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.
Post Reply
User avatar
Chip Down
Posts: 3037
Joined: November 8th, 2014, 8:41 pm

USFS oppression marches on with proposed high-Hood permit

Post by Chip Down » June 14th, 2022, 5:01 am

For their next power grab, U$F$ will unveil this month a proposed 9000' elevation boundary for travelers, granting exceptions to those willing to pay and jump through bureaucratic hoops.

Predictably, there's a "public-comment opportunity". In a blatant shameless lie, Mount Hood National Forest spokeswoman Heather Ibsen said "We’re genuinely interested in what people think about this proposal, what they think needs changing or how we could do this a different way” .

source: https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/ ... 359879007/

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 » June 14th, 2022, 7:53 am

BUT THINK OF THE IMPACT OVERUSE IS HAVING ON THE PARKING!!! AT A SKI LODGE!!!
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

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 » June 14th, 2022, 7:57 am

There was a guy in the past two weeks who slid down several hundred feet. There were a ton of people who helped him at the place he stopped until SAR got there to take him down. Reducing the number of people on the mountain might reduce accidents, but it will also reduce the number of people who can help someone who is injured. It might reduce those numbers enough that more accident victims won't receive any help at all, who otherwise would have.

Climber Rescued after Falling 600 Feet
Jeremy VanGelder - Friends of Road 4109

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

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

Post by Charley » June 14th, 2022, 1:20 pm

jvangeld wrote:
June 14th, 2022, 7:57 am
There was a guy in the past two weeks who slid down several hundred feet. There were a ton of people who helped him at the place he stopped until SAR got there to take him down. Reducing the number of people on the mountain might reduce accidents, but it will also reduce the number of people who can help someone who is injured. It might reduce those numbers enough that more accident victims won't receive any help at all, who otherwise would have.
I suppose that's possible. But honestly, I've wanted to climb Mt Hood over the years, and have never got to it, partly because of the objective dangers posed by other climbers. Being clotheslined into the bergschrund might be unlikely, but it's an off-putting possibility. Given what I have witnessed on attempts at Mt Hood and climbs of other mountains, the degree of preparedness and skill is woefully lacking. I have no illusions that a permit could enforce skill or preparation, but a permit system might reduce the objective risks that increase with increased numbers of climbers.

I am philosophically opposed to many current efforts to manage use through exclusionary policies directed at certain relatively low-impact user groups (hiker, mountain bikers, backpackers, etc) in sub-alpine and forested Wildernesses.

However, I am more understanding of climbing permits in alpine areas. Given the safety concerns, high-alpine impact, viewshed impact, and sanitary concerns (no soil, or at least no waste-decomposing bacteria in the soil), I think alpine climbing permits are among the most sensible and defensible management tools available to land managers.

Furthermore, I have equity concerns about exclusionary regulation of hiking, biking, etc. In contrast, alpine climbing remains a more skill- and resource-intensive pursuit, regardless of regulation. I do not think that climbing permits will have the same inegalitarian effects that other regulations have. In other words, it bothers me that Central Cascades permits will make it harder for non-native, non-English-speaking, gig-working, service-sector-scheduled, poorer people to visit their local Wilderness, but that concern is far more immediate than concerns about potentially inegalitarian impact from a permit system to climb Mt Hood.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

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 » June 14th, 2022, 2:51 pm

Charley wrote:
June 14th, 2022, 1:20 pm
Given the safety concerns, high-alpine impact, viewshed impact, and sanitary concerns (no soil, or at least no waste-decomposing bacteria in the soil), I think alpine climbing permits are among the most sensible and defensible management tools available to land managers.
I don't see any evidence that permits would improve any of those things. From the article:
Currently, many climbers, including those without experience, can simply show up at Timberline Lodge and attempt to climb Mount Hood, without any real idea of what’s above them. A permit requirement would force climbers to have a better understanding of the risks by bringing them “increased interaction with safety information,” Ibsen said.
There is no evidence that permits increase safety in any meaningful way. You already are supposed to fill out a self-issue registration if you leave from Timberline, and there is safety info all over the climber kiosk. Realistically, the yahoo people going out unprepared or inexperienced are not going anywhere else on the mountain. I see no meaningful way that the unprepared would get more of a "real idea of what's above them" after they purchased a permit on Rec.gov. (They say they will have "climbing rangers" stationed along the route - what, like in shifts every day of the year? Look how well the extra staffing with the CC permits worked out - I'll believe this when I see it.)

It would be interesting to see the numbers, but I feel like there are actually fairly few accidents on the south side compared to the number of people who go up there. I don't feel like I've heard of some large increase in accidents since the pandemic began - which is the pseudo-justification the FS is proffering. I'm sure there have been "the person wasn't wearing crampons" accidents at one time or another, but all of the major ones I can remember in recent years would have happened permit or no- unless, of course, the permit fee deterred people from going at all, which is maybe the point?
“This will get us much better numbers on how many people are climbing on a busy weekend, for example, or how many people are climbing the busiest routes,” Ibsen said. “Right now we really only have anecdotal information on numbers but we do know it’s impacting the wilderness and parking.”
Again, people are already supposed to fill out self-issue registration to help with potential rescues (and people do fill these out). Charging people a permit fee because the USFS wants better data is absurd. The idea that an increase in climbers is impacting the parking - at Timberline - is absurd for anyone who has come back down to their car, which was in a mostly empty lot at midnight when they left, and finds it is now difficult to even locate their car in the roiling throng of spring skiers. The "parking" implications for any of the routes that don't start at Timberline are nonexistent. The idea that Timberline can be thought of as "wilderness" is absurd. Again, the newbie influx problem is only a problem at Timberline.

9000 ft is also an absurd and arbitrary threshold. This means that you would need a permit to walk up to Devil's Kitchen, even if you just wanted to go check out what it looks like to be in the crater and had no intention of continuing higher. This also means that all the very patently not inexperienced newbie climbers on all other routes around the whole rest of the mountain will need to buy a permit in advance. Are they going to still require permits year round, even in summer when zero people are climbing the mountain, even if you just want to hike ugly dirt above 9k for the view?

And keep in mind that every permit requires you to buy it through Rec.gov, which funds the Booz Allen Hamilton grifter fund. (I was just hearing from someone about just how many extra fees they tack on if you want to cancel a reservation you were forced to make through that website, and it is frankly astonishing.)

I think the FS has made it pretty clear now that their long game is usage permits for everyone for everything. If they had any intention of improving the climber situation on Hood, the first thing they would do is address the bathroom in the climber kiosk that's been locked for the past decade or two...
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

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

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

Post by drm » June 14th, 2022, 3:23 pm

Seemed pretty clear to me from the article that the biggest purpose is to pay for SAR. Maybe there will be other benefits, maybe not.

The fee for climbing Adams pays for a lot of resources and people going above the ridiculously low altitude limit there elsewhere on the mountain have not found themselves subject to enforcement. The maintained trail to Devils Garden goes above the limit.

Adams has multiple rescues every year on much milder terrain than Hood.

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

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

Post by BigBear » June 16th, 2022, 8:06 am

There was a time when the public had access to public land, then in 1995 the legislature proposed a voluntary, trial plan which USFS interpreted as mandatory and permanent, and then the enforcement was found to be illegal by multiple courts, but young recreationalists supported it anyway. Now we watch that access get chipped away one trail, one wilderness, one mountain at a time. Instead of increasing the supply of public land, the thought was to allow for multiple-use, complain about the impact of overuse, and then restrict access. Some day in the near future, we can all sit in our couches and watch videos on TV and just imagine what it must have been like to actually enjoy our public lands.

I think the movie "Total Recall" has a scene or two of what this future would look like. So pop in the DVD, sit back and watch Arnold view nature on the big screen on your little screen. (tick, tick, tick goes the clock and chip, chip, chip goes your access)

User avatar
Waffle Stomper
Posts: 3707
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

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

Post by Waffle Stomper » June 16th, 2022, 10:45 am

I'm sure I'll get slammed for this, but I'll say it anyway. I believe that in many cases there is an expectation of rescue by many people who begin their climb from Timberline Lodge. They might not say it, but the illusion is there. There is relatively little apparent effort from the car and the peak by those who don't know. They peak is deceptively close. Compared to other routes on the hood I suspect that there are many more rescues than other routes because of the ease of access. Bless the volunteer's hearts they are good people, but I doubt they recover their costs let alone lost wages.

It's time to accept that we live in a world that people go into nature unprepared, who are fine with petting a bison, or getting that selfie shot with a grizzly. In the old days humans would not live to reproduce but times have changed. As a society it's time to weigh the costs and benefits of what we do for others and for our wild areas (such as they are). There is a definite benefit for having people enjoy the outdoors, and perhaps want to preserve those places as they are. Those who sit in front of the TV watching reruns of Lassie and Wild kingdom might not have that appreciation. But is is fair to the non-profits and others to bear those costs. The other side is to let the mountain get overrun and turn into a crowded amusement park, taking away the joy of the experience, tapping out volunteers and agencies who respond. It's unrealistic for some to think they can save it for themselves and still have the same experience for themselves.

There is just too many of us. Perhaps just leave people on the mountain and let people look at their bodies lying in the snow as they climb past them because it cost too much to rescue them and nobody wanted a permit system. Permits are coming like it or not.
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." - John Muir

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

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

Post by drm » June 16th, 2022, 11:32 am

BigBear wrote:
June 16th, 2022, 8:06 am
There was a time when the public had access to public land
There seems to be a misconception that access means no cost, no fees, no permits. Where did that come from?

The fact that the land is owned by you in part still doesn't mean you can go anywhere anytime without limit. Not having access means you can't ever go. Of course there are some places you can go any time and without any limit. If that is what you want, you can go there. Your ownership of public land is shared with quite a few other people, and that means there can be limits.

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

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

Post by BigBear » June 16th, 2022, 5:58 pm

Hmmm? Where did the idea of hiking on public lands come from? I'll answer that. It comes from being older than you. From the 1897 when the Forest Reserve Act created the national forests until 1995, access was free and without permits. That's where the idea came from - 102 years of the forests being free to hike without restrictions.

As far as there being a cost, well, I've been paying my taxes all these decades and Dept. of Ag and Dept. of Interior and all those other departments were part of those annual payments.

The assertion that the lands were never accessible without fees and limits is completely insane. But, I guess if your idea of "forever" is less than 30 years, that would explain the confusion. I guess this is why everything is "iconic" even if it doesn't reach the level of average comes from.

Post Reply