Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Hiromi

Permit for Enchantments

Recommended Posts

I hear you have to apply now to get a permit for the enchantments next summer. Can anyone tell me how to go about getting that permit?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Help me out here... why don't you support the permit system? "if you prefer to get one"... what

are the consequences of NOT getting the permit? Do the forest police hunt you down and march you back to the

trailhead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks guys. Help me out here... why don't you support the permit system? "if you prefer to get one"... what

are the consequences of NOT getting the permit? Do the forest police hunt you down and march you back to the

trailhead?

 

I dont support it for many reasons I WONT LIST THEM ALL.

 

I think that most of the use comes from people impacting more than climbers. I know its only an opinon without facts. I also dont approve since the Deforest Service promotes landing helos for damming procedures and introduces waste in the backcountry (namely in between upper and lower snow lakes). Obviously there will be plus and minus to this as well as arguments.

 

Another is that the Deforest Service harasses people just for day climbs in the AL wilderness there when these same people forget to "voluntarily" fill out permits. Park your car there you are a victim. Another note is that I don't believe if I pay my taxes that I should be TAXED again for using land that I already am paying fees for. Also I think the Deforest Service is over equipped even now. IF you see some of their vehicles they consist of multiple moving cameras and hig tech gadgetry that is not necessary. IF they want to put gadgetry to use then they might start catching the criminals stealing out of our cars and campgrounds.

 

However it does not pay to catch criminals smirk.gif It does pay to catch "violators" of parking and trail laws. I guess a 4 year old could do that smirk.gif

 

Catching criminals takes effort, investigations and some balls if they are dangerous. Those are some real negatives to doing a law man's job now are they not smirk.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catching criminals takes effort, investigations and some balls if they are dangerous. Those are some real negatives to doing a law man's job now are they not smirk.gif

 

I think you nailed the crux of it Cavey. Lazy chodes don't want to risk mixing it up with a criminal so they hassle the little guy. Those tools' carry their balls in a VERY small pair of jockeys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiromi-

You have hit on a sensitive topic here. The Forest Service has touted the permit system, with the associated restriction on the number of parties allowed to enter the Enchantment Plateau on any given day, as a way to reduce overall impact on a sensitive area. While it has certainly had some measure of success in this regard, I agree with Cavey and anybody else who is against it. I think the fees are excessive (a recent two-night trip with a party of six riding in two vehicles cost over $70.00 in permit fees) and the restriction on the number of parties is, in my opinion misguided (personally, I believe it would be more effective to ban camping in the upper part of the Enchantment basin and allow camping only in narrowly outlined areas at the lower lakes). Also, the system arguably has a greater impact on climbers, who require certain weather and snow conditions for their trips, than it might on "lowly" hikers; and the Leavenworth ranger district has in my experience been generally unfriendly to climbers for thirty years (currently they have a particularly obnoxious ranger who patrols the parking lots to enforce the parking fee and who, as Cavey noted, seems uninterested in pursuing vandals and thieves). Lastly, to many of us who enjoy outdoor recreation, it seems particularly ironic that the Forest Service (Deforest Service as Cavey rightfully calls them) would restrict entry into the Alpine Lakes in the name of preserving the fragile wilderness environment while at the same time they seem completely uninterested in placing any restrictions on destructive logging practices.

 

The "consequences" are a ticket and fine. I don't know the dollar amount.

-Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lastly, to many of us who enjoy outdoor recreation, it seems particularly ironic that the Forest Service (Deforest Service as Cavey rightfully calls them) would restrict entry into the Alpine Lakes in the name of preserving the fragile wilderness environment while at the same time they seem completely uninterested in placing any restrictions on destructive logging practices.

 

while agreeing with the majority of your argument, you used a broad brush on the final bit. the wilderness act and the usfs mandate regarding multiple use are 2 separate issues. "uninterested in placing any restrictions on destructive logging...." where have you been? sorry about the thread creep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rat-

Thread creap is a serious issue on this board and I should be ashamed of myself for persuing an off-topic debate (I might even have to move this thread to "SPRAY"), but what are you trying to say here? Do you think the Forest Service has in fact systematically protected the mountain forest environment in their management of logging practices on Nationaal Forest lands around Leavenworth? Yes, I sloppily painted with a broad brush--not only on this issue but on the law enforcement and public relations topics as well, but how is it that you disagree?

-Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not really Mattp--we share a computer wink.gif. It is Diana instead and I haven't registered to post on this site.

 

First of all, we subsidized the logging industry for decades. That industry was one of the most heavily subsidized in history. Now we have to pay to enjoy the outdoors. It was $70 for camping and parking permits for four adults and two kids!! We camped at Eight Mile Lake for two nights. I kept wondering how many families could afford these expenses and teach the next generation to appreciate the mountains. Why should we have to pay Disneyland prices for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

matt,

sorry for the tone of my previous comment but i sometimes get tired of the constant usfs bashing that goes on here even though i am not a usfs employee. i will confine my comments to the northcentral washington area since they might not hold true for certain other areas. the following is based on my belief that logging is a legitimate use of national forest land and is desirable in areas where previous fire suppression has created the potential for intense stand-replacement fires that, in the long run, will do more harm than selective logging. if you fundamentally disagree with this, the following info will just seem like spin. regardless, it is a gross simplification of a complex issue involving a self-perpetuating government agency.

 

the usfs has systematically moved away from clearcut logging in the drier forests of washington. to get a logging sale through the planning stage requires a lot of work by the wildlife, botany, fisheries and hydrology/geology crews. the list of birds and other mammals, amphibians, plants, etc. that require surveys seems to grow each year. information from these surveys is then used to modify, exclude, or place timing/equipment restrictions on the planned logging units. it is also used when determining the types/sizes of trees removed (euphemistically called "treatments" by the usfs). logging practices have also slowly changed---skidding only in the winter and more emphasis on helicoptor logging to minimized soil compaction. of course, this drives up both the cost of preparing a sale and the costs of the actual logging.

 

pressure for reform has been spurred by both lawsuits (mainly the endangered species act) and increasing amounts of scientific data. regardless of the method of change, the result is that professionals within the lower levels of the organization (district/forest level) are using more of a science-based approach. logging still occurs on federal land in the pacific northwest but at a much reduced rate and with more environmental restrictions than ever (for now).

 

based on this info i disagree with your initial statement that "they seem completely uninterested in placing any restrictions on destructive logging practices." the usfs is obviously not perfect in this regard and i often disagree with some of the things that they have done/want to do so i cannot say they have "systematically protected the mountain forest environment in their management of logging practices on National Forest lands around Leavenworth." that is a much higher standard that implies some undefined historical period. i do think they are now trying to place "forest health" (buzz word alert) ahead of the old policy of "getting the cut out." unfortunately, george w. will likely push the pendulum the opposite way for a while.

 

one final note. do not confuse what occurs on usfs land with what occurs on the many square miles of checkerboard lands (legacy of railroad construction) that are owned by private individuals, corporations (longview fibre corp. owns alot along hwy 2 and hwy 97), or irrigation districts.

 

drink, spew, fight,

rat

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, we subsidized the logging industry for decades. That industry was one of the most heavily subsidized in history. Now we have to pay to enjoy the outdoors. It was $70 for camping and parking permits for four adults and two kids!! We camped at Eight Mile Lake for two nights. I kept wondering how many families could afford these expenses and teach the next generation to appreciate the mountains. Why should we have to pay Disneyland prices for this?

 

don't get me wrong. i disagree with the fee demo program and am ambivalent about the wilderness permit system. the public subsidizes alot of things (some worse than others) and will continue to do so. simply put, if you don't want fire to clean up your forest, you're gonna have to pay someone to do the gardening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rat-

 

You offer some good information to this discussion and I can't say that I disagree with the idea that forest management practices have improved in recent years. And not only do you offer good information, but I find much of what you state to be appealing.

 

However, I would still argue that well over 90% of our old growth forest is gone -- and will never be replaced by any tree farm. I don't know the numbers, but I bet it is the case that over 75% of the public lands in the state of Washington are cris-crossed by roads built with public dollars (almost ALL of the private-owned land is completely lost). I bet it is also accurate that well over 90% of the original salmon spawning habitat has been irretrievably lost and the native productivity is not expected to recover any time in the foreseeable future. I could be wrong as to any of these statistics, but you get the idea. I am glad they are finally improving land management practices but, as you note, there is real reason to worry that the forest management practices will only get worse with George Bush as president.

 

Aside from resource management issues, this is a discussion of the practice of requiring fees for the public use of public lands. As my wife stated, I believe that there is something fundamentally wrong when we have, as a nation, subsidized private industry in the resource extraction business for a hundred years and now we, as individuals, must pay to simply walk and camp on the same lands.

 

-Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt, Bush will be totally preoccupied with the war for the next year. If not re-elected, as he may well not be, he won't have time to hurt the environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rat-

You are right that we have to pay to maintain our public lands. That's why I pay taxes. I don't think that enjoying these lands should become a privilege for those who can afford it.

-Diana

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rat, Based on your argument The Corporations that are profiting from the logging, pay for the mitigations and the environmental preservation of these lands ,along with my tax dollars ,how much does the (deforest service require)? I beleive each one of the NEW FORD superduty crew cabs must set us back at least 9,000 permits. It seems to me the DFS is lacking direction in managing MY Forests(Paid for in taxes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rat - One thing to think about with your support on cutting to supress fire. It doesnt do shit, it is a farce. In a forrest fire generally the lumber (i.e. the part of the tree that the logging company wants) does not burn. Even in really bad fires (see pictures of yellowstone). When you go in and strip all of the limbs off of a tree, leave them on the ground to dry, and remove all of the lumber it actually makes the area more likely to burn. This is a bullshit argument that pro logging is using to up the cut in our forrests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

matt and diana,

i'm just saying that the fee demo program is part of the recreation/wilderness management side of the forest service and logging is part of the multiple use/forest management side of things. these are two different issues dealt with by two different, sometimes competing factions within the agency. for instance, the blue ribbon coalition (pro fee-demo) would love to keep all usfs roads open for their orv constituents even though the current practice is to decommission roads (regrade the cut/fill slopes and pull out the culverts).

 

also be aware that the maintenance cost of many usfs roads is shared with private corporations who use them to gain lawful access to their own properties. this is another legacy of the checkerboard land give-away during railroad construction. the usfs and private timber companies could do a much better job of maintaining their open roads in order to minimize erosion.

 

i can't argue with the fact that lots of habitat has been lost, degraded, or otherwise altered. i do believe that the folks at the district/forest level work hard to maintain what habitat is left using a multi-species planning approach. this approach can easily be highjacked by the politics of both environmental groups and the timber industry.

 

fhf3723,

i don't really understand the point you are trying to make with your first sentence so i won't comment. i agree that the money that they waste on fancy new trucks is embarassing (subsidizing yet another industry?).

 

alasdair,

i agree that the amount of fuel left on the forest floor after logging has the potential to increase fire hazard in the short term. i have heard of some studies that appear to de-bunk the fire-reduction argument for thinning but have not read them. however, tree survival during/after a fire is generally related to fire intensity, tree diameters/species, and the percentage of remaining live crown. we can argue what is a bigger hazard: 1. an historically over-stocked forest with a bunch of small diameter sickly understory trees that will allow a fire to ladder into the crown, or 2. a multi-aged thinned stand with some quick burning flashy fuel (the branches). the usfs now piles (by dozer and/or hand) and burns most of this slash in dry-site logging units. yellowstone needed to burn as do many areas in the pacific northwest that have been altered by our suppression of fire.

 

again, i do not support the fee demo because it is a form of double taxation. and as far as permits go, authority is to be ridiculed, outwitted, and avoided. climbers can easily sneak into the enchantments if need be (most routes can be done in a day from the car by a fit party) and most/all of the good skiing occurs outside of the permit season. with that, i'm done with my apologist spew thread creep and going skiing.

drink, spew, fight,

rat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rat, My first point. The logging Industry obviously is profiting from the logs they harvest off the land. In return for the profit they pay a substantial amount to the Gov't for Reforestation,rehabilitation, and preservation of the forest. These monies along with my tax dollars would be more than enough to support the maintanance of the lands IF the overmanaged Deforest Service cuts its Beauracratic top heavy Managment and their penchant for rediculous spending. You and I both know this will never happen. Instead they will charge us until we can't afford to go. Maybe this is why I have a hard time respecting the overpaid Mountain Meter MAIDS!!!!!! smileysex5.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fhf-

Rat has said, twice, that he is also against the fee demo program. (Edited to note he said he was against the permits as well.)

Edited by mattp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually most FS sales are done at a loss and it's not because of USFS overhead. The sales are set up under congressional guidlines, basically a subsidy for the timber industry. They don't pay for the full cost of the needed timber crusing, surveying, road building, road maintenance, environmental studies, etc. Now a valid argument is that these timber roads are often used by recreation folks so they should cough up some money to use them. IMO I think that the timber companies should be pay their way, not getting by on taxpayer handouts. The Brookings Institute and the Cato Institute, both very conservative and libertarian think tanks, have recommended raising the timber fees to reflect market value rates.

 

Most of private timber land was clearcut in an unsustainable rate, that's why they're always knocking on the USFS door. Back to the main thread - the Enchantments need some type of management, or else it would look like the trail up Mt. Si on a sunny weekend. The recreation folks and other technical USFS staff are often trying their best, despite the management of timberheads and the politics of it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went hiking with the little girl last summer and had to pickup permits that cost almost $40. No big deal, but then when we got up to Lake Viviane at around 8pm we camped. Now we had planned this trip for a long time, and I was really looking forward to it. I sent off for the permits on the first day that was allowed, marking the slot to camp in the Lower Enchantments. Then I made the mistake of selecting the box that allowed for alternate sites for camping. Well back in the Enchantments we were having a great time. After camping on a rock at the edge of the waterfall emptying Viviane Lake, we woke up early to go look around and see what the area had to offer. We met up with this chode range TJ Broom who decided he would mess with us. He started asking where we had camped and how we were doing yada yada, then asked to see our permit. I happily showed him our pass and at that point I realized that it had been marked that we were supposed to camp at the Snow Lakes (they opted to give me the alternate camping site). He wipped out his citation book and promptly gave us each a $50 ticket, well a receipt anyway. Well a few weeks later once we got the real ticket in the mail, they had upped it to $100 a piece. So for a three day trip I was out $240 bucks. Fortunately my car wasn't busted in when I got in the parking lot. These fucking guys are mobsters or something, it made me wish I had brought my ice climbing so I could have chunked that stupid chump in the head. It pissed me off so bad that I had made an honest mistake and this peon happened to catch me being nice. Had I known that my permit was for the snow lakes I could have just told the MF'r that we were day hiking, because we stashed our camping stuff at Viviane Lake. He told us that he could give anyone a break due to his boss or some BS. Anyway thought I'd let you know that there are consequences to not having that permit. But in the long run those forest service peckers are just stupid college boys who are easily fooled, just don't let them beat around the bush with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mattp, I was not debating rats potition on this I was stating to him my point. Ref rats reply. He did not understand my first point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having worked in the Leavenworth and Lake Wenatchee Districts as a Wilderness Ranger, I have to call BULLSHIT on many of you:

 

 

The helicopters and trash around the dams (Snow, Colchuck and Klonaqua esp.) are from the irrigation companies. Technically they own the land (forced buy from the FS I believe) they land on and build dams on. The rednecks who come in helos and bring chainsaws and other shit are coming against FS wilderness laws. They stay and camp for about a week, fishing illegally and cutting trees down every year. They also lie about when they plan on going so that the FS wilderness manager will not be able to catch them in the act. (It's total bullshit, I know, I was sent to catch them at Klonaqua once and missed them by a few days. I spent all day cleaning up the trash they left and even hauled out about 20lbs of cans and pots left behind.)

 

The idea that climbers don't impact the Enchantments (or anywhere) as much as other users is false and conceited.

 

"These monies along with my tax dollars would be more than enough to support the maintanance of the lands IF the overmanaged Deforest Service cuts its Beauracratic top heavy Managment and their penchant for rediculous spending. You and I both know this will never happen. Instead they will charge us until we can't afford to go. Maybe this is why I have a hard time respecting the overpaid Mountain Meter MAIDS!!!!"

 

Don't confuse the different branches of the FS. Larry the Tool and his fatass Law Enforcement Ranger friends get big comfy SUVs with cameras and all that bullshit, but they are not the ones who are enforcing the Enchantment Permit system. Larry and friends (these guys truly are assholes, I had to work with them,) only enforce camping and parking. Whoever said they don't have the balls to enforce crime is right.

 

Now, the Enchantment Permit system (subject of this thread) is enforced by the wilderness branch of the Leavenworth USFS. These guys are underpaid, underfunded and sent in to the backcountry with old shitty gear. Most are volunteers, those that get paid rarely make more than $10 (and they're on call 24 hrs a day when in the field). Most of the time these folks are working they are NOT HANDING OUT TICKETS or even patrolling for passes and permits, they are cleaning up other people's trash and shit, fixing trails and making FS lands look better. The wilderness people are only stiff on you when you break a rule in the Enchantments, and that's because everyone (like Weekend Climberz) has an excuse to be there when they shouldn't be. They've heard all kinds of bullshit from people who are sneaking into the Enchantments without permits and they aren't going to believe anybody anymore, they're just going to give tickets and go by the book.

If you get caught you get caught.

The purpose of the Enchantment fines is to deter people from breaking the rules: if the fine was soft everyone would be back there every weekend and the place would be too trashed to ever clean up. madgo_ron.gif

The money collected from the fees and fines goes to the Wilderness program, not the Law Enforcement Rangers. The money is used to keep our lands clean, not to harass people.

 

The Fee Demo sucks and it's completely unfair to both backcountry users and the FS, but protesting it won't even make a dent in it: it's already permanently in place. The only result is that the FS programs that need the money the most and that do the most for your lands will be underfunded and desperate. (For the last two seasons the wilderness program has only had one vehicle, one full time year-round employee, and a pile of shitty worn out gear from the early 90s.) The fact is that you're not getting taxed twice for the land. The Gov took most of your taxes for the rec lands and sent them elsewhere. You're half-taxed. The other half will have to come from the fee Demo until the Gov gets staightened up.

 

cry.gifThose of you "protesting" the "DeForest Service" because you think they don't protect the forests, give too many tickets, tax you twice, don't wipe your ass, etc. need to get off your mountain of bullshit and just admit that you don't like paying the fees and getting parking passes because it's inconvenient and annoying.

I don't like to pay it either, and I often times don't, but at least I don't lie to myself and others about why I don't pay.

madgo_ron.gif

 

 

 

 

Edited by North_by_Northwest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×