So is Wilderness always a good thing????

[texasbb]

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.
...
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.

(Emphasis added.)

I'm not sure if you're talking about what the Wilderness Act says or what you wish it said. If it's the former, I don't read it quite that way. It says, "“[W]ilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(b) (2006). If it's the latter, I understand your point but see it a little differently.

My opinion: Our designated wilderness areas are generally way too small to have much direct environmental benefit. Their environmental benefit is primarily indirect, through the education they provide folks who are able to experience what "unimproved" nature is really like and will hence work (or at least vote) to keep more of it that way. Toward that end, I think human recreation is a very significant consideration in Wilderness management. That doesn't mean we turn them all into National Parks (yuck), just that we manage them as necessary to make wilderness recreation possible without unnecessary or inordinate damage to the land.

And for the opinion record, I don't want chain saws or fast-moving wheeled transportation--both of those bust my wilderness bubble. I'd rather minimize the permanent bridges but don't mind them when the number of visitors would otherwise result in excessive damage.

[CampinCarl]

Interesting discussion, I like hearing everyone's various perspectives on wilderness.

I highly recommend the following book for anyone interested in the history of wilderness philosophy, specifically in America:
Wilderness and the American Mind
by Roderick Frazier Nash

Something Nash discusses is the shift in the perspective of wilderness in earlier American history as something to be feared and tamed to our embrace of present day designated Wilderness as first, human-centered for our benefit and enjoyment, and then later, a movement toward valuing wilderness in a more ecocentric manner- that is, natural places and systems as intrinsically valuable.

That being said, I think the minimum tool concept applies in my own thinking. I would rather have crosscut saws than chainsaws, seasonal bridges than permanent structures, non-motorized recreation than motors when in the wilderness. At the same time, I understand that in limiting the tool, I won't necessarily have the instant or easy access that I may desire for a particular spot or type of recreation. But, the potential for restraining hurriedness, quick-fixes, and the dependence on technology in even these small ways is appealing because it is such a polar opposite of the rat race lifestyle that some of us lead in our "normal" day-to-day lives.

[Koda]

I'm not sure if you're talking about what the Wilderness Act says or what you wish it said. If it's the former, I don't read it quite that way. It says, "“[W]ilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.” 16 U.S.C. § 1133(b) (2006). If it's the latter, I understand your point but see it a little differently.

thank you for clarifying that, I'm mistaken in part. My impression of the definition only saw the conservation part. Some of the smaller wilderness areas I've recently visited I read were noted to protect the river system in it, but I read too much into that description.

[Charley]

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.

I'm not naive. "Sustain and Enhance Outdoor Recreation Opportunities" is Goal #4 in the Forest Service's Strategic Goals. Given the fact that much of the recreation opportunities on Forest Service land are within Wilderness, it's reasonable to expect that freeing up monies for recreation would spill into the Wilderness. Not "one dime"? Good grief.

You can read it here, if you'd like:
http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/201 ... cation.pdf

[vibramhead]

I'm a big fan of legal, capital-W Wilderness. This kind of wilderness is where we draw a much-needed line in the sand between extractive commercial use of public resources and something more protective (with grazing an unfortunate exception to this). I think some of the problems with legally-designated federal wilderness aren't because of the Wilderness Act itself, but federal agencies' different interpretations of it. The Park Service interprets the Act to allow judicious use of chain saws to keep trails clear, while Forest Service does not. While I'm no fan of chain saw noise, the Park Service generally limits their use to a brief window in early summer to clear the blowdown before the hiking season starts. This is a good thing, because big blowdowns on trails cause hikers to carve detour trails around them. Forest Service limits itself to hand tools, and the result is that a lot less blowdown gets cleared. And there's nothing in the Wilderness Act that limits construction of footbridges. Where they're lacking, I think it's mainly a result of budgetary limitations, not legal constraints.

The Wilderness Act does, however, place some real limits on structures like buildings. While that's generally a good thing, I would like to see those limits relaxed a bit, because simple backcountry shelters don't impair my wilderness experience, and I think they can protect natural areas by concentrating use in one spot. Plus they serve an important safety function. I spent a couple of months hiking New Zealand, where they have a great system of backcountry huts, and these were fine places to sleep.

[Charley]

I'm a big fan of legal, capital-W Wilderness. This kind of wilderness is where we draw a much-needed line in the sand between extractive commercial use of public resources and something more protective (with grazing an unfortunate exception to this). I think some of the problems with legally-designated federal wilderness aren't because of the Wilderness Act itself, but federal agencies' different interpretations of it. The Park Service interprets the Act to allow judicious use of chain saws to keep trails clear, while Forest Service does not. While I'm no fan of chain saw noise, the Park Service generally limits their use to a brief window in early summer to clear the blowdown before the hiking season starts. This is a good thing, because big blowdowns on trails cause hikers to carve detour trails around them. Forest Service limits itself to hand tools, and the result is that a lot less blowdown gets cleared. And there's nothing in the Wilderness Act that limits construction of footbridges. Where they're lacking, I think it's mainly a result of budgetary limitations, not legal constraints.

The Wilderness Act does, however, place some real limits on structures like buildings. While that's generally a good thing, I would like to see those limits relaxed a bit, because simple backcountry shelters don't impair my wilderness experience, and I think they can protect natural areas by concentrating use in one spot. Plus they serve an important safety function. I spent a couple of months hiking New Zealand, where they have a great system of backcountry huts, and these were fine places to sleep.

Yes! I agree.

[justpeachy]

The Wilderness Act does, however, place some real limits on structures like buildings.

And some Wilderness Managers take a more conservative approach to this than others. I know that's the case for the Mt. Hood National Forest, which is why the Upper Sandy Guard Station near Ramona Falls is being allowed to fall apart despite it's designation as a National Historic Landmark. The MHNF could allow that building to be repaired/maintained if they wanted since it existed before wilderness designation, but the Wilderness Manager won't allow it.

Abandoned fire lookouts are affected as well, which is a bad thing. We saw what happened with the whole Green Mountain controversy. The Olallie Lookout in the Three Sisters Wilderness is going to fall down one of these days due to lack of maintenance. Other lookouts are in the same boat.

[raven]

Joesef, beware of what you ask for in ease of wilderness access. The concept of wildness is incompatible with widespread handicap access, but there have been arguments made about Wilderness access. That capital W needs a strong defense.

I'm getting older, and that is suppose to mean I cannot go everywhere I have in the past in the future. That's OK, as long as I am allowed to die trying. I probably would have stayed off that bridge with water pushing on it because my brain isn't that impaired yet. Of course, I can't be sure: I said to myself "This is happening to me!" as I went through overflow ice on skis -- I was lost in thought at the wrong moment and missed the obvious warning signs.

[vibramhead]

I dont need to be aware of your ideas or opinions. Ive lurked long enough to know what you are all about on this site.

This sort of nastiness isn't what PortlandHikers is about. If you're unable to refrain from it, I suggest you go back to your lurking.

[pdxgene]

I dont need to be aware of your ideas or opinions. Ive lurked long enough to know what you are all about on this site.

Perhaps you could expand on that in detail a bit so those of us that would like to reply can address a specific concern and not misinterpret your meaning.. Because it's pretty damn insulting as currently stated to some of us.

You know, there's probably more than a hundred trails in the Mt Hood Nat'l Forest. Why are you so locked into a bridge to Ramona Falls? There was at one time a permanent one, it washed away in a flood. Thus the logical decision to make the replacement bridge a seasonal one. After all the trailhead isn't even accessible for a good chunk of the year. The Sandy River channel that it spanned used to be flat and maybe 20-40 yards across. I can post a picture of it if you'd like. Now it's a canyon. Did you even research any of this? Have you ever even been to Ramona Falls?