https://bikeportland.org/2022/09/30/col ... urn-364612
I've written a lot on this forum about my opposition to a variety of FS permit systems, and this article reminded me of why I don't oppose this particular permit system.
- This system excludes users from a specific, highly impacted area (while still allowing some useful access to nearby areas like Angel's Rest)
- The system applies to times and dates that allow regular users to work around its requirements (one could park early in the morning or late in the evening, or hike in shoulder seasons, which are largely snow-free)
- This system has clear goals (reduce parking conflict and traffic)
Most visitors aren't savvy enough for this to be valuable, so the system permits those who truly care enough to get creative to retain access, while reducing more "touristic" kind of use- especially auto-based use. I know my privilege and fitness are showing, but I do think that there's some value to this kind of plan, because it would reduce opposition from people who really care about their own access, while still reducing use among people who are, in this case, causing most of the impact.
Compare this focused system to the Forest Service's Central Cascades Wilderness Plan:
- A huge swathe of terrain is no-access, including many of the paved trailheads, and applying even to travel through the area while not even parking at a nearby trailhead
- Before it got whittled down, the system absurdly applied to shoulder seasons- which aren't remotely as crowded, and weekdays, which also aren't as crowded, according to the FS's own visitor data
- All of this to "to preserve the natural beauty and wilderness experience," which seems vague enough to be subject to statistical fudging
An aside- thinking philosophically, does the "wilderness experience" really "improve", if fewer people are allowed to enjoy it? I mean, if we allowed one person, at a time, access to a protected Wilderness the size of Wyoming, that would be an incredibly wild experience! But wouldn't it be better for more individuals to enjoy a wilderness experience, even if it necessarily had to be somewhat less wild? There's obviously a trade-off to be made here, and the FS seems too weighted toward "greatest good" as opposed to "greatest number". If you've been reading about long-termism or effective altruism, this will be a familiar argument.