Over Half of Central Cascades Permits Go Unused

[jdemott]

If they wished to simply redistribute hikers more evenly, rather than reduce their numbers, then adding restrictions on every point of access on every day of the primary hiking season ignores the realities of human behavior. Presumably, if they had kept access freely available at less popular trailheads and on the less popular days of the week, then hikers would have redistributed themselves voluntarily.

It seems that is basically what they actually did do. There are trails in the vicinity, such as trails in the Newberry Crater area, that are unrestricted. The restrictions apply to the most popular areas, such as the immediate vicinity of the Three Sisters. And even among the restricted trails, permits for the less popular hikes, such as Sisters Mirror Lake, are readily available. Given the quotas at each trailhead, the natural thing is for hikers to get a permit for a less popular hike if the popular trailhead is unavailable.

If you want to take a nice hike in the Bend/Sisters/Central Oregon area, there are lots of opportunities. If you want to go to Green Lakes, Tam MacArthur, or the Obsidian area, you will face some restrictions, particularly on weekends in August.

[Aimless]

The restrictions apply to the most popular areas, such as the immediate vicinity of the Three Sisters. And even among the restricted trails, permits for the less popular hikes, such as Sisters Mirror Lake, are readily available. Given the quotas at each trailhead, the natural thing is for hikers to get a permit for a less popular hike if the popular trailhead is unavailable.

If you want to take a nice hike in the Bend/Sisters/Central Oregon area, there are lots of opportunities. If you want to go to Green Lakes, Tam MacArthur, or the Obsidian area, you will face some restrictions, particularly on weekends in August.

If, as you say, permits were going begging at many permit-restricted wilderness trailheads, to the point where hikers could hike there more or less any day they wished, then it leads me to wonder what purpose is served by imposing quotas, fees and time-limited permit windows on those trailheads. Wherever those new obstacles seem to impose a burden without a purpose, I'd like to see them removed or modified in the future.

Green Lakes, Tam MacArthur and Obsidian are prime examples of the areas where permits make some sense and I don't cavil at requiring them. Obsidian has been a limited entry area for decades now. However, the new permit system was imposed for overnight stays on all 79 trailheads in three wilderness areas. This still seems to me unjustified by any reasonable measure of expected benefit.

[Chip Down]

Green Lakes, Tam MacArthur and Obsidian are prime examples of the areas where permits make some sense and I don't cavil at requiring them.

I almost always strenuously disagree with Aimless, but I can't cavil at the opportunity to learn a new word.

[justpeachy]

If, as you say, permits were going begging at many permit-restricted wilderness trailheads, to the point where hikers could hike there more or less any day they wished, then it leads me to wonder what purpose is served by imposing quotas, fees and time-limited permit windows on those trailheads. Wherever those new obstacles seem to impose a burden without a purpose, I'd like to see them removed or modified in the future.

The reason provided by the Forest Service was this: if a bunch of people want to camp at Green Lakes on a Saturday night and can't do so because of the permits, they will disperse to other trailheads and cause THOSE places to become crowded. Not sure how true that is, but that was the argument they made, and the reason they imposed overnight quotas on all trailheads. It will be interesting to see if they change that for next year.

[Aimless]

The reason provided by the Forest Service was this: if a bunch of people want to camp at Green Lakes on a Saturday night and can't do so because of the permits, they will disperse to other trailheads and cause THOSE places to become crowded. Not sure how true that is, but that was the argument they made, and the reason they imposed overnight quotas on all trailheads. It will be interesting to see if they change that for next year.

We're not sure how true that is because it is an argument based solely on imagining what might happen and then treating that as if it were true, rather than on collecting facts and discovering what is true. My perception is that most hikers are drawn to trails like Green Lakes because of their specific qualities; they do not treat trails as featureless and interchangeable. If the qualities they seek aren't present on a trail, they will avoid it no matter how easy it is to access it.

[Charley]

If they wished to simply redistribute hikers more evenly, rather than reduce their numbers, then adding restrictions on every point of access on every day of the primary hiking season ignores the realities of human behavior. Presumably, if they had kept access freely available at less popular trailheads and on the less popular days of the week, then hikers would have redistributed themselves voluntarily.

I hereby nominate you to be in charge of everything. You have provided a common-sense solution, but I'm not sure the FS would have gone for it; if they're trying to solve a problem of too much trash, then they actually do want to reduce the total number of visitors per year (because of people leave a certain amount of trash whether it's crowded or not, right?).

I can't remember back to all the planning documents, but I vaguely remember that the amount of trash and feces up there figured into their reasoning. And if that's the case, then keeping people out is the point, or, at least, keeping some people out. In which case, their system selects for those with more money, internet savvy, free time, and control over their work schedule, and keeps out those with less money, internet savvy, etc. . .

You're also totally right that, rather than try to predict future behavior, the FS should have started with a more conservative approach, then increased regulation if the initial approach proved insufficient. Instead, they went all in, and now have to defend their overkill.

[Charley]

My perception is that most hikers are drawn to trails like Green Lakes because of their specific qualities; they do not treat trails as featureless and interchangeable. If the qualities they seek aren't present on a trail, they will avoid it no matter how easy it is to access it.

Again, I think you're hitting the nail on the head. If I recall correctly, the FS guessed that the other highway access trails would draw the increase because people would just keep driving west on the highway (drive till you qualify). In that last sentence I was going to name trails and destinations. . . but then I realized I've never hiked any of them and don't know a single trail name or destination. Which just goes to show you how famous these trails aren't.

Considering the system's many, many miles of densely forested trail, accessing basically only small, forested lakes, it seems unlikely that people seeking big mountain views would end up crowding these places.

[Charley]

Green Lakes, Tam MacArthur and Obsidian are prime examples of the areas where permits make some sense and I don't cavil at requiring them. Obsidian has been a limited entry area for decades now. However, the new permit system was imposed for overnight stays on all 79 trailheads in three wilderness areas. This still seems to me unjustified by any reasonable measure of expected benefit.

Hear, hear!!!!