Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion What is a wilderness experience?

SierraNevada wrote:
> The desk Ranger, that's the human encounter I would like to avoid.

I have been told that Inyo is working on something like that for "frequent flyers."

Just addressing the first part...

Definition of "untrammeled": not limited or controlled; unrestrained.

I do not understand how unreasonably tight quotas limiting access to wilderness on a trail advances or enhances an area's being "untrammeled by man". Hikers visiting the wilderness are not limiting, controlling, or restraining the landscape, environment, or the habitat. Using that phrase to support keeping people out is ridiculous.

As for "What is a Wilderness Experience", whether a lone hiker visits such an area, or 50 do on the same day, the fact that the only man made effect they see is the trail, then I would say they had a Wilderness Experience. The number of people they met on the trail has nothing to do with that.

It seems more that the phrase is in the Wilderness Act definition to support the idea that no man made improvements or changes be allowed. Of course trails and trail building has some impact, but at least we agree that trails are ok.

Yeah! Win win for everyone. The Rangers in the office will be helping only people who choose to be there. They do an important job on the front line educating and helping people and they shouldn't be wasting their time on me either. Can't wait to cash in my miles, do I get a free coffee mug? Maybe Burchey will even get one of those permit things.

Actually, for some, how many people they meet on the trail is a factor in determining their "wilderness experience".

I personally think meeting 50 people on a trail in desginated wilderness would not despoil that experience for me either. But without taking sides or disagreeing with you, your comment begs the question: beyond how many people met on the trail would the wilderness "feel" begin to be diluted? Obviously, if you meet 1,000 people on the trail, then that might not feel like wilderness to some (it probably wouldn't to me). Thus, at some point, too many people on the trail (though this may be only one factor among several) would probably dilute the wilderness experience for most people. I don't think you can quantify that number, in part, because for each person it would be different anyway. The permit system, imperfect though it may be, is the best attempt to draw the line (somewhere) to limit overcrowding and long term overuse. Depending on what trail/peak is under discussion, some can more invisibly absorb higher use rates than others. This is dependent on the type of people using the trail/peak. As an obvious example, Whitney tends to attract a higher percentage of inexperienced users who are less familiar with Leave No Trace and other similar outdoor etiquette, whereas other less popular areas are used mostly be people who respect and know how to care for and maintain the land for their own good and the good of future users.

I've been lurking and reading this topic with interest. My .02 is that, despite the formal definition in the Wilderness Act (which I personally think is a very fine definition and should be adhered to, and which sets an excellent standard in its wording), wilderness -- as with many other experiences -- is a matter of perception and is largely dependent on what each person is used to. For someone, like Laura, who lives in Bishop on the edge of the wilderness (lucky girl!), wilderness likely means getting way back into the bowels of the untrammeled mountains or the infrequently climbed peaks. For others who have the misfortune of being imprisoned stuck living in a big city when their heart is anywhere but there, wilderness could easily be Yosemite Valley, or the hike to Half Dome or the Whitney MT. More important, though, I think each person's perception of wilderness will change and grow with each additional "wilderness" experience they have (by their perception of that term), so that a person whose first wilderness experience (for them) is the Whitney MT, may then be motivated to seek increasingly "wild" wilderness experiences over the ensuing years, so that ultimately, they will perhaps want to go out and experience "true" wilderness, such as RoguePhotonic's 95-day adventure last summer. At that point in their development, they may very well no longer consider the Whitney MT as wilderness, and will only consider the "bowels" of the inner Sierra as wilderness. On this message board, I'm sure we are well represented by people who are at both ends of that developmental timeline, and all points in between.

This is not unlike the concept of "vacation". Vacation to most people means doing something different (and presumably more enjoyable) than whatever it is they normally do. It's the contrast from the norm. Same for wilderness. It's whatever is more "wild" than the norm, which will be very different for each person, depending on their "norm" experience.

None of this is to dminish the standard set by the Wilderness Act. It needs to be in place to keep the developers and any others who would, in the blink of an unthinking eye, run roughshod over all the unspoiled places we have in the interest of "progress", thinking that somehow man can always improve on what is already just fine to begin with.

Ultimately, the reality is that not everyone can experience wonderful places like Yosemite, Mt. Whitney, and many many others -- not because that they shouldn't, but only because there are finite limits to things. It's physically and logistically impossible for, say, the entire population of the United States (to go to the extreme) to visit Yosemite (or any other single place of interest) all at the same time, or even staggered out over the course of an entire year. There will always be these kinds of limits. As I see it, the Wilderness Act and other similar regs, so long as they are reasonable, serve to safeguard the treasures that belong to all of us from adverse overuse, so that all of us to whom they belong can unselfishly enjoy them, each in their turn, within the physical limits stated above.

CaT

Insightful that you would have chosen that phrase to discuss, Steve.

There is probably no discussion that occurs more frequently over anything in wilderness than that word: untrammeled.

Perhaps more on that.

You appear to think, Steve, that backpackers, in large numbers, have no impact. Sadly, that is not so.

I take the example of Humphrey's Basin. As you know, this is a very desolate, tree-free (for the most part) moonscape, huge in volume. 5 years ago, they sent up a group of rangers to go though the basin, and clean and restore it. They dismantled over 800 "constructed" campsites, and returned them to pristene condition.

I did not know, until last week, that SEKI employs 2 full time people, who do nothing but climb the eastern passes, and restore campsite areas over the crest. It takes them all summer to go over each pass, and clean up the messes that've been left.

I can easily tell the places that get camped at a lot: I look up. What I see are ropes hanging from tree branches where bear-bagging has failed, over and over again.

How could there be 800 "constructed" campsites in this area? What materials did they "construct" them of mostly above treeline without wood to build with or to burn and no campfires permitted. What could these "campsites" be other than rock windbreaks? No ropes dangling from trees. Something isn't adding up and I'm wondering what we're accomplishing with these tax dollars for moving rocks around.

Humphrey's basin has roughly 60 "lakes," a few big ones but most of them small, many of them more like ponds. So we're paying people to move rocks at 800 sites, on average about 15 sites around each little lake. Think about that, 15 rock sites at each lake, something like Trail Camp. For what purpose? Aren't people going to just move the rocks back over the following years?

Interesting side note: Humphrey's basin is a major horse packing area with great fly fishing. Might there be a connection between these 800 camps and the extra "stuff" they bring in compared to the typical backpacker hiking a load over Piute Pass? Most hikers are headed right by the Humphrey Basin lakes on down to the JMT.

I won't be able to reply for a week or so because we've organized a group camp this weekend and then I'll be doing half the Tahoe Rim Trail and then Shasta with my daughter if all goes as planned. This thread is one of the best ever and I look forward to more debate when I return. Thanks Ken for stirring the pot. We often disagree, but respectfully so.

Wow! This puts a whole new spin on the story of Sisyphus

Ken, there are other ways to help with the problem of constructed campsites than locking people out of the wilderness. Educating hikers would be a good start. I have heard the "leave no trace" concept, but don't recall being asked by a ranger to not build or clear a campsite (though I often do kick sticks, rocks and pine cones back over my bedding spot.) I have heard plenty about fire rings, but not clearing rocks for campsites. Why do we have to prevent and abolish wilderness experiences for thousands of hikers by locking them out with tiny trail quotas, due to the past habits of uneducated ones?

I tend to agree with SierraNevada: Why are they spending so much time moving rocks around? They do the opposite when they build trails. While it is a sign that people have been there before me, I can't think of anyone ever complaining that seeing a cleared campsite reduced their wilderness experience. It would seem to me that putting those rangers to work interacting with hikers on the trail, reminding them of the "Leave No Trace" ethic, and even encouraging hikers to help un-make overbuilt campsites, in the long run, would have a better impact.

Locking people out of the wilderness, blocking access to any wilderness experience at all is the opposite of providing "outstanding opportunities for solitude." There are better ways to manage the wilderness. I'd sure like to make this point to those 100 rangers who think that I "don't get it."

I get the impression that to the rangers, a "constructed campsite" consists of a rock ring, a rock wind-break, and/or logs moved into a user-friendly position for seating. Having seen hundreds of those "constructed campsites," I have never been offended by them, but was often happy to use them.

I agree with you that rangers and trail-crews have more important things to do than kick over rock rings and move logs around so that it gives the (false) impression of a pristine area. Instead, the rangers ought to be searching out and removed those little piles of animal-chewed toilet paper that we see near those "constructed campsites," but maybe that could be considered beyond the "call of duty" (no pun intended)for the rangers. Yes, a lot more time ought to be spent educating hikers, but it is difficult to actually police hikers; a few hikers are going to make a mess anyway.

Wilderness quotas should only be used in heavily used areas like Mt. Whitney or the Bishop Pass trail. I don't have scientific stats on this, but from personal observation in the Eastern Sierra, the quota system has not reduced the number of backpackers in most other areas.

A case in point from last week: I stood in line at 8 AM on Monday to get on the list for a permit for 2 nights at Morgan Lakes, which is over Morgan Pass from Little Lakes Valley, then had to return at the magic hour of 11 AM, waited again for a while until the counter people figured out how to use the new software, finally got my permit printed, and was on my way. At Morgan Lakes, I was the only person camping in the entire area for two nights, and saw one party of day-hikers on Tuesday. The number of day-hikers I saw on the trail in Little Lakes Valley far exceeded the number of backpackers. The whole permit process was a waste of time for myself and the counter staff - who could have been been spending their time doing something more useful.

I do not mean to sound like a nihilist, but I wonder how much that helps, especially with the general public? Of course, I know any education is better than none. On some of the biggest mountains like Denali, Aconcagua, and Everest, where the stakes are higher and the level of experience is greater and where you would think attention would be better, there is base camp education but I have witnessed that for many in the audience, a lot of it went in one ear and out the other. Same thing for the ranger-talks to the crowd waiting at the permit station in Tuolumne, etc. Forced, mandatory group sessions do not seem to work very well. I also know this from my time as a scoutmaster: one on one versus herd-mentality.

One on one is much better. I know that I have learned far, far more from the experiences and teaching of others than from a ranger. It is not his/her fault, it is just the nature of things; time constraints, others waiting,etc, etc. Wouldn't it be great to have the capability to REALLY educate everyone going out into the wilderness?

I have learned a lot of simple things: in 1996 I have a vivid memory of the top of Whitney when another hiker and I compared our trips. I mentioned camping at Wright Creek, and he asked, "were you the guys with the socks hanging to dry right next to the trail?" Yes, I sheepishly admitted that my son and I were the unthinking culprits. He did not say a word else, and did not need to, for I got the message loud and clear. How many other people would learn from such a small event? It's location- location-location. Learning wilderness etiquette like that in permit station is just not the same. On the flip side, I guess bear canister education has been a success.

I guess I'm anticipating the overwhelming anger and disgust that will ensue, when you are required to attend educational briefings before you can begin on your hikes. Of course, in SEKI, that is already required. Has it made a dramatic difference? I doubt it. But no more picking up permits in dropboxes. I'll tell them it was your idea.

I like your idea: Federal employees hired to perform a specific duty- carry out the provisions Wilderness Act- should instead IGNORE the wilderness act, the law of the United States. So far, the FS and Park Service have done really well in Federal Court ignoring federal laws, I like that you think that this is a good expenditure of tax dollars.

We can extend this, I think: We can hire people to pick up litter, but instead, they can ignore litter, and only spend their time harrassing all visitors about not littering. I like the idea of a required 1 hour lecture before being allowed to visit Yosemite. In fact, before being allowed to drive, at all, anywhere.

Sec. 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.

these shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character,.....

....which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable.....

The word "Pristine" does not appear in the Wilderness Act. Thank God. If instead of what it DOES say:

"appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature"

It used the word Pristine, which means:

"1.In its original condition; unspoiled.
2.Clean and fresh as if new; spotless."

My interpretation would be that there would be NO permits issued, or so few as to count on one hand, and the education and enforcement would be onerous.

> I guess I'm anticipating the overwhelming anger and disgust that will ensue, when you are required to attend educational briefings

> should instead IGNORE the wilderness act

> spend their time harrassing all visitors

> My interpretation would be that there would be NO permits issued, or so few as to count on one hand, and the education and enforcement would be onerous.

Good grief, Ken. You seem to want to take everything written and use some type of hyperbole to carry things well beyond what any reasonable person would say or do. Many of those statements could be coming from the likes of Mike Vandeman.

You started this thread out justifying the building of trails, yet now you are advocating locking everyone out. It is not worth continuing a discussion when reason is thrown to the wind.

Steve, it may be simple to assume that all decisions about quotas are done by throwing darts, but it is not so. Here is a paper that describes how it is approached:

http://www.prm.nau.edu/prm300-old/LAC_article.htm

In the meantime, I've got to go out to my local trails and attack cyclists with saws, apparently my new passion. Thirsty work.

Ken, thanks for posting that.

I am not picking sides here, but
that paper is sort of like reading a unnecessarily-lengthy mandated electronic medical record these days - the patient is dead before I finish reading (and comprehending) it.

No kidding, Harvey. However, I'm sure that is how our academic journal articles are looked at by outsiders!

But I think it makes the point that this is not an arbitrary, non-thought out process involving coin flips, and that there is a pedagogy behind the whole thing.

Seems to be that every time somebody tries to make suggestions for "potential management actions that are available", others are quick to shoot them down, because they don't get it.

Well, when those suggestions ignore the potential for:

Damage to Archeologic sites,
Damage to riparian areas,
Damage to nesting areas,
Damage to stream integrity,
Damage to opportunities for solitude,
Damage to vegetation,
Damage to historic sites,
Damage to native animals,
etc, etc....

And the only argument boils down to "I want to do, what I want to do, and to hell with anything or anyone else", and you've heard that particular argument about a thousand times before, by gosh, it is pretty easy to view such "suggestions" somewhat dismissively.

At this point, you've seen some of the background of how these decisions are made. You've not met many of the people involved, which includes a lot of professionals: Archeologists, Geologists, Botanists, Hydrologists, Engineers, etc. All of these things get addressed in a major decision, and I've found these people to be diligent, hard working people.

When we non-agency people walk in with an unsophisticated view of the complexity, and do not address any of the various issues that have to (legally) be addressed, and appear only to be pursuing our own agenda, we are not taken very seriously.....because our suggestions are unserious.

So, in the example of HD, one might ask, if one were suggesting a system that would have a lot more people hiking at night:

Q: There are many species that are active only at night. Are there any species that would be significantly impacted by a large number of people hiking along the HD trail at nite?
Apparent Answer: I don't care.

Q: Inasmuch as a shift of people to night hiking will result in a shift of SAR operations to those hours, is YOSAR prepared to deal with such issues?
Apparent Answer: I don't care.

Q: A lot of people camp at LYV, on the route. Will a large number of nite hikers result in significant traffic and noise through LYV campsites, making sleep difficult for those campers and making their experience deteriorate?
Apparent Answer: I don't care.

........And on and on.

Except, the Agency managers DO care about such things, and have to give consideration to them. (I don't know the Yosemite managers, but I'd think they are similar to the FS managers I know)

Totally agree. But at the rate with with the NPS adopts technology we won't see anything like that for another 5 to 10 years. Consider how long it took for them to get rid of the snail-mail based Whitney permitting process - almost 20 years after the start of the www era.

Yes, indeed, the desk rangers could be doing something more useful - like patrolling backcountry trails. There was a time - sigh - when every trail on the Eastside had a wilderness ranger, and permits could be picked up at a little booth on the way into the Bishop Creek area (even though we often had to camp overnight in line outside the booth to be sure of getting a permit). And all too often the desk staff haven't a clue about actual conditions in the mountains.

But with budget cuts, none of that is possible. Perhaps all that expensive computer software and hardware has taken priority over normal human contact. Anybody know?

Then there was the time when there was no permit system, but we knew where to go, how to take care of ourselves and the environment, and what not to do in bear country.