Fairweather

I agree. The USFS roads were built to support consumerism (logs, mines) and recreation was just a side gig with a little designated wilderness thrown in after 1964 to placate the hippies. But the roads remain, and I think they now serve just as valuable a public purpose. One of my favorite enviro-philosophers, Holmes Rolston III, points out something I think is worth considering in this regard when he says “wildlands absorb a kind of urban negative disvalue and provide a niche that meets deep seated psychosomatic needs.” And Baird Callicott considers wilderness recreation to be an "escape valve" for our capitalist malaise. Anyway, all kinds of value in wilderness. Too bad we can't all agree on what it is. Best metaphor I've read in a long time.

I think you're mostly right. While "front country" use has increased, back country use has leveled off or, in some areas, begun to decline. Part of the problem is demographics. As minority populations in the US continue to grow, interest in hiking/climbing/camping drops commensurate with. The USFS has made much of this--you may have noticed the new billboards promoting the benefits of wilderness to children of color. In any event, it seems to me this is likely more of a socioeconomic issue than a racial one, but it's a sensitive subject for sure. Part of the problem remains, I believe, a betrayal of wilderness recreationalists by dogmatic environmentalists. It's ironic that you mention Harvey Manning, because the end-of-life feud between he and his longtime friend, Ira Spring, sums up the issue pretty well and is at the core of the roads debate. Here is a quote from Ira Spring's autobiography: “We may be appalled at 3,000 or more people a day walking the Paradise trails at Mount Rainier or 30,000 a year hiking to Snow Lake in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, but if that is what it takes for the support of trails to the year 2015, so be it. It is up to us to figure out how to accommodate so many people without harming the temple.” I spent a few days in Olympic NP earlier this week and it was sad to see not a single sole at Royal Basin--a supposed "quota area"--or on the trail over Constance Pass. In fact, the trail up from the long-closed Dosewallips is badly in need of maintenance and the boot path toward Mount Mystery has faded away. Some would say this is a good thing. I think it's kind of sad.

Trip: Royal Basin to Constance Pass - High Alpine Traverse Route Date: 8/20/2013 Trip Report: Greg and I did another one of the Olympic Guidebook's "high alpine traverse routes" earlier this week. Traveling from our camp in Upper Royal Basin, we crossed over the divide into the incredibly beautiful meadows of Deception Basin, then down Deception Creek and around the back side of Mount Mystery--through nightmarish slide alder--where we emerged in the valley and snowfields north of Gunsite Notch. From here we descended the south side of the notch to a nice meadow campsite at the source of Twin Creek. In the morning we ascended DelMonte Ridge, then dropped down steep, hard scree to Sunny Brook Meadows where we picked up the trail to Constance Pass. From here, we hiked out the Dungeness Trail. The loop is 27 miles total, with 8 miles of off-trail. Also, the route does not climb Mystery Glacier to its head, rather, it drops below and around Mount Mystery, completely encircling it. Surprisingly, we saw no evidence of recent passage between Deception Basin and Sunny Brook--cairns, boot tracks, etc. Contrary to what I had thought earlier, I don't believe this route is very popular. It doesn't look like Mystery has been climbed much since the Dose Road washed out years ago. I will say that Deception Basin is one of the most beautiful mountain places I have ever been--particularly the wet, flowery meadow below the Mystery Glacier moraine that is fed by the glacier's terminal lake seeping through its own till. This would be a great place to spend a few days. In any event, I would advise anyone traveling this route to exit the basin on the right side of the creek (below Mount Deception) and then avoid traversing directly over to the hanging valley below Gunsite Notch since we spent more than three hours negotiating less than a half-mile of thick Slide Alder. Instead, I'd recommend giving up another 1500' on talus by descending all the way to the confluence of the two creeks, and then climb back up toward Gunsite. Also, it is nearly impossible to stay on DelMonte Ridge around Point 6666, so you'll have to give up 1200' or so by dropping to Sunny Brook Meadows and then climbing again to Constance Pass via the trail. In short, this route is more challenging than I thought it would be, but it was really neat to be in such beautiful places that few others see. Total gain/loss is about 9000 feet and there is lots of steep side-hilling on scree/talus, and a lot of big boulder-hopping too. Heavy boots work nice. Ice axe or crampons would be helpful for the snow below the notch, but aren't absolutely necessary. Marmot in upper Royal Basin Mount Clark emerging Mount Deception shoulder Mount Mystery and Deception Basin Mystery Glacier still breathing Lower meadows Deception Basin Looking across the "shortcut" (not) Three and a half hours of this shit Below Gunsite Notch Looking up to Gunsite Notch Camp at head of Twin Creek The Brothers' other side Sunny Brook Meadows Olympus from Del Monte Ridge The other side of Mount Stone Greg at Sunny Brook Meadows Yours truly at Constance Pass

I'm sure the USFS's plan to strangle off access to popular trailheads (aka: Minimum Roads Analysis) will help to mitigate this problem.

The Washington Trails Association seems to have moderated their position on roads and access over the last five years or so. Where they once advocated the closing of the Dosewallips and the Suiattle roads, they have done an about-face and now support their repair. They may have purged the more radical members of their board who, at one time, were quite vocal and public about celebrating new washouts. No matter the reason, they may now be worth partnering with in some capacity. I visited their site just now, and I can't find a position statement on this new 75% plan. They do, however, have an outstanding 26-page mission statement on roads and access that is very well thought-out. http://www.wta.org/action/road-access-to-trails

You nailed it.

I don't think they're looking at closing any of the popular-paved avenues, rather, they are just looking to include these thoroughfares in the "total miles" that remain in their budget when this process is finished. In the end, I'm not really sure how much weight these meetings will carry. MBSNF is doing a really good thing by getting ahead of the public-input requirement, but these meetings are not part of the NEPA process--which has yet to begin. I'll bet that groups like Audubon and NCCC are not going to stand for this round of unofficial scoping/public input being allowed to carry water in the final EA/EIS. Not sure how this will fly in 2015.

I attended the 11am meeting in Enumclaw today along with about 30+ other folks--mostly off-road vehicle supporters, but with a few deep-green types mixed in. I did not sense that climbers or skiers were represented at all. For their part, the USFS folks were great. My suggestion that the $30 annual fee be used exclusively to support road and trail maintenance was well received by the south unit director. In fact, he knew exactly how much extra revenue he would receive for this purpose if it were properly allocated. So here's the short of it: The USFS has been directed (by whom is not clear) to close 75% of the roads under its authority by 2015. In the MBSNF, this means that only about 683 miles of road will remain open. This sounds like a lot, but this total includes many paved and trunk roads that we don't typically think of as USFS--like Crystal Mountain Blvd, Baker Lake Highway, Mountain Loop, etc. Additionally, many of the roads being counted as existing miles have already been closed for decades--like the West Fork of the White River, White Chuck River, etc. So, like Matt and Quarry have described above, each member of our four groups chose eight "favorite" roads on table-sized maps. This data, in turn, is supposed to be analyzed by "social scientists" at Portland State University and superimposed upon other unspecified hard environmental and GIS data that they probably have no business interpreting. This has me particularly worried, since the soft sciences, in my experience, too-often rely on flawed assumptions regarding motives and intent--in this case, the motives of the public citizen placing his or her marks/choices on the map. I got the impression that even the USFS folks were skeptical of this complex decision matrix and will not likely rely on this university interpretation too much. Matt, I am sad to report that no one else chose your Darrington area crags access as a preference. Of course, I wouldn't really expect folks in the southern part of the MBSNF to be dialed in to that area. The choices at this Enumclaw meeting were overwhelmingly along HWY 410 and Carbon River. Curiously, the Suiattle River seemed to be a popular choice too. In the end, I'm not sure that managers will be able to divide the pain equitably. They certainly don't have the money to properly decommission these roads, so "environmental concern" claims are dubious, at best. I suspect that this is a battle between wilderness-as-public-park versus wilderness-as-ecological-preserve. In other words, it's philosophical. Popularity/use will probably determine which roads remain open for now, but is anyone really under the illusion that our friends at NCCC won't be agitating for another round of closures a decade from now? My suggestion at this point is to remind USFS that the Forest Pass revenue generated by hikers, climbers, mountain bikers, skiers, and yes, even motorheads, represents an understanding that reasonable access to public recreation will be maintained. To just roll over and accept this 75% plan and squabble over what's left is giving in too soon, IMO. So that's my report--and .02 worth of my blather too.

That's the best West Buttress TR I've ever read. In addition to your success, it looks like you guys had a great time--and that's what really counts. :tup: Thanks for sharing your adventure.

This map might help clarify the management boundaries for everybody: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MEDIA/stelprdb5342056.jpg

Thanks Matt, I'll include your roads in my letter and participation session. Regarding wilderness expansion, I'm thinking about what the NCNP folks did when they permanently closed the Upper Stehekin Road. They simply "erased" the non-wilderness corridor that had exempted the road from Wilderness Act rules, and banned bicycles. Since these road "corridors" were created without Congressional approval, it's just as easy for USFS and NPS managers to declare them invalid. I'd like to think that even if a road is closed to car traffic, it can still continue to provide modest access by bicycle. West Side and Carbon River Roads are great examples of this. Ditto, the Upper Middle Fork Snoqualmie. Wilderness purists, however, don't like the idea of wheels, period.

Matt, Was there any talk about the fate of these soon-to-be decommissioned roads? In other words, will the abandoned grades be enclosed into the surrounding designated wilderness? (Bicycles banned.) Or will the 100-foot wilderness exclusion buffer remain intact? (Bicycles allowed) Also, I'm having a hard time finding your Darrington road number(s)? Do you know them off-hand? I'm also curious: were the MBSNF folks talking about major trunk roads as a "single closure?" or are they counting secondary roads as stand-alone closures? Is the 75% based on miles? or raw road numbers? My "save these" list exceeds the eight-road limit: Hannegan Pass #32 Glacier Creek #39 (Heliotrope access) Suiattle #26 (Screw the NCCC and fix it, for God's sake! A judge has already ruled on this.) Baker Lake Road #11 Mountain Loop FS #73 and Suntop (Huckleberry Creek off of Hwy 410) Cayada Creek #7810 (aka Coplay Lake just before the Carbon entrance to MORA) Schreibers Meadow #13 Middle Fork #57 (and reopen the Upper Road while you're at it.) Foss River #68 (and Foss River West Fork #6835) Cascade River Road #15 !!!!! (Don't give Harvey his dying wish. Listen to Ira and keep this road open!) BTW, thanks for the summary.

I agree, but I think the 30 bucks does make us stake-holders, and the $$ are now a significant portion of the USFS budget. As for the right-left thing, well, I think there are plenty on the right who wonder why federal $$ are being spent on the pursuits of a few--and many on the left who wonder the same albeit for very different reasons. We need to face the fact, right or wrong, that what we are asking the USFS to do is spend taxpayer $$ to repair roads that only a relative few will ever use. I'm willing to live with this conflict in my value system because I think outdoor recreation serves a valuable public function, and because humans still have a role in the places we perceive to be wilderness. Plus, I just enjoy the status quo access to the outdoors in this region. Anyhow, I hope you'll post comments regarding the meeting tomorrow night; I'm anxious to hear how it went.

Thought you might enjoy some pictures I took this past week (July 15) out the window of a Beechcraft Bonanza. Unfortunately, we flew through a cloud of bugs while coming up the lower Stikine out of Wrangell and their dried juice made for some bad images. We flew through the notch in the lower West Ridge of the Needle dead-on in the second picture. Cleared it by about 30 feet. (!) (Devil's Thumb in the distance.) Anyway, your accomplishment(s) is even more impressive when it's seen in the real. Wow!

The core issue, as usual, pits the concept of wilderness as a public park against those who see wilderness as an ecological preserve. (I believe it's both.) Since those in the latter camp have USFS budgetary constraints on their side, I think it's important to remind Forest Service representatives that users in the former camp have paid the $30 annual "demonstration" fee for nearly twenty years now--and we expect popular areas to remain reasonably accessible.

Thanks for the heads up, Matt. As you know, I have a long-standing interest in these issues. I'll be attending the Enumclaw meeting on August 6th, but I'm not sure if the road discussions at each of these gatherings will be regional, or will apply to the MBSNF at-large.

As you know, I'm generally a life, liberty, and property kind of advocate, but the RR&CC campaign makes a strong case for the invalidation of the 1864 grant. Not sure how undoing the "checkerboard" would work, but I'd love to see the case before the Supreme Court in my lifetime. On the other hand, we should ask ourselves honestly whether the USFS has managed the lands under its "public domain" any better than these private companies have done with their own. Fees? Well, NPS, USFS, DNR/WA State, Fish&Wildlife, are all in on the "pay-to-play" game now--and this on lands we the people supposedly own already! In short, this is probably one of the most complex domestic political issues that people generally don't know about.

Trip: Mount Hood - Old Chute Date: 5/5/2013 Trip Report: Just goofing off with my new GoPro camera along the summit ridge of Mount Hood a couple months ago.

This one in the Olympic Mountains is pretty stunning too. We visited this cirque last September, however, and lots of perennial snow remained. Hopefully the heavy/late-season snow cycle we've been in these last few years will revive this dead glacier. Not optimistic though. http://www.nps.gov/olym/naturescience/images/Lillian-Glacier-1905-2010-pair_1.jpg

Hancock, Champion, and now WH are all doing it to varying degrees. It is private property, after all. A good read on the history at the root of this issue: Jensen, Derrick, George Draffan, and John Osborn. Railroads and Clearcuts: Legacy of Congress's 1864 Northern Pacific Railroad Land Grant.

Sitting here thumbing through my tattered, first edition copy of Glacier Ice. Good journey, Austin Post. And it's something quite peculiar Something shimmering and white It leads you here despite your destination Under the Milky Way tonight

Gotta love these new personal attacks in the post-nasty era. (Try just a little harder.) Vancouver sketchy? No. Just kinda dumpy.

Oh you mean like the right to live in a country free of violence? Where does it say that?

Oh. You must be referring to Obama's $1,000,000,000,000 per year deficit spending and his uncanny ability to outdo all of his predecessors (combined) when it comes to pushing us toward the $20tn brink? Rewarding your union base with the taxpayer dollars of our grand children is a novel way to finance a campaign I suppose. Not even sure Keynes would approve of this little shitter in Elbe.