USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

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

Re: USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by justpeachy » February 18th, 2023, 8:37 am

retired jerry wrote:
February 16th, 2023, 8:47 am
I like those concrete panel outhouses

They seem pretty indestructible to vandalism, and don't rot away
They are definitely subject to vandalism. Sometimes the toilet base gets stolen:
toilet1.jpeg
(source)

And of course nothing is immune from graffiti:
toilet2.jpeg
(source)

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14396
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by retired jerry » February 18th, 2023, 10:04 am

I don't generally touch those toilets with any skin surfaces anyway, so if someone removed the toilet I'd just squat over it, sort of like historical Japanese toilets

Amazing what vandalism people will do. I can see how the FS is frustrated.

In my unscientific experience, there's always been vandalism, maybe even worse in previous decades

jvangeld
Posts: 156
Joined: May 29th, 2018, 6:36 pm
Location: Proebstel, WA

Re: USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by jvangeld » February 20th, 2023, 1:52 pm

retired jerry wrote:
February 18th, 2023, 10:04 am
I don't generally touch those toilets with any skin surfaces anyway, so if someone removed the toilet I'd just squat over it, sort of like historical Japanese toilets
That would be a very wide squat :shock:

If you drop your phone down the hole, don't go after it.
Jeremy VanGelder - Friends of Road 4109

User avatar
dirtman
Posts: 62
Joined: August 8th, 2014, 9:14 am

Re: USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by dirtman » February 21st, 2023, 3:30 pm

I think the BLM concrete outhouses with great basin rattlesnakes working as restroom attendants are awesome. This is an example of one at Three Forks campground on the Owyhee...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2lhGMFdWHM&t=397s

Weirdest outhouse I ever used was on Hinchinbrook Island (Australia). It had tunnels branching away at the bottom and there was a large monitor lizard with a really large spider crawling around on its head. Dude I was backpacking with used it at night with the big lizard (and spider friend) present. Also, there was not any human waste at the bottom when I checked the next morning.

User avatar
Naturebat
Posts: 315
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 9:18 pm

Re: USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by Naturebat » January 25th, 2024, 7:20 am

retired jerry wrote:
February 4th, 2023, 8:16 am
A year ago I passed someone between Middle and South Sister, who recognized me from here. He expressed the same opinion - he liked the reduced crowds personally, and said that he was able to get a permit so that's not a problem. We respectfully disagreed :)

That wasn't me, but since using the new Central Cascades permit system, I love it for the same reasons. I LOVE that the crowds are much less, as I prefer solitude on the trail. Yeah you don't always get your permit, and sure it takes more effort, but its a tradeoff I gladly take. Just gotta watch and be ready to get it early, put it on your calendar, etc. And I love that there is a 7 day rolling window in case you miss the first batch or whatever in many of these permit systems.

Another massive benefit, and maybe one I would argue to be far more important for me, is the overnight permit system. It sure is nice going into a hike (backpacking) and not having to worry as much about faster hikers taking my ideal campsite or campsites–or worse, all of the campsites being taken at my intended destination. I tend to start my hikes later, take my hike somewhat slow/moderate and stop to take photos, etc. It is pretty typical for me to walk into camp late in the day, around 7pm usually. Having limited quota overnight permits does (or theoretically should, no doubt) mean less backpackers going in and taking up all the campsites.

To me, this sounds like (not directed at you :) ) "old boomers" complaining about having less unrestricted access than in the past, but there is simply more hikers than ever before, and more backpackers too. And combined with only a finite amount of land (and especially so for the most scenic places), there's simply more people at these places than in the past. At the very least, maybe permits should be installed at the most popular trailheads and campsite destinations, while leaving out some places that don't see that many people to matter. I can think of some trails in the Central Cascades area that probably don't need it (yet at least), but certainly other trails do. I.e. Devils Lake/South Sister, Tam McArthur Rim, Crater Ditch, Broken Top, Canyon Creek Meadows, Obsidian, Matthieu Lakes, and Todd Lake/Green Lakes.
Perhaps areas that certainly don't need them, at all, would be the PCT-McKenzie Pass TH for the Mt Washington Wilderness, for example.

It may be a little unfair to talk about Central Oregon when I live in Portland and don't make trips as often into that area. I like backpacking and hiking on Mt Adams and Mt Hood especially. I'd still support limited entry permits for a few specific areas: namely, Top Spur TH/McNeil Point access. For Adams, I would say maybe overnight permits and designated sites for the Killen Creek Meadows area, High Camp, Crystal Lake, and Horseshoe Meadow. Don't think the crowds yet warrant a day hiking permit on any Adams trails, but if I were to guess which would get there soonest, it would be Killen Creek TH (besides South Climb. That trailhead definitely needs permits, but I guess the climber's one already covers that, unless there isn't any daily limit (in which case there should be).
- Previously ElementalFX

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14396
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by retired jerry » January 25th, 2024, 8:20 am

Thanks for expressing your opinion. I respect others.

On my last trip along the pct, it was mobbed with thru hikers. As crowded as its ever been.

It's been easy to get a permit.

It's like nimbyism - I got a permit so i don't care that other people didn't.

I can see a problem with, for example, the green lakes trailhead parking area. Mobbed. People parking at every conceivable spot. A permit and quota are justified there.

User avatar
Naturebat
Posts: 315
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 9:18 pm

Re: USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by Naturebat » January 25th, 2024, 8:54 am

Well nimbyism would imply that those who get them always get them, I think. I’ve had more “losses” than “wins” as far as getting permits, but it’s just part of the trade off. Sometimes I get lucky, most times I don’t.

I could see a bit more difficulty justifying day hiking permits though—maybe for the most popular of popular trailheads, like ones that go to No Name Lake or Green Lake, for example. But for overnight permits, I love that. I’d think carefully where to apply them though, and to be honest I think that the Central Cascade permit system went a little too far maybe. Like I mentioned, I definitely don’t think the Mt Washington Wilderness needs it.
- Previously ElementalFX

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14396
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by retired jerry » January 25th, 2024, 9:06 am

nimbyism may be too adversarial or whatever

i remain open minded. There are good arguments for restricting crowds

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

Re: USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by Bosterson » January 25th, 2024, 10:04 am

Naturebat wrote:
January 25th, 2024, 7:20 am
since using the new Central Cascades permit system, I love it...
Traditionally, "I want to be able to show up late and have a space waiting for me" is not how things work. If there's limited numbers of something and it's in demand, you show up earlier than everyone else to make sure you get it. Or else you get something else. A permit that allows you to get the thing you want without having to get there early or wait in line or whatever is functionally a reservation.

Saying that belief in unfettered (as possible) access to the outdoors is some old timer "boomer" concept, implying that older people (can "boomer" be struck from the lexicon now? asking for a friend) are out of touch with reality or something, comes across as the same kind of superficial snideness that permeates the internet - a put down that allows you to dismiss the other argument without engaging with it. (Conversely, I would opine that the younger generations, from the millennials down, are some of the most consumerist people I can think of - raised on cheap Chinese manufacturing and smartphone apps and pay per use services... Does that mean that younger people are actually the ones out of touch with reality? Maybe, but this isn't about reality, this is about differing philosophies.)

Please note that it is only due to a technicality that the CC permits are (almost) free - the FS was going to charge actual money, but then presumably realized that wouldn't hold up under their dubious FLREA justification for the permits and they would lose in court, so they backed off and dropped the permit fee. Of course, you still get to pay the administrative tithe directly to Booz Allen Hamilton for the convenience of reserving your spot.

I don't think anyone was arguing that Green Lakes wasn't an absolute zoo before the CC permits. I also don't think anyone would have objected if the FS had proposed that only Green Lakes (and maybe a handful of other spots) became limited entry zones like Obsidian. The issue was that they took a one-size-fits-all approach and threw permits at the whole area - even when their own data showed that the number of "overused" days in the vast, vast majority of the THs was only a few days out of the entire year, if at all. (And many were not at all.)

So what this gets at is whether we, as a society, want to move into a pay to play system where those with means get to reserve their access to the wilderness. Don't think this model won't be copied in other areas (it already has). And while paying a few measly bucks (to Booz!) to reserve your space is not currently at the level of generally disqualifying lower income people from getting access, the question is whether that's the precedent we want to set. Prices go up, never down. (This is a corollary of FS funding only goes down, never up!) How much do we want to accommodate people (no offense, but like you) who want to be able to pay extra so they can go to popular areas without having to contend with crowds, or without having to make an effort to get there early to get a space? Where does the line get drawn over "reservation" permits being an unjustified burden, given that this model will spread everywhere? The amount of wilderness is finite, so this is a zero sum game.

</thread drift, wasn't this topic about the Hood climbing permits?>
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

User avatar
Naturebat
Posts: 315
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 9:18 pm

Re: USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by Naturebat » January 25th, 2024, 7:56 pm

Traditionally, "I want to be able to show up late and have a space waiting for me" is not how things work. If there's limited numbers of something and it's in demand, you show up earlier than everyone else to make sure you get it. Or else you get something else.
Key word, traditionally. I don’t care for so called tradition, if something can be improved, then throw out tradition. Appealing to tradition is not a good argument either, because “being traditional” doesn’t hold any real value, and “Oh that’s how we’ve always done it!” is silly if something can be done better later on.

Besides that, the old system largely favors fit hikers who can hike fast. The new system is more equitable because it gives slower hikers a better chance.

So what this gets at is whether we, as a society, want to move into a pay to play system where those with means get to reserve their access to the wilderness.
The fee is small, barely anything at all. $1 or even $5 isn’t gonna hurt anybody really. What does need to change is being able to push back against fee hikes. It’s ridiculous that parks need to keep raising fees just because they’re not being funded properly like they should. But that doesn’t mean the proper implementation of limited entry fees isn’t a good idea, if done well.

How much do we want to accommodate people (no offense, but like you) who want to be able to pay extra so they can go to popular areas without having to contend with crowds, or without having to make an effort to get there early to get a space?
I don’t think most experienced hikers want to deal with crowded trails, and I consider myself an experienced hiker having hiked at least 2k miles in the last 10 years or so.

Limiting entry benefits everyone pretty equally as it ensures that everyone who got a permit can have better solitude, as well as have a better chance at getting campsites, which can be limited at popular destinations. Everyone gets a shot at it. Whereas you’re proposing only fit hikers who can hike some 5mph and 15-25 miles a day get the best spots. I‘m not a super slow hiker, I’m average to a little fast probably, somewhere between 2.5-3.5 mph, but it doesn’t matter. I said I prefer this system for overcrowded destinations and hikes, and my preference isn’t going to change just because some super fast and early bird hikers don’t like that the new system doesn’t benefit themselves anymore. Selfish? Maybe, but certainly no more than someone making your argument.

Saying that belief in unfettered (as possible) access to the outdoors is some old timer "boomer" concept, implying that older people (can "boomer" be struck from the lexicon now? asking for a friend) are out of touch with reality or something, comes across as the same kind of superficial snideness that permeates the internet - a put down that allows you to dismiss the other argument without engaging with it.
I merely said it comes off as such, because “boomers” (in general, the older generation) tends to be overall stuck to tradition and afraid of change. It’s not true of everyone who’s old, but it’s a very true stereotype. It’s so obvious it doesn’t need explaining all the reasons why.

However I never brushed off any arguments. I gave my viewpoint and my counter arguments (even though I was not directing my counter argument at anyone in particular here). In other words, I engaged in it, just like I am now.

I also don't think anyone would have objected if the FS had proposed that only Green Lakes (and maybe a handful of other spots) became limited entry zones like Obsidian. The issue was that they took a one-size-fits-all approach and threw permits at the whole area - even when their own data showed that the number of "overused" days in the vast, vast majority of the THs was only a few days out of the entire year, if at all. (And many were not at all.)
I don’t disagree here and that’s what I said as well, that I don’t think it should have been implemented in as many places as it was, but that certain places definitely needed it.

What I was getting at rather, was the concept at large, that it’s simply the best solution. It’s not like it was 50 years ago when crowds were so much less at these places. There’s just way more hikers now. What happens in 100 years when the population triples? It has to happen eventually. We’re not gonna be able to create more places like Three Sisters and Mt Jefferson out of thin air (or land rather).

My opinion on the matter is as follows, if it wasn’t clear:
- Limited entry permits are good for overcrowded and/or very sensitive and crowded locations. (A place can be moderately crowded but if it’s extremely sensitive and small, then I believe it still should have some system like that. But conversely if a place is crowded but can handle those crowds and isn’t in a sensitive area, then I wouldn’t think it’s necessary.) I also don’t mind crowds depending on where it is, but I can’t deny having less crowds is nice, even if it’s (the personal experience) not reason alone to justify it.
- Overnight permits are a fantastic idea for popular or overcrowded backpacking destinations. I’d say it’s on a case by case system, and really depends. But like I said, I love how I no longer have to worry about getting a campsite (or worry less, at least), and thus can hike at the pace I want.

Do I think the CC plan was applied to too many trailheads and locations? Yeah I think so. I’d change it to cover specific areas and locations like Green Lake and Moraine Lake as far as overnight permits, and I’d even be ok with a non-reservation system like how they do it. (For example, reserve a permit for Green Lakes but can choose to camp in any one of the designated sites.) I don’t think it makes any sense to apply overnight permits to the entire wilderness area, as many campsites are just spread out in almost random locations and then there’s people who also camp off trail when off trail hiking. I believe those should be first come first serve and no permit needed.
- Previously ElementalFX

Post Reply