Philosophy of wilderness access thread

[Fairweather]

The 100 Hikes series is scheduled for a rewrite. I hope The Mountaineers choose an author who embraces inclusion and the encouragement of our common love of the outdoors - not one who will continue exploiting divisions among diverse user groups or be so quick an advocate for the gate and padlock.

 

Off White says: I've spawned this off of Harvey Manning's obit thread to give the disscussion it's own life and a little distance from Manning's passing. This is the climbers board, not spray, and Fairweather has an interesting point. Keep it civil folks.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Off_White

[bobinc]

Perhaps your "inclusiveness" refers to drivers rather than hikers. If so, I am glad that HM's legacy will reflect his enthusiastic support of bipedal access and a questioning of road extensions and wheeled access.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Off_White

[Fairweather]

Cyclists, certainly. But also:

 

Horses

Fishermen

Dogs

Climbers

Day Hikers

etc

etc

etc

etc

 

 

I can cite passages of his utter contempt and rage toward each of these valid user groups in the 100 Hikes series alone. While he rightfully fought against road extensions, his support for the closure of [/i]existing[/i] roads and trailhead access reaches not only the Middle Fork Snoqualmie, but the Middle Fork Cascade River, Stehiken River, etc.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Off_White

[bobinc]

oh -- more winging about the Middle Fork road, eh?

Edited November 24, 2006 by Off_White

[Fairweather]

I think the recent passings of Ira Spring (whom I consider an ideal advocate for wilderness preservation) and Harvey Manning present us with the opportunity to discuss the best course for ongoing wilderness preservation and use. Do we want the inclusiveness that Ira believed in? Or do we want the absolutism that Manning promoted? Look, we're not talking good vs evil here, we're talking about a course that will either take us to more citizens gaining an appreciation for what we all love - or less. If I have to tolerate other user groups in order to preserve what I love, I'm willing to do that.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Off_White

[W]

If I have to tolerate other user groups in order to preserve what I love, I'm willing to do that.

 

I agree with the base point here, but the tricky part is, at what point or at what level might inclusiveness of all "user groups" turn what you love into something you do not love? What one person considers wilderness, another considers an abomination. For example, if 4 wheelers were allowed full access to backcountry trails in wilderness areas, the ORV riders would likely consider their experience a full "wilderness experience". But hikers who went out to the mountains and trails specifically to spend time away from the noise and pollution of mechanized travel would be appalled and never want to go there again. True enough, they used cars to get there, but at least it ends at the trailhead.

Is there a line to be drawn somewhere that will allow reasonable access to a broad base of users but which ultimately meets the original intention of wilderness? I think we can all agree that wilderness, at the least, is land undisturbed by human development. However, this premise of wilderness operates chiefly from the notion that humans are something altogether separate from the "environment"- in fact, we ARE the environment as much as the trees and the water and the mountains. But unlike other elements in the environment, we are blessed (or cursed?) with the opportunity of choice, and consciousness of our actions and how it affects things around us. Are these really choices, though, and are we really conscious? I've always wondered if the cities, pavements, clear cuts, pollution, etc, is just as "natural" in the scheme of the environment as, say, animals creating game trails, birds making noise, trees making a valley look green, floods carving a canyon. After all, why would we purposefully choose to poison our environment? But that seems to be exactly what we are doing. It's the order of things, apparently. Time will tell if our ability to "choose" manifests itself into an actual change in the behavior of our species.

 

Our city living has given us this false sense of separation from the environment and spawned this concept of wilderness. Since that die is cast, however, and with all of our comfort oriented technology, I think retaining wilderness is crucial to a broader based awareness of the natural world outside of human influence.

 

I once heard a guy in my town in Alaska complaining about people moving in from the lower 48, saying: "they say they're just trying to escape from the big city, but in the end they just want to turn it into the shithole they left!"

 

So how do we balance out the need for wilderness without loving it to death?

Edited November 24, 2006 by Off_White

[faster_than_you]

The 100 Hikes series is scheduled for a rewrite. I hope The Mountaineers choose an author who embraces inclusion and the encouragement of our common love of the outdoors - not one who will continue exploiting divisions among diverse user groups or be so quick an advocate for the gate and padlock.

 

Right on!

[catbirdseat]

oh -- more winging about the Middle Fork road, eh?

I was just up there today. The FS has contractors working to repair a stretch of road washed out by the river about halfway between Dingford Creek and Goldmyer Hotsprings. That work is costing thousands of dollars a day. When it is done it will last until the next time it washes out which could be next year. How can you justify that kind of money being spent for a few people to save 8 miles of walking?

 

When that new bridge is finished at Goldmyer Ford that gate will close, and if the road washes out, it will stay washed out.

[cj001f]

I vote for a name change to 100 ATV and RV paths in Washington.

[bobinc]

I can't justify that money being spent (especially on that road). That was my point. Some roads should never have been built, or having been built, should be removed from non-human powered access.

[catbirdseat]

In considering how Wilderness is to be managed, you need to ask the following questions:

 

How is a user's enjoyment dependent on Wilderness? To what extent does the group seek out Wilderness for its unique qualities?

 

When different user groups interact, what effect does each have on the other?

 

How does a group affect the resource long term?

 

What accomodations are required for each group to enjoy the Wilderness? What do these accomodations cost, and how do these affect other groups?

[johndavidjr]

Isn't climbing elitist and hierarchical? What's wrong with that? Manning's view was elitist. It worked pretty well for many purposes and reasons. I highly recommend "Walking The Beach To Bellingham." And BTW his versions of "Freedom" and the bits that survived a couple of later editions, were easily the best-written of the series. Don Graydon, "Professional Writer," et AL., be damned.

Edited November 25, 2006 by johndavidjr

[Fairweather]

Respectfully,

 

In considering how Wilderness is to be managed, you need to ask the following questions:

 

How is a user's enjoyment dependent on Wilderness? To what extent does the group seek out Wilderness for its unique qualities?

I don't think this question is valid. Who are we to determine the motivations of others? We can certainly judge actions, but not motivations.

 

When different user groups interact, what effect does each have on the other?

Other than Harvey Manning/backpacker types, I have rarely seen user groups who won't 'share' with other non-motorized user groups.

 

How does a group affect the resource long term?

Valid question. I have no problem with restrictions based on quantifiable, long-term physical damage. Unfortunately, restrictions are too often based on social considerations.

 

What accomodations are required for each group to enjoy the Wilderness? What do these accomodations cost, and how do these affect other groups?

Does this apply to ADA requirements too? I've been waiting a long time to see a determined ADA litigant contest Wilderness Act restrictions. The "snowpod" guy on Mount Rainier came close.

[dmuja]

 

 

 

(SPRAY INTERVENTION)

 

 

The "evolution" of man...

 

..Pfff.. I mean its hardly a "wilderness" anymore right? Why not improve the trail to allow for more access and thus more people to appreciate it?

 

..Pfff.. I mean its hardly a "wilderness" anymore right? Why not improve the road to allow more access and thus more users to appreciate it?

 

..Pfff.. I mean its hardly a "wilderness" anymore right? Why not improve the road, the signs and parking lot to allow for more types of access and thus more sportsmen to appreciate it?

 

..Pfff.. I mean its hardly a "wilderness" anymore right? Why not improve the roadS, concessions, and parking areas, expand the lodge and golf coarse and allow for all types of convenient use. Thats what WE consumers would appreciate.

 

..Pfff.. I mean its hardly a "wilderness" anymore right? Why not widen the highway, develop the subdivisions, expand the parking garages, airport and business district and thus improve the economy. That$ what I as a business owner and provider of jobs would appreciate.

 

..Pfff.. I mean there is no real "wilderness" anymore right? With global warming and the rapture fast approaching I say we should just milk this bitch for all she's worth. Open her up for drilling and mine the shit out of it all, then lets just party like its 1999!

 

 

Sorry, maybe a bit too cynical for this thread but I couldn't help it.

[johndavidjr]

Fairweather: You seem to have many answers but I don't think Manning's view was quite so complicated.

 

Never having read his many hiking books, I only got his rather uncompromising view on climbers' "wilderness ethic," which I believe remains definitive. He probably would not (as you apparently would ) favor re-building the road to Dose campground, for example.

 

Manning got big-time results for the elitist faction. His main opposition could (we would hope) be described as "dead-enders," to accurately use a now infamamously unfortunate Dick Cheney term.

 

Manning had vision and truly great achievements, and NW climbers should obvioulsy be very pleased that he influenced many many thousands of people who would do well in whatever small measure, to follow his gigantic example.

Edited November 25, 2006 by johndavidjr

[chirp]

I apologize for the digression in advance;

 

At this point, I would like to inject a fine, small tome written in the early 1960's by Renny and Terry Russel, (Renny is today the surviving brother living in Utah and making custom wooden dories)

They hit the nail on the head with a touching collection of photos, prose, and quotes about wilderness and its values, past and present. I heartily reccommend this little book as it struck me when I was a youth and still does today about the values of wilderness that really matter.

 

On The Loose

 

...end of my digression, please continue your thread.

 

Thank you for allowing treehugger to post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We live in a house that God built but that the former tenants remodelled--blew up, it looks like--before we arrived. Poking through the rubble in our odd hours, we've found the corners that were spared and have hidden in them as much as we could. Not to escape from but to escape to: not to forget but to remember.

 

[johndavidjr]

Your post contrasts sharply with Fairweather's rather eccentric viewpoint, and the rathar weak link offered suggests agreement with Manning's essentially radical outlook (???) one would imagine.

Edited November 25, 2006 by johndavidjr

[johndavidjr]

Harvey Manning was, simply, a giant of the Pacific Norhwest, and those opposing his viewpoint, one must say, were merely .... dwarfs....

 

I'm sorry but Mr. Fairweather, you can only really debate this point on some weirdo Rapture-type Karl Rove/John Ashcroft type message board, but I don't believe it's really possible here.

 

 

"I hope The Mountaineers choose an author (who won't) continue exploiting divisions among diverse user groups or be so quick an advocate for the gate and padlock."

 

As I've implied in my earlier posts, this is drivel to climbers.

 

But I wanted to continue here and inquire, who is "Off White" and why does he edit Fairweather's post? (And what after all, must the screen name "Off-White" suggest to readers about American history and our current circumstances?)

 

Readers of this board must be uncertain whether it's "Fairweather" or "Off White" who is telling us that "I've spawned this off of Harvey Manning's obit thread to give the disscussion it's own life and a little distance from Manning's passing"?)

 

"Off White" wants us to "Keep it civil folks." A nice sentiment, which I guess might occur when you've spent too much time in the lovely Northwest?

 

Actually, Fairweather, I used to see Norman Rockwell riding his bicycle, in Stockbridge, Mass., and I do still love his paintings...I like Grandma Moses even more....But, well, you know....

 

.

 

-----------

 

 

__________

Edited November 25, 2006 by johndavidjr

[chirp]

Your post contrasts sharply with Fairweather's rather eccentric viewpoint, and the rathar weak link offered suggests agreement with Manning's essentially radical outlook (???) one would imagine.

 

Umm, actually no I wasn't intending it to be a post supporting "mannings radical view", although I guess in retrospect the values of the book to encourage something of the ilk.

It was just, as mentioned, a digression, tossing out an important book, that affected me in my overall views of wilderness and wilderness lost.

[Off_White]

(a digression from the topic at hand)

 

John David Junior-

 

Off White is what my family, my postman, my neighbors, my employees, and many of my friends call me. It's my name. I'm also a moderator in several forums here.

 

My edited comments in Fairweather's first post are prefaced all in italics, and identified as mine. It should be clear what I'm saying. In addition, I consulted with Fairweather to make sure this was agreeable to him.

 

As board policy, we prefer to have discussions of serious topics separate from obituary/tribute threads because due to the wonders of Google et. al., friends and relatives of the deceased often find their way here, as evidenced by the posts from Harvey's daughter and the friends and father of the woman who recently died descending Half Dome. Accidents and other deaths obviously offer ample opportunities for both learning and discussion, but it's a matter of respect to try and put those elsewhere.

 

To that end, I moved Fairweather's interesting question and all it's replies to another forum to modify it, added my preface, and changed the thread title in everyone's post to differentiate this thread from Manning's obit (hence the "edited by off white" notice at the bottom of many posts). When done, I moved it back to the Climbers Board.

 

The admonition to "keep it civil" relates to both the forum this thread is in (Climbers Board is very different from Spray, one is to be more polite here) as well as to address the tendency of several posters to toss barbs and insults at Fairweather because he's of a minority opinion conservative bent here. I'd prefer to see the topic addressed, not the personalities involved.

 

If you feel otherwise, you are welcome to post your own thread in Spray and be as insulting as you wish, or go to another climbing bulletin board. There are a number of them in the Northwest alone, and surely New Jersey must have some regional boards as well.

[johndavidjr]

Off White:

 

I'm sorry for my misunderstanding. I actually thought this thread pertained to the late Harvey Manning, and that the initial poster intended to question Manning's viewpoint and accomplishments. And please also forgive me for my reaction to your nick-name. I didn't realize it was supposed to be a tasteful joke.

Edited November 25, 2006 by johndavidjr

[Fairweather]

This past summer my daughter and I went for a short afternoon hike up "High Rock" to the lookout just south of Mount Rainier. This area is USFS land and not designated wilderness. There were a couple dozen people along the way including a couple mountain bikers. At the top, my daughter and I had an interesting conversation with a 50-something woman who was absolutely livid that she had to share her experience with mountain bikes. So deep was her hatred of these human-powered craft that she went on to suggest she would not be at all upset if someone pushed one of the aluminum beasts over the edge - rider included. The funny part of this story is all-the-while she's venting her rage, her Minature Schnauzer dog is snapping and snarling at me and my daughter, and every other passer-by.

 

Realizing this woman's anger put her above questions about her little pup or her somewhat hypocritical views, we politely offered to take her picture on the top while she cradled little Heinrich in her loving arms. In no way was my day "ruined" by any of the folks we met that day. In fact, it was enhanced.

 

You see, John, my comments about Manning have little to do with other user groups. They have more to do with the wedges he drove between the many non-motorized user groups I listed above, who's support he could have used to leave a truly great legacy. Not one where mountain bikes or horses are allowed on every trail, but one where angst isn't regularly stirred by a guidebook author who -it seems to me - felt his stature gave him license to write social rules as he saw fit.

[Fairweather]

It is also worth noting that "50 Hikes in Mount Rainier National Park" is almost completely void of the rantings Harvey wove into almost every page of the 100 Hikes series. I've never figured out why this is, but could it be that even MRNP wasn't interested in this type of politic and insisted The Mountaineers tone it down?

[Duchess]

How does a group affect the resource long term?

Valid question. I have no problem with restrictions based on quantifiable, long-term physical damage. Unfortunately, restrictions are too often based on social considerations.

 

Our whole perception of long-term physical damage is a social constuct... everything about the idea of "managing wilderness" and "wilderness philosophy" and even the very connotation of "wilderness" are social considerations. Most people are not accepting of creating wilderness areas in which no people at all can enter... so why not take social considerations into account when deciding how to manage wilderness areas?

[Fairweather]

I certainly don't think that real, demonstrable, physical damage can be deemed a social construct. I'll have to think about the rest of your post though. You probably have a point. For now, I will say that I've always found the term "managed wilderness" a bit oxymoronic.