I don't see why it wouldn't. Unless you have a permit, you won't be camping by the lake at a designated site. You'll have to camp directly on the meadows 20 ft from the trail.scrambler2 wrote:
Will these new regs apply to thru hikers? Section hikers?
Sorry, what I meant to say was, you'll have to camp off of fragile vegetation 250 feet away from the lakes.miah66 wrote:I don't see why it wouldn't. Unless you have a permit, you won't be camping by the lake at a designated site. You'll have to camp directly on the meadows 20 ft from the trail.scrambler2 wrote:
Will these new regs apply to thru hikers? Section hikers?
Growing crowds at Jefferson Park
The number of people hiking and camping at Jefferson Park, a subalpine meadow in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness, has exploded the last few years. Here are numbers taken from the Whitewater Trailhead, the most popular access point to Jeff Park, that show the increase (there are many other ways to access Jeff Park). The data shows the number of free wilderness permits filled out at the trailhead and the number of total people visiting Jefferson Park from Whitewater Traihead.
DAY USE
2012 – 403 permits, 952 people
2013 – 418 permits, 959 people
2014 – 535 permits, 1588 people
OVERNIGHT USE
2012 – 463 permits, 1154 people
2013 – 502 permits, 1285 people
2014 – 693 permits, 1794 people
TOTAL VISITS
2012 – 2,106 people
2013 – 2,244
2014 – 3,382
mattisnotfrench wrote:
And now it's the poster child for what not to do in the wilderness...aridd wrote:A littlle backstory on that photo: I actually came in the same day as Mattisnotfrench and saw the same thing (thought he was using my photos even ha!), I asked the group leader what was up with it. He apologized and said their group (young boyscouts) tried to make it to Jefferson Park but it got dark on them while descending the ridge, so they setup in the first place they could. Doesn't make it okay, or right, but there's the whole story. I have never seen anything else like it in my numerous trips to the area over the years, so that picture is not a good example of why the reservation or permit system is needed.
I hope that none of you post my backpacking oops on here. Or maybe you have.CampinCarl wrote:Feds plan permit system for Jefferson Park campsites
Killer propaganda though. Even better than lying with numbers. Especially now that it's been handed to the (innumerate) media.Aridd wrote:so that picture is not a good example of why the reservation or permit system is needed.
Bogus. Notice it's not just an increase in visitors, from a single trailhead, but also carpooling! There are a number of possibilities that could explain a shift like that, and I'd put "a fundamental change in human behavior" pretty far down the list of most likely. Data collection issues or compilation errors might come first. Things such as missing pencils, overstuffed permit boxes, lack of blank permits, even an awesome trip report that spoke to gawdawful road/trail conditions from another trailhead could contribute to the rise in vehicles. The rise in carpooling (people count would've been ~1200 at previous rate) really makes the numbers smell like 3-day old fish.CampinCarl wrote:2012 – 403 permits, 952 people
2013 – 418 permits, 959 people
2014 – 535 permits, 1588 people
I could be accused of and perhaps I am being a bit of a conspiracy theorist here but I have come to believe over the last few years that the FS is just as likely to use data from trailhead day use & overnight permits against you as for you. I have altered my behavior & use of them accordingly.CampinCarl wrote:2012 – 403 permits, 952 people
2013 – 418 permits, 959 people
2014 – 535 permits, 1588 peopleBogus. Notice it's not just an increase in visitors, from a single trailhead, but also carpooling! There are a number of possibilities that could explain a shift like that, and I'd put "a fundamental change in human behavior" pretty far down the list of most likely. Data collection issues or compilation errors might come first. Things such as missing pencils, overstuffed permit boxes, lack of blank permits, even an awesome trip report that spoke to gawdawful road/trail conditions from another trailhead could contribute to the rise in vehicles. The rise in carpooling (people count would've been ~1200 at previous rate) really makes the numbers smell like 3-day old fish.
Lies, damned lies, and ...
They've had the same permit box, the same type of forms (and they use a scantron form, which is very easy to use) and the same messages at all 4 of the trailheads for Jefferson Park over the past 3 years. I've been to all of these trailheads at least twice in the past 4 years and they've never once been out of forms. There have been no demonstrable changes in any of the roads leading to these trailheads (other than obvious grading and pothole-filling on the Whitewater Road this year). There have been no trail closures of any of the 4 routes over the past 3 years.kepPNW wrote:Killer propaganda though. Even better than lying with numbers. Especially now that it's been handed to the (innumerate) media.Aridd wrote:so that picture is not a good example of why the reservation or permit system is needed.
Bogus. Notice it's not just an increase in visitors, from a single trailhead, but also carpooling! There are a number of possibilities that could explain a shift like that, and I'd put "a fundamental change in human behavior" pretty far down the list of most likely. Data collection issues or compilation errors might come first. Things such as missing pencils, overstuffed permit boxes, lack of blank permits, even an awesome trip report that spoke to gawdawful road/trail conditions from another trailhead could contribute to the rise in vehicles. The rise in carpooling (people count would've been ~1200 at previous rate) really makes the numbers smell like 3-day old fish.CampinCarl wrote:2012 – 403 permits, 952 people
2013 – 418 permits, 959 people
2014 – 535 permits, 1588 people
Lies, damned lies, and ...
