======================================================
To: ENTST-@topica.com
From: TJ Sullivan 
Subject: Re: Recreation on the Public Forests Part One
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:50:11 EDT

Maurice and fellow ENTS,
I may be a novice when it comes to trees and understanding
the natural world but backcountry recreation is a topic I have been
involved in extensively for the past eight years. The question you
ask is one I have been struggling with and working on for a long
time. Here are some of my evolving thoughts on the subject:
In 1994 I put on my backpack and started walking on the
Appalachian Trail from Georgia to Maine. Over the next three years I
spent over half my days, mostly spring through summer, carrying my
pack some 7000 or so miles along trails that passed through countless
State and National Forests.
I had some incredible experiences and came to believe that if
only more people could experience the wonders of the natural world
the "real" world would be a much better place. I became an ardent
supporter of hiking trails and efforts to get people out on them. If
people see the beauty before them then of course they will want to
protect it. Right?
After finishing the Pacific Crest Trail in 97 I moved to
Vermont and stumbled into a job with the Green Mountain Club. My
first season I helped establish their group outreach program which
was designed to proactively limit the impacts of groups on the trail.
I also worked part time as a Caretaker (the GMC's version of a ranger
naturalist). After four seasons working at the most beautiful as well
as busiest sites in Vermont I came to learn three very important
lessons.
Despite the fact that I had spent more time in the woods than
most people ever will, I knew absolutely nothing about it. I felt and
experienced its magic but did so as a visitor not as a member of the
natural community. As a Caretaker I began to understand what it means
to be truly connected to a place. Something you can not experience if
you are just passing through.
The second lesson came when I started asking the people I met
some key questions. The answers to which completely destroyed my
belief that getting people out into the forests would help preserve
the natural world. My very unscientific survey taught me that the
vast majority of recreationalists - which includes day hikers,
weekenders, ATVers, snowmobilers and even the supposedly enlightened
through hikers - were making very limited connections with the
natural world. More importantly, few actually were taking any steps
to protect it. A small portion were members of trail organizations
and they ardently believed that by being a member of a hiking club
they were doing their part to preserve the environment. But how much
of that money is used for conservation as opposed servicing their own
membership and creating and maintaining trails and shelters?
Which led to my final and hardest to accept lesson. The folks
working for many of these recreational organizations truly believe
they are making the world a better place. Some of these
organizations, like the GMC, are very active and progressive in their
conservation efforts. The GMC's Caretaker Program is a model that
should be copied (with some minor tweaking) in many state and
national parks. But in the end I had to admit that my efforts as a
Caretaker did not come close to making up for the impacts created by
the presence of the trails and the users they invited.
So now with the background out of the way let me tell you
what my personal beliefs about recreation are:
Although as a kid, I used to find buzzing around on ATV's to
be a fun, the damage they do to the environment is far to great for
me to justify solely for the sake of my own personal pleasure. I will
not walk across lichen covered rocks or rare and fragile vegetation
to get to a nice spot for the same reasons. Nor will I walk in an
animals denning habitat in a season when they are using it to raise
their young. My car also damages the environment but unfortunately I
need to drive it places in order to put food on the table and also to
promote my conservation efforts. Is this worth the damage it causes?
I do not know but until I find a better option I have little choice
but to continue. Hopefully our society can find a more responsible
and sustainable means of survival. Or maybe I will win the lottery,
buy an electric highbryd and build a modest solar powered house in an
environmentally responsible place. But I believe there is a big
difference between doing what is necessary to survive and doing what
you want to do for fun. Removing entire species from this planet as a
side affect of our search for pleasure is unacceptable to me.
However, being a righteous American, I also believe I have
the right to visit these forests if my impacts and the impacts of
those that follow me can be kept to a sustainable level. Yes, there
should be some areas that are largely off limits. Other areas that
become too impacted should be closed for a long enough time for them
to recover to their original state, and I respect and adhere to these
closings.
Unfortunately the vast majority of our society lacks the
understanding and respect necessary for traveling in the backcountry.
With a recreation industry intent on "selling" the great outdoors,
the pressure will only continue to grow. There is not the political
will, manpower, or money to close off these areas anyway.
Since I have been taught to never complain about problems
without offering solutions, I will send another email with a few
possibilities for folks to chew and comment on.
Tim
======================================================
To: ENTST-@topica.com
From: Don Bertolette 
Subject: Re: Recreation on the Public Forests Part One
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 11:51:08 -0700

Tim-
While I'm relatively recent to the National Park Service
(five years), I have found similar levels of 'hiking consciousness',
and appreciate what you've learned. I have found many 'Parkies' have
preceded me both in consciousness and years with the Park.
It comes from almost always conflicting mandates...to
preserve AND protect, for the enjoyment of many.   It's so hard to
observe without impact, especially with the "I want it all now"
generations. A 'leave no trace' ethic has gathered momentum (leave
only tracks, take only memories) in a contrapuntal sort of way.
What I like best about your post (and there's a lot to like),
is your last statement..."I have been taught to never complain about
problems without offering solutions..." We could all benefit from
more of that going around!
- DonB

======================================================
To: ENTST-@topica.com
From: lef 
Subject: Re: Recreation on the Public Forests Part One
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:00:22 -0500

ENTS:
Many have heard me make the comment that 95% of all the
visitors to some of our best public wild areas never get more than
1/4 mile from the parking lot. In a place like the Porkies, there
are plenty of picnic areas with board walks that confine these herds
of people to small areas. They give casual visitors a view of 3-4
foot dbh 500-year-old hemlocks with virtually no effort. When I talk
to these visitors and compare them to those have been backpacking for
a week, the only difference I can detect is in physical ability. As
Tim noticed, there is virtually no real connection to the forest (at
least not the type of connection we think we have as ENTS members)
for a large majority of people, even among those who spend a lot of
time in the woods. Therefore, one could come to the conclusion that
public forests are just a fancy place to hike, with different scenery
than that along the hikers walking path in the city.
Very few see the forest as I do, as a treasure trove of
genetic resources, as an 'ecosystem seed' that has all the biological
materials and processes necessary to restore the rest of the
landscape, or as a living work of art, a living historical museum, or
a spiritual home. I am not sure that my view of the forest gives me
more right to be there.
That leads me to ask a question that sounds pretty much
un-American. Are the impacts that most people make justified given
the trivial nature of their experience? The managers of the Porkies
have answered that question without using words, and probably not
consciously either, by building those boardwalks where large numbers
of people can get a glimpse of the forest without causing damage. The
damage in the wilderness then only comes from those who are able to
climb over downed trees and rocks and hike more than 1/4 mile, which
in our current drive-through culture is not very many (at least as a
proportion).
There are plenty of scientists who demand and get special
permission to core trees and for other privileges (such as my
exemption from the visitors permit and quota system in the BWCAW) to
do research. Some scientists think they are in an elite class and
that only they should be allowed in many wild areas. Indeed, that is
the secret motivation for some students who want to go to graduate
school in forestry.
I will close this ambivalent and rambling posting with an
observation: the park next to my condominium in downtown Minneapolis
has several natural vegetation restorations and gardens with several
hundred species of plants and wildlife such as egrets, great blue
herons, turtles, etc. etc. Fifty thousand people live within a mile
of the park, and there are festivals there throughout the summer
where hundreds of thousands are in the park at one time. Yet, one
never sees a plant or bird vandalized. In remote wild areas, however,
the tiny proportion of the population that penetrates to the area
inevitably strip the moss off rocks, chop chunks of bark off trees,
strip plant cover in sensitive areas such as shorelines and shallow
soiled areas, and leave behind trash. I can't figure out why this
difference in the way these two areas are treated exists, but maybe
ENTS members have some suggestions.
Lee Frelich
University of Minnesota
Department of Forest Resources

======================================================
To: ENTST-@topica.com
From: TJ Sullivan 
Subject: Re: Recreation on the Public Forests (part two solutions)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:58:31 EDT

As you can probably tell from part 1, working in the
backcountry has given me plenty of time to think about the problems
that recreation create in our state and national forests. Below are a
couple of the possible solutions I have been debating with myself. I
would be interested in hearing other's comments on these as well as
additional thoughts for solving the conflict between preservation and
human presence in natural areas:
1) No new trails should be built anywhere unless an area is
being obviously impacted due to the lack of a trail (ie: too many
people bushwhacking to a popular waterfall). There are too few blank
spots on the map that are already being filled in with roads and
houses let's not muck up the last ones with trails.
2) Older trails that were poorly designed or placed in
sensitive areas that can not handle visitors should be relocated or
removed.
3) Any new or relocated trails that are built should be
designed by a field team that includes recreation experts as well as
ecologists who can ensure that the trail is well designed and does
not pass through sensitive plant and animal habitat. The most that
usually happens today is some overworked government biologist pulls
out the deer yard maps and plant surveys from 30 years ago then signs
off on the project.
4) Some trails should be designated as high use, others as
low use. Novice hikers and the general public should be invited to
use the high use trails. These trails should be hardened to handle
the impact and staffed by naturalists who can help the public make
deeper connections. The low use trails should never be promoted.
People who want more remote experiences should be willing to put in
the effort to find them on their own. People who reveal these
wonderful "hidden" gems to the public should be lined up and flogged
repeatedly. Collin Fletcher had a wonderful approach to writing about
his backcountry experiences. When describing places he visited he
completely makes up the directions, guaranteeing that anyone trying
to follow in his footsteps would become hopelessly lost.
I believe the same approach should be used with the old
growth forests we find. The easily accessible ones should be shared
with a broad audience to raise awareness. Most others should remain
off the publics radar screens. I have seen to many special places
decline from over use in my short lifetime. If the dispersal approach
has not worked for urban development why should it even be tried in
the natural areas? The threat of recreational sprawl scares me just
about as much as the problem of urban sprawl.
5) Camp groups that wish to be out in the woods for self help
or bonding experiences should be directed to state campgrounds or
private wood lots and not to more remote backcountry areas. Singing
songs and making bonfires is fun but is not part of a real
backcountry experience and the presence of these groups makes it
almost impossible for others to connect with the natural world.
Groups larger than 10 do not belong in the backcountry at all.
Recommended group size should be more in the 4 to 6 range. The only
exception to this is when the group leaders can prove (ie. present a
curriculum, etc.) that there is a very strong educational component
that requires being in that specific area and cannot be accomplished
in a more accessible site.
6) Dogs must be controlled or kept out of the back country.
One of the biggest impacts I have seen associated with hikers is the
impact of their pets. Dogs harass wildlife and are a proven
contaminator of water supplies. If dogs are allowed in an area then
they must be held to the same standards as people. They must remain
on the trails in sensitive areas, should be under total voice command
or on a leash, and their waste must be managed as any persons is
expected to be.
7) Hikers should be required to have licenses (especially on
state and federal land) just like hunters. To acquire a dayhikers
license people should have to go through a one day class and field
course. Overnighters have to go on an overnight course. Both courses
should teach backcountry safety and some form of Leave No Trace. They
should foster an awareness of the specialness of the habitats they
wish to visit and the impacts facing them. After the course people
would be able to renew annually at a lower fee. Grants should be
available for low income people. The fees would be used directly for
the protection of natural areas and the maintenance of trails and
overnight facilities (where they are needed).
I know I lost the libertarian vote on this one. No one hates
rules and regulations more than I do. But if the choice is between no
rules and an unhealthy forest with a diminished backcountry
experience, and having regulations and a fee to preserve both the
forest and the experience then I vote for regulations.
The licensing approach makes far more sense to me than
entrance fees and the new parking fees in several national forests.
The license not only makes people pay for the impacts that they are
creating, it also requires that they learn to reduce those impacts
before entering the forest. Besides, much of the money raised by
parking fees currently goes into improving roads (including logging
roads), enlarging parking areas, and building fancy roadside
outhouses. Backcountry management is pitifully underfunded.
8) Instead of promoting the "get out there" message we should
be promoting the "get connected" message. If back in 94 I had been
introduced to Bob and the other members on this list instead of being
inspired to hike the Appalachian Trail I would be a much wiser and
far more content person today. Instead of spending 6 1/2 months
walking through the long green tunnel admiring the occasional views,
I would have learned to see the forest in a much more meaningful and
special way. How could I have spent so much time outside and seen so
little?
If we can help people make deeper connections by introducing
them to the animals, birds, trees and countless other things that
reside in the natural world. If these people saw that these things
exist in their own backyards and not just in remote natural areas
then maybe they would begin to understand that they are a part of
nature and begin to see how all their actions directly impact it, for
better or worse. If people learn to understand, love and respect
nature instead of using it as a giant jungle gym then I think we
would not have to differentiate between forests set aside for
preservation and those meant for human interaction.
Tim

======================================================
To: ENTST-@topica.com
From: Don Bertolette 
Subject: Re: Recreation on the Public Forests
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 12:18:42 -0700

Maurice-
Oh boy, I too have some thoughts on your inquiry!
One thing that I can't ignore, having worked for two separate
agencies (the National Park Service, as distinct from the National
Forest Service) from two different Departments (Dept. of the Interior
vs. Dept. of Agriculture), is the surprising inability of the general
public to discern the difference. The National Forest Service has as
one of its primary missions, the mandate to provide in a long term
sustainable way, multiple use of the forested lands under its domain.
The National Park Service, is primarily about preserving and
protecting (a more difficult undertaking than it appears at first
glance).
Now, on to your question re recreation on our countries state
and national forests...should the mission be only preservation? What
is unclear about preservation? The environmental organizations have
made it very clear and without intransigence...these are lands under
public ownership, and to be preserved for the greater good.
Untrammeled is a word that comes to mind. If you can go out there and
leave no trace (no trammeling), then you're adhering to the
wilderness concept (sort of like "don't ask, don't tell). If we were
being real purists (Zero-cut on public lands), not even that would be
acceptable.
But with so many people, compromises are inevitable, and
sometimes the best you can do is to strive for the least possible
impact.
Passive recreation? Hikers really don't like walking only on
the trail, with multiple paths the 'path most travelled by', they so
often HAVE TO HAVE a nightly fire, and not one that always gets put
out at night, or sometimes even before they leave. Canoeing is closer
to a minimum impact recreation. And how many fall prey to the urge to
set up camp on a lush verdant meadow overlooking a burbling brook,
when a relatively depauperate forest floor was near by.
But yes, with a broader perspective that includes motorized
recreation, these are passive activities.
Passive is definitely not the word that comes to mind when
describing the 150 folks who attended the Lake Mead National
Recreation Area, to object to the decision to banning jet-skiis from
the lake...here you have a for the most part obnoxious group of folks
who have for years been inconsiderate of others, in their selfish
pursuit of instant gratification. Do I sound like an old-fogey,
who's never ridden one? Probably...but in fact I have, they're very
seductive, and hard to resist running rogue-ish.
Mountain bikes okay? My perspective is that the sport is in
its infancy, and until it matures (there is a surprising large
contingent of 'tudes' out there (ride with an 'attitude'). From a
wilderness perspective, mtn. bikes are capable of being the machine
that outstrips the environment's ability to sustain its impact.
Having said all that, its my firm belief there's not an
recreational activity that I can think of that wouldn't be okay in
our nations parks and forests...if only the participants were capable
of moderating their impact. -Don B

====================================================
To: ENTST-@topica.com
From: Don Bertolette 
Subject: Re: Recreation on the Public Forests (part two solutions)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:13:36 -0700

Lee-
You've opened up what out here is a 'can of worms'...National
Parks and Forests are using the recently proposed Fee Demo Program to
focus the moneys garnered from each Park/Forest, to be used at each
Park/Forest, respectively. From my insider's perspective, we are in
the Park able to fund natural and cultural resource protection
projects that we can't otherwise get funding for.
Here in Arizona, a curious combination of libertarianism and
environmentalism has hybridized, and locals are protesting the Fee
Demo Program, demanding free and continuous access to the Redrocks of
Sedona, and Oak Creek Canyon...again from my perspective, a case of
wanting to have one's cake and eat it too...
-Don B

======================================================
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:34:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: ENTST-@topica.com
From: lef 
Subject: Re: Recreation on the Public Forests (part two solutions)

Tim:
Good ideas. As a researcher, I always have to get a permit
to do anything on public lands (even though I am then exempt from any
quotas on numbers of visitors). It doesn't seem that big a task.
Millions of dollars raised a few dollars at a time could do a lot for
natural areas. Unfortunately money from state park stickers that we
have to buy in most states mostly goes for road and campground
improvements, rather than better management of natural areas. One
exception is the sales of guide books, walking sticks, t-shirts, etc,
in MN state park 'nature stores', which goes to nongame species
research and management.
Lee