Jefferson Park designated camping update

[kelkev]

Sounds like the permit system hasn't worked out as planned so far.....I still am of the opinion that a limited entry permit system is on the horizon, for better or worse.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/n ... /96216430/

[justpeachy]

"The number of people camping on the fragile meadows actually increased last summer." How discouraging.

Also, when it comes to the lake proximity rule, I don't think most people realize just how far 250 feet is. (Or they just don't care)

The article may be behind a paywall for some, so here it is:

Jefferson Park permit system fails to stop damaging camping

The best laid plans sometimes go awry, especially in Oregon's most beautiful places.

Last summer, a new permit system was launched for the 30 designated campsites in Jefferson Park, one of the most popular backpacking spots in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness.

The alpine meadow of wildflowers and lakes at the base of Mount Jefferson saw a major increase in crowds beginning in 2014. One major problem was people arriving, discovering all the designated campsites were taken and making camp on the park's ecologically sensitive meadows.

"The vegetation up there has an incredibly short growing season," said Brad Peterson, wilderness trails manager for Willamette National Forest. "Once it’s crushed, it can do extensive damage."

By requiring that backpackers purchase a $6 permit in advance — and see online if any campsites were available — it was hoped fewer people would camp on environmentally sensitive meadows.

It didn't work out that way.

The number of people camping on the fragile meadows actually increased last summer, instead of declining as officials had hoped, Peterson said.

"Our staff observed an increase in camping outside designated sites," he said. "(People) were also less successful in selecting appropriate campsites."

It’s not clear what caused the increase. The past summer was the most crowded outdoor recreation season in Oregon's history, the Statesman Journal has reported. So more people visiting already-popular Jefferson Park and spilling into the meadows wouldn't be shocking.

However, Peterson believes the increase might have been caused by a few factors.

First, many people were surprised by the new permit requirement at Jefferson Park, despite multiple signs and outreach programs, Peterson said.

At the same time, detailed information about the permit system — at trailheads and online — alerted visitors to a little-known fact: while backpackers did need a permit for designated sites, the Forest Service still allows dispersed camping in Jefferson Park, as long as they’re 250 feet away from the lakes.

That means people without a permit could legally camp in many places — including the meadows.

"In the past, the public could have been operating under the assumption that camping was allowed only in designated sites," Peterson said.

Peterson said land managers would take a hard look at the permit system.

"It is possible that there may be some changes in the coming year," he said.

One option the Forest Service could consider is a "limited entry system," that would cap the number of people allowed to enter Jefferson Park. Limited entry systems are in place at Pamelia Lake and Hunt's Cove, in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness, and Obsidian Trail, in the Three Sisters Wilderness.

Installing that type of system at Jefferson Park would have required an environmental impact assessment, Peterson said, but might be part of a future solution.

[CampinCarl]

Sounds like the permit system hasn't worked out as planned so far.....I still am of the opinion that a limited entry permit system is on the horizon, for better or worse.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/n ... /96216430/

Yes, I agree the limited entry permit will probably happen. Perhaps only on designated camping sites in the Park proper though, I don't know how they could monitor 4 (or more) trailheads- Park Ridge, Breitenbush, Whitewater, Woodpecker, not to mention backpackers hiking through.

[retired jerry]

With Obsidian, people hiking through on the PCT don't need a permit, so probably the same other places

Rather than limits and permits, I'd rather they upgrade or build new other trailheads and trails

[Water]

or as in the other thread mentions, and i've heard multiple places, backcountry rangers get up there every weekend in the summer, but prefer to do an interpretive dance with finger puppets to educate offenders about their behavior in the hope that will have a deep and lasting impact on people's expectations, attitudes, and actions at Jeff Park. Though they will fine people who throw down and basically want to fight them, hard to imagine that's what it takes. Instead of limiting how about they enforce the existing rules. It was my understanding the fine for having a fire where you shouldn't is $500/person in the group.

Also, Mt. Hood, probably sees a bajillion more users than Jefferson. No permits, no limits. Jeff needs it why? It's already ridiculous, to pass through Pamelia on the way to climb Jeff you have to have a permit. hogwash!

The forest service would like nothing more than a neat and tidy online permit system for all entry to every single square foot of the national forest. And for you to pay a fee to alert them to it. For those of you who support limited entry would you consider not? Or consider asking for more trails as Jerry suggests.

[Bosterson]

At the same time, detailed information about the permit system — at trailheads and online — alerted visitors to a little-known fact: while backpackers did need a permit for designated sites, the Forest Service still allows dispersed camping in Jefferson Park, as long as they’re 250 feet away from the lakes.

That means people without a permit could legally camp in many places — including the meadows.

"In the past, the public could have been operating under the assumption that camping was allowed only in designated sites," Peterson said.

I think my head just exploded. You're going to set up a system that requires people to obtain a permit for a limited number of designated sites, with the ostensible purpose of reducing spillover from those sites onto fragile meadows, but then still allow people to camp in dispersed, non-designated sites, which include those very same meadows?!

[drm]

After my first visit to Jeff Park last September, I realized what a unique feature it is, geologically speaking. It's like taking Indian Heaven and putting it way up at the edge of the alpine on one of our volcanoes. Having that kind of alpine park stuffed with alpine lakes doesn't normally occur the way our volcanoes are created. Park Ridge seems to be the key to this as the park is hemmed in between the mountain and that ridge.

As such, I think the combination of these factors creates not only a special appeal and attraction, but a special ecological sensitivity, that may not exist elsewhere in the alpine terrain on our volcanoes.

Or maybe the national forest staff there are just more sensitive to or notice more these kinds of impacts than the Mt Hood NF staff does. Mt Adams has more gradual slopes so has more park-like terrain than Hood, though nothing like Jeff Park. But Adams doesn't get the crowds that either of the other two do, except on the climb of course.

[miah66]

You're going to set up a system that requires people to obtain a permit for a limited number of designated sites, with the ostensible purpose of reducing spillover from those sites onto fragile meadows, but then still allow people to camp in dispersed, non-designated sites, which include those very same meadows?!

I know, right?!!

[acorn woodpecker]

After my first visit to Jeff Park last September, I realized what a unique feature it is, geologically speaking. It's like taking Indian Heaven and putting it way up at the edge of the alpine on one of our volcanoes. Having that kind of alpine park stuffed with alpine lakes doesn't normally occur the way our volcanoes are created. Park Ridge seems to be the key to this as the park is hemmed in between the mountain and that ridge.

As such, I think the combination of these factors creates not only a special appeal and attraction, but a special ecological sensitivity, that may not exist elsewhere in the alpine terrain on our volcanoes.

The pattern with places like this is for more restrictions on overnight camping or even day use to the point of having a lottery system (think Enchantments or Half Dome in Yosemite). If the masses are to be attempted to be kept at bay from justifiably popular, yet fragile ecological areas, then getting strict with enforcement and enacting a lottery system may be the way of the future.

Also, Mt. Hood, probably sees a bajillion more users than Jefferson. No permits, no limits. Jeff needs it why?

Different FS ranger district, thus differently managed is my guess. Coupled with around half the mountain not being publicly accessible, Jefferson's use is focused that much more. Perhaps the experience of having the heavily used Three Sisters Wilderness has caused the Willamette Ranger District personnel to manage the crowds differently in the Jeff area, what with its proximity to Willamette Valley population centers.

At the same time, detailed information about the permit system — at trailheads and online — alerted visitors to a little-known fact: while backpackers did need a permit for designated sites, the Forest Service still allows dispersed camping in Jefferson Park, as long as they’re 250 feet away from the lakes.

That means people without a permit could legally camp in many places — including the meadows.

"In the past, the public could have been operating under the assumption that camping was allowed only in designated sites," Peterson said.

I think my head just exploded. You're going to set up a system that requires people to obtain a permit for a limited number of designated sites, with the ostensible purpose of reducing spillover from those sites onto fragile meadows, but then still allow people to camp in dispersed, non-designated sites, which include those very same meadows?!

*slaps forehead*
So those fire rings we "decommissioned" a few years ago up there were actually "legal"?? When popular places reach a tipping point where there is a seasonal spillover of available campsites and meadow trampling begins to happen (Saw this on the JMT in 2012. It's gotta be even worse now with the Wild effect unless there's now a lottery system in place?), more stringent access by governing agencies seems inevitable.

Just because we can go to these places doesn't mean we should when they become overrun during peak season. It just stops being worth it, no matter how beautiful.

[Double Tree]

As one ranger in Jefferson Park explained to me, dispersed camping is allowed only if you are camped on a vegetation-free site, preferably an already established site, and you must be able to access it without stepping on any vegetation. There are legal dispersed sites there - but not many. Camping in the meadows is illegal, if you had to step on, or camp on, vegetation. Rock, sand/dirt ok. He also told me just how many illegal fire rings he removed over a year (hundreds). I removed a few myself a couple summers ago.
Kelly