Oregon Hikers

retired jerry wrote: ↑

February 19th, 2019, 3:09 pm

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

People should be allowed to use the road, but if it the Forest Service chooses not to maintain it and it becomes impassable, so be it.

I used to walk the road on Mt Hood that goes past Riley campground. But they decommissioned it at great expense. They should have just let it be. If there were specific culverts that were causing an environmental risk, then just take them out.

Just my opinion

What really gets me is when they send in the work crew and heavy equipment to obliterate a road for the preservation of the delicate forest, and then follow up with a trail crew to build a trail parallel to the old road.

I know this is terribly off topic, so I'll follow up with something pertinent. For quite some time I've been meaning to visit the tops of Cabin Creek Falls and Lancaster Falls. I was even more interested in doing so after reading of this hiker's ordeal. Unfortunately, on the day I finally got around to it, I was just too wet and cold and tired to bother with it. Certainly I could if I had to, if doing so was the best route to my car, but I wimped out. Maybe I'll get back to it someday.

arlohike wrote: ↑

February 23rd, 2019, 10:18 pm

retired jerry wrote: ↑

February 14th, 2019, 7:10 am

when I'm by myself I'm more careful. With other person(s) we will more likely to attempt something riskier. That cancels out the benefit of one person going out to get help or assist. (rationalization of someone that goes by themselves?)

I've experienced that, too, so I don't think it's just a rationalization!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

Roads are generally decommissioned to keep vehicles off them, for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure why that would prevent people from walking on them until the growth gets too thick, if that's what you mean.

Chip Down wrote:What really gets me is when they send in the work crew and heavy equipment to obliterate a road for the preservation of the delicate forest, and then follow up with a trail crew to build a trail parallel to the old road.

I'm not sure what this means. Vehicles have a lot more impact than trails do and there are vastly more roads than trails in the forest, so decommissionings are almost never accompanied by trail construction, though I guess there may be a few examples. And most decommissionings aren't to protect the forest, but to save the cost of maintaining the road.

They went to great effort to decommission the road that goes by Riley Campground.

The road was already closed and not maintained, was slowly going back to nature.

They took out some culverts and restored the original canyon at several places. Maybe they wanted to avoid erosion into the stream below in case the road got washed out.

They went all along the road and roughened up the bed. Maybe they wanted to make it easier for plants to regrow. It made it more difficult to walk along.

There was a problem of off road vehicles going up the road. But the road had already washed out preventing vehicles. And if that wasn't good enough, they could have just removed the first culvert and restored the canyon, that would prevent vehicles even more.

There are already two trails roughly paralleling the road so no reason to build a new trail.

The road was nice in the winter, hard to follow those trails when there's snow around.

They often put up a berm or boulders at the access point to deny vehicle access but I'm not familiar with roughening up a longer section to keep vehicles off. Maybe they wanted to break a compressed surface to encourage new growth.

One frustration is that when doing something or considering some action, the FS is often only allowed to consider certain factors. People are familiar with this when the FS decides whether to permit a ski area. This kind of compartmentalization finds it's way into many things. Many project funding sources may be for ecological restoration, and that does not include trail maintenance in most cases, though it can in some. When the road crews are deciding what to decommission and how to do so, they may only be allowed to consider certain factors. While ignoring certain issues can be frustrating it can also speed up the process, as different issues require different experts coming in and making an evaluation. There are hydrology experts, soil experts, wildlife experts, it goes on and on, a specialty for everything. And there aren't very many people of each type.

"Maybe they wanted to break a compressed surface to encourage new growth."

That's my assumption

"One frustration is that when doing something or considering some action, the FS is often only allowed to consider certain factors."

Yeah, and whenever someone does something one way, people will be critical and say they should have done it another.

I just like to complain