The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

This forum is used to share your experiences out on the trails.
User avatar
drm
Posts: 5125
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

Post by drm » May 20th, 2019, 3:02 pm

The Scenic area's Federal land is managed by the Forest Service because there is no national scenic area agency. But that does't mean it is a part of the Mt Hood NF any more than it is a part of the Gifford Pinchot. It is it's own setup like each national forest is, but of course with different guiding rules and laws. And there also is the Gorge Commission, etc, which I think is responsible for scenic area lands that are not Federal and also not in an incorporated town. So it's fairly complex in that sense, but separate of any national forest.

In the years after the lands from Coyote Wall through to the Catherine Creek area were purchased, the FS ran a process to come up with a recreational plan. This determined, among other things, what existing trails would become official, what trails would get added/created, and what trails would be decommissioned. Until that was done with it's public hearings and so on, they really couldn't do much. From what was posted here, it sounds like they have not done that kind of process for the Memaloose area, which makes it a kind of free-for-all.

User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6337
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

Post by kepPNW » May 20th, 2019, 3:33 pm

Bosterson wrote:
May 20th, 2019, 2:35 pm
kepPNW wrote:
May 20th, 2019, 2:05 pm
So you say. Are they turning people away?
Surely any reasonable person would agree that the mere existence of a permit system for Dog Mountain is sufficient to reduce demand: how many people do you think would go to Dog Mountain if they could just drive up there like anywhere else, but are not willing to engage with the permit system or shuttle when there are other options with less bureaucracy? (Hands in the air - I'll start.)
Ummm, discussion was focused on limits not demand.
Bosterson wrote:
May 20th, 2019, 2:35 pm
Whether they have to turn people away from waiting to take a shuttle to go hiking is a totally inadequate measurement of whether Dog Mountain is/was "overcrowded."
Of course it is. The question was whether there was a limit. If they're not turning people away, there's no way to know whether they'd add more shuttles should the current ones not prove adequate for demand (such as it is). So... no way to assert there is a limit.
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

(Photos · PortlandHikers)

User avatar
adamschneider
Posts: 2977
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: SE Portland
Contact:

Re: The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

Post by adamschneider » May 20th, 2019, 4:49 pm

drm wrote:
May 20th, 2019, 3:02 pm
The Scenic area's Federal land is managed by the Forest Service because there is no national scenic area agency. But that does't mean it is a part of the Mt Hood NF any more than it is a part of the Gifford Pinchot... So it's fairly complex in that sense, but separate of any national forest.
So does that mean that if you encounter a ranger in the Gorge, their chain-of-comannd and their paycheck comes from the CRGNSA, not MHNF or GPNF?

User avatar
jessbee
Posts: 798
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

Post by jessbee » May 20th, 2019, 5:40 pm

adamschneider wrote:
May 20th, 2019, 4:49 pm
So does that mean that if you encounter a ranger in the Gorge, their chain-of-comannd and their paycheck comes from the CRGNSA, not MHNF or GPNF?
If you encounter a ranger you've just seen a unicorn 😂
Will break trail for beer.

Blog and photos

Webfoot
Posts: 1186
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 11:06 am
Location: Troutdale

Re: The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

Post by Webfoot » May 20th, 2019, 5:55 pm

adamschneider wrote:
May 20th, 2019, 10:03 am
Require people to park at the rest area on I-84 and hike up the hill if they want to visit Memaloose Hills. That'd add 0.7 miles each way and weed out a lot of the riff-raff.
I do not like this at all. I have a bad back and already face pain for many of the short hikes I do, and I cannot hike more than about 5 miles even on the best days. There are already many trails and destinations that are too far, and quite a few needlessly so in my estimation. (e.g. closed/abandoned roads outside of wilderness areas that no longer provide close access.) I do not begrudge more capable people the places and experiences they can have, but I will advocate for myself and others that cannot make longer hikes. In analogy I do not advocate blasting and paving rugged trails to make them wheelchair-accessible, but at the same time I find the idea of ripping out existing ramps and replacing them with stairs expressly "to keep out the riff-raff" offensive.

Incidentally, Charley wrote "our most beloved local destinations are USDA forest farms with small wilderness areas dotted around" but that is not how I would characterize it. A large fraction of the USFS land around Mount Hood is already Wilderness, as illustrated below. Unrelated to Charley's statement the BRWMU is off-limits to all recreation but included for reference. (The light green shaded area is USFS land.)

MHNF wilderness.jpg

User avatar
drm
Posts: 5125
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

Post by drm » May 20th, 2019, 6:52 pm

adamschneider wrote:
May 20th, 2019, 4:49 pm
So does that mean that if you encounter a ranger in the Gorge, their chain-of-comannd and their paycheck comes from the CRGNSA, not MHNF or GPNF?
Right, CRGNSA has their own district ranger and so on. I met the head wilderness ranger for CRGNSA a couple years ago at a training. AND CRGNSA's main office is in Hood River while MHNF main office is in Sandy.

User avatar
ElementalFX
Posts: 292
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 9:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

Post by ElementalFX » May 21st, 2019, 12:45 am

chrisca wrote:
May 20th, 2019, 1:19 pm
I'll also leave this with everyone to see why the Internet is a different animal from traditional paper-based methods of sharing trail information. Copying is free, unlimited, and has a reach that's enabled by the viral replication the web provides. So the information from one page ends up somewhere else, then another, and another. Websites can crowdsource user postings so there isn't one author anymore, there are potentially hundreds or thousands. Millennials can say it's just the way things are now, but even us older folk had to place limits on access, protect land, implement regulations, and do other things to be sure precious resources aren't destroyed. The Internet is no different. It needs sensible controls to be sure content doesn't cause the destruction of nature we claim to "love."
That is absurd. Online guides are an improvement over "spreading word by mouth," or print. Many people prefer getting information online. Personally, I like using both online and paper research, but that is beside the point. It is absurd to want to create limits online–the internet doesn't work like that. You can't just make AllTrails remove their most popular hike listings, or tell online hiking websites to shut down. You also can't make it illegal to share photos online. All you can do is encourage people to be mindful of what they share via the internet.

The internet cannot be "limited." What can be limited is physical access, like what public land managers already do. Of course, there are also alternate solutions like building more official trails, more parking and/or closing off unsafe parking areas, etc.


adamschneider wrote:
May 20th, 2019, 10:03 am
Here's one possible "solution": don't allow parking anywhere along Highway 30. Require people to park at the rest area on I-84 and hike up the hill if they want to visit Memaloose Hills. That'd add 0.7 miles each way and weed out a lot of the riff-raff.
I like this idea a lot. Or perhaps a better solution would be to make a better parking area, to satisfy others who are less capable.

chrisca
Posts: 98
Joined: January 22nd, 2010, 10:48 am

Re: The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

Post by chrisca » May 21st, 2019, 1:22 pm

So, are you against regulating fire, motorized vehicles, hunting, unpermitted camping, harvesting wild plants for sale on public land, et cetera? The Internet is another technology no different from others we've needed to regulate to protect natural areas from exploitation. It may not be regulated today to protect natural resources, but that's because the technology is new, just as the others were at one time. The day will come, and it must, when there are sensible guidelines to protect natural resources from damage from this technology.
ElementalFX wrote:
May 21st, 2019, 12:45 am

That is absurd. Online guides are an improvement over "spreading word by mouth," or print. Many people prefer getting information online. Personally, I like using both online and paper research, but that is beside the point. It is absurd to want to create limits online–the internet doesn't work like that. You can't just make AllTrails remove their most popular hike listings, or tell online hiking websites to shut down. You also can't make it illegal to share photos online. All you can do is encourage people to be mindful of what they share via the internet.

The internet cannot be "limited." What can be limited is physical access, like what public land managers already do. Of course, there are also alternate solutions like building more official trails, more parking and/or closing off unsafe parking areas, etc.

User avatar
ElementalFX
Posts: 292
Joined: January 27th, 2013, 9:18 pm
Contact:

Re: The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

Post by ElementalFX » May 21st, 2019, 2:10 pm

chrisca wrote:
May 21st, 2019, 1:22 pm
So, are you against regulating fire, motorized vehicles, hunting, unpermitted camping, harvesting wild plants for sale on public land, et cetera? The Internet is another technology no different from others we've needed to regulate to protect natural areas from exploitation. It may not be regulated today to protect natural resources, but that's because the technology is new, just as the others were at one time. The day will come, and it must, when there are sensible guidelines to protect natural resources from damage from this technology.

No, I am not against regulating things like fire, motorized vehicles, etc. But you are comparing apples to oranges. The internet is not something that you do in nature, not is it a method of access into wilderness.

The internet is merely a source of information; a way to publish and spread information digitally. What you’re advocating is like trying to put limitations on hiking guidebooks. People had the same complaints about Ira Spring and Harvey Manning’s 100 Classic Hikes in Washington series, saying it brought too many new hikers to previously “unknown” trails. This is literally the same complaint you are making.

What are you going to do? Charge a fee every time someone posts a picture of a popular trail? Fine hiking websites if they post guides for various trails? Not only is what you are proposing ridiculous and absurd, but it is also practically impossible.

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1419
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Southeast Portland

Re: The Memaloose Hills and Social Media

Post by Charley » May 21st, 2019, 4:26 pm

ElementalFX wrote:
May 21st, 2019, 2:10 pm
chrisca wrote:
May 21st, 2019, 1:22 pm
The Internet is another technology no different from others we've needed to regulate to protect natural areas from exploitation. It may not be regulated today to protect natural resources, but that's because the technology is new, just as the others were at one time. The day will come, and it must, when there are sensible guidelines to protect natural resources from damage from this technology.
No, I am not against regulating things like fire, motorized vehicles, etc. But you are comparing apples to oranges. The internet is not something that you do in nature, not is it a method of access into wilderness.
I'm inclined to agree with FX: the problem is a dirt problem, not an internet problem. If this were managed by the Park Service, and our trails and public lands were fully funded, the overuse problem would be solved, and solved by on-the-ground solutions, instead of Constitutionally impossible regulations on digital speech.

People are going to find the nice places and they are going to publicize the nice places. The solution is to harden and protect the nice places. It's totally possible and will be totally necessary (I suppose you could say it already is necessary).

Post Reply