Oregon Hikers

What would people like to see with all the funding the Forest Service is getting?
https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landm ... eprd796844
Submit comments on all their projects at the link.
I think it would be cool to see some more trail bridges, and maybe backcountry toilets? Would be nice to see them build more campgrounds. They get so full on summer weekends.

I'm going to suggest bigger parking area for Green Lakes trail, twice as many designated campsites in the general area, improve trails

so they don't have to implement the restrictions in the Three Sisters area

Yeah thats a good idea! Their proposed quotas are too low. However, I don't think you could make those big enough for all the people that want to go there! I counted over 100 other hikers on a Wednesday July morning !

I believe the U$F$ is hostile to hikers. They have a history of fabricating phony public-outreach, and manipulating feedback to support what they really want to do.

Fool me once...

But anyway, my number one priority would be an information system that tells me if I can go hike at Trail X tomorrow. Are there any administrative closures? Logging? Fire? Seasonal gate locked? Bridge washed out? Covid restrictions? The current system is sloppy and unreliable. I know this isn't very exciting. People like to see actual infrastructure.

I was there in July. Camped at a designated campsite. No problem.

I didn't go down to the trailhead though, started at Pole Creek trailhead.

If there are 100 people there no problem. If that's what those people want to do, great. Each person's trip is as they wish.

If you don't like 100 people, go somewhere else.

If you want solitude at Green Lakes, and you propose to have quotas to accomplish that, that's an unreasonable expectation in my opinion

and remember that the proposed fee is part of a special use provision in Wilderness act. Intended for something like an outfitter and a group or something, not general use

using that law to justify a general fee and restriction of use violates the wilderness act

maybe there'll be a court case to sort it out

save yourself the hassle, just don't institute the program. Cut your losses. That would be embarrassing to institute a major program and then have it thrown out by a court

Chip Down wrote: ↑

November 24th, 2020, 11:57 am

But anyway, my number one priority would be an information system that tells me if I can go hike at Trail X tomorrow. Are there any administrative closures? Logging? Fire? Seasonal gate locked? Bridge washed out? Covid restrictions? The current system is sloppy and unreliable. I know this isn't very exciting. People like to see actual infrastructure.

That would be AMAZING. Such a simple thing, and yet we end up having to rely on on not-for-profits to communicate trail status clearly.

I think the phrase "deferred maintenance" implies that we are talking about what to do with existing physical facilities, not choose new projects. Lots of existing facilities have degraded structures whose fixing up has been deferred due to money spent on fires. So they are looking for input on what deferred maintenance should be prioritized and maybe which ones should be abandoned in order to reduce the backlog.

Be nice if they used it to catch up on deferred trail maintenance. Might help to spread people out more across the entire trail system rather than concentrating on just a few areas.

At Eagle Creek trailhead it's all closed off with chain link fences and a sign saying it's closed for bridge repplacement

They must be replacing the bridge over Eagle Creek

I think that bridge had problems and needed replacement

That would be an example of deferred maintenance that's useful

The "log house" picnic shelter also needs major work

I think those are useful projects