Call for input on Collawash River map

Use this forum to report and discuss trails in need of maintenance. This will help organizations like TKO and agencies like the Forest Service get the most recent on-the-ground trail conditions.
mkrochta
Posts: 11
Joined: October 29th, 2014, 3:00 pm

Re: Call for input on Collawash River map

Post by mkrochta » October 30th, 2014, 4:52 pm

RobFromRedland wrote:I can't see enough detail on the map, but Thunder Mountain trailhead is either just off the map or at the edge of it, and I can't tell if the road is marked for decommission or not. In addition, the road to the Baty Butte Trail is similar.

Personally, my take on BARK is that they want to close ALL access to the woods, to let nature take over and leave it to the "locals". I do not think they are a friend to hikers. I think they have their own agenda which is completely at odds with those who like to recreate in the woods. But that is just my opinion. Feel free to change my mind! :lol:
I appreciate your feedback on the trailheads, Rob.
And I hope your mind can be changed about Bark and our relationship to hikers. We value recreation very highly in our mission - we have staff who serve on the board of directors for the Trailkeepers of Oregon, have allied with several recreation groups such as the Mazamas, and we've even been successful in helping lobby DC for Legacy Roads and Trails funding for MHNF.

To give you an idea of what we're about: http://www.bark-out.org/content/46-loca ... estoration

RobFromRedland
Posts: 986
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Call for input on Collawash River map

Post by RobFromRedland » October 30th, 2014, 5:42 pm

mkrochta wrote: I appreciate your feedback on the trailheads, Rob.
And I hope your mind can be changed about Bark and our relationship to hikers. We value recreation very highly in our mission - we have staff who serve on the board of directors for the Trailkeepers of Oregon, have allied with several recreation groups such as the Mazamas, and we've even been successful in helping lobby DC for Legacy Roads and Trails funding for MHNF.

To give you an idea of what we're about: http://www.bark-out.org/content/46-loca ... estoration
That link you posted sounds great, but what greatly troubles me is what is on this page:

http://www.bark-out.org/content/about-bark

On that whole page, there is a VERY small (one sentence) mention of hiking and/or recreating:
Bark will get people into the forest by guiding hikes, promoting quiet recreation, and advocating free and accessible use of the forest
And its mission statement, which says nothing at all about recreation:
Mission Statement

Bark’s mission is to transform Mt. Hood National Forest into a place where natural processes prevail, where wildlife thrives and where local communities have a social, cultural, and economic investment in its restoration and preservation.
I tend to judge based on actions, and thus far, I've seen very little to convince me that BARK has the interests of hikers as part of its goals.

I will admit that gathering info on trailheads and keeping access to existing trailheads is a good thing and I appreciate you helping with that. the Forest Service has already removed easy access to a few abandoned trails (which are still hikeable) through decomissioning roads. I would hate for any more trail acces be lost to road closures. If you keep doing this in good faith, maybe you will change my perception of your group.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: WOW-What a ride!

mcds
Posts: 802
Joined: April 7th, 2012, 4:25 pm

Re: Call for input on Collawash River map

Post by mcds » October 30th, 2014, 6:11 pm

... ohhhh, you mean kind of like the way TKO claims to do all their work under the supervision of the USFS, yet nowhere does TKO mention the USFS on their website?

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=US ... oregon.org

raven
Posts: 1529
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Call for input on Collawash River map

Post by raven » October 30th, 2014, 7:07 pm

RobFromRedland noted:
And its mission statement, which says nothing at all about recreation:
Quote:
Mission Statement

Bark’s mission is to transform Mt. Hood National Forest into a place where natural processes prevail, where wildlife thrives and where local communities have a social, cultural, and economic investment in its restoration and preservation.
It seems to me that "a social, cultural, and economic investment in its restoration and preservation" meets the recreational standard. More to the point, similar phraseology and attempts are being made in Africa and southeast Asia where the explicit purpose is to convince locals that preserving the wild nature of an area has benefits to them through ecotourism. Hiking, without a gun, axe or saw is always ecotourism and, in some places, with them. The idea is inclusion of the locals in the benefits of recreation -- buy dinner locally on your way home.

greenjello85
Posts: 503
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 1:31 pm

Re: Call for input on Collawash River map

Post by greenjello85 » October 30th, 2014, 7:27 pm

payslee wrote:Your map is missing the Whetstone trailhead and it appears that the short spur leading to it is marked in red for removal.

The Whetstone trail is not only beautiful, it provides important connectivity between the trail systems in the BOTW and Opal Creek Wildernesses. Please add the TH and don't remove the short spur to it. FWIW, the spur follows a ridgeline and does not impact fish passage or wetlands.

A trip report from this trail:
http://www.portlandhikers.org/forum/vie ... =8&t=16319

Location of Trailhead at end of a 7020 spur:
whetstoneTH.jpg

Thanks,
payslee
I would also be opposed to cutting off access to whetstone. Moving that trailhead would cut off several great day hike options.
Dan

RobFromRedland
Posts: 986
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Call for input on Collawash River map

Post by RobFromRedland » October 30th, 2014, 7:36 pm

raven wrote: It seems to me that "a social, cultural, and economic investment in its restoration and preservation" meets the recreational standard. More to the point, similar phraseology and attempts are being made in Africa and southeast Asia where the explicit purpose is to convince locals that preserving the wild nature of an area has benefits to them through ecotourism. Hiking, without a gun, axe or saw is always ecotourism and, in some places, with them. The idea is inclusion of the locals in the benefits of recreation -- buy dinner locally on your way home.
I've been accused of being a pessimist..... And I accept that. Nothing would make me happier than to be proved wrong. My only interest is in keeping access to trails open.
Last edited by RobFromRedland on October 31st, 2014, 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: WOW-What a ride!

raven
Posts: 1529
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Call for input on Collawash River map

Post by raven » October 30th, 2014, 9:34 pm

Mr. Rob,

I did not comment on the likely success of the policy, merely that Bark's language says what you want it to say -- although maybe not in your terms.

I might add, it is mighty important to give locals a stake in preservation -- and I don't mean only land owners and politicians. A worthy goal, but I'm not sure anyone knows how to pull it off.

raven
Posts: 1529
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Call for input on Collawash River map

Post by raven » October 30th, 2014, 9:47 pm

I would also be opposed to cutting off access to whetstone. Moving that trailhead would cut off several great day hike options.
Dan
It looks like it would only be necessary to extend the trail north a half mile through easy terrain to meet the maintained road -- marked in black. A good trade, I think. Opens up the ridgeline for a possible loop for the venturesome.

greenjello85
Posts: 503
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 1:31 pm

Re: Call for input on Collawash River map

Post by greenjello85 » October 31st, 2014, 12:18 am

raven wrote:

It looks like it would only be necessary to extend the trail north a half mile through easy terrain to meet the maintained road -- marked in black. A good trade, I think. Opens up the ridgeline for a possible loop for the venturesome.
Its around three quarters of a mile. Adding a mile and a half to a 5 mile hike may stop some people from hiking to whetstone. It's a beautiful mountain view that I feel everyone should have access to. I took my dad/step mom up there and they wouldn't have been able to walk another mile and a half:) Also, that section of road is on a fairly flat ridge that should be pretty easy/cheap to maintain.

I noticed a lot of the roads on this map are essentially closed and abandoned already. 7030 (A black line road) for instance, has a pretty large washout and is nearly impassable due to brush growth before the wash out.

The only other road that I know for sure sees a lot of use is a small(maybe a hundred yards long), unmaintained spur down by the elk lake creek trailhead. Just east of the bridge. It heads south to the "bridge to nowhere" and there are almost always campers there.

I would also be opposed to eliminating roads that aren't simply dead ends but connect to other areas. I don't see any that obviously fall into this group but difficult to tell for sure without more research.

On a slight tangent, does anyone know what trailhead the southeast blue TH mark is?

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12743
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Call for input on Collawash River map

Post by retired jerry » October 31st, 2014, 5:35 am

It used to be 2 miles to Ramona Falls.

Then they closed a mile of road so now it's 3 miles.

Ramona Falls is still very busy. I'm sure a few people can't make it now, but I think few. If you built a road all the way to Ramona Falls, more people would be able to so there's always a trade-off.

Post Reply