Limited entry proposal in wilderness areas

[CampinCarl]

There are some really fascinating maps in the scoping for the proposal showing exactly where the highest (and lowest) used areas are.

example:

MountJefferson TrailheadUse (Source:USFS)

Looking at this more closely, I think the focus should be on the super-impacted areas. They are typically popular for a reason, whether that is views, lakes, natural features, etc. The less-traveled areas (pink dots on the map) may be able to handle some additional capacity. But I think that a permit system across multiple wilderness areas for every trailhead is overkill.

[kelkev]

My only hope is that the USFS comes to their senses and doesn't enact a wilderness-wide limited entry system. Restricting access to little-used areas makes no sense. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that the FS has their plan already laid out, regardless of the public comments. There is money to be made by selling permits, and I can't think of any government program that has ever turned down additional sources of income. Enforcing a wilderness wide permit system would be a nightmare - - I don't think the FS has the staffing or the budget to effectively enforce it. Educating the public about LNT is a great thing, but in my experience, people either care or they don't - - it's impossible to teach people to care....it's one of those traits that you are either born with or you're not. Bad apples will always exist, and will always cause problems for those who follow the rules.

I care about protecting the wilderness from abuse as much as anyone else. I don't like fees or the permit system, period, but I know something needs to be done in areas where the crowds have wreaked their havoc.

Best case scenario for me is restricting access to wildly popular places like Jefferson Park and Green Lakes....but leaving the other areas as is. Focus enforcement in those areas. Time will tell.

Kevin

[Water]

The limited entry idea is unpopular but the status quo is unsustainable. So what ideas can be proposed to the Forest Service to address the overcrowding, the unburied human waste, the illegal campfire rings, and the trash at popular spots like Jefferson Park and Green Lakes? They may or may not listen, but it's still more helpful to offer alternative solutions instead of just saying we don't like the proposed idea.

With deference, I would say that the status quo for 99% of wilderness areas is sustainable. If you took the Obsidian area that has seen issues, Green Lakes, S. Sister Climb Route, Jeff Park, and Pamelia, and heck add in 2 or 3 or even 4 or 5 more 'areas' that are popular, the square mileage, even including a half mile buffer around each, would likely be an extremely small percent of the total wilderness area.

I agree with Jerry, plenty of solitude to be had all around the 'problematic' areas. If you don't like crowds, don't go on days that are known to be busy. If the FS cannot attend to regulating illegal campfires and human waste, why any confidence that they can enforce a limited entry idea across such large wide swaths of land. It seems like the laziest solution, they think an online permit that people all buy early in the year, is going to solve the way people treat these areas? Limiting entry could by statistics limit the amount of human waste that isn't properly buried, but 1 group with bad practice can negate having 20 people that know what they are doing, so it doesn't inherently solve that problem. Additionally this human waste problem, I'm still yet to hear a cogent argument why they can't put in the basic privys like they have in the north cascades or in the enchantments. Is there some reason that can't be done at the most popular areas? Would not putting 3 or 4 of them at the most popular areas greatly mitigate this issue?


additionally, there is not trash all over the wilderness. Little wrappers and things, yes you will find it along trails here and there. Occasionally an abandoned tent and sleeping bag, very rarely. But people aren't taking coffee cans and wine bottles and leaving them all over. It's very concentrated at a limited amount of camping areas or trailheads. There aren't busted TVs and old toasters and junk way off in the woods.

[Water]

There is money to be made by selling permits, and I can't think of any government program that has ever turned down additional sources of income.
Kevin

and then watch, they'll zero out/re-direct whatever existing budget monies they have for trails and foot-powered recreation, and solely rely on this permit revenues, then throw their hands up in the air and say we don't have enough money, we need to raise prices!

[kelkev]

Well said, Water.

[olderthanIusedtobe]

I'm definitely a fan of having privys at popular back country camping areas, should eliminate the problem of improperly buried human waste.


Much of the Sierras is under a quota system and requires permits. I've always been impressed with how well implemented that is. It's even multi-agency, because many of the trails cross back and forth between National Forest and National Park. However, call me skeptical, but I'll believe Wilderness Areas in Oregon can be managed similarly when I see it. I haven't been to California since '13, but probably stretching back over a decade or more of several trips down there, I was always able to attain walk up permits for wherever I wanted to go. I just have a fear of getting shut out in Oregon if you try to plan a trip on short notice. Also in the Sierras the permits are for overnight stays, but they don't require them for day use. That's a major sticking point for me. Even the fabled Enchantments here in Washington don't currently have a limit on day users.

[Ruairisdad]

These are public lands, they belong to us. We should be able to use them at our discretion.

They can't. That would be a violation of Federal law; lawsuits will eventually ensue if they willfully ignore the issue.

These are Wilderness lands, under a law enacted by Congress requiring the highest level of protection and restriction. Heck, you can't even ride a bicycle in them.

A good slide set that shows what they're dealing with and what they're thinking: http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/ab ... 985607.pdf

If you really desire to use them at your discretion, you'll need to contact our members of Congress and get them to rescind or modify the Wilderness Act. With the current make-up in the House and Senate, you may get some results. Although I don't think I'd be too excited about sharing the trail up South Sister with dirt bikers that were using the trail at their discretion.

[Ruairisdad]

But I think that a permit system across multiple wilderness areas for every trailhead is overkill.

Technically, every Wilderness area already requires permits, but most of them are self-issued with no quota. I guess they feel they have to charge to cover the cost of administrating the program, but $12 seems high to me. Especially for mid-week use, where even the popular areas get a lot less use than on weekends.

I assume this would work the same as MSH permits, where if you have a permit, you don't need a Forest Pass

[olderthanIusedtobe]

They can't. That would be a violation of Federal law; lawsuits will eventually ensue if they willfully ignore the issue.

I think you knew what I meant. I don't expect I can visit Federal lands and start chopping down trees, or mining, or shooting animals out of season or that are in some kind of protected category. I'm referring to being able to hike on a trail when I choose, provided it isn't closed due to fire damage or some other kind of special circumstance.

[olderthanIusedtobe]

Technically, every Wilderness area already requires permits, but most of them are self-issued with no quota.

This is not true. Alpine Lakes Wilderness in Washington does have self issuing permits at trailheads. Other Wilderness Areas I frequently visit do not require a permit (Glacier Peak, Norse Peak, Goat Rocks, Wild Sky, Henry Jackson, Mt. Baker, William O. Douglas...I can keep going if you would like).