilderness designation, which is a real shame, because I'm an ardent environmentalist. The thing is, I like to ride a bicycle on dirt trails. Since, as it is currently interpreted by the Forest Service, Wilderness designation prohibits that activity, many awesome trails are closed off for that use.

In general, I support attempts to protect our wild areas from extremely damaging extractive uses (mining, logging, even grazing).

It's just too bad that the most commonly used protective designation also prevent several harmless activities like mountain biking and hang-gliding (as harmless as hiking, and probably less harmful than hunting, camping and climbing).

Furthermore, while Wilderness has been excellent at preserving swathes of our land from truly destructive logging, unfortunately, the designation has tied the hands of the Forest Service when it comes to maintaining and improving trails. I have to wonder, is this really what Congress intended in 1964? That the Forest Service would not even be able to use modern tools to maintain its large network of trails? That the agency would be limited to costly and time-consuming methods, and thus unable to maintain its network? I have to disagree. I think it's absurd and unintended.

I bet Congress intended to protect our wild lands, not to put up barriers to citizen visitors!
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

User avatar
Water
Posts: 1355
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: So is Wilderness always a good thing????

Post by Water » August 28th, 2014, 10:18 pm

I generally favor W wilderness. However I think that 'high-light-reel' places might deserve a subsection Wilderness designation, like MW--managed wilderness? I cannot help but look to the examples of Europe, Canada, New Zealand, and South America where little (or somewhat big) refuges are built in alpine environments to consolidate use and help keep it managed. That said I hate the idea of now that you have a 'cot' at Jeff Park or Colchuck Lake (for example), it simply goes to those who can afford it. But as we can see in the enchantments, we're already going down that path. It is more of an idea I muse about..

I will say one thing, hiking the Appalachian Trail, the White Mountains of New Hampshire.. the White Mnts are some of the most beautiful of the East coast, rivaled only by the BlueRidge and areas of Maine..and that is subjective. It's truly one of the only places 'east' of the mississippi you can get alpine without going up into labrador. So, bear with me, stunning mountains, and within 2-4 hours of HUGE population centers.
As a thru hiker I hated that I had to 'pay' for camping after thousand+ miles of free sleeping in the woods. It felt like a total travesty to have to pay to sleep in my tent in the rain. That said they have fantastic 'appalachian mountain club' huts that are located a day's hike from one another. They're staffed and have cots, bathrooms, emergency first aid, and food. The biggest can sleep up to 60 I think? So what I don't like is that it costs like $90 to stay there for a night, including food. It's not 'bad' but it isn't cheap at all. It isn't intended for dirt-bagging/budget outdoors people. But what I did really love was the amount of kids and adults I saw-sure they are already from fortunate backgrounds in most cases to be staying there--but they were people I would not have otherwise seen in that environment and they were there, still had to make serious effort to GET there hiking--and were very engaged with their settings. I know there are some subsidized programs to get disadvantaged youth to such places like big city mountaineers---which are fantastic programs. I guess my take away was seeing a wide swath of the populace who was getting a world class mountain environment experience and loving it--that is not a bad thing. That all (or almost...) all their waste was contained, they weren't bathing in water sources, and weren't making fires or braiding paths all over and killing alpine vege for tent sites was the way to do that, if you're going to have a lot of people in a sensitive area. I have major misgivings about this idea say at Jeff Park or say near the 3 sisters.. but at the same time..

here is a great example in canada. Does this look over-run, or not wild enough? Maybe our Oregon areas are not as 'grand' but I think we have more than enough populations going to our own 'grand' areas to warrant musing about the idea.
Image
http://oi62.tinypic.com/6pyc6g.jpg


There are no un-auth firepits to be seen anywhere you'd expect to see such (they may exist in the deep woods in secret spots). There is not crazy endless trail braiding all over by the water. Waste is contained. There is camping (pay, $7 or $9 a night/per person), there are small huts ($25/night--bunk, matress, and efficient woodstove that takes duraflame logs sold for $5). The huts have access to a fantastic 'cook hut' with propane, water (non-potable, but quite clean), and solar lights and seating for 20. Games and reading material in there too, along with bear boxes out in front. And finally a lodge that is $150/night per person with a sauna ($20 for campers or hut people), including food. You can hike 22-26km to get there. Or take a helicopter for $150/person each way. Helicopter can also transport your gear for you, in, or out, including 'waste' (like wine bottles), for something like $2.50/kg, a great price basically.

and as a final aside, there is the Kain hut up there in the snow below the great 'Matterhorn of Canada' for climbers. As much as I am not thrilled with gumby behavior at camp schurman and muir, the waste and sleeping consolidation is essential.

You can hike for 10 minutes in any direction and be in for all intents and purposes complete wilderness. When you think about this idea, think about it not for today alone, but say... 50 years from now, 100 years--don't be all doomsday, just assume population growth, economy, electric vehicles, biking, etc--more human development encroachment on wild areas (urban sprawl/growth, etc..a 5 acre plop of woods south of damascus is wild) and more areas owned by extractive industries. is the south climb of adams or say indian heaven capable of handling a ten-fold increase in traffic? I hate me some permits like the best of them, don't get me wrong.. but if a logical and thoughtful development went into access changes (we can all admit most of the permit processes now are broken, beginning with reserving months ahead, having zero-day of options, and people flaking out but not canceling permits, and not having any consequences for that or way to check it).
Feel Free to Feel Free

Steve20050
Posts: 395
Joined: November 12th, 2009, 8:06 pm

Re: So is Wilderness always a good thing????

Post by Steve20050 » August 29th, 2014, 12:38 am

For what it's worth: When the wilderness act of 1964 was passed there were several concessions made. One was that for 20 years things like mining claims could be filed. The deadline was 1984. James Watt as Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan saw to it that many more claims were filed. Some of these are still being fought over.

This has been one such problem with the Wilderness Act. Concessions. Another one to me seems to be that this wilderness is established for humans. I don't believe it's primary purpose is for mankind. Just the opposite. It is for the protection of endangered flora and fauna and 157 types of ecosystems that are represented within these areas. (The US has something like 260 types of basic systems, I think).

I'm not going to say that mankind shouldn't use these areas, but I tend to think people are confusing something like a National Park or National forest, with what has a true wilderness designation. I agree that the wilderness designation is probably being applied to areas that should not have this classification and they should instead be designated more something like Olallie Lake Scenic area. Where mankind has a greater role, and accommodations taken. However, I still believe true wilderness should be user beware. I stated that fact that established trails were ok and was questioned about that. To me the establishment of trails is for erosion control and protection against man, as we all have seen plenty of places where this is a problem with human traffic and no established trail.

Other than that, I don't really expect to see any "improvements". Sure, as I get older I can still cross that stream if a bridge were there, but honestly, I'd just as soon it wasn't there. I need to learn to except getting old and going to more user friendly places and leaving the wilderness as is. There are plenty of other great places for me to go. As above there are even "wilderness" areas I've seen in SA that had the same outback refugios that other countries have. They are nice, but some of our wilderness is unique in that it DOESN"T have these things, and I hope we can keep these areas as they have always been as long as possible for future generations.

User avatar
Waffle Stomper
Posts: 3707
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: So is Wilderness always a good thing????

Post by Waffle Stomper » August 29th, 2014, 6:19 am

I have mixed feelings about wilderness designations, but in when balancing the pros and cons I believe it is best to manage wilderness areas as they were intended. Mount Hood Wilderness is a difficult one because of its proximity and ease of access, inviting people of all experience levels to set foot in the forest. It's a compromise for certain, I vote for leaving it as is.
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." - John Muir

Post Reply