What is the argument you see that allows chainsaws?retired jerry wrote:Exceptions are allowed if it's the minimum required to provide access
If they maintain all the major trails with handsaws (which are also an exception) then that would be more minimal than chainsaws
If they weren't able to maintain all the major trails with handsaws but they would be with chainsaws, then you could argue that chainsaws were allowed, but I think this is rarely done
Probably good to count trees across trails in addition to looking at survey data
chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
Re: chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
Last edited by mcds on September 16th, 2014, 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14399
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
I was arguing with Lurch
I think
I forget, what were we arguing about?
I think
I forget, what were we arguing about?
Re: chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
I've not picked up on that in anything I've been reading.Lurch wrote:I would argue that a tree across a trail, the vast majority of the time does not inhibit access, it just makes it less convenient. There's nothing that says you must remain on maintained routes only. In fact it seems the whole intent of it was to drastically cut down on the maintained routes and the impact they have on the land, and have a more 'natural' backcountry off trail type experience.retired jerry wrote:Exceptions are allowed if it's the minimum required to provide access
If they maintain all the major trails with handsaws (which are also an exception) then that would be more minimal than chainsaws
If they weren't able to maintain all the major trails with handsaws but they would be with chainsaws, then you could argue that chainsaws were allowed, but I think this is rarely done
Probably good to count trees across trails in addition to looking at survey data
A tree across the limited roads in wilderness areas *do* impact access, a tree across a trail does not (generally) IMHO.
Re: chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
No arguing, just friendly debate Serious discussions are no fun if everyone agrees from the start!
It may just be my gut feeling that they were trying to let nature be natural, but there were probably plenty of legalese reasons that they couldn't un-approve previously approved facilities.
At least stop the creation of new maintained trails/facilities/etc..mcds wrote:I've not picked up on that in anything I've been reading.
It may just be my gut feeling that they were trying to let nature be natural, but there were probably plenty of legalese reasons that they couldn't un-approve previously approved facilities.
Re: chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
Lurch wrote:No arguing, just friendly debate Serious discussions are no fun if everyone agrees from the start!
At least stop the creation of new maintained trails/facilities/etc..mcds wrote:I've not picked up on that in anything I've been reading.
It may just be my gut feeling that they were trying to let nature be natural, but there were probably plenty of legalese reasons that they couldn't un-approve previously approved facilities.
No worries. What did you mean by intent? For example, are you referring to a hidden intent? Just asking.
Reposting: The best 'read' that I've come across is "Untrammeled," "Wilderness Character," and the Challenges of Wilderness Preservation 2001 by Douglas Scott. Here is a link the 8 page PDF:
https://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/do ... rticle.pdf
Re: chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
Don't those basically mean the same thing - inhibit access and make it less convenient?I would argue that a tree across a trail, the vast majority of the time does not inhibit access, it just makes it less convenient.
Re: chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
Given that, the ranger that strongly discourages off-trail wandering is waaaay out of line.Lurch wrote:
- Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Wilderness provides opportunities for people to experience: natural sights and sounds; remote, isolated, unfrequented, or secluded places; and freedom, risk, and the physical and emotional challenges of self-discovery and self-reliance. [...] This quality is impaired by settings that reduce these opportunities, such as visitor encounters, signs of modern civilization, recreation facilities, and management restrictions on visitor behavior.
Being confined to a narrow, groomed corridor clearly impairs one's ability for unconfined recreation.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...
Back on the trail, again...
Re: chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
FWIW, Earlier this summer I did a Bell Creek hike (non-trailwork), finishing at Horsetail Falls parking area. I met two guys who had just descended Oneonta Creek canyoneering style with wetsuits and ropes. They walked across the lower bridge then offtrailed it up the switch backs, then followed the trail towards Horsetail Falls.kepPNW wrote:
Given that, the ranger that strongly discourages off-trail wandering is waaaay out of line.
- retired jerry
- Posts: 14399
- Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Re: chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
I think rangers with attitudes are okay. Some people will behave better if they're worried about rangers.
I can see why they discourage off trail. The chances of being found if you have a problem are way less. If you stay on a trail and leave an itenerary, a couple searchers will probably be able to find you.
I can see why they discourage off trail. The chances of being found if you have a problem are way less. If you stay on a trail and leave an itenerary, a couple searchers will probably be able to find you.
Re: chainsaws and trail conditions in wilderness areas
It's not always that easy... If we *know* a subject is off trail it can sometimes enhance our containment and shrink our search area. People who are off trail and lost will rarely cross a trail or road and continue on.. People on trail and lost will tend to keep walking so long as there's trail.. In general though yes, on trail searches are finished faster than off.retired jerry wrote:I think rangers with attitudes are okay. Some people will behave better if they're worried about rangers.
I can see why they discourage off trail. The chances of being found if you have a problem are way less. If you stay on a trail and leave an itenerary, a couple searchers will probably be able to find you.
As for the rangers, this is just my personal thoughts here but there is a difference between low-impact low-density off trail travel, and high-impact high-density travel that will damage the terrain and they're trying to discourage. Technically speaking complaints about offtrail travel in wilderness areas seems to go against the whole 'untrammeled' bit..