Who has been maintaining Boston Basin trail?

[JoshK]

Alex said:

erik said:

and as a side note, i noticed the ranger here is all worked up over being a forest tool, vs an NPS tool. you both work for the dept of the interior, so you are the same thing! someone out there to impose your interpetation on the lands that belong to all americans! do your trail work, clean your toliets and leave me alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Erik, Forest Service is Dept of Agriculture, while NPS is Dept of Interior. I have worked for both in the past, too. Unless you've been on that side of the fence, shut up.

 

Alex, sticking mearly to the point that most people would rather *not* be harassed in the wilderness, I would agree that the last thing I want is some ranger, irregardless of which branch of government he is employed by, bugging me. The point is to get away from people, not to be sought out and questioned.

[erik]

why alex?

 

can they not harrass and bother me when i am out minding my own business? so why cannot i bother them and question what they are doing? remember this republic was based upon dissent towards a higher being attempting to stifle others willing to live their life as they see fit.

 

so...............................................................

 

i tried to work for them once, but just getting hired and to make $8.75 an hour or whatever they were paying at the time seems kinda ridiculous.

 

 

[chucK]

erik said:

why alex?

 

can they not harrass and bother me when i am out minding my own business? so why cannot i bother them and question what they are doing?

 

Good point

[Alex]

JoshK said:

Alex said:

erik said:

and as a side note, i noticed the ranger here is all worked up over being a forest tool, vs an NPS tool. you both work for the dept of the interior, so you are the same thing! someone out there to impose your interpetation on the lands that belong to all americans! do your trail work, clean your toliets and leave me alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Erik, Forest Service is Dept of Agriculture, while NPS is Dept of Interior. I have worked for both in the past, too. Unless you've been on that side of the fence, shut up.

 

Alex, sticking mearly to the point that most people would rather *not* be harassed in the wilderness, I would agree that the last thing I want is some ranger, irregardless of which branch of government he is employed by, bugging me. The point is to get away from people, not to be sought out and questioned.

 

If you are in BOSTON BASIN, arguably the most popular place in the park, for a little solitude, you have gotta be kidding! The point of permits there is the same as in the Enchantments, to put a throttle on the impact CLIMBERS (you dont see too many tourists make it to BB, they have Cascade Pass) have on the area. They rangers are there because its part of their job, not because they are out to get you. If you dont want to be bugged by them, get your permit, display it for the 3 sec it takes, and sail away.

[Alex]

erik said:

can they not harrass and bother me when i am out minding my own business? so why cannot i bother them and question what they are doing? remember this republic was based upon dissent towards a higher being attempting to stifle others willing to live their life as they see fit.

 

You were not "questioning" them in your post, you were insulting them, calling them all tools, nigga's, telling them to clean "their" toiloets.

 

i tried to work for them once, but just getting hired and to make $8.75 an hour or whatever they were paying at the time seems kinda ridiculous.

 

Then I guess we should raise your taxes so they can make better money, huh? These people do what they do because they love what they do, they love the land. The money isnt their motivator, its harrassing punk climbers

 

 

[erik]

the 3 seconds it takes. pffft!! when has it ever taken 3 seconds to be harrassed by the tool? um never!

 

the point is not solitude, it is being bothered! i dont go out of my way to go talk to others when i am out there. but people in my immediate area certianly.

 

i mean you gotta go to their station, then get harassed at the parking lot and then again up in the high country. and then possibly again in the parking lot. that is alot of unwarranted interaction with one entitiy. for one activity. i do not run into police here in town in such a matter. where there are more rules and more bad people with a greater overall impact to the planet.

 

for the love of the land or for the power? i have met few rangers who dont let you know they are the ones in charge. whats the point?

 

 

 

[cj001f]

Alex said:

erik said:

 

Erik, Forest Service is Dept of Agriculture, while NPS is Dept of Interior. I have worked for both in the past, too. Unless you've been on that side of the fence, shut up.

Alex-

Dept of Interior, and the USDA are neighbors in DC (a whopping mile apart, across the mall)

(D of I 1849 C Street, USDA 14th& Independance). Far less seperates their policies.

[graupel]

I think rangers (both Park and Forest Service) fail to comprehend how much their policing in the name of keeping the numbers down to reduce "user contacts" and preserve the "sense of wilderness" contributes to a diminishing of the sense of wilderness. One ranger acting like a cop equals 20-30 (or more) fellow climbers on the trail you say "hi" to as you are walking by.

[mattp]

Alex-

 

I agree with you that it is rude and counterproductive to harass individual employees about the NPS or USFS management practices, but it IS satisfying and some times they deserve it. I haven't met a truly offensive law enforcement ranger with a bad attitude in the North Cascades, though I have dealt with ignorant people who were answering the recreation information line and knew nothing about current road/trail/snow/insect conditions and indicated that they did not feel it was their job to know such things (in such instances I have asked them "why the hell are you answering this telephone then?).

 

I think that, when we are talking about Boston Basin, the management plan is counterproductive. I do not see the need to restrict the number of climbers who go to attempt the W. Ridge or NE Buttress Direct on Forbidden Peak, and I think that such quotas needlessly foster an ongoing conflict between climbers and the permit enforcement rangers. However, if they want to control the impact on Boston Basin (and assuming the denuded heather and other widespread human impact is the issue), there should be a hut and a small designated camping area down at or just below timberline and, at least after the snow is gone, nobody should be allowed to camp anywhere else in that basin. I believe such a restriction would do far more to contain impact than a policy of letting a certain number of campers disperse more widely, and I belive it would be more accepted by climbers because it could more easily be seen for what it would be - an attempt to contain impact.

 

I think the "solitude" thing is pure B.S. I've been to Forest Service (yes, I know it wasn't NPS) presentations where they talk about "opportunities for solitude" (I think that is the wording from the Wilderness Act) and they say that people lose their sense of solitude if they see more than 4 other parties in a day. My response was that, even in the most popular areas, there are always opportunities for solitude -- if you are willing to head off the trail or if you are willing to attempt a climb that is not in Jim Nelson's "select" guide. You don't go to Boston Basin for solitude, but you do go there for scenery and the basin would be more secenic without campsits scattered all through it. When it comes to environmental stewardship, I believe the Park Service has a mission that includes some balance between preserving the park for future generations and fostering current recreational use.

 

Any restrictions on backcounry users should, in my opinion, be based on "impact" not "solitude," and I think it is far more imporant what those users do and where they camp than it is how many of them go to a particular location. I think they limit the number of users, however, because it is easier than trying to control what those users do when they get there.

 

 

[leejams]

ryland_moore said:

No Rangers up Boston Basin this weekend! I didn't have a NW Forest Pass for two days at the TH and no ticket!

 

OOPS, were we supposed to have a permit besides the parking thing? Ran into the ranger on the way out and he didn't ask us for one.

[Alex]

mattp said:

why the hell are you answering this telephone then?

 

there should be a hut and a small designated camping area down at or just below timberline

 

On the first point, I couldnt agree more. Land stewards who are not interesting in knowing about the land they are stewarding over should not be coming to work. I experienced this at Leavenworth RS the other day, when I was looking for a map that might hightlight some BLM land holdings south of Wenatchee. They couldnt quite wrap their noggins around the idea that someone might be interested in a map beyond the standard Wenatchee or Baker-Snoq National Forest map, or where to get one. The ranger districts I've worked for in the past did not have stagnant-minded people working there, perhaps I am spoiled in that way.

 

On the second point, while many people might go up in arms at the first mention of "Europeanizing" or "Canadizing" United States wilderness, I agree a hut system for climbers and skiiers of the type you mention would only benefit us all, including the ranger-types. I think the jury is still out on what is better: concentrated heavy impact or wide spread light impact in the Alpine. Anyway, I have always wondered at the surprising resistence to any type of hut that you get in the lower 48. The hut system in Canada and in the Alps is really awesome. However, the precendent has always been "no huts" in the U.S. I think primarily and directly due to the Wilderness Act for National Forest lands, and the fairly strict policies of the NPS for lands that fall under their jurisdiction.

 

Whatever...

 

[chelle]

Norman_Clyde said:

On Saturday we were tempted to hike up to the shoulder of the E. ridge to camp on rock with nice views, mainly because there were no decent bivy spots on bare ground down below. But I decided not to explore that far, since none of the rock ribs below had any decent flat spots either. I noticed during the climb that the E. shoulder is broad but not flat, so it's probably not worth it to climb so high just for a scenic view from camp.

 

<small>[ 07-23-2002, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Norman Clyde ]</small>

 

Right at the gendarme there are two flat spots big enough for a person to bivy on. No big ledges though.

[chelle]

ncascadesranger said:

The avalanche debris: Given that the route into BB is in the "cross-country zone" classification the Park will not automatically clear this debris, as it would have if that avalanche had hit the nearby Cascade Pass trail (in the maintained constructed trail classification). The management plan for this Wilderness states that most of it will be free of human manipulation (from trail construction to tramways) and again, we find that most North Cascades users want it that way. When mother nature splashs a little more risk and challenge into the experience in the form of unpleasant debris to cross, the NPS can't get subjective about what the Wilderness Plan dictates. However, nothing is 100% unchangeable in land management - it's your Park - and questions or most importantly comments, are best made to the ranger station in Marblemount and/or the Superintendent. My guess is that would more likely get the debris cleared over encouraging others on this site to bring their pruning shears. And it's true, the public isn't allowed to take on their own trail (or other resource management) projects in National Parks.

 

Kelly: Last season before there was a very clear path through the debris, my party unfortunately ended up following a lemming path up the zone and once we realized it thought it would be more dangerous to down climb the logs and trees we'd already gone over. We followed some flagging that lead to this "trail". We climbed up the whole zone and ended up on a ridge below Sahale. Some of the scrambling, especially on the polished rock near the creek, could have led to serious injury if we'd fallen. Possibly needing rescue and placing other lives at risk.

 

Later in a discussion with the ranger I asked who was maintaining the flagging and with such an obvious trail elsewhere in the "cross-country zone" --including trail rerouting and closures of old trail when erosion was an issue -- was there no work to show the way across the debris. He told me that not only is the NPS NOT placing flagging or removing debris, they were removing the flagging if they saw it and fining people if they caught them "improving" the trail.

 

Frankly, I think there has been precedent as the climbers trail has been rerouted to keep people on paths that do not erode the hillside. I also think that with (at the time) a public who is very critical of rescue efforts, the NPS would at least spend $5 on some flagging to make sure people don't get off route and get hurt. Your employee was also pretty condescending in his attitude and "informed" us that we should be prepared to navigate this type of hazard or spend time outside cross-country zones. He told us we could express our opinion to the superintendent in Sedro-Wolly, but that there were much higher priorities on the agenda.

 

Admittedly we were off route and fortunately nothing happened. However, I believe that the NPS has behaved in conflicting ways in the past with respect to the trails and trail maintenance in the "cross-country zone". And the attitidue of the ranger we spoke with was pretty poor and did nothing to improve my opinion of their presence in MY back-country.

 

As for whoever is doing the trail maintenace, great job. Continue the stealth work.

[ryland_moore]

OOPS, were we supposed to have a permit besides the parking thing? Ran into the ranger on the way out and he didn't ask us for one.

 

No, no permit needed to climb, just the trailhead parking pass (which I don't have)

[mattp]

Ehmmic-

 

Kelly indicated that she would prefer to see people such as yourself register your complaints about a trail/request for maintenance with the "authorities" than to encourage folks to take it upon themself to maintain a trail in the National Park, and I think I may agree with her. Even if they have it "classified" as a "cross-country" route, the trail up to Boston Basin must be one of the most popular trails in the North Cascades National Park (I bet it is in the top 10 because most of the popular trails are in the recreation area, not the park) and THEY should be maintaining it, not a bunch of unsupervised yahoo's with nothing better to do but slash at the trees.

 

If we advocate doing clandestine trail maintainance we are only setting ourselves up for further conflict with the Park Service and I would expect to see more law enforcement and less access rather than a change in park policy regarding the maintenance of this trail.

 

It is too bad you ran into a ranger with a poor attitude. Like Alex, I worked for the Service once upon a time and I remember that we got pretty smug about the dumb things that the visitors did some times. I can well imagine some young or not so young punk thinking you guys must have been idiots and being condescending about it. If this is what happened, they might have joked about it with their friends back at the ranger station but they had no right to be a jerk to you. You should have submitted appropriate comments back at the ranger station when you checked out.

[Attitude]

Flagging is aid.

[Bronco]

I haven't been up the trail since last July, but, it was fine, I say plant some more devil's club and slide alder, trails are aid.

 

I find it humorous that "Alpine climbers"

would find the logs scary or dangerous in the least, I can understand inconvenient, but, dangerous?

 

You could pound some pins and rap off if you get scared!

[AlpineK]

I agree with MattP. Regulations should be there to keep damage to a minimum. Trying to regulate solitude is crap; especially in a well known area that is a short hike from the road. I know there’s too much bullshit bureaucracy involved for this to ever happen, but a hut in places like Boston Basin would be a better solution than the present, camp anywhere above timberline policy.

 

Also teaching rangers to use common sense when enforcing rules is a great idea that needs to be emphasized in training. Unfortunately most rangers act in an officious manor. For example; rangers, after reading a TR on this site, have sent PM’s to folks questioning whether or not they had an overnight permit, in the middle of the winter, when there were no other people anywhere near the area.

 

Yes the rules say you need a permit but having some common sense is much better public relations.

 

[philfort]

AlpineK said:

For example; rangers, after reading a TR on this site, have sent PM’s to folks questioning whether or not they had an overnight permit, in the middle of the winter,

 

Wow, that's ridiculous! I went permitless twice last fall - we actually tried to get permits, but both times the station was closed and there weren't any permit forms left outside! What do they expect you to do?

 

Actually though, all the rangers I've run into in NCNP have been pretty nice, and not copping a 'tude. (Except one who tried to trick us into saying we had spent the night in BB).

[Attitude]

Alex said:

On the second point, while many people might go up in arms at the first mention of "Europeanizing" or "Canadizing" United States wilderness, I agree a hut system for climbers and skiiers of the type you mention would only benefit us all, including the ranger-types.

Ooooooh...

 

How about a nice Motel 6 with a Starbucks?

 

[chelle]

Bronco said:

I haven't been up the trail since last July, but, it was fine, I say plant some more devil's club and slide alder, trails are aid.

 

I find it humorous that "Alpine climbers"

would find the logs scary or dangerous in the least, I can understand inconvenient, but, dangerous?

 

You could pound some pins and rap off if you get scared!

 

You're funny Bronco. We didn't have any pins, next time I'll make sure I bring them just in case.

 

Overall the tree climbing wasn't that bad, but reversing it with heavy packs, especially after getting up the short cliffs/rocks near the creek wouldn't be too fun. What I thought was dangerous was the flagging that lead us off route, don't know if there was a missing piece that the rangers had removed or not, but whatever...

 

I was more pissed at the ranger's attitude and losing time because we were camped on the opposite side of the valley.

 

Mattp - you're probably right about encouraging people to do trail maintenance. I figured any letter I wrote would get some canned response and not make a difference in the long run. I noticed that Kelly's comments were from last season, so I doubt I'll hear back from her in this forum.

[Bronco]

Yeah, I hear crossing the slide goes with clean aid now anyways and we wouldn't want Erik and Lambone to get their panties in a bunch again.

 

Is anyone getting this? here's the rest of the story in case you don't

Edited July 22, 2003 by Bronco

[chelle]

It's a little tired at this point. But at least I can laugh it off now.

[Alex]

Bronco said:

Is anyone getting this? here's the rest of the story in case you don't

 

It's Paul Harvey!!

[ryland_moore]

Although there was a little debris when crossing over the slide areas, I never thought it was that bad. I'd much rather push through that then climb through slide alder and devil's club. The flagging never led us off course either. There are arrows cut into the logs at each end teling you where to go and as long as you hold the same contour it takes about 10 minutes to get to the other side. Maybe doing it in the dark would be different, but during the day it is a piece of cake!