Oregon Hikers

Oh wow, I didn't even know there was such a thing as a PCT permit.

Anyway, I just ignore the U$F$.

"Instead, if the FS channeled their resources into the small handful of places where people are being idiots, they might be able to educate some people and rein in the bad behavior. What's effectively going to happen now, if people do what they think they will, is spread all those people all over the forest where they absolutely can't keep an eye on things."

Yeah!!!

A lot of people will probably just not go into the wilderness

Unfortunately, shutting down Instagram and Facebook is not an option.

jessbee wrote: ↑

November 14th, 2018, 10:23 pm

And let's not even talk about more people climbing in the mountains on bad weather days "because they have a permit for that day." Even more work for SAR, they might as well have a basecamp on South Sister.

I actually managed to find one of my comments quoted in the section about this topic in the Final EA. Apparently it was a common theme. Sadly, the FS's response was that people's poor decision making is outside the scope of this project....

From page 6:

The trailhead quotas identified in Appendix A for overnight use represent the level of campsites that each area can sustain, and accounted for a number of variables (including available campsites, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, natural resource concerns, solitude monitoring data, and professional judgement) as described in the EA (EA Appendix C).

Only five overnight permits if you enter at the Cabot Lake TH? That is pretty much the only east side access after the Forest Service abandoned other trails after the B&B Fire. Carl Lake, Shirley Lake, and Table Lake alone can support more than five groups, not to mention other destinations reachable from that TH. Interesting that they even bothered to put a quota for the Jefferson Lake TH considering that the FS has abandoned it a few miles in and it's impassible to all but the hardiest of bushwhackers. And Bear Valley TH? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that trail was abandoned as well.

We feel it is important to point out that people can also find many recreation opportunities outside of the wilderness areas addressed in this decision. The Deschutes and Willamette National Forests offer a wide variety of recreation opportunities across the nearly 3.5 million acres of public lands and a total of over 4,000 miles of trails.

Clearly they are not talking about backpacking. I know of no non-wilderness trail systems in those forests that support a 2-3 day backpacking trip.

Overall, I think these changes are going to piss off overnighters way more than day hikers. Us non-backpackers really aren't affected much.

Here is a cross-post with instructions on filing objections and info for contacting your reps:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27892&p=206256#p206256

With regard to how the permits will be issued. The decision says that such details are “outside the scope” and that we’ll find out later about how the actual permitting system will work. But actual quota numbers are within the scope of the decision and the quotas are dependent on how the permitting system works.

Let’s take an example. As was pointed out above, the FS proposes a quota on overnight trips to Cabot Lake at 5. Now that’s a pretty low number, but let’s assume that the FS did some magical analysis and determined that Cabot could only sustain 5 groups on any given night. If 5 is your magic number, you don’t set the quota at exactly “5” because you have to account for use rate. My guess is that the use rate for current LEA permits is under 50%--that’s based on my experience of hiking through LEAs during “sold out” days and finding next-to-nobody. So if your use rate is 50%, then you’d set the Cabot quota at 10.

It is completely illogical to propose quota numbers of an online reservation system and compare those quotas to today’s numbers from self-issued permits where the use rate of today’s permits is 100% (because you issue the permit to yourself and then start hiking).

So the decision is arbitrary for several reasons:

• Fails to account for use rate
• Fails to show evidence of specific overuse at each of the 79 THs subject to proposed quotas
• Fails to show overuse on weekdays and shoulder season days but sets quotas anyway
• Fails to account for the socioeconomic impact that online fees will have on groups that can’t afford online fees and/or lack online access

Others problems?

adamschneider wrote: ↑

November 15th, 2018, 12:02 pm

Overall, I think these changes are going to piss off overnighters way more than day hikers. Us non-backpackers really aren't affected much.

I agree that on most trails day hikers won't be affected other than by the cost/hassle of buying permits online.
But on other trails, day hikers will be massively affected (this is where Bend tourism should care).

The original EA had projections on impacts to day hikers.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/n ... 290447.pdf

Here were some of the projections (these were based on the quotas that the draft decision ultimately adopted):

Green Lakes will turn away people on at least 50 days
Devils Lake 30+days
Broken Top 25+days
Tam McArthur 50+days (EA, p.149-63)

cunningkeith wrote: ↑

November 15th, 2018, 1:02 pm

Here were some of the projections (these were based on the quotas that the draft decision ultimately adopted):

Green Lakes will turn away people on at least 50 days
Devils Lake 30+days
Broken Top 25+days
Tam McArthur 50+days (EA, p.149-63)

These numbers don't necessarily seem like a bad thing to me. Devil's Lake and Tam McArthur have been getting pretty overrun on weekends.

USFS has issued an act of war to the hiking community. For the past 5 years USFS has ignored the law by refusing to comply with Adams vs USFS and Bark vs USFS which proclaimed that charging fees for hiking, backpacking and picnicking is "unambiguously prohibited." I guess it's tough to recognize court decisions when you are the defendant and you lost the case.

Amazingly, the Portland City Council couldn't even decide yesterday if it would enforce the laws on its own public streets in the 3-2 indecision not to contain the nearly daily downtown riots (or protests, depending on your desire to shop or get home). But somehow, USFS has prohibited the public from entering public lands without coughing up a bribe every time someone gets the urge to take a walk in public lands.

Its a shame we can't get the protesters to walk the trails in Willamette NF in protest of the USFS' latest money-grab from the public.

I hope all the readers have appreciated my refrain from the four letter words which have been vibrating from my tongue ever since the USFS announced its evil intentions. They have poked the bear (and you shouldn't poke the bear). Growl!