|
Post by dunkard on Nov 2, 2015 16:57:46 GMT -5
Took a trip down to Otter Creek this past weekend. Went in thru Moore Run and took the Otter Creek Trail downstream to the first ford. Moore run was slightly grown over but not in horrible shape. Otter Creek trail was still in bad shape from Sandy I'd assume I haven't been thru that area in five years or so. The amount of blowdowns when the trail was on the river left side of the creek was pretty impressive in places. Made going a lil difficult and in places a little dangerous. the trail goes thru a couple steep sections and the blowdonwns there made me pay close attention to my footing especially with a pack on. I worked one summer as an intern for the USFS at Mount Rogers doing trail work. We had two Wilderness areas that we worked on and they were a pain because we had to use hand tools to clear trails thru those areas but we did clear those trails. Some folks believe that the trails thru the wilderness areas should be left as is and not cleared at all. What's everyones take on this subject? I feel at times not clearing the trails leads to a higher impact to the environment from hikers cutting new trails and trampling vegetaion around blowdowns, slides or muddy areas. Instead of having an area of impact 5 feet wide you end up with a spiderweb of trails that can spread out to 15-25 feet wide at places. this is usually really noticeable thru wet areas which often times have the most sensitive plant life. So what say you? leave the trails in a natural state thru wilderness areas or clear them and improve them to decrease the impact?
|
|
vdeal
Forum Elder
Posts: 616
|
Post by vdeal on Nov 2, 2015 20:58:26 GMT -5
The Forest Service actually clears those trails and some large crews from many states came in and worked at Otter Creek after Sandy. No problem with clearing as long as Wilderness rules are followed.
|
|
|
Post by arfcomhkr on Nov 3, 2015 19:06:11 GMT -5
Personally, as a taxpayer, I think it's stupid not to use chainsaws for trail clearing in Wilderness areas.
|
|
vdeal
Forum Elder
Posts: 616
|
Post by vdeal on Nov 3, 2015 20:24:14 GMT -5
Well arf, I’ll take exception to that. As a taxpayer my tax monies go to a lot (an awful lot) of things I don’t approve of. But they also go to maintaining wilderness qualities in a Wilderness area. You may think it’s stupid and that’s your right as an American and I am not offended by that (unlike most people today who are offended by everything). However, there are prescriptions as to what can and cannot be done in a Wilderness area and the crews are only following the law - and keeping some old skills alive. Never know when you might need them in another venue.
|
|
|
Post by arfcomhkr on Nov 3, 2015 23:32:51 GMT -5
Eh, it's all good V. We're all entitled to our opinions. I expressed mine and you expressed yours. And that's it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 4, 2015 12:29:43 GMT -5
I had run across a ranger clearing trails in Dolly Sods many years ago. I've seen him several times since. Once was after Otter Creek after a storm had wrecked nearly every trail. He was taking inventory of the damage. He told me that special dispensations can be made to use modern equipment to remove trail hazards. 1) The blockage has to create an unsafe situation and 2) basically what happens is removed for the period of time required. At least this is what the horse told me.
|
|
|
Post by jnk556 on Nov 4, 2015 18:07:20 GMT -5
IMO the tree isn't going to care if you cut it out of the trail with handsaw, or chain saw.
|
|
vdeal
Forum Elder
Posts: 616
|
Post by vdeal on Nov 4, 2015 19:24:53 GMT -5
It has nothing to do with the tree. It has to do with the people using the Wilderness. The Wilderness Act describes wilderness and one of the definitions is "has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation". I'm sorry but a chainsaw does not solitude make.
|
|
christopherrobin
Forum Elder
“People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
Posts: 259
|
Post by christopherrobin on Nov 5, 2015 7:35:23 GMT -5
The idea of wilderness areas is to keep some part of the earth as free as possible from the devastating effects of modern human life. To allow chain saws is defeating the purpose. Its not about what's convenient. Its not about what's best for people-hikers or not. Its about preservation. Its about "an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions." If you allow chain saws, what's to stop the next guy from allowing a 4-wheeler to get the chain saw there? Just because we are at the top of the food chain doesn't mean the world should revolve around us. We are so narcissistic. Stop belly-aching and grab a hand saw! I'm in for an Otter Creek trail maintenance day! Who is with me?
|
|
vdeal
Forum Elder
Posts: 616
|
Post by vdeal on Nov 5, 2015 8:42:43 GMT -5
CR, my comment was directed at jnk's remark and wasn't meant to imply that it all revolves around people. I'm well aware of the mandates of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and was it prescribes. I was only picking out a small point to make my point. Your point is well taken and yes, chain reactions (see the pun there) can occur of increasing incrementalization of ideals. Honestly, I don't mind a bit of obstacles on the trail, it makes it seems more wilderness like and less park like. Now, full blown impassible, well that's another issue. I've done quite a bit of abandoned FS trails and know a bit about nigh-on impassible. Anyone here ever hike the old Little Black Fork Trail on the periphery of Otter Creek. It's a really neat trail but the blowdowns really put a damper on it.
|
|
vdeal
Forum Elder
Posts: 616
|
Post by vdeal on Nov 5, 2015 8:46:49 GMT -5
Here's part of the news release from the FS about the cleaning of Otter Creek after Sandy:
|
|
christopherrobin
Forum Elder
“People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
Posts: 259
|
Post by christopherrobin on Nov 5, 2015 8:57:07 GMT -5
We are in agreement, sometimes I get on my soapbox and get carried away. But I also see the destruction brought on by the ever-widening trails that blow-downs cause and understand the temptation to grab a chainsaw and zip-zip-zip it out of the way. Using hand tools is tough, but it is what we need to do or we will soon lose these wilderness areas to those with other agendas.
|
|
|
Post by dunkard on Nov 5, 2015 17:01:48 GMT -5
Thanks for the opinions guys. My original intention for the direction of the topic was a little different. Its interesting to me where it went but let me play devils advocate for a minute and try to realign the direction of the topic. Some are ok with chainsaws and some are not Vdeal you are against the use of chainsaws (as am I) but what if someone feels the same way about any form of saws/trail maintenance? Wouldn't the true quintessential "wilderness" be void of all trails. The idea of trails can be a continuum from paved surface with hand rails steps and bridges all the way down to faint game trails to nothing at all. We'd all agree the former would be unacceptable in a "wilderness" but where do we draw the line on the latter? We have designated roadless areas what about designated Trailess areas? I'm only bringing this up as food for thought I'm not supporting the idea of restricting human use in certain newly designated "trailess area" but can see where some extreme environmentalist might promote the idea. I'm not insinuating this is how anyone on this forum feels and would imagine the people who do are non users of the wilderness areas to begin with. But I igamine they are out there??
|
|
vdeal
Forum Elder
Posts: 616
|
Post by vdeal on Nov 5, 2015 20:48:50 GMT -5
There are people who champion the cause of having human free areas in the claim that those are the only true wildernesses. However, humans have been on this planet for a long time and are just as much a part of the ecosystem as trees, bears, bees, crabs, coconuts and the odd warthog. Of course I did that as a bit of a joke but saying that humans don't belong is a joke also. Just as much as an anal interpretation of LNT is. (Go here for an alternative thought) Now there are some wilderness areas without trails or with very few. I can think of some in Virginia. Your progression from road to walkway to trail is logical to some but misses the point. Humans, just like animals have always made trails. American Indians (yes, I am not PC) had long distance trails all over WV and the country. I'm sure many of you have heard of the Seneca Trail, but there were also the Eastern Trail, the Warrior Path, the North-West Trail, the Northern Trail, etc. So trails are not an issue either. A buddy and I investigated the actual route of some of these years ago. We simply have Wilderness prescriptions to maintain a certain level of primitiveness. Maybe we should use tomahawks to clean trails.
|
|
|
Post by GaliWalker on Nov 6, 2015 10:01:09 GMT -5
My take: - If a trail exists, maintain it (if you have the funds). I'm on board with the non-use of mechanized tools for this maintenance. However, I might be ok with the authorization of a special dispensation in extreme situations - not sure what those would be though. - If there is no trail and visitation is light enough that dispersed travel doesn't create myriad routes, leave the situation as is. If visitation becomes high and numerous social trails begin to appear, consolidating these to a single path, with maybe the creation of a trail, would be better. - Maintain road access to existing trailheads (if you have the funds).
|
|
|
Post by jnk556 on Nov 6, 2015 18:33:19 GMT -5
My take: - If a trail exists, maintain it (if you have the funds). I'm on board with the non-use of mechanized tools for this maintenance. However, I might be ok with the authorization of a special dispensation in extreme situations - not sure what those would be though. - If there is no trail and visitation is light enough that dispersed travel doesn't create myriad routes, leave the situation as is. If visitation becomes high and numerous social trails begin to appear, consolidating these to a single path, with maybe the creation of a trail, would be better. - Maintain road access to existing trailheads (if you have the funds). I'm going to agree here 100%
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 9, 2015 10:16:57 GMT -5
Thanks for the opinions guys. My original intention for the direction of the topic was a little different. Its interesting to me where it went but let me play devils advocate for a minute and try to realign the direction of the topic. Some are ok with chainsaws and some are not Vdeal you are against the use of chainsaws (as am I) but what if someone feels the same way about any form of saws/trail maintenance? Wouldn't the true quintessential "wilderness" be void of all trails. The idea of trails can be a continuum from paved surface with hand rails steps and bridges all the way down to faint game trails to nothing at all. We'd all agree the former would be unacceptable in a "wilderness" but where do we draw the line on the latter? We have designated roadless areas what about designated Trailess areas? I'm only bringing this up as food for thought I'm not supporting the idea of restricting human use in certain newly designated "trailess area" but can see where some extreme environmentalist might promote the idea. I'm not insinuating this is how anyone on this forum feels and would imagine the people who do are non users of the wilderness areas to begin with. But I igamine they are out there?? Spice Run Wilderness in WV is one such trailess wilderness area. The forest Service went as far as to bulldoze an old jeep road on the northern boundary to prevent hunters from driving vehicles in. The result was a huge eyesore that is impossible to hike on.
|
|
|
Post by jnk556 on Nov 9, 2015 18:47:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the opinions guys. My original intention for the direction of the topic was a little different. Its interesting to me where it went but let me play devils advocate for a minute and try to realign the direction of the topic. Some are ok with chainsaws and some are not Vdeal you are against the use of chainsaws (as am I) but what if someone feels the same way about any form of saws/trail maintenance? Wouldn't the true quintessential "wilderness" be void of all trails. The idea of trails can be a continuum from paved surface with hand rails steps and bridges all the way down to faint game trails to nothing at all. We'd all agree the former would be unacceptable in a "wilderness" but where do we draw the line on the latter? We have designated roadless areas what about designated Trailess areas? I'm only bringing this up as food for thought I'm not supporting the idea of restricting human use in certain newly designated "trailess area" but can see where some extreme environmentalist might promote the idea. I'm not insinuating this is how anyone on this forum feels and would imagine the people who do are non users of the wilderness areas to begin with. But I igamine they are out there?? Spice Run Wilderness in WV is one such trailess wilderness area. The forest Service went as far as to bulldoze an old jeep road on the northern boundary to prevent hunters from driving vehicles in. The result was a huge eyesore that is impossible to hike on. Isn't that one of the new wilderness areas? Kinda pointless not to have any trails in there, I mean the majority of people would avoid it, kinda a waste of wilderness.
|
|
vdeal
Forum Elder
Posts: 616
|
Post by vdeal on Nov 9, 2015 21:55:04 GMT -5
Spice Run Wilderness in WV is one such trailess wilderness area. The forest Service went as far as to bulldoze an old jeep road on the northern boundary to prevent hunters from driving vehicles in. The result was a huge eyesore that is impossible to hike on. Isn't that one of the new wilderness areas? Kinda pointless not to have any trails in there, I mean the majority of people would avoid it, kinda a waste of wilderness. Spice Run Wilderness does contain the old abandoned Spice Run Trail and I hear that there is a fisherman's use trail along Spice Run. Those notwithstanding Wilderness areas aren't all about human use. Wilderness areas serve multiple uses. But the law limits uses to those consistent with the Wilderness Act mandate that each wilderness area be administered to preserve the “wilderness character of the area.” For example, these areas protect watersheds and clean-water supplies vital to downstream municipalities and agriculture, as well as habitats supporting diverse wildlife, including endangered species. They are also to have educational, scientific, or historical value. A Wilderness area with no trails is just as useful from the original intent of the Wilderness Act as an area with scuds of trails. Oh, BTW, if I'm hunting I'll probably be in an area with very few trails. Calling it a waste shows a very narrow minded view of what Wilderness is about - a very anthropocentric one.
|
|
|
Post by countryroads on Nov 18, 2015 19:20:16 GMT -5
In July some friends and I hiked Otter Creek trail from condon run trailhead to Moore run and then, after setting up camp, hiked maybe another 1 or so miles down stream. The trail conditions were not bad. There were major relocations from just down stream of pot-hole falls. The trail went up the side of the mountain and continued for probably 1/4 mile or so, but was easy to follow. The old trail way was pretty much unhikeable in much of the middle portion. After crossing Moore Run, there was another upslope relocation that was in good condition. The old trail, in many places in the middle section, had simply slid into the creek. The creek itself is pretty clogged with debris in the middle section. If the trail in the middle section has lots of blow downs, they might be recent ones as we did not have any issues with blow downs, either on the relocated sections or the old parts of the trail. I actually sent an email to the MNF people giving positive feed back on the work that has been done to reopen Otter Creek Trail after Hurricane Sandy.
|
|