Argument in favor of permanet trail/climb markers

[DPS]

I can't say I'm in favor of a hut anywhere in Washington. I don't see how it would really manage ecosystem destruction in most places. Unless of course say in Boston Basin you had a hut and it was required to stay in the hut.

 

Exactly. A hut would have to be built large enough to acommodate all of the permitted overnight vistors who would be required to stay in the hut. All existing campsites and social trails would be rehabilitated.

 

Think about Camp Muir for a moment. Without the outhouses where would all of the human waste go? Most people are not willing to pack it out. My guess the accumulation of human feces would outstrip the rate of decomposition that high and in short order all of camp muir would be littered with feces.

[Lucky Larry]

I have bumbled around several times trying to stay on a trail only to later on walk up to a stone or stick placed on it to keep people off of it. If the marker is too low impact on the visual wilderness impact scale it gets missed by people like me, and has failed at lowering the overall visual impact and destruction. Mt Jefferson park, in Mt Jefferson wilderness, has bumble trails going everywhere. This wilderness is very accessible by Whitewater river TH. In my mind the word wilderness connotes someplace that is very difficult (relative to the individual) to get to with no signs of man ever having been there.

I like the idea of the reflective marker, or whatever it takes, to limit the area of impact by bumblers like me. I will take the analogy of not being able to see the forest for all the trees. I can't see the wilderness for all the bumble trails. One solution, which I usually take, is do not look at the bumble trails. Another solution is to make the trail so obvious a bumble can follow it.

 

Some of you may have noticed the poop bags on a pole for dog owners to use popping up at many locations.

 

Thank you everyone for your input/suggestions/ideas/arguments.

Edited November 26, 2010 by oldlarry

[Ed_Seedhouse]

if you cant follow a trail, how do you people stay on route when on a climb ?

 

Follow the bolts and chalk marks.

[Alpinisto]

the big hurdle for us is that those other cultures seem to have a sense of social responsibility and obligation that we don't have

 

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."

-- Winston Churchill

 

 

The Marlboro Man..."Live Free or Die"...the (rapidly disappearing) belief in upward socio-economic mobilty...these staples of 'Murkin culture, along with many, many others, highlight the fact that we as a nation don't have the social responsibility/oblgation genes that they do in ,say, Europe.

 

A lot of this is likely rooted in our frontier mentality, an understandable position to have given that we were blessed with the massive amount of acreage our country enjoys. ("Huge...tracts of land." ) As noted above, they don't have this in Europe, and haven't for centuries, which is why they are decades ahead of us in some areas of environmental stewardship/protection. This doesn't mean they're better or we're worse...we're just at different places in our "wilderness history" and our respective views and legislation reflect this.

 

The argument of limiting access vs. building infrastructure to manage increased visitation is a classic one, and there is no right or wrong answer, IMO. In some areas, due to geographic and/or demographic reasons, one solution may be preferrable over the other. (See the comments about the Whites vs. MRNP in the posts above.) Coming from the position that one solution is the right answer everywhere and for all time is misguided.

 

As Dane notes, this is good discussion to be having, and the measured, civilized tone in which it is occurring here on CC is refreshing. Keep at it, boys!

 

 

[kukuzka1]

Follow the bolts and chalk marks.

slippery slope my freind

[Lucky Larry]

Alpinisto: Thank you for such a coherent and well written post. Wish I had crafted it. Bravo!

[Dannible]

As noted above, they don't have this in Europe, and haven't for centuries, which is why they are decades ahead of us in some areas of environmental stewardship/protection. This doesn't mean they're better or we're worse...we're just at different places in our "wilderness history" and our respective views and legislation reflect this.

 

Really? I've never been there and I know I'm being a bit extreme, but when I think of the alps I think of hords of people, buildings on mountains and cable cars taking people to them, fixed gear and via ferrata. I'm sure there are many aspects of social and environmental responsibility where the are ahead of us, but if you've ever been to the picket range, the Dome/Gunsight area, or countless other remote places in the Cascades or Olympics, then you know that you can feel as out there as in any other major range in the world. You can go days without seeing any sign of people besides a little trail here and there. I know we have to protect what we have, but really I think we aren't doing too bad in some cases.

 

Trails should be marked where there will be a lot of people, but flagging and signs in truly remote places is lame.

[Alex]

This begs the question regarding who would fund the building and maintenance of these structures. Canada et al do so with higher taxation rates as far as I know. Americans don't want to have to pay for anything with taxes, yet expect everything.

 

Shaking my head in disbelief but for once I completely agree with The Choad!

[el jefe]

Really? I've never been there and I know I'm being a bit extreme, but when I think of the alps I think of hords of people, buildings on mountains and cable cars taking people to them, fixed gear and via ferrata. I'm sure there are many aspects of social and environmental responsibility where the are ahead of us, but if you've ever been to the picket range, the Dome/Gunsight area, or countless other remote places in the Cascades or Olympics, then you know that you can feel as out there as in any other major range in the world. You can go days without seeing any sign of people besides a little trail here and there. I know we have to protect what we have, but really I think we aren't doing too bad in some cases.

 

Trails should be marked where there will be a lot of people, but flagging and signs in truly remote places is lame.

 

i think you've missed the point, dannible. the pickets and the dome/gunsight areas are hardly high use zones so not really at issue here. oldlarry's original post was regarding high use areas such as washington pass where the proximity of the highway to the peaks creates a quasi-euro situation where protecting the resource means either developing an infrastructure to manage the increased flow of visitors or come up with a plan for limiting the number of visitors.

[Dannible]

Ok, I was just making sure of that. There have been discussions in the past where people talked about the need for trail markers in remote places, which I'm not that into. I was also just pointing out that in some cases we have done a good job of protecting the backcountry (mostly through a lack of roads going all over the place in the mountains), which was more in response to alpinisto than oldlarry. Sorry if I got too far off topic; it was 1am on thanksgiving, which means I'd been drinking for a long long time.

[el jefe]

too much holiday cheer is never a bad thing! at least not until the morning after...

[Lucky Larry]

Just back from happy boulders in Bishop, Ca. They are using wooden pegs with green tape staked on the bumble trails to cut down the impact.