I want to get some people's opinion about certain aspects of Leave No Trace. Here's a link to Yosemite Wilderness regulations for reference. I mostly follow the rules, but re-reading them now I see some that I don't follow so closely.
"Choose a previously impacted campsite...
I guess I don't really follow this rule. I agree that if you find a previously impacted site, it's better to camp on it than next to it. However, I prefer to steer clear of them altogether.
...at least 100 feet (30 meters/40 paces) from any water source or trail."
I usually follow this one. On my last trip, two of our more remote campsites ended up being about 50 feet from small trickles of water. What do people think: bad idea?
"Carry out all trash. Do not burn or bury toilet paper or trash."
I follow this one carefully when it comes to my own trash. However, there are practical limits when it comes to other people's trash. I've carried balloons, banana peels, even a small can or two. At the very bottom of the Tuolumne River trail, my group found some large-ish, thoroughly rusted steel cans wedged under rocks. Presumably they'd been brought in with the aid of pack animals. We chose not to haul them 3600 feet up to White Wolf, our destination for the next day. The biggest piece of wilderness trash that I've personally seen was an unwashed skillet, 10 inches across if not larger, in Marble Mountain Wilderness. Again, nobody in my party wanted to carry it.
"Proper food storage is mandatory."
Don't say this too loudly, but I've gotten away with hanging small quantities of "smellables" in more-remote areas of Yosemite when they didn't fit in my bear can. This is not a recommendation in general, and a definite no-no in heavily used areas, but I wanted to hear what other people have done.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2017 08:57AM by iivvgg.
The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (54% of Full)
Wilderness regulations and Leave No Trace
All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner
of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion
and not fact until verified independently.
September 10, 2017 01:15PM |
September 10, 2017 02:13PM |
Perfect leadup to this:
(3 peeps, 10 dayz)
Got canz?
We have decided that the proper answer to:
"Have you seen any bears?"
is
"Yeah, we saw a few but they just sauntered off, never bothered us,
we pretty much ignore them since bear cans are required... you have a bear can, right?"
w/r to camping spot:
Durable surface is so that you can't really tell your impact. So if you can do that... then
my opinion is camp where you like. The least impacted, the better. Personally seeing
a bunch of logs in circles and trampled ground ... is just depressing. Who wants that?
I guess most. I don't. The people I go with don't.
There's places that have been thru many many times and to see camp "furniture" and
new fire rings appear on a yearly basis recently... sigh.. really?
w/i 50 ft of a trickle? is it a constant flow? just so much water around?
The 100 ft. is supposed to be so OTHER people coming around have some privacy too.
Like don't camp next to the lake. Or right next to the trail. Someone exploring around
a lake should not have to dance around someone else's campsite.
Additionally the actual wildlife should be able to access water w/o dodging you either.
This is my opinion. But I'm pretty sure that's why...
The pack out trash. ... is a no brainer... and don't burn it either. And sure as heck don't
try burning tin foil...
Anyway, have fun and LNT
Please
(3 peeps, 10 dayz)
Got canz?
We have decided that the proper answer to:
"Have you seen any bears?"
is
"Yeah, we saw a few but they just sauntered off, never bothered us,
we pretty much ignore them since bear cans are required... you have a bear can, right?"
w/r to camping spot:
Durable surface is so that you can't really tell your impact. So if you can do that... then
my opinion is camp where you like. The least impacted, the better. Personally seeing
a bunch of logs in circles and trampled ground ... is just depressing. Who wants that?
I guess most. I don't. The people I go with don't.
There's places that have been thru many many times and to see camp "furniture" and
new fire rings appear on a yearly basis recently... sigh.. really?
w/i 50 ft of a trickle? is it a constant flow? just so much water around?
The 100 ft. is supposed to be so OTHER people coming around have some privacy too.
Like don't camp next to the lake. Or right next to the trail. Someone exploring around
a lake should not have to dance around someone else's campsite.
Additionally the actual wildlife should be able to access water w/o dodging you either.
This is my opinion. But I'm pretty sure that's why...
The pack out trash. ... is a no brainer... and don't burn it either. And sure as heck don't
try burning tin foil...
Anyway, have fun and LNT
Please
September 11, 2017 07:09AM |
September 11, 2017 10:39PM |
My guess is that the vast majority of wilderness users go once or twice a year.
I'd also guess that they aren't really looking for wilderness. They would just
as well like to be in a campground. Wilderness, what is that? I have to
actually look for a campsite? Where are the campsites? Hey this isn't a
campsite, there's no picnic tables or chairs and fire rings! Let's make one.
There, that's better. We made it better! Yay!
I'm blaming media and perception and companies selling the outdoors.
It isn't camping without a fire they say!
Sigh. I wasn't any better a long time ago. Maybe I got smarter. Maybe
everyone else doesn't see what I see. Maybe they don't want to.
Maybe they don't care. They'll only be there once or twice. They should
carve their initials in that tree... so when they come back they can
remember. Or someone else will know.
I'll try to manage. I need the mountains though to do so.
I'd also guess that they aren't really looking for wilderness. They would just
as well like to be in a campground. Wilderness, what is that? I have to
actually look for a campsite? Where are the campsites? Hey this isn't a
campsite, there's no picnic tables or chairs and fire rings! Let's make one.
There, that's better. We made it better! Yay!
I'm blaming media and perception and companies selling the outdoors.
It isn't camping without a fire they say!
Sigh. I wasn't any better a long time ago. Maybe I got smarter. Maybe
everyone else doesn't see what I see. Maybe they don't want to.
Maybe they don't care. They'll only be there once or twice. They should
carve their initials in that tree... so when they come back they can
remember. Or someone else will know.
I'll try to manage. I need the mountains though to do so.
September 12, 2017 06:57AM |
Quote
buster
Seems that your views are backed up by research, with you being the role of a manager:
" The interviews conducted in this study, albeit limited in number and perhaps representative only of users who go to popular areas, suggest that most do not feel campsite impacts have the negative effect on experiences that some managers have believed occur."
The whole article itself is an interesting ready:
Farrell, T., Hall, T. E., & White, D. D. (2001). Wilderness campers' perception and evaluation of campsite impacts. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(3), 229.
I took a look at this.
I wonder how the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness has changed since 2001.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/willamette/recarea/?recid=4241
For example:
" If camping within 250 feet of any of the lakes in Jefferson Park you must camp within a designated site."
For the record:
I am forever (however long that is) grateful that I live near the Sierra Nevada and to anyone who
had a hand in protecting what we have and the opportunity for solitude and exploration
and enjoyment that we have I thank whole heartedly. I know I have it good.
I'll add that I think that a large portion feel that if they are safer if they camp right next to the trail.
At least this is one of my theories on what we call "PCT Drop n Plop Spots" (ok, maybe I called
them that).
w/r to the link above I also love:
"The best campsites are found not made."
September 11, 2017 07:18PM |
|
Re: Wilderness regulations and Leave No Trace September 11, 2017 09:41PM |
Quote
iivvgg
"Choose a previously impacted campsite...
I guess I don't really follow this rule. I agree that if you find a previously impacted site, it's better to camp on it than next to it. However, I prefer to steer clear of them altogether.
The rule is written that way because of the lifecycle of campsites and it's best to use an existing one than create a new one. A ton of nuance here and exceptions, but in general the first half-dozen to dozen nights at the campsite creates the majority of the impacts. Thereafter, each subsequent visit has less impact until it plateaus (assuming a relatively constant group size).
This graph doesn't show it, but if the campsite was then closed it's recovery would be long and slow. Once the soil is compacted in the campsite, plants have a hard time establishing themselves there. Combined with the short growing season at high elevation, natural recovery takes a long time, in the order of decades. With active restoration, including decompacting the soil, recovery times are less but restoration is obviously a time intensive task.
As others have pointed out, one of the LNT principles is "Camp and Travel on durable surfaces" and one the Rangers use as a corollary to this regulation, as often times people don't want or are not at an established campsite. Then it's best to be on a durable surface and an established campsite should be considered a durable surface. Of course, the 'best' campsite at any location is very subjective and depends on a variety of factors like time of year, conditions on the ground, group size, other groups present, time to alternative sites, etc.
September 12, 2017 07:14PM |
September 14, 2017 03:35PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
