USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

[Aimless]

Besides that, the old system largely favors fit hikers who can hike fast. The new system is more equitable because it gives slower hikers a better chance.

Most of your post made sense to me, but this piece did not.

Were you thinking that fast hikers always got all the available camping spots? That may have been partly true for the most popular and crowded destinations on the most popular weekends of the year, where it could be like the Oklahoma Land Rush on Labor Day weekend, but pretty much all the forum participants here at OregonHikers.org have repeatedly said that they'd have been fine with expanding permits to cover the tiny handful of trails/destinations these limits would have sensibly been applied to, with Green Lakes being the most conspicuous candidate.

As far as I can see, the current system greatly favors any hikers who have a fast internet connection and can nab one of those permits in the first 20 seconds after they are opened for reservation. This doesn't strike me as an especially big improvement, especially since the current system isn't even tied to campsites, but trailheads, so that a fit and fast hiker could start early and hike rapidly from a more distant trailhead and still ace out all the slow hikers for campsites at Green Lakes.

If anyone is the most favored by this system, it's hikers like me, who has the flexibility to start mid-week at a less popular trailhead, hike to a popular area, then camp for as long as I like, staking out my campsite in advance and thumbing my nose at the fit and fast hiker who rushes in on Friday evening looking for a place to pitch a tent. Each overnight permit is good for 14 days and up to 12 people, no matter what day or trailhead you start on.

[Charley]

My opinion on the matter is as follows, if it wasn’t clear:
- Limited entry permits are good for overcrowded and/or very sensitive and crowded locations. (A place can be moderately crowded but if it’s extremely sensitive and small, then I believe it still should have some system like that. But conversely if a place is crowded but can handle those crowds and isn’t in a sensitive area, then I wouldn’t think it’s necessary.) I also don’t mind crowds depending on where it is, but I can’t deny having less crowds is nice, even if it’s (the personal experience) not reason alone to justify it.
- Overnight permits are a fantastic idea for popular or overcrowded backpacking destinations. I’d say it’s on a case by case system, and really depends. But like I said, I love how I no longer have to worry about getting a campsite (or worry less, at least), and thus can hike at the pace I want.

Do I think the CC plan was applied to too many trailheads and locations? Yeah I think so. I’d change it to cover specific areas and locations like Green Lake and Moraine Lake as far as overnight permits, and I’d even be ok with a non-reservation system like how they do it. (For example, reserve a permit for Green Lakes but can choose to camp in any one of the designated sites.) I don’t think it makes any sense to apply overnight permits to the entire wilderness area, as many campsites are just spread out in almost random locations and then there’s people who also camp off trail when off trail hiking. I believe those should be first come first serve and no permit needed.

I think I can agree with the way you've worded this. The over-regulation of the whole Central Cascades is the problem to me:

1. You need a permit to go places are aren't even crowded.
2. You need a permit to visit in seasons that aren't even crowded (spring and fall).
3. You need a permit to visit on weekdays which aren't even always crowded.

I am privileged to work on weekends, so most of my outdoor days are weekdays, and I'm used to seeing all the crowded places pretty empty. I'm very aware that weekends are a different ball game, and I think regulations that target overused places, during busy seasons, and especially weekends, may be necessary.

That's not what the Forest Service did!

[Bosterson]

Key word, traditionally. I don’t care for so called tradition, if something can be improved, then throw out tradition. Appealing to tradition is not a good argument either...

I think you misunderstood - I was using "traditionally" as a turn of phrase, like "historically." Your quote conveniently snipped out the point I was making at the end, which is that we've been discussing permits, which are allowed under specific circumstances under FLREA (and have some ostensible purpose to justify them), whereas you seem to be advocating for reservations, as if the outdoors were a hotel where you'd reserve a bed. If you want that, it's your prerogative, but it's not something authorized by FLREA, which was the justification for the permits.

I don't really get your bit about "speed hikers" either, but Aimless seems to have covered it (bonus points for the Land Rush reference).

Now getting back to the topic at hand, can anyone provide updates about how the Hood permits are going to help restore the parking at Timberline?!

[Petr]

Important. Please consider sharing. Member has key input on user fees.
We need good people on this, unfortunately I can't do this.
Link below for more information and how to apply.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/worki ... prd1160084