Limited entry proposal in wilderness areas

[drm]

The idea of reservations / limits on dayhiking seems unique to these forests pretty much. Many national parks have such for overnighting, but besides for Obsidian, the only place I can think of that does so for dayhiking is The Wave on the UT / AZ border. I do remember some discussion of it for the Enchantments now that so many people are through hiking it in a day, but I don't think it went anywhere.

[retired jerry]

I think politicians don't like it when there's an uproar over some policy, so if a lot of people complain loudly they may respond

I think what's crowded is the trails. The total wilderness has vast area unaffected by humans.

If they built some new trails and trailhead parking areas, that would be a solution. Find some routes with interesting views. "Build it and they will come".

Consider the affect on plants and animals. Animals actually use trails so it doesn't have to be a negative effect on them.

Of course that costs money. We are currently coasting on past money spent on trails. It would make sense to spend money on new trails.

[drm]

The fact that animals definitely use our trails doesn't mean trails are harmless. I think you will find that certain types of exotic invasive plants are concentrated at the edge of trails, because that's where our boots leave them. It would also help if people actually stuck to the trails in popular areas. Otherwise, the impact of trails is what people do once they get to their destination, whether or not they are spending the night.

Also, while there are vast acreage of wilderness without a lot of recreational hiker impact, it is the subalpine and lower alpine zones, where we hikers most like to go, and where the ecology is most fragile, (along with lakeshores I guess) where the impacts are greatest and where most of these protections are aimed is my guess.

And since other areas tend to be in viewless forests, I don't know that more trails would really spread the impact that much. How many people will choose to camp next to a small creek with no views instead of at a lake with views of Mt. Jefferson?

I suppose one solution would be to put guard stations near a number of impacted places and staff them continuously during the hiking season. But many of these have been removed as not funded or in the spirit of wilderness. I would note that Mt Rainier NP has a lot of wilderness guard stations still. I will have more visits with wilderness rangers on a 3-day trip in MRNP than in three years in national forests. But for the most part, national forests have removed them. And of course, national parks get far more generous funding for such things than national forests.

[Guy]

If only creating more Wilderness areas were a realistic solution...can't picture this Congress stepping up to bat for that though...

More wilderness does not solve the problem if you don't build trails in it! Lets remember that a very small percentage of existing wilderness has trails and so see's any kind of numbers of people. The vast majority of existing Wilderness is near devoid of humans.

If a few lakes, hot spots have real environmental problems from over use them limit access to those sites alone not the whole darn wilderness! If Wilderness means restricted access so that those lucky enough to get a permit can experience solitude when sitting on top of the South Sister at the expense of everyone else who doesn't get a permit then I would argue that's too high a price for everyone else to have to pay.

[Bosterson]

If Wilderness means restricted access so that those lucky enough to get afford to pay for a permit can experience solitude when sitting on top of the South Sister at the expense of everyone else who doesn't get can't afford to pay for a permit then I would argue that's too high a price for everyone else to have to pay access to land that "belongs" to everyone.

Tweaked that a little (though I also agree with your point - why not just quota S Sister trailheads in prime season rather than the whole area?). Plenty of people already have trouble affording basic things like food and rent and bills. I would think enacting recreation fees as the overarching model for wilderness access can't be a good long-term strategy if we want all citizens to have access to "their" public lands and believe protection of those lands is important. Sure, $5-10 isn't a huge amount of money in the long run, and you might argue that lots of poor people probably aren't driving out to trailheads with fancy hiking gear in the first place, but it's hard to imagine how access fees aren't just one more type of disenfranchisement, separating the people with money who matter from the people without it who don't.

[Guy]

If Wilderness means restricted access so that those lucky enough to get afford to pay for a permit can experience solitude when sitting on top of the South Sister at the expense of everyone else who doesn't get can't afford to pay for a permit then I would argue that's too high a price for everyone else to have to pay access to land that "belongs" to everyone.

Tweaked that a little (though I also agree with your point - why not just quota S Sister trailheads in prime season rather than the whole area?). Plenty of people already have trouble affording basic things like food and rent and bills. I would think enacting recreation fees as the overarching model for wilderness access can't be a good long-term strategy if we want all citizens to have access to "their" public lands and believe protection of those lands is important. Sure, $5-10 isn't a huge amount of money in the long run, and you might argue that lots of poor people probably aren't driving out to trailheads with fancy hiking gear in the first place, but it's hard to imagine how access fees aren't just one more type of disenfranchisement, separating the people with money who matter from the people without it who don't.

Yes good points Nat, of course it's not only the $5-10 fee but the hopeful applicant will also need internet access, a smart phone or computer and probably a printer. Plus it will all be handled by recreation.gov which no doubt will also require another "service" fee for the privilege.

[Charley]

HECK NO to all of this. I can't believe it's even under consideration. Paying once (NWFP) just to access trails is already once too many, and having to plan it beforeforehand and rely on a government run website to do it correctly is just bull.

[Webfoot]

No walking in The King's forest without tribute, and don't forget to pay your indulgence if you intend to behave badly while you're there.

[justpeachy]

The limited entry idea is unpopular but the status quo is unsustainable. So what ideas can be proposed to the Forest Service to address the overcrowding, the unburied human waste, the illegal campfire rings, and the trash at popular spots like Jefferson Park and Green Lakes? They may or may not listen, but it's still more helpful to offer alternative solutions instead of just saying we don't like the proposed idea.

[retired jerry]

good point Cheryl

my solution is to have some areas identified as popular, like the South Sister climbing route. Make bigger parking area. Improve the trail at places it gets over-run. People that don't like crowds will know to avoid.

Build some new trails. The trick will be to find places with some nice views. Money to build them is a problem, but trails are not that expensive. Have a plan over a decade to build one or a few trails each year.

Study plants and animals and do what we can to make sure they're sustainable. Humans on trails is probably a small part of their problem.

Places like Green Lakes - double the number of campsites. You could, for example, go towards Broken Top and have nice sites with a view, although not of Green Lakes.

I've been hiking in those areas for years and still find enough solitude.