So is Wilderness always a good thing????

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

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

Post by Aimless » August 29th, 2014, 7:33 am

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.

This sounds so simple and limited that one is tempted to agree, and yet I don't. The difficulty for me is that once you start making exceptions there must be a legal definition of what exceptions are allowed and the circumstances when they are allowed. Such definitions are usually cast in broad language that is susceptible of broad interpretations. The beauty of capital W wilderness (which incidentally only exists as a legal entity) is how clearly it is defined and how easy it is to defend against encroachments.

The Wilderness Act is quite specific that humans are only visitors in such places and we must not manage such places as if we were the owners, making whatever 'improvements' for ourselves we think necessary for our own profit and enjoyment. This is a pretty clear standard as legal standards go. I wouldn't want to give it up for the unclear benefits I'd gain from watering it down and opening loopholes in it.

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 29th, 2014, 7:54 am

Aimless wrote: The Wilderness Act is quite specific that humans are only visitors in such places and we must not manage such places as if we were the owners, making whatever 'improvements' for ourselves we think necessary for our own profit and enjoyment. This is a pretty clear standard as legal standards go. I wouldn't want to give it up for the unclear benefits I'd gain from watering it down and opening loopholes in it.
I think the benefits of watering down some of the protections are very clear: in places like the National Park system, there is clearly more use of modern maintenance machinery and intensive building methods. The result of this and other forms of active management is that the National Parks are less of a free-for-all. Less braided trails, more concentrated use, probably less feces floating in the surface water (thanks to things like pit toilets).

I'll just leave you with a view from a high alpine environment that would truly suffer without the increased management possible under a less restrictive policy (one that I can't imagine the Congress would object to). Behold the pit toilet at the foot of the Sahale Glacier on Sahale Peak:
sahale490.jpg
Given the ease of visiting the area, and the fact that the climb is one of the less complicated in the North Cascades, I imagine that, without this toilet, there'd be mountains of human waste up there. Wilderness designation could have an entirely negative effect for this piece of our wildlands, as it is for many other places.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

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

Post by Aimless » August 29th, 2014, 8:40 am

I'm not especially eager to turn all our wilderness areas into junior national parks. First, national parks charge admission fees at the gate, which provides them with a revenue stream that is not available to the FS and that revenue stream from millions of non-backcountry visitors is what funds the active management you are advocating. Trying to wring a similarly large revenue stream from wilderness seems to me to be a fool's errand and a ripe opportunity for a program much worse than the NWFP system we've all been blessed with lately.

I would also point out that even with the revenue stream from non-backcountry visitors, the management of our national parks has suffered markedly in the past several decades and the Park Service has resorted to subcontracting more and more of their operations to private concessionaires. I know the FS has done similar subcontracting, but not for their designated wilderness areas, mainly because there are no profits to be made out of wilderness as it is presently defined. That lack of profit is the main pillar that protects our designated wilderness.

It is fine to point at the NPS backcountry facilities as an example of what might be done theoretically in wilderness areas, but those facilities do not simply materialize because they are desirable. They arrive as a tiny part of a much larger system of revenue generation, budgeting, regulations, administration and enforcement that I do not want to see duplicated in our wilderness areas.

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 29th, 2014, 8:44 am

Aimless wrote: It is fine to point at the NPS backcountry facilities as an example of what might be done theoretically in wilderness areas, but those facilities do not simply materialize because they are desirable. They arrive as a tiny part of a much larger system of revenue generation, budgeting, regulations, administration and enforcement that I do not want to see duplicated in our wilderness areas.
Good point! Seems like most FS funding goes to fighting fires and maintaining roads for log trucks.

That said, in some cases, Wilderness regulations cause the FS to spend more money than it would have to spend otherwise. The best example is the cost associated with sending crews out to work on trails with cross-cut saws. That job could be done more cheaply, and just as well, with chainsaws.

To me, the benefit of quieter trails during some spring days is far outweighed by the fact that many trails end up un-maintained and deteriorating. The net effect is that the trail system shrinks in mileage even as the local population increases. Giving people (and possible future environmentalists) fewer, and thus more crowded places to visit is a sure loser.

This isn't the best way to ensure the next generation of dedicated environmentalist voters who can tackle bigger problems like climate change!
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

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

Post by BigBear » August 29th, 2014, 9:16 am

Guy: You are asking what's wrong with opening Pandora's box and allowing the hand of man to enter the pristine environment and allow for machinery when it's prudent. As the Supreme Court examined in determining what is "offensive" when it comes to books, films, etc. the line is gray and wide and not narrow and absolute. What is a good idea to you is probably not a good idea to all with an opinion.

USFS opened the "box" by allowing concessionaires to operate at their campgrounds and trailheads and now we have Bark v USFS which prevents USFS from limiting the profits of the concessionaires and the concessionaires do not have to honor the NW Forest Pass nor the Golden Age pass.

When you think of trail maintenance, the loggers may be thinking of a wider swath, just as they thought when they cleared out the forests to lay roads. When these roads were initially laid, the amount of forest that was cut down far-exceeded the amount you would have cut if you were to lay a road from highway to remote cabin. Also, logging companies have been know to cut trees on the wrong side of wilderness boundaries, trails and creeks because the fine was less than the value of the trees they cut. Once that chainsaw kicks into action, you cannot limit the trees it cuts down.

If I ruled the world, it would be a better place, but I don't rule the world. Those who make the rules (with PAC money in their pocket) are just waiting for the "box" to be opened.

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

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

Post by Aimless » August 29th, 2014, 9:30 am

Seems like most FS funding goes to fighting fires and maintaining roads for log trucks.


I may not agree with or approve of all the money spent on these items, but it would be naïve to think that if the FS decreased funding for these activities it would increase the FS budget for trail maintenance or wilderness management by even one dime.

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

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

Post by Koda » August 29th, 2014, 9:43 am

the more I read into this and entertain the idea of revising the current wilderness policy the more I cringe. The current wilderness act is the one thing done right and for the right reasons. Increased recreational human use is an unnatural impact to any habitat and the primitive aspects of wilderness designation assure that impact will remain as low as possible while still allowing access to our lands. A National Park is not the same situation, and pit toilets, bridges, shelters etc. encourage more human visitations (accommodations). Id rather entertain the idea of turning National Parks into Wilderness areas.

The most important thing about the wilderness designation is protecting the flora and fauna, it doesn’t have anything at all to do with our recreational needs. Its important this is never compromised.

I change my stance on contemplating the idea of allowing mechanized development and say leave it as it is. Im fine with anything you can do by hand to maintain whats already [grandfathered] there.
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2

User avatar
backcountryhunter
Posts: 915
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: hiking the backcountry
Contact:

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

Post by backcountryhunter » August 29th, 2014, 9:52 am

At one time Trout Unlimited, TRCP, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers floated the idea of a "wilderness lite" designation that would allow for chainsaws and mt bikes. It was a few years ago but I don't think it got much traction from the legislature.

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 29th, 2014, 10:08 am

backcountryhunter wrote:At one time Trout Unlimited, TRCP, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers floated the idea of a "wilderness lite" designation that would allow for chainsaws and mt bikes. It was a few years ago but I don't think it got much traction from the legislature.
National Recreation Areas already serve that purpose. There are several units in the Mt Hood National Forest, including the Fifteenmile Creek area and Shellrock Mtn area. Those areas are protected from activities like mining and logging! Yay!
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

User avatar
backcountryhunter
Posts: 915
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: hiking the backcountry
Contact:

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

Post by backcountryhunter » August 29th, 2014, 10:11 am

First of all I am fully aware that this is a hiking site and I have been a member since day one. Quite a few of the members on this site also know that I hunt and that I helped co-found Backcountry Hunters and Anglers 10 years ago. Since this is the 50th anniversary of the Wilderness Act and this thread has the title of Wilderness in it, I want to share some of the thoughts as to why some hunters love to go into wilderness areas. They have no issues with a missing bridge or using a whip saw to cut wood and clear trails. They also have quite a few other good reasons for venturing forth into the wild. Not all hunters drive around in pickups and atv's swiggling beer hoping for something to cross the road. I am sure as some of you read the 50 responses on why these 50 hunters go into the wilderness on the 50th anniversary of the big W some of you can relate as to how they feel.

Cheers
Tony

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/index ... wilderness

Post Reply