Central Cascades permit changes

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: Central Cascades permit changes

Post by drm » February 22nd, 2022, 2:45 pm

Lots of great commentary here. I think it's important to remember that the perfect solution that only prevents negative impacts, presents the absolutely minimum impact on users to do that, simply doesn't exist in the real world. If you think you know of one, try putting it out for public comment and see what you get. That said, we can think of examples of efforts that seemed doomed to failure, but maybe some of your ideas would be too.

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: Central Cascades permit changes

Post by Aimless » February 22nd, 2022, 3:03 pm

drm wrote:
February 22nd, 2022, 2:45 pm
I think it's important to remember that the perfect solution that only prevents negative impacts, presents the absolutely minimum impact on users to do that, simply doesn't exist in the real world.
I'm pretty sure the deluded thinking you describe here doesn't resemble anything said by anyone in this thread, so I'm not sure who you thought might need this admonishment. :?

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Central Cascades permit changes

Post by retired jerry » February 22nd, 2022, 5:00 pm

good point, no perfect solution, everyone's comments are good

a perfect solution would be a virus that was very contagious and had a 100% fatality rate

Wilderness crowds problem solved :)

User avatar
Water
Posts: 1355
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Central Cascades permit changes

Post by Water » February 22nd, 2022, 6:13 pm

for reference about whether access system like the central cascades have been done before.. The forest service is on record as saying that a permit/access system for such a large area, across 3 wildernesses, and tons of trailheads is in their very own words unprecedented.

Catdaddy welcome to the site. To your point that you said the FS enumerates all the 'issues' caused by people. One thing the FS failed to do throughout the lengthy design and implementation process of these permits was detail any efforts whatsoever at enforcement of existing regulations. They were able to detail specific pounds of trash removed and fire rings knocked down, but could never provide an account of citations issued or warnings issued.

Yet they bring a system that requires public trust in following rules and/or enforcement to enact. And in the process of it presenting said a fee was more or less an absolute necessity for it to be viable.. but then they decided to drop the fee as they realized it would likely lose in court battles.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/ERTU9g1KFrgzhZc19

Secondly to the end about 'enforcement'. When I enter Mt. Hood I see the following posted, which has extremely detailed parameters (exhibit A) about usage, camping, fires, etc. And all under penalty of $5000 fine or 6 months incarcerated.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/jSJUJfQ7irB7C5Nb8

I realize the FS cannot have ticket writing rangers camped all over at all times. However in at least one (now deleted post) instance here, a FS Ranger said at Jefferson park they preferred education at all times over citations. And I guess we see how that worked out.

Their own usage statistics demonstrated that on 4-7 weekends a year, at about 6-8 locations, usage was maxed out according to their carrying capacity analysis. Why they never attempted to have some seasonal, short term weekend enforcement at these sites where hey actually gave citations under existing law I'll never know. It's like they didn't actually want to impact a culture/educational change. I hate the idea of enforcers in the woods but it seems like a reasonable take before you start excluding people and still do nothing about the impacts of bad actors (see mountainkat's observations).
Feel Free to Feel Free

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: Central Cascades permit changes

Post by drm » February 22nd, 2022, 7:11 pm

Aimless - My comment was aimed at anybody in particular. I haven't even had the time to read them all yet. I was more intending for people to consider that it is easier to criticize a plan than come up with something that works better based on all interested people.

User avatar
Bosterson
Posts: 2317
Joined: May 18th, 2009, 3:17 pm
Location: Portland

Re: Central Cascades permit changes

Post by Bosterson » February 22nd, 2022, 10:07 pm

drm wrote:
February 22nd, 2022, 7:11 pm
I was more intending for people to consider that it is easier to criticize a plan than come up with something that works better based on all interested people.
Dean, it's important to note that many of us went through the whole process with the FS. Many, many people submitted comments on the original proposal, and then continued as objectors. We addressed problems with this permit program and submitted suggestions about what could be fixed or removed. Some of us even met the FS in person in the Federal building downtown to go on the record with our feedback. Many, many of the suggestions were, as Matt just noted above, that they take gradual action to see what works and use the lightest hand possible before they go full nuclear and put quotas on a wide swath of the access points. Many people suggested they actually attempt real enforcement, or limit their access restrictions to only the few areas that see the highest impact. In general, the FS made few concessions to all of the feedback (which included representatives from large outdoor recreation groups, like the Mazamas, in addition to individual objectors), mostly to smooth thru-hiking between wildernesses or to accommodate very specific non-hiking usage (such as horses). During the whole process they dutifully listened to all of us suggest they try every possible alternative before they start cutting back the number of people who can go into these wildernesses and make us pay for the privilege. And then, as Matt noted, they implemented the plan mostly as it was originally written. But the irony is they declined to follow through on the (most likely illegal) access fee they'd proposed - which was the whole point of the endeavor, as it was supposed to raise the money that would pay for improvements, enforcement, etc.

I certainly do not envy the FS in these times of exponential usage and constricted funding, but the end result of the Central Cascades process is that we have usage quotas that cover the entire season and are heavily gamified by people who buy up limited permits in advance like a reservation, but then access other people could use is wasted when the early buyers don't actually go. And for this privilege, anyone who wants to visit large chunks of these wildernesses has to pay administrative fees (through Rec.gov) that contribute zilch to the actual forest administration this whole program was supposed to support and instead end up in the coffers of a government contractor. Since none of the FS's improvements can get done without the funding from the permit fees that didn't happen, the end result of this whole process is that we are paying to have limited access to public lands. That's it.

The idea that the FS appraised all the input from the various stakeholders and determined that this plan was the fairest, most balanced line that best suited everyone's combined interests is just not how things went down.
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

User avatar
Water
Posts: 1355
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Central Cascades permit changes

Post by Water » February 22nd, 2022, 11:30 pm

It was a little funny that they regularly touted Obsidian and Pamelia as such success stories. They never said there was a ring of destruction just outside the limited areas. They said it was outright success! Then their own data specifically showed again a limited number of areas truly affected by over-capacity use. But they could never provide a firm, reasonable, sensible explanation why they wouldn't copy the existing template and apply it to: Jeff Park, South Sister South Climb, Green Lakes, Marion Lake, etc.

Just generalized hand waving about it causing people to disburse, despite not seeing this so far. So while they complain that people don't disburse, they decommission trails in the same wildernesses and concentrate use. (see: viewtopic.php?t=15553).
Feel Free to Feel Free

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1834
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Milwaukie

Re: Central Cascades permit changes

Post by Charley » February 25th, 2022, 3:37 pm

drm wrote:
February 22nd, 2022, 2:45 pm
Lots of great commentary here. I think it's important to remember that the perfect solution that only prevents negative impacts, presents the absolutely minimum impact on users to do that, simply doesn't exist in the real world. If you think you know of one, try putting it out for public comment and see what you get. That said, we can think of examples of efforts that seemed doomed to failure, but maybe some of your ideas would be too.
That's a great perspective, and I agree completely that our capacity for perfection is nil, and there's always a chance that a certain plan won't work as desired.

But I also think Bosterson and Water right here: citizens took the time to comment to the FS that the plan need not be so totalizing, and rather than conservatively ramp up protections as needed, the FS went whole hog.

I think the kind of citizen comments that Bosterson cited would have ameliorated the inefficiencies and inequities of the current plan. The apparent willingness of the FS to alter the plan this year is pretty good evidence.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1834
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Milwaukie

Re: Central Cascades permit changes

Post by Charley » February 25th, 2022, 3:46 pm

Water wrote:
February 22nd, 2022, 11:30 pm
It was a little funny that they regularly touted Obsidian and Pamelia as such success stories. They never said there was a ring of destruction just outside the limited areas. They said it was outright success! Then their own data specifically showed again a limited number of areas truly affected by over-capacity use. But they could never provide a firm, reasonable, sensible explanation why they wouldn't copy the existing template and apply it to: Jeff Park, South Sister South Climb, Green Lakes, Marion Lake, etc.

Just generalized hand waving about it causing people to disburse, despite not seeing this so far. So while they complain that people don't disburse, they decommission trails in the same wildernesses and concentrate use. (see: viewtopic.php?t=15553).
Totally. If the FS was correct that capacity limitations on certain select trailheads would push unbearable amounts of traffic and impact to nearby destinations, then we should be seeing tons of overuse near Mt St Helens. In fact, the FS manages the region quite effectively, in spite of the permit system on the mountain.

Another example is the Enchantments and the nearby Chiwaukum Mountains. During a spell of glorious weather last fall, my buddy and I hiked about 75 miles of trail in the Chiwaukum Mountains. We enjoyed alpine vistas, terrific scrambling, clear lakes, and golden larch trees. . . and almost no people. Surely, if the Central Oregon Wilderness managers were correct, this area should be slammed with people who didn't manage to get Enchantments permits.
IMG_5427.jpg
Targeted exclusionary policies may be a necessary evil, but their necessity should not be over-generalized and exaggerated.

And it's maddening that they're not maintaining trails which could lessen the crowding. It's such a self-inflicted handicap.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

justpeachy
Posts: 3066
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Central Cascades permit changes

Post by justpeachy » February 25th, 2022, 4:56 pm

Charley wrote:
February 25th, 2022, 3:46 pm

Another example is the Enchantments and the nearby Chiwaukum Mountains. During a spell of glorious weather last fall, my buddy and I hiked about 75 miles of trail in the Chiwaukum Mountains. We enjoyed alpine vistas, terrific scrambling, clear lakes, and golden larch trees. . . and almost no people. Surely, if the Central Oregon Wilderness managers were correct, this area should be slammed with people who didn't manage to get Enchantments permits.
Is that a fair comparison to make, though? The Central Cascades has a pretty big population living very close by. The Enchantments don't, if I'm not I'm not mistaken, although I admit to not being very familiar with the area. I do know that the drive from Seattle to the Leavenworth area is four times longer than the drive from Bend to many of the Central Cascades trailheads.

Post Reply