fragile alpine areas

[snowman]

I spent 4 days in the Sol Duc area in the olympic national park this last fall. The Rangers in this area have roped off and covered way paths all over the area. They have also made it a reservation by site area. The covering of trails and the roping off of way trails is really unappealing to look at. The reservation system really sucked, since over half the groups we talked to did not make it to there predetermined camp sites. We had two conflicts in 4 days about the sites we stayed in, even though we where in the correct spots. Are the regulations and hurding of hikers on the main trails really helping the area out? I should have done some more investigating about the area and avoided it. I feel that over regulating an area does not help the area out, but detracts from the wilderness experience.

[roger_johnson]

Would your wilderness experience have been enhanced by many braided trails and people camping al over the place? How about keeping all the camping in one place and just a few steps away-quiet and solitude.

[bonehead]

Yes, and looking for a wilderness experience in any area that is subject to "regulations" is pretty much an oxymoron.

These days, pretty much all lowland areas such as Sol Duc must be avoided if you want to "get away".

The solution is avoid them and put some miles under your boots for a good experience.

[W]

I agree that the reservation by site system is unneeded and stifling. An overnight quota, in my view, might be acceptable if, once a permit is obtained, there is no red tape to wade through. But the long term recovery of the meadows I think is a good idea. The ropes are unsightly, but without them, these "way trails" continue to sprout up, get used/abused, eventually the meadows become a big dirty sand lot with little tufts of dead grass, and with no hope of recovery.

So which is worse- temporary fixtures, or permanent destruction of the meadow? The hope I'm guessing is that in the long run, if people stay on the intended established trails, that the meadow will recover and these ropes and covers will be removed. It takes a short time to do years of damage. This is the modern reality of roadside wilderness, I'm afraid.

People regulation is one thing, resource regulation another.

Like the others said, if you don't want to see all that, tighten up your boots and keep hiking up the trail a few more days. It's out there.

[Bronco]

I agree the ropes are necesary in high traffic and fragile areas, but that's it. I've seen boners chasing deer through the Paradise medows and people picking up "souveniers" old sticks/rocks from Panorama point to take home. Obviously, if everybody did this, the area between Paradise and Pan Point would look like a quarry. I politley reminded them that if a ranger noticed the souvenier they could be in huge trouble. They usually act embarassed and put the item back.

One time a bus load of Japanese tourists came racing up the Pan Point trail as we were descending and demanded we let them take pictures of each other standing with us holding our ski poles and wearing our helmets. They were so excited, it was hilarious.

[bonehead]

Bronco's experience reminded me of another in Hawaii once...

Where ever we went, there were typically busloads of Japanese tourists milling about, all very friendly and polite. Each time, they would excitedly motion at their cameras, themselves, and then our two young boys (3 and 5 at the time....). It took a few encounters to finally realize they wanted us to take photos of THEM standing with OUR boys.

I've since thought about the excellent business opportunity this might have been - "Your picture with a blonde and blue - just $10.00!" We could have paid for our entire trip....

Jim

[mattp]

As I see it, the braided trails and scattered campsites that blight popular alpine and sub-alpine areas occur because everybody wants to camp "on their own," preferably out of site of other parties so that they can enjoy a tent-free view of the wilderness around them. In wooded areas, such as around lake shores at intermediate elevations, the campsite scars aren't quite so ugly and there is more hope that if the usage were suddenly to decline, the scars might heal. But at or above treeline, I believe that many heavy-use areas should have pit toilets installed and a very small perimeter within which all campers have to set their camp.

I believe there are relatively few areas where this is a real problem and the solution I propose would be appropriate. Tuck and Robin Lakes, the Enchantments, Boston Basin, Upper Watson Lakes ... and some people may not want these to become "walk-in campgrounds" that feel like Camp Four, but it would contain the damage and the fact is that these truly ARE walk in campgrounds already, it is just that we want to maintain the illusion that we are in the wilderness when there are other parties camped behind every tree and rock nearby, just out of site. For those who don't like the crowd, there are a lot of alternatives.

[mattp]

And I should add that I believe limiting WHERE people camp is more important that limiting HOW MANY camp there. I believe that within one or two limited perimeter areas, Boston Basin or the Enchantment Lakes could sustain more campers with less damage than the present system allows.

[AlpineK]

Huts, Huts, Huts. That's what we need. They work great in Canada and Europe.

This ain't the wild west any more. A hut would limit the amount of trashing a popular area gets.

[MtnGoat]

Kinda depends on what one considers "working", doesn't it?

I mean, on the one hand when there is enough hut room and everybody fits inside, obviously you're reducing some camping impacts that previously occurred. And I assume somehow these legal construction of these huts would be able to get around the prohibitions on such structures in wilderness areas.

But then, you've got people with no common link other than they wanted to be outdoors for at least a night, all jammed into a hut and forced to get along. Muir can be hell for example. Differing sleep habits, schedules, cooking times, and to read in spray, problems with indoor smoking!

Then you also have the issue that some folks just wouldn't want any part of a hut situation even if there was space, which includes me. Unless of course the entire hut was empty, in which case I'd be glad to use it but I don't think that's very likely!

I don't really mind the idea if hut use was optional instead of mandatory, but suspect that once huts were in place, quite the reverse would occur.

[Bug]

It really doesn't take many assholes to cause a lot of damage. It is mostly assholes who do the damage. If there is a good effort made to educate people about low impact camping, the effects are pretty minimal from most parties. What is really needed is a rope to lassoo the assholes and escort them to the garbage heaps they seem to like.