Westy
Trail Wise!
Diagnosed w/Post-Trail Transition Syndrome
Posts: 1,962
|
Post by Westy on Mar 7, 2016 11:19:41 GMT -8
Here in Utah if it's not a road, it is a road.
Just ask San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 11:25:28 GMT -8
In the one case you state that all hikers are required to registered near you, and in the second you seem to suggest that hikers don't have to register as long as they're passengers and not drivers. And here I would again argue that it doesn't really matter how one gets to the trailhead; a hiker is a hiker once they step foot on the Hunt Trail, and they should all be treated the same and have the same requirements. So in two long threads and spurious complaints about who knows what all, maybe you have a valid concern there. If everyone were stressing that point, I might agree with them. But it is just one of many ways AT thru-hikers and their sympathizers seem to play the victim here. It is kind of subjective, but I just cannot muster a tear for any of them. I place absolutely no value on make-believe "crowns" and the need to claim them.
|
|
|
Post by tipiwalter on Mar 7, 2016 11:26:20 GMT -8
Frankly, as I've already stated, I have no issue with quotas, lotteries, permits, specific LNT requirements, and the like, as long as it's applied across the board. Sometimes it's necessary. But to suggest that the system is being overwhelmed by 3% of the users of the Park and rules are being put into place that only apply to that 3%? I return to my point of view that if applying the rules to everyone and enforcing them hasn't been tried (and it hasn't), then moving up to the next level of restriction (and only applying it to some people) doesn't make any sense. All here should study the recent fee changes in the Great Smoky Mt NP. To make it short, all backpackers must now register for a permit and pay a nightly $4 fee. More onerous, each backpacker must say in advance which campsite (out of about a 100) that person will be camping at and make a suitable reservation. Say I want to pull a usual 18 day backpacking trip in the Park. I would have to make three 7-day trip outlines and tell them where I will be camping on Day 3 and Day 8 and Day 12 and Day 17: IMPOSSIBLE to do. A max trip in the Smokies is 7 days for a flat fee of $20---then you combine another 7-day trip and another to add up to 18 days etc. Ponderous and useless. And get this: The Park is 500,000 acres and yet the head tent police designate out of that 500,000 only about 200 acres for camping overnight. (100 campsites x approx. 2 acres per campsite = 200). I could find a thousand campsites for my big Hilleberg tent on 500,000 acres. And this is a mind blower: While dayhikers are not charged a fee or need a permit, and while the millions of cars entering the park are not charged a single dollar fee, Backpackers on the other hand get to pay a users fee. The real mind blower is that the GSMNP has the worse air pollution for any Park in the U.S. and yet the park cops don't require a $20 car entrance fee or close the Cades Cove road or institute a car quota system.
|
|
reuben
Trail Wise!
Gonna need more Camels at the next refugio...
Posts: 11,215
|
Post by reuben on Mar 7, 2016 11:30:37 GMT -8
The whole thing would probably be more interesting if we were more pithy. Or more pithy if we were more interesting. My money's on Travis. He's barely even started to change font size, color, bold, underline highlight, or anything else. He's got lots in reserve, and he knows how to do some research, which irritates the crap out of some other people.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Mar 7, 2016 11:31:08 GMT -8
The park authority's webpage on the overall topic: www.baxterstateparkauthority.com/hiking/at.htmBottom line is the area was designed and endowed as a wildlife reserve with limited recreational access, so long as that recreational access does not impact the central mission of the park: "Percival Baxter clearly stated his goal was to place preservation of natural resources as a priority over the recreational use of his park."
|
|
|
Post by Jester 2000 on Mar 7, 2016 11:31:17 GMT -8
I place absolutely no value on make-believe "crowns" and the need to claim them. If you haven't worn a Burger King crown around all day, I highly recommend it. It's pretty fun.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Mar 7, 2016 11:33:10 GMT -8
And Jester makes it a 3 way cage match. I thought Tipi dropped out after slipping Travis' jabs, but he's back! And pulling HSF into the match. I'm lovin' it. DC, we're gonna need more beer and peanuts. Sorry: simply all out of gold coins. (Zork reference)
|
|
|
Post by tipiwalter on Mar 7, 2016 11:34:17 GMT -8
Permits are required for going up Half-dome. The presence of a road doesn't negate the legal need for such a permit. And for the most part, that works. Similarly for any overnight camping on the trails near Toulumne Meadows. I'm unsure exactly what point you were trying to make there. My point is beyond simple: If the roads skirting below Half Dome were not there, maybe just maybe permits for the Dome would not be required. It would place the Dome too damn far for the casual tourist to reach. Excellent solution. And Toulumne Meadows is a no-brainer. It's a national park so close Highway 120 and the Meadows will only be reachable on foot, ergo perhaps no permits needed. Overuse comes with car and road access surrounding roadless backcountry. Pull these access lines away or back them off and you've got less usage.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Mar 7, 2016 11:39:45 GMT -8
"The real mind blower is that the GSMNP has the worse air pollution for any Park in the U.S. and yet the park cops don't require a $20 car entrance fee or close the Cades Cove road or institute a car quota system."
The real mind blower is not being aware of the federal law negotiated with the states that established that the major highway that bisects the park serving surrounding towns and cities cannot have a toll imposed. Those roads as well as roads within that fantastical 50 mile radius are used by far more than people intending to use the trails.
And the air pollution, of course, doesn't originate within the park. Much like the air pollution in Yosemite valley is from air that drifts in from the central valley..
[okay, ONE coin].
So okay: a global pandemic that slashes the human population by 90% would comically reduce the traffic on the Half Dome Cables, the Yosemite Section of the JMT and the Baxter section of the AT as well as the Whitney climb. Do land managers wait for the apocalypse or deal with their resource management responsibilities consistent with their legal responsibilities as laid out in their various enabling legislative acts (which, BTW, are NOT focused like a laser on some "purity of hiking" imaginary angel) until that glorious day arrives? [insert The Walking Dead theme]
Zombies DO look like they'd be easier to manage what with their low hiking speed.... but the dropped body parts littering problem would soar.
|
|
|
Post by tipiwalter on Mar 7, 2016 11:42:33 GMT -8
Bottom line is the area was designed and endowed as a wildlife reserve with limited recreational access, so long as that recreational access does not impact the central mission of the park: "Percival Baxter clearly stated his goal was to place preservation of natural resources as a priority over the recreational use of his park." Percival Baxter said: "It has long been my purpose to create in our forests a large area wherein the State may practice the most modern methods of forest control reforestation and production…. I want this township to become a showplace for those interested in forestry, a place where a continuing timber crop can be cultivated, harvested, and sold, where reforestation and scientific cutting will be employed, an example and an inspiration to others. What is done in our forests today will help or harm the generations who follow us." Percival P. Baxter, 1955 In other words, out of 209,000 acres, Baxter SP allows logging on 30,000 of these acres, in the northern part of the park. Here's a pic of Baxter logging: I personally would not equate logging with "preservation of natural resources". Just the roads bulldozed in to do the logging seems a terrible scar.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Mar 7, 2016 11:50:07 GMT -8
And the actual managers of the land would apparently disagree: and so would Aldo Leopold.
Without looking into it I would surmise that the former landowners, various logging companies, required those rights as a part of the deal to turn over the land to Baxter: much like the road across GSMNP was negotiated toll free as a part of the states allowing the park to be established or the dairy farms in Pt. Reyes etc.
|
|
BlueBear
Trail Wise!
@GoBlueHiker
Posts: 3,224
|
Post by BlueBear on Mar 7, 2016 12:17:16 GMT -8
My point is beyond simple: If the roads skirting below Half Dome were not there, maybe just maybe permits for the Dome would not be required. It would place the Dome too damn far for the casual tourist to reach. Excellent solution. And Toulumne Meadows is a no-brainer. It's a national park so close Highway 150 and the Meadows will only be reachable on foot, ergo perhaps no permits needed. Overuse comes with car and road access surrounding roadless backcountry. Pull these access lines away or back them off and you've got less usage. Yes, completely simple, huh. A bit departed from reality, and it ignores any of the legal compromises that were put in place to allow the formation of any of those parks in the first place (there would be no GSMNP at all if it wasn't for that road toll exemption)... but in your head it's trivially simple. Just close all roads to all popular places and the problems will all solve themselves. I'll defer to HSF's question. Do land managers wait for the apocalypse or deal with their resource management responsibilities consistent with their legal responsibilities as laid out in their various enabling legislative acts (which, BTW, are NOT focused like a laser on some "purity of hiking" imaginary angel) until that glorious day arrives?
|
|
markskor
Trail Wise!
Mammoth Lakes & Tuolumne Meadows...living the dream
Posts: 651
|
Post by markskor on Mar 7, 2016 13:16:33 GMT -8
My point is beyond simple: If the roads skirting below Half Dome were not there, maybe just maybe permits for the Dome would not be required. It would place the Dome too damn far for the casual tourist to reach. Excellent solution. And Toulumne Meadows is a no-brainer. It's a national park so close Highway 150 and the Meadows will only be reachable on foot, ergo perhaps no permits needed. Overuse comes with car and road access surrounding roadless backcountry. Pull these access lines away or back them off and you've got less usage. Not "beyond simple" but a possible solution to the Half Dome/Whitney dilemma. Take them both out of the Wilderness Designation and designate a new category - (improved wilderness?) Maybe 200 yards wide and 11 miles long - (Whitney), this would allow for: Improvements - additional bathrooms and maintenance - much needed, plus someone to police activities on site. Additionally you could establish realistic quotas and charge a reasonable fee to cover all. RE: Tuolumne...Closing 120 would get some opposition from the local businesses along 395; the corridor open is the driving force to the local summer economy.
|
|
rebeccad
Trail Wise!
Writing like a maniac
Posts: 12,711
|
Post by rebeccad on Mar 7, 2016 13:52:32 GMT -8
RE: Tuolumne...Closing 120 would get some opposition from the local businesses along 395; the corridor open is the driving force to the local summer economy. At the risk of getting embroiled in this fascinating debate, I would also like to note that the JMT problem is NOT dayhikers in Tuolumne who drove there. It really is the through-hikers and section hikers on the JMT/PCT, who crowd the trail corridor. I suppose that if you said you had to start in Sacramento if you want to hike the JMT that would reduce numbers, but that seems...irrelevant. You know, a shocking number of people both drive to/into the parks AND hike them. Many of those people are not free to take an 18-day trip and walk the whole way. It would be a better world if we all were so free, of course, but... My personal solution for crowded trails and overused areas? Go somewhere else. If it has a quota and you have to get a permit months in advance, odd are I'm not there.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Mar 7, 2016 14:02:26 GMT -8
It's very possible the access to the HD cables is already outside the designated wilderness or at least portions thereof. (there's a bathroom building just across the bridge...).... there's probably a map somewhere. And yes, once an item get's touted as a tourist destination wilderness designation seems incompatible if that tourist use is to run it's course... In the recent Half Dome plan that was one of the alternatives: "Remove Half Dome Trail from Designated Wilderness Under this alternative, the NPS would recommend to Congress that the Yosemite Wilderness boundaries, as designated in the 1984 California Wilderness Act, be redrawn to remove the Half Dome Trail from designated wilderness. Section 3 (e) of the 1964 Wilderness Act describes the option for boundary adjustment. Doing this would allow the NPS to manage the Half Dome Trail as non-wilderness and would not require the NPS to consider the concept of solitude or the minimum requirement for installation of structures. This alternative is not consistent with the purpose and need of this plan to protect wilderness character. Under this alternative, rather than being a guiding purpose, wilderness character would become irrelevant because Half Dome and the trail leading to Half Dome would be removed from wilderness. This alternative would also not meet the goal of improving safety because existing use levels, which have been shown to impede free-flow on the cable route, would continue. The safety considerations that form part of the purpose and need for this plan exist regardless of the area’s status as wilderness. " www.nps.gov/yose/learn/management/upload/Final_HD-FONSI-package.pdfPage 11 offers a good layout of the rationale for the permitting and quite alternative that was chosen over other alternatives, including asking Congress to eliminate the corridor from the designated wilderness.
|
|