Scenery at Mt Adams Wilderness: Backpacking to High Camp '13

[drm]

The main political block to greater wilderness acreage is motorized recreation. The area around the Aiken Lava Bed and immediately east of it is a very popular snowmobiling area in the winter. The wilderness boundary in that area is much higher in order to allow this, though of course the snowmobilers often go over the boundaries anyway. Similarly for the Black Divide, that is a motorcycling area, one of few like it. Those constituencies are well organized and wilderness areas are rarely created against local opposition these days, particularly since the Congressional rep in that area is a Republican. There also is a problem on the south side with grazing cows. They aren't supposed to go high on the mountain, but the FS has not prioritized fixing and building adequate fencing.

As to national park status, if the area was overrun maybe it would make sense, but I'm not sure it is needed. I think that the greatest threats to the scenic qualities might be ecological. Beetle kill is widespread and related fires have been sweeping the south side of the mountain and I wonder how long it will be till a major fire rakes the north side. The glaciers on Adams are shrinking with climate change.

So get there for your hikes while you can! I would tend to prioritize Bird Creek Meadows first, assuming you can get the timing right for the flowers. Second might be the lakes on the west side - Crystal and 5387 (i.e. the altitude of the lake as named on the map since it has no official name), and then Devils Garden and Avalanche Canyon, though that hike is a lot harder than others.

[retired jerry]

Nice to have areas that motorcycles and snow mobiles can go. Kind of obnoxious when they're too close when I'm hiking though. Same thing with chainsaws.

With all the beetle kill, those areas will inevitably burn? Then they'll be more meadowy? or different tree species? or at least less dense trees?

[drm]

With all the beetle kill, those areas will inevitably burn? Then they'll be more meadowy? or different tree species? or at least less dense trees?

I think that they will eventually burn, but what happens to the forests depends a lot on how the local climate changes. If it doesn't change much, then eventually they will grow back similar to what they were.

But some areas of the northern Rockies and central Pasaytens are possibly in transition to less forest and more grasslands as it will either be too dry, or the snow pack (which lingers farther into summer than rains do) will switch to more rain, meaning that it all dries earlier in the spring or summer.

For example when I went hiking in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness last year, many areas of the old Biscuit fire seemed to have no new saplings growing at all. Just brush or grass amidst the old snags killed in the fire. Contrast that with the bast zone of St Helens where many new saplings are already getting tall. But St Helens is a very wet climate and gets plenty of snow. Not sure where Adams falls in that range. It's certainly drier than St Helens, but summer are not nearly as hot as the Kalmiopsis and I think it is wetter than the Pasaytens still - but not sure of that.

[retired jerry]

It'll be interesting to see what happens. Well, maybe I'll only see the beginnings. And if it's CO2 in the atmosphere related we'll all be dead before the effect is fully known

I remember riding the boat across Spirit Lake to the Boy Scout Camp. There were zillions of dead logs on the bottom of the lake I could see through the water. Very clear water. And there were forests all around. Eruptions have been very cyclic, so I assume in 100 years it will be heavily forested with Douglas Fir again.

[Water]

great report. To my own detriment I've really only been on the south side of Adams, and little else other than skiing on the SW chutes (the area just to the north of the SW Chutes ski area looks fascinating).

I'll have to make it a priority this next year to hike or ski a different area of the mountain.

Adams shares a lot with Mt. Rainier but Mt. Rainier absolutely is more 'extreme'--even it's foothills and sub ridges are more extreme in size/elevation. The Tatoosh are a range in themselves that'd be a gem in Orgeon but up there are almost a footnote under Rainier.

I don't think I'd like to see any of our wilderness areas turned into National Park land. For instance, if the wilderness boundary went down to the Big Tree on the southside of adams, how long would the venture be to go up for a climb in the summer? 20mile day or more..? I think. I'm conflicted, sure I'd love a bigger wilderness area but most areas outside wilderness have been roaded and logged well just as you observe, unfortunately. And then the 'centerpieces' in the middle of these wilderness areas get more difficult to access (longer distance). Sort of a wanting my cake and to eat it too -- Eagle Cap Wilderness is a perfect example of this. Lostine River Road cuts down into the middle of the wilderness in the most ridiculous way I can imagine. But I've been down it 3 or 4 times because it makes access fantastic. I guess as a corridor and how a wilderness functions for animal life that road probably does very very little to compromise the integrity of the wilderness system, aside from the people it brings.

I mean, sure, it would be great to have a wilderness area span from Goat Rocks to Helens, down to the Gorge, and over to Adams, and from there back to Goat Rocks. What with perfectly excised little roads for access throughout? As much as I think that could be 'great' it is awfully selfish for those who like to use the forest for other uses.

But the red tape with National Park Lands is especially frustrating. Coming with it are costs, no hunting, no dogs, all camping is permitted/regulated, bear canister requirements (possibly), permits to climb, daily/yearly entrance fees, closures during federal shutdowns (unlike Wilderness Areas and FS general lands). There are more but that comes off the top of my head.

[drm]

National park status ends all resource extraction, and this side of Alaska, pretty much ends hunting. But it brings more people, and in Adams case, more development (since there is essentially none there now). It also brings more regulation and limits use. For example, I think it highly likely that a Mt Adams National Park would ban camping at High Camp. There would probably be established camps at Killen Creek and Divide Camp, and you could dayhike to High Camp. Same goes for Hood. I bet camping at McNeil and maybe even Paradise Park would be a thing of the past. National parks like to keep backpacking camps below treeline unless it serves climbing routes. The Timberline would be managed like the Wonderland is. Trails would get much better maintenance though.

Wilderness designation is much different. I can't imagine they would close any of the few existing trailheads like South Climb. It would get squeezed from the sides to a flagpole access, as is so often done.

[retired jerry]

In Olympic National Park, in the Grand Valley which is more popular, there are camp areas with designated sties that you have to reserve

Other less popular areas you dont' have to reserve but I think you're restricted to specific camp areas

[Gray Jay]

If you are interested in advocacy for Mount Adams, you should check out Friends of Mount Adams. http://mtadamsfriends.org/

There are reasons for the Mount Adams Wilderness boundaries as they are. The Yakama Nation claimed the east side of Mount Adams to its summit in the Treaty of 1855 but the original treaty map was misplaced for decades. By the time the treaty map was found in 1930, 21,000 acres were part of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The Forest Service built the campgrounds and trails we enjoy in the Bird Creek Meadows area today. After more than 100 years of dispute, President Nixon signed an executive order in 1972 returning the 21,000 acres to the Yakama Nation. In exchange, the Yakamas pledged to continue to manage the area for recreation and to allow access to non-Yakama members. This is unique because the remainder of the Yakama Nation lands are closed to entry by non-Yakamas.

The Washington Trails Association has partnered with the Yakama Nation to provide trail maintenance through an annual "Volunteer Vacation" at the Yakama Nation Mount Adams Recreation Area. Several trails, most notably the Island Springs Trail, have been abandoned by the Yakama Nation because it does not have the resources to maintain them. Hopefully, there will be enough volunteer interest to get the Island Springs Trail re-opened in the future.

The Aiken Lava Bed was purposefully left out of the Mount Adams Wilderness boundary because of its long popularity with snowmobilers. Other areas were left out of the 1984 Washington Wilderness Act because they "had trees," in the words of former Senator Slade Gorton. The conservative members of the Washington Congressional delegation resisted including any lands with commercial timber on them.

The Friends of Mount Adams can fill you in on livestock grazing and snowmobile trespass issues on the mountain.

[Naturebat]

I think there's a way from High Camp over to above Foggy Flat, then you could get to Devil's Garden. I read that somewhere.

That sounds like a cool cross-country adventure! I'll be sure to look into that route for some future hiking trip.

[Naturebat]

The main political block to greater wilderness acreage is motorized recreation. The area around the Aiken Lava Bed and immediately east of it is a very popular snowmobiling area in the winter. The wilderness boundary in that area is much higher in order to allow this, though of course the snowmobilers often go over the boundaries anyway. Similarly for the Black Divide, that is a motorcycling area, one of few like it. Those constituencies are well organized and wilderness areas are rarely created against local opposition these days, particularly since the Congressional rep in that area is a Republican. There also is a problem on the south side with grazing cows. They aren't supposed to go high on the mountain, but the FS has not prioritized fixing and building adequate fencing.

As to national park status, if the area was overrun maybe it would make sense, but I'm not sure it is needed. I think that the greatest threats to the scenic qualities might be ecological. Beetle kill is widespread and related fires have been sweeping the south side of the mountain and I wonder how long it will be till a major fire rakes the north side. The glaciers on Adams are shrinking with climate change.

So get there for your hikes while you can! I would tend to prioritize Bird Creek Meadows first, assuming you can get the timing right for the flowers. Second might be the lakes on the west side - Crystal and 5387 (i.e. the altitude of the lake as named on the map since it has no official name), and then Devils Garden and Avalanche Canyon, though that hike is a lot harder than others.

The wilderness boundary in that area is much higher in order to allow this, though of course the snowmobilers often go over the boundaries anyway.

Huh, I didn't know about the south side being a very popular snowmobiling area in the winter. I guess it now makes sense why they didn't extend the wilderness there.

I think that the greatest threats to the scenic qualities might be ecological. Beetle kill is widespread and related fires have been sweeping the south side of the mountain and I wonder how long it will be till a major fire rakes the north side. The glaciers on Adams are shrinking with climate change.

Yeah, more fires on Adams is one of my big concerns as well. I'm just glad that the Cascade Creek Fire just barely grazed by the south side of Crystal Lake, and not the entire lake's perimeter! The fire was a good thing for the beetle killed trees, though, but its too bad it had to burn down the healthier forests on the immediate west slope above the Cascade Creek Canyon. It's also crazy to think that the current glaciers are only 40% of what they once were back in 1910. I would sure love to see what Adams looked like with all those glaciers back then in person. I also wonder why Adams doesn't have quite as many glacial canyons as. say Mount Rainier, Baker, or Hood. Did it just resist glacial erosion in places? I think I read something about repeated lava flows and Adams rather young age being the cause for this; yet it still doesn't seem to explain why there still is some large canyons (Hellroaring, Avalanche, and Cascade Creek) in places, but not in others. I would think that the north and west sides would have the most glaciers, and the south and east would have the least.