I'm sure he did not know it, but our Webmaster Steve was the subject of some discussion last week, at a conference of about 100 wilderness rangers who convened for a yearly gathering in Ca.

It had to do with Steve's complaint of going in to the permit office, and getting a limited permit for a trail, only to go out onto that trail and see virtually no people.

The rangers, to a person, responded that Steve had experienced exactly what was in mind when the legal concept of Wilderness was created in 1964, but that he doesn't "get" it.

Unlike other areas of forest, "the land of many uses", where the goal seems to be to maximize possible utilization of resources, wilderness is about minimizing impact and notice of humankind.

Some of the words of that act:

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,

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, 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; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;

I'm sure many people have misunderstandings about wilderness.

why do we have trails if there is to be no sign of humans?
-well, animals do make trails.
-trails concentrate impacts, and preserve the off-trail impacts to a minimum.
-HUGE effort goes into minimizing the ability to see that any work has been done. ie, when cutting overhanging branches, they are cut flush with the trunk, and the cut branches are thrown far from the trail, with the cut ends deposited AWAY from the trail, so you can't tell they were cut. ie, when a tree is cut on a trail, dirt is rubbed onto the cut surface, to make it look old, not fresh.

Ken, I am glad you opened this discussion. I have a significant point to make here and to the rangers. But to think it through, it will take some time.... more coming later.

Sign says no pets, no firearms. I like that. I think I remember seeing another one that said no wheels. Good.

That is a striking picture, Harvey.

Steve, I'd hope you would. And although you are the butt of my little joke, you understand that you are simply the convenient example that allows the point to be made.

All of this is a compromise of some sort. Animals don't cut branches and saw through downed trees to make trails. Human influence is all over the wilderness and it's not all bad. Some of these Rangers are living in cabins in that forbidden wilderness with Oh My God, toilets of some sort. Do they not "get it?"

The stone masonry structure on top of Whitney, let's take that down. Bridges and logs over rivers and creeks, bye bye. Where do you draw the line? It's all a compromise of some sort and that's the intent of the Wilderness Act, not to lock people out.

I think we have a fair mix of different levels of "wild" out there. Whitney and Half Dome are at one extreme of heavy use. At the other end, there are thousands of acres off trail for the hearty adventurer that doesn't want to see another soul or sole print. Plenty of typical trails in between where you might see someone or maybe not depending on day of the week.

I think Steve's point is that it's important get as many people as possible to experience wilderness. Make it easier, not harder. No need to make someone a butt of a joke over that opinion.

Must be an old sign. I believe firearms are now allowed in the National Parks, subject to state and local regs. I assume that includes wilderness areas, but I'm not positive about that.

By the way, what's a human sign doing in the wilderness anyway? I guess it's right on the border so that one is okay.

People who experience the hordes of Whitney and Half-Dome, have not experienced Wilderness, no matter what label is slapped on the map.

Things that predate the Wilderness Act of 1964 were generally exempted from the requirements, such as the Smithsonian Hut, but that does not mean that another could be built.

People often quote the Wilderness Act, without having actually read it, and what it includes, exempts, and covers....and why.

Generally, people just want what they want what they want, and to hell with everybody else, and couldn't care less what the actual law and regulations are.

I wouldn't assume everyone is ignorant of the Wilderness Act. Let's not pretend it's something that it's not. It's a compromise in progress, always will be, and it's working pretty good overall, in my humble opinion.

The more people experience wilderness, the more it will be appreciated and protected for future generations. There are plenty of barriers as it is - cost, time off work, energy, expensive gear, planning, knowledge, etc. We need some type of quota system and people need to be educated, but getting the actual permit to hike on a trail should not be harder than getting a fishing or hunting license.

This reads like a definition of Entitlement


"What is a wilderness experience?" Brings to mind an excellent 1960's jazz gem by Les McCann named Compared to What


To the poor, 'maligned' flip-flop crowd on Half Dome (that some feel a peculiar protective bend towards) the cable experience IS the closest that one has been to the wilderness (count me in that crowd at one time; the Half Dome day hike was my first ever hike)

To the seasoned back-country curmudgeon, encountering one person in seven days may deem the whole experience ruined by a 'population explosion' in north quad of Yosemite.

And.....to a person who has done more navigating in the desert and underwater, two trees together seems like wilderness -- which brings to mind yet another song: Horse With No Name

"The ocean is a desert, with it's life underground,
And a perfect disguise above..."

It's all subjective if you take a survey

So how does one go about getting one quarter of Yosemite all to oneself? The quota would have to be 1 for one trail into the area and 0 for all the other trails into that area. That policy will guarantee a true "wilderness experience" to one lucky person with their spot device and smart phone to email home, track progress on a forum, text from a peak, and post the whole adventure on Facebook before getting back to the car.

Just being facetious, Bee. Who's to say one quad is enough?

This subject can get wildly political very quickly. My opinion is that I should be allowed to go wherever I damn well please when I please to do it, and no government agency or worker should be able to tell me no. Seriously.

But it also shouldn't be on those same agencies and people to save my butt when I have clearly gotten myself in over my head.

I'm wondering which came first: the governments desire to limit these things, or the responsibility for the government to save (and pay for) the people who are trying to get themselves killed. One is definitely the result of the other, there is no doubt in my mind of that.

first: BTW, I am enjoying this discussion...


Ken, what part of the Wilderness Act are you reading that brings you to conclude that those people "have not experienced Wilderness"?

Is the fact that these people are sharing their experience with others (your loosely used term "hordes") make it not wilderness? Looking up some definitions for wilderness, few mention the absence of people. One phrase, "uninhabited or inhabited only by wild animals" means that humans don't live there. But what about camping overnight in tents, or not in tents? I suppose we could debate that, too.

Regardless of what others think, I can say that I don't mind camping a night or two with lots of people in a place as beautiful and stark and expansive as Trail Camp. It is STILL wilderness, even though others are camping around me. I am still out there without anything except what I can carry in on my back, at the mercy of the elements, far from any amenities, far from the safety and security of a roof over my head, impossible to stay there for more than a few days.

I would be curious what the result might be if one were to canvass campers at Trail Camp regarding their views of being there with so many others, as it relates to the place also being wilderness.

I really don't think sharing Mt Whitney, or Half Dome, with "hordes" results in such an outing being called a non-wilderness experience. ...In fact, for Bee's "poor, 'maligned' flip-flop crowd" it IS the closest thing to a wilderness experience they will ever try, while for her "seasoned back-country curmudgeon", it ain't. Statistically, that's something like 100 x wilderness experience, minus 1 for "it ain't". Doing the math, that's a +99.


- - - - -
I haven't even touched the phrase from the Wilderness Act, "outstanding opportunities for solitude", but I sure plan to. I think that is the main place where I really and truly disagree with tight trail quotas and the gatekeepers who make them.

And by the way, I don't mind being called the butt of a little joke. I hope to explain how I think it is your 100 wilderness rangers who "don't get it."

It's kind of funny, but with more than a drop of truth that one quad may not be enough for some. I have really known a few folks who got downright angry if they ran into someone in the back country.

I have seen pix of areas that were nearly destroyed by over-use (some of the Yosemite Valley Meadows come to mind -- especially El Cap area) and I like the fact that restrictions have been put in place to allow the areas to flourish once again.

I spend most of my time in the Tahoe National Forest -- where there are no restrictions, no permits et al, and some of the areas are worse than the city dump.....welcome to the wilderness.

Are those areas ones accessible by day hikers and day-use fishermen, or spots where backpackers have actually ruined the area?

I think it is important to make this distinction, because this discussion is supposed to be about the need for, or absence of permits to access an area. Keep in mind that even at Mt Whitney, anyone can access the area up to Lone Pine Lake, and the MR up to Lower Boy Scout Lake. I find it ironic that Inyo N.F. cited damage of the area below LBSL when they set day hike limits on the Mountaineers Route.

Harvey, did you post that because that sign is at 13,000' and miles from any trail?

Here's a map: Lamarck Col

I must admit that I latched onto the general query of: what is a wilderness experience? Any further refining of the question/discussion will be lost on me, because I am not invested in the topic enough to go beyond a few general observations. I will probably extract myself from the conversation at this point and let the policy wonks take over.

Answer to your question: The worst area I saw for pollution was at the end of a brutal 8mi hike that included a few thousand lost/gained feet in order to finally access a %^&^$#!! polluted lake shore that is a one thousand foot descent (bye-bye hard work..)One could hike in or horseback ride in. The pollution was caused by squatters who had been there who knows how long (squatting is a by-product of zero supervision of the area)

Okay, outta here -- have at it!

Just had good memories of that place-it popped into my head related to this wilderness discussion. The sign at the border notified us of restriction on what we could do there, plus we had a permit, a form of restricting the number of people. Considering the route and/or lack of popularity, none of the hordes of Half Domers or Whitney day hikers will be there. I do not have a solution for "the problem".

That's a really tough one, Bee. I see no way to fix that problem with permits or supervision. Luckily it's very rare, I think, or maybe I've just been lucky not to see it.

There is one way to almost guarantee a remote wilderness experience - get off the trail with the quota. Break out the map and compass and pick a bearing to a destination of your choice. I've had several lakes all to myself even on a July 4th week including northern Yosemite not far from a very popular backpacking lake destination. Not one fire ring. Not even fish, but then again I'm really bad at fishing so maybe they were there.

People seem to like to hoard up in groups and go to the same place every year. If you think about it, you can take advantage of that part of human nature and either participate with them if you want company, or be glad they're all there and not where you are in the back country. It's not that hard to get away from the masses and 99% of them don't want to be alone in the wilderness.

But can anyone guarantee you not to see another person? I think that is asking too much of our government.

Last year I attended the annual USDA Region 5 Ranger Camp at Mono Lake. Region 5 is the Pacific Southwest Region, one of 9 in the country, encompassing California and Hawaii. So it is a big deal. This is a week of lectures, seminars, working groups, and field exercises, and was attended by forest rangers from all over.

One of the seminars described the goals of the Wilderness Act, and told how things were going. A goal touched upon was the issue of solitude, and a local forest supervisor told of efforts to relieve congestion in popular wilderness camping areas. He mentioned Iceberg Lake in particular.

In an area where camping spots (smooth ground with rock walls, improved by campers over the years) were close together, they returned several to their natural state and constructed new ones farther away. Same number of spots but dispersed over a wider area, so neighbors experience more of a solitude effect.

After a while, campers reestablished spots in the original locations, while the newly constructed ones went empty. He showed a couple of before- and after- aerial pictures. He guessed that some people just like to be near other people, or that some people just don't want to walk a longer distance from the trail to set up camp.

I tell you the people I'd like to avoid - the Ranger behind the desk at the station. I'm sick of wasting half a weekend trying to get a piece of paper from them. I understand the need to check in - computers are better than people at that. And I understand the need to educate Joe Public, but after 127 bear lectures and a dozen real encounters with bears, I think I can give a better lecture. Why not get bear safety "certified" and mail out the permit? Do the whole thing online and have real-time GIS info of trail use and emergency contact info. If the Ranger has special condition information, post it online and let everyone know all at once. Half the time the info I get in the station is dead wrong because they've never been where I'm going.

I would love to be able to drive straight to a trailhead Friday night and take off on my schedule. Why do I have to wait around for the Ranger to open shop Saturday morning, listen to the bear lecture again, and then drive to the trailhead? I could be 10 miles down the trail.

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

One partial solution that Inyo and its partners at the VC seem not have considered is a system that Yosemite has adopted, modifying the permit-by-trailhead rule. Most rangers and permit literature will explain to you that your permit does not depend on your destination, but only the trailhead you use. Not so In Yosemite. For the Happy Isles (JMT) and Glacier point trailheads, there are separate quotas for certain first-night destinations, such as Little Yosemite Valley and Illilouette watershed. This is apparently to accommodate through hikers, who will typically blow right past the overused LYV site, hardly spending any time at all in the overused areas.

Why not institute a similar accommodation at the southern end of the JMT? I have long thought that it is an unfair and irrational restriction on would-be JMT through hikers wanting the classic south to north hike to make them compete with Whitney round trippers for trail access. ALmost as irrational as the current supposed trailhead permits which do not restrict access at the trailhead, but only at LPL and LBSL. How many JMT through hikers are going to be interested or satisfied with the mere 6 miles for the first day, to camp at TC with the Horde? Some, maybe, but even those would be spending far less time in the Whitney Zone then any over night permit holder, and use the trail less than a day tripper.

I would propose at least a no-TC permit, like the Yosemite no- LYV permits for Happy Isles and Glacier Point, and maybe a one-night only permit. This could take some pressure off the Yosemite trail heads, and accommodate the classic JMT route, without adding appreciably to the impacts in the WZ.

BTW: worst back-country dump I ever saw was Mirror Lake back in the day. Anyone remember that?

Beauty is to the beholder. Everyone can define this the way the want...and I do not have a problem with that. I do not consider Half Dome and Mt. Whitney wilderness during the three-season but the latter can be during the winter.

For me, it's the lack of people, even over highly traveled trails. I've been up Ice House Canyon and Mt. Baden-Powell at night and all I've seen are bright eyes staring at me. These are places that are not considered wilderness most days of the year but they were those nights.

The same applies to winter travel. I've was up Charlton and Baden-Powell this past winter where I did not see another person all day.

Let alone being off the gird.

Hate to break it to you, but there's a good trail for the entire north approach to Lamarck. South side has a good trail for a hundred vert or so, then a reedunkulous number of ducks leading through the talus to another trail headed through the Darwin Bench. Jus' sayin'.

My wilderness is BIGGER than yours!

Unrelated - desk rangers are a necessity because we don't have a minimum IQ requirement to go into the mountains.

One of them is necessary.

I guess he meant not a maintained trail like the JMT, so that was the distinction of making Lamarck a more-wilderness location. Of course, one could say there are very few true wilderness routes anywhere in the Sierras as there have been animal or Indian trails for centuries.

getting back to the point:
Same thing with NPS here in the east. They want to revegetate overused rocky outcrops like Mary's Rock on the AT, remove other similar sites that may have guardrails or walls.
Mary's Rock

How about numbers of people? The most classic Virginia hike is Old Rag mountain with a small bit of low grade scrambling. It now has a day-permit system of sorts. So instead, I just go midweek in the winter when there are far fewer people and better air clarity.

"an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man"

"retaining its primeval character and influence,"

"without permanent improvements"

"protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions "

"with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable"

"outstanding opportunities for solitude"

Seems to violate almost EVERY line and defining element of wilderness, eh? As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words:



Is that part of what I'm saying clear, Steve?

That's the meeting I just returned from. Sorry I didn't make it last year, to hang with you Bob!

Can't be, since this wilderness belongs to me. I'm just really good at sharing.

And, oh, irony: this coming from the guy who doesn't believe in permits.

(But I agree with you, my sweet!)

Oh, I believe in permits. Permits are for folks who filter Sierra water directly into their bear can.

Yeah, I don't want to lower the employment rate in Bishop, and someone has to sell those Smokey Bears and T-shirts anyway. Some people rely on desk Rangers to plan their entire trip for them. Ever been stuck in line behind that scene? There goes another hour of daylight. Just mail me the piece of paper please. Unless you don't bother with it, eh Burchey. I'm just quoting Laura.

They are finally starting to direct mail permits for Desolation Wilderness through Recreation.gov. Finally. Now if the rest of the Forests and Parks can figure it out...

Timing is everything. This is a Friday morning in July. It's the same at the ice cream stand in the Valley, you can have it all to yourself at 10am or stand in line at 2pm.

If only we could figure out a way to hollow out the torso of the rangers, make them into a mobile solar toilet - use the blank permit slips to wipe with. Solved!

Of course: Go wherever I damn well please when I please to do it. But why stop there? Clear cut the woods, build a cabin (or a 37 room house), dam the stream (or just crap in it), and... (ok, I'll stop before getting more colorful).

For many people, a wilderness experience might be one of the following:

1. A Country music concert
2. A night alone at a Motel 6
3. A really bad day at work
4. Enduring the poor English grammar of some news anchors (they went to college, where?).
5. Attempting to define the term "Wilderness Experience."

Any more additions to the list?

Sorry, I can't help it... This is such a serious topic...LOL.

And that's not an overreaction or anything, right? It's not even close to what I said. I'm not talking about taking over the land. I'm talking about being allowed to visit it. You know, since our tax dollars pay for it and all.

I don't stand in the way of others from doing what they want, and in return, I don't want anyone standing in mine. But I also don't expect to have someone come to my rescue when I screw the pooch. I just don't see what doesn't seem fair about that.

What I wrote went well beyond what you said and I'm sure it was not what you meant. You are probably a very reasonable person. I obviously intended to be hyperbolic. Along with going where you want to go, when you want to go there, is doing what you want to do. Just being there has some impact and many people like to do things that escalate the impact rather quickly. So, limits come into the discussion. Indeed, they are the discussion. In the civilized world, limits are a function of government.

"I don't stand in the way of others from doing what they want, and in return, I don't want anyone standing in mine. But I also don't expect to have someone come to my rescue when I screw the pooch. I just don't see what doesn't seem fair about that."

I believe that would be the operating principle in Mogadishu, but you don't live there. The public lands are held in trust for ALL Americans, not just the ones who would defile them any way that want, because they are "theirs". You've obviously never owned property with someone else, or you would know that you have to make collective decisions for both your benefits.
If you've lived in an apartment, you don't simply bang on the walls, because it is "yours".

This was all laid out a long, long time ago in "The Tragedy of the Commons", and explains why your approach inevitably leads to the destruction of the resource. Every time.

Great concept of wilderness, I guess. Closed Ice cream stands or streets of new york:

My .02, which is perhaps only really worth .01....

Like so many other things in life, the few ruin it for the many (or in this case, have the many ruined it for the few? :confused:) .

I've lived in many apartments over the years, and it comes down to mutual respect. I don't bang on the walls because I don't want my neighbor to do it. That way we can both enjoy a higher quality of life. Unfortunately, there's always that drunk neighbor that turns the music up at 3am and knocks the dresser over.

Some people just don't understand how to be respectful, and as such, have ruined it for those who can.

Living right on the edge of Tahoe Nat'l Forest, there are plenty of places to visit where I won't see people, and the land is relatively untouched. And then there are areas where people have used and abused.

I guess to me, the question becomes how effective enforcement is. One example that comes to mind is the Kalalau Trail in Kauai. The permit process is respected by those that are most likely to respect the land. All of the squatters that go in and disrespect the land also abuse/ignore the regulations. Due to the remote nature, many are able to get away it for a long time. It's taken its toll on the area, and unfortunately has made the process more complicated than it feels like it should be to someone like me, who follows the regs. And despite the rules and attempts at enforcement, there are still people that 'sneak' in and overstay their welcome, to the detriment of the wilderness. So how effective, then, are the regulations imposed? It's seemingly the wilderness equivalent of preaching to the choir.

Another prime and local example would be the WAG bag situation, but I prefer not to go down that road.

For many, myself certainly included, the whole thing is really just sad. Sad that I have to jump through all the hoops. Sad that others cannot respect nature or each other properly. It just feels wrong to be in the "wilderness" when there are so many rules, regulations and steps just to get there!

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.

Ken: I am impressed that Steve is still discussing this with you. You should feel complimented. I usually just give up on people who make up stuff to argue with, rather than responding to what I am actually saying.

As for the careful consideration that quota determinations supposedly receive. Sure, we know that all kinds of things are supposed to be taken into consideration, all kinds of complex environmental and historical factors, to arrive a the very carefully considered permit quotas. And I am sure all the factors get looked at. But, come on: isn't it a just little coincidental that all that complex multivariate analysis of the Whitney Zone results in the precise, round numbers of exactly 60 overnight and 100 day-use permits? And is that consistent with say Happy Isles: 40 overnight and unlimited day use?

BTW: if you are tromping through the LYV campsites in the wee hours, or any time for that matter, you are about 100 yards off the trail, and missed the JMT turnoff by a lot more than that.

Managers from both the Park Service (NPS) and the Forest Service (USFS) have legal requirements to comply with. They are not free to apply their or your definition of "wilderness experience". Both the Congress and the State of California are in the regulatory game. The requirements managers are subject to and their methods used in response are available to the public. For a beginning example for each:

NPS:
Role of Science in Sustainable Management
of Yosemite Wilderness
Jan W. van Wagtendonk
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p027/rmrs_p027_225_230.pdf

USFS:
Cole, D. and T. Carlson. 2010.
Numerical visitor capacity: A guide to its use in wilderness.
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station
RMRS-­-GTR-­-247,
Ft.Collins,Colorado.
http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/docu...0Wilderness.pdf

There is a lot more information about what has been done and why. You have to decide whether you want to know what is going on and change whatever laws may conflict with your desires or if you want to keep reinventing what are already broken wheels under current regulations, practice, and experience and blaming managers for your lack of knowledge.

Dale B. Dalrymple

I'm back a day and half early from my 80 miler on the Tahoe Rim Trail, due to the excellent construction of the trail system, ultralight gear, and wanting to get back to my family. I averaged 23 miles a day and witnessed a courteous mingling of mountain bikers, day hikers, trail runners and only a few backpackers mostly camped at popular sites. I had many hours of solitude hiking each morning - plenty for me. The problem with this trail is running back into some type of civilization about every 20 miles. In between those times, there is a lot of "wilderness experience" to be had with spectacular views. I was pleasantly surprised.

The TRT is unique with mostly non-designated wilderness, but it offers modern lessons in how to manage wild areas. The areas I went through were managed by a variety of agencies. The TRT Association, and others in this half of the trail - especially Nevada State Parks, have invested in facilities, signs, and information boards at each major trailhead, and a wilderness campground with a new water pump, bear boxes, tables, and Oh My God, toilets. The only litter I saw on the trail was a laminated fishing regulations sign (CA DFG) that fell off the tree it was nailed to. The take-away lesson I see is that people respect nice facilities that are maintained. If society is willing to invest in such things, people tend to respect it and are more likely to pick up after the losers who would ruin it. Time will tell if the maintenance investment will continue, but the concept is clear to me. Simple education is also a key factor and should not be downplayed. It means a lot more when it comes in the field than by being forced to sit through an office lecture or slideshow.

After reading the papers posted by Dale, one conclusion is consistent in each document: trailhead quotas are not a standalone solution and should only be used where necessary in conjunction with other management strategies. Other factors are equally or more important in determining the quality of a "wilderness experience."

It's nice you were able to get out of the wilderness and go. As you point out, you don't need wilderness to have a wilderness experience.

Dale B. Dalrymple

I have been very frustrated with the permit system for quite a while now. I do a decent amount of climbing in the Eastern Sierra, but rarely bother with Mt. Whitney and especially not during the quota period. It has been impossible for me to dayhike Russell because in order to do so I would have to wait around the morning of the hike to wait for a permit. I know the NF well, stay on the established trail, and don't go near the zoo that is Whitney so why should I have to be included in the mess that is the Whitney Zone permit process. The same issues apply to my attempts to climb the East Face/Buttress on Whitney (regarding getting a permit for an under used route, although obviously contradicts my sentiment above for avoiding whitney in general).

Even more absurd is the process for getting a permit in other areas of the Sierra. We are heading up to North Pal this weekend which I am sure there will be no one up there, maybe one other party at most.I tried to use the wonderful recreation.gov site and it repeatedly froze and I was unable to get the permits. I called the wilderness permit office and was told I needed to call recreation.gov to book the permit and pay all kinds of absurd reservation and processing fees for my "free" permit then I would have to call back to the permit office to request it be put in the night drop box. Option 2 is that I have to go on Sat morning before we begin our climb, which is fine except that I will have to go through the entire "lottery" process to get a spot in line to get a permit for the trail which will be empty. I know from past experience to set aside an hour for this. It feels that all the process is extremely cumbersome. I am an experience climber and backpacker and frequent the are often. My preferred trips are leaving Thursday or Friday after work and passing through LP late at night, getting to the TH, and then attempting my climb. It is ridiculous to have to add an additional day onto a weekend trip just for the sake of walking into the permit office to be told for the 100th time to camp 100 feet from water and pack out my trash.

I don't understand why there is not a more simplified way to get a permit and why some of the quotas are so ridiculously low. We went out of South Lake last year to do the Palisades Traverse and managed to get the "last 2 permits" yet once we got more than a couple of miles from the trailhead, we never saw another person. I know it is not an easy balance to provide access while preserving the area, but it is starting to get absurd that I can't go climbing on "public" land between May and September or if I do it becomes an ordeal to secure a permit without planning my trip 6 months in advance. A lot of the climbs are deeper in the backcountry and require a significant amount of approach time and are far from the high-use areas, yet I am essentially restricted from getting there due to the time-constraints of the permit process and the often very-low quota for many trails.

Yep, you've got it right.

The question I've always had is whether the permit system actually reduces the numbers of hikers. Are there any statistics to prove or dis-prove that the quotas actually work? Perhaps Mt. Whitney is the only trail where it has any effect.

All the online system and desk ranger system does is waste tax-payers money, when it could be better spent hiring wilderness rangers. The computer system in use at the permit counters is very difficult for them to use, and adds to the waste of time and money.

True confessions: there are a few less-travelled trails where I do not get a permit, because I will probably be the only person there...and certainly no F.S. staff. (I'm sure someone on this forum will scream about this...LOL.)

I can't speak to that exact number, but I don't find it at all surprising. Once again, it depends on what you're willing to accept as far as wilderness experience goes. People love constructing stuff from rock. It's some sort of primal urge. So you come to a place like Guitar Lake where everyone wants to build a wall of rock to define their campsite. It looks, as one ranger commented, like Machu Pichu. Would you get more of a sense of an isolated, wilderness experience if those walls weren't there and so visible? I like to think so.

From the mid-1970s to the mid-90s, thousands (literally) of these types of developed sites were removed from the wilderness parks. They included fire pits and garbage in amongst the charcoal; nails in trees; boards between trees for shelves; stoves; camp chairs made out of stumps and boards; rock walls; tables (up to 4 feet high) made out of piled rocks and can dumps hidden amongst the willows and rocks.

A survey was just completed comparing both the number and size of campsites since that effort started in the 70s. There are significantly fewer campsites and those that still exist have a smaller "footprint" (less bare ground; fewer if any "improvements"; recovered vegetation).

Doing so -- and continuing to do so -- gives visitors a sense that it's a wild place and that few have been there before them. That's the idea when you boil all this stuff down. It's partially illusory, of course, but it's why there's trailhead limits, minimum impact regulations etc.

It's also worth noting that for individuals, wilderness experience is a moving target and changes with time and experience. The first few trips you don't notice a lot of these intrusions or people -- it's all great (one hopes...). But as you travel more (and that's not "you" personally -- kind of the universal 'you') that bar is often drastically reduced. People notice garbage; large groups traveling together; developed campsites etc.

So, yes, supporting "moving rocks around" using tax dollars seems like a pretty good effort to me (of course, I'm a beneficiary of those tax dollars but I like to think the wilderness public is as well).

George

PS: Moose. The Lamarck trail from the east side was constructed (I think) by Art Schober, a packer who was trying to establish a trail just before it became a park in 1940. He assumed it if was already there and "established" he could bring people in that way. Didn't really work but a good try. There's even the remnant of a couple of switchbacks on the park side but no farther.

There are curious and interesting nuggets in the posts here and in the references/links given above. One is in the idea that numbers of people must be kept to some very low number in order to maintain wilderness.

I think most of this idea is rooted in the phrase of the Wilderness Act of 1964, "has outstanding opportunities for solitude". I would like to point out that "outstanding opportunities" by no means requires wilderness managers to ensure most people will experience solitude most of the time while hiking on a man-made trail.

What I read in that phrase is this: The wilderness should have ample space where people can go to find solitude. There is a big difference between hiking on a trail IN solitude, and hiking into a wilderness area and, if one so chooses, being able to wander off and be completely alone.

I'd like to point out that, even on the trail to Half Dome, I could take anyone able to walk off trail, and show them complete and utter solitude, in about ten minutes. And those "outstanding opportunities for solitude" existed before any quotas were applied to Half Dome. I really hate to use the Half Dome trail as the example, though, because it is such an exception to nearly all the other trails in the Sierra, where visitation and use are a miniscule fraction of the Half Dome numbers.

In the Yosemite N.P. paper linked by dbd, "Role of Science in Sustainable Management
of Yosemite Wilderness", their scientific research "found that visitors to Vernal Falls had an absolute tolerance for four times as many people in the viewscape as their stated preference"

There are a few like Bee's "seasoned back-country curmudgeon, encountering one person in seven days may deem the whole experience ruined by a 'population explosion' in north quad of Yosemite".

But there are far more of the other type, found in Yosemite's Vernal Falls study, and those found by the Inyo Rangers noted by Bob R, where campers at Iceberg Lake in the Whitney Zone, preferred camp sites close to each other, and abandoned dispersed sites provided by the rangers.

In the LAC paper (Limits of Acceptable Change) cited by Ken, Stephen McCool makes the point that wilderness managers jumped at using "carrying capacity as a paradigm or model of visitor management". Continuing, McCool wrote: "Such managers had a strong, biologically based educational background, and generally went into these professions to avoid working with people, rather than being attracted to the idea of managing recreational opportunities for the benefits to people they produce. Therefore, it was a relatively easy conceptual leap to visualizing the management problems induced by the hordes of visitors coming to such areas as a function of the landscape's carrying capacity being exceeded."

The point I would like to make is that very small trail quotas have been applied due to a misinterpretation of that often quoted phrase in the Wilderness Act of 1964, and that rather than providing "outstanding opportunities for solitude" to a reasonable number of people, the wilderness gatekeepers are actually preventing any opportunities for any wilderness experience at all to far too many people.

Steve, I'm not sure why you continue to deliberately misinterpret things, then trot them out as examples of your position? For example:



You tout this as an example of why things are wrong. But you fail to mention that what you are citing is the ABANDONED system, that is NO LONGER USED, and hasn't for some time.



Here is the crux, eh?

You are asserting that the folks who enjoy crowds of people should predominate over those who don't....when walking the trails in wilderness. You would require those who would like to experience solitude, to have to go off-trail, on cross-country jaunts. You have staked out the trails for one group of users, those like you.

By your definition, areas that are not in wilderness would be the same experience, because you can find areas in which you can be by yourself. Yosemite Valley would be so defined. Lost Lake Park in Fresno would be so defined.

Inasmuch as 95% of Sierra wilderness travellers go by way of trails (my guess), you would deprive the vast, vast majority of users of one of the defining traits of a wilderness.

No different than those who want to cut the trees, dam the waters, mine the minerals, build airstrips, build buildings.....all centered around what THEY want, not what is required by law. You are on the same side as those who claim that bicycles should be allowed in wilderness. Now THAT would be fun on HD!

The reality is, a whole lot of people want to hike the same exact few trails, loving it to death. You appear to want to increase the pressure on those trails. 10,000 is not enough on Whitney? 20,000? 30,000? While few climb Williamson, White, Langley, in comparison. Olancha, Muah, even Trail Peak.

People complain about permits and quotas? How about going over Trail Pass. There is NO QUOTA. How about hiking in the South Sierra Wilderness. There are NO QUOTA. How about the Domeland Wilderness. PERMITS NOT REQUIRED. Golden Trout Wilderness, except for two trailheads, NO QUOTAS.

I'm in favor of minimizing fire rings and makeshift camp furniture and of course hauling out cans and trash. The example presented by Ken was "800 campsites in the Humphrey's basin area." Unless someone is packing lumber into this moonscape, there isn't much to work with other than rocks. And I believe campfires are not allowed at that elevation even if one could find wood. As for Machu Pichu sites, some rock moving might be in order in remote places, but do we need to create an illusion that one is the first ever to see Guitar Lake or Trail Camp?

Just curious if anyone knows, what are the use numbers for Humphrey's Basin comparing visitors on horseback vs backpackers? Do we even know what percentage are backpackers camping in this area? Humphrey's basin doesn't seem like a fair example to support low trailhead quotas for backpackers.

Ken,
I think the discussion would be more civil if you stuck to what you think, observe, and believe, rather than claiming what others think based on written words. You have lots of great experience to draw on without quoting others, in or out of context. Words, by themselves, make up only a small fraction of actual communication. Reading between the lines can make things even more confused.

This has been a very interesting thread, but I'm not exactly sure what anyone's position is for every situation in the Wilderness. I'm pretty sure Steve is not in favor of mountain bikes flying down the Half Dome cables.