Public Lands Getting HAMMERED by Crowds

[SWriverstone]

Are you talking about Wilderness, or Public Lands in general? Because I think most of us have very different expectations for the two. "Public Lands" include industrial logging, mining, OHV areas, motorbike trails, boat launches, target shooting, sledding, and any number of other noisy, unsightly, and/or crowd-producing activities. I don't think you can expect people to treat a National Forest any differently than a City Park.

Was your Nintendo gymnast in a Wilderness? If so, then yeah, that's probably not cool. Otherwise, they're free to do whatever they want as long as they clean up their trash.

Good question. Most of the behaviors I'm talking about have been in national forests (though many within a mile of a wilderness area border). And sure, I get that national forests are "lands of many uses." That said, I don't think national forests should be treated like a city's downtown or the parking lot outside a football stadium. You're correct of course that all kinds of obnoxious activities are technically legal, but in my mind that doesn't make them "okay."

If national forests aren't held to a higher standard of user responsibility than, say, a football stadium parking lot, I think many of us lifelong outdoors people are going to be shocked when all of a sudden our national forests become football stadium parking lots (e.g. packed with people partying and revving internal-combustion engines) and designated Wilderness areas (with the capital "W") become the ONLY place we can find any wild and scenic solitude.

[adamschneider]

I don't like it personally, but the reality is that for tens of millions of people, parties and internal combustion engines are a HUGE part of what public lands are all about... and no one is telling them otherwise. You can certainly fault the messaging coming from the agencies in charge, but I think it's potentially elitist and selfish to blame the families and individuals.

(Again: if they're littering, making illegal fires, or otherwise breaking rules, that's something else altogether. But 99% of what they're doing is legal and not even frowned-upon by the powers that be.)

[retired jerry]

I like hearing different opinions, especially ones that contradict mine. I am open minded.

[Webfoot]

My point is simply that from my real observations, there are a great many people who just don't understand that the point of wild and scenic lands is that they are wild and scenic. They aren't "pretty places to have a party."

Says who?

[Bosterson]

I get that national forests are "lands of many uses." That said, I don't think national forests should be treated like a city's downtown or the parking lot outside a football stadium. You're correct of course that all kinds of obnoxious activities are technically legal, but in my mind that doesn't make them "okay."

This isn't a new thing - I was just out in the Gifford Pinchot a couple weeks ago, and the network of logging roads back in there that are accessible to ATVs and people with high clearance vehicles means the area is just covered with garbage and other detritus everywhere. Then check out the Clack (well, before it got nuked last year), esp up by Tumala - that is MHNF, and Salmon-Huck Wilderness to boot, and is just covered with shooting targets and cans and other debris. Or check state forests, like the whole ATV bonanza in the Tillamook. You can hand wring about people with music and blankets in the snow (these are the same people that think it's a clever idea to have a picnic literally in the middle of a trail during COVID in Forest Park), but it's merely just annoying - the real damage is from a completely different (non-hiking) user base. But changing that behavior is a really big proposition - and you'd also have to reckon with the USFS's conflicting management priority regarding logging.

The irony is that, on the political side, the more people who use public lands increases the chances that there will be more secure funding for them.

I would like to believe this, but has this recurring claim ever really been subjected to evidentiary standards? There was that great High Country News article a couple of years ago called "Your Stoke Won't Save Us." Given current Congressional funding priorities, if a NF experiences double its usual visitation rate, is it somehow going to magically procure double funding, or will it be told to do more with less? In light of the Central Cascades fiasco from the past couple years, it seems more likely a NF will react to increased visitation by trying to limit access and drum up fees to pay for the services they've previously scaled back due to budgets. I am highly skeptical of some miraculous change in Congressional will that will rain dollars down from the sky onto the FS, and suspect that the only lasting result of increased usership will be overcrowding, environmental impacts, access limitations, and surcharge fees. And if a small percentage of these added users drink the Kool-aid of LNT, great, but if most of the new users come from Instagram and think of the outdoors as a commodified city park selfie destination, it seems likely they will outnumber the people who imbibe the true wilderness spirit, or what have you. Sadly, the capacity of the outdoors to absorb these additional people does not scale proportionally to the orders of magnitude increase in visitation. This would be less problematic if the FS could provide more services, education, and (especially) trails, but again... the rainbow of golden funding from Congress does not seem likely any time soon.

[mountainkat]

No offense,  but, wow, the list of complaints comes off as really elitist.

Basically, our whole lives have been turned upside down.  Everyone has been practically forbidden, for almost a year now, to do the typical social things that they've been used to doing. Outdoor recreation IS what is available.  What else can everyone else do?  It's strange to me to complain about others being a crowd, when you and I are out there seeking to do the same thing.  What's the saying? You aren't stuck in traffic, you are traffic...

I'm personally ok with it. This too, shall pass. I am one of the people that likes to see people choosing healthier options, like the outdoors and breathing fresh air.  In our current times, I think we need to be careful not to denigrate how others choose to experience the outdoors, especially if what they are doing is legal. We have many diverse backgrounds and need to respect each other, even if we don't choose that experience for ourselves. And I do hope maybe a few folks become strong supporters for preservation and funding. Maybe we all need to pick up some trash, or mentor new folks, to help us get through this.  I'm hoping for the best.

That all said, I still am able to have relative solitude nearly any time I go out, and I go out a lot. Popular places are always going to be popular, and moreso now.  I don't go to those places.  Last weekend, we cross country skied right off of hwy 26, next to super popular Trillium Lake on Mt Hood.  We saw a few people starting out, but, within 2 miles, we had complete solitude, and skied for 6 more miles before turning around late enough that we saw no one on our return.

I think we need to be patient and understanding.  This situation sucks for everyone.   We just need to get through it.

[Water]

i don't get what the big deal is about this gymnastics thing and a kid on his nintendo.. were they blocking you or making fun of you? And this was AFTER you apparently got in a good head space having alone time in the wilderness? It sounds like you have an attitude problem honestly. I get the concern factor for increased use/people in finite space but how is the above scenario even moving the needle as a problem in the world for you?

With effort put in that my 3 year old could do, we managed just fine to get away from people in wilderness on mt adams area, and a popular 3 sisters trailhead, and a few other spots through this last year. I just hiked a place that is especially popular for flowers in the spring, and it was a glorious sunny day with a grand total of 0 other cars at the TH and 2 people I saw coming down OT half mile away as I went up. That was on a sunday.

Pre-Covid I had already scaled back expectations about going somewhere popular at a popular time. Either expect to hunt for a spot and it to be a bit of a zoo esp near the TH, or don't go at peak times.

I get the pressures covid has brought but half of that is parking but not necessarily people (4ppl carpool in 1 car usually = 4 cars) -- I know all the hikes ive done with friends were that way, two cars for two people, definitely fills the TH faster and makes it seem crazier than it really is.

[Guy]

I get the pressures covid has brought but half of that is parking but not necessarily people (4ppl carpool in 1 car usually = 4 cars) -- I know all the hikes ive done with friends were that way, two cars for two people, definitely fills the TH faster and makes it seem crazier than it really is.

Good point on the cars Matt, certainly true with us. Our little band has continued in a "hiker bubble" we feel pretty safe as a group since all work from home (except me) and have little other outside contact. That being said we don't carpool anymore so instead of using 1 or 2 cars we are now taking 2 to 4.

I too was wondering about the poor teenage gymnast. I'm wondering if the reaction would have been the same had it been a 20 something decked out in REI or Columbia clothing practicing her Tai Chi or Yoga

I always like to share this photo when we talk about overcrowding as a new phenomena:
Oneonta Gorge 20 years ago on a weekday afternoon.

[retired jerry]

"What's the saying? You aren't stuck in traffic, you are traffic..."

I haven't heard that before. Good belly laugh, thanks

That is a metaphor for a lot of problems. We get all indignant about problems but if we looked at it more closely, we'd realize we're as much the problem as anyone else.

"I would like to believe this, but has this recurring claim ever really been subjected to evidentiary standards?"

Good point. I choose to believe that more people using the wilderness will increase funding, but I've read the same thing, maybe it's not true. Maybe I'm just finding a silver lining in a cloud to look at to improve my mental health Maybe there's some truth to it.

If the objection to noisy people is aesthetics - I want to go to the wilderness and experience solitude - I don't think that's reasonable. You can find places with solitude. Expecting solitude at crowded places doesn't seem like a reasonable expectation.

If I go to a crowded place, I just shift my expectations. It's fun watching people too. Either people doing crazy things, or people enjoying the wilderness and each other. Some ***hole is playing music loud? I'm not going to let that ruin my trip.

If the objection is that we're impacting plants and animals - let's study that. It seems there are worse problems - harvesting timber, developing human structures, cars on highways running over animals,... There's a small percentage of total wilderness that's crowded with hikers. Animals will go to a slightly different place to eat. But you need to study it to determine if that's correct. Don't just say that it's crowded, we better shut down trails to save the animals.

Fairly civil discussion here. I like to hear different opinions, especially ones that contradict mine.

[drm]

I think the thing about usage and funding has been disproven. The cost of maintaining recreational lands increases very fast with lots of users, but the funding does not. I think a very long time ago, when the very concept of recreation on public land was new, it might have been true. Eagle Creek does have the very first Forest Service campground.

I think that going from essentially zero users to some users helped to establish funding and protect these areas from being privatized. But when going from some users to a huge number of users, I don't think that holds.

I've commented many times that if solitude is your goal, it is your responsibility to find it, and not everybody has to enjoy the wilderness the way I do - within limitations mostly tied to damaging it. There are lots of gorgeous place I avoid because they are crowded. But I found plenty of solitude on Mt Adams on Labor Day weekend last year.

My concern with those crowded places will always be on the more practical side: trash, damage, impacts on wildlife and the resource. Even that is very tough to resolve, but it is at the level where we should try.