From: Bill B To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 6:41:18 PM
Hi Beth,
I just saw a news segment about proposed strategies for managing the increased use of national forests in Oregon. I'm writing AGAINST the fees and permitting process the media was promoting. It would surprise me if the worst offenders will be impeded by anything you do. Even if effective, fees and permits are unethical; they will differentially impact the poor. Even if there are no direct monetary costs, e.g., free lottery system, some people's schedules are more flexible than others'. I think the best, ethical approach is severe and publicized enforcement for current and generally accepted prohibitions on vandalism, littering, etc. and/or educating the public and ASKING for help with preservation.
Thanks, -Bill Brooks, PhD From: Karen Oldham To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trail Use comments Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 3:31:38 PM
Dear Committee,
I have only recently become aware of the many issues regarding wilderness trail use. Please excuse my ignorance by my suggestions below, if they have already been addressed. I would like to suggest the following.
1. Please do not do a lottery every year. 2. Reduce/remove the advertising relating to these areas. Word of mouth is enough. 3. Add or increase the trail permit fee to (help) cover costs. 4. Put a "poop" supply station at each trail head. Add the following sign: PLEASE, PICK UP AND RETURN TO CAN ON YOUR WAY OUT. On the sign have a picture of a "person" and a "dog". 5. Look at options of adding a few additional parking spaces or "realigning" existing spaces to accommodate more vehicles.
I live in Bend and love easy access to the trails. I love to be able to go on the trail of my choice, on my day of choice, and especially when I am physically able to do so, OR when I have company! I would not mind paying a fee to cover the above.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts.!
-- Karen Oldham "I may be lost but I am making good time." "I know I'm in my own little world. It's okay, they know me here." From: Kris Myers To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 8:23:14 PM
Beth Peer Deschutes National Forest All Units 63095 Deschutes Market Rd , Bend, OR, 97701 Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578
Hi Beth,
First, let me say thank you for the opportunity to speak on this subject of limiting traffic and impact on the land through the Central Cascades Wilderness. This is a great subject to be brought up. I spend a lot of time in the Wilderness all throughout Oregon and Washington hiking and backpacking with friends, family and most importantly Boy Scouts. I am a trainer of the Leave No Trace Principles and a huge supporter of the Outdoor code.
I would fully support the idea of charging and limiting hiking, backpacking in the area, and much more. As an observer, it saddens me that people do not educate themselves or respect the beauty of our landscapes. We have a beautiful opportunity to see these areas, and I think by charging to see them, they will limit the impact and give it some time to restore itself to its original beauty. I would love to see some of the money that is made by charging go towards education to the community in the Leave no Trace principles and the Outdoor Code, so that people understand what happens to our wilderness. I truly hate to think someone should have to pay to see some of our beautiful landscapes, but after spending time on the trail, I think this is the only way in educating people and preserving its glory.
I know this will have an impact on our Boy Scouts who spend summers doing service projects in our area, restoring trails and earning merit badges while seeing Oregon/Washington's beauty, but I think they would be willing to pay the fee to help make a difference. I know I would and to be honest, I would be happy to pay their fee to get to see Jefferson Park, which is one of our favorites. A few years ago we did a service project at Jefferson Park blocking trails, cleaning up trash, and removing Cairns. The boys felt so honored to get to do it, as they fell in love with the area. I know the group that I led that year would be happy to help again in preserving that area if they could.
Thank you for all that you do in maintaining and providing the amenities we experience on the trail. If you are need of help that you think Boy Scouts could handle please reach out to us. We love to backpack and we love service projects, and Jefferson Park is near and dear to our hearts.
Kris Myers BSA Cascade Pacific Council, Thunderbird District, Merit Badge Coordinator BSA Troop 586 Committee Chair, Merit Badge Counselor & most importantly Scout Mom Yoga Instructor E-RYT, Functional Movement Screening, Schwinn Cycling Instructor, TRX Trainer, Myofascia Release, Outdoor Fitness www.empoweredyoganw.com My Yoga Facebook Fanpage From: Susan Long To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Permit/ limited access proposal Date: Thursday, June 01, 2017 7:29:12 PM
Thank you for allowing input in this issue affecting over use of hiking trails in several popular areas in the Three Sisters Wilderness Area, Diamond Wilderness, Mount Washington, and Mount Jefferson. My history in Central Oregon extends back to 1915 when my fathers family came to Bend, my grandfather worked up into management in Shevlin-Hixon and my father had a life long career at Brooks Scanlon and was the first broker for Brooks Resources Corp. we owned a cabin at Elk Lake for 60 years, selling it due to my mother's health in 2006. As a local I have spent my life enjoying the Cascade Mountains, hiking 2-5 days a week in the summer as my work schedule permits. There has been a definite change in both the numbers and use of the day use trails in our area as well as the PCT, Jefferson Park, Canyon Creek, Matthieu Lakes trail, Benson Lake Loop Trail, Black Butte, Black Crater, Green Lakes, Broken Top/ Tam McArther Rim, and poor South Sister. As a local, leave no trace hiker, we found crowded trail heads even early and mid week, even into October. There are daily use by trail runners, that often rudely push thru hikers, on all these trails I mention, visitors that often have no idea what wilderness means, people with multiple unruly dogs or aggressive dogs, that have forced our controlled dogs to have to be leashed and taken off trail to safely protect them. I love going in on the Obsidian Trail by permit, it's like having the world to yourself because or limited access but I have encountered abuse of this as well as having a viscous dog encounter by a camper/hunter in 2015. It also means no spontaneity or having to cancel because of weather, it also may limit those who don't buy up peak time permits early, that will not be able to enjoy that area. Having limited access will prevent those that are local from using the areas, it will make those with financial ability to buy up permits early to get access and limited use will put pressure on the trails that are unpermitted...overuse in other areas as well. Yes, Green Lakes, permit only, South Sister, permit only, Broken Top, permit only, Canyon Creek, Jefferson Park, and Matthieu Lakes, permit only, but not Mirror Lakes, Lucky Lakes, Seven Lakes Trail Head, Mink Lake Basin, Benson Lake, and the Tenas Lakes may need limited access in the near future. My concern is the number of times you can secure a permit in a season to a certain trail should also be limited to say 10 times by an individual, this will keep those that financially can from buying up permits and extreme athletes from daily use while others can't get permits for a day hike. Yes, wilderness is just that and that is the experience I want...I just want to be able to plan and get a permit and not have a rich runner be who gets daily use of a trail. South Sister used to be something locals trained to do each summer, not the hundreds of ill prepared, ill equipped, ill mannered individuals my family encountered when we did it in 2015. On our way down, we discussed that doing South needs to cost more, including a brief waiver that clearly spells out the risks, including death, the Mazama mountain rules, and given the nature of the trail, running should be forbidden, period, trail runners put everyone at risk on South. Thank you for allowing my input. Permit/ limit access on high use areas, but prevent those with financial ability from buying up all or so many multiple permits, local individual use would be impossible. Limit extreme athletes from it being their daily runs by also looking or limiting how many permits in a month per individual can be bought. Don't over permit an area that would make unpermitted trails like Horse Lake, Doris Blow area be then over used too. It's the sad part of the Bend areas huge population growth spurt...this land is public land too, but we as the public need to be stewards of the wilderness we so love. Susan Hale Long and family 60535 Bobcat Rd Bend, Oregon 97702
Sent from my iPad From: Stan and Linda To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Re: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:19:03 PM
Ms. Peer, It is certainly something to think about as hunters are paying a higher dollar to enter the forest (hunting license, tag fees, forest permits and taxes on hunting equipment) than hikers and bikers and if hunters aren’t near a trail head and can’t enter to hunt because there are too many hikers and bikers in an area, there will be a huge issue with hunters verses other forest users. Especially in the Deschutes National Forest near the three Sisters Wilderness area. There, the two aren’t competing for the same area, but because of past ways the USFS has done some limiting of entry, it is not just in a trail head area, but the whole wilderness and this could get pretty messy on how the USFS decides which groups to serve and which groups get cut out. Something really challenging to think about. Currently, there are certain weekends in the Todd Lake, Three Creeks section that there are bicycle events, cross country running events and others that already encroach on hunting areas with hundreds of folks bicycling and running through the middle of hunting season, with most having no idea that hunting is happening in the area they are competing in. Maybe the USFS should try and have the bicycle and running events not scheduled in the middle of a hunting season and the conflicts would not occur. I’d suggest contacting the local hunting organizations (Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, Oregon Hunters Association, Oregon Bow Hunters Association, just to name a few) and include them in your planning groups along with the hiking and biking organizations. If you don’t include them, I’m sure complications will most likely be a consequence. Thanks for your answer and good luck with this issue of too many people in the forest. Stan Porter
PS: We tried to hike Green Lakes one Saturday last summer and didn’t as there was what looked like over 100 cars parked along the highway adjacent to the trail head across from Sparks Lake. We spoke to a guy that hiked that day and he said he stood beside the trail on his way back to the trail head at around 11 am for five minutes while a line of about 90 people walked up the trail and wouldn’t let him back on the trail to continue down the trail. Not good.
On Jun 4, 2017, at 8:17 AM, Peer, Beth -FS
> These are good questions and things that we'll be working on. We've certainly thought about hunters as a special consideration. > And if you have any ideas, we'd love to hear them. One option could include hunters not being subject to having a permit. > So I don't have a complete answer for you yet, but knowing what your concerns are will help us design an alternative that addresses them. > Thank you, > ~Beth > > Beth Peer > Special Projects Manager > Forest Service > Deschutes National Forest > p: 541-383-4761 > c: 541-416-1100 > bpeer@fs fed.us > 63095 Deschutes Market Rd. > Bend, OR 97754 > www fs fed.us > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 5:26 PM > To: Peer, Beth -FS
As a Climb Leader with the Chemeketans in Salem, Oregon, I support the concept of limiting the number of people at the proposed trailheads listed in the Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 (CCWS-17); however, I do have several concerns.
First: Payment for permit. A NW Forrest Pass is already required at these trailhead. I would not support an additional fee on top of the NW Forest Pass. We need to get people into the woods so that they can see the splendor and want to preserve it. Two levels of paid barriers will undoubtedly limit American's access to these areas to those that can afford it.
Second: I am concerned about how these limited access permits will be distributed. If it is a first-come, first served system at a ranger station, it bars access because the close by local population will dominate the access. I have a climb this summer in the north cascades to Snowfield Peak. The access is limited to three parties of 6. It is a first-come, first-served system. I have to drive 6-hours to Marblemount ranger station and cross my fingers that a permit is still available. I will have to leave on Wednesday to secure a permit on Thursday just for a Saturday-Sunday climb....if I'm lucky. It is important to have walk up permits available; however, it is also important to allow people to apply months in advance to secure (on-line) a permit to guarantee access. Even if it is a lottery system.
Third, if permits are going to be issued at ranger stations, such as Detroit, then the ranger station needs to be open during weekends and for extended hours, and holidays when the trails are used.
Fourth, if a lottery system is used, it needs to bar access to for-profit guides. These groups are professionals who's lively hood depends on access to these areas and should be already obtaining a special use permit. This is never enforced from my experience.
Fifth and finally, when a specific date of access is issued by permit to an individual, that individual generally will take the opportunity even if the weather is poor which in effect drives them to take weather and conditions based risks which increase the probability of accidents leading tAlex Honnold has become the first climber to free solo Yosemite’s 3,000-foot El Capitan peak.o rescues.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal,
Bryon Snapp
Bryon From: J. E. Seibert To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Comments regarding Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Saturday, June 03, 2017 6:40:21 PM
Regarding the proposed limited entry, permitted access to up to 40 trailheads in the Central Cascades:
1. Protecting wilderness areas from over-use is very important, and I see no others way to do this other than limited entry-permitted access.
2. There needs to be some way to allow limited spontaneous trips to the potentially permitted areas. Until a few years ago, remaining permits could be obtained at a ranger station, so that we could, with luck, make a last minute decision to hike, for example, in the Pamelia area. I see this as especially important for out-of-state visitors who may not be familiar with the convoluted recreation.gov routine. Please allow ranger stations to sell unissued same-day permits!
3. Unless recreation.gov is improved, potential users may be denied any access to these areas. My experiences with recreation.gov have been horrible — so horrible that I don’t even try to get permits any longer. I feel I am essentially denied access to the two current permitted areas. Problems I have had are: reserving a permit and then being unable to access and print it (it turns out it was staff error at recreation.gov and took me hours on the phone and a litter to my congressman to resolve), confused staff, and a convoluted telephone system that takes too much time to work through, and, once, “ told" me there was no such thing as the Pamelia area. Perhaps things have improved since I gave up completely.
4. Perhaps permits could be designed to be used within a three day period or even a week? User would then have some flexibility so that weather, illness, etc. could be accommodated. Users wouldn’t be dispersed over calendar days as effectively as they would if specific-day use only was permitted, but it would be an improvement on the current system.
JoAnn Elizabeth Seibert 2245 Englewood Ave NE Salem OR 97301 [email protected] From: Machnik, Lisa - FS To: Nelson-Dean, Jean A -FS Cc: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Fwd: WWW Mail: Planning for Wilderness Management Date: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:56:35 AM
Comment below.
Lisa K Machnik, Recreation, Heritage, Lands & Partnerships Staff Officer Forest Service Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests & Crooked River National Grassland p: 541-383-5533 c: 503-310-2245 [email protected] 63095 Deschutes Market Road Bend OR 97701 www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: FS-Mailroom R6 Central Oregon
Hi Lisa,
I'm helping cover the Central Oregon Mailroom. Could you forward as/if appropriate?
Thank you, Lindsay
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2017 11:56 AM To: FS-Mailroom R6 Central Oregon
I'm writing to express my support for limiting visitors in wilderness areas through a permit system. In addition I feel that dogs should be banned in wilderness areas.
I am a strong supporter of wilderness values and the 1964 Wilderness Act. Human impacts to wildlife, vegetation, water, soil, and landscape has grown to an alarming level, and our wild areas need to be protected and preserved.
Thank you for considering my comments. Michele McKay Bend, OR
(PS - I tried to participate in the online survey earlier this year, but your online tool was not working and was a big waste of time!) From: Tyler Creelan To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: RE: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 Date: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 12:05:39 PM
Hi Beth,
Excited about your new wilderness strategy! I'm just a casual hiker, but wanted to suggest:
- Reduce non-permitted guiding. This is exploding due to new platforms like Airbnb Experiences and GetYourGuide.com. Similarly, illegal commercial events are public on facebook but go unprosecuted.
- Increase penalty fees for violations. People only pay attention when the fee is $5000 or more, given the rare chance of enforcement!
- Provide a 24-hour hotline funded by penalty fees. Include a token reward. Provide an online form where reporters can upload license plate photos or other evidence.
*this is the strategy used for poaching violations. In wilderness areas, the prospect of having another user report the violation is the only available deterrent.
- Currently rangers just scold people for camping beside lakes, or letting their dog chase elk. This activity will continue until campers are actually cited and the word gets out. Verbal warnings are not effective.
Anyway, I really enjoy our wilderness areas and looking forward to a new conservation- supportive strategy!
-Tyler From: Peer, Beth -FS To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Conversation record - Lee and Peggy Fischer Date: Monday, June 12, 2017 12:18:07 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png
This morning Lee and Peggy Fischer came to the office to discuss the wilderness project. They had heard from Marv that our proposal had been released and they wondered why they had not received it, but they weren’t totally certain that they had not. I took their email and postal mail addresses, gave them a hardcopy of the scoping documents, and then emailed them the documents electronically and subscribed them to the email updates. We talked about 30 minutes just in general about their history and involvement in recreating on the Forest with horses and the problems they see (particularly parking – inability to park, or getting blocked in when they are parked with horse trailers and cars park all around them). Lee commented that he thinks we need to do something and that we need to expedite our process. He questioned how we could enforce a permit system unless we got a budget for it. He said that he wants to get his BCH group to support us. I encouraged them to read through the proposed action and submit their comments, critiques, and ideas before July 3rd.
Beth Peer Special Projects Coordinator Forest Service Deschutes National Forest p: 541-383-5554 c: 541-416-1100 [email protected] 63095 Deschutes Market Rd. Bend, OR 97701 www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
From: REBECCA ENGELN Owner To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Friday, June 09, 2017 12:13:01 PM
Please do not follow through with the proposed "visitor use strategies" in the five wilderness areas of the central cascades in Oregon. Especially not limiting access by requiring permits. It is extremely important for Oregonians to have unrestricted access to these areas for recreational purposes. I know that currently a park pass is required and that at some trail heads there is a means to pay a daily fee ($5); I think these current strategies are sufficient. I enjoy hiking nearly every weekend and would be very disappointed if that was hindered Becky
From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central cascades wilderness strategies comment Date: Saturday, June 10, 2017 9:45:04 AM
Please reconsider restricting horse use in the five wilderness areas! Horse use in these areas has actually decreased over the years. The increased use has been from hikers. As a member of BCHO, we use our horses for recreation in the wilderness but also spend numerous hours packing in people and equipment to help maintain trails, stock fish in lakes, and assist the FS as needed.
Safe horseback riding is slowly diminishing with increased restrictions. Please help keep the areas currently available open to equestrians!
Thank you, Aleta Bullard Scio, OR
Sent from my iPad From: Bert Morris To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 9:32:19 AM
Dear sir,
I read with great interest your strategies for management of the Cascade Wilderness areas. I share many of the concerns noted.
Two items are of special interest to me as an active member of Back Country Horsemen of Oregon (BCHO).
1 - While visitor traffic has increased, I have not noticed any increase in pack and saddle stock use. I would hope that this would be taken in consideration when talking about restricting visitor access and NOT restrict the use of pack and saddle stock.
2 - If a fee program is included in any part of this management plan, I would hope that there would be a way for volunteers, such as myself and other members of BCHO, to gain some kind of credit for the value of our volunteer efforts towards trail maintenance.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.
Bert Morris 38733 Conser Rd NE Albany, OR 97321 From: Peer, Beth -FS To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Conversation Record - Scoping Comment Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 8:42:30 AM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png
I spoke with Elizabeth Mulkey, of Silverton, Oregon this morning. She wanted to make the comment that as a member of BCHO they do a lot of trail work in the wilderness. And she asked that we not limit their use of the wilderness areas.
Beth Peer Special Projects Coordinator Forest Service Deschutes National Forest p: 541-383-5554 c: 541-416-1100 [email protected] 63095 Deschutes Market Rd. Bend, OR 97701 www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
From: Jennifer Paulson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Saturday, June 10, 2017 8:08:32 AM
Please do not limit use of horse riders in these areas. Horse rider use has not increased. As member of BCHO we also clear trails and help the forest service.
Hiker use is your problem not horse use.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Paulson – President West Cascade BCHO From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Date: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:08:09 PM
To whom it concerns, Please do not limit the equestrian and stock use of the Wilderness areas being considered for limits. Our use is not growing, if anything it is fading. Thank you, Karen Frogner Molalla, Oregon
Sent from my iPad From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Oregon access for Horseback Riders Date: Monday, June 12, 2017 10:37:04 PM
As you have aptly documented, horseback riding in these areas has not increased. Hikers have increased. We, horseback riders, wish to continue to ride in these areas. We should not be punished or have our access rights diminished just because another “user group” has increased.
Respectfully, Neila Whitney Vice President Territorial Riders Back Country Horsemen of Oregon Treasurer, North Valley Oregon Equestrian Trails Member Paso Fino Horse Assoc. Member Northwest Paso Fino Horse Assoc. Member Valley View Riders Equestrians From: Sandra To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Oregon Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Saturday, June 10, 2017 6:54:18 PM
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in regards to concerns I have about restricting access to High Cascade trails in Central Oregon. It is true that in some areas, there are many people on the trails. This is in part due to the heavy promotion and advertisement of our great Central Oregon area. We create a problem and try to fix it when it gets out of hand.
The problem is that those of us who have enjoyed the Central Cascades for decades are now being punished and even pushed out of some areas.
I am a horseback rider and have rode the Cascades for most of my life. I am now 70 years old and still ride in the Cascades, and my great fear is that legislature or laws now being considered will restrict my (and others like me) access to mountain trails.
I implore you to consider leaving access to horseback riders as it is now. In my experience, there has not been a substantial increase in horseback riders in the Central Oregon Cascades over the years, this use has stayed fairly stable. But, to those of us who do use our horses in this way, it is vitally important that we can ride our horses at will in this area, as we have been shut out of many of the areas we used to ride in throughout Central Oregon. For example; cyclists have taken over many of our trails we used to ride on!
As a side point, horses in the horse industry bring in millions of dollars to Central Oregon businesses every year. If we can't ride our horses, we sell them, depriving income from many others in the area.
Sincerest regards,
Sandra Kennel
~SLK~
From: Leane Cornwell To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Saturday, June 10, 2017 3:15:48 PM
Tracy Beck, Forest Supervisor Willamette National Forest 3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite D Springfield, OR 97477
I wish to plead with you to not close Oregon’s wilderness areas to horse-back riders. With this move, you would effectively diminish our chosen outdoor activity reducing us to what? Riding horses along street-ways? Creating a traffic hazard? Riding only in arenas? Simply going around in circles like a carousel and probably paying for the privilege? Ranch lands are being swallowed up by big corporations, posting NO TRESPASSING signs everywhere.
As a member of the Back Country Horsemen of Oregon (BCHO) I urge you to give more consideration to closing the wilderness areas to horse usage. We practice Leave No Trace (LNT) guidelines faithfully and provide much needed assistance to the forestry department by helping maintain the trail systems that you are trying to close to us.
Our group meets monthly and at each meeting we educate ourselves on topics of horsemanship as well as having guest speakers to enlighten and guide on subjects regarding wilderness riding. Our goal is to preserve this right for the enjoyment of future generations. Please re-consider this action against that goal.
Thank you.
Sincerely, Steve Cornwell From: Victoria CB Trees To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: “Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments” Date: Sunday, June 11, 2017 7:35:25 PM
John Allen, Forest Supervisor Tracy Beck, Forest Supervisor
Dear John and Tracy,
To introduce myself, I have been a member of the High Desert Trail Riders Back Country Horsemen since 2003. I have participated in many work projects clearing trails, building corrals, and packing out garbage. Even as an individual, I spend all my spare time on my horse in the forest, and do maintenance that I can by myself.
Yes, I have seen all of the damage your proposal outlines.
One of the first thoughts that came to mind when I saw the photo of the Ranger loaded down with garbage was... why aren't they making better use of volunteers such as Back Country Horsemen, and in particular their pack animals?! Other user groups also use llamas and donkeys as pack animals. I would like to see work parties made up of a lead Ranger and members of many user groups, scheduled through out the year.
As for other issues:
I believe latrines set up in the high concentration areas would help with the human feces issue. However, as icky at 800 or so piles of poop are, compared to the 10's of thousands of users, this number doesn't seem to be such a problem? The latrines could be camouflaged so they aren't an eyesore, as long as signage pointed the way.
What about leaving intact a high number of fire rings in an area near those latrines. In effect make some primitive "camp grounds" in such a way that one site can't be seen from another.
Both of these suggestions would cut down with the user created trails.
Another thing that would cut down on user created trails would be to allow special permits to work parties to use chainsaws to clear trails. I have questioned many hikers about whether or not they would dislike hearing chain saws in the forest, and ALL of them said they'd rather hear a little noise than climb over or go around downfalls. Why the chainsaws? Because many volunteers are as old as I am (62) and much older. The average age sawyers of HDTR is 70! We get tired fast on the end of a cross cut saw...
Yes, there should be information at the permit sign-up site and kiosk about Leave No Trace. It needs to be short, succinct, and to the point. As a Realtor, I know people just don't read unless it's something that takes about 5 seconds.
And first and foremost, make it a criminal offense, punishable by fine and imprisonment to break the rules. Train responsible volunteers to be "deputies" that can ticket violators.
From: Julie Templeton To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 4:45:11 AM
I am a member of Back Country Horsemen. I enjoy and respect the forests of the Pacific Northwest. I practice Leave no Trace and am very conscientious of my impact on the forests. The trail riding population has not increased and hence should not be limited assess to existing trails. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on this matter.
Sincerely, Julie Templeton From: Berinda Van Cleave To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Comments Date: Monday, June 19, 2017 3:42:24 PM
I strongly oppose any NEW restrictions with horses in our National Forests.. The BCH groups are the primary trail maintenance providers now that the Federal Government has done drastic cutback to our Land!!! There are not really anymore horses on theses trails then there always have been. I travel all over Oregon and Parts of Washington and very seldom do I see another horse in the backcountry. At least with no consistency. If anything making the trails more horse friendly would be a benefit to the Wilderness area as they keep the trails somewhat clear of over growth.
I hope you see this as an asset and not a liability to our wonderful forests that still remain. Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Regards,
Berinda Van Cleave Battle Ground WA 98604 From: Gary Pegg To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Monday, June 19, 2017 5:40:09 PM
Dear John and Tracy,
I don't think there is any doubt that we are loving our wildernesses to death. However while hikers have increased over the years dramatically horse riders have not. I don't have access to the data collected from the wilderness entry permit stations, but I can't help believe that horse use in the wilderness is in decline, as is horse use in all disciplines.
I am currently attempting a through ride of the PCT. Over the past two months I have become well aquainted with many of the other PCT thru riders and hikers that started within a few weeks of my April 13th start date. 550 long distance permits were issued between April 3rd and 13th, inclusive. Of those 547 were for hikers, 3 were for forse riders. It is my experience and totally onofficial observation that those numbers would hold relatively true in all the wildernesses along the PCT.
It is my opinion that it isn't the horse riders that have crated the proplem and shouldn't bear the brunt of the remedy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Gary Pegg 73990 Neer City Rd Rainier OR 97048 [email protected] From: Lloyd Gelentere To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: If you kick horses out of Widerness areas how are you going to maintan trials?Horses and mules play a key role in trail maintenance. Date: Monday, June 19, 2017 5:23:33 PM From: Alison Hamway To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Comments on Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:43:34 PM
Dear Ms Peer, I am submitting comments on the proposed Central Cascades Wilderness strategies.
I support the overall goal of wilderness protection, and agree that the increasing number of users has led to troubling impacts. (Damage to habitat; impact on wildlife; proliferation of trails; unsanitary waste disposal and trash; less of a wilderness experience; too many people and vehicles).
However the information released by the Forest Service does not provide enough information to realistically respond and comment, or to raise objections. Specifically I am concerned about the proposal to control access to the wilderness and forest areas by issuing a limited number of permits.
How many permits will be issued? Will the current group size limit (12) be changed? What will be the process for getting the permits??? (Available on line? Over the phone? At the trailhead?) What staff will be added for issuing permits? What specific trails will be impacted? Is it the exhaustive list of trails on p. 12 of the proposed actions (almost all the trails in the forest)? How will other trail systems (city parks, state parks, BLM etc) be impacted? Has there been an analysis of where displaced hikers will go? What (if any) fee will be charged for the permits? If funds are charged, what will the funds be used for? What will be the enforcement mechanism for permits? Will staff be added for monitoring trail use/permits in the hands of hikers?
Without the above information, it is impossible for users such as myself to judge whether the proposed plan to manage Central Oregon Wilderness is reasonable, or whether it will further the goals of protecting the wilderness while allowing the public to enjoy these very special areas at a level that does not damage the habitat or wilderness.
Cordially, Alison Hamway 63292 Cherokee Lane Bend Oregon From: Anthony Reel To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 Date: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:41:04 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
I am appalled at your recent proposal to restrict access to the Three Sisters Wilderness. I also think your analogy of squeezing a tube of tooth paste is ridiculous. So many people climb South Sister because it is a walk up. Restricting those people is not going to turn them to a much harder Middle Sister or a technical North Sister. I stayed at Camp Lake on July 16th to 17th, 2016, which was a sunny Thursday and Friday. There was not a single other person sleeping at Camp Lake that night. I was the only person to summit Middle Sister on Friday. It is not overcrowded; it is not a problem.
So what if, on the 10 busiest day of the year, South Sister has too many hikers. Who cares? Oregon volcanoes are big piles of loose, rubbly rocks. South Sister is a "top 10" most active volcano in North America and is going to blow one day decimating the area. We don't need to institute another cumbersome government program that restricts our access.
I am an Oregon native, born and raised. I am tired of people coming into our state and making rules. We need people climbing South Sister, falling in love with our beloved volcanos and in turn protecting our National Forests. What we don't need are programs to prevent people from enjoying it. Leave the Three sisters wilderness alone.
If you end up making the poor choice of restricting access. At a bear minimum make born and raised Oregonians able to apply for a card that doesn't restrict us. I've put in my time protecting my beloved state, now I want to enjoy it.
Sincerely, Anthony Reel Mountaineer From: Sherry To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comment Date: Sunday, June 25, 2017 10:00:36 AM
As an outdoor activities group based in Salem that represents over 600 members who regularly use these trail heads, we, the Chemeketans wish to provide the following comments regarding the proposed management changes.
We support the position that Wilderness areas should be protected from overuse and that sensible steps to do so are important.
We propose that any management plan consider the following principles.
The permit system should be easy to use and at low to no cost.
If quotas are used higher quotas could be set on lower use trails to encourage dispersing impact from areas with historical overuse.
Permits should be attainable well in advance as we plan and post for the year in early Spring so our members can plan accordingly.
Perhaps some accommodation can be provided to organizations like the Chemeketans who regularly perform trail maintenance.
We support including user education as part of the permitting process. We would like to see more details regarding how enforcement of the quotas would be accomplished. Thank you for your consideration of this input.
Ralph Hall Chemeketan Council Member 6\19\17
Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments
The following is submitted as my comments on the proposed action, and as part of the scoping process.
Based on information provided and personal knowledge, the basis of the proposed action is over use of the Cascade Wilderness areas that are beyond the Use parameters established and found in the Wilderness Plans. Information provided establishes that existing use, and projected use require Management action to correct the overuse problem, and return the use to acceptable standards found in the Wilderness Plans. This will be a very difficult issue to correct. The question becomes, can the issue ever be fully resolved without revisiting the original Wilderness Use Standards established in the original plans.
The information supplied indicates a form of Permit system to resolve the issue, i.e. Control the number of visitors, and type of use, like overnight camping etc. In order to evaluate such a system to determine the probability of success, one must look at several contributing factors. They are as follows:
A main factor in establishing use parameters in the Wilderness Plan is the “Dispersal Of Use”; is the Wilderness fully utilized to accommodate maximum use allowed under the plan?
It appears that the Wilderness areas have not been managed to meet the dispersal of use for a number of years. This has occurred for a variety of reasons that has resulted in a trail system that is only partially available to the user, and has contributed to the concentration of use that exists today. Any preferred alternative to correct the use issue will depend on a Trail system, as identified in the Wilderness Plan, to achieve the dispersal of use that is necessary for a solution. Concentrated use means fewer users to meet the desired objective.
A permit system to resolve the issue will also contribute to a “Displacement” of the user. Those not able to obtain a permit, will simply move to other areas where they will be able to access the Wilderness areas. It appears that not only will the user be displaced, but over time the overuse problem will move to other areas also. As the Cascade Wilderness areas reach Wilderness Use parameters, the displacement of use will show up in other Wilderness areas, particularly South in the Cascades, and eventually east to other available areas. This side effect of the preferred alternative must be included in the evaluation process.
The information provided does not identify the type of user contributing to the problem. It does speak to number of users and overnight camping as a contributing factor, but nothing as to Equestrian, Pack and Saddle stock. From information provided, and obtained from other sources, Equestrian use appears to have been greatly reduced due to several factors. First the Trail head parking is over whelmed with day hikers and back packers and there is no room for the Equestrian user, so they have to go to less used areas. Second, with a restricted trail system available to them, concentrates the use available to them. Nowhere in the information is there any indication that the Equestrian user is contributing to the overuse problem. This needs to be taken in to consideration when developing the preferred alternative.
The User on the Pacific Crest Trail presents another problem. Most likely they are contributing to the over use issue, and probably the overnight camping concern too, The PCT use will create special problems in resolving the overall issue.
To summarize:
As no surprise to anyone, this is a very complex issue. It will require some rather drastic changes in the Wilderness management of these areas. The preferred alternative should only concentrate on those factors necessary for a solution.
The dispersal of use issue must be addressed to not only understand the cause, but also the Solution. Failure to address this factor will prevent a workable solution.
The displacement of use issue is a serious issue, while solving the issue in one area, if that’s possible, will only move the problem to somewhere else. We cannot avoid the “Big Picture” effect in this process.
I do not see how a “limited Use” system can be avoided, such a process will be very complex and expensive. This raises another basic question how can the preferred alternative be achieved under the current, and past, Forest Service budget process? It can’t! The Deschutes and Willamette National Forests already receive more funding than most other Forests in Region 6, due to their use situation, but to allocate resources from Regional Budget to even come close to funding what’s needed to solve this problem will require a significant shift in Forest Service budget priorities from what we currently have.
Dave Price
Athena Oregon
From: DAS To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Saturday, June 10, 2017 10:23:35 AM
I have used and observed these trails as a hiker and horse rider regularly for the last 52 years. Horse riders have not increased, rather decreased over this time. Further, the regular, difficult long distance maintenance necessary to keep the trails open and in good condition is completed by horse riders to much greater degree than their percentage of overall use.
Please do not limit use of horse riders in these areas.
Sincerely,
David Strand Registered High Cascades Forrest Volunteer BCHO Member
From: Gary GUTTORMSEN To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Thursday, June 15, 2017 8:28:18 AM
Hi Beth, I first attended the meeting the DNF held regarding the need to address the rapidly growing over- use of our regional Wilderness areas. I think I mentioned that I was the Wilderness Ranger working out of the Taylor Burn Guard Station for about 12 years starting around 1990. I had all of the Waldo Wilderness and the southern part of the Three Sisters Wilderness as my patrol area. Part of my job was doing LAC’s on all the dispersed camping areas within that area. As you can imagine, there were a lot of those sites, mostly around all the lakes up there! There were and still are a number of things that cause a site to grow to the point where remedial action is required. However, in my mind, the by far the number one reason, was the use of campfires! Folks are naturally going to collect their firewood as close to the campfire ring as possible. This means that they are slowly going to increase the size of the site by virtue of picking up burnable wood and other combustible vegetation in an ever increasing ring around the site! In most cases, is a relatively slow process! However, many of the popular lakes attract lots of visitors, and those sites have become an issue. Many of those heavily used lakes now have designated areas for camping which has helped. But, most don’t! In my experience, the heaviest use and impacts happened each fall when the elk hunting season kicked in and hunters packed in large tents and other equipment, necessitating clearing large areas to accommodate the tents, pack animals, etc. So, I do applaud your efforts to find ways to control the numbers of folks heading into our wilderness areas and where they are going for their camping experience! A permit system is probably a good strategy. Education is always good as well. One thing the FS did in the Eagle Cap Wilderness a number of years ago was to have volunteers at each trailhead with radios and maps showing where folks were already camping. That way, when folks came in ready to start their adventure, the volunteers could recommend areas where there were few or no campers present. The system worked great! It really did spread the impacts over the entire wilderness. Anyway, just a few of my thoughts on this. Thanks again for working on this important issue! Gary Guttormsen
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Richard Malone To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Oregon wilderness management strategies Date: Sunday, June 25, 2017 9:28:44 PM Attachments: 2017May31WildernessStrategiesScopingCoverLetterEsig.pdf
To whom it may concern:
Putting together a management strategy for such a vast area is a huge task and a responsibility that cannot be taken lightly. However, in doing so the plan should take into consideration some facts that may go unnoticed by looking at raw data: Equestrian activity has a rich and long history in the area concerned. While total traffic and usage of the areas have increased, use by equestrians has not increased. Thus, to restrict access by equestrians places unfair and unwarranted restrictions on a very important user group. A worthwhile side note here equestrian usage frequently extends beyond the heavy traffic areas. Yes, we use the trails to access more distant locations but we spend less time in these areas and in turn put less pressure on them. A very interesting point here is that equestrian activities are today dominated by an aging population. Any restrictions that make equestrian usage of the wilderness areas more restrictive or more difficult will place more downward pressure on this activity that should be encouraged not restricted. I would encourage you to get input from leaders of local equestrian groups for a thoughtful understanding of their impact on the areas of concern.
Thank you for your carful consideration, Rick malone
Sent from my iPad
2
218 – Project-level Predecisional Administrative Review Process. This means that there will be an opportunity to object before a final decision is made. Note on your information becoming part of the public record: This letter is part of the public scoping process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 as will be any comments received from the public, and may be released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will become part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered. However, anonymous comments will not provide the agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent documents, nor will they provide eligibility to object to the decision pursuant to administrative review procedures at 36 CFR 218. Note on any fees associated with the proposed action: If a fee program is included in the decision for this visitor management plan, a separate public comment process will occur prior to implementation. If authorized through this decision, a fee for a limited entry “special recreation permit” will be developed in accordance with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. Questions and comments on a fee program will be most useful if held until the separate public comment process occurs. For more information, contact Beth Peer, Deschutes National Forest Special Projects Coordinator (541-383-5554). Thank you for your interest in the management of visitor use in the five wilderness areas under consideration in this planning process. We look forward to your comments.
Sincerely,
/s/ John Allen
JOHN ALLEN Forest Supervisor Deschutes National Forest
/s/ Tracy Beck
TRACY BECK Forest Supervisor Willamette National Forest
From: Rob and Phyllis Lewis To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comment Date: Thursday, June 15, 2017 10:16:21 AM
Forest Supervisor Deschutes National Forest 63095 Deschutes Market Road Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Mr. Allen: This letter concerns the USFS proposed action to limit forest use in our local wilderness areas. It also concerns train maintenance and wilderness use in general and I hope you yourself will read it and consider the points I am trying to make. I will send a copy to the Regional Forester as well as I fear that this sort of action may be under consideration region wide. I have spent 33 years of my life with the Forest Service and the BLM, working in entry level jobs in trail maintenance and as a wilderness ranger and in various field supervisory, managerial and staff positions. I have a B.S. and M.S. in forestry. My wife and I have used the local wildernesses since we moved to Oregon in 1969 and even more since retiring to central Oregon. Our ability to use these areas is very important to us and is our principle method of outdoor recreation. We do not believe that the proposed action is necessary or that the reasons stated for its consideration are valid. We do not see increased problems with trash or human waste in the wilderness. Use levels have increased significantly in some places. The Green Lakes and South Sister climbers trail are used to a level where these areas are not wilderness in feel or in reality. That is not new. Duffy Lake is used to a point where its shores are seriously degraded as is Marion Lake. The rest of the wilderness areas are not, at least beyond a mile or two in from the trail heads. Existing management for Jefferson Park seems adequate even at its current use level. Camping in each of these areas needs to be controlled or reduced but we see no reason to limit entry for hiking or mountaineering. By and large we see use being concentrated by lack of trail maintenance, lousy road access to many trail heads, and trail abandonment, The result of extensive wild fires is also obvious and has re-directed where we hike. Signs in the Pole Creek fire telling us to not leave the trail also serve to concentrate use, block previously used mountaineering access and are silly besides this long after the fires. We also use these wildernesses more because of extensive burns in forests to our east and because we have been driven out of some areas by motorized use on trails, by lack of enforcement in travel restrictions and by lack of trail maintenance in these eastern Oregon and Rocky Mountain areas. We understand and sympathize with the Forest Service’s need to deal with difficult public groups in these areas. In the attachment which follows I deal with some of these trails and trail problems in more detail. I hope you can hear our point and not proceed with this action as proposed. Attachment to Letter on Wilderness Use: This deals, as briefly as possible, with specific wilderness use problem areas and with specific trails. Non-System Paths or Trails: These have long existed in these wilderness areas and are non- damaging ways for climbers and others to access the high cirques and climbing routes. They serve to disperse use and allow users to leave the main traveled routes and access areas with actual wilderness feel and character. They are not trashed with garbage or human waste and they are not a problem. A few of them should be adopted as system trails as I outline later in this paper. Wilderness Rangers: Having skilled and knowledgeable people in the back country is both reasonable and helpful. I have only met one once in the last decade who hassled me for a permit on the Obsidian trail but otherwise fulfilled no function I could see. If you have a problem with environmental damage or trash in a specific areas, well trained rangers are the cure for it. Trail Abandonment or Non-Maintenance: The abandonment of trails on the east side of the Mt. Jefferson wilderness, specifically Brush Creek, Sugarpine Ridge, and the Minto Lake trail serve to concentrate use on the Cabot Lake trail. Even after the fires in this area we used these trails to access and hike along the Cascade crest, they were a good and fast way up out of the heat. We preferred them to the Jefferson Lake trail which was a long, hot, rocky, and dreary slog even before the fires converted the area to a brushfield. We were up Jefferson Lake trail this spring and found it brushed open for a couple of miles with work diminishing further up. It is normal to find trails over- maintained near trail heads and then more or less abandoned after a few miles. We plan to hike Rockpile Lake trail next as we see it is brushed at its lower end. We have tried to use this a number of times in recent years and have never found it passable beyond the wilderness boundary. Cabot Lake trail: Use is moderately high on this in as far as Cabot Lake but not objectionably so. As with other trails we use it only to access the wilder areas further in, up the Shirley Lake trail or north toward Table Lake. We do not camp at these higher use lake and would support closing the lakeshore areas themselves to camping. West Side Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Non-Maintenance: Many of the trails through the fire areas have been abandoned or not maintained. Given the amount of brush and dead fall maintenance is difficult. This concentrates use on a few areas. Finding lesser used trail heads and finding trails open enough to use has long been a problem on the Detroit ranger district. Trails are maintained late or not at all, roads are intentionally or unintentionally not maintained, signs allowing trail heads to be found are missing and so on. Detroit really needs a management level look at what the problem or problems are. I give some specific examples later. Green Lakes and South Sister Climber Route: People do not use these areas to find wilderness, other than to be free of motorized use, stink, and noise. They have not been wilderness in character for many years and bringing them to that character would require use to be very significantly reduced in a way unacceptable to users. You might try capping use for the Green Lakes trail or you might unload this one on the congressional delegation and seek some other category of use or legal exception. We do not use the Green Lakes trail but do use the Ditch trail and other access to the peaks and have not found the use level in these areas bothersome to us as we expect it. If we want the feel of wilderness all we need to do is move off the trails a few hundred feet. We use the Tam McArthur trail to access to the high country east of Broken Top, leaving the trail and hiking out through these wild lands. We see few other people and we see no signs of environmental degradation. Opal Creek and Bull of the Woods: Access to these from the Detroit area are appalling in terms of road conditions, signing, permit availability (can not find the permit boxes if any but signs exist warning of need for permits). Trails are often not maintained.. Triangulation trail (Mt. Jeff): Trail maintained late and only to a view point a short way in. Rest of trail not maintained for years and nearly impassible to dangerous. Turpentine trail: Not maintained for years and impassable: Bingham Ridge and Woodpecker Ridge: These have had better maintenance of late and we use them for access to climbs on Mt. Jeff itself and to the high country just south of Mt. Jeff. We have never met another user on them but we know that use is increasing because access to non-burned areas and maintained trails is in short supply. West Side and Crest Sisters Wilderness Trails: We are not sure who maintains what in this wilderness. Maintenance on McKenzie ranger district trails, roads, signing and so on have always been very good and continue so. The interior of this wilderness, other than as previously noted is pretty wild in feel and in reality. It would help disperse use if some trails which appear to be abandoned were restored to the maintenance schedule. We used to use French Pete a lot before the bridge washed out and was not replaced. We think high priority should be assigned to replacement of this bridge if it has not been done. . Yankee Mountain trail: We have found this trail maintained in as far as the Lowder Mountain spur but impassible beyond that. Re-opening that trail as far as Yankee Mountains would give a longer and more enjoyable hike. Olallie Trail: This often gets maintained just as far as the spur to Olallie Mountain but usually not beyond that. We use it a lot anyway but would like a higher standard of maintenance. Trails in this general area, down to Frissell Crossing and back toward Wildcat Swamp and the crest are either not maintained or not very frequently maintained and can be impassible. We would use this area more if it was maintained more. Upper French Pete: We used to do yearly hikes starting at Olalie trail head, down Pat Creek and up French Pete to the juction of the Olallie meadows trail ( (3301) with the Olallie trail as a day hike. We also came in from lower French Creek early in the year while the streams were high and then head up the 3301 trail to the meadows and snow. The 3301 trail has not been maintained for years and is now totally impassible. We need the lower bridge put in and this trail reopened to use. Trails South of Horse Lake: We used to go in from Elk Lake and then south along the PCT till we could go off on the various loop trails south of Horse Lake into wilder country. We then looped out on the trail to Aerial, Lookout, and south to Corner Lake. Last year we found new signs put up for all these trails but the trails not-maintained and not passable. I could go on, but let me close by describing one of the silliest and most objectionable trail situations in these two national forests. This is the Byars Peak trail into the Opal Creek wilderness on the Detroit District. The first problem is finding the trail head as the side road to it is unsigned and looks abandoned. You can try to drive this road or you can hike it. We have done both. The road is non-maintained with plugged culverts, large erosion scars and a lot of alder growing into the road. You first come to an old trail head having a small sign. The trail leading up from his is not maintained. Further up the trail has another trail head (road not shown correctly on USFS map as often happens). This trail head has a blank sign board and a permit box with permits in it. The trail beyond this point is well constructed, scenic, attractive, little used, and full of down timber. Once the ridge trail toward Mt. Beachy is found passage gets even harder. We have hiked it anyway. But this is ridiculous. From: Rob and Phyllis Lewis To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comment Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:14:34 AM
Robert Lewis 69988 Sno Cap Lane Sisters, Oregon 97759
Forest Supervisor Willamette National Forest 3106 Pierce Parkway, Suite D Springfield, Oregon 97477 Dear Ms. Beck: This is a second letter concerning the recent "Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Proposal". I had earlier stated my objections to this, saying essentially that the reasons given for the proposed action did not seem valid or seem exaggerated given our own experiences and observations and that higher uses in some areas were being caused at least in part by lack of trail maintenance and trail abandonment in other areas. I would like to follow up on that letter with some observations from this last week’s hikes and with some more specific comments. Rockpile Lake Trail: Mt. Jefferson Wilderness, Deschutes Forest. We hiked this to the snow on June 25. Two trails start from Bear Valley trail head of which the Minto Lake/Bear Lake trail is abandoned. The lower segment of the Rockpile Lake trail has been recently maintained to boulevard standards. Afer about a mile and a half in maintenance stops, as it has in previous years. Above this no brushing or deadfall clearing has occurred for years and the trail appears to be abandoned. We pushed through this anyway as we have in previous years. Near the wilderness boundary deadfall has been cleared for a short ways to a red flag. Above this the trail is not maintained again. We have never seen another user on this trail, even years before when maintenance had occurred. We used to loop in on the Minto Lake trail, then take a trail to Secret Lakes, then up to Rockpile and back down the Rockpile trail. None of this is now possible. Louise Creek Trail: Sisters Wilderness, Willamette Forest. We hiked this on June 27. It has been sawed open up to a trail blockage marked by 3 Xs cut into it. Above this it is not maintained and was not last year either. We pushed on anyway, climbing over, under and around deadfall we had encountered the previous year. There is no obvious reason for maintenance to stop where it does. The trail is the best early season access to Buck Meadows and Honey Lakes, avoiding the deep snow, deadfall, and mosquito swarms found over the high area of the Foley Ridge trail which we usually hike later to the PCT. We have never encountered another user on this trail and seldom on Foley Ridge. Separation Creek Trail: Sisters Wilderness: Willamette Forest: We hiked this on June 24. This is reasonably maintained with a few down logs easy to step over. We hike this yearly. We have never met another user on it. We used to use a trail leading from this one up to Indian Holes and Honey Lakes but this has been abandoned. What we see with each of these trails is low use and lack of maintenance, at least beyond an initial segment. Any signs of human ruse that we have seen are relatively close to the trail head, while the areas further back have much less use or have blocked access. Just limiting the number of people going in each day would further block use of the back country. I should add that we are 75 years old ourselves. Mount Washington Wilderness: The only system trail on the Deschutes side of this wilderness has been abandoned and is now impassible. This trail was poorly located but user paths led off of it to the mountain and its high meadows. All are now impassable. This results in us using the PCT or the low-line trail from Fingerboard to Robinson Lake more. Most use from the Robinson Lake trailhead is just to the nearby lake and we seldom encounter anyone on the trail beyond that. Higher use exists near the road and campground on the McKenzie Pass road but we do not see extensive use beyond Benson Lake. We often go in on the PCT to the first climber path to the mountain, follow that up to the high meadows and go around the mountain at that level, visiting the small pot-hole lakes on the way. There is little sign of other visitor use and no path as such, just animal trails. User Paths: These are mentioned in the USFS analysis as problems because of erosion and other things and they are termed "user created" trails. None of these are constructed, rather they are just ways which people use for climbing access or for a more remote experience. Most wilderness acres are never visited or used. I have never seen any significant erosion on any of these paths. I suggest incorporation of some of them into the trail system, for instance with as part of new construction on the east side of the Mt. Washington Wilderness. The USFS analysis says, "With more people comes increased resource damage: people build structures, damage trees, fail to pack out garbage, and leave human waste unburied. A partial survey has recorded nearly 100 miles of user-created trails, about a third of which see a complete loss of vegetation and/or soil erosion or disturbance that is obvious and significant." This is a considerable exaggeration. The human impacts we see are quite minor and often of long standing presence and are much less then the damage I saw years ago as the first wilderness ranger for the Anaconda Pintler wilderness. If the relative lack of human impacts we see in these wildernesses is due to the efforts of your wilderness rangers, then well done and keep up the good work. Maintenance of trails further into the back country should occur and old abandoned trials should be reopened to disperse use. Some higher use non-system paths into the back country should be incorporated into the trail system, others tolerated because they allow us to go beyond where many others stop, to the cliffs and the high meadows. Emphasis needs to return to real work in the field, trail maintenance and visitor contacting. Finally some new construction is badly needed outside the wildernesses, for instance along the ridge crest from Cone Peak to Echo Peak to North Peak at Tombstone Pass and connecting across to the Crescent Mountain trail. This would take pressure off the wilderness. And reopen the French Pete trails at the lower and upper ends.. From: Sally To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Horse use in Deschutes and other NW forests Date: Saturday, June 10, 2017 8:26:37 AM
Dear Friends, Horse use in federal forests and elsewhere continues to decrease as there are fewer horseowners who trail ride in the NW. You can check the membership statistics of both the Back Country Horsemen and Oregon Equestrian Trails groups to confirm the drop in membership in these organizations that historically have utilized wilderness areas. Please do not further restrict riding and packing. Further restrictions will also result in less trail maintenance done by these organizations, volunteers that the USFS depends on. Thank you. Sally Shaw
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From: Sarah Boomer To: Peer, Beth -FS Cc: allison boomer Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 3:12:49 PM
Dear Deschutes Forest Service,
I was dismayed to hear about this proposal, having lived in Oregon 20 years and frequented many of these trails several times each year - as well as occasionally using the current permit system to access Pamelia/Grizzly and Obsidian. While I think implementing limited permits may be warranted in some cases (itemized below), I think it is overkill in many locations. I am concerned that the proposal, if passed in full, will alienate wilderness-friendly people from important causes you want supported, and/or come across as an unnecessary hassle for ticketing people and generating revenue (as opposed to a genuine concern about wilderness management). I also believe that where permits are ultimately used a more realistic timeframe minimally needs to be developed/implemented - i.e. focused on the times with the biggest impact (i.e. July 15 to Labor Day, Friday through Monday). Here are specific/itemized thoughts about the specific places mentioned for consideration (my comments are ALL-CAPS):
*Three Sisters Highway 242 Trailheads: Linton Lake, Obsidian, Lava Camp Lake, and Black Crater. I HAVE USED ALL THESE TRAILHEADS MULTIPLE TIMES FOR BOTH SINGLE DAY USE AND MULTI-DAY USE AND NEVER FOUND THE PARKING AREAS FULL, THE TRAILS CROWDED; THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS THE OBSIDIAN AREA - WHICH REMAINS A MADHOUSE AT PEAK TIMES IN THE SUMMER. I QUESTION THE LOGIC OF ADDITIONAL PERMITS AT OTHER LOCATIONS.
*Three Sisters Eastside Trailheads: Millican Crater, Scott Pass, Pole Creek, Chush Falls, Park Meadow, Three Creek Meadow, Tam McArthur Rim, Tam McArthur Rim Horse Trail, Broken Top. I HAVE THE MOST TRAIL EXPERIENCE HERE AND, AGAIN, HAVE NEVER FOUND THE THREE CREEK TRAILHEAD AREA OVERRUN (PROBABLY IN PART BECAUSE THE ROAD IS BAD). I THINK POLE CREEK IS THE ONLY AREA THAT HAS FELT SOMETIMES OUT OF CONTROL WITH PARKING AND POPULAR CAMPING AREAS. SPECIFICALLY, CAMP LAKE MAY REQUIRE PERMIT MANAGEMENT, BUT ONLY FOR OVERNIGHT USE DURING TARGET HIGH IMPACT TIMES.
Crater Ditch,Todd lake, Green Lakes, Soda Creek I AGREE THAT LOWER TODD LAKE IS OFTEN OUT OF CONTROL WITH PARKING BUT UPPER TODD AND THE CAMPING/HIKING SITUATION IN THIS AREA HAS NEVER BEEN OVERRUN, IN MY EXPERIENCE.
Devil’s Lake/South Sister (subset of permits issued specifically for climbing South Sister) I FULLY AGREE THAT IT IS TIME TO IMPOSE A PERMIT SYSTEM ON CLIMBING SOUTH SISTER. THAT IS A MADHOUSE - PARKING, TRAIL, SUMMIT, DAY-USE, AND OVERNIGHT. Wickiup Plains, Sisters Mirror, Quinn Meadow, Elk Lake, Six Lakes, and Many Lakes, Irish-Taylor, Winopee, Corral Swamp, Lucky Lake and Deer Lake. I ONLY HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH SISTERS-CIRCUIT AREAS LIKE WICKIUP PLAIN AND HAVE NEVER FOUND THIS AREA TO BE OVERRUN WITH HIKERS/BACKPACKERS.
*Mount Jefferson Westside Trailheads: Crown Lake & Roaring Creek, Triangulation and Triangulation Peak, Cheat Creek, Whitewater, Woodpecker, Pamelia Lake, Minto Mountain, Bingham Ridge, Marion Lake, Pine Ridge & Turpentine, Duffy Lake, Maxwell Butte, and Pacific Crest-Santiam Pass. MOST OF MY EXPERIENCE HERE IS WHITEWATER TO JEFFERSON PARK AND PAMELIA (WITH EXISTING PERMITS). I DO SUPPORT LIMITED ENTRY PERMITS FOR WHITEWATER TO JEFFERSON PARK BECAUSE JEFFERSON HAS BECOME A MADHOUSE - BUT I THINK A TARGETED APPROACH WOULD SUFFICE. ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT FOUND PAMELIA PERMITS HARD TO ACQUIRE (IF ONE PLANS MAJORLY AHEAD), THAT AREA REMAINS A MADHOUSE AT TIMES. IT DOES NOT SEEM THAT THE PERMIT SYSTEM IS REALLY DOING ITS JOB THERE.
Thanks, Sarah From: Stefanie Reel To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Wilderness permits Date: Sunday, June 25, 2017 2:39:07 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed permitting of the Three Sisters, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Waldo Lake and Diamond Peak Wildernesses. I understand the urge to protect our wildernesses, but it is not necessary in these cases.
These wildernesses are not overrun with people who are damaging the areas. South Sister, Waldo Lake and Diamond Lake get a fare amount of traffic, but not even close to the point that permits should be required. Look at Mt. Hood, one of the most climbed peaks in the world. It has 4 ski resorts, a summer adventure park, hiking, mountain climbing, mountain biking, camping, cabins and boating and the mountain is well preserved and no one is calling for permits to access the mountain.
The proposition to require permits to access these five wildernesses is ridiculous. It is an absurd and unnecessary reach to add controls and make money off of the natural sites our state has to offer. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Stefanie Reel
-- Sent from my iPhone -- Sent from my iPhone From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Sunday, June 11, 2017 11:07:08 AM
I am totally in favor of limiting access to any areas which have suffered due to overuse and abuse. For too long we as a society have put our personal enjoyment before the needs of habitat and wildlife. I doubt that what has been adversely affected by encroachment and overuse will ever be restored to its original condition. It will be a tough sell to limit access by education only and made tougher unless enforcement is increased.
Steven Madsen 15075 Bridle Sisters, Or 97759 From: Marilyn Kirkland To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Monday, June 26, 2017 9:47:27 PM
Please do not limit use of horse riders in these areas. Horse rider use has not increased. As a member of BCHO and OET we also clear trails and help the forest service.
Hiker use is your problem, not horse use.
Sincerely,
Marilyn Kirkland From: Phyllis Lewis To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: “Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments” Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 2:59:18 PM
I have read the proposed actions and have the following comments:
1. Having lived in Oregon for 47 years, I have been dismayed to see beautiful trails, built by human labor with the utmost care, being slowly removed from maintenance, until they are no longer usable. At that point the Forest Service can rightly say, we are abandoning this trail due to lack of use. However, I, and I suspect most back country users, would continue to use these trails if they were maintained. My first issue is the ongoing lack of maintenance by the Forest Service of many trails within the wilderness. I do not see any statement as to how this will be rectified other than by decreasing use. This will not help a trail that is in need of repair; it may slow down the rate of additional disrepair. Park Meadow is a good point. Since the loss of the creek crossing (Squaw Creek on your map) years ago, I have not been to Park Meadow and I am sure that the same is true for many others. Only the most dedicated would wade the wide, cold, and roaring creek. So if there is overuse it must be the equestrians. As for Maxwell Butte, it is blocked by so much downed debris that we have only summited it once in all these years. I doubt if anyone has been up it. Triangulation Trail, offering one of the most beautiful accesses to Mt Jefferson and the most beautiful variety of wildflowers in springtime, has been blocked by so much debris for years that we have never been able to get into the Mt Jefferson Wilderness itself.
2. Lack of maintenance of trails concentrates use onto fewer and fewer trails. Those trails, particularly in population expansion areas such as Central Oregon, require more maintenance, not less, in order to survive. Restricting use but not increasing maintenance will not improve the trail quality. Restricting use will not correct slumping out of trails, loss of tread, or debris in the trail. In my opinion, not allowing dispersed use by abandoning trails and then restricting use on the remaining trails only perpetuates the situation needing remedy and is being used as justification for reducing public use.
3. There are some trails that are not used for ‘wilderness experience.’ They are an “accomplishment trail." "I climbed South Sister" is a feat, not an experience. Ditto for Black Crater, and some other trails. When we climb those trails we expect to see people on the trails in both directions and it has in no way diminished the experience or accomplishment. I would define your word ‘use’ in better terms.
4. Much of these wildernesses have burned down due to poor fire management, my second issue. I watched the B&B fire get started while I was climbing Black Crater. I saw one column of smoke as I climbed and not too long afterward a second column of smoke appeared. I watched from the top of Black Crater for at least half an hour and other than the private plane from the Warm Springs, saw no action whatsoever from the Forest Service. That fire was reported by the Hinkle Butte State of Oregon tower volunteer, by which time it had grown very large in order for them to be able to see it. I climbed Black Crater the following day and it looked like an atomic bomb had gone off. As I hike around the wildernesses, the destruction I see of forest habitat due to fire has increased. This erosion of land, destruction of plant species, sterilization of the earth has not been caused by users, it has been caused by poor policy. Hardly what we would hold up as an example of Forest Stewardship and certainly no cause for restricting use. 5. My third issue is the lack of road maintenance for most trailheads. I have never been on a dirt or gravel Forest Service road that has not been corduroyed, sometimes to the point of being dangerous; another discouragement for folks who would like to experience something other than ‘the usual’ trails. Poor dirt road maintenance concentrates use to trails off paved roads. Example os that would be Todd Lake and Green Lakes. The most egregious of these dirt roads is the road to Crater Ditch. If any road is meant to discourage use, this has to be the winner.
6. Some of the trails you are wishing to limit are located at Camp Grounds, for example Tam MacArthur Rim trail. A heavily used trail because that is what is nearest the campground. The same issue applies to Todd Lake. The same issue would apply to Little three Creeks Lake.
7. One way I suppose to cut down on use of some trails would be to limit overnight camping, both by number of people and days allowed. Despite the belief that people enter the wilderness areas for solitude, I have generally found that not to be the case. My experience has been that people are afraid at night and want to be close to others for a feeling of safety. Hence groups of tents and campfires late into the night.
I would like to see these issues addressed with remedies other than closing the public out of these areas as the solution.
Sincerely,
Phyllis Lewis
fees for visiting Wilderness, FLREA is controversial and its long-term status is uncertain. Don’t hitch this new permit system to a fee structure that may disappear down the road.
Campfire Ban. Wilderness Watch could support a campfire ban above certain elevations in these five Wildernesses. Though we understand that each of the five areas has individual differences, we believe that a consistent elevation level for a campfire ban would be easiest for the public to remember and follow, rather than different elevation limits in each of the five areas.
Campfire Setback. Currently there is a campfire setback of 100 feet of trails and water. It appears from the chart on page 12 of the May 31 project document that the Forest Service may discontinue this regulation and replace it with increased user-education. We doubt that increased education alone will protect these areas. Moreover, given the budget situation and Forest Service funding priorities, we seriously doubt that the districts will be able to provide the education needed. Wilderness Watch supports retaining this setback regulation and augmenting it with better user education.
Camping Setback/Restriction. Currently there is designated camping and specified setbacks at certain areas. The proposal seems to call for ending these regulations and replacing them with increased user-education. As above, Wilderness Watch supports retaining the existing regulations and augmenting them with increased user education. An exception would be if the Forest Service is confident that eliminating the designated campsites won’t lead to a proliferation of new, degrading campsites. In that case, we believe in allowing visitors the maximum amount of freedom to travel and camp where they choose.
Education. Wilderness Watch supports an increased Forest Service presence and increased visitor education for these five Wildernesses. We believe the increased effort should largely occur before visitors enter the Wilderness, such as at trailheads or other areas where visitors can be reached. We support a greater wilderness ranger presence and program in these Wildernesses, though not necessarily a heavier presence in terms of visitor contacts. Some areas, such as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, already require visitors to watch a user education video when picking up wilderness permits, and this has proven to be a positive tool.
We also suggest analyzing indirect methods for limiting or reducing impacts in these Wildernesses that don’t confine visitors once they enter. These indirect actions could include discouraging marketing of the areas, providing more primitive trailheads and access to trailheads, lower trail standards and maintenance levels, and fewer developments designed to facilitate easier access.
Please keep Wilderness Watch on the contact list for this project as it moves forward.
Sincerely,
Kevin Proescholdt Conservation Director
2
From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: Erik Fernandez Subject: [CAUTION: Suspicious Link]Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies - scoping comments Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:42:46 AM
PROCEED WITH CAUTION: This message triggered warnings of potentially malicious web content. Evaluate this email by considering whether you are expecting the message, along with inspection for suspicious links.
Questions: [email protected]
FROM: Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild | PO Box 11648, Eugene, OR 97440 | 541-344-0675 | [email protected] TO: [email protected] ATTN: John Allen & Tracy Beck, Supervisors of the Deschutes and Willamette National Forests DATE: 28 June 2017 RE: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies - scoping comments
Please accept the following scoping comments from Oregon Wild regarding the proposed Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies, http://data.ecosystem- management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=50578. Oregon Wild represents 20,000 members and supporters who share our mission to protect and restore Oregon's wildlands, wildlife and waters as an enduring legacy.
Oregon Wild shares the concern in the scoping document that the central Oregon Wilderness areas are suffering from over use and resource damage in some locations. These Wilderness areas are spectacular areas to visit, provide key wildlife habitat, clean water, and generally help define the central Oregon landscape. Ensuring they are protected and sustained for the long term enjoyment of present and future generations is important and we believe the process you have initiated is a good faith effort to achieve this goal. We support you moving forward with the planning process to address the concerns outlined in the scoping document.
We also suggest that you consider the love and passion central Oregonians have for Wilderness areas when updating the Forest Plan and making recommendations for Wilderness. People are drawn to specially colored areas on the map (e.g., wilderness and other areas with a recreation emphasis). Offering more of those places by growing our wilderness resource can help spread people out and reduce over use in localized hot spots. It's not the silver bullet or anywhere close to it, but it is a part of the solution.
We look forward to seeing more specific identified solutions as the planning process continues. Utilizing designed one-way loop routes, permit systems, and other options are all worth considering.
Please keep Oregon Wild informed of future opportunities to comment as these wilderness strategies become more developed.
Sincerely, /s/ ______Doug Heiken, Oregon Wild PO Box 11648, Eugene OR 97440 [email protected], 541.344.0675 Oregon Wild's mission is to protect and restore Oregon's wildlands, wildlife, and waters as an enduring legacy for future generations. From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:03:39 AM i hate to see anyone not get to go where they want to, but even back in 1970 when i was backpacking, people were leaving poop piles in camping areas, trash around campsites. large fire rings. something needs to be done to protect it for future generations to enjoy. at least with permits, people might not be so likely to leave trash as it could possibly be traced to them. From: Adam To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Regarding Permit Rules for Cascade Crest Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:24:33 PM
Im reading in the Statesman Journal about possible new permit rules for the Cascade Crest area.
How would this be implemented? As someone who lives within about 45 minutes of these 40- or-so trailheads, Ive experienced myself how much the crowds have grown over the last 20 years. Some kind of crowd control would be preferred but the permit system and how its currently done can be a bit frustrating.
As with some of the mountains and trails to the north (like st helens) - if you dont buy a permit 6-9 months ahead of time, you're SOL. What would stop groups from purchasing bulk permits and perpetually monopolizing wilderness areas?
Being that its Oregon, not every day is beautiful or travelable and buying permits only to get rained and snowed out before you can use them is also a problem.
Would these permits be round-year or seasonal? How will you communicate the need for these permits? Ive had some bad experiences wherein I made a trip to a trailhead with friends from out of town - only to show up and see postings that special permits are required - with absolutely zero documentation or sinage ahead of time letting motorists know they will be required.
Would you have postings on hwy 22 above Detroit notifying drivers to stop at the rangers station to check permits or something?
The article mentioned trailhead permits. Would people not using those trailheads not be required to carry permits? Would permits be required simply to set foot within the boundaries of the jefferson wilderness?
If the purpose of limiting high numbers is done with permits and done to help preserve the parks, where will those without a permit go? I would imagine crowds will just go elsewhere and end up damaging more areas in BLM where there are no protections (and no crowds currently)
Would permits be available online or would I have to drive 40 miles to the ranger station (when they are keeping hours) and buy them in person?
I guess maybe im just proposing more angles to this problem. After 20 years of looking out the window on any given morning and making my plans based on how I felt, I will now (possibly) be expected to plan a random Saturday months ahead of time and hope that some hiking group didnt buy up all the permits for 2 weeks?
I have family in the forest service and I know how poorly thought out and jacked up new regulations can be. I hope that if this system goes forward, the people in charge put a little thought into all the angles and caveats this will leave for many. From: Dan Applebaker To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc:
Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:47:11 AM Attachments: BCHO Commments on Willamette and Deschutes NF wilderness proposal.docx
Tracy and John:
Please find attached the Back Country of Oregon’s comments on the Willamette and Deschutes National Forest Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies proposal.
Jerry Bentz Back Country Horsemen of Oregon President
Dan Applebaker Back Country Horsemen of Oregon Public Lands Committee Chair
BCHO provides the following suggestions/ideas for ways the Forests may consider bringing equality to the proposed permit system if equestrians are to be considered for limited use permits. • Like the subset of permits issued at the Devils Lake Trailhead for limiting visitors climbing the South Sister, a subset of permits could be made available that is not so restrictive for wilderness-wide equestrian visitors. • Equestrian visitors could receive a guaranteed number of overnight permits based on their current use. • A guaranteed number of permits could be allowed for equestrian day use as well, unless data can be provided that indicates day equestrian use has been increasing. • Offer equestrian visitors annual permits. • Administration and enforcement of the proposed permit system will be expensive. Permit fees are mentioned as a possibility and may become necessary if the permit system is to be successful. We also understand that if such fees become necessary that decision will be addressed in a separate public comment period and we can provide comments at that time. • The proposed permit system will redistribute use to other Cascade wilderness areas in Region 6. How will this inevitable situation be addressed by the Forest and Region 6? • The decommissioning/declassifying of trails because of the lack of funding, or leaving the trails unavailable for use by lack of maintenance, will only exacerbate the crowding on existing trails and increase the impact of recreational use in the areas that are accessible. The following are comments BCHO has received from our members across the state. These comments may have been included in input from our individual members, from our Chapters, and from other equestrians. We add them here to lend more credence to these excellent comments. They all relate to the importance of equestrian use and express concerns about unnecessary regulated access through limited entry permits. • Access is tremendously important for equestrians. For the most part, BCHO members are an older group of wilderness visitors and often equestrian use is their only opportunity to visit and enjoy these five wilderness areas. • Historic use is one of the six public purposes of wilderness and equestrian use in these wilderness areas predates their designation as wilderness. Our use is certainly historic. • Equestrians pack more garbage out of wilderness, supply packing support to Agency trail crews, and maintain more trails then nearly all other wilderness visitors. It is not appreciated to be included in broad sweeping regulations unnecessarily limiting our use when the Agencies are requesting more volunteer/partnership help. • If the limited-entry permits are available on a first come first serve basis other groups could flood the application process and equestrians access could be eliminated. Would there be a way to track or a penalize visitors reserving a permit and then not appearing (thereby eliminated another visitor’s access)? • It would be prudent for the visitors and the Forest Service if the permit system was phased in by implementing it first in the areas experiencing the heaviest use. The permit system could be expanded later as necessary. That would lessen the visitors immediate shock by such a tremendous regulatory action and allow the Forests to review and adjust to the successes and failures of the permit system as it progresses. • What kind of enforcement and penalties can we expect to guarantee compliance (as well as trailhead parking compliance) when the limited entry permits are introduced?
In conclusion, we add that BCHO agrees with the proposed camp fire ban based on elevation and vegetative sustainability, the proposed efforts in visitor education, and add that current regulations for setbacks for stock and stock tethering are adequate.
BCHO respectfully request that these comments be considered and included when all feasible and legal alternatives are presented in the following Environmental Assessment.
Sincerely, Jerry Bentz Jerry Bentz Chairman, Back Country Horsemen of Oregon
PO Box 543, Veneta, OR 97487 . Phone: 971.645.3593 . [email protected] From: Caleb Staats To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited Trail Entry Comment Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:50:37 AM
To whom it may concern,
I support limited entry access into wilderness areas so long as the cost remains low enough to not price out low- income individuals. In addition, preference for passes should be awarded to Oregon state citizens. Whether that is the chance to participate in a pre-sale of some kind of what, I do not know. But, this is our state and Oregon residents pay the taxes and other costs to live here and to maintain the environment. So, we should have the opportunity to purchase entry permits to OUR wilderness areas before anyone else.
Best,
Caleb Staats From: carolyn To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: public comments on possible permit system Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:43:24 AM
Hello!
I strongly encourage a limited permit system be implemented to prevent these areas from being loved to death. Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake and Diamond Peak wilderness areas are incredible places and they need to be protected.
Thank you for all you do!
Carolyn Williams NE Portland From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness area permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:31:28 AM
Hello…I am commenting on the proposed Wilderness area permitting process. I am a member of the Chemeketans hiking club in Salem. We have been around since 1928 and have enjoyed the beauty of our state in a responsible manner for all those years. We practice “leave no trace” principles and do not allow dogs on our hikes(other than service animals). What I have observed over the years, is that : 1. folks seem to feel that their dogs should accompany them on any hike they go on…the number of dogs I have seen on the Eagle Creek Trail( as an example), is quite staggering. This trail is so narrow in places, that a single person can barely traverse it, let alone an unleashed dog scampering around. 2. folks on the trails that I frequent, seem to be pretty good about not leaving “trash” on the trails, but I do find little bags of good poop very often. 3. many people have no knowledge of “trail etiquette”….folks will squeeze by you on a trail instead of moving over, dogs will run ahead of their owners, people will go off trail even when signs forbid this for trail integrity reasons, etc. 4. parking areas can be a nightmare! Our hiking club ALWAYS has folks meet at a central place and we carpool to whatever trail we will be hiking that day.
I am always conflicted when I’m on a trail that is teeming with people. On one hand, I’m thrilled that more folks are wanting to get outside and enjoy the beauty of our state. I love seeing families with young kids out hiking, as I feel this is one of the most precious things you can do with your kids! On the other hand, when I’m tripping over someone’s dog, or squeezing past hikers who won’t yield the trail, or asking a group of hikers to please not take the “shortcut” through the protected area, I become very frustrated and discouraged.
We all have our own reasons for hiking….enjoying the beauty, connecting with friends, great family time, enjoying the solitude of a stunning trail, exercise, contemplation….the list goes on and on. I do think that limiting the number of people who can access a given trail on a given day is a constructive idea. What I would like to propose is that established hiking groups, (such as the Chemeketans), be able to access these trails without having to get advance permits. We already limit our group sizes in wilderness areas, and I think that you could be pretty certain that it is not established hiking groups that are causing the issues you are trying to address.
I realize that your permit proposal could be a necessary evil……..as in so many things in life, it “punishes” the many of the transgressions of a few.
Thank you for your time and your care and concern for our beautiful state! Eileen Harder
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Chris Jensen To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:51:47 AM
Greetings,
I wanted to reach out and comment on Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578. I am an avid climber, back country skier, hiker, and back packer. I have enjoyed skiing and climbing South Sister, Middle Sister, Tam Ridge, and Mt. Washington. I would be very sad to see any more Cascade peaks fall behind a limited permit system. I have no problem with a small fee permit system if the Forest Service believes this is necessary to provide more management resources. I think it would be great to have more rangers in the mountains to increase education and enforcement of blue bags. At popular sites such as Devil's Lake blue bags could be provided along with disposal sites such as has been setup on Mt. Adams.
Objections to limited quota system
>Limits access to these beautiful mountains that we should all be able to enjoy.
>Makes climbing more dangerous. In my experience having a permit for a specific date encourages climbers to ascend into poor weather conditions. The climber may feel that this is their only chance climb and ascend into deteriorating conditions.
If the Forest Service is going to proceed with a quota system anyways I would request that it not apply during the winter season when access is already limited and the user impact is diminished because of the snow pack.
If you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me at this email address.
Regards, Chris Jensen Portland, OR From: Chris Smith To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Permitting Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:27:17 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
As someone who has enjoyed Wilderness areas throughout Oregon for years, I fully support a move towards requiring permits in Oregon's sensitive Cascade Wilderness areas. In light of increased traffic in these sensitive areas, it is wholly appropriate to institute a system that balances access and environmental sensitivity.
Sincerely, Chris Smith Portland Oregon From: chris t To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: wilderness permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 9:29:26 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
In response to the proposal that our wilderness areas local to Central Oregon be permitted, and require fees for use, I would like to share my opinion.
I understand the reality that central Oregon is being "loved to death". I also understand the implications and impact of overuse of the forest and wilderness areas. Our family has lived here over twenty five years, using the wilderness regularly for many activities, using leave no trace techniques, and teaching others the same. We tend to travel dispersed and off trail and avoid the high impact areas of the high country.
I would suggest that if there is a need to create permitted areas of the wilderness that are over utilized and damaged, that the permits be specific only to those areas, such as climbing South Sister and the Green Lakes trail, but leaving those other areas of the wilderness for those to utilize without permit.
Our love of the high country is accentuated by the closeness, the spontaneity to hike, backpack, ride horses for a day. That is why we live here.
I understand limitation in many high use areas, but please leave other magical areas available to those local people that live here because of it, and the ability to use our public lands for free, without having to acquire permission, and to be spontaneous and free in our use.
Thank you,
Chris Teicheira 21365 Back Alley Bend, OR 97702 [email protected] From: chris t To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: wilderness permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:33:26 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing with regard to the proposed permit system for some of our local wilderness areas in Oregon. I understand that limiting the impact of tourists and increasing local populations does justice to the pristine nature of wilderness areas.
On the other hand, I am against a permit system in that these wilderness areas are our public lands, and no fees should be necessary to access them. This makes "wilderness for the rich", and excludes the wilderness experience to those that cannot afford any fees for recreation. Financial exclusion is not right.
As well, when my husband and I travel in the wilderness, we do not travel on trails as most people do, and always attempt to lessen our impact. This comes down to more education in the use of wilderness, not just advertising what a great place we can access a half an hour from town. It also means advertising other places outside of the wilderness, that offer great beauty and seclusion, but do not have the impact of the most used trails.
As my friend Kate says, "Regulation does not replace education".
Sincerely,
Chris Teicheira 21365 Back Alley Rd. Bend, OR 97702 [email protected] From: Devon Larson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: I am enraged! Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 7:33:23 AM
I can't believe what I am reading! Limited access to wilderness areas! I have to pay to go backpacking? I had been going every other weekend in the summer and every three weeks or so in the winter.
For some high use areas, this might make sense, but I am usually the only person at the lakes I hike into.
This is way too much, way too fast.
Please don't do this to me. Why, why, why?
This is the worst news I have ever heard.
I hate it, hate it, hate it! From: Drew Lianopoulos To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Wilderness permits Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 9:02:22 PM
Dear Sir or Madam:
In your deliberations regarding proposed wilderness permits for various wilderness areas within your jurisdictions, please keep in mind that the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) traverses many of those regions. Please be sure that any wilderness permit systems exempts the PCT and any trails needed to access the PCT, so that both section and through hikers on PCT can still enjoy their hikes without having to plan for or obtain a wilderness permit in advance. In the alternative, any such permits for those PCT areas should be self-issued at the boundaries near the PCT. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Drew Lianopoulos From: Ed To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permit Proposal Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:10:20 PM
I hike in the Jefferson Wilderness area between 25-70 times a year. Obviously permits costing between $6-12 would have a considerable impact on me.
I don’t hike popular trails (Marion, Pamela, Duffy) but instead hike the lonely trails (Minto Mtn., Bingham Ridge, Maxwell Butte, Turpentine, etc.). These trails have few visitors. The Minto Mtn. Trail, for instance, can hardly be followed into the meadows and has no connecting trails. There are zero impacts along this trail or at its terminus. The same can be said for Maxwell Butte. The Bingham and Turpentine Trails, while connecting to other trails, have very little traffic on them. I could go on.
It seems to me that instead of just listing all the trails off of Highway 22 you would take the time to exempt trails that show little use and where no noticeable environmental impacts are present. Don’t justify locking up all the trails to a permit system based on only a few, easy to hike, trails which do have significant negative environmental impacts occurring.
And you might consider those of us who do a lot of hiking. We are often retired and on limited incomes. Just the gas costs driving to these wilderness areas are burdensome enough. In a slow year (25 hikes) I would be on the hook for $150 even at the $6 a hike rate.
From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness use permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:30:36 AM
Hello I reluctantly support limited use permits.
Many of the high use trails are simply to short. Gaining access to wilderness is clearly not challenging enough, which I believe also goes against the wilderness experience.
E.g. PCT via Ollalie v Breitenbush v. whitewater trail length/difficulty/use. Abandon the whitewater trailhead for one lower down. Adding an additional 1000 ft elevation change would do wonders.
The dosewalloops/duckabush trails on the Olympic peninsula provide an interesting case study to consider.
In general I would urge lengthening trails as much as possible with low cost methods such as abandoning car access on existing roads. I see potential for some bike camping-access along these paths in some instances providing additional experiences leading up to wilderness areas. I don't see abandonment of roads as limiting access to all visitors given the number of low elevation trails, rather I think this increases the number of challenging hikes available, which I believe is insufficient.
Fred Tilton 4438 nw queens ave Corvallis OR Backpacking solo since 1996 From: Dan Claric To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Access Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:39:03 PM
Hello,
Rather than limit the number of visitors who use the wilderness through a lottery/permit system (which requires advanced planning and sometimes it's nice to be able to get out and just go), institute a small trail fee. The fee will lower use by a little and the revenue can be used to support clean-up efforts.
Also, why not institute a blue bag policy and offer them at the trail heads. I was up on Middle Sister this weekend and having a blue bag wouldn't have been the end of the world.
There are other options that could be used before shutting the area off to late-planners.
Thanks for your consideration.
-Dan Claric Eugene, OR
Sent from my iPhone From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Leave our Lands alone. Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:24:15 PM
These lands are the peoples. Please don’t try to limit our access to these places.
From: Joanne Richter To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:04:48 PM
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project. I’ve hiked and backpacked in the Central Cascades Wilderness for over 30 years, and have become increasingly concerned as I’ve watched a huge increase in visitor use, particularly in the Three Sisters Wilderness. This spike in usage has resulted in dramatic increases in damage to riparian and high alpine vegetation, trail widening, an increase in user- created trails, an increase in garbage / litter on and off trails, and overcrowded trailhead parking resulting in cars dangerously parked along the Cascades Lake Highway. I appreciate that you’ve collected good data on many of these impacts, and have presented these data in the Proposed Action document. For the most part I strongly support the actions proposed in this document, especially the proposed Permit System. My specific comments on the document are shown below.
Page 10: The last sentence on this page states “A permit system could be implemented in phases for wilderness areas or zones within wilderness areas as administrative capacity allows.” I would strongly suggest that you start implementation of a permit system as soon as possible in the most heavily impacted wilderness areas, especially those areas accessed by the Green Lakes and Devils Lake trailheads. Also, there need to be consequences for people who ignore the requirement for a permit, including possible fines. I believe a “carrot and stick” approach is needed in order to get good compliance, and show that the USFS is serious about the importance of protecting wilderness values in these areas.
Page 11: At the top of this page you say that the permit system would be administered through “rec.gov” and that a second public process would be necessary to implement a fee associated with the permit system. I strongly recommend that you expedite the process for establishing a permit fee. Users need to have some “skin in the game,” and paying a reasonable fee in order to recreate in these beautiful wilderness areas is NOT unreasonable. Ideally, money collected from these fees would go back into Deschutes and Willamette NFs to hire more backcountry rangers, etc. That way folks will realize the fee they pay is going right back into protecting the areas they love to recreate in.
Page 11, Campfire and Camping Regulation: I don’t understand the proposed change to the existing system of having campfire siting and setback rules. You need to better explain why the proposal to “restrict campfires above a certain elevation” will result in better protection of sensitive riparian and lakeshore vegetation. Also, the second paragraph in this section states that “Camping setbacks and designated campsites will not be part of this strategy.” Does that mean these measures would be eliminated? I don’t believe that “raising awareness of the public”, while very important, will be sufficient to get people to select appropriate campsites using leave-no-trace principles. The phrase “most appropriate campsite” can mean something very different to different users. I fear that this change would result in an increase in vegetative damage, and more trampled shorelines and streambanks, because everyone wants to camp as close to water as possible. The changes proposed in this entire section need to be better justified.
Page 11, Visitor Education: I strongly support all of the proposed actions in this section. Please make it happen sooner than later! Page 11, Adaptive Management: I strongly suggest that many if not all of the adaptive management techniques listed in this section be implemented as soon as possible. We’ve already seen a big influx of visitors this season, and impacts will only increase through this summer and fall. If many of the management techniques listed "are outlined in the Forest Plans,” that should allow you to put these management techniques in place right away, independent of the NEPA process required to implement actions proposed in the "Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project.”
General Comments: I was disappointed that the proposed actions in this document did not include other techniques for managing crowded trails and minimizing impacts to sensitive high alpine areas. Three projects that come to mind are constructing more one-way loop trails, implementing a separate climbers’ fee for South Sister, and clearly designating trails in high alpine areas that lead to popular destinations.
I strongly encourage you to look at making the Green Lakes Trail a one way loop by improving the old abandoned trail on “creek left” and extending it up to the Green Lakes junction. A climbers' fee on South Sister would be a great source of revenue that could be used to construct and designate one trail to the summit, and eliminate the many user-created trails that are decimating the high alpine vegetation on this mountain. Also, a clearly designated trail in the high alpine area near “No Name Lake” is badly needed as users now wander all through the beautiful high alpine wet meadows leading up to the lake itself.
Thank you for moving forward on proposed actions to address overcrowding impacts in the Central Cascades Wilderness. The proposed actions, if implemented, will go a long way to better protecting wilderness values in these beautiful and priceless areas.
Joanne Richter, Leader Central Oregon Bitterbrush Broads Great Old Broads for Wilderness 60065 River Bluff Trail Bend, OR 97702
“In wilderness is the preservation of the world” Henry David Thoreau From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited Entry Comments Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:29:47 AM
Regarding the limited entry and permit proposal.
Please please reconsider your plans to impose the need for permits on such a sweepingly large area. Especially for those who only day hike.
This proposal will disenfranchise a large segment of the population from experiencing wilderness especially those on lowers incomes and with limited available free time to travel to and enjoy these places.
Please reconsider a smaller pilot program on a smaller area before enforcing such a sweeping changes on people.
Also please consider peak time permits. For example weekend permits only at certain times of the year not all the time.
With my best regards Guy Meacham.
-- Guy Meacham [email protected] www.meacham.org From: Jim Daniels To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Wilderness Entry Permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:02:05 AM
As a former Forest Service wilderness crew member, I understand the problems with heavy use of wilderness areas. I would support a reasonable wilderness entry permit system. What I don’t support and find offensive is the $6-$12 fee that is proposed. The news reports don’t give any indication of how the fees would be spent. We’re already paying for the privilege of parking at a trailhead, which I believe has a deterring effect on people using public lands.
James Monsen-Daniels
From: Jon To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Opposition to permit plan for Oregon Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:56:38 AM
According to the news "Day-hikers would need a permit if they entered from one of the 40 trailheads near highways 22, 242 and 46"
This email is to indicate my opposition to this plan. I live in Bend and I visit these tailheads 25-30 times a year for the purpose of long distance trail running. I have summited South Sister mountain more than 30 times in the past few years. I understand that the trails can be busy on weekends and on holidays but during the week usage is far less significant.
I object to "Permits would cost between $6 and $12, and only a limited amount would be available. The number of permits granted is still to be decided."
Such a fee would preclude me from using this public land. In fact I doubt I would ever again. If that is the intent, so be it. It would be most unfortunate but I would look for a non-cost alternative.
Jon Wolf Bend Oregon Resident. From: Josie Gibler To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: New permitting process Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:21:35 PM
I am in favor of the new permitting process, but not in favor of paying $6-$12 for a permit. There is already the $5 day pass or $30 annual pass. Having this added charge to so many trails just seems like an awful lot to charge someone to just take a hike.
Sincerely, Josie Schmucker
Sent from my iPhone From: Karl E. Peterson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Wilderness Permit System Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:17:36 PM
I find it appalling that your first recourse is to crack down on everyone, rather than go after the offenders that are making it rough on all of us. This suggestion of permits for those five Wilderness areas is just absurd. Of course visitor counts have gone up. Rather than limiting options, why not expand them? Build a trail, for god's sake... How many decades has it been? More trails, more solitude. Our national forests should not be "pay to play!", damn it! From: Ken Waletzki To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permit fee for overnight: Yes; Day hike: no. Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:10:05 AM
Fascinating..
Why is it I don't need a fee permit to hike into/through the Enchantments?
Permits for hiking Mt. Whitney are free, and very available, when picked up the day before.
Mt. Hood climb... no fee.
It seems as though, you're not working smart-enough. From: Kevin Elston To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: I oppose limiting entry into Three Sisters, Mt. Washington, & Mt. Jefferson wildernesses. Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:03:45 AM
Hello, my name is Kevin Elston and I write this email to comment on my disapproval for limiting entry into the Three Sisters, Mt. Washington, Mt. Jefferson, Waldo Lake, and Diamond Peak Wilderness areas. I am an avid hiker and Backpacker and almost exclusively spend my time for those activities in all the above listed wilderness areas. I will say that I am not blind, I too have noticed the increase in usage, and the effects it's taken on trails and remote camping locations. I believe something needs to be done. I oppose the idea of acquiring a permit days in advance to enter these areas. The reason is like most average Americans I live a life full of activities and responsibilities. Work, caring for my daughter, home chores, family events, volunteering in my community and with my local Search and Rescue group. With so much on my plate, travel to these wilderness areas is done so when time is allowed, and often last minute. These spur of the moment trips to the Oregon backcountry help keep me grounded and fulfilled. I recently traveled to California on business and found myself with a free day to go hiking. I grabbed a map and pointed my truck to a popular spot I always wanted to go. I drove there and was extremely disappointed when I found out I needed a permit only obtainable days before. As I drove away all I could think about was how thankful I was that my home state of Oregon did not have such limiting factors for enjoying our public lands.
I really hope the USFS can come up with a new idea to manage these high use areas. Even a special parking permit like the NW forest pass just for the high use trail heads. This would be an option because people like me could still pay extra for the use, but be able to recreate at a moments notice.
Thank you for your consideration Kevin Elston Brownsville, OR
Sent from my iPhone From: Kevin Johnson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: More control is not needed! Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:31:17 AM
Nature is to be enjoyed by all, freely. The US taxpayer pays enough for the forest care-taking - more of your socialist control is not needed nor valued.
Permit control to walk God's great earth is a ridiculous idea.
Kevin From: Krissy Bussmann To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Wilderness Limited Entry Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:26:36 PM
Hello!
I'm writing to express my wholehearted support for the limited entry proposals for the wilderness areas in Oregon along the Cascade Crest.
As long as the permit system is easy to access, user friendly, and equitable for all, and there is appropriate enforcement of the rules and penalties for rule-breakers, I fully support this much- needed change.
Sincerely, Krissy Bussmann, wilderness enthusiast From: Kyle Meyer To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project Feedback Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:30:19 PM
Hi there,
My concerns with the proposal are as follows, and particularly applies to the Jefferson wilderness of which I am a frequent user of:
1. I'm against paying money to a private entity (recreation.gov) for access to entire wildernesses. This limits opportunity of the underprivileged to be able to access some of Oregon's best treasures. I'm unsure of how in-person quotas would work, but I feel strongly that online reservation systems are a plague and unfairly a. enrich a particular corporation at the expense of the public, b. limit access to the wilderness in favor of the affluent, and c. lead to permit hording and purchasing of permits that never get used. We saw this last year in Jefferson Park—with the permit system for camping near the lakes, the lake sites went empty and spread impact into the meadow.
2. As a web programmer for over a decade, I know with 100% certainty that a permit issuance on a website does not cost $6 or $12—the prices for permits today are patently absurd and egregious and an abuse of public lands. We pay taxes to access this land and deserve access we already paid for.
3. A wilderness-wide quota for overnight use adversely impacts those that seek out the low- use areas and penalizes all users of the wilderness because of the over-use in popular trailheads. For instance, I am intimately acquainted with the basin east of the Campfire Lakes where use is nonexistent and I've literally never seen anyone else. There is literally no reason for permitting these underutilized, hard to access areas.
In summary:
1. Buying permits ahead of time limits access to those that plan ahead, and many permits go unused. Enriching a private corporation for access to public land is absurd.
2. Permit fees are too high, especially for day use.
3. The concept of wilderness-wide overnight permitting is too broad and adversely impacts hunters and other users that already distribute impact. Instead, using a zone system for camping distributes the impact of camping in popular areas without requiring permitting of those users accessing areas in already pristine condition.
Thanks for your time.
Kyle Meyer From: Leah Teixeira To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Public Comment on wilderness areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:50:43 AM
Hello! I am an Oregonian and avid backpacker and wanted to submit my comment on the proposal to move to a permitting system for the Cascade crest. I thoroughly value the opportunities we have as Oregonians to access the outdoors and I believe that everyone should have the same access to these wonders of nature. That being said, the cost of experiencing our natural environment is ensuring that it is maintained and responsibly treated by its users. A permitting system would allow the Forest Service to reduce the detrimental effects of large crowds of people. I think this is an important step towards truly protecting the wilderness that we are so eager to experience. Beyond the clear environmental reasons this is a great idea, I would hope that the US Forest Service would be able to use the funds garnered from these permits to reinvest in the maintenance of these precious areas. Thank you for reading my comment and your work on this proposed change.
Leah Sabraw [email protected] From: Marianne Vydra To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Regs in wilderness Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:59:46 AM
Yes! Long overdue please please please. I'm an avid backpacker and love these areas. I am used to getting permits into other areas in the country. This is not an uncommon practice and it actually send multiple positive messages about the values we place in these areas.
Marianne Vydra From: Mary Schmidgall To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposal to Limit Access in Deschutes Wilderness Areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:55:46 AM
Good morning,
For the past 40 years, I've hiked and backpacked in the Deschutes National Forest and adjacent wilderness areas. There are many, many wonderful trails. I fully support limiting the number of people allowed on any one trail at any given time. That will better protect the wilderness aspect, provide a more enjoyable experience for the hiker or backpacker, and likely spread out trail users onto different days or different trails altogether. A week ago Monday (in gorgeous weather), I hiked up Crescent Mountain with a few friends; we didn't see any other hikers.
The Crescent Mountain trail did have a number of blow-downs, so more maintenance may be needed on the less-hiked trails so they are more easily used. One member of our group had a small fold-out handsaw which we used to cut out a section on a few smaller trees, but bigger equipment (and more time) is definitely needed.
I wish you all the best with managing your enormous responsibilities, given that budgets are never enough and the immediate future doesn't appear to offer a solution.
Mary Schmidgall Salem, OR From: Michael Vance To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:54:08 PM
I think your permits are sickening and this is ridiculous. I hike this woods all the times and this is native land and national forest. You do not control the land and this would be ridiculous to hold people back from peace and the beauty of the world. From: MissyKrystal . To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Visitor populations per season Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:55:22 AM
When I was a teenager mid 1970's as a Eagle Scout, I spent 30 days hiking Pacific Crest Trail. I started @ Mt Hood and ended up in or near Crater Lake National park. There was 3 of us.
We did not see anyone during that whole time. There was no worn trails, there was no trash or human waste of any kind.
Much later as an adult I went back to a location of the Pacific Crest trail. I could not believe the amount of destruction and trash left by others. Its not the same pristine trail it once was.
I have pondered how many people could be allowed to enter the trails per year. It is my opinion the trails need to be fully closed for a period of time so they could be cleaned of the refuse and trash 2-3 years, to allow the region to heal some of the damage done to the entire trail. a Limit of 35-50k people per year, including hunting cross country - snow boarding - snow mobile - permit people. Permit fees are too low.. $25 per day pass fee. No bicycles or mountain bikes. All trash and especially plastics are carried out. From: Ryan Ernst To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Widespread Permititting Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:05:46 PM
Just saw this write up in the Statesman about the new permitting system being tossed around and wanted to share my displeasure with it. When you speak of the trash that you haul out it is more likely due to the long term hunting camps and free loaders in rvs who could give a rats behind about your permits. If certain trails are getting too crowded then why don't we considering making new trails to new destinations. There are plenty of places that I have come accrossed that don't have a trail that should. More trails means more people spread out this the environment would be able to handle it better. I know this takes time and resources but you probably won't be getting my resources if it does pass because I will continue my off trail pilgrimages without a permit. I severely doubt that there will be a forest service ranger waiting for me in the middle of nowhere. Something has to give and this permit idea is one of them.
Ryan Ernst From: Sarah Naidoo To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposal for new limited entry areas in Oregon wilderness areas Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 8:14:56 PM
Dear Sir/Madam, As an avid backpacker and frequent visitor to the Mt Jefferson and Three Sisters wilderness areas, I am in full agreement with the proposal to limit entry to the five wilderness areas, even if that impacts my own recreations activites. We have been very aware of environmental degradations resulting from heavy use of these areas during our own hiking and backpacking trips, particularly within Jefferson park (we were sad to see last year's camping permit system not be continued for this year, especially in light of the large crowd that will likely be drawn there for eclipse viewing). As much as I enjoy having unlimited access to these areas, I love spending time there because of the wild and unspoiled beauty, and I feel action must be taken to protect these areas and keep them healthy and unspoiled for many years to come. Thank you, Sarah Naidoo From: SaraM To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed trailhead fees for Oregon wilderness areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:27:04 PM
No No No No new fees for hikers. Go ahead and issue a limited number of permits for sensitive areas, that's a good idea and one that I am totally behind. I have seen the damage done by thoughtless hikers. The trailheads do need better, in your face, signage about such things as packing out your toilet paper. And there needs to be more education about leave no trace when you camp. And wilderness areas are not off leash dog run parks. Many people treat them that way. So yes, limiting entry into wilderness areas is a good thing.
But please, do not force people to pay extra. If I day hike 4 times a week on black crater, I would now have to pay at least $24?! That's pretty steep and I begin to question the motive behind these new fees. Is this simply a way to collect more money? Because usage can be limted without collecting these fees.
I already pay for an annual sno park permit, a discover pass, an oregon state parks pass and an interagency pass. What's next, an oregon wilderness pass. I have been hiking through wilderness areas for over 25 years and I am a good steward. I do not have a dog, I do not leave tp behind. I camp, leaving no trace. Can there not be some kind of discount or waiver of fees if a person can demonstrate they can travel with no impact? Because right now, I feel like I am being punished because of the few nincompoops.
Thank you for your time Sara Machlin From: Scott Mathes To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Regulations Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 8:20:03 PM
I fully support the proposed new rules aimed at decreasing human-caused damage to Wilderness areas by limiting entry and requiring permits for more areas. Providing better protection of wildlife habitat and Wilderness qualities for recreational visitors will be a significant step towards ensuring that these irreplaceable natural resources endure for generations to come. It is also important to step up public education to help people to understand the need and importance of these measures. I hope that Congress allocates enough funding to the agency and to the affected districts to ensure that there are enough staff and other partners to provide monitoring and enforcement of these rules.
It also may be worth considering temporary closures of areas where significant damage has already occurred to allow some time for the land to heal and provide a respite for the indigenous inhabitants. I appreciate this effort and sincerely hope that the Forest Service can make more progress towards preserving the integrity and quality of Oregon’s Wilderness.
Scott Mathes Bend, Oregon
From: Serenity Madrone To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: proposal to limit entry to Mount Jefferson, Three Sisters, other Oregon wilderness areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:11:35 AM
Greetings.
As an avid backpacker and lifelong Oregonian, the protection of our wild and sensitive natural areas is very important to me. I love having access to the areas being reviewed for this proposal, and have backpacked around the Three Sisters multiple times over the years. Having that access is a luxury, though, and I know that if we can't protect these areas from over-use that they won't be there to inspire future generations.
For this reason, even though it may mean there are times when I'm unable to hike some of my favorite trails in the world, I fully support the Forest Service's efforts to create a plan that would limit entry to these areas. It's their wild character and pristine beauty that make them such a joy to visit, and maintaining the health and wholeness of these wilderness areas should be a top priority.
Thank you so much for your efforts on behalf of our wild places!
--Serenity Madrone From: Shane Lorimer To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: comments on the proposed limited entry wilderness permit system Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 12:45:56 PM
I would like to voice my opposition to this idea. Limiting access/ entry to our national forests and wilderness areas in particular is short-sighted and destructive. The increase in visits should be seen as a wonderful thing. Of course, this comes with a cost in damage to particular sites. However, limited access is not the answer. Instead, use it as a prescriptive approach (as was seen at Pamelia Lake area) in certain areas for specific amounts of time. Increase fees and use them to improve access to additional destinations in the wilderness. Dispersed use of wilderness is the best way to mitigate harm to particular areas. Consider the example of Jefferson Lake in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness. Hardly anyone knows about or visits the lake because the trail and road are hard to use, this despite it being a beautiful place. The more roads and trails that are closed, the more people are concentrated in particular areas, and those areas will be more damaged. We need a plan that is inclusive of the increasing number of visitors, not shutting off access and opportunity.
Thanks, Shane
-- Shane Lorimer, MPH [email protected] From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Wilderness Restrictions in Willamette & Deschutes wilderness areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:08:52 PM
I am opposed to the proposed limits on day hikers in wilderness areas. I support restrictions on overnight camping because most of the resource damage is due to tents on meadows and campfires when there is not an adequate supply of wood debris.
Day hiking does not impact the wilderness in the manner that overnight camping does. Additionally, limiting the number of hikers in these five areas will only shift the problem to another trailhead. There is a high number of hikers because there is a high demand to go hiking.
Limiting the supply will only create problems, and will mean that only those with financial resources will be able to hike on public land. Outfitter guides will get the summer weekend passes and charge customers fees that will limit the ability of the public to visit public land.
I hope that USFS reconsiders its proposed limited entry system for day hikers. I would like to have these areas available for me to visit in the future, and this proposal will jeopardize that. From: Clark, Victoria To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: A yes vote to limit access to popular wilderness areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:58:01 AM
I agree with limiting access to popular wilderness areas to protect them from overuse. As an avid hiker, I’ve seen abuse to wild areas that disgusts me and ruins my wilderness experience. Hopefully if fewer people tramp around in these areas, their impact will be less visible.
I’ve gotten a permit to hike Pamelia Lake, and it’s no big deal. The only issue is for those of us who work during the week and hike on weekends – the ranger stations (like Detroit) are typically closed on weekends so obtaining a permit is more difficult.
If permits could be available at Sportsman’s Warehouse or Dick’s Sporting Goods or other places which are open on weekends, that would make it easier to get a permit on weekends. They could also tell us if the hike we wanted to do is full, and which ones are still available for that day. From: Zach Teel To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited entry in Oregon Wilderness Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:17:10 AM
Hello,
First of all, I appreciate what the Forest Service does and tries to do despite ever increasing budget cuts.
I support limiting entry into the wilderness areas. The Forest Service should do what it feels it has to do in order to protect wilderness areas as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and. Furthermore, Gifford Pinchot is known to have said:
"When conflicting interests must be reconciled, the question will always be decided from the standpoint of the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run".
Most people don't consider what the greatest good in the long run will be when they reject such proposals. Please exercise good judgement to protect what should be protected and tactfully reject selfish requests for instant gratification of individuals.
Thank you, Zach From: [email protected] To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Wilderness entry changes Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:55:04 PM
Dear Ms. Peer,
I am not one to usually comment on this kind of thing but could not let this one slip by. The changes being proposed to our local wilderness areas are just too drastic. I understand the need to protect some of these especially fragile areas but I think the vast number of trailheads involved goes too far. As an avid climber I can see that access to climbing would be severly limited, if not impossible without another expensive and diffucult to obtain permit. Even when climbers are generally just passing through to higher less used areas. Often climbers will reschedule a climb if the weather is bad but with the permit system it would be too costly to reschedule if permits could be obtained at all. And permits required for any overnight stay anywhere in the 3 Sisters or Jefferson Wilderness? It's just way too much.
There are are a few trailheads where easy access has contributed to overuse. I would support limiting the numbers of people entering. Those trailheads would be Whitewater, Marion Lake, Todd Lake, Devils Lake/South Sister and Fall Creek/Green Lakes.
I don't mind hiking further to get to some of the places that I love but this feels like those places are being locked away forever.
Thanks for your consideration, Danni Harris [email protected]
The purpose of this letter is to support and reinforce the comments on this proposal submitted by the Back-Country Horsemen of Oregon.
The Back Country Horsemen organization has strongly supported wilderness education since our inception in 1973. Our members in Oregon have witnessed the increased and unacceptable impact of the dramatically increased use of these wilderness areas. Camp sites and fire rings are evident continuously along the Pacific Crest Trail. Our Committee supports the efforts of the two Forests to restore wilderness character and bring this impact back to standards expected in wilderness and specified in the Wilderness Plans for these wilderness areas.
We add our support to the concerns expressed by the Back Country Horsemen of Oregon concerning the implementation of limited entry wilderness permits. We add that we support implementing such permits if the permits are targeted at the visitors whose use has dramatically increased and is causing the unacceptable impact.
The Back Country Horsemen of Oregon are convinced that equestrian use has not increased and has more likely declined. They also feel that the impact of equestrian historic and current use has not increased but for several reasons has also declined. They have asked the Forests to produce data indicating the amount of equestrian use and its increased recreational impact, if there is disagreement on that statement. For those reasons, our Committee is strongly opposed to broad sweeping regulations that affect visitor groups like ours which are not part of the problem.
The Back Country Horsemen of Oregon have offered several possibilities to target permit regulations to user groups which are causing the unacceptable impact of overuse and negate applying unnecessary regulation to equestrians that are not contributing to the problem the proposed action attempts to correct. Our Committee strongly supports that suggestion.
Sincerely,
Darrell Wallace Daniel T Applebaker Back Country Horsemen of Washington Back Country Horsemen of Oregon
Bob Magee Jan Koval Back Country Horsemen of California Back Country Horsemen of Nevada
2
From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness area permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:31:28 AM
Hello…I am commenting on the proposed Wilderness area permitting process. I am a member of the Chemeketans hiking club in Salem. We have been around since 1928 and have enjoyed the beauty of our state in a responsible manner for all those years. We practice “leave no trace” principles and do not allow dogs on our hikes(other than service animals). What I have observed over the years, is that : 1. folks seem to feel that their dogs should accompany them on any hike they go on…the number of dogs I have seen on the Eagle Creek Trail( as an example), is quite staggering. This trail is so narrow in places, that a single person can barely traverse it, let alone an unleashed dog scampering around. 2. folks on the trails that I frequent, seem to be pretty good about not leaving “trash” on the trails, but I do find little bags of good poop very often. 3. many people have no knowledge of “trail etiquette”….folks will squeeze by you on a trail instead of moving over, dogs will run ahead of their owners, people will go off trail even when signs forbid this for trail integrity reasons, etc. 4. parking areas can be a nightmare! Our hiking club ALWAYS has folks meet at a central place and we carpool to whatever trail we will be hiking that day.
I am always conflicted when I’m on a trail that is teeming with people. On one hand, I’m thrilled that more folks are wanting to get outside and enjoy the beauty of our state. I love seeing families with young kids out hiking, as I feel this is one of the most precious things you can do with your kids! On the other hand, when I’m tripping over someone’s dog, or squeezing past hikers who won’t yield the trail, or asking a group of hikers to please not take the “shortcut” through the protected area, I become very frustrated and discouraged.
We all have our own reasons for hiking….enjoying the beauty, connecting with friends, great family time, enjoying the solitude of a stunning trail, exercise, contemplation….the list goes on and on. I do think that limiting the number of people who can access a given trail on a given day is a constructive idea. What I would like to propose is that established hiking groups, (such as the Chemeketans), be able to access these trails without having to get advance permits. We already limit our group sizes in wilderness areas, and I think that you could be pretty certain that it is not established hiking groups that are causing the issues you are trying to address.
I realize that your permit proposal could be a necessary evil……..as in so many things in life, it “punishes” the many of the transgressions of a few.
Thank you for your time and your care and concern for our beautiful state! Eileen Harder
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Alexandra Phillips To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: limited entry comments Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:08:37 PM
Limited entry permits seem to discriminate against last minute planners so only those that plan months ahead get the chance to go to the most beautiful places on our forests. I would suggest setting up the permit system so that some permits come available in the spring, the way most do now, and then a smaller set become available a week or so before the actual use date.
The ideal system would be set up so that purchased permits can be returned to the available pool if the purchaser could not use it. While returning the money would be nice, I think that is a distance second in importance in just making the unused permits available.
I know all of this is simple- it is finding the correct server to host this. I urge the Forest Service to create the permit system in a way not to discriminate against those of us that can't plan months ahead.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Phillips 1311 Chemeketa St NE Salem OR From: Andrew Jones To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: Andy Jones Subject: Proposed limited entry areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:22:27 PM
This is a terrible idea. I've hiked hundreds, if not thousands, of miles in the very areas you propose to limit. More often than not, I see no other people. Yes, there are areas where a few people have caused damage. Do you think these people would follow the rules and buy the limited entry permits? Why don't you use the funds from the NWFP to hire more rangers to patrol?
This proposal reeks of the movement to remove wilderness lands from the public trust, to make it a pay-to-play, libertarian's paradise. If you have any love for our wilderness, I beg you to not enact this proposal.
Thank you, Andrew Jones
Sent from my iPad From: Anna Hayes To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Permitting Plan; Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, etc. Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:22:24 PM
I have tried 7 times to write this email but the rage, horror, and shear disgust that overcame me every time made completing the task narrowly possible. There are simply not enough negative words in the English language for me to adequately express my profound revulsion over the proposed permitting process for the Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake, and Diamond Peak Wilderness areas. The proposal to make our public lands accessible to only a privileged few is short-sighted and just plain wrong. This goes against everything I believe in and champion as an Oregonian. It goes against all that I strive to support everyday as an environmentalist, activist, outdoors woman, and person of common sense. Punishing all for the obscene actions and blunt irresponsibility of some is not the way to solve a problem. Limiting access creates elitism and fosters disrespect for all state and federal agencies charged with protecting our wilderness. The proposed permitting process will not serve to protect these areas, it will only enhance and deepen the divide that currently exists between those who love and respect our natural surroundings and those who believe that all nature lovers are out of touch with the developed world around them. In addition it will stress the relationship between agencies that serve to protect our environment and those of us that (generally) find ourselves on the side of arguments defending them. Please, please, please do not make all wilderness lovers look as stupid and short sighted as this proposal!
Anna Hayes
2307 Churchill Street Eugene, OR 97405 From: Arthur Bunting To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:22:49 AM
Really bad idea. For those of us who get a day off to be able to access these trails spontaneously would be eliminated.
Art Bunting From: Rebecca Stone To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Plan to limit a access to Mt. Jefferson, etc.. Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 12:33:16 AM
To whom it may concern,
I wanted to comment on the Forest Service's plan to limit entry to Mount Jefferson, Three Sisters, other Oregon wilderness areas. I believe that along with restricting foot traffic, more education of LNT practices and also accountability for those who damage these areas should be put in place. A brochure or some sort of literature could be given out with each permit granted. It would give everyone access to proper wilderness etiquette. You can limit people all you want but it only takes one person to cause major damage....littering, vandalizing, starting forest fires, etc... Its amazing how obliviously destructive some people are. Thank you for your time, and all your hard work with these Issues.
Becca Stone From: Bertrand Dechant To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: “Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 3:32:36 PM
Dear Deschutes and Willamette National Forests,
As a lifelong Oregonian and avid hiker I want to express my concern on the recent plan to limit access to Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake and Diamond Peak wilderness areas.
I support a permit-system for point access and trail-head parking. I can not support any decision which changes how the public might be able to plan a trip in a wilderness area once accessed.
A permit would already limit access for lower income regional residents. This means that lower income residents have less opportunity to experience and learn about wilderness and preservation. As part of this decision I suggest taking mitigating steps in support of lower income residents.
I also suggest, before adding limits to usage, requiring a free educational program to be completed prior to purchase of permits. Such a program has already been suggested but deserves more emphasis and detail. Usage limitation would then be decided upon at a later date. If usage were to move in the direction of a sustainable rate, other options for maintaining public access in a sustainable manner may become apparent. An excellent model for this concept is the ODOT Motorcycle Endorsement (http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/pages/driverid/motorcycle_endorse.aspx).
Our states' natural beauty and the experiences it holds should be available to everyone.
Thank you for your time.
-Bertrand From: Betsey Nelson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness access Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:07:31 AM
Please do NOT impose a required pre purchased permit to access our Three Sisters Wilderness area. Such a move would drastically change the character of our forests and prevent the impromptu recreational outings that make the Bend area so special.
My friends and I ride our horses in the wilderness and we often can't predict when the horses will be fit and ready for the trail, so last minute decisions to ride out are the norm. We live here because we want to enjoy our forests and mountains on horseback, don't take that freedom away from us with needless regulation.
Thanks for your consideration.
Elizabeth (Betsey) Nelson [email protected] From: Bob Rosencrance To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:42:59 AM
Please, NO paid permits. I realize the area of Green Lakes etc. is getting more crowded, but paid permits are not the answer. From: Brenna Hasty To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Permit system Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:44:08 PM
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the proposed permit system for the Three Sisters Wilderness/McKenzie/Mt Jefferson areas. While it saddens me that it has come to this, I do understand the need to control the ever growing crowds.
I live in Bend and in the summertime I spend most weekends trail running the hundreds of miles of trails in the mountains Central Oregon. I frequent many of the lakes and have also spent many nights camping and backpacking in this wilderness. More than anything else, the reason that I love living here is that the trails and lakes are just a 40-ish minute drive up "the hill" from my home. It's paradise.
Having spent countless hours and miles on these trails one thing I have discovered is the general trend of the many visitors to this wilderness. On average, once I get three miles up from a trailhead (with the exception of Green Lakes, Camp Lake & the S. Sister climber's trail) the crowds virtually disappear and I only run into an occasional fellow trail runner or backpacker. As is the case with all of our national parks as well, most people do not venture too far from their cars. When I think about the possibility of not getting a permit for a trail run because they have all been taken up by people who do not plan to leave a comfortable radius of their vehicle, it frustrates and saddens me. Last summer it took me many weekends to finally get a permit for the Odsidian Trail and it worries me that if a similar permitting system is implemented elsewhere that my weekend trail runs will be drastically limited. I would be curious to know how many people reserved Obsidian Trail permits and then did not use them.
With that said, and as I stated in the beginning, I understand the need for change to this area. Some suggestions I have for the permitting system are as follows:
Implement the permit system similar to how many campgrounds are run, where some permits can be issued in advance and some can only by reserved on a first come first serve basis the day of and the ranger station. This way people actually have to show up to get their permit. I understand the fee to hold people accountable when reserving permits, but perhaps on the first come first serve permits, reduce or eliminate the fee altogether as obviously the people who go out of their way to pick up a permit will most likely use it.
For many of the Central Oregon locals, myself included, at least one day of most summer weekends are spent recreating somewhere in a wilderness area. The cost of obtaining permits for all these weekends could add up quickly. Offering a discount for people who have a central Oregon address may help to curb the cost for the locals who consider these areas their backyard. Consider issuing different types of permits for different radius of use. I.e. A certain number of permits per day will allow the users to only go to a certain area (like to green lakes and back or Moraine Lake and back) while a separate type of permit will allow the user to go beyond Green Lakes to a further location.
Lastly, consider timing of day for day use permits as well. I.e. don't require a permit before 8am and after 5pm. That way, locals (and ambitions tourists) can get in a run or a hike before work or sneak in a quick hike or run before ending their day.
Thank you for your time in reading this. I do appreciate that action is being proposed to help regulate traffic to these areas to help keep them wild.
Sincerely, Brenna Hasty From: Ski To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 (comment for the offical comment record) Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:04:29 PM
Beth Peer Deschutes National Forest Bend, Oregon
Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017
Dear Ms. Peer:
I just learned about this project proposal in a news article published on KGW’s website HERE: http://www.kgw.com/news/local/sweeping-plan-would-limit-entry-to-5-popular-oregon- wilderness-areas/452875089
I have been hiking and backpacking since 1958. I think that I’ve even been to Oregon once or twice during that time.
As a resident of Washington State, I am actually surprised that more designated wilderness areas have not already implemented limited permit systems such as that used in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area. Sure, there are a few places up at Olympic National Park where efforts have been made to restrict usage, but those are few in number.
I don’t know the numbers for Oregon off the top of my head, but I do know that the population of Washington State has DOUBLED during the last two decades. I also know that 25 years ago, if you wanted information on a trail, you went down to the library and checked out a copy of one of Ira Spring and Harvey Manning’s trail guide books, and stopped along the way at Metsker Maps for a copy of the applicable 7.5 USGS topographical map, or bought one of the big USFS forest maps. Today, you click a mouse, log into Google Earth or any one of 93 gazillion websites loaded with detailed information on any given trail from coast to coast. Nobody’s going to put those genies back into the bottle. With every new issue of “Backpacker” magazine printed, with every introduction of the latest ultra-lightweight gizmo at REI, there is every day more impetus for those bitten by the “outdoor bug” to get out there “away from it all”.
It should come as no surprise, then, that inevitably the consequences of an ever-increasing population, the growing popularity of outdoor recreation, and the commercial promotion of that recreation would be that those most pristine and wild areas would be “loved to death”. All one has to do is look at Yellowstone, Yosemite, Glacier, or Grand Canyon National Parks to see that what were once America’s most wild places have turned into de facto amusement parks for the masses.
In the end, this is a no-brainer: either restrict usage with a permit system, or do nothing and watch our most wild and pristine wilderness areas get “loved to death”. To those who have objections, there is always the option of GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Thank you sincerely for your time and consideration.
Brian Kirk PO Box 7637 Tacoma, Wa. 98417-0637 [email protected] on nwhikers.net = Ski
From: Bryan Schaap To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Public comment on proposed limited wilderness entry and fees Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 5:23:50 PM Importance: High
To Whom it may concern:
I understand that input is being asked for and accepted regarding possible restrictions and fees being considered for certain wilderness areas in the Willamette and Deschutes National Forests.
I am a 53 year old native Oregonian who discovered Oregon’s wilderness areas at the age of 16. Over the past 37 years I’ve had the opportunity to explore a wide range of wilderness trails and destinations, as well as continually visiting certain favorite areas over thirty plus years. I’ve seen ups and downs in the numbers of people getting out on the trails, and I’ve seen a variety of changes in regulations.
When more people want to use and experience the wilderness than last year, the year before, and the year before, I say that’s a good thing, because this shows that more people are “getting it” – more people are understanding the value of wilderness and understanding that it is set aside for the people. I cringe at the idea of placing new proposed limitations on the wilderness because I believe this goes against the concept of why we set the land aside.
Wilderness is for the people. But, that doesn’t have to mean we “save” it for future generations by keeping this generation out. The fact that we’ve built and continue to maintain wilderness trails is an indication of the general understanding that we allow a certain level of “encroachment” so that the land can indeed be used and enjoyed by the people. We do not leave it completely “untouched”, because that would remove the accessibility and thereby defeat the purpose. If the problem is litter and human waste, some common sense measures such as education, patrols and fines might be in order, but please don’t add further restrictions on the numbers when greater numbers are interested.
I believe that the proposed restrictions and fees: -Eliminate the possibility of spontaneity -Restrict those on very limited incomes who always had the free option of exploring and camping in the land belonging to the people when they couldn’t afford other vacations. -Restrict those without Internet access (this sounds silly in today’s culture, but it’s true) -Create more bureaucracy -Remove freedom, and freedom rarely returns to the people once it’s been taken away by the government
I believe the benefits to continuing to allow free access to the people, with sensible guidelines far exceed the possible risks of “damage” by the inconsiderate few. By and large, the people I’ve met in the wilderness over the past four decades are conscientious people who value the wilderness experience and treat their surroundings accordingly. And, I believe the emphasis should be on “more people are loving the wilderness” rather than on “more people are loving the wilderness to death”. As an avid explorer and user of the wilderness areas over a span of nearly forty years, I would venture to say that based on my observations over a pretty lengthy span of time the wilderness is much more resilient then given credit.
I believe it is extremely important that you talk to the people with “boots on the ground” who hike the trails and wear the packs when considering taking away the accessibility of wilderness for the people. Please feel free to contact me to discuss this further.
Very sincerely,
Bryan Schaap Keizer, OR [email protected]
From: Brian Watson To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 4:29:09 PM
To: Beth Peer Re: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017.
As an avid Public Land user/owner I have witnessed the effects and damage of misuse and neglect from visitors to our forests and wilderness areas. I have seen the “Toilet Paper” mounds scattered around camp spots, trash left for others to clean up, saplings chopped up for firewood and illegal campfires. I have also seen this in permit only areas. While permit systems seem to help in high use areas such as Pamelia and Obsidian I dont think it is the best solution to solving these types of issues in the wilderness. While high use areas like Green Lakes and Jefferson Park might benefit from a permit system, limiting access to vast swaths of wilderness to the Land Owner (The Public Tax Payer) is not right nor the proper solution. I believe the best solution would be better education of wilderness etiquette and enforcement of wilderness rules for the area. The biggest problem is of people that are either uneducated in our role in wilderness and what it means to “Pack it in. Pack it out” or the people who just dont care. The type who will have a fire regardless of being in a no campfire area. The only way to stop this behavior is to enforce rules. Maybe having a better presence by the forest service in some of the abused high use areas. Not by limiting people access to Their Public Land. I and many others spend half the month of September in these wilderness areas pursuing elk with a bow and arrow. In October you have rifle hunters. This would be devastating to say the least that after planning the trip, obtaining the proper ODFW game tags and pre season scouting you would be prohibited from your wilderness hunting experience because all the use permits are gone for your time period. Most people that backpack and hike in these areas stay on the main dusty trails. As hunters we go deep in the wilderness and can usually go days without seeing another person. So, I urge you to rethink this plan. Better Wilderness education and rule enforcement is the best strategy for making these Wilderness areas cleaner, safer, and more enjoyable for all.
Thank You for your time, Brian Watson [email protected] From: Bruce Spittler To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:17:48 AM
I think it's a great idea but you must enforce it when it goes into effect. People here in Oregon are only too willing to let the government(s) pay for everything. Also, it is a slap in the face to those of us that buy the permits, only to see most of the cars in the parking area have no such permit! Thanks for keeping the parks so neat and clean ( and good luck on your "dilemma!)
Sent from my iPhone From: Byron Oberst To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: comments on wilderness paid permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:50:51 AM
I agree with a permit system limiting the number of visitors to a given area to protect it from over utilization damage. I strongly disagree with a ‘paid’ permit concept.
The Obsidian permit system has worked well. I was a frequent visitor prior to its implementation and after 15 years or so revisited the Obsidian/Sunshine area 2 yrs ago. The difference was striking!! I actually spoke with a ranger at the time and let him know how much of the area had come back from the damage it suffered from overuse.
Thanks for addressing this growing problem. No one likes yet another set of rules. We all like the concept of deciding on the ‘spur of the moment’ to go hike Green Lakes but with the increasing numbers of users it needs to be protected. Just don’t charge us to do so.
Thanks so much,
Byron From: Cassie Van Domelen To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: permit entry proposal for Oregon national forests Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:52:52 AM
I am a backpacker, wilderness enthusiast, and a lover of Oregon’s wild spaces. Learning of the proposal to limit entry to Jefferson, Sisters, and Waldo Lake (especially) is surprising and concerning to me. While I strongly support taking measures to keep the wilderness healthy and pristine, I believe that entirely restricting public access and recreation opportunity across entire forests through all seasons is counter-productive. We need to encourage future generations to love and protect our wilderness, and discouraging access will have unintended results.
Limited entry permits on the heavily used or over-run areas during peak season traffic makes sound practical sense. For example: the Pamelia Lake access to Jefferson National Forest. There are arguably other densely trafficked areas that could benefit from the same approach (Marion Lake; Jefferson Park). But why discourage people from backpacking in lesser-visited areas of the wilderness by requiring plan-and-purchase-ahead permits form home? And why incur an additional expense to forest users if the interest is purportedly limiting crowds/damage, not raising financial revenues for the forest? This over-reaching plan is unnecessarily restrictive and dampening to low- impact wilderness use.
Allow me to further state: restricting/permitting access to the forests in off-peak times on off-traffic trails is punitive, damaging, and unnecessary. The public needs a relationship with our wilderness. Restricting access does not make for healthier humans or healthier forests. Oregonians are often at the mercy of unexpected weather that impacts last- minute decisions about backpacking destinations, and the need to a) access a computer and printer b) from a cell service area d) ahead of time will cause unnecessary hardship on those of us simply desiring to walk into the woods and bask under Oregon skies against a backdrop of lakes and mountain peaks. My previous experience with trying to pick up a last-minute permit from the Detroit Ranger District Office to visit the Pamelia Lake restricted access area of Jefferson National Forest: despite the trail system having allowable space, the fully staffed and equipped ranger station is not able to facilitate the computer access or permit printing, and I was unnecessarily denied a visit to the area. You must also realize that the combination of requiring computer/printer access and levying a $6-$12 fee will restrict the population of wilderness users to a certain demographic and constitutes unnecessary discrimination.
IF further restriction of public access to National Forest lands is required to mitigate human damage to the environment, PLEASE INSTITUTE THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MEASURES. Don’t make the mistake of over- reaching. Use permitting systems wisely and with discretion to minimize impact on only heavily trafficked trails at only heavily trafficked times and seasons. Consider applying limited entry permit to ONLY the over-used trail systems, for only peak days and seasons (i.e. no permit required Oct 1-May 1, possibly only on Fri-Sun). Please do not attach unnecessary additional expenses to the purchase of permits. On-line permit/reservation systems typically charge a minimum fee of $6, and we additionally are required to have a NW Forest Pass to park in all trailhead access points. Unless financial revenue for the forests is the issue of concern (this has not been cited for the interest of this permitting proposal), do not apply additional fees to simple wilderness access.
I strongly urge choosing the least restrictive measures possible. Keep our forests accessible to the humans who need a relationship with nature! It turns out that nature also requires a relationship with humans to procure the protective measures required for a thriving wilderness.
Sincerely, Cassie Van Domelen PO Box 430 Amity, OR 97101 From: Catherine O"Brien To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: [email protected] Subject: Permit System Proposed for 3 Sisters Wilderness, Mt. Jeff and Mt. Washington Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:40:33 AM
I am just addressing my comments to the above 3 wilderness areas as they are the ones I use and are in my local area.
While I understand the need for some kind of permit system beyond what is currently used, I am against it being placed in 95% of the TH’s proposed currently. If you feel there is a need then I understand that the following trails/TH’s need a pre-trip permit because they are being trashed to death: Green Lakes, Broken Top, South Sister access points, Tam McArthur Rim and their may be a few others where numbers indicate a pre-trip permit.
Hiking, which is my passion, requires a certain amount of planning when you go into the wilderness and most people understand that and take it seriously. They have their 10 essentials, they have notified family or friends of their plans, they have filled out their permit at the kiosks located at the TH as they enter the wilderness and they understand the concept of “leave no trace”. But that are those that have no business in the wilderness and possibly a permit system will weed out those who ruin it for all of us.
Another concern I have is the ability of the USFS to monitor, control and enforce any additional permit system put into place. Why install a system that is doomed when the workforce is not sufficient to make it successful and to educate and ticket those in non-compliance?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment and I will be awaiting the more refined proposal expected to be released in early 2018. Realize that this is a very important issue to those of us that love our forest and the beauty of our local wilderness areas.
Sincerely, Cathy O’Brien [email protected] From: Charles Blanke To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Strongly opposed Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:23:13 PM
Please don’t limit access to publicly-funded lands. Also, discriminatory against low income families.
Thank you- Charles D. Blanke, M.D. From: Chuck Hemingway To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Opposition to Imposition of Paid Permits at Trailheads in Deschutes National Forest Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:08:17 AM
Please record our opposition to the proposed rule to require paid permits to access any wilderness areas in the Deschutes National Forest.
Charles & Martha Hemingway 59939 Minnetonka Circle Bend, OR 97702
Email: [email protected]
From: Cheryl Hill To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: limited entry proposal Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 12:12:43 PM Attachments: image.png
I read in the Statesman Journal about your idea to limit entry in certain wilderness areas. I'm a very active hiker who is out on Oregon and Washington trails almost every weekend in the spring, summer, and fall. I'm disheartened by the overruse and abuse of our wilderness areas, so in one respect I support your limited entry proposal, even though it will make it a lot more challenging to hike in those areas.
On the other hand, some of the problems could be alleviated by an increased presence of wilderness rangers. The only place I've ever seen one is Jefferson Park. If there aren't enough rangers to enforce the existing rules, how will they enforce the limited entry system you're proposing? Your rangers also need to start issuing citations for infractions instead of relying on education alone, which doesn't seem to work. People need to be held accountable or they're going to continue to leave trash, build campfires, not bury their poop, etc. Which is more of a deterrent? A finger wag or a hit to the wallet?
You might also try beefing up your wilderness volunteer program to put more Forest Service presence out there. Based on the three-year-old flier on your website and the fact that I've not once ever encountered a wilderness volunteer it seems like the program may be a bit neglected.
Also, you need to make sure that trails are maintained and appealing to hikers. Trail maintenance on some trails seems to take a back seat, and some trails are abandoned altogether. This forces people onto the few maintained trails and simply exacerbates the problem.
My biggest problem with your proposal is that it's so sweeping. It includes trails and trailheads that aren't overcrowded along with the ones that are. I don't see the point of that. A little transparency in your plan and some further explanation is needed. If you do proceed with a limited entry plan, I hope you'll scale it back and only include the areas that are being overrun.
One thing you should do to help with the human waste problem is to install some primitive backcountry toilets. For the life of me I cannot understand why you haven't done this already. The picture below is the toilet near Pratt Lake in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Whether you proceed with the limited entry idea or not, you should DEFINITELY install some toilets in high-use areas like Jefferson Park. I'd like to end by suggesting that you actually sit down with members of the hiking community and have some heart-to-heart discussions about this proposal. I understand that it's your job to protect the land and the resources, but when you make sweeping changes with limited time for public feedback and no community meetings, you risk alienating the public. Now is not the time to alienate people who should be your allies, as public lands face threats from all sides. If you don't work WITH the users of national forests, how can you expect them to stand up for you? People need to feel heard and the Forest Service doesn't always seem like they are listening.
Good luck and I hope you're able to find a workable proposal.
Cheryl Hill Portland, OR From: Chris Askew To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Excessive Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:54:12 AM
I do agree with some of this. Green Lakes, Todd Lake, Tam McArthur for instance but most of this is a little excessive. Six Lakes? There are usually only six cars at the trail head.
-- Chris Askew Metolius Mountain Products From: Chris Herrick To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: proposed permit system Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 6:59:39 AM
To the forest service:
We strongly support the proposed issuance of permits to hike into the Three Sisters Wilderness. We are frequent hikers there and have observed in recent years that this beautiful area is being loved to death—especially the Green Lakes area. We similarly support permits for the trails off McKenzie Highway and leading into the Mt Jefferson wilderness, as these are all areas with which we are intimately familiar as longtime hikers. We have found the existing permit system for Obsidian and Grizzly Peak to be very easy to navigate and to be effective in limiting access enough to make the hiking experience pleasant for those with permits. People will be upset at first with a change to a permit system for other trails, we imagine, but will get used to the permit system as time goes on. Any increased revenue from the permit system could help get trails cleared of blowdown sooner, fix damaged areas, keep the restrooms cleaner, etc. etc.
Thank you for your efforts and this and we hope they succeed!
Sincerely,
Christine Herrick and John Coltman From: Chris To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits for three sisters and mt jefferson wilderness Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:24:00 PM
Hi,
I have been hiking and backpacking in both the three sisters and mt jefferson wilderness areas for the past 12 years. While I agree that there is a lot more trash at remote camps along the PCT and other trails I do not agree with requiring paid permits to use these trails with the exception of the green lakes trail,which is way overused, and possibly the Mathieu lakes trail. The other trails I often day hike on and I do not see a lot of people using those trails. Obviously the PCT is heavily traveled, especially in late August through both wildernesses. I would say that more education for people using the wilderness areas is needed. I have seen TP left behind by those who do not know to either carry it out or bury it (being a boy it is often not as much of an issue for me).
I have also seen a lot of campfire rings in the past few years which is disheartening as it creates a mess which is not easily cleaned up as well as being a fire hazard during the dry season. I would recommend that it be a requirement that all backpackers carry a stove or display they can exist on whatever food they have without cooking (I actually hate campfires at any time and have gone cook-less before and while it is not really that enjoyable it is doable).
Thanks for all the work that you do in keeping these trails open and usable. You guys are great and while I don't like change I am sure you will try and do what is best for the wilderness users and the wilderness itself. thanks chris
-- ws odfurniture.com From: Christopher Morgan To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Deschutes NF Use Plan Comments Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 7:47:59 PM
To whom it may concern:
As a daily user of both Deschutes and Willamette National Forests, I’m hoping with the proposed changes to use permitting the Forest Service can consider:
1. Avoiding a requirement to get permits through recreation.gov. For example, in Inyo NF (a very permit-heavy NF), reserve-ahead permits are on Recreation.gov for a processing fee, but walk up permits are free. Maybe the new Cascade Lakes Visitor’s Center could be used for this purpose? Of course, this may require additional staffing resources, but some form of free walk-up permits is what makes Inyo stand out from the hassles and heartache for getting a permit with Pamelia/Obsidian.
2. A consideration for possible day use only after a certain time in the day without reserved permits (5pm?) as a convenience to those local hikers that like to get out after work. Right now, it’s great to have the option to drive up to Todd Lake, for example, without extensive planning. Setting up a tent around green lakes at 6p? Permit. A quick hike after 5 without planning to stay the night? No permit.
3. Have a permit release system (similar to Inyo NF), where if permits are not confirmed the day or two prior, they are released so that others can use them. This avoids folks reserving permits they don’t intend to actually use.
4. Consider limiting permits to only the most used trailheads (green lakes, whitewater, scott pass, pole creek, broken top, tam mcarthur, etc.?)
Thanks for considering input!
Chris Morgan
Bend, OR From: Chris Munson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Three Sisters Wilderness Permit System Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 6:34:49 AM
I am opposed to a paid permit system to enter the Three Sisters Wilderness from any trailhead; a paid Northwest Forest Pass is already required. I am not necessarily opposed to limiting the amount of free permits required for the heaviest use trails, such as South Sister and Green Lakes, similar to the limited free permits that have been required for the Obsidian Trail for years. These permits, if implemented, should be easy to obtain via the internet, and should not require a physical visit to a ranger station.
Chris Munson 855 NE 11th Street Bend, OR 97701 From: Colin Rowles To: Peer, Beth -FS; FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 5:08:52 PM
Hello,
My name is Colin Rowles from Beaverton, OR and I have been using wilderness areas all of my life (30 years) for hiking, backpacking, fishing, and hunting. I should not need government approval to access and utilize these public lands. While they can be crowded at times, i enjoy seeing lots of other people taking in the outdoors and getting active. The outdoor industry is huge but as more and more people are living in cities, the number of people participating in hiking/fishing/hunting seems to go down. Adding yet another barrier to entry for someone on a whim wants to go hiking only to show up at a trailhead that says "FULL" is ridiculous.
What about hunters that put lots of $ into the state of Oregon and into ODFW having their hunting grounds taken away because the weekend they were going to hunt was sold out of permits. Private Timber companies have already closed off productive hunting areas and pushing more and more hunters onto public lands. To close off and limit the number of people onto public lands would only add to the problem. Hunters should continue to have 100% access and all fees waived if this plan were to go into effect.
It seems that most of the problems could be solved with more enforcement/education and would lead to a better experience for everyone. Limiting the number of people that could enter such vast areas of public lands is a terrible idea and un-American. We pay our tax dollars every year and every year it seems we have to get more government approval (permits) on what we can and can't do and where we can and can't go. Public Lands should remain open to all and if we're having problems, patrol those areas and write citations and enforce the laws.
Oregon's population is projected to continue growing and if this plan were to go into effect, who's to say that 15 years from now I'd only be allowed by the government to visit my wilderness areas to hike, backpack, hunt or fish, only once or twice a year? Limiting people's access to the outdoors and wilderness areas is plain wrong. Find another solution.
Colin Rowles 16273 SW Ludwig St Beaverton, OR 97078 From: Peer, Beth -FS To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: voicemail record Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:45:40 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png
I received a voicemail from Conner Deveraux regarding the Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project. He commented (I’m paraphrasing) that he understands the reason for the proposal and thinks it a pretty idea, but that the permit should only cover the main problem areas, rather than such a large area of wilderness.
Beth Peer Special Projects Coordinator Forest Service Deschutes National Forest p: 541-383-5554 c: 541-416-1100 [email protected] 63095 Deschutes Market Rd. Bend, OR 97701 www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
From: Corie Townsend To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permitting in Five Wilderness Areas Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:30:17 AM
Hey FS team! Thanks for accepting comments on this proposal!
I'm curious if anyone has proposed increasing the number of rangers patrolling in these 5 areas before graduating to a blanket permitting process?
I'm guessing if we can't afford these additional positions, it's due to a lack of funding. I've only encountered a ranger one time and that was above Pamelia Lake- just having a ranger's presence known is enough in a lot of cases to prevent people from having an ignorant and/or negligent impact on the area.
Thanks!
-- Corie L. Townsend www.coriewrites.com From: Craig Eisenbeis To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Three Sisters-Jefferson-Washington wilderness permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:59:11 AM
Requiring permits in these Central Oregon wilderness areas would be a terrible abuse of the public trust. It would be akin to returning to the days of the English “King’s Forests” where only a select few had access to the forests. The purpose of wilderness areas is to preserve select places, not to create closed laboratory fiefdoms for the Forest Service to rule over. Closing the forests in this manner would be a lazy abdication of leadership and responsibility by the Forest Service.
-Craig Eisenbeis From: Dan-ESLLC To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central OR permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:29:17 PM
I do not agree with the blanket permit requirements proposed for Central Oregon. I would support a purchase permit system for problem areas, e.g. Devils Lake and Green Lakes. However, I think it important to still provide access to the surrounding areas for the impromptu adventures. Thank you Dan Berry From: Darryll DeCoster To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Plans to limit entry to Mount Jefferson, Three Sisters, other Oregon wilderness areas Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 6:46:26 PM
To whom it may concern,
After reading about your plans to possibly apply fees and limit access to wilderness areas in Oregon I felt I had to share my thoughts. First off, I realize there has been a sharp and steady increase in the number of people traveling to the many beautiful places in our state, and this growth has resulted in an increase to amount of damage to these areas. I too am concerned by the amount of trash, off-trail damage and other problems that are becoming more apparent as more people go to the places I frequently visit. The amount of trash that I collect has increased exponentially along with the number of people, and damage to the trails and foliage by switchback cutting and wandering off-trail are very concerning and I completely agree that something most be done to protect these places from being loved to death.
Drastically limiting access to these areas is only going to punish those who visit them on a regular basis and could potentially shift problems to another area where access has not been reduced. The best thing we can do in the short-term is educate for the long term. I truly believe that the vast majority of people don’t go to Oregon’s parks with the intent of causing harm, they do so out of ignorance. Teaching people how to hike these areas, the importance of staying on the trails and proper stewardship techniques will serve Oregon’s outdoors better than rash decisions to introduce fees and visitor limits. Arbitrarily limiting visitor count through a system of required fees and passes will adversely affect people who may wish to visit the area spontaneously or sporatically and do little to address the issues of trash and trail damage. It will also increase the overhead of the Park Rangers and staff who are already stretched thin and could potentially create a system where it has become more expensive to enforce the new rules resulting in less funding for maintenance and outreach.
I urge you to more thoroughly consider other solutions rather than rushing to a costly solution that ultimately serves to make it harder for people to spend time outdoors.
Regards,
Darryll A. DeCoster From: Dave Clark To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Three Sisters Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 6:21:52 AM
I am strongly opposed to the proposal that would require pre-purchased permits to enter the Three Sisters Wilderness. Charge for parking. From: Dave MacGurn To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: "No" to "Pay to Play" Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:00:07 AM
Payment for public trail use on our Forest Service land is a very bad idea for the following reasons:
1)This limits use to the fortunate that can afford both the trail parking fee and the trail use fee. This will hit young families particularly hard. A free online reservation system to prevent overuse could be acceptable.
2)The money generated by this scheme will be inconsequential to ongoing trail maintenance. Most of the current trail upkeep is presently performed by generous volunteers and not paid Forest Service employees! From: David Foster To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: wilderness access Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 6:26:00 AM
To whom it concerns:
Permits maybe but paid, NO! You should not limit access to only those who can afford to buy a permit. The cost of parking permits is already an imposition.
I have lived in Bend since 1983 and have been a backpacker, X-C skier and canoeist. I don’t like the crowds but I would hate to see limited paid permits more so.
Please do not attach a cost to accessing the forest.
David Foster Bend, OR.
From: David Kennell To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:42:37 AM
To Whom it May Concern;
I am writing to comment on the proposal to require paid permits to access our public lands, specifically the Three Sisters Wilderness. I am opposed to this plan. These are public lands and should be accessible to everyone without having to pay a fee.
Thank you, David Kennell PO Box 13 Prineville, OR 97754 Email: [email protected] From: David Smullin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid Permit comment Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:26:24 AM
Absolutely ridiculous and criminal- please do not limit our access to local trails!!!!!!
David Smullin, PhD 414 NW Flagline Drive Bend, OR 97703 [email protected]
"Of course I enjoy this life! It's wonderful! Especially when I have no choice" (Tukten Sherpa from the Snow Leopard, Peter Matthiessen, 1978) From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Against wilderness fees and limitations Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 4:01:16 PM
Hello,
I'm writing to oppose paid permits or limitations on the number of people in our wilderness areas.
Having lived in Italy for a number of years, I prefer that approach to a high number of people in popular outdoor spots: "learn to live and let live". Other people are going to be there too, and you have to share - you can't have it all to yourself. We are fortunate to live in an area where - if solitude is what you crave - you can find that. But I think dealing with and managing larger numbers of people via additional trails or shuttles to get people to the trailheads or other things is preferable to cutting off access altogether.
Thank you -- David N. Welton http://www.welton.it/davidw/ http://www.dedasys.com/ From: Deb Brewer To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:26:33 AM
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed strategies for the Central Cascades Wilderness. I have been hiking these areas for forty years and am distressed by the continued degradation of the trails and the fragile habitat (especially riparian zones) in these areas. Below are my comments. I will continue to monitor the proposed changes and will submit comments when appropriate.
1. Limited Entry - I strongly support requiring limited entry and paid permits for all the trailheads mentioned: - Green Lakes - Devil Lake - Tam MacArthur Rim - Six Lakes - Broken Top
2. Fees for Permits- The fee for permits should be similar to those areas currently requiring a permit and limited entry. That is $10 per reservation. However, since Commercial Groups actually make a profit and usually take the maximum 12 person group, they should be required to pay $100 per reservation. All other current requirements including changing group size, date, etc. should be applied to these new trailheads.
3. Commercial Permits- The Commercial Permits should be open every year with an application process. This can occur twice a year, one for summer and one for winter. Commercial guiding companies should pay a one time fee for a 6-month access permit ($500 for 6 months) and then additional fees for each time they use our public lands. The criteria for issuing Commercial permits should remain the same, but the review process open to any company wishing to pay for an access permit every 6 months. The Commercial use should still be limited, just let any company apply during two "open registration periods" twice a year. (See BLM River Boat Pass process for Lower Deschutes.) By issuing Commercial Permits to those that currently hold those permits, you create a monopoly. Those companies may be good stewards, but other groups can offer a different and unique opportunity for others.
4. Permits for non-profit and educational groups. Some form of Special Permit that allows non-profits and educational groups to be reimbursed for their expenses should be allowed.There are numerous non-profit, educational and school groups that could do a wonderful job bringing customers into the wilderness. The number of these permits issued could be limited and balanced with the Commercial permits. But, there should be a way for groups to be reimbursed for their expenses when educating others, including children, about the wilderness.
5. Limiting the use of horses and dogs. With the increase in users there is also an increase of horses and dogs on the trails. Even if these animals stay on the trails they cause incredible damage. When dogs are off trail they disturb wildlife and riparian zones. Therefore in the busy trailheads mentioned above dogs should be on a leash AT ALL TIMES, and horses should be allowed only on every other week-end. (This is similar to BLM motor boat restrictions on the Lower Deschutes and other high use ares.) Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Proposed Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies. These areas provide many benefits even to those that are not able to visit. These include the benefits of wildlife habitat, clean water, and unique landscapes. It is critical that they are managed for the long term.
Sincerely, Deb Brewer 2420 NW Monterey Pines Drive Bend, OR 97703 From: Dennis Wood To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments on Paid Trail Permit Study Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:45:07 AM
Sirs
After reading the Bend Bulletin article this morning about the study to establish a new trail permit system for the Deschutes National Forest Wilderness Areas, we'd like to add the following comments:
Each trailhead now has a trail registration system. We hope most hikers use it so accurate trail usage is measured for each day.
We agree that the trails are becoming overcrowded and that something needs to be done to limit overcrowding. We also believe this is mostly during the summer when school is out and families are on vacation. Weekends are also a problem when local folks are off work.
We believe a new smart permitting process that takes into account the usage and is designed to limit the hiking traffic during predicted high usage days is the best approach. For example; Summer, Holidays, Friday, Saturday and Sunday are probably when trails are most used.
If a new trail permit system is established or permit quantities per day are limited, an on-line registration system should also be established so hikers can register in advance and be assured they will have access. The big problem would be how to limit the quantity of hikers each day and make sure they have a valid permit. A trailhead monitor employee or volunteer to check for valid passes might be required. It would be OK to then require a fee based trail permit since the permit fee would offset the extra cost of trailhead monitoring.
When the trails are not predicted to be overcrowded, there should be no fee and no trailhead monitoring.
Dennis and Valerie Wood Sunriver, Oregon
. From: Gmail To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Deschutes/Willamette Trail Pass Comment Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:48:47 PM
I agree with finding a means of limiting the affect of people on the outdoors. If trail passes are the means of doing this, okay. I would demand that there be a way for people to obtain free passes however as the price point is extremely restrictive to those who have lower incomes which means that hiking in Oregon will soon be something that only the wealthiest will be able to afford to do.
An example for how to accomplish this might be having some days set aside during the year that folks could sign up to do trail work or clean up. Those who do come and assist during one of those days could get a free year pass.
Without having a means for people to be able to obtain free passes, I disagree with this completely. Limiting the outdoors to those of lower incomes by design is a racist action which I find to be an extremely inappropriate action for a government body to take.
Destinie Davis From: Donald Giallanza To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Fee for Wilderness Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 5:10:32 PM
Hi,
I understand the need to limit the crowds at these special places. My biggest concern as a local day hiker is the restriction on spontaneity in deciding where to go based on the weather or other considerations. Any way to get a permit on the same day would be appreciated. Perhaps vending machines at trailheads would work. An website with availability updates would be helpful as well.
Thanks,
Don Giallanza From: Don Tavolacci To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: trail permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:33:39 AM
We already pay for a parking pass. I strongly oppose trail fees at trailheads in the wilderness areas.
Sincerely,
Don Tavolacci 3113 NW Colonial Dr. Bend, OR 97703 Land: Cell: [email protected]
From: Doran & Susan Katka To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Fee Permits to enter the Three Sisters Wilderness Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 12:08:40 PM
Please do not require a fee based permit to enter the Three Sisters Wilderness or the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness in the future.
This is public land and needs to remain open to the public free of charge. There is much recreation to be had inside these wilderness boundaries and it should remain accessible to all at no charge for usage. This is the way it has been and should remain this way in the future.
In addition to our tax dollars the government gets fees for mining and timber sales from commercial operations to help sustain our national public land which should be treasured by all citizens.
PLEASE DO NOT CHARGE US TO ENJOY OUR LAND.
Doran & Susan Katka
2323 NW TOWER ROCK RD BEND, OR 97703 From: Greg Stevens To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permit to use Green Lakes Trail Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 4:50:30 PM
What a tragedy it would be to limit access on the Green Lakes Trail system. This trail is the gem of all trails in the Three Sisters. If you decide to issue permits similar to the Obsidian Trail, it will kill the ability for 99% of the population to enjoy that special place in the Public lands.
Please don't limit access. Charge $5 at the trail head, that's fine, but DON'T make me go online to register five months in advance to use the trail. I am a trail runner and regularly run the Green Lakes Soda Springs trail on weekends.
I'm so disappointed in the direction you are taking this that would negatively impact 99% of the people who love and respect those trails.
Greg Stevens 61351 Gorge View St Bend, OR 97702 From: Helen Scotch To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments on potential permit system Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:50:50 PM
Hello-
As a Bend resident and frequent user of many trails in the area including in the Three Sisters Wilderness, I fully support a permit system to reduce environmental damage. It is truly disheartening to see how some visitors disobey the rules and disrespect nature, making it a less enjoyable experience for everyone. I spent a few days as a forest service volunteer last year at Green Lakes and Devil's Lake trailheads and it was clear that many people don't understand the concept of wilderness.
Even if everyone behaved, there are simply too many people visiting some of the more popular areas.
My recommendation is that a permit system would favor local residents, for example those in the counties bordering the specific wilderness areas. A majority of permits would be available to locals and if not allocated 2 or 3 days before, they would be released for general use.
Kind regards, Helen
Bend, Oregon From: Ian Factor To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits Fees for Three Sisters Wilderness Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:21:30 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to implementing any kind of permit fee requirements to enter the Three Sisters Wilderness. I am extremely concerned with the high traffic environmental impact, of course, but feel there are better ways to manage that thang charging fees to enter. I'd be happy to discuss future my ideas and thoughts of given the opportunity to attend any meetings where this is being discussed.
Thank you for your time,
Ian Factor Bend, Oregon
Sent from my iPhone www.ianfactor.com From: Ingrid Adams To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposal to limit access and fees Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 4:51:55 PM
If (since) people cannot respect the environment and clean up after themselves I would totally agree with limits on hikers and backpackers in the wilderness areas. Since (implied in the newspaper article, June 27, statesman journal) it is backpackers leaving their poop behind, I would be inclined to support a fee of $50.00 per camp site. Then if campers violate the agreement of proper wilderness behavior a minimum of a $1000 fine would be imposed, i.e. the cost of rangers cleaning up sites. IT HAS! To hurt! Hikers and backpackers such as members of the Chemeketan, the Mazamas hiking clubs could perhaps purchase permits through the clubs. These people are very responsible hikers and backpackers.... Also, what would be a good practice is have volunteer hikers and backpackers that help in education. I am a firm believer in changing behavior through education. I also recommend a great book: "How to Shit in the Woods" by Kathleen Meyer
Sincerely, Ingrid Adams Salem, Oregon From: James Moro To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: do not require permits into 3 sisters wilderness area Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:08:39 AM
Restricting public access to wilderness areas adjacent to a town who's economy is HEAVILY based on its outdoors access is incredibly ignorant and will harm the economy and culture of this beautiful town we all call home. Think about what happened to Utah when they tried to remove Bears Ears National monument from being a protected (and accessible) area. They lost millions because the Outdoor Retailer show pulled out of Utah since Utah made it clear that outdoor access was not one of their priorities,
In a town where the local university now offers a four year degree in Tourism and Outdoor Leadership, restricting outdoor access is a poorly thought-out, detrimental solution to this issue.
Education is always a better option that closing the doors to our wilderness areas. A restriction-based policy assumes people are incapable of change and denies the public the opportunity to educate themselves and take action on this issue.
~James From: James Nava To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Access Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 4:47:12 PM
Hi,
I found this email listed as taking comments on the issue of restricting access to five heavily trafficked Oregon wilderness areas.
I want to say that I strongly support and greatly appreciate that steps are being taken to preserve both the ecology and spirit of Oregon wilderness areas. To me it seems one of the biggest issues with the recent influx of people into the outdoors is that they largely lack a sense of stewardship and respect for the places where they go to play.
I would like to see those qualities being encouraged by providing people willing to volunteer their time to the betterment of these wilderness areas with some type of priority in the limited access system, through either waived or reduced permit fees, or maybe the option of accessing a separate pool of permits, only available to those who support Oregon wilderness areas in some way or another.
Best, James
Get Outlook for iOS From: Jeff Henry To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permits three sisters Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:56:14 AM
I understand you are consider charging for permits in the three sisters wilderness to limit visitors and impact. The answer is always somewhere in the middle.
The wilderness isn't being damaged by locals. So if you do charge for access, please allow for annual passes. Also consider weekends and holidays for passes while off-season and weekdays don't get much use so keep those free please.
Jeff Henry
Sent from my iPad From: Jeremy Austin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Three Sisters, Mount Jefferson and Mt Washington Permit Proposal Comments Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:33:59 AM
Hello-
I am a native Oregonian and resident in Bend, Oregon. I have grown up recreating on Oregon's many public lands. What I appreciate about the public lands in Oregon is they are available to all Americans no matter their economic status.
I have a degree in wildlife biology and work hard to help protect Oregon's public lands and the ecological processes essential to their health. I fully agree that something must be done to protect and preserve our wilderness resources in the areas around Bend from being "loved to death". What concerns me about the current proposal is the idea of charging money for a permit. It is currently free for anyone to go and enjoy the amazing landscapes that occupy the cascades in central Oregon. By creating a permit system that charges for entry I am concerned that access will be limited to those with disposal income.
I want to thank the Forest Service for being good stewards of the land and for recognizing that there are issues impacting the wilderness areas outside of Bend. Please put in place a free permit system that limits entry but does not limit who can afford entry.
Thank you, Jeremy Austin
Please do not publicly share my address. From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments on OR Wilderness Access Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:11:41 PM
Here are my comments:
1. I think the biggest problem with damage to wilderness areas comes from people's uneducated or ill-intentioned practices such as trail-cutting, cutting wood and building campfires, improper disposal of human waste and camping in areas that trample flora and pollute water. I would like to see the FS post information about proper practices on-line and at trail heads. If you do go to a permit system, require permit holders to acknowledge they have read and will adhere to proper practices. Require permit holder to carry photo ID and show it to Ranger or FS Volunteer when requested. 2. Put Rangers or FS Volunteers in the wilderness areas during high season to at least spot-check for proper practices and possession of permit if applicable. Issues warnings for the first 2 years of the permit program and then issue citations thereafter. 3. Put a permanent, year-around moratorium on campfires in wilderness areas with the exception of dire emergency. 4. I favor establishment of a permit system that would limit access to the most popular trailheads during high season (May through September). 5. Make the majority of permits (say, 80%) available by advanced lottery through Reservation.gov 6. Make the remainder of permit available through district offices on a first-come first-served basis (perhaps allow phone-in reservation to avoid wasted trips). 7. Keep permit fees reasonable - such as $6 per group and keep group sizes to a maximum of 8. 8. Allow Pacific Crest Trail "thru" hikers to have access to Oregon's wilderness areas with 1 permit as is currently done along the entire PCT. 9. PS - I am a long-time whitewater rafter and have seen the implementation of permit systems help improve the wilderness experience and preserve the river resource. Unfortunately, I think it is time to do likewise with heavily impacted wilderness trails.
Thank you
Jerry Croft 457 Sanrodee Dr. SE Salem, Oregon 97317
From: Jess Beauchemin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Regarding the proposal for wilderness permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 4:27:15 PM
Hello,
I am a Bend resident who recreates in all of the Wilderness areas that are mentioned in the recent Statesman Journal article (http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2017/06/28/mount-jefferson-three-sisters- diamond-peak-limited-entry-permit-forest-service/434357001/). I hike, camp, backpack and climb all over these mountains in all four seasons of the year.
I too am disturbed by the increased evidence of human misbehavior in our beloved forests: litter, waste, switchback cutting, illegal fire rings, etc. I don't understand why people act this way. I have always respected the areas that I visit and practice Leave No Trace wherever I go.
The proposal to severely limit access to such a wide swath of land feels like a slap in the face. I have been a respectful visitor for the 10+ years I have lived in Oregon. And to be unable to visit the wonders in my backyard because of some bad actors is really frustrating. I will not apply for permits several months in advance and pay to have access to any nearby wilderness area. If this was happening at just a handful of places like South Sister and Green Lakes, I might be ok with that. But the laundry list of trailheads with proposed limits is really over the top.
I have rarely seen rangers out in the thousands of miles of trails that I've hiked on. So there is no one enforcing anything. The one time I recently ran into a ranger she kind of joked about how few people bother to fill out the free wilderness permits at the trailhead and when I asked her if she was issuing citations she said no, just talking to people. If everyone knows there's no enforcement then there is no reason to follow the rules.
I know the Forest Service is strapped for cash and it is probably only going to get worse with the current administration. But, why not use the personnel you already have to ticket people at the most-abused areas to send a message? Punish those who are ruining the experience for the rest of us. Ticket all the cars that park all over Cascades Lake Highway illegally. That will reduce the number of people on the trails! (Maybe that's a job for the sheriff?)
There is no simple solution to this problem. But I believe if you strictly limit access to so many places, the problem will be pushed out to other areas.
Instead, provide staff and infrastructure at the most heavily abused places. Educate, sure, but TICKET people who are causing the problems. They're not that hard to find. Talk to your buddies in the Willamette National Forest. Their Jefferson Park permit system FAILED and they scrapped it. People still went and camped without permits. All the system does is penalize people who try to play by the rules.
Use volunteers to teach people Leave No Trace. Put up signage with alternate hike ideas if a parking lot is full. There's got to be a way to help people recreate smarter and with the greater good in mind. I am eager to see how this planning process develops. I'm with you. I want to preserve these special places while maintaining public access. It's incredible that so many people want to be out in nature. How can we work together as a community to provide access and education so that we can all enjoy these wilderness areas in a safe and respectful way?
Jessica Beauchemin Bend, OR
-- From: Jim Pex To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Three Sisters Comment Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:37:45 PM
I find it particularly disturbing that the solution to a perceived issue of destruction and lack of natural respect is to charge money.
There isn't any promises that the funds will be used for cleanup or revegetation efforts. The reality is a permit won't keep people from going to the bathroom or give them an instant respect for nature.
Please be honest, there are folks who want things to be pretty and pristine. However we don't want folks to freely enjoy it either. Everyone needs more money, this is a simple way to gain funds and limit access. Please try to educate users about the wilderness before pulling it away from them. By attempting to take advantage of the popularity for financial gain our public employees should try to work with the users more to find a solution. Not enact just another tax.
Sent from my iPhone From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Regarding proposed changes to public access in five Oregon wilderness areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:28:46 PM
Good evening,
I just read the article in the Statesman Journal about the plans to expand the limited entry permit system to five Oregon wilderness areas. It is really frustrating to see yet another proposal that punishes the 95% of hikers who are responsible, and deny them access at peak times of the year by setting limits on the number of people allowed.
Overcrowding is caused by a variety of factors. One factor is the diminishing number of useable trails in Oregon. Many popular trails have been abandoned by the Forest Service and are desperately in need of maintenance. Also, the lack of new trails greatly contributes to higher numbers on existing trails. What we need are more trails, and maintenance of existing trails so crowds can spread out more over a larger area.
Requiring all hikers to purchase permits and limiting access does not deal with some of the greater problems, like the trashing of the wilderness. I’d rather see aggressive enforcement and boots on the ground in areas that currently experience overcrowding. Fine them, arrest them, and prosecute them for their crimes. Don’t punish the rest of us who practice “leave no trace” when we are hiking and camping by denying us access.
Please consider heavier enforcement of rules, citing or arresting rule breakers, and putting resources toward trail maintenance and expansion of the trail system.
Thank you for your time,
Jim Rodgers Hillsboro, Oregon [email protected]
From: Breeden, John To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Paid Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:44:58 PM
Hello.
I am strongly opposed to paid permits. Initiate a quota system for overnight camping in certain areas, if you must, but we should not have to pay for a wilderness experience.
Thanks,
John Breeden Bend
Sent from my iPad
______The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. From: John Brennan To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Pacific Crest Trail Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:01:15 PM
Limiting entry to Mount Jefferson, Three Sisters, other Oregon wilderness areas:
An accommodation needs to be made for Pacific Crest Trail thru hikers who will not be able to anticipate their arrival date, nor get to a place where they can pay fees.
Hiking from Mexico to Canada creates logistics enough. Perhaps the PCTA can help figure something out: PCTA.org -John Portland, OR
Sent from my mobile device. From: OR-7 To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Areas Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:59:57 PM
Dear USFS,
I am writing in response to proposals to impose limits on access to several Oregon wilderness areas, including the Three Sisters Wilderness, Mt Jefferson Wilderness, and others. I hope you will take these comments into account as you develop long-term management plans for these areas.
I have been hiking and camping in these wilderness areas since I was a Boy Scout in the 1950’s. They were, in fact, my first introduction to wild places and have retained a special place in my heart ever since. Although age has limited my ability to do difficult hikes and backpacking, I still hike in the Three Sisters area several times a year.
Over the span of nearly sixty years these areas have experienced growing impact from humans. When I first visited the Obsidian Trail and the areas around the South and Middle Sisters there were few people encountered on the trail and little evidence of human impact. Now these areas are frequently crowded with people, many of whom do not understand the difference between wilderness and a county park. I’ve seen trash and human waste along previously pristine trails, deeply rutted paths through wild meadows, soapy lakes, and everything else that comes with lots of people.
The primary goal of wilderness designation is to preserve wild places as nearly wild as possible. Humans must be able to enjoy these places, of course, but they must not be allowed to destroy their wilderness character. It is evident that many of Oregon’s wilderness areas need some limitation on the frequency and intensity of human visitation or they will no longer be wild. The Three Sisters Wilderness in particular cannot sustain the current level of use without becoming something other than wilderness.
So I reluctantly support imposing limits on the number of people allowed to enter at least some wilderness areas. But I have some specific concerns about how such limits might be imposed.
First, I do not support charging a fee for access to wilderness areas. America’s wild places belong to all of us, not just those with money. Requiring people to pay to use wilderness areas is different from requiring people to pay to use facilities such as national parks and developed campgrounds. Wilderness areas have little in the way of infrastructure to be maintained, whereas developed parks and campgrounds do. A case can be made for charging visitors to recover the costs of operating developed areas, although I would prefer to see even these costs paid for by all of us through taxes. No such case can be made for fees in wilderness areas.
Instituting fees for access to wilderness areas is not just unfair to those with limited means, it will also drive down public support for setting aside wild places. If we limit the number of people who can use these areas by charging for access we will reduce political support for wilderness to those few who can pay to use it. In the long run this will weaken the resolve to preserve wild places, and the ultimate result will be the privatization of public lands. For these reasons I reject the imposition of fees for wilderness use.
Second, I think that permits for the use of wilderness should be issued through a process that offers equal access to everyone and which includes an educational component. Regarding the former, I think permits should be issued on a first-come, first-served basis up to the number of permits available for a given purpose on a given date, with only a limited number of permits being issued in advance of the date. We need to accommodate both locals like myself who decide to hike on a whim and families who have traveled a long way to do a backpack. I’ll leave it to the USFS to figure out the exact balance and the number of people these areas can tolerate, but the method of issuing permits matters. It has to be fair to everyone.
I also think that obtaining a permit should include completing some sort of wilderness area etiquette course. The problems with trash, poop, dogs, wild-flower picking, camping in improper places, fires, etc. can be reduced by making sure that everyone who enters a wilderness area understands what they need to do to protect it. I don’t think very many people enter wild areas with the intent of ruining them. But lots of people don’t understand how fragile these areas are, how hard it is to clean up after slobs, and why it matters to preserve the wild.
I’m not sure how best to include such education in the permitting process. One approach might be to require some sort of permit to get a permit: A certificate that could be obtained through an in-person class at a ranger station or through an on-line process. People might have to pass something like the written drivers license test to get the certificate. After having obtained such a certificate a person could then apply for wilderness use permits. Regardless of the method, I think obtaining a permit for access to wilderness should require some significant evidence of understanding the proper way to treat wild areas.
Finally, I think that enforcement of permit requirements should be tough, especially at first. If we make obtaining a permit simple and free, then people really won’t have an excuse for not having one. Fines for un-permitted access or uses should be significant, and adequate resources will have to be devoted to enforcement.
I am saddened to see that areas I learned to love and roam freely as a child have become so overused that limits must be imposed. But the primary goal must be to protect the wildness of wilderness. If this is done in a fair and equitable way then I think most people will accept it.
John Cushing 19432 Cartmill Dr Bend, OR 97702 From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permitting Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:27:55 PM
I'm very much against this blanket permitting system. I can see it on very popular entry points but not all. Just where things are getting trashed. Also how about creating more wilderness?
John Madsen. From: jonny malanga To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 5:13:08 PM
Please do not make permits required to enter our wilderness..
living here my whole life and always being able to enjoy those hikes is something that my family has always enjoyed, making a limit per day and a pre bought permit makes the late afternoon impromptu hike after work a thing of the past.. just the thought of areas that my family and friends have enjoyed their whole lives, and what they live here for, is about to be uprooted.. this might seem like a good idea to keep “visitors" at bay, but it hurts the locals more than you could ever imagine.. Please Please do not make permits required for our forest/trail system..
Have a good day.. From: Joseph Haslebacher To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: More info about central Oregon regulation Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 5:00:57 PM
Hi,
I have just read the article in the statesman journal about the change in wilderness regulations. I'd like to know what price permits will be and what number of visitors are allowed per day to climb three sisters wilderness? Thank you!
Joseph Haslebacher
Sent from my iPhone From: Julee Pickering To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:19:35 AM
Horses should be allowed without a permit. From: Kami Semick To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Three Sister & Jefferson Wilderness Permitting Issue Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:12:19 AM
Dear Forest Service,
I've lived in Bend for the last 15 years, and have enjoyed access to both Three Sisters and Jefferson wilderness over that period. I've seen first hand the issues that are the source of the discussion to require paid permits into these wilderness areas. Although I would be saddened to have my access limited or encumbered, I also understand the factors involved. Below are my thoughts on how permits maybe segmented to address some of the issues:
Paid permits required for overnight camping: This seems the first line of defense, and requires those spending the night to go into a forest service station, pay a fee and look someone in the eye when saying they will camp only in designated areas and will follow leave no trace guidelines.
Permits for short duration trips: I personally would like to see two categories:
A) Locals category where with proof of a permanent Central Oregon address, the user must apply for a permit, verbally agree to the regulations, and then be granted a period of time (2017) that the permit is valid for short day trips (quick family hike, trail run, etc). I don't think this should be paid. We pay for parking. Access to wilderness shouldn't be an affordability issue.
B) Non Local: Possibly a small fee for increased impact, a shorter duration, and a verbal agreement to the regulations (no littering, don't cut trails, etc.)
I also believe the real root cause of the issue is the Visit Bend campaigns, although this is a completely separate discussion.
Thanks for your consideration. Thank you for protecting our wilderness.
Best,
Kami Kami Semick From: Karen Harding To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:53:56 AM
Need to do something about trail overuse. Perhaps look to Yosemite for a successful strategy. They have a system in place for the backcountry.
The biggest problem is that without enforcement there is no reason to implement anything. Fines should be required and enforced.
Please save our trails and control overuse.
Regards, Karen Harding Bend OR From: Kathy R To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Paid Permit System Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:34:53 PM
I do not agree with the proposal for a wilderness paid permit system. If it's anything like the campground reservation system, it will be annoying and cumbersome, requiring us to wait at our computers at midnight on a certain date just to get a permit for a holiday weekend. Or else it will require a smartphone, which I don't have because my home doesn't have cell service. I don't object to a pass like the NW Forest Pass. The revenue could be used to build new trails and increase enforcement. I know USFS funding is desperately low. I don't even object to a "trail full" sign on busy weekends with recommendations for alternate trails nearby. Under the permit system, people will buy a pass 'just in case' and then end up not using it, which keeps other users from being able to visit. thank you, Kathy Reynolds 26314 Metolius Meadows Dr Camp Sherman OR 97730 From: The Kruse"s To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Potential for paid permits and limited use on trails in Central Oregon Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:02:35 AM
Hi,
I am not opposed to requiring permits on more heavily used trails. As someone who lives in Bend, I think there should be a certain number of permits held back. These would be allocated in the short term for people who live in the area and want to go enjoy the natural area next to which they have chosen to live. I can't think of many things more frustrating than to decide to go out for a hike at the last minute with a friend or my family and be restricted due to visitors having taken all the permits in advance.
Thanks Kevin Kruse Bend, OR From: Kevin Multop To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Plan Comments Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:49:50 AM
Yes, something needs to be done about the dramatic over-use of our wilderness areas in central Oregon, but please consider these things:
1. Don't restrict everything at once. Consider a gradual implementation of the highest use areas (e.g. Green Lakes TH, Devil's Lake TH) first and make evaluations that can inform future rollouts.
2. Consider locals. As a Bend resident, I am used to making a spontaneous weather driven decision to head up into the wilderness within a 12 hour notice. Will your permit system accommodate this flexibility?
3. Be mindful of fee amounts. There are a lot of wealthy individuals in the Bend area that won't be fazed by a $12 per use fee, but let's be thoughtful of our residents that would be put off by a prohibitive fee.
4. Ensure enforcement. Make sure that whatever rules exist, there are staff out there ensure all are following the rules.
5. Consider a "super-pass." Again, more focused on locals, but allow a higher cost pass for people who regularly enjoy these trails and want more freedom and flexibility in access.
Thanks and good luck.
Kevin Multop Bend, Oregon From: Kevin Wright To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited entry proposals Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 12:11:33 PM
My only hope is that the USFS comes to their senses and doesn't enact a wilderness-wide limited entry system. Restricting access to little-used areas makes no sense. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that the FS has their plan already laid out, regardless of the public comments. There is money to be made by selling permits, and I can't think of any government program that has ever turned down additional sources of income. Enforcing a wilderness wide permit system would be a nightmare - - I don't think the FS has the staffing or the budget to effectively enforce it. Educating the public about LNT is a great thing, but in my experience, people either care or they don't - - it's impossible to teach people to care....it's one of those traits that you are either born with or you're not. Bad apples will always exist, and will always cause problems for those who follow the rules.
I care about protecting the wilderness from abuse as much as anyone else. I don't like fees or the permit system, period, but I know something needs to be done in areas where the crowds have wreaked their havoc.
Best case scenario for me is restricting access to wildly popular places like Jefferson Park and Green Lakes....but leaving the other areas as is. Focus enforcement in those areas. Time will tell.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Kimberly Shepard To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Three sisters wilderness permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:42:27 PM
Hi,
Please don't implement a paid permitting system at trailheads in the Deschutes national forest/three sisters wilderness. I understand the need for stewardship to limit traffic on the busiest trails (green lakes, south sister climbers trail, etc.), but there's no need to make hiking only for people with money. If a permit system is needed, make it a free reservation. One of the grandest things about the wilderness is that it's just as easily enjoyed by poor and rich alike.
I think it especially makes no sense to limit such a large number of trails (the bulletin was quoting something like 20 trailheads!) when there are only severe crowding issues on a handful of them. Maybe only require permits on weekends when the traffic is highest? And make them free of charge.
Kim Shepard Bend, OR From: Lane Kling To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limiting access and charging for wilderness entrance Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:35:46 AM
This is so wrong. First off, I own a part of that Land. You have no right to limit my access and charge me for something I partially own and for something that I pay for in my Federal Taxes. It’s not my fault you guys piss my money away on new vehicles every year, building fancy ranger stations, and paying a wage to lazy people driving around the forest all the time, doing nothing. Yes, I was an Old growth timber faller for a long time. I was paid by you guys to fall the burning snags cause you couldn’t. The waste of money I saw with the USFS during fire season and trying to put out fires made me sick.
So, here I am. I had to find another career 20 years ago because you got your way and shut down the logging on the forest service. So, I moved on and thought to myself,” well at least I can keep hunting and where I hunt at won’t be logged.”
Then maybe 10 years later, you start blocking all the roads. So now I can’t get to where I used to hunt. Getting too old to walk and pack meat 15 miles, but I’d guess you could care less.
So then I buy a Horse and figure, I’ll go into the wilderness and get away from these dam mountain bikers. You know. The ones that come down the trail at Mach1 and almost run me over all the time. Not to mention the joy I have of being out in the woods, and having to look at some fat ass guy or woman in spandex on a bike. Nice.
So, now here were are, your screwing me for the 3 time and going to tell me I can’t take my horse into the wilderness unless I get a permit from you and pay you more than the $15,000 Federal tax bill I get every year. And When I think that I head up Horse Creek, separation meadow, Rebel Creek, Frissel crossing and I never see hardly anyone, and the trails are so goddam shitty anymore, sluffed off, wind falls, grass growing over them. And you tell me that there are too many People? You need to be concerned about the dolts coming off Century drive. All those tourists you wanted so bad. All those that you wanted to subsidize the lost Timber Revenue.
Went down six lakes trail from Waldo last year. Nobody! The trail had a 3 foot rut in it, windfalls, very few people using it.
Maybe if you just charged a lot on the trail heads on century drive, you’d slow down a lot of people going in. You’re screwing the rest of us that come in from a lot harder means, and you see very few people.
From: Leland Smith To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Paid Permit Proposal Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:11:06 PM
Deschutes NF
As a 30-year resident of Central Oregon and a frequent user of trails in the Three Sisters Wilderness and other wilderness areas in the central Cascades, I understand the issues of overcrowding especially on summer weekends and 3-day holidays. However, the reason I live here is to enjoy the hiking and climbing experiences available whenever the weather and trail conditions permit. Having to schedule these trips in advance and obtain a paid permit would defeat that purpose.
If you do decide to implement a permit system, I recommend that you apply it only to the period between Memorial Day and Labor Day holidays, and only on weekends plus the 4th of July holiday. Please leave the weekdays open to those of us who want to enjoy a spur-of-the-moment trip into the wilderness. Another option could be an annual resident trail pass with blackout dates for the periods of greatest crowding.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lee Smith P.O. Box 3539 Bend, OR 97707 From: Linda Skladal To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits for Three Sisters Wilderness areas Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:47:24 AM
If you do require permits for the Sisters Wilderness areas it would be nice to have restrooms at each area that are Kept clean and maintained weekly. I know that there are permits required for the Benham Falls area and the Outhouses Are gross and not maintained as well as they should be. If you are going to charge for access, please have the integrity to maintain The areas within the boundaries of the permit.
Thank,
Linda Skladal Bend Oregon From: Mahogany Aulenbach To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited Access to Our Wilderness Areas in Oregon Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:37:38 AM
To whom it may concern,
The Wilderness areas are my most favorite destinations. And I do see a major increase in explorers and more erosion due to some heavily used areas being trampled. But, to place a fee on the use is absurd (even though I have paid for day use in the Obsidian Area of the Three Sisters Wilderness).
I feel we need to focus on maintaining trails that are growing in, open up more road-less areas to become wilderness and limit access to only the heavy use areas, without fees.
The rest of the wilderness should be open to all, which includes all of the back country.
Sincerely, Mahogany Aulenbach 25358 Cherry Creek Road Monroe, Oregon From: Mindy Williams To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comment on proposed limited entry permits for Oregon wilderness areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 4:04:04 PM
Hello, As a native Oregonian who frequently enjoys our beautiful wilderness areas, I would like to offer my comments on the proposed plan to charge between $6-$12 for back-country permits for both backpackers and hikers. I have both positive and negative comments about the proposal:
Positive comments: I love the idea of limiting the number of destructive people in wilderness areas, especially overnight visitors who leave human waste unburied. I’ve participated in volunteer projects to restore and maintain trails and to pick up trash and eradicate unauthorized fire rings in the wilderness, and I know firsthand what a problem it is. I think it’s a great idea to require permits for folks who plan to backpack or spend the night in these areas, and it’s not unreasonable to charge for these permits as that revenue can offset the cost of clean up and trail restoration.
Negative comments: I think it’s quite unreasonable to require day hikers to purchase an advanced permit every time they want to go for a walk in the woods. I live in Bend and have my summers off, which means I could go for a new day hike nearly every day during the summer. This proposal would greatly limit my use of the natural areas closest to my home. I think it’s completely reasonable to charge for parking at each of these trailheads, but I do know that not every trailhead in Oregon currently requires a NW Forest Pass—shouldn’t that be the first step? Charge for parking, or even charge more for parking, but don’t require day-hikers to plan ahead and pay each time they want to go for a walk.
Unforeseen consequences: I’m fortunate enough that paying $6-$12 for a permit each time I would like to go backpacking would fit within my budget, but each time you add a fee to an outdoor experience, you’re putting that experience out of reach of folks who are already at a disadvantage and perhaps would benefit most from access to the wilderness. Is there a way to waive the fee for low-income users, without making them feel uncomfortable?
I look forward to seeing how this project develops, and thank you for the opportunity to offer comments.
Sincerely, Malinda Williams 214 SW 17th St. Apt. 4 Bend, OR 97702
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Bob & Marianne Pearson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Please require permits to enter Three Sisters Wilderness area!!!!! Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 12:51:38 PM
People should be held accountable for cleaning up after themselves and dogs A pre-purchased permit might possibly weed out some visitors interested only in a cheap, carefree adventure with the end goal of getting that perfect selfie to share with hundreds of best friends. I am distressed and amazed that so many people do not see the need to take care of the environment. The amount of trash currently hauled out of this area by overworked rangers is ridiculous. It’s sad that it had to get to this state before someone finally considered a permit fee. Please, go for it!!! At least require a permit on the heavily used trails if not all of them. And, a permit system might possibly help eliminate some of these human caused fires in the forest by making it clear that unauthorized fire rings and shelters are not permitted.
Thank you, Marianne and Bob Pearson Bend, OR
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Matthew Mioduszewski To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Trailhead limited entry permits (Absolutely NOT!) Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:32:02 PM NO!!! Please no.
To the committee charged with deciding this, having limited entry permits is an absolutely terrible direction to move. A resurgence in outdoor recreation is something the forest service should embrace and let function as a mandate to shift resources from logging, district ranger buildings, privys, and other service/amenity spending, to boots on the ground efforts of enforcement, trail re-opening, and new trail building to disburse users. The direction of limiting access will only shift users to another area and will do nothing
I find the arguments of too many people alone spoiling the experience of 'solitude' in nature to be subjective. I have found peace and solitude in all the popular places by being there on less popular days or at alternate times of day. If this alone is the rationale for limiting access, please explain why places like Mt. Adams and Mt. Hood do not have such restrictions, it sounds like your forest service units are arbitrarily making a subjective call.
There are numerous faults in the limited entry permit model. To begin with, a vast majority of recreationalists respect the environment, practice LNT principles, and do not create a large impact. This penalizes the majority for the behavior of a small minority.
Secondly, usage impacts are concentrated in very specific areas. This proposal would restrict a place like Devil's Lake TH or Whitewater TH/Jefferson Park as well as much more obscure areas like Corrigan Lake by Diamond Peak and Woodpecker Trailhead. What could possibly warrant the heavy hand of permits on much less used trailheads? What percentage of these total wilderness areas square mileage is actually heavily trammeled. From basic understanding of popular areas it turns out to be a very small percent of total wilderness area that suffers increased use. Limiting entry will only send these people to other places and pass the problem on.
I have heard on more than one occasion that limited FS personnel enforcement is available as is, and they often prefer educational correction vs citations. The forest service needs to make a concerted effort to have enforcement persons at the highly popular areas like Green Lakes, South Sister, Jefferson Park, to make sure people adhere to the 12 people in a group, tenting locations, and prohibition on fires. You should absolutely fine entire parties who do not adhere to rules that are clearly posted at trailheads and on wilderness permits. Social media and the digital age that has spread the popularity of many places can be just as powerful to spread the message of responsibility and respect for the land. How many $500 tickets need to be given in front of multiple parties at Jefferson Park before everyone implores their friends "Don't make a fire there or you will get a federal ticket for $500!!!"?
Feces disposal is a problem at popular camping areas. However in the North Cascades Wilderness and in the Enchantments I have encountered primitive wooden-box privies in the woods and in alpine environments. If these wilderness units can find it effective and prudent to have such in those wilderness areas, this same line of thinking should be implemented at Jefferson Park, Obsidian Area, Camp Lake, etc. Even a few of these pit toilets would greatly alleviate surface waste issues.
Additionally with the Forest Service already failing to have adequate patrols to enforce and curtail bad behavior at these concentrated areas, by what means would the Forest Service expect to be able to fully enforce and implement this limited entry permit process? It seems the best that could be done would be stationing rangers at trailheads, but with such a wide swath of areas not allowing hiking without a permit, it is likely you will see people simply ignore the rules because there is nowhere they can simply drive a bit further to for a wilderness experience without still needing a permit. And if you can have ranger at trailheads, you may as well have them on trails and out of their trucks.
Finally, this disenfranchises people without computers and people who want to make a plan to run after work or something simple. Not everyone can plan their entire summers out. For someone who gets out twice in a weekend all summer the fees would actually be substantial, especially year after year. We will now be paying for the liberty to access public lands that were previously free. That is no improvement. And it sets a bar for the privatization and pay- to-play scenarios that certain segments of our government would like to see on our public lands. Not to mention this would be on top of the NWFP which has been found to be invalid by the 9th Circuit Court.
Do not go through with this, there will be massive non-compliance and problems will continue. The FS needs more personnel and volunteers engaged with people to educate and gain compliance to create a strong culture of respect for the land, similar to in National Parks. An online app or reserving a spot months in advance will not change culture or create more respect for the Forest Service.
Thank you Matt Mioduszewski From: matt phillips To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limiting access to wilderness Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:30:39 PM
This is the very antithesis of the wilderness ideal in America. Here we have the idea that wilderness is vital to the human soul (Edward Abby), that American wilderness is owned by all Americans (TR) and that American wilderness is to be used and enjoyed by all people, regardless of nationality. To limit access due to poop and trash, and charge money to use what is ours is sad. Charge for parking at popular trailheads; you already have. Require free permits to enter the wilderness for accountability; you already have. Patrol the wilderness, maintain the trails and buildings, educate people on leave no trace. Yeah yeah yeah; money. Kick the administration in their asses and wake them up! Our wilderness areas were once great! Well maintained trails and parking areas. Kiosks with information. Rangers with axes and shovels, making sure people had the tools to bury there poop. One of the greatest benefits of wilderness is to be able, on a moments notice, to go recreate for free. To escape the f- ing rat race of do this don't do that pay here sit there watch the clock bull. Wilderness is the escape. And it's great that people are able to use it more than ever, but to impose limits to access by charging money or planning ahead, is shameful. Find another way. Enforce parking permits and fees. Lobby for money for rangers. Educate about other trails, other wilderness or other wild national forest areas to try and disperse folks. But don't tell me to plan my trip. Don't charge me more for what's already mine. Matt Phillips
Yup, iPhone 8 From: Maxine Hallberg To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits to access three sisters wilderness Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:39:18 PM
I have been hiking many of these trails for the last 15 years and have Observed many of the abuses mentioned in the newspaper article June 30. On the green lakes trail especially the deterioration of riparian and manure left by horses and dogs has been awful. The trails on the west side of century drive should not have any horses on them. Along the creek from green lakes I've taken pictures of horse manure right near or in the water. We must be more conscious of our water even up in the mountains. It is not pleAsant hiking through manure! Dogs have been an enormous problem with many hikers having them off leash and not picking up their waste. All dogs should be on leashes everywhere in the forests around us ALL the time! Opening up a dog off leash park south of the entrada lodge is a big mistake. Dog poop is everywhere and the riparian areA along the deschutes has been completely destroyed. Not to mention dogs running and jumping on other hikers. I am very sorry that it has come to the point where trails have to require permits, but I can see why it has come to this regulation. Hopefully we can stop the horse issue before the trails open up this summer. I know there is a horse facility and trails east of century drive, and that is plenty. Thank you for your time Sincerely, Maxine Hallberg Bend, Oregon Sent from my iPad From: Melissa Jones To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits for Oregon wilderness Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:47:54 AM
Hello,
I don't feel like this is a well thought out plan to fix the issues. I'm more of a spontaneous hiker in my home state and this would really limit me. I'm also a very responsible hiker that stays on the trail and picks up other people's trash.
Perhaps we can reconsider how this will work on our public lands.
Thank you, Melissa ---
Roux is on the go! Please excuse any mobile errors.
RouxRoamer.com @RouxRoamer on all channels Instagram: http://instagram.com/rouxroamer# Twitter: https://twitter.com/rouxroamer Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/36714124@N06/
Author of Women with Wanderlust: A Guide to Roaming From: Michael Getlin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Quick comment Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 6:26:43 AM
The permit system will have serious effects on mountaineering, especially on Jefferson. If climbers must schedule climbs ahead of time to get overnight permits, it will incentivize climbing in bad weather or sub optimal conditions. The solution might be to do something like they do in the enchantments where the permit area does not include the high alpine (6500-7000ft on Jefferson). That way climbers can go up and bivy high on the mountain (which will have minimal impact because not that many people will get up that high anyway). This will accomplish the main goals of the permit system without cutting access for and increasing risks for climbers. The safe way to climb that mountain is to wait for perfect weather, and then plan your trip. Not plan your trip months in advance to get a permit and then climb into a storm because it's the only time you can go. From: Mike Mathews To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comment on Plan to Restrict Wilderness Entry to Cascade Crest wilderness areas Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:00:14 PM
As a long time wilderness visitor to areas along the Cascade Crest, my first trips being local trails in the Mt Hood in 1964 and in the Three Sisters in 1965 (Green Lakes Basin), I cannot support entry restrictions. I do understand the issues with protecting the resource and meeting the solitude requirements of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Here are my concerns with restrictions: First, restrictions don't work in all cases. These restrictions that now work on the Pamelia and Obsidian areas are able to work because that pressure is moved to other areas and trails. The restrictions did not work at Jeff Park and now the request is to camp in designated sites or move to camp out of the area.
Second, broad restrictions will cause wilderness to lose support. People support wilderness if they experience it. Without access to the wilderness, people will lose interest and support efforts to reduce wilderness. We currently have a very limited amount of wilderness, how much more can we afford to lose? This is a battle between capitalist interests and public resources that has been going on in Oregon since the time of Judge Waldo.
Third, enforcement will be difficult and cause a loss in public support for wilderness. While the USFS has legal enforcement, that is rarely a positive situation. Most FS personnel are not trained in law enforcement and do not want to be seen as enforcers. How expensive will it be to divert current personnel to law enforcement, or to hire a law enforcement team to enforce these restrictions? Besides, we do not want to raise a generation of lawbreakers, learning to disregard the rules in one instance leads top breaking the law in other areas.
The solution that implemented on the Mt Hood, Huck-Salmon, Hatfield, and Gorge, is to use volunteer Wilderness Stewards trained in LNT and focused on public interaction. I am part of that team.
We base our public interaction on Authority of the Resource and teach LEave no Trace on the trail. We work to build respect and support for wilderness areas, to give visitors an experience that moves them to care for wilderness and appreciate keeping the experience as close to original as possible.
Do we have areas that are hammered? Of course, but we work to rehabilitate those areas, both showing the rehabilitation in progress and asking people to participate (restricted or banned campfires, approved campsites and/or day areas, closed spaces for regrowth, altered trail routes, etc.). Do we have failures? Of course, but we also have successes and we can build on those.
We also work with the public to disperse their effects whenever possible. We suggest camping on hardened spaces, but we also suggest camping away from the most fragile areas and enjoying them through short hikes (after all, most of the actual camping involves cooking, tents and sleeping, which doesn't require being in a fragile area).
What we try to avoid is enforcement. Are there times where we enforce? Sure, to the level that a volunteer is able. I've negotiated tents to be moved out of meadows ( a couple of times these were Mazama groups and trail crews, surprise!). I've also put out campfires during fire restrictions and negotiated a stove loan from one campsite to another (and used my own for other campers, teaching them the benefits of stove use).
Does it always work? No, but it is a rare time when we run across human poop and even dog poop has been brought under control. We've successfully closed and replanted trails through meadows, moving those trails into the trees and onto ridge tops where hikers can better enjoy the views of untrammeled meadows and flowers. We've also decommissioned campsites in meadows and moved them into the trees at the edge of the meadows.
And there's an added benefit: Once people understand the issues and the benefits of operating within the boundaries of LNT and caring for wilderness, then they take up the cause and remind others. My fire season patrols usually involve carrying a shovel and I remind campers I meet to tell others on the trail that there is a fire restriction and to loan a stove if necessary. I've later seen these same campers walk up to other campsites to remind them about fire restrictions and offer to loan a stove.
Treating wilderness visitors with respect and support to do the right thing for the wilderness is both effective in containing problems and in building greater support for maintaining wilderness.
Best of luck with your decisions, I hope my comment has helped you.
Mike
Mike Mathews @memathews From: Nancy Geller To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Pre-purchased permit proposal Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:12:03 AM
As a frequent user of the trail systems in our local wilderness areas, I am concerned about the negative environmental impact from increasing visitor use in recent years. While I support a permit system, my strong preference would be to limit them to the most heavily used trails. I'm not in favor of paid permits unless it is accompanied by increasing the presence of forest service rangers out in theses areas in an attempt to monitor and fine those who violate the rules and trash the environment. Thank you, Nancy Geller
Sent from my iPad From: Nic Moye To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trail Fee Comment Period Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 5:00:32 PM
I buy a NW Forest Pass in order to access trails and lakes along the Cascade Lakes Highway. I am opposed to being charged a second fee to use certain trails. I thought that's why I purchased the pass. In addition, an additional fee would limit some of the best trails to wealthy people, making them inaccessible for poor ones. Many of us live here because of the beauty in the Cascade Lakes area. I understand limiting dogs to certain trails, but not people.
Nicole Moye
Department of Fish and Wildlife Oregon Deschutes Watershed District East Region Kate Brown, Governor 61374 Parrell Road Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6363 FAX (541) 388-6281
June 30, 2017
John Allen, Forest Supervisor Deschutes National Forest 63095 Deschutes Market Road Bend, Oregon 97701
RE: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project – Proposed Action
Dear Mr. Allen,
This letter is in response to your request for comments for the proposed visitor use management strategies in five wilderness areas of the Central Cascades in Oregon: Mount Jeffereson, Mount Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake, and Diamond Peak.
The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (Department) is mandated by State Statute to manage fish and wildlife resources to prevent serious depletion of indigenous species and to provide optimum recreational and aesthetic benefits for present and future generations of the citizens of Oregon (ORS 496.012).
The five wilderness areas fall within an area important to mule deer during summer. During an 8 year study (2005-2013) of deer in south central Oregon, the Department confirmed deer use of this area during the fawning season. Deer rely on this area from May-October for the food and cover necessary for birthing and raising their fawns during their first months of life. A significant source of disturbance to wildlife comes in the form of recreational activities. Human presence, with and without companion animals (typically dogs), has been shown to alter wildlife behavior in the form of increased vigilance and energy expenditure (Miller et al. 2001, Lenth et al. 2008, Naylor et al. 2009, Vandeman 2014).
As noted in the Proposed Action document (dated May 31, 2017), visitor use trends in some parts of these central Oregon wilderness areas have increased over 800% in the last 16 years and 500% in the last two years. These trends are likely negatively impacting mule deer and other wildlife. Therefore, the Department offers preliminary support of the Forest’s Proposed Action to manage visitor use in wilderness areas. Our final comments will depend on the details provided in the forthcoming environmental assessment.
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions or want information that the Department can provide, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Sara Gregory Wildlife Habitat Biologist Deschutes Watershed District [email protected] 541-388-6147
cc: Corey Heath, ODFW Deschutes District Wildlife Biologist Brett Hodgson, ODFW Acting Deschutes Watershed Manager
References: 1. Miller, Scott G., Richard L. Knight, and Clinton K. Miller. "Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs." Wildlife Society Bulletin (2001): 124-132. 2. Lenth, Benjamin E., Richard L. Knight, and Mark E. Brennan. "The effects of dogs on wildlife communities." Natural Areas Journal 28, no. 3 (2008): 218-227. 3. Naylor, Leslie M., Michael J. Wisdom, and Robert G. Anthony. "Behavioral responses of North American elk to recreational activity." The Journal of Wildlife Management 73, no. 3 (2009): 328-338. 4. Vandeman, Michael J. "The Impacts of Mountain Biking on Wildlife and People--A Review of the Literature." In Society for Conservation Biology meeting, Columbia University, New York, NY. 2004. From: Patricia Haggerty To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: NO NO NO further restrictions on OUR Wilderness areas! Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 12:44:12 PM
USFS: I strongly object to the imposition of required, paid trail permits for entry into the Three Sisters, Mt. Jefferson, and other wilderness areas that you are trying to institute. The Forest Service has added more and more cost and restrictions to recreational use of our PUBLIC lands. We have borne the costs of NW Trail Pass, and I have for several years supported OUR public lands by purchasing the $80.00 pass for ALL federal facilities. It is unconscionable that you now want us to pay for entry into each trail head as well as have advance reservations!?!? How about more trail crews and fewer high level Forest Service staff thinking up new ways to keep people out of their public lands? We already pay enough! What are you doing with the money we already pay? I honestly feel like I have not seen any benefit from the NW Forest Pass after all these years of this fee being levied on the public.
I understand that there are impacts from human use but how about working with the public, and retail marketers like REI to train people in No Impact use? I have seen a clear drop in user education efforts in the many decades that I have been using backcountry and wilderness areas. EVERY outdoor catalog, magazine and newspaper story should clearly explain what the public should be doing in terms of waste and trash. No euphemisms such as ‘No Trace’! Spell out very clearly what the public should be doing! If that doesn’t work, explore options such as the ‘Blue Bags’ used on Mt. Rainier for climbers and pit toilets, etc where there is heavy use. How much of the overuse is from hunters and stock use? I see huge crowds at the trailheads when the High Cascades Special Hunts open, so much so that other users are pretty much eliminated. Do the hunters pick up their horse poo and deal with their stock grinding the trail into dust? I don’t think so.
And how much of the trail overuse and crowding is from the lack of maintenance and neglect from the Forest Service over time? How many trails just from the Metolius side of the Mt. Jefferson wilderness have I seen dropped from maintenance over the years? Sugar Pine Ridge/Jefferson lake trail is just one example. The trail from Hand Lake to the west is another case. Is a fire an excuse used to forever abandon a trail? Neglect of our trail system, much of which is inherited from the good work of the CCC and WPA from the 1930’s, is a big part of the problem. In particular, the greatest impact from day use is only within the first two miles or so. One good example is Tam McArthur Rim from Three Creeks. Most people just get to the prominent viewpoint along the rim and then return. Many times, I have gone further into Snow Creek basin and other areas on the rim, both hiking and skiing, and not seen a soul. Maybe you should just accept that some of these areas, like the Rim viewpoint, are going to be busy, get over your preconceived notions about use, and leave the rest of us alone.
Get out there and maintain these trails instead of just harassing the public for more money and more restrictions. I rarely ever see any trail maintenance being conducted and on the rare occasions when I have seen Forest Service employees in the wilderness, they have neglected picking up any trash or other trail obstructions which I have done when I passed by. Compared to the National Park Service, the level of effort expended by the Forest Service staff is pretty minimal. I am sorry to have to say that but it seems to be true.
So my feelings towards this proposal are very harsh, but I feel strongly about the public’s right to utilize our public forests and open spaces and will resist strongly any attempt to take them from us, either from those who would privatize them, like the Bundys, or the agencies who are supposed to be facilitating their use and appreciation. Pat Haggerty Corvallis, OR From: danner family To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permit plan Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:57:18 PM
Dear sirs,
The main complaint I have about the Northwest Forest Pass is it is inconvenient. Many is the time I am halfway to the trailhead when I have to turn around and go back and find a NFP vendor. Will this permit system also be frustrating and inconvenient?
Summer weekends are few and only so long. And good weather days are scarce. I am all for planning ahead but I love to be spontaneous. Can I still be spontaneous with this system? That will be important to me.
Is this going to add another queue at the ranger station? Perhaps an app on my phone that let's me know that the parking lot is full instead to let me decide if it too crowded. Rather than a trail permit how about just reserve parking slots at the most popular trailheads. Rather than a printed pass, how about adding your name and number of hikers to a data base?
How about we create more trails and trailheads. Spread people out more.
I could go on and on. I would love to be involved in this. Feel free to contact me at 503-310- 8215.
Peter C. Danner 6565 Apollo Rd West Linn Oregon 97068 Sent from my Galaxy Tab® A From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: No quotas, please! Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 4:31:00 PM
Parallel trails are a problem in trail construction and maintenance -- not a 'too many people enjoying nature' problem
Camping on meadows can be stopped by designating sites, making them nice
Maybe the busiest trail to a summit destination need a quota, like California's Whitney, but don't put a smothering blanket everywhere on the freedom of the hills
Thanks, and thank you for protecting our magically wonderful public lands!
Peter and generations of my family
Sent from my iPhone From: Phil Fischer To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Fee Permits to Enter Central Oregon Wilderness areas Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:07:13 AM
I am torn regarding this proposal. On one hand, these areas are being loved too much. But on another, this proposal could limit our ability to access these areas ad hoc.
I am a Sunriver resident year round, and a photographer. I use these areas, especially the Three Sisters Wilderness, routinely for photography opportunities. Requiring an advance purchase permit could severely limit my access. I go when weather conditions are right for photography, most often making a same day, and sometimes, same hour, decision when to go. And I often hike very early and very late in the day. Not during crowd periods. For this reason, I am concerned that the proposed permit system will limit my access.
I also already pay for two Northwest Forest Passes, one for my wife, and one for me. Requiring an additional fee to access these areas is something I am already paying. Is that fair?
I do take exception to your stated access numbers between 2011 and 2016 for the Three Sisters Wilderness. These were two very different snow years. Access in 2011 was delayed until very late in the summer, whereas 2016 experienced very early access due to early snow melt. The Broken Top trail head did not open in 2011 until almost September; whereas in 2016 it opened in July. Nature did the job of limiting access. Your data showing a 559% increase is quite misleading. Your data should show all years, and not cherry pick the ones you want to use to support your case.
I am willing to pay separately for a access permit that allows access ad hoc anytime. Perhaps a photography permit specifically established for that purpose. It would be worth a $100 permit for year round continued ad hoc access. Some consideration needs to be established that would not require I plan my trips weeks and months in advance, as would happen under your permit proposal. Popular campgrounds now fill up weeks and months in advance. The same would happen trailhead access, leaving many of us unable to enjoy these areas because all of the permits get snapped up early. I support trailhead limits, but I live here because of my access to all of the wonderful things the forest has to offer. Please don't take that away from me.
I also suggest trailhead limits and permits be applied only to high use periods. Mid-summer, weekends. During the week and late spring, early fall usage drops off significantly.
Thanks for consideration of my comments.
Phil Fischer Sunriver, Oregon
Sent from my iPad From: Priscilla Walters To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness area hiking/backpacking permits Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:49:16 PM
Please, please, please move forward with plans to make day hiker and backpacker permits mandatory for all the trails mentioned in today's Statesman Journal article.
I am a 72 year old, Salem resident who has lived in the Northwest since 1985. Over the past 20 + years I have made day hikes and overnight "pilgrimages" to Park Meadow, Golden Lake (including the tarns above it), Obsidian, Tam McArthur Rim, Hanks Lake above Pamelia Lake and especially Jefferson Park (I was very disappointed to learn last week that the permit system in place last summer had been discontinued.)
Nonetheless, I was able to secure permits to backpack into Obsidian at the end of July (if the snow level allows) and to Shale Lake through Pamelia in September.
However, though these wilderness areas have given me unspeakable joy, I believe you must act to protect them by drastically limiting access---even if there are seasons when I can only treasure them through prior years' photos and memories.
I have internally wept and howled at the abuse these sacred places have suffered from overcrowding, carelessness and indifference. Please do everything you can for the sake of the planet and future generations to preserve them.
Priscilla A. Walters 755 Vista Ave. SE Salem, OR 97302 From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: charging for a trail or location PASS Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:16:18 AM
I am a resident of Bend,OR, this sounds like the Democrats (TAX and SPEND). You are already supported by the TAX PAYERS, so do your job.
Bend Resident From: Raya Budrevich To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Oregon Cascades Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 3:11:33 PM
I wanted to give my input with regards to the limited entry proposal for one of my favorite areas in our state.
I like the idea of an entry system and limiting crowds, it is sad to see what is happening to our wild areas as more and more people move into the state.
I would also like to see a possible option for last minute entry permits as well. We recently did a trip into the Alpine Lakes wilderness and there was an option to pickup some permits on the stop for the following day. Sometimes the wilderness calls and not everyone has the energy to be on top of their hiking plans 9 months in advance.
Thank you, Raya From: Liberty Cave To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comment on Fees for trail use Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 6:08:30 AM
I oppose fees for trail use. Aside from the fact that Federal land ownership of this type is NOT Authorized by the Constitution, this land is the public's, not the Government agencies. Free passage on the entire earth is a God given right. Your actions are immoral, unlawful, and reflect the ongoing attack of the Eco Religious on all humanity.
Cease this nonsense.
Yours,
Richard J McNamara 365 Caves Ave Cave junction, OR 97523 -- Who is John Galt? From: Rick Krause To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:40:52 AM
I am totally agents any limited permits for wilderness areas. The wildernesses are for people to use. From: R and R Laxson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: trail permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:12:19 PM
To whom it may concern:
To fairly allocate permits to hike certain areas of the national forest system will require an incredible amount of manpower on your end. Those receiving a permit should be given a numbered parking spot. That spot should be open to that party all day long. You would have to have someone patrol all day to ensure that no one else parked in that spot and have the authority to ticket anyone who does. Then, if that parking spot is fraudulently taken, have a secondary "bullpen" which the rightful party can park when they do arrive. This will have to happen at each of your trailheads that you designate as needing a permit. Trail patrols seem to be almost non-existent - My wife and I have been checked for a forest service trail pass once in twenty-seven years of hiking. We normally hike two plus times a week in the spring, summer and fall. No matter, permit or not, certain people are going to continue to cut trails and defecate in an unsanitary manner uless caught and fined. If fees are collected, perhaps those of us who live in Central Oregon and hike on a regular basis could be given reduced season passes of some kind? Thank you for the opportunity to express some thoughts. Best of luck in making a decision that will benefit both people and the wilderness.
Robert Laxson Bend, Orego From: Robin Meiners To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Deschutes National Forest Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 2:12:35 PM
To Whom it May Concern:
I strongly feel there is a justifiably need to require pre-purchased permits to enter the Three Sister Wilderness in the areas of high usage. The increased amount of hikers to this area in such a short period, is alarming. If we are proactive, together we can protect this beautiful area so it can be enjoyed for years to come. By requiring a paid permit, the proceeds can go towards maintaining trails and associated facilities. We need to think about the future and the current trend and put safeguards in place now, before it is too late or too much damage has been done.
Regards,
Robin Meiners From: Rochelle Regutti To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permitting the popular wildness areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:50:41 PM
To whom it may concern,
I recently read about the plan to permit the popular wilderness areas in the Statesman journal. I support the permitting of the area. But I'm concerned with the price of the permits. Would the permits be an additional price on top of the Northwest Forest pass? My fear is the additional price would alienate lower income families from experiencing these areas.
Rochelle Regutti From: SUE GREGORY To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: RE: Proposal to implement Limited Entry access to Oregon Wilderness Areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:15:59 PM
I strongly approve a proposal to implement a “limited entry” program and permit system for accessing Oregon Wilderness areas. I have lived in central Oregon for nearly 30 years and enjoyed many experiences throughout the local wilderness system. Over the past 10-15 years, I’ve seen a clearly noticeable surge in visitation. That increased visitation has (in many locations) had a direct, indirect and cumulative effect to the degradation of multiple forest resources. In other words, areas are being over-run and loved to death in a manner that is unsustainable for the health of the resources. Although I support a “limited entry” program and permit system for accessing Oregon Wilderness areas, how would such a system affect the “America the Beautiful”, Senior Permit Pass?
Thank you for your consideration and keep up the good work.
Sincerely,
Ronald L. Gregory 3626 SW Volcano Ct. Redmond, OR. 97756 From: Sandy Rosencrance To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 5:49:13 PM
I am opposed to paid permits for access to the regions wilderness.
Sandra Rosencrance
Sent from Sandy's iPad From: Sara Anselment To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments for Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:34:00 AM
Hello, Please add my comments to the record Re: permits for Three Sisters Wilderness/Mount Jefferson Wilderness.
I am OPPOSED to permit requirements. I understand and acknowledge that these areas are over-loved but limiting access to those that have the privilege of scheduling their weekends months in advance isn't fair to many. The wilderness areas are there to be enjoyed by all. Limiting access to all, so only those with certain privilege can enjoy it is not right.
I am opposed to both permits for days hikes and overnight camping. I understand that fees are needed to maintain these areas, but having grown up extremely poor, enjoying the wilderness was one of the few things we could do. I urge you to keep wilderness accessible for all, by keeping fees affordable and considering that many people do not have the luxury of knowing their schedules in advance.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sara Anselment Bend, OR From: Sarah Imholt To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness areas -- Please set up permit system! Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:05:46 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm concerned Oregon's Wilderness lands will get loved to pieces. Please set up a permitting system so future generations can enjoy them.
Sincerely, Sarah Imholt 2043 SW Kendra St Corvallis, OR 97333-2266 From: Sara Pattschull To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits to hike/backpack in Oregon wilderness areas Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:23:29 AM
Hello,
The preservation of our wilderness areas is a top priority, so I generally agree with the idea of requiring permits, and limiting the number of permits available.
My concern, however, stems from in issue which currently exists within the Oregon State Parks system in regards to camping. Since the implementation of online reservations, it has become very difficult for those of us without predictable schedules to find a place to camp on short notice. Sites are booked up weeks and months in advance. This is significant barrier between less privileged individuals and enjoying the outdoors.
If a limited number of permits are going to be available, I think it is important to reserve a percentage of these to only be available within 1 week of the permit date. This will allow families and individuals with less predictable schedules more access to our wilderness areas.
As it is now, outdoor recreation is largely enjoyed my middle and upper class white individuals, as they are most commonly the people who can afford it and and plan ahead. It is the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service not only to protect our national lands, but to make the areas accessible to all citizens, no matter their background.
Thank you, Sara Pattschull From: Sazie Brown To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: OR wilderness area permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:41:30 AM
I strongly disagree with the Forest Service proposal to limit use of 5 wilderness areas in Oregon by requiring permits and to charge fees for those permits. User fees such as these are regressive, costly to enforce, and substantially inconvenience visitors, who are forced to plan for reservation openings rather than their own schedule priorities. Furthermore, fee revenues are fungible, and like the existing trail fees in many areas, such revenues are not guaranteed to support maintenance or improvements to these wilderness areas specifically. There is a need to address overcrowding in these wilderness areas, but there are less intrusive and unfair avenues to pursue, such as expanding existing wilderness areas, adding new wilderness areas, and expanding trail systems within these areas. I am sure that the Forest Service, like the National Park system, is badly underfunded, but a regressive, deceptive, inconvenient fee system is not the answer. —Ken Brown From: Sean Nygaard To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: I oppose the plan to require permits for Mt. Jefferson and Three Sisters Wilderness hikes Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:55:42 PM
Greetings,
I strongly oppose new permit restrictions on hikers in the Mt. Jefferson and Three Sisters Wilderness areas. Hiking in these areas provides a sense of freedom and escape from the regimented urban life. Requiring permits would spoil this experience.
Further, many hikers relish their ability to exercise spontaneity with their hiking endeavors. Please don't rob us of this ability.
I would MUCH rather deal with crowds than more rules / regulations / restrictions. It's getting to the point that one can no longer head out into the woods without reading a pamphlet full of rules.
Regards,
Sean Nygaard 11850 SW 12th ST Beaverton, OR 97005
From: Mathieu Federspiel To: Peer, Beth -FS Cc: Gretchen Valido; David Stowe; Alison Hamway; CONNIE PETERSON Subject: comment on 50578 Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:53:30 AM
Beth Peer:
The following comments are for the Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017, Project #50578, the scoping Proposed Action. These comments are from the Sierra Club, representing 20,000 members in the State of Oregon, whose purpose is to preserve the beauty and natural resources of this vast and diverse area by minimizing human impact. Where we have chosen to reside and play, we seek to live in concert with our natural resources and beauty so our children will be able to also enjoy, benefit, and sustain themselves from the earth's resources.
The Sierra Club supports the overall goal of this project to maintain the wilderness character of the five wilderness areas Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake, and Diamond Peak. As users of these areas we are also aware of and concerned about the increasing recreational use of these areas and the impacts this has on nature. Ensuring that these areas are protected and sustained for the long term enjoyment of present and future generations is important and this process you have initiated is a good faith effort to achieve this goal. We support you moving forward through the NEPA process to address the concerns outlined in the scoping document.
We look forward to reviewing your next, more detailed documents and will be looking for answers to some specific questions:
How many permits will be issued, over what time period, and by what process? Will the current maximum group size (12) be changed? What specific trails will be impacted? What (if any) fee will be charged for the permits? What will that fee be used for? What will be the enforcement mechanism for permits? Will options such as one-way loop routes be used?
Thank you for considering our comments and keeping us informed as this process continues.
-- -- Mathieu Federspiel Vice Chair, Juniper Group of the Oregon Sierra Club Juniper Group: http://bit.ly/junipergroup From: Spencer Haley To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:20:58 PM
Hello,
As an enthusiastic patron of Oregon's outdoor marvels, I applaud efforts by wilderness staff and managers seeking to minimize usage impacts to the areas surrounding Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake, and Diamond Peak. By offering permits at an affordable price while maintaining quotas established with the intent of wilderness protection, I believe that positive benefits will be reaped in the appropriate regions and potentially yield increased usage and appreciation of other wilderness areas that could be considered underutilized. If possible, combining leave-no-trace outreach with permit procurement for those who unknowingly could do damage during novice adventures would be appreciated.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide commentary for the process, and may science, sound policy, and stewardship guide the plans to completion.
Best regards, Spencer Haley http://www.trail-dad.com
From: Tamre To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Yes. Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:25:30 AM
Requiring permits to access the wilderness areas is a great idea. This will ensure the environment and those areas are protected for years to come.
Tamre Huber Sunriver From: Teresa Acosta To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Trail Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:18:11 AM
Hello and Happy 4th of July!
I’m hopeful you could put more signage at popular trails first to see if that helps. Let people know—with bold signage--that if they mess up the area, leave litter and poop, that a paid Permit fee will be instituted… a good threat! This will have others even help with pickup to keep the status quo.(My friends and I often pick up trash when we see it to help keep our forests clean.) Try this first because I used to live in California and the Permit process is out of control. It’s so limiting that the forests are only for people who can afford to pay the permits and they limit the numbers so much that it’s next to impossible to get into places unless you buy permits months in advance.
Also, how about more trash cans and additional COMPOSTING toilets to minimize problems at the more used trails? (Some of the outhouses get so disgusting that I’m not surprised people use the trees instead of the portables and the trash cans overflow.)
Because the fees will eliminate this activity for many (they add up!), if you do decide to go ahead with permits, how about free permits? Because we’ve already paid for our parking pass, it could be included. The act of having to pick up a permit in itself shows a responsible person who’s less likely to mess trails up and that way, you don’t limit access to folks who can’t pay fees and you still have the permits in place.
Thank you! And please, please, please don’t become like California with all their fines, fees, permits… it’s enough to gag on!! They took all the fun out of the outdoors; it’s deflating living there, is why I moved. Keep Oregon fun, accessible and people/dog friendly! Teresa
Teresa Acosta PO Box 9306 Bend, OR 07708 From: Theresa Conley To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comment re: Permit System in Deschutes and Willamette National Forests Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 9:01:36 PM
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposals to limit access to national forests in the Oregon Cascades. I am an avid backpacker, climber, hiker, and trail runner; I am also a proponent of preserving our beautiful natural areas for generations to come.
I appreciate the proposals of the National Forest Service to limit access, as I have observed increased crowding at some of my (and everyone else's!) favorite spots - Green Lakes, Devil's Lake/South Sister, Blue Pool, and a few others. I encourage the Forest Service to focus on those areas for any permitting system, and to further think about permits only on weekend days (Fri-Sun) when the majority of the visits occur. By creating a permit system for those heavily impacted areas we can encourage people to 'spread out' while still providing ample opportunities for people to get outside.
Access to the outdoors, and our public lands, is important. It is important for individuals' health, personal fulfillment, adventure, and also to appreciate and learn the benefits of conservation efforts. With the proposal as I understand it, access would be extremely limited for residents and visitors in these areas and would discourage pursuit of outdoor adventure and the benefits that come with it.
To help find a middle ground, here are a few ideas: Focus on permits at the most heavily impacted areas - Green Lakes, Devils Lake, Tam McArthur Rim, Six Lakes and Broken Top Focus on weekend permits first Increase proactive education and enforcement activities Limit camping access at each location first, for example with clearly posted campsites at Green Lakes and Camp Lake Complete conservation work, for example to restore the sprawling trail across the 'golf course' up South Sister Engage specific user groups as part of a longer focus-group driven effort. Encourage no-selfie zones :)
Thank you for your consideration and efforts to gather public comments on this proposal.
Theresa Conley City of Bend resident From: Thomas Morawski To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Wilderness Restrictions and Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:30:10 AM
I strongly support the proposals to institute required wilderness permits for all the trailheads designated in the proposal.
I started hiking in Oregon in the mid-sixties, and I have observed the increasing crowds and the damages that can result.
Indeed, hiking in some of the areas mentioned in the proposal is like hiking in Forest Park in Portland...hardly a wilderness experience at all.
I have one suggestion, however, and I feel very strongly about this:
If the proposals are enacted, make it easy to conduct the transaction to get and pay for the permits. In other words, the number of permits should be restricted, but the means of getting the permits should be flexible. Please do NOT make it an "internet-only" system. Allow users to make the transaction by phone or in person at ranger stations or by mail. This is a matter of basic fairness.
Thank you.. From: Tom Leach To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Paid Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 6:22:05 PM
YES! I will gladly pay for a permit to be able to enjoy the wilderness areas without the huge throngs of people that destroy the wilderness experience. I live in Bend. I don't go into the Three Sisters Wilderness in the summer because of the overcrowding. We are loving this precious resource to death. Perhaps a paid permit system will save it for a few more years.
Tom Leach P.O. Box 38, Bend, OR 97709 From: Walter Lockett To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Fees and limitations... Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 6:54:17 PM
Hi. I moved to Oregon from Illinois in 1977 because I wanted to do backpacking and hiking. I have seen serious deterioration in backpacking and the wilderness over the years, mainly due to too many people using it and not worrying much about the "Leave No Trace" ethic. I totally support charging fees and limiting entry to help preserve these beautiful lands. I do hope that there will be some way to get "last minute" permits, esp. for day hiking. But please limit the overuse . Thanks. Walt Lockett, Salem, OR From: Wayne Harvey To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Sweeping plan would limit entry to Mount Jefferson, Three Sisters, other Oregon wilderness areas Date: Thursday, June 29, 2017 8:09:48 PM
Forest Service,
I'm writing in opposition to any proposed permit and fees to enter our wilderness areas in Oregon. I understand there is an increase in the use of these areas and having an environmental impact. The vast majority of hikers are responsible, environmentally concerned, ethical and practice Leave No Trace principles, we should not have to pay for the few that do not care. Ticket and fine the offenders, make the fee enough to cover the cost of enforcement. But blindly putting the fee on responsible hikers to access our public land is not the right thing to do.
Regards,
Wayne Harvey http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2017/06/28/mount-jefferson-three-sisters- diamond-peak-limited-entry-permit-forest-service/434357001/ From: Wyatt Baughn To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid Park Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:50:21 AM
To the Forest Service,
I am a resident of Sisters Oregon. I moved here because of the natural beauty of this place, and it hurts me to see people use our land and not treat it with respect.
I am in favor of paid permits to our parks in order to safeguard them for the future. However, I ask that you allow locals who live here full time to either have a special Locals Pass or allow us first opportunity to purchase passes before tourists and tourism businesses.
I am happy to pay to contribute to the maintenance and cleanup of our beautiful parks, but I don't want to fight with tourists for that opportunity - locals should have the privilege of first rights to this land, especially since they are much more likely to take care of it.
Thank you for your time and for all you do to keep Central Oregon beautiful.
Respectfully,
Wyatt Baughn Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your wilderness proposal. I am a firm believer that community engagement and collaboration are critical to how our national forests are managed. For land managers, this can mean the process is more challenging and takes a bit longer, but in the end the product is better and has greater buy-in from a wide range of stakeholders, helping ensure success when it comes time to implement.
I’m afraid you’ve not gotten off on the best foot with this effort. The feeling I and others I’ve heard from (have you checked out OregonHikers.org?) have is that you’ve already essentially decided what action you plan to take, and that you’re merely going through the process of soliciting feedback because it’s required by NEPA. I hope that’s not the case, and I’d like to give you all the benefit of the doubt.
The way this scoping period has rolled out, however, leads me to wonder if you’re really making a sincere effort to hear from your stakeholders in order to develop the best possible proposal. Why did the announcement about this proposal only appear on the Deschutes NF website as of June 29th? It wasn’t there at all previously. Why, as of July 1, was there no mention of this on DNF Facebook page? Also, the press release shared between the Willamette and Deschutes NFs (dated June 1 but posted to DNF webpage only on June 29) didn’t include any mention about the July 3 deadline for providing input. I had to click several times through from the press release to find the scoping letter that indicates there’s a deadline for receiving comments. If I weren’t somewhat familiar about the NEPA process, it’s pretty likely I never would have even found the scoping letter (and most people would say “what’s a scoping letter?”) that included the deadline. That is critical information that should have led the press release.
Meanwhile, the Willamette NF has had info on their website for at least a little longer, but the information isn’t good. The feature on the homepage has a headline that, unless you were looking for it, you wouldn’t realize it was about a new proposal you might want to review. The headline “Preserving wilderness character: Increasing visitor use and impact” looks like a boring presentation that most people wouldn’t bother to click on unless they were actively looking for information on the proposal. How about a headline like “Seeking public comment on proposal to address overcrowding in wilderness”? Something like that would be much more effective and transparent. Without really clear and up front language and information like that, it’s really easy to assume you don’t actually care about what people think and you don’t really want their input.
I’m also concerned about the late coverage this proposal got in the media. I’m not sure why the Statesman Journal ran the story as late as it did (I believe it was around June 29th). For Willamette NF folks, they should have noticed that their earlier press release hadn’t been picked up and made an effort to ensure it got the coverage it deserved. Anyone who pays attention would know that this is a story that paper would want to run, and so not seeing coverage about it should have been a sign that the press release got lost in the ether.
A brief spin online made it clear to me that project planners hadn’t directly reached out to some key stakeholders to let them know about the proposal and solicit their input, because it wasn’t until the Statesman Journal article ran that Mazamas put out word about the proposal and that the discussion popped up on OregonHikers. If you want to develop a strong proposal that your stakeholders will support and that will be enforceable and implementable (and not fulfilling the basic legal requirements of NEPA), you ought to be reaching out early and often to your key stakeholder groups to bring them into the process. If you don’t, you’ll end up with discussions like you’ll find on OregonHikers in which people are really dubious of your intention. If you want people to trust this process you’ll need to show them they have reason to trust that the people running it are transparent and inclusive.
Now to the proposal itself. I agree, as many people will, that there are areas in your shared wildernesses that are being loved to death. I also agree that the Wilderness Act provides some direction as to how wilderness is managed to preserve their character. I would also argue that wilderness means different things to different people and that all wilderness experiences are different, due to the nature of the landscape, proximity to population centers, and the types of opportunities they provide. The country has changed significantly since the drafting of the Wilderness Act, in population size, distribution, and other demographics. Therefore, I think it’s important to carefully and smartly manage wilderness now to preserve its character, while remaining flexible and adaptable in order to address the needs of contemporary society.
Your current proposal is simply too extreme. The Willamette and Deschutes NFs are simultaneously attempting to connect more people to their public lands via their youth engagement programs (kudos to that!) while proposing to strictly limit access to outdoor experiences. These approaches are in conflict with each other. I’d encourage you to seek solutions that deal with the resource concerns but don’t create such significant new barriers to people trying to get outside (in the form of needing to plan in advance, permit costs and technology requirements to access permits, knowledge of the permit system, limited number of permits available).
You should continue to allow opportunities for those willing to put in the effort to find solitude, which is still readily available (I’ve found it!). Go ahead and put use limits on those areas that are very popular and clearly being loved to death (Jeff Park, Green Lakes, etc.). Those limits could extend a little wider than those immediate areas to reduce spillover. But leave open the option for people to get in and enjoy the other parts of the wildernesses when they want to, without a need for advance planning and limited ability to even get lucky and get a permit.
For many people, it’s not possible to plan far out in advance. For others, it ruins one of the major benefits of living in Oregon – the ability to drop everything on a sunny weekend and get out there. By putting everything under permit, you’re effectively cutting off access. While you suggest you’ll allow some amount of walk-ins, it is fair to assume those will be in very short supply and most accessible to people who live near a Forest Service office. I’m not going to hop in my car from the Willamette Valley and drive to Sisters on a Friday morning in the hope that maybe I’ll get one of the few permits left, because if I get there and they’re all taken, then what do I do? It’s just not a realistic solution.
I’m also a little worried about the proposal to limit day hiking in certain areas. This could create problems for backpackers who need to travel certain corridors to reach their intended locations and so you need to have exemptions for “through” travelers as done in the Obsidian Area. Another issue is that it would prevent lots of people from being able to experience some beautiful areas as day users. The areas you propose to limit for day hiking are ones that are most accessible. In order for our public lands to stay viable and feel relevant to our future generations, we need to help people get out there. Often that means introducing them to wild places that are most within reach through day hiking. Placing limits on these places just reinforces barriers to access. Overnight users have much greater impacts per user than day users and therefore strict limits on overnight use is much more critical than limiting day use. It's a tough one, I know. It’s unlikely the populations of Bend and Portland are going to stop growing any time soon, and the more people know about these amazing places the more they spread the word and others want to come. Like you, I wish I knew the perfect solution that would solve the problem and impact as few people as possible. What I’m not convinced of yet is that you’ve tried many other options. I’d like to see more creative approaches to educating people on Leave No Trace, using social science to find the most effective ways to get people to change their behavior, getting hiking clubs and other stakeholders out on the trails and around camps to expand your field presence before you take what feels like drastic measures. How about requiring permits (free and unlimited) and that people must watch a compelling video on Leave No Trace before they can get their permit (national parks and others do this)? How about requiring the use of blue bags (see Mt. Adams and others)? Joining forces with partners and stakeholders, using technology and social science, there are some alternatives I hope you’d try out first. And your two forests would look really cool and innovative in the process.
Thanks for your consideration. I’m an avid fan of your wildernesses and want to see them as well managed as possible. I’ll look forward to seeing how the rest of this process rolls out.
Cheers,
Aaron Jenkins
Corvallis, OR
July 3, 2017
Deschutes National Forest Attn: Beth Peer 63096 Deschutes Market Rd Bend, OR 97701
Submitted via Email: [email protected] & [email protected]
RE: Deschutes and Willamette National Forest Wilderness Management-Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017
Access Fund appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 scoping phase, in consideration of visitor use management strategies for five wilderness areas in the central Cascades to reduce resource impacts caused by increased recreational use. The proposal to require permits for overnight and day use hikers in five wilderness areas, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake and Diamond Peak, is intended to manage impacts from visitor use. There are several important rock climbing and mountaineering opportunities in these Wilderness areas. Access Fund recognizes the importance of managing visitor impacts to protect Wilderness character and natural resources, however we do not support the implementation of day use fees and permits, which will greatly impact climbing access to some of these Wilderness areas. We would like to work with the Deschutes and Willamette National Forest to address day use impacts by recreational users including climbers.
Access Fund Access Fund is a national advocacy organization whose mission keeps climbing areas open and conserves the climbing environment. A 501(c)(3) non-profit and accredited land trust representing millions of climbers nationwide in all forms of climbing—rock climbing, ice climbing, mountaineering, and bouldering—the Access Fund is a US climbing advocacy organization with over 15,000 members and over 100 local affiliates. Access Fund holds a national level Memorandum of Understanding with the Forest Service1. Access Fund provides climbing management expertise, stewardship, project specific funding, and educational outreach. For more information about the Access Fund, visit www.accessfund.org.
1 See https://www.accessfund.org/uploads/Access-Fund-USFS-MOU-2014.pdf COMMENTS Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, and Three Sisters Wilderness areas hold iconic rock climbing and mountaineering opportunities. The proposal to require permits for overnight and day use hikers in five wilderness areas, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake and Diamond Peak, is intended to manage impacts from visitor use, however it will impose significant burden and restrictions on recreational access to these areas. We understand that the Forest Service has a great responsibility under the law to protect and manage Wilderness areas for the preservation of its characteristics. We also recognize the public pressure on the agency to get more people outside. We applaud your efforts to balance these responsibilities. It is difficult to strike a balance between the demand for Wilderness recreation and long-term resource protection. The current proposal to charge fees and implement a permit system will limit recreationist ability to access these Wilderness areas and create a financial and administrative burden, especially for low income, underserved communities. Access Fund recognizes the increase in visitor use in these areas since 2011, and respects the Forest Service’s effort to manage user impacts and preserve the Wilderness setting2. We recommend the Forest Service implement MA-1-30 First Level Action-Public Information and Site Restoration and Second Level Action-Use of regulation prior to imposing Third Level Action-Restrict Number of Users3.
Traditionally commercial use and overnight permits are implemented in areas of high use within the National Forest to manage visitor impacts to Wilderness areas. Requiring day use visitors to obtain and pay for permits will impose undue burden and potentially create social injustice for low income visitors. Under the Standards and Guidelines for Management Area 1, MA-1-02: ‘Wilderness shall be made available for maximum public recreation use and enjoyment, consistent with resource preservation and maintenance of the Wilderness environment..’4
We generally support the protection of Wilderness character and sensitive natural resources; however, we recommend a more balanced management approach that can accommodate sustainable recreation opportunities alongside resource protection be implemented. While we advocate for the climbing community specifically, we generally support most forms of responsible human-powered recreation, and this proposed regulation could significantly impact access to appropriate recreation in Willamette and Deschutes National Forests. The climbing community would like to work with Forest Service to establish sustainable access to climbing opportunities in these Wilderness areas, without the implementation of day use permits and fees.
2 http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/105465_FS PLT3_3992851.pdf 3 Ibid. 4 http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/105465_FS PLT3_3991425.pdf Recommendations Access Fund proposes implementing First and Second Level actions5 for day use and overnight areas and trails, instead of implementing fee and permit structures for day use visitors in the five Wilderness areas. We strongly support management practices which allow responsible recreation to co-exist sustainably with natural resource preservation, without imposing undue burden on the general public. We suggest the following First and Second Level actions be taken prior to implementing Third Level Action-Restrict Number of Users.
First Level Action- Public Information and Site Restoration: The following sequence of actions should be used in most cases: • De-emphasize attraction of excessively used areas and promote use of alternative areas. • Inform the public of optimum user practices through public service media messages, portal notices, and personal contact. Emphasize ‘no-trace camping’ (Leave No Trace ethics). • Adjust administrative and informational signing. • Revegetate damaged areas and post site restoration messages.
Second Level Action-Use of Regulations: • Limit or ban campfires. • Designate campsites. • Require minimum spacing between campsites. • Impose a minimum setback from water and trails for campsites. • Restrict types of use in a specific area or on trails leading to an affected area. • Limit length of stay. • Close revegetated campsites. • Install toilet facilities (or install wag bag dispensers and require human waste removal to correct major sanitation problems). • Restrict group size, (but allow reasonable implementation of facilitated access, especially for organizations that educate their user group to ‘leave no trace’ and provide access for poor, underserved communities).
By implementing the above First and Second Level actions, impacts to resources will be reduced and areas managed appropriately for their use level. In some cases overnight permits may be appropriate, however we request user capacity studies be conducted to estimate maximum capacity levels and overnight permit numbers suitable to preserve Wilderness character and resource protection. The requirement of day use permits is not an appropriate management action, the implementation of fees and permits for day use to manage impacts to an area puts an undue burden on the recreational user and in some cases may create a social injustice issue by placing financial burden on low income user groups. Facilitated access, especially for
5 http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/105465_FS PLT3_3991425.pdf organizations that educate leave no trace ethics among their user group and provide access for such underserved communities should not be encumbered. In addition, new fees require approval by a Resource Advisory Council or Region 6 Recreation Resource Advisory Committee. We encourage the Forest Service to partner with the Access Fund and other recreational access groups to collaborate on alternative management actions to protect the resource and allow recreational access to these Wilderness areas.
Access Fund Assistance The climbing community and the Access Fund are ready, willing, and able to help the Forest Service improve trails, facilities, signage and other management needs. Local climbing communities throughout Oregon have a long history of positive environmental stewardship and collaboration with government agencies at all levels of government, private land owners and other organizations to protect highly-valued climbing resources in Oregon. At a national and local level, Access Fund continues to advocate for greater funding of federal land agencies towards education, enforcement, and stewardship, which can reduce recreational user impacts on Wilderness characteristics. In addition, some aspects of this planning initiative as well as stewardship improvements, human waste management, and user education may qualify for the Access Fund Climbing Preservation Grant Program6 or assistance from our Conservation Team7 which helps maintain climbing areas throughout the United States.
* * *
6 http://www.accessfund.org/site/c.tmL5KhNWLrH/b.5000903/k.9722/Grants_program.htm. 7 http://www.accessfund.org/site/c.tmL5KhNWLrH/b.7653393/k.AEEB/Conservation_Team.htm. Thank you for your consideration of these comments on the proposal to require permits for overnight and day use hikers in five wilderness areas, Mt. Jefferson, Mt. Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake and Diamond Peak. The Access Fund has the experience, local contacts, and resources to help planners craft alternatives that encourage climbing while sustaining the health and integrity of the National Forest. The Access Fund looks forward to continuing to work with Willamette and Deschutes National Forest. Please keep us informed as the planning process proceeds. Feel free to contact me via telephone (425-218-8234) or email ([email protected]) to discuss this matter further.
Best Regards,
Joe Sambataro Northwest Regional Director Access Fund
Cc: Brady Robinson, Access Fund, Executive Director Erik Murdock, Access Fund, Policy Director
From: Adam Albright To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permits comments Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 7:06:13 PM
I am a resident of Bend and a long time avid hiker in the area and I am in full support of permits such as those issued on the Obsidian Trail. It’s not that I personally am looking forward to the additional effort and cost involved, but one of the main features of Wilderness areas is that they are WILD and when the sheer number of hikers overwhelms any sense that I am going someplace special and rare where I can find silence and the opportunity to experience the specialness then it is time to place restrictions. Adam Albright From: Andrea Casey To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Fwd: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 7:35:58 PM
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andrea Casey
Begin forwarded message:
From: [email protected] Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed Date: July 2, 2017 at 7:30:07 PM PDT To: [email protected]
This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:
Message-id: <5E966379-92BF-4EEC-8B4B- [email protected]> Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2017 19:29:56 -0700 From: Andrea Casey
Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:
Recipient address: [email protected] Reason: Illegal host/domain name found
Original-envelope-id: 0OSH005HBTLV6X40@pv35p12im- ztdg05031101.me.com Reporting-MTA: dns;pv35p12im-ztdg05031101.me.com (tcp- daemon) Arrival-date: Mon, 03 Jul 2017 02:29:57 +0000 (GMT)
Original-recipient: rfc822;comments-pacificnorthwest- [email protected] Final-recipient: rfc822;[email protected] Action: failed Status: 5.4.4 (Illegal host/domain name found)
From: Andrea Casey
I am an avid hiker and I have some thoughts to share with you in regard to the idea of requiring paid permits and limiting the number of visitors. I would be willing to pay a nominal fee to access the popular hiking areas so they can be maintained. It would be advisable to encourage the public to hike the less popular hiking areas by bringing them to their attention through the media (newspaper, online, etc). to spread out the impact on the trails. It is wonderful that so many people are taking advantage of the abundance of trails here so discouraging them would be very distasteful. Instead of concentrating on the negative, focusing on how to make the less frequented areas desirable should be the emphasis of this endeavor.
Thank you, Andrea From: Andrew McFarland To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: paid limited entry permit system - MT Jefferson Wilderness Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:51:29 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am a member of Oregon Equestrian Trails and Back Country Horsemen of Oregon, have these thoughts (without knowing the details of the proposal)
1) I hope any quotas will be blind; i.e. they will not, say, only allow Horse access in proportion to their per-capita numbers. As a minority user group (and a dwindling one) I would hope that we are not unfairly, intentionally or otherwise, biased against.
2) Considering other bills that are in the wind along these lines, I hope this proposition does not expand the types of allowable uses of wilderness (mountain bikes)
3) Finally, I wholeheartedly support usage fees, especially if they will feed back into preserving and maintaining our wilderness areas. I only ask that there be an option for a SEASON - BASED PASS, so that spontanaety is not curtailed.
Thank you for your time. Sincerely, ~Andrew McFarland From: Andrew McReynolds To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: I am against the proposal as currently written... Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:11:32 PM
I am against the proposal as currently written because of the unfair and unnecessary impact it would have on hunting activities in the wilderness.
Every year, the Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife sells deer tags for the affected area to 3,300 hunters. Many other hunters also hunt the same area through over-the-counter seasons. Those of us who hunt in the wilderness do not visit the crowded spots that are being damaged by backpackers. We use the same trailheads, but then go off-trail to locations that see very little human traffic.
The damage addressed in the proposal is a serious problem, but is limited to lakes and meadows accessed by popular trails. Instead of limiting trailhead use, focus more specifically on the problem. Limit or ban camping around the lakes and in individual basins. Don’t restrict the day hikers or people passing through to access remote locations.
I’ve spent many Septembers camped on some lonely ridge with my binoculars and rifle. Please don’t take that away from me because some lake miles away is too crowded.
Thank you,
Andy McReynolds From: anne Wolff To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permit system for 3 sisters wilderness Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:16:18 PM
Yes, by all means for out of state visitors. Absolutely not for locals. It's why we moved here. We have horses, contributing significantly to local economy. Payback for that investment is access to trails. From: Arnolds To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 8:21:24 AM
I think the permits should be applied to weekends only - the heaviest traffic usage. From: Arran Robertson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 9:40:51 AM
I support efforts of the Forest Service to protect Wilderness and wilderness characteristics in Oregon from crowding, including issuing purchasable permits. $5-$10 seems reasonable to help protect areas that are not only important for recreation, but wildlife habitat.
Arran Robertson Portland, OR From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Don"t charge for paths!! Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 11:36:21 PM
Nature is here for us to enjoy and some people (like me) use it as therapy. Please don't make what is open to all become something simply for profit. This is not for the government. This is for all humanity. It's like charging for air, it is our Earth, not only the government's. Some people won't be able to afford going to these places if you charge, and that could emotionally affect people who need nature as therapy. Please don't take away the freedom of enjoying a nature we were all given to enjoy.
Sent from my Huawei Mobile
Oregon Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
NEPA Scoping letter regarding Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017.
The members of the Oregon Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers hold no higher aim than maintaining the integrity and accessibility of Oregon’s public lands. We agree that due to “increasing recreational demands” the wilderness areas outlined in the Proposal for Action need further protections so as to prevent the degradation of our wilderness and ensure only positive impact the wilderness experience.
In this crucial scoping process we wish to ensure that consideration of the impacts to sportsman, anglers and most specifically hunters during their respective affected seasons.
Impacts:
• Without further stipulations, the permitting process could preclude winners of controlled hunt tags from accessing parts of their Game Management Units. • Preclusion of hunters from some GMU’s could further affect ODFW game management goals.
Please detail how the proposal in its current form would impact demand for Oregon Controlled Hunt Permits and Oregon Premium Hunt Lotteries. Please detail how the proposal in its current form would impact Oregon general season tag applications and please detail how the demand for the aforementioned hunting permits might influence greater game management goals in the concerned areas.
Significance:
Our organization values multiple use solutions and as such we see it as vital that sportsmen have a hand in writing the policies that will affect them. Our goals are not mutually exclusive to those of other user-groups. We wish to ensure continued and undiminished access to the wilderness areas named. Failure to make the above considerations may have the unintended effect of reducing funding to wildlife programs and conservation organizations like ours which, in turn, could have adverse affects on Oregon wildlife, public and private land conservation statewide.
Alternatives:
We propose a continuation of the proposal in its current form with mitigations to both overnight and day-use for holders of controlled and general season hunting tags, hunting licenses and fishing licenses where quotas are instituted. We look forward to your response and to any opportunity to further discuss the details of this project.
Sincerely,
Tristan Henry Board of Directors, Oregon Chapter, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers From: Barry O"Mahony To: Peer, Beth -FS; FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comment on Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 Project Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 12:36:21 PM
TO: Beth Peer Deschutes National Forest All Units 63095 Deschutes Market Rd Bend, OR 97701 [email protected] [email protected]
FROM: Barry O’Mahony until August 2017: 47775 NW Pongratz Rd Banks, OR 97106 after August 2017: 63357 Deschutes Market Rd Bend, OR 97701 [email protected]
Ms. Beer:
I offer the following comments with the regard to the Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 project, and its study of strategies for managing recreational use of five Central Oregon wilderness areas:
A. I acknowledge the mandated goals and characteristics of designated Wilderness areas, and the potential need to increase the management of recreation use of these areas accordingly.
B. Any such additional management techniques or restrictions should be the minimum amount necessary in order to meet the requirements for Wilderness.
C. Whatever restrictions that are adopted should ensure that access is available to all on an equal basis, with no preference given to one group over another.
With regards to item B., a “one size fits all” approach should be avoided. For example, restrictions such as quotas, which may be needed at some trailheads on some days, should not be blindly applied to all trailheads on all days. In many cases, trailheads that are subject to crowding on weekend days are relatively unused mid-week. Requiring advance registration for such mid-week use unnecessarily removes flexibility and potential spontaneity in hiking in the these, and complicates changing of plans in response to inclement weather. With regards to item C., the charging of fees for permits, especially per-person fees, run the risk of unfairly denying access to the wilderness to those with modest incomes, and permitting only relatively affluent families to enjoy the Wilderness experience. A fee of $12 person for a family of 4, plus the day-use trailhead parking fee, is a significant expense for many families. It may also be a burden for those on fixed incomes. Public lands ultimately depend on public support, and the support for Wilderness areas may decrease if the perception develops that they are available only to a favored elite.
Ideally, the cost of permit should be free; if that is not possible, it should be low enough to not be a financial disincentive to anyone. Along these lines, permit holders should be exempt from the need for a day-use parking pass or Northwest Forest Pass (similar to the permit system used on Mount Saint Helens).
Of course there is a danger with free or near-free advance purchase permits; namely, that people will speculatively obtain permits for a future date “just in case”, for multiple days, and then end up not using them, thus depriving other users from entering into the area. This is just one negative characteristic of advance-purchase permits, though. Others include lack of flexibility and spontaneity in just “going for a hike”, and providing an incentive to users to venture into the Wilderness during dangerous weather conditions, because the permit was obtained months ahead of time and no other dates are now available.
Accordingly, I urge the Forest Service to do a bit of “outside the box” thinking, and see if a system of same-day, first-come-first-serve permits could be adopted instead. This has numerous advantages:
· The number of permits available each day would simply be set to the capacity that the trailhead can comfortably handle each day. On some days some of them may go unused, but on busy days they would meet the goal of limiting access to a non-damaging number.
· It helps preserves the perception of access to all, flexibility, and spontaneity. Users simply need to get to the trailhead early enough. “The early bird gets the worm” is viewed by most people as a fair way to do things.
· There’d be no incentive to venture out in dangerous weather. Users would just go out another day. If they then found the permits for that day all gone; they would learn that they only arrive earlier on a subsequent day in order to enjoy the Wilderness.
This could be implemented in several different ways. Date-coded permits could be available at the trailhead. In locations with available power, some type of kiosk, similar to those at Oregon State Parks could be used. Perhaps some type of smartphone app? It seems there may be a few ways of making this implementable.
From: Becky Shaw To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Permits Deschutes National Forest Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 8:44:34 AM
To whom it may concern,
No! Just no! As a rare fifth generation citizen of Central Oregon I beg you to NOT make us locals go through the hassle of having to pre-plan our ventures onto our public lands that we have been enjoying for decades, without hassle, impromptu and mostly FOR FREE!!
With the many visitors we receive in Central Oregon there is certainly a large user base not respecting our little slice of heaven but we should not all PAY for this! As a local, I enjoy being able to wake up and see it’s going to be a gorgeous day and head up to Tam Rim or South Sister or wherever without worrying about if there are any permits left! I just get up, get dressed, grab proper gear and head out the door. Making us have to sign up in advance will take this right away from everyone, even our visitors.
And let’s think about the permit costs / extra tax you are proposing?!!! First of all, we already pay property taxes, state and federal income taxes, DMV taxes on our vehicle to get to the trail head, gas tax, and a Northwest Forest Parking Pass / TAX (to park on our public lands we’ve already paid for!) and now you want to charge us to walk on our public lands? This is getting completely ridiculous and you as a Government entity are overstepping your bounds! As a kicker, there’s never been a new fee or tax that goes down in cost or even stays the same. You will inevitably find a reason to raise the fee to pay for the LEO that will have to be out patrolling people walking on public land!!! This is completely insane.
The cost of patrolling the wilderness to ticket any of those naughty people who didn’t plan in advance to get their permit and decided to risk it to walk on their public land, anyway will drive up those fees. How terrible is it that while you’re out with or without this high dollar permit that you have to encounter law enforcement in the woods when you’re not actually doing anything wrong?!! How about instead; you station volunteers or low paid FS seasonal employees at trail heads on high use days to educate people about the obvious; not leaving poop on the trail, picking up after yourself, venturing out prepared for the conditions, routes to take, etc? Big signs could also state the obvious at the trail heads.
As a fifth generation of Central Oregon I am beginning to be ashamed to admit I live here and am exploring options of other places to live where I can still be free to visit the woods when I want, for free without worrying about being bothered by a person with a badge.
Please, please, please do not implement this paid limited use permit in the Deschutes National Forest!! This is not Disneyland. This is the woods, the forest, the great outdoors of public land you and I, together own!! The Forest Service should not be in the business of making money or ticketing people for occupying space.
Sincerely, Becky Shaw 63615 N Brahma Ct Bend, Or 97701
Becky Shaw Homeland Design, llc Landscape Designer www.homelandddesignllc.com
From: Ben Hocker To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permit System for Three Sisters Wilderness Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 7:57:17 PM
I am writing to address my concerns about the restrictive use of permits in the Three Sisters Wilderness area.
Yes I agree there is heavy use, but they are ways to limit some of this use and the impact of human waste in this wilderness area.
First: the Bend department of tourism needs to quit printing and encouraging tourism for people to day hike the Green Lakes trailhead. Too many people are being encouraged to use this easy access trailhead from tourism magazines. There are so many other trails in the heart of Bend that tourists need to be encouraged to use instead.
Second: The human waste issue at Green Lakes and other high use areas needs to take another approach. In the Enchantment Lakes Basin of Washington (also a designated Wilderness area), wooden pit toilets dug in the soil in high traffic areas keeps people from leaving waste/toilet paper all over the wilderness area. I never see TP or human feces in this wilderness area especially by steams and the lakes. Too many people in the Green Lakes area refuse to properly disposed there human waste.
I know that permits will probably be issued but we need to rethink how many for these areas too. Most of these hikes take only 2-4 hours so only issuing 40 dayhiking permits do not make sense.
Thanks you,
Ben Hocker Special Education Teacher Madras, Oregon From: Betsy Belshaw To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Proposed Permit Sysstem Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 9:07:52 AM
Hi:Thanks for giving me the opportunity to comment on the proposed system. Below is what I tried to send in:
Well, it's about time you did something! We hikers have been telling you for several years that Jeff Park was being destroyed by thoughtless users.
I don't look forward to having to obtain a permit and pay a fee every time I want to hike the areas that you are proposing to cover after hiking them free for years, but my friends and I will do anything to stop the destruction of the areas we love.
It used to be that wilderness users had respect for the land and its beauty. No longer. Many of the people we see as we hike are not only ill equipped for their trips, but are clueless as to how to behave in the woods.
Please do something!
And next: when are you going to get the guts to deal with the dogs which are off the leash (ok, according to the forest service) and not trained. They are also destroying the terrain and affecting the wild life. From: William Newman To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: "William Newman" Subject: hiking permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 7:12:14 PM
I can understand the need to limit the number of users in environmentally and ecologically sensitive wilderness areas.
However, I can not support a system that would charge day hikers $6-12 per hike (!!!) This is a number that is punitive. Furthermore, we already pay NW Forest Pass fees. All to access public lands. And hunters are only charged once per season?
This is egregious. I will not support such a system.
Bill Newman
From: Bill Sager To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 12:02:03 PM
I wish to be recorded as an ADAMANT NO to any required permits and/or fees to walk in the wilderness, which I have enjoyed for the last 50 years.
I am now a day hiker, and do not plan my hikes in advance. I watch the weather and the crowds before deciding to hike. An advanced permit system will limit my freedom to access trails.
In addition, a permit system will not prevent “jerks” from using and abusing the wilderness. So please stop trying to control people thru government edicts.
Bill Sager 61555 Gosney Rd. Bend, Oregon 97702 From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed wilderness changes Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 11:44:03 PM
I completely disagree with the proposed changes. I understand that crowds present a problem to the integrity of the environment, but also what difference does a permit limited crowd make to the damage beyond creating another barrier to new people to enjoy our most scenic places? This would increase distrust in political events for years to come.
I am a very active Chemeketan climber from Salem, Oregon, and have taught many about the proper stewardship of the land and our climbing areas. THAT is the only intervention that will protect our wild areas from being trashed. A permit system only makes it so that ONLY those "in the know," and those that are entirely available to get the first come--first served permits are able to access these areas. It's bullshit for the working people; the general public pays a price and cares less and less about our public natural areas as a result of being disbarred from OUR lands. Check out the current Chris Christy situation with a closed beach, for a reality check. You will be restricting access to our nations treasures because of a few idiots that should have been taught better. That's the bottom line.
Billy Bob Davis From: Ranotta McNair To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Fwd: Comments on Wilderness Proposal not in support of fees or permits for Green lakes Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 12:08:49 PM
------Forwarded message ------From: Ranotta McNair
Over the years I have spend many days enjoying our nations wilderness areas. I have hiked, camped and played in these areas from the east coast to the western shores. My experience has been that there is no consistency in how they are managed (with regards to numbers or individual allowed uses written into their founding legislation). So what is the appropriate number of visitors one should expect to encounter on ones wilderness visit?.
What I have learned is it is truly more a question of parking lot size and how far a drive is the area from a popular population destination. In the case of Bend, many of the more popular and used places are within 1 hour of the city.
Instead of placing strict visitor limits and costs on wilderness, I believe that embracing stronger education, monitoring and enforcement will build future public lands constituents, Yes, there are issues, but there are also unlimited opportunities for public contacts and education.
If you put in place a cost for obtaining an entry permit, I feel as if you are asking to double charge, as this is already an area requiring folks to purchase a Discover Pass.
Areas such as Green Lakes are more likely to draw public's who are in the area and want to do an easy day hike with family and friends. Most of these individuals generally don't understand how or why they should be obtaining a permit for a day hike. They hardly know the area is even managed by the US Forest Service. I therefore think the only thing more likely to happen in requiring folks to have a permit will be to "piss folks off" and have them leave with the thought that public lands are a land of no. I do not support requiring permits in a place like Green Lakes. If you want to start with looking at permits I would support zoning the Wilderness Areas where future growth could start to be managed now from other trailhead areas leading into the wilderness. But looking at the Green Lakes area and expecting new results just through permitting appears to be a reach. The new larger parking area alone suggests other wise. I encourage STRONGER enforcement and more volunteers stewards.
Recently I spent a couple of weeks hiking in the Rockies where the press of people and the popularity of recreation abounds on public lands, I was impressed with their thoughtful and educational approach to Wilderness management. They have several areas that easily match or exceed Green Lake in visitor numbers. I feel that there are some additional lessons we could adopt from those busy folks here in Bend. I was also very impressed with the number of volunteer trail stewards we encountered. Thank you for reading our comments,
Bob & Ranotta Walker/McNair From: Brent and Dar A To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Please leave Central Oregon trails alone Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 7:48:44 PM
We don't need extra fees or paid permits and limits to walk trails in the national forest in Oregon. Please do not do this. We are already taxed for the forest. Brent From: Brian Gettmann To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Don"t restrict the numbers Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:39:15 PM
I live in Bend, OR and use the trails often. I love it when they are less busy, and selfishly I want to have the trail to myself. But part of the joy of the trails is just getting up and going. If we restrict the most popular trails, the other trails will just get busier as well. Charge permit fees, let that inhibit people, but don't restrict the number of people allowed on the trail. If people don't like how busy they are.... they don't have to go and other people can enjoy it. Or they can go to the less known trails.
Cheers, Brian Gettmann From: Ski To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Stategies 2017 (comment for the official comment record) Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 5:06:25 PM
Beth Peer Deschutes National Forest All Units 63095 Deschutes Market Rd , Bend, OR, 97701 Dear Ms. Peer:
I neglected to mention in my previous letter any comment about the fee being proposed for DAY USE. The KGW news article cites a $12.00 per day fee for day use. I understand that there are such things as inflation, but that number seems to be a bit high. As in confiscatory high. As in ridiculously high. I don’t think you’re going to get a lot of support for any kind of proposal at all if the DAY USE fees are that much. You sure that wasn’t a typo?
Just my two cents, as always.
Brian Kirk PO BOX 7637 Tacoma, Wa. 98417-0637 [email protected] on nwhikers.net = Ski
From: B Robinson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: public comment state forest access permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 10:47:22 PM
Concerning access permits for public land: something does have to be done. We don’t have enough protected wilderness for the current demand. Over the past 10-20 years our public lands have gotten trampled, vandalized, and desecrated; something does have to be done. Thanks From: C Anderson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Forest permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 3:26:34 PM
My input would be to not charge for trails. Nature is for people to explore and they should not have to be charged for doing so in my opinion. There is plenty of nature out there for people to see even if a few places are a little dirty and there's not enough parking.
Thanks for opening your decision to public feedback! Really appreciate you listening to the people's voice! From: Carl Anderson To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 5:00:06 PM
Beth,
I am writing with my comments regarding the proposed Central Cascades Wilderness strategies. I've looked at the documentation as well as researched other National Forests in WA and CA to see how this approach compares.
Here are my comments:
1. It is unfortunate to see the public misuse and trash the wilderness to the degree they are doing. I am disappointed in our citizenry.
2. While this is a big problem, I don't believe a blanket limited entry permit system for entire wilderness areas is appropriate. We already pay NW Forest Pass, this would add $6 - $12 a day and require us to purchase a pass ahead of time. What if snow levels, wildfires, road closures, timber harvests, etc. change our plans? Do we then have to buy another permit for a different trailhead?
3. I am not entirely opposed to limited entry for overnight backpacking in the highest use areas, particularly in July and August. Looking at the reports, this is when the use is highest. I believe limited entry for day use is not needed. Look at the Sierras or Enchantments for examples where overnight use is limited entry but day use is not. South Sister is not going to suddenly change into a wilderness-type experience just by limiting the number of people to x amount per day. It would instead be like Mt. St. Helens where people are buying permits as soon as they are available, and still be max capacity for whatever the permit quota is.
4. I really loathe that we have to pay extra fees for making reservations through recreation.gov... it used to be free to go get a permit for Pamelia Lake at the Detroit Ranger Station.
5. How will the quotas be enforced, will a ranger patrol every single trailhead every day??? That would be great if it were to happen but somehow I doubt there is enough staff to adequately enforce this. I think people may also start parking at pullouts before the formal trailhead and bushwack their way up to the trails.
These are my comments and thoughts, I appreciate you taking the time to read them.
Regards, Carl Anderson From: Carl To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Hiking permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:53:01 PM
I just want to voice my opinion on about making it a permit only to hike some of the wilderness areas. I disagree with this idea. Assuming it would you would have to bid on them in September or when ever. First come first serve bla bla bla. So what happens to those that want to take a hike at the moments notice but there are no permits to issue? Besides isn't that part of my tax money I pay? Isn't wilderness considers public lands? I disagree with the idea of permits unless they can be issued to a unlimited use of people. Maybe for a idea the forest service should have people or employees educating people about how to not be destructive and to respect the land. What makes me think in anyway that if I have to have a permit to hike that you will have enough man power to enforce me carrying a permit? Also what a great deterrent to keep people who want to explore or learn and see the beauty that Oregon has to offer, by making it a permit only situation.
Sent from my iPhone From: Carly Sullivan To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Suggestions on proposal Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 5:48:31 PM
Hello!
I do appreciate the management of the forest, and know it's certainly a tough gig.
I wanted to share, as a home-grown oregonian who deeply shares a love for this state, I would recommend putting a different tax/visit structure to those who have a state ID vs those who do not. AKA...if you live in Oregon, you should get first dibs at your state that you pay taxes towards, etc. OR, only make those visiting apply for the ticket.
Please do reach out anytime if you would like any more perspective or ideas. I worked for the forest service for 5 years, and do wish you the best of luck in this tough decision.
Sincerely, Carly
Carly Sullivan Regional Director of International Programs Global Leadership Adventures. Certified B Corp
(p) - (F) - [email protected]
Share a better way to travel. Earn rewards for recommending GLA.
Our mission is to inspire the next generation to realize their potential to transform the world and their role in it. From: CAROL MILLER To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: "proposed" permits for hikers and backpackers Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 4:56:10 PM
I will be submitting the following editorial to my local newspaper.
“We really had no choice,” Beth Peer, special projects coordinator for Deshutes National Forest, is quoted as saying regarding closing five major Oregon wildernesses to hiking and backpacking except by permit. Had? So, this is a done deal? It also did not escape my notice that the article came out in the newspaper on a Friday evening of a holiday weekend, and the window for public input closed a scant three days later, Monday, July 3, 2017. This stinks of elites mandating who can access vast tracts of public land. Who will be eliminated from these breathtakingly beautiful areas? Military personnel and others who do not have predictable jobs – so they cannot apply for permits in advance and people who operate by spur of the moment decisions. Poor people, youth groups, and large families will not be able to afford $6.00 - $12.00 per permit. Is this per person? Is this per day? If so, this could make a wilderness trip prohibitively expensive. How will this affect hunters? It can take years of preference points to get a coveted tag, will they be prevented from using their tags? The Forest Service has already tried “fees for use” in the form of trailhead parking permits. It was sold to us as a way to pay for trail maintenance. What a rip-off this has been. Trail budgets clearing budgets have been slashed since that program started. Fewer and fewer trails are being kept open by the Forest Service which concentrates use. Another reason use is being concentrated and overuse is occurring in some areas is because Forest Service policies are allowing massive fires to devastate large swaths of previously beautiful wilderness hiking areas. Hikers naturally look for unburned trails. Furthermore, burned trails are much more difficult to keep open as the dead trees fall across trails, so the Forest Service has given up on clearing many of their trails. Increasing road closures is also contributing to the problem. Another disturbing result of the permit system will be that the Forest Service does not have the manpower to enforce these rules, so “permits only” invites lawlessness, and makes criminals out the folks who can’t navigate the bureaucratic red tape, or who drive hours to a trailhead only to discover there are no more permits. I have no doubt that permits have worked well in reducing use on Obsidian and Pamelia trails, personally, I quit hiking those areas after permits became required. I can understand making very high use areas like Moraine Lake and the South Sister a permit area, but why close access to adjacent low use areas like the Washington Wilderness and Diamond Peak? The Washington Wilderness is heavily burned, there are few lakes and little water, in short, the Washington Wilderness appeals to few people except the Pacific Crest Trail thru-hikers and hardy climbers. Which brings up questions, how will permits only impact thru-hikers? Will permits be required year-round or summer only? How many permits will be issued? Will numbers be left at current levels or drastically reduced? The rules that the Congress and the Forest Service have created for wildernesses are a large part of the problem. Trails are difficult and expensive to clear because they have banned chainsaws. Human feces piles up in high use areas because they removed common sense things like outhouses in places like Jefferson Park. At the very least the Forest Service should increase education efforts to encourage hikers and backpackers to bring a scoop to bury their poop. The Forest Service should quit trying to tear up frequently used campsites and their fire rings; people are going to use those sites anyway and a fire ring is not an obtrusive permanent structure. Encouraging camping in one area reduces how many places are being trampled. (I assume that is the purpose for the restrictions at some lakes where camping must be within a few feet of a post.) There are always a few slobs who destroy things and leave messes for others to deal with, but there are better options for dealing with these issues than making it difficult for the majority of citizens to enjoy the wilderness areas by requiring expensive and scarce permits. Carol Lovegren Miller 2043 Old Town Loop Rd Oakland, OR 97462
Carol Lovegren Miller has been hiking, riding, backpacking, climbing and clearing trails in Oregon’s wilderness areas (in a responsible manner) for 55 years.
From: Celeste Brody To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limiting access to popular wilderness trails in CO Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 5:29:58 PM
Hello,
I have been hiking the affected trails in Mt. Jefferson, Mt Washington and Three Sisters wildernesses for over 30 years. I understand the issue of human impact: difficulty parking, difficulty getting quiet time, and certainly difficulty camping out.
But I caution the FS about imposing a fee for permit process. The people that I encounter on these trails--however busy the trails are--are grateful to be there. On summer weekends I encounter novices who welcome a quick chat with someone like me (who is both friendly and knowledgeable). I consider it part of what it means to be an "old timer" and a local.
If the FS wants to experiment with easy access on-line permits for our most popular trails, I would support that. But please: EASY access, not the necessity of dropping by a Ranger office to pick one up (as in days gone by, for sure!) This will help define the motivated and allow for some screening in the process.
I am also a river rafter of many years and I have seen how fees, quite hefty fees for many families, has definitely reduced traffic on the Lower Deschutes River corridor. And, I have supported those fees because the improvements are clearly visible--well placed, bio- degradable toilets at the campsites. But they have definitely had an exclusionary effect.
Trails are a bit different. I am not happy about limiting access to the one resource--our wilderness trails and areas--that people more often connect to a positive "government" experience--with the Forest Service. Change is difficult for most of us, especially if it limits our access to something we value and costs more money. I say, just set up a few experimental trails where an online, easy access process for obtaining a permit can demonstrate the impact.
Another point: If people have different entry times of the day, it could allow for more people. spread across a typical summer day. I am a person who wants to be on the trail by 7 a.m. But there are others who prefer (or can only get on) at 1 p.m. Staggered permit times may help with the pressure on the trails.
Thanks for allowing me to provide you with some "advice. I can be reached at home and phone below. Celeste M. Brody -- Celeste Brody, Ph.D. 886 NW Stonepine Drive Bend, Oregon 97703
(c) From: Chad Slavin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permit Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 8:31:37 AM
Chad Slavin again, was thinking of suggesting not only permits free, hefty fines to law breakers, like$5000 or $10,000, plus a set amount of hours picking up trash in the community. Would really make people think twice about breaking the law. Then enforce it
Sent from my iPad From: Chad Slavin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 8:18:08 AM
Hi, my name is Chad Slavin, Bend Oregon resident. While I fully agree on the limiting of access to these areas, why have the permits cost money? It's free now, and should continue to be free to get the permit. They should just be fining the folks that come to those areas without their permits. Makes more sense, I mean, if we haven't charged for it in the past, where will the money go to? You can make the same money, or even more, by just putting a hefty fine on entering without a permit. Make it painfully high
Sent from my iPad From: Charlotte R To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: New permit process Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:39:11 PM
I support the proposed permit process for high use areas. But, I am concerned about inadequate funding for both enforcement and upfront outreach/education. Perhaps recruiting volunteers or interns to educate people at trailheads and at large outdoor retailers (REI) could ease the burden on Forest Service staff.
Charlotte Ross Corvallis, Oregon From: Cheryl Schadt To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permitting Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 11:27:12 AM
I do a lot of hiking in these places and have been concerned about numbers in some areas the last few years, especially the S Sister trails, Green Lakes, & Canyon Cr Meadows in particular. I certainly don't mind getting permits, have done so for Obsidian & Pamelia many times. Not hard if you can plan far enough ahead. I was surprised at the number of trails you are considering & wonder if you are overdoing. Perhaps some of the trails with lower numbers could start out with permitting on weekends only to see how it works. Otherwise I applaud your efforts & will abide by whatever you decide. Thanks for all that you do-The outdoors brings me peace & joy, and I want future generations to enjoy it as I do. --a 70 yr old hiking grandmother!
Sent from my iPhone From: Cheryl Stomps To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Pre Purchased Permits in Deschutes and Willamette National Forrests Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:02:51 PM
Please do not introduce a permitting system for day use hikes in Deschutes and Willamette National Forrests.
If the trails are too crowded, the solution should be to add new trails, not limit public use.
If the trailheads are too crowded, they should be expanded and new trailheads constructed.
If the trails are too messy, perhaps a couple of students could be hired during the busiest months to clean up the trails and public awareness of the litter situation could be increased.
Considering the current climate in Washington DC, please do not add ammunition to arguments which favor of the return of federal lands to local control. Too many regulations may cause our worst fears to be realized. Let’s keep our federal lands easily accessible to those who own them…..we, the people.
Thanks for the opportunity to have some input.
Cheryl Stomps
Bend, OR
--
Cheryl Stomps 410 NW Columbia Street Bend, OR 97703
Home Phone: Cheryl's Cell Phone: Doug's Cell Phone: other email addresses: [email protected] [email protected] From: Chloe Hughes To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 11:18:39 AM
I am against paid permits. It promotes a division of classes between rich and poor, and those with Internet and those without, and discrimination against some seniors due to the above. Since there are not enough FS personnel to deal with the crowds and monitor the Wilderness areas I feel a large stewardship program is warranted. I am a former FS heritage employee and currently provide stewardship to heritage sites in the Deschutes and Ochoco NF. Have people give back and earn their hiking privileges. Chloe Hughes Chloe @ Bendbroadband.com Sent from my iPhone From: Chris Markes To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wonderful Idea! Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 12:41:51 AM
Hello,
Just wanted to say that I believe permits should cost atleast $100 per person per day.
Why? There simply is no-longer a "wilderness" experience left anymore.
I actually can see and hear less people at clean water services owned areas like FernHill and Jackson Bottom in Hillsboro, rather than driving 3 hours and hiking 15+ miles into any of the so called "wilderness" areas in the cascades. I can even night hike and even so, it's a trip to a crowded mall during the holiday season.
The real issue, that nobody wants to talk about: Where should the money come from? I for one believe that the state should have woke up a long time ago and taxed people moving here. Taxes could have been collected easily when people traded in their plates and/or DL's, and could have easily been enforced by existing measures in place. Extremely simple and cost effective way to raise money.
So, if you're just going to make the permits $12, that's a complete joke, and will do exactly zero to bring the funds needed to build new trails, and you're just going to have people ignore the fee's all together if there are not enforceable consequences. Fines should be no less than $10,000 and crowds need to be limited to 4 people or less, and peoples credit reports should be at stake for pretending "the rules don't apply to me, I'm a millennial and I'm special."
Sounds harsh, but that's what you're actually up against. I believe the forest service doesn't understand that the current crop of new hikers isn't the same as generations prior that actually had some respect for eachother and the land. So you have a cultural crisis, not just a financial one.
Chris Markes <--- if you think I'm grumpy now, just think I'm only 39, and let me know when you're hiring as I'll gladly hand out fines with a smile ;-) From: Chris Paterson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments from a local Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 7:32:24 AM
I and many other moved to Bend due to its great access to the mountains and the cascades. What makes it stand apart from other towns is the ability to get up on a whim and explore our local mountains. If that is limited to much of a degree, there is little reason to stay in Bend and much less that will make it special. I would prefer more promotion of other great landscapes out here. Some that come to mind are Newberry, Pine Mountain, the Badlands, The Caves, The Cove Palisades, and many other locations that I don't see the City of Bend promoting as much as many of the trails you are considering limiting. Do everything you can to try and ease pressure off of those trails being over used before you decide to just say we can't go there as we please. It is not cheap to live in Bend. If you take this away, it just IS NOT WORTH IT AMYMORE.
Sent from my iPhone From: Christine Shanaberger To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed trail permits/limitations Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 4:56:10 PM
Good afternoon,
As a fairly new resident of Oregon (we moved here from Pennsylvania in 2014, and I grew up in West Virginia), I've been amazed by both the sheer number of people I see in the wilderness, as well as the total lack of etiquette displayed on trails and campsites--particularly those that are most readily accessible from Portland and Salem.
I hope to continue to be able to enjoy Oregon's scenic wilderness, and thus think that plans for some restrictions are warranted. My only request would be that whatever method is chosen also incorporate some element of educational component, because I think this is at the heart of the problem. I see a lot of folks who look like first-time hikers/campers, and many are probably just ignorant about the impact of so many visitors on a place that seems so remote.
Perhaps registrants could be asked to create a profile to sign up for a permit, and there may be a quiz or other educational component to creating the profile? If one really cares about the land, 10 minutes to create a profile and complete a one-time quiz shouldn't be too much to ask.
Best of luck in crafting these new guidelines, and happy Independence Day!
Regards, Christine From: Chris Killmer To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Permitting Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 1:54:44 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I hope you will take a moment to register my concerns regarding the sweeping plans to permit the Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington, Three Sisters, Waldo Lake and Diamond Peak wilderness areas. As an avid backpacker, mountaineer and lover of the outdoors I agree with the spirit of what you are trying to do. It is true, as more people move here our wilderness areas are becoming loved to death. That said, the current plan seems to paint a very broad brush. A number of concerns come to mind in limited entry through permitting that can only be done at cost ahead of time. First of all, even if the cost is low, you will be creating a barrier for low income Oregonians to enjoy their public land. Secondly, for those of us who choose where we recreate based on our, at times, fickle weather, you make it impossible to choose a trip based on where the weather is good. I can't tell you the number of times I've wanted to go climb in the central and northern cascades of Washington but due to bad weather ended up climbing in central Oregon at the last minute. This, of course, would be impossible under your current plan. If you do go through with such a system, please find a mechanism to hold back a certain number or percentage of permits for "walk in" or "first come first serve". The Puget Sound area's population far surpasses our own and certain areas up there do require advance permitting (the ever popular enchantments lottery for example). This is a good thing as it keeps a spectacular area from being worn out. That said, that area has tons of alternative areas to hike, backpack, and climb where one can self permit at the trailhead. The entire Mountain Loop Highway area is only an hour form the city and is well used, but does not require advance permitting. The same is true of most of the Glacier Peak Wilderness. Please consider narrowing your focus to permitting the areas MOST visited and MOST popular. By limiting entry to Green Lakes, Jefferson Park, Opal Creek and other highly popular (read as most instagramed) areas, you can still limit damage to the most used and most fragile areas while not burdening the public by forcing permitting of entire wilderness areas.
Respectfully,
Christopher Mark Killmer
In the Puget Sound area, known for From: Cindi Neiswonger To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Cindi Neiswonger Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 8:04:06 AM
Hello, I wanted to express my concerns about this proposal. I have lived in Bend for over 25 years and have seen all of our beautiful places becoming overwhelmingly crowded. What is frustrating is how few of the people using these public spaces purchasing forest passes and follow the rules. This past Sat we went up to Sparks lake to do some kayaking to find the road in, lined with cars. We only saw 3 forest passes out of at least a hundred cars. There needs to be an effort to get needed funds from those that are not paying for use of our public areas before we implement more fees on the rest of us. I know there is more clean up and maintenances to do because of the crowds, but by adding more fees, you are more than likely just punishing those of us following the rules and paying our way. We practice, leave no trace when we enjoy our public spaces but few others do anymore. Why not ticket offenders to raise funds, instead of increasing our burden. Paying an additional $36 for my family of 3 to take a day hike is just not reasonable. Please address the real problem here. More fees will keep those of us following the rules out of these public spaces and leave you with those that don't purchase permits anyway. You will still have the problems and not the revenue to take care of it.
Cindi Neiswonger Bend resident
Sent from my iPhone From: Cindy Kepler To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permit for use Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:17:00 PM
I hike quite frequently, and I am a strong supporter of permits.
I would rather see a yearly permit with first come, first served rather than a get there and find out you can't enter at all, or a wait if there are too many hikers etc...I cannot find any verifying data on what is being proposed other than the permit and pricing...
But, again in favor. Thank you From: Corinne Young To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permit system Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 9:32:11 AM
Hello, just wanted to throw my two cents in for proposed permit system. Just thinking out loud here, this isn't a perfectly composed essay;-)
1- part of life here in bend is spontaneous trips to a trail, any trail, to run or hike with friends or camp. Weather and possibility of great sunrise or sunset conditions are part of a reason to appreciate ability of being able to hurry up and just go.
2- I agree it seems lots of people on the trails, too many on certain ones for sure. But honestly I will often see so many cars at trailhead and hardly a soul out there, the miles available seems to absorb the traffic pretty well? Still I cannot fathom how trashy people can be but wonder how much is from locals vs tourists? Would a permit system essentially punish locals and give unfair advantage to tourists (who know travel dates and can book up all available permits before we do?)
3- if a permit system is in place, I sure hope it is not as limited as the ones for Mt Jefferson wilderness that book out months in advance.
4- maybe sell annual all trail permits to locals. To raise money for more ranger presence to educate and monitor trails? Engage and sign up local "official" volunteers to have a presence on key trails during peak season? Can answer questions, give advice, encourage Leave no trace, staying on established trails and even pack out any trash you find.
For those not buying annual, a Pay for trail permit day use/ camping alone would limit many perhaps, without putting an initial actual user number limit?
I think most of the damage is caused by a few despicable people, and it doesn't seem fair to extremely restrict use in an attempt to stop irresponsible people.
Even with an annual permit, I fear many wouldn't be able Then to afford the valuable experience of our outdoors and then learn to care about it deeply. We can afford any passes, but many in our communities cannot. As it stands, it is the best affordable/free activity I can imagine for families. A community that grows up outdoors is better off and will do more for the world than one that is not. More education on environmental Impacts should be a goal of our tourism industry (which needs to chill out!!) and a non stop part of life and education in central Oregon. We need to have a new sense of pride in good stewardship as a mantra of living here. And make sure everyone who comes here knows it.
Thanks for doing what you can to keep our forests healthy, but let's not regulate it to death yet!
Cheers! Corie Young Arbonne Ind. Consultant From: Cindy King To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: Cindy King Subject: Saying NO to additional Wilderness Permit Plan Proposal Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 6:14:28 AM
“We’re trying to maintain access for people, trying to make sure people can have these areas in to the future,” she said. “But what we’re seeing with the number we’re seeing now, we’re seeing poop all over the place, toilet paper, garbage. We’re seeing impacts that aren’t sustainable in keeping a wilderness character of any sort.”
I have never experienced what Jean Nelson-Dean has quoted in the Bulletin this past week. I witness hikers hauling their trash out, I do not see human feces all over the place so that appears to me an exaggeration of facts. Please do not distort the data here. I do see a lot of horse poop on the trail which people have to dodge while hiking. Is this a contentious issue with horse usage? That wasn’t mentioned in the article. I’ve not experienced anyone hauling away horse feces on the trails.
I frequent about six-10 times a year the Green Lakes Trailhead to run. I have ran these trails for the past eight years. I share this only so you know this one human interaction with the Broken Top and Green Lakes Trailhead usage. My usage schedule is random based on my working full-time and being a single mom.
Here are my main questions:
All throughout Central Oregon the spaces made available for users have remained the same. This parking lot and access has not been increased to serve increased demand. Increased demand is no surprise and if it is, someone at the forest service needs to wake up. The tell-tale sign for me on this is that the parking lot is paved with cinder. Cinder hasn’t been used in decades. Unless there is a special type of cinder pavement that is only used at this particular facility this tells me the parking lot size has remained the same for decades. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this parking lot hasn’t increased to allow additional parking in years.
To take this lack of parking to a safety issue, people have been parking along the highway and sometimes they park dangerously close to the entrance, not allowing ANY visibility when exiting the parking lot. After TWO near-misses in exiting the parking lot, I now park along the highway because I’d rather survive driving away from Green Lakes Trailhead than getting smacked by a truck hauling a camper going 65 mph because I cannot see any oncoming traffic when exiting the parking lot. This is a serious issue folks. Eight years ago parking was not an issue. Perhaps I was lucky with the times I visited the area; however, I do not recall ever seeing cars parked alongside the road. Now it is an entirely different story.
This particular parking area offers two outhouses. TWO. I would say that the usage of the outdoor “grassilities” could be a lot worse based on tens of thousands of people making TWO outhouses work. After all, that is all you are providing us. We are doing our best considering the circumstances you provide for us, the taxpayers.
With the Forest Service knowing our population will continue to increase as time goes on, and our area is locally marketed and organizations including the Forest Services and outdoor-mania, the facilities and areas have NOT kept up with the demand. Not unlike a city with city limits, to accommodate more people and allow user-friendly usage you need more than 5 houses on a block. Pretty soon the area will require apartments or multi-housing units because the people aren’t going to go away.
Requiring paid access will not deter human activity. It will only make exploring our beautiful wilderness area less affordable for those who just want to take a walk or a hike for some fresh air. It will also make it more difficult for the freedom to enjoy our backyard. Why punish us with additional fees when, in reality, the access and services has not kept up with demand?
I do not agree with your fee proposals or additional fees to help “maintain” these areas unless you actually WILL take action to improve the safety and usage of the areas to the taxpayers that support you. Provide more space and you will obtain more respect (your words) to what is out there. Just think if the Expo Center/Fairgrounds had only two outhouse facilities for use knowing the area is used by tens of thousands of people throughout the year? The feces would be unbearable due to lack of proper planning, and apparently that is happening right now. Punishing the taxpayer isn’t how to resolve the matter.
My comments are mostly limited to the Green Lakes trailhead as that is the area I frequent the most.
Cynthia King Bend, Oregon
From: Daniel Hall To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes; Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Proposed Changes to Wilderness Permits & Access Rules Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 9:47:40 AM
TO: Beth Peer, Deschutes National Forest
FR: Daniel Hall
RE: Proposed Changes to Wilderness Permits and Access Rules for Wilderness Areas in Deschutes NF
I am writing as a long-time Oregonian and wilderness user, who grew up in southern Oregon, has enjoyed backpacking and other recreation in some of these wilderness areas, including the Mt Jefferson and Three Sisters, and who has also experienced some of the crowding and permit systems used in our neighboring states. I have spent significant time hiking in the parks and wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevada, for example, and have seen how simple permit and quota systems can be used without unduly limiting or commercializing public access.
I am writing based on the information seen in this article: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2017/06/28/mount-jefferson-three-sisters- diamond-peak-limited-entry-permit-forest-service/434357001/. Unfortunately, I only just heard about the proposed changes, and have not had time to locate and review the formal proposals.
My thoughts and recommendations, based on my experiences and the SJ article:
I too am concerned with overcrowding and user impacts to our wilderness areas, their ecological values, and the potential for quality wilderness experiences.
I would support a simple and carefully executed wilderness permit system.
I would also support a simple and carefully executed quota system for locations where overcrowding is, or is becoming, a concern.
Any associated fees should be kept very minimal, and used only to cover the Forest Service's costs of administrating the system.
The permit and/or quota system should be administered directly by the Forest Service. The Forest Service is the public agency responsible for managing these lands, and is answerable to the public. The system should not be operated by private contractors, both because they are less responsive and accountable to the public, and because this is likely to result in larger fees being charged to the public, simply to benefit the private contractors.
The use of advance reservation systems should be strictly limited, and a large portion (at least half) of the permits should remain available for people to acquire the day-of entry and/or the day-before-entry. Many people are unable to plan their wilderness trips months in advance, and weather and other conditions are often unpredictable. Moreover, some level of spontaneity should be allowed. Moreover, advance purchase or acquisition of advance permits by commercial entities should be strictly limited, as should purchase of multiple permits by private individuals acting on behalf of commercial entities. The vast majority of permits should remain available to the public and private parties.
Thanks for considering these perspectives and recommendations. I strongly support efforts to protect our resources and ensure balanced use of our sensitive wilderness areas - provided that we do not inadvertently and inappropriately commercialize these areas and/or overly restrict access in the process.
For an example of what not to do, look to the permit system being operated for the Mt St Helens National Monument. That system is a mess, and is reviled by much of the public. During much of the year, an exorbitant, advance-reservation-only, non-refundable fee is charged by a private entity that has little connection to conservation of the resource. That system benefits a private organization at the public expense, and is impracticable for skiers, alpinists, and other users who must time their climbs when weather and other conditions are workable, and who cannot predict those dates months in advance.
Very best wishes, Daniel Hall [email protected] 6857 North Michigan Portland, OR 97217 From: Daphne Weirich To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Re: Limited entry permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 8:24:18 AM
> On Jul 3, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Daphne Weirich
Please do not begin limits and paid permits for the Three Sisters Wilderness area. Thank you! -Darlene Anderson Bend, OR From: Dave Stensland To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Oregon permits and limiting access Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 12:22:48 PM
Hello, Please consider these comments. thank you
Comments about permits in CO forests.
OK, the USFS believes permits and restricting access are going to solve over use problems in Central Oregon wildness areas.
I AGREE! Permits might help the situation. I hike many C. Oregon trails and see the litter, TP, human waste, damage to trails, etc. Restricting access could help with part of the problem. ALONG with that, please ENFORCE existing regulations with some tough love enforcement……fines that hurt a bit would be a start. Tow vehicles that are parked illegally at trailheads (if the parking lot is full, then the trail does not have capacity for more!!) TOW THEM!! Ok, fine illegal parked vehicles in year 1 with a tow warning, then TOW THEM in year 2!!
Also, REQUIRE equipment to enter a wilderness area, like a shovel to dig a hole to poo in. Also a trash bag or zip lock to carry trash/human waste back out with them.
Possibly require a wilderness permit orientation BEFORE a permit is issued. Permits Deschutes NF could do this at their new building near Conklin road?
Place composting toilets at high foot traffic trails, like Green Lakes and Mt Jefferson. Yes, they are expensive, and it is MORE expensive to deal with stupid people who don’t know or don’t care about not littering or shitting next to a trail!!! Possibly, Visit Bend could help fund a toilet; that would be much better use of promotional $$ instead of Visit Bend attracting even more people to Central Oregon.
Either the USFS must step up the enforcement on trails, or possibly (likely?) there will be confrontation between the responsible (and frustrated!) trail users and the not-responsible trail users…….how will that end….. trail rage?!
While I have an audience, get the horse riders on wilderness trails to CLEAN up their horse manure on trails!! Or, is that too much common sense!! It disgusts me to see dog feces and human feces and TP and HORSE manure along trails.
Thank you for your consideration,
Dave Stensland Bend, Oregon From: David Harrison To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed wilderness permitting Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 5:55:12 AM
I am writing in support of the proposed permitting system for the most popular wilderness areas in Oregon. I would gladly accept restrictions on when and where I can travel in wilderness to help ensure that I have a high quality experience once I am there.
David Harrison 585 Washington St S Salem, OR 97302 From: Ogden Construction To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: FW: trail limits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 10:28:40 AM
From: Ogden Construction [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2017 7:54 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: trail limits
Thank you for the opportunity to address the proposed consideration of establishing paid permits for accessing wilderness trials in the Cascades. While I can understand the interest in limiting the impact to the many listed wilderness areas, I was disturbed when I first considered how much we locals will be impacted in this way by the very tourism that has provided the growth and economic recovery for our area. Now, however, this is a bittersweet pill to swallow. If I were to assume to speak for so many locals, residents, tax payers, employers, voters and the like, we, as a community would like to welcome visitors and tourist to share in the beauty and natural resources that we all have come to appreciate…and really expect. Many of us probably consider ourselves stewards of the land. We volunteer with the organizations that address fish habitat, water and land quality, access to recreational assets, roads etc. and I think that the United States Forest Service could recognize the contributions of its local residents in the many partnerships that have made all of this possible. It is for this reason that I would ask, really expect, that the Forest Service could make a gesture in recognition of the residents and issue Resident Access Cards much like the Northwest Forest Passes, and require ID, like firewood permits, and that are county specific to the wilderness areas. I understand that the principle reason for limiting the impact of tourist to these wilderness areas, and the numbers of visits mentioned in the article are reflective of tourist numbers and less so as a general relationship to growth. It is for that reason that it would seem punitive to extend the same restrictions to residents as tourist. I would gladly pay an annual fee to obtain a Resident Access Card, and, if I were to visit a neighboring county and access their wilderness areas, I would apply for and pay a fee to access their areas. This seems like an equitable way to respect the communities where the Forest Service operates and lives.
David B. Ogden, 17092 Azusa Rd, Bend,Or. 97707
[email protected] Democratic Precinct Committee Person, Former President Special Road District #1 Former member Upper Deschutes River Coalition
From: Dave Whistler To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: trailhead access to wilderness in central Oregon Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 1:54:58 PM
To whom if may concern,
I attended your informational meetings earlier this year, and I must say that the current proposal is orders of magnitude more restrictive than anything even suggested in the public meeting. The current proposal, which I am unable to find on your web page, but as presented in the Bulletin, could not have been hammered out overnight, so clearly you already had this in mind and for some reason were unwilling to present to the public in an open meeting. I am sympathetic that some trailheads such as Green Lakes or Devils Lake (for the Mt Bachelor climb, not for access westerly toward Wickiup Plain) are heavily impacted. However, I reject the premise that some of the others you mentioned (Pole Creek, Winopee to name two) are so heavily impacted. I am a regular hiker and probably access most of the entry points into the Sisters Wilderness mentioned in the Bulletin article each summer. I have not experienced the huge, unruly crowds you suggest are present. On the contrary, on a Pole Creek to Camp Lake backpack hike last summer we (party of two) encountered only three other hikers on the way to Camp Lake (that works out to one person every three miles of trail or conservatively, one person for every 20 square miles) and 10 on the way out (one per every 2 square miles), at Winopee we encounter none. This does not appear to me to be “heavily impacted”. I recall at the public hearings that one of the highest ranking suggestions offered by the public was better education of the wilderness user. Why ask us for suggestions of how to better protect the wilderness if your mind is already made up to simply keep us out. I will look forward to more planning information from you in the future, openly presented where the public can find it. Hopefully you will not again seek public comment with a deadline on one of the busiest national holiday weekends of the year. This clearly sends a “message” as to the sincerity of your efforts to seek public comment. I have been a wilderness user for 70+ years, long before there was a formal Wilderness Act, “suffered” through the back country lottery system in the Sierra Nevada in the late 1960’s and 70’s, and retired to Oregon in the hope that I had left such regulatory systems behind.
David P. Whistler, PhD, Geology USFS Trail Maintenance volunteer From: Derwood To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposal comments Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 7:48:32 PM
As an avid hiker I urge you to take a reasonable approach to addressing the overuse and crowds in some areas. I too am concerned by the impact of too many visitors and more importantly the lack of many individuals not following Leave No Trace principles. While I think that a permit system for backpacking in some popular areas might be appropriate and could even support limiting entry to CERTAIN trailheads at least on weekends or holidays when the crowds are at their worst.
Placing limits on all trailheads would be overkill in my opinion. Most of the crowded trailheads are due to their proximity to desirable destinations (Whitewater for Jefferson Park, Green Lakes & Devil's Lake, Waldo Lake etc.). More remote trailheads that are further from these desired destinations should not see the same limitations or fees unless they too become over crowded at a later time.
A measured approach would minimize the number of trailheads that needed to be patrolled while reducing the crowds where necessary.
Any action that is decided on should put education at the forefront. We encounter far too many people on the trails engaging in negative activities (leaving trash, building fires in prohibited areas, camping too close to water, etc...). Some of these individuals may not know any better and might benefit from having to watch a short video or take a quiz on LNT principles and wilderness regulations prior to obtaining a permit much like California's permit for Camp Fires. More aggressive enforcement of the wilderness rules is also needed. If there are no consequences for bad actors they will continue to damage these areas.
Simply putting a fee permit system in place does nothing to ensure that the people obtaining the permits will treat the area with respect. Another inherent problem with fees for permits is it disproportionately affects the poor. It is unclear if the proposal is a fee per person or group but either could create unintended issues. Per person penalizes larger families while per group could encourage larger groups to minimize costs. Larger groups = greater impact.
I urge you to consider a measured approach focusing on the most crowded trails/areas and times. This should help make enforcement more viable, protect the areas that truly need it and still allow many options for those willing to visit more remote trailheads without the hassle of obtaining a permit.
Respectively, Deryl Yunck From: Dieter Koehler To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Access Tickets to the 3 Sisters Wilderness Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:55:11 PM
Comments to the plan of required prepurchased access tickets to the Three Sisters Wilderness
We have hiked the majority of those trails in question. We hiked the Green Lakes trail 4 times on foot and one time on horseback times and McArthur Rim 3 times. Todd Lake many times in Summer and 3 times in winter on snowshoes. Often with visitors from Germany and mostly on the weekend.
We have never experienced unpleasant crowing on the trail. Or felt impacted by tents of overnight hikers.
However parking can be a challenge.
We never stayed overnight. So we want to limit our comments to day use.
The Trails
1.) The proposed prepurchase ticket will badly impact tourism. Nobody is expecting it and therefor will be LOCKED OUT of our wilderness. This will be their last vacation in Oregon. At least it would be mine.
2.) I spent in the last 18 months a lot of time in the Denver area. I am not aware of tickets to access the mountains near Denver. Despite the higher traffic on those trails.
3.) We grew up in Southern Germany and know most of the European Alps. There are 10 times as many hikers on the trails as on Green Lake trail. And they have no ticketing system either.
4.) Calling the 3 Sisters Wilderness Trails overcrowded is a major exaggeration.
Trailhead and Parking
1.) Parking can be a challenge. But not only on those trails in question but on just about every trailhead in the Deschutes Forest. Try Sparks Lake or Hosmer Lake on the weekend for example.
2.) Hikers don’t ask for parking lots like the Green Lake TH. But simple gravel or dirt spaces. They could be built very inexpensively.
Legality
1.) The legality of access tickets seems to me questionable.
2.) I would be willing to substantially support any initiative that will challenge it. This is obviously just another attempt to raise the revenue stream. If money is the issue, raise the price for the Wilderness Pass and open up new trails instead building bigger and bolder offices.
Dieter & Sigrun Koehler
12389 SW Reif Rd
Powell Butte OR From: Dina Colosimo To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: permit proposal 3 sisters wilderness Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:01:20 PM
As a concerned native to Oregon, and resident of Bend for 4 years...trail are the reason I moved here. I will move back to the valley if this happens. It is very upsetting. Other ways to manage the trails , it is busy , but this is NOT a solution. Thanks so much, Dina Colosimo From: Donna Dobkin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposal regarding trail permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 12:01:19 PM
I am writing in response to the proposal to limit access to the Three Sisters and nearby wilderness areas to those holding permits purchased in advance. I am very aware that with increased tourism and numbers of people now residing in Bend that trails are taking a beating, however aspects of this proposal are quite distressing to me as a 27 year resident of Bend.
I am a working professional. On weekends, it is not uncommon for me to decide, spur of the moment, to access one of the beautiful trails near my home. It’s one of the reasons I moved to and continue to live in Bend. The thought that this may be impossible now with the proposal to require permits obtained ahead of time is absolutely dumbfounding to me as I am sure it is to many residents (working and non working) of Central Oregon. Yes, there needs to be a reduction in the wear and tear on trails, but perhaps there are better ways:
1. Why not give residents the opportunity to purchase year-long trail access permits which would give them a “first choice” to their neighborhood wilderness!
2. Why not give tourists the opportunity to buy advice purchase passes or even same day passes based on the number of persons already using the trail that day, which could be monitored by personnel placed at the trailheads to “count heads” over the course of the day.
3. Why not hire more personnel to monitor trail use and to fine people who do not have permits or who are using restricted areas.
4. Why not use permit money to restore trails and to build toilet facilities at each of the trailheads
5. Why not hold regular talks at trail heads to instruct users on proper use of the trails, and in handing out hand shovels (permit money could be used for this) to get rid of any human waste they might make while hiking.
I could list any of a number of other solutions. . . . these are just a few. I encourage you to reject this proposal and to think more creatively to address the problem with trail overuse.
Also, I cannot believe that the Bulletin chose to publish this information yesterday, and that the deadline is just 3 days from the publication date on a holiday weekend! How is that possible? I suggest you extend the date for receiving input from residents of Bend as this is an extremely important issue for many of us.
Sincerely,
Donna Dobkin Bend, OR From: Kermit Williams To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Pre-Paid permits to hike trailheads in the Three Sisters Wilderness Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 10:23:39 PM
To the F.S. decision makers:
I have been hiking since the 1960's, for a decade mostly in the N.M. Rocky Mtns., then for 35 years mostly in the Mt. Hood National Forest and its wilderness areas. During that time only one trailhead required a pre-purchase permit and that was Obsidian Trail to the Three Sisters Wilderness. Since I moved to Central Oregon in 2006 I have noticed increasingly congested trails mainly on various trails to Green Lakes, and the "unmaintained " trail to Broken Top. This congestion began to worsen when the last recession ended. Because of the loss of solitude that I seek when I hike, I try to do these popular alpine hikes during Sept. to early Nov. when crowds have dissipated.
Because all my hiking is impromptu....that is, making a decision that week up to the night before the hike, I would find it disconcerting to have to apply well ahead of time in order to do the hike. At my age, weather will be a factor in my decision to hike or not. If one has to apply weeks to months ahead of time, weather will be the unknown factor, and if thunderstorms and heavy rain are forecast for the permitted day, I would have to forego the hike and may be unable to get another permit for that hike. I do not mind paying to hike because I know the severe cuts that have been and will continue in the budget for the Forest Service from the Dept. of the Interior.
However, I do not like the idea of pre-paid permits for reserving the right to hike some trail in the future. I do not have a solution. Would increased trail monitoring perhaps be enough with volunteers to educate hikers as to trail etiquette and the "leave no trace" mantra? What about a lottery at the trailhead where the limited winners are chosen to hike that trail that day, but the losers can hike a nearby less- used trail for free where an instant permit is issued? Perhaps more trails need to be created? I never found most of the trails around Mt. hood to be so crowded that one would want to turn back to try for another day, but there were many more trails to choose from compared to those in central Oregon in the Three Sisters Wilderness areas.
I believe that the current over -use of trails is unfortunately due to the over-indulgent push in advertising central Oregon, esp. Bend, as a playground with no concern for the effects on the environment and its wildlife. I think the first step in reducing the overuse, is to rein -in Visit Bend and other economic promoters who will sell -out central Oregon for that almighty dollar. Enough is enough!
Sincerely,
Donna Harris, D.V.M.
Sent from my iPad From: Doug & Rita To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trail Fees Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 9:28:31 AM
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed application of usage fees onto the hiking trails into various wilderness areas in Deschutes County.
My wife and I hike several of the trails listed for inclusion in the proposed fee system. I am a very strong supporter of "keeping public lands public" and therefore do not like to see additional stipulations to access those lands. However, after lengthy consideration, I support a fee structure. Here's why.
1. National and state park budgets have been decreasing. While I hate to give the politicians reason to further reduce budgets, a fee system would add some badly needed money. I support the concept of "pay to play" meaning that those who most use the resource are also the ones who most pay for it. I will add the stipulation that I only support a fee structure provided those fees go directly to protecting and maintaining the trails for which the fees were paid. And without reduction in funding from other sources such as the general fund.
2. A fee structure would likely spread usage out over other trails which do not charge a fee. The effect is to reduce the impact on the more popular trails. While I support the concept of "keeping public lands public", we humans are not very good at self-discipline. Any place we encounter large crowds of people, we inevitably find abuse of rules, trash, waste, and wanton destruction. Charging usage fees might help reduce the number of irresponsible people and provide a mechanism to better enforce the rules and protect the resource.
3. Wilderness areas are only wilderness if they aren't crawling with people. The top way to ruin a wilderness experience is to run into other people. No matter how responsible and aware people are, too many people will alter a wilderness. I support efforts to use practical, common sense "tough love" policies to protect and sustain wilderness areas.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input into this difficult decision. And thank you for doing all you can to keep wilderness areas wild.
Doug Jeffries Redmond, OR
"I'm talking about a game ... a game that can't be won, only played" Bagger Vance From: Doug Werme To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permit Requirements, Three Sisters Wilderness Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:15:05 PM
The proposed implementation of permits and fees at many trailheads in the Three Sisters Wilderness is an enormous over reaction to a minor problem.
The reasons cited for these measures include the creation of unauthorized trails, trash, and human waste. The Forest Service dramatically claims to have encountered 100 miles of trails, 1200 lbs of trash, and buried 830 items of human waste. They feel this justifies drastically limited access.
How serious is the problem actually? Well, the wilderness area covers 281,190 acres. If we assume the unauthorized trails average three feet wide, 100 miles of trails impacts only 0.00013 of the land. It would appear that we can have a considerable increase in trail mileage without serious detriment.
The trash and waste is unfortunate, but it could easily be solved by hiring a couple of students for the summer. They would cost less than creating this comment period. If they just walked the trails with a shovel and backpack, and each working day they picked up only 10 lbs. of trash and buried seven piles of waste the problem would be solved.
The Three Sisters Wilderness is a very large area. The human impacts are far over-stated by the Forest Service. There is no justification for charging American taxpayers extra fees just to enter their own wilderness area.
Douglas Werme Bend, Oregon From: Peggy Griffin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: wilderness permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 4:31:50 PM
I strongly oppose your proposal to limit public access to the wilderness because:
* These are PUBLIC lands, to which the public should have access
* People who do not want crowds need only go to these areas in the off season or on weekdays.
* Hiking in the wilderness is one of the last ways for people of limited financial means to have a meaningful, healthful, educational and enjoyable recreational experience without worrying about the cost. People on limited budgets are citizens too, and deserve the same access to federal public lands as you or I.
* The parking problem is your fault. In the 26 years I have lived near the Three Sisters Wilderness, NO additional parking has been added. The local population has quadrupled; the parking has not changed. Are you surprised the lots are full??????
* In the Three Sisters Wilderness, only the South Sisters climbing trail and Green Lakes trail have really heavy use, yet you propose limiting access to all the trails in the area.....making your motivation highly suspect.
* America is in the midst of an epidemic of obesity. The Forest Service should be encouraging people to get out and hike, not creating barriers.
Dr. Peggy Griffin From: Dwain Fullerton To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes; FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: FS-PNW Regional Forester; Bruce Hinchliffe Subject: Central Oregon Wilderness Trails Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 4:55:46 PM
To Whom It May Concern: I strongly endorse the idea of restricting access to the Three Sisters Wilderness and trails in the Diamond Peak, Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington, Three Sisters, and Waldo Lake wildernesses by means of paid and limited permits. My opinion comes from experiencing the permit system some years ago in Grand Teton National Park. I had backpacked for years in the High Sierras where a little effort yielded a marvelous, uncrowded, experience. The Grand Teton's system of permits and requirements, no wood fires, stay on the trail, one night at a specific campsite, leave it clean and move to the next seemed indefensibly regimented. By the second day I realized that this was the only way this relatively small park could be truly enjoyed. Each night we reached a vacant campsite-- scheduled for us. It was clean because the previous night's backpackers left it so, and we left it the same way. Out of pride. We rarely saw the party ahead of us, and they didn't see us. It was an absolutely gorgeous eight days. It was also clear that this forest in Wyoming couldn't withstand a trampling, undisciplined horde. Limiting the numbers was necessary to keep the experience intact and available for future generations. Our wildernesses have the same fragility, and hope you will do this here for those of us who love Central Oregon. Sincerely, Dwain Fullerton 20065 Chaney Road Bend, Oregon 97703
Virus-free. www.avast.com From: Elise W To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Fee permits three sisters wilderness YES PLEASE!!!!!!! Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 6:19:03 PM
I fully support and am happy to pay a fee to support our wilderness areas.
I live locally and enjoy these places, but have seen such destruction, waste, and disrespect in the 20 years we have hiked the trails.
Yes, PLEASE do something. If someone doesn't think our wild lands need support they are likely the ones pooping on the trails.
Thank you for doing this!
And thanks to the rangers who have the stomach to deal with humans...what pigs we are.
Elise Wolf 69700 Lake Dr. Sisters, OR From: EJ To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: comments on Cascaade Trails Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 9:23:24 AM
Good morning, I hope I am not too late to comment. I just found out.
I have lived in Bend for twenty years now, and was part of a group that hiked every Tuesday all year long for most of those years. I have seen the many changes to the trails and the results of over use. I have spent time in the hiking areas on the Tahoe Yosemite trails in Nevada and I am a strong proponent of limited access. I have seen only positive results, protecting the environment and enhancing the outdoor experience for the hikers. Thank you for your concern, Elizabeth Jane Ayarra Bend, Oregon
Sent from my iPad From: Peggy Griffin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: wilderness access Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 5:10:58 PM
NO to limiting access to the wilderness. Your argument that "people cannot enjoy a true wilderness experience" if there are too many hikers is specious.
What kind of wilderness experience will people have sitting at home wishing you would have allowed them to get a permit??????
(There are only so many days with suitable weather!)
Ellen Griffin From: Eric Sample To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes; Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Comments on Proposed Wilderness plan for the Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington, Three Sisters, Diamond Peak and Waldo Lake wilderness areas - Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 3:19:30 PM
July 3, 2017
To whom it may concern;
After reviewing your plans for the Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington, Three Sisters, Diamond Peak and Waldo Lake wilderness areas, I am very disappointed in your proposed plans.
Over the years I have hiked and backpacked in many of these wilderness areas. While some of the areas are overused (which I try to avoid), many sections of these wilderness areas are not overused. For example, I have backpacked to Mowich Lake for the last couple of years and have not seen this area of the Jefferson Wilderness overcrowded. I know areas around Marion and Jefferson Lakes are overcrowded and I realize many of the areas around the Three Sisters Wilderness are overcrowded too. I have experienced the long line of hikers on S. Sister but I have also found quiet and solitude in many sections of these wilderness areas. It makes no sense at all to limit usage to less used sections of the wilderness areas just because some sections are overcrowded.
And why are you proposing paid permits for all of these wilderness areas? This makes no sense at all. Why not establish a non-fee based limited permit system to the sections of wilderness that are overcrowded and not a blanket permit for the whole wilderness area. And charging a fee for the limited permits brings up real equity issues. I realize equity in Trumps America may not be valued, but by charging a fee, only those with means can afford to enjoy the wilderness on our public lands after paying a NW Forest park pass and the wilderness permit. I would hope the Forest Service values equity. This plan does not.
What I would propose is a non-fee based limited permit system in the popular sections of these Wilderness areas, like for example climbing South Sister. It could also be a flexible permit system so that fewer permits were available on weekends and holidays and more over the week, thus encouraging more spread out usage. Areas of wilderness that are not overused should continue to be a self-issuing permit for hiking and backpacking.
I do think more law enforcement would help the current situation in the overused areas but I realize resources may not be available for these enforcement activities.
I'm not sure these comments have much value in the final outcome of your plans, but I do hope you'll consider revising these proposals to be more inclusive and flexible.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Please let me know if you need additional information for the comments I have submitted
Eric Sample Portland, Oregon [email protected] From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments on new Wilderness permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 9:53:24 PM
Dear USFS Personnel,
I am writing about the proposed new permitting system that the USFS is proposing on Three Sisters and Jefferson Wilderness areas among others. Interestingly and unfortunately, I learned about this on 6/29/17...the first time any of this info has reached the media in Salem, so I was told by the Statesman Journal. The comment period ends TODAY; very odd indeed as the USFS usually gives a very long comment period.
I was a forester for more than 25 years I am now retired and I am an avid hiker and backpacker. I live in Salem, OR and since retiring in 2003, I have had much more time to pursue these activities. Granted, there indeed is a very large population increase in both the Willamette Valley and, especially, Bend, OR over the past 20 years. I do understand and can relate to the challenges the USFS faces with this increase in population and the resulting pressure on the surrounding Wilderness Areas. I can also see the pressure placed especially on areas around Bend.
I mostly backpack in Three Sisters, Washington, Jefferson with some in Waldo and Diamond Peak. I also do this activity on weekdays, staying away as much as possible on weekends. And we NEVER go to Jeff Park until late August or September as we know it's crowded & full of mosquitos. (We also stay away from Green Lakes for the same reason). All that being said, I would like to state that we rarely see hardly any folks during the week when we are 'out there'. That's what is so GREAT about Oregon backpacking!!
I am concerned however, about the extreme measures that are proposed. Yes, perhaps Three Sisters Wilderness needs more permitting than other areas, since there is a large population of retired and service industry folks who utilize these areas seven days a week. Perhaps that area will need a different approach.
However, these other Wilderness areas, especially just East of Salem (Mt Jefferson) and perhaps Diamond Peak.... 1) perhaps permitting Day Hiking on Saturday and Sunday and then 2) permitting OVERNIGHT backpacking on 'start' days of Friday and Saturday.
This would allow the weekday folks to continue to utilize the Wilderness areas freely while being a cost saving measure due to less staffing for 'permit issue. It would also most likely cut down on the overcrowding and the abuses the land is receiving due to less people of the weekends.
I would greatly like to be kept in the loop on this issue, and feel the users, such as myself, are not anywhere close to aware of what the USFS is proposing.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Foxie Proctor [email protected]
From: Gene Benke To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Fees,permits wilderness Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 10:05:57 AM
Keep trails open to horse and mule back riding and packing. Close it to people foot traffic. Hire a guide to back criminals in, Horsemen are responsible and they maintain trails then pack their garbage out, get paid to guide can slap handcuffs on trespasser's. Imprison trespasser's to work crews clearing trails, 30 days minimum or put jail cells at trail head's From: Gene Benke To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: No Wilderness Fee"s Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:54:47 PM
Propose no hiking fees for public lands that I Own. Suggestions; tax hiking boots, backpacks,freeze dry food, liquor, food, home refuse collection,county property tax, gasoline. In other words put a tax on everything. Just don't tax my Wilderness. Get creative,if you can't enforce littering or otherwise in the wild places, how you gonna write my Mule a ticketssssss . Feel free to contact some equine organization or longears for suggestions, we don't get paid for the work we do there ! From: george myers To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: comment trail limits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 7:52:17 AM
John Muir would be against any effort to ever restrict the use of our public lands. His entire life was spent bringing people into the wilderness, letting them see the majesty and beauty around us, and advocating for the governing powers to be partners in opening up and securing the lands for our future.
If there is litter, then place receptacles in places for people to use. If there is poop, then people need a sanitary, contained place to poop. If there are illegal trails, then people want to access a place that has not been made "official" and a trail should be made, and if there are campfire rings, then its only a sign there are not enough designated campsites. And if parking overflows, we need more.
Many of our facilities, parking, and trails were built and designed in the 30s by CCC and others. After 80 years, let's improve and expand, not restrict and contract.
John Muir probably built quite a few illegal campfire rings in his time, and tromped off trail most of the time. But without him, we wouldn't have the vast lands we now enjoy.
A discarded candy bar wrapper, or a pile of poop is certainly not appealing, but they are there because people want to hike into the wilderness and be able to see a majestic peak, or glacial lake, or waterfall close up. They detract, but still are impermanent and will not harm the mountain that person was looking at.
Help people, educate people, provide for people.
Muir would be happy so many people come to use and experience the beautiful places in Central Oregon. he would not be happy to hear that access is denied.
George Myers -- "Get lean in 2017!" This means physically of course, but also spiritually, mentally, and emotionally. Pray more, love more, forgive more, hate less, judge less and condemn less. Leroy Moreno From: [email protected] To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Re: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 9:58:24 AM
A few questions to ask are: 1) Why has wilderness use increase so much more than Oregon's overall population? 2) What are people seeking? 3) Can the two forests provide for people's interests elsewhere on each forest where less impact is occurring? 4) If not, what relationship(s) between the forest and constituents could be affected? 5) What would be the cost : benefit of those affected relationships between the FS and their constituents and the resources affected?
Likewise, if a fee is required, will there be an opportunity to purchase an annual pass or will we need to pay $15 each time we get a permit thereby costing some people hundreds of dollars who frequent wilderness areas often.
On Jul 2, 2017, at 6:19 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Beth, I just want to add, that there is a world of wilderness experiences that originate from popular trailheads, but venture off the beaten path. Examples are the relatively untouched area between the Soda Creek and Green Lakes trails that is full of springs, meadows, and vistas; and the area between Tam Rim and Park Creek Meadow trail that is full of streams, meadows, and wide open spaces. Will there be opportunity for people to access these remote areas that aren't experiencing over use without having to compete for a permit that limits access to the overused destination areas the main trails lead people to?
On Jul 1, 2017, at 9:12 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Hey Beth, Ugh, what to do, what to do. According to the wilderness act, wilderness areas are suppose to provide a particular experience for the user, one in which visible human presence is minimized or some such thing. Well that's nice in theory, and impractical in practice. A trail is a huge impact, let alone a braided trail due to poor trail design or lack of maintenance. This is particularly true for areas within a days hike from a trailhead. Areas beyond a days hike start to see some relief though. Nothing new here.
What the forest is grappling with seems to be two fold: 1) to minimize human impact as depicted by the wilderness act, and 2) to determine how many people is appropriate at anyone time in a given area, recognizing the desire people have to be in that particular area. Both are daunting tasks and I don't envy the FS's responsibility to address both in a measured judicious manner.
There are many case studies to learn from regarding user management including hunting season limited entry, river permit systems, and even the Willamette's limited entry areas on the west side of the Cascades. But whatever the FS does, please don't mistake reducing user numbers as the solution to minimizing human impact. Yes, there is a weak correlation between the two, but trail location, trail design, designated camping spots, more education, and more FS presence are all investments that will be needed to manage human impacts. Some popular wilderness areas install toilets to address the human waste issue rather than reduce user numbers.
Of course the greatest challenge is the reduction in recreation dollars to manage a growing user population that frequent our wilderness areas and forests overall. Just reducing user numbers will not address the problem of user impacts.
I often frequent the wilderness areas in my backyard. Yet when I do visit, I select routes and times that will reduce my interactions with others. I'd hate to loose my ability to spontaneously decide to visit an area based on the weather and day and time of the week, which includes stormy days. To be in the wilderness in a storm is magical.
I'm also an old boy scout so I pick up the bits of trash I might encounter and I'm very conscious of not braiding a trail by not avoiding a muddy spot by walking around it. Instead if appropriate, I often try to drain a spot so people will not walk around it. Maybe more emphasis on wilderness ethics and encouragement to pick up after one another could help.
I'm very interested in the outcome of this process. I hope those who determine how best to deal with the wilderness challenges will focus more on addressing the issues at hand rather than the letter of the law.
Wilderness areas are where the inspiration of awe and wonder come easily to people. The experience of being present with a force of nature that is greater than ones self. It provides an expansiveness that tempers human self centeredness. Given how wilderness areas can positively influence people, in some ways I'd like to see more people visit wilderness areas. I often think of inner city kids who have never experienced the great out-of-doors let alone a wilderness area and how it could change their perspective of themselves and the life they're currently living. Of course the challenge of getting even more people to visit a wilderness area is how to do it so they don't change the character of the area they're visiting. And there lies the problem.
The best of luck to you all, Glen Ardt From: Gordon Banks To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 7:54:55 AM
If it is necessary to limit entry to preserve the wilderness, then I support it. I have gotten permits at the ranger stations for the Pamelia Creek and Obsidian trails with no problem, but then being retired, I do hike on weekdays. I think these permits need to be free for those who already have a pass, such as senior, disabled, or NW Forest Pass, and not through some concessionaire. Having to pay another fee every time we hike seems unfair.
Sent from my iPad From: Graham Williams To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Re: Strong Opposition to limiting access to wilderness Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 1:19:48 PM
Howdy,
As an Oregon based business owner of alpine climbing backpacks, and activist for wilderness area conservation and recreation, I must voice my strong opposition to what I can find out about the plan to limit access to the central Oregon Wilderness areas. I abhor the pollution that is hitting our forests and wilderness from clueless users. However, a sudden shift to pay to play and reduced access to wilderness is neither going to reduce litter, impact or create more advocates for wilderness. A regressive tax on forest users and restricted access is not the solution, especially without a long term education process.
Thank you, Graham Williams -- I'm away from work: enjoy my pithy comments. From: Grant Smith To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Trail Use Fees Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 8:54:53 AM
This proposal is ridiculous, most trips depend on the weather and planning things that far in advance is an unfair hardship. I go up there 2-3 times a year, and rarely see trash, and so what if people walk along a lake shore ? Are you going to bar the animals as well ? How much erosion do they cause ? How about restricting those on horseback as well ? These lands are for people to use, there are tens of thousands of acres you act as if a few thousand people walking on a trail is going to cause the next Grand Canyon. I have rarely seen trash, and if you are that concerned about humans going to the bathroom how about animals (as if a dog is not an animal) ?
I remember I camped once at Santiam Lake within 50 feet of the shore, and got a condescending lecture from one of your Wilderness Police about damaging the environment, what a joke....
Many are fed up with this Federal "Daddy State" position you guys take, these are our lands, not yours and are for all to USE and enjoy.
I hope Trump dismantles 70% of your bloated bureaucracy. From: Greg Fields To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Please keep our trails free Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 8:21:33 PM
Hello,
I think it is critical to keep our wilderness trails free, especially trails along the Cascade Lakes highway. If you need to raise funds you could increase the parking permit cost or raise the cost of the Northwest Forest Pass. Please do not charge for a wilderness permit. We do not need to discourage people from enjoying our wilderness.
Thank you, Greg -- Greg Fields WordPress Website Builder | [email protected] | https://gregfieldsweb.com 7/3/2017 Helen Maffei 603 NW Morelock CT Bend, OR, 97703
Deschutes NF HQ 63095 Deschutes Market Rd. Bend, OR, 97701
Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategy Comment.
Dear Mr. Allen and Ms. Peer:
I wish to express my support for issuing permits for areas of the central cascades wilderness where it is clear that significant resource damage from overuse is occurring. Your proposal to permit these areas is clearly justified .. As a long-term resident of Bend (28 years), I believe that use restrictions should have been put in place long ago.
That said, I strongly object to charging a fee for these permits. I believe this will disproportionally impact lower income individuals and families by financially restricting access to what is the crown jewel of our federal lands here in central Oregon. I suggest an alternative be developed that does not include fees for these permits.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to give me a call. 541-388-7190 or [email protected]
Sincerely: Helen Maffei /s/ Helen Maffei From: Hugh Pennock To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 3:25:31 PM
I feel regulating visits, in heavily used areas in our forests with a permit system, is a great idea.
That being said, there is no use going forward with a permit system, unless there is sufficient funding and boots on the ground, for education and inforcement.
Hugh Pennock From: Jacob Alexander To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: wilderness permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 4:45:06 PM
To whom it may concern.
I grew up in Oregon. I have spent a lot of my life in the outdoors in this state, ever since I can remember. I hunt, hike, fish and just wander around the backcountry of this beautiful state. I have seen more and more just straight disregard for the forests and wilderness. I am constantly picking up garbage and seeing needless destruction. While I believe there needs to be some restrictions placed to protect our wilderness, there is one thing that I really worry about with this. Access for hunters to wilderness areas.
I hunt deer and elk in the Washington and Jefferson wilderness. As a hunter I do not find out until the end of June, where I am going to hunt. If there are permits required to access these areas, they will surely be sold out by the time hunters know where they are hunting. This will block hunters from accessing the area. If this happens it will effect conservation efforts and animal population in these areas. Hunters need to be able to access the areas they are hunting to scout the months up to the season.
Hopefully if a permit is needed to even access the wilderness areas, hunters with a valid tag for the area will be allowed to enter the wilderness area up to and during the hunting season. Hunters treat our wilderness areas and forest different than your typical weekend recreation hiker. We care a lot more about the areas and the effects of humans on the animals and plants of the area.
Again, I am 100% in support of permits to help conserve and repair our wilderness areas. I just hope hunters are taken in to consideration and are allowed to access the areas to scout and hunt, as long as they have a valid tag for the area or any other way that may be offered.
Sincerely, Jacob Alexander
1477 SE 8th Ave Canby, OR 97013 From: James E. Dagata To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Oregon Wilderness limited entry permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 11:42:03 AM
As a fairly frequent user and former Outward Bound instructor of Oregons Central Cascades Wilderness, I understand the issues of overuse and degradation by people not respecting the land and the natural beauty however restricting access by a fee permit system will not solve the problems. What is needed are education programs and unfortunately more enforcement of by Wilderness Rangers which have been lacking in this area for 20 years. This area is so close to both the Willamette Valley and the Bend/Redmond area that there are bound to be conflicts but fee based lotteries or pre registering for a day or overnight hike is not the right way to implement change in these areas. What kind of enforcement will be in affect and what is the cost analysis of that versus more backcountry rangers who could educate leave no trace and help improve the situation for all?
Another point I believe is that it will also restrict those that wish to climb in the backcountry during proper weather windows. Climbers will feel they have no choice but to possibly attempt climbs during weather that may not be safe for doing so. The decision process may be affected. As a 20 year member of an Oregon MRA certified Mountain Rescue team, this is troublesome.
These lands are all of our lands. Others need to speak up when other users are abusing it and their privilege and right to do so. An option may be to keep backcountry permits and pass through permits free and easily obtained and heavy use areas more restricted for camping. Either way, I do not want to see us lose the access rights to go on a climb at the last minute because it would be illegal to go in if all the permits were gone or not available at all the night before for an overnight hike and climb of Mount Washington or Mt Jefferson.
Please find another way.
SIncerely,
James Dagata Philomath, OR From: Janet Gehlert To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: paid permits for wilderness areas Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 7:36:06 AM
Yes! It’s about time!
Perhaps if we had to pay, there might be fewer people, thus allowing these wonderful places to heal. my dog and I used to hike around Todd Lake in early fall when leashes weren’t required. Last time we were there, all the garbage cans had been removed because, the fence repairers told us, people were dumping their household garbage into them!
As we walked the trail, it became obvious that people weren’t “packing it out.”
I’ve been to places where latrines were removed or locked. Don’t know the reasoning behind that but people then used anywhere for their needs.
Choice: restrict the areas somehow or destroy them. jgehlert From: Jan Hufford To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 12:21:36 PM
Don't disenfranchise poor procrastinators. Have a trailhead permitting process at least. From: Jasmine To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: kasey zimmer-stucky Subject: Comment: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 12:30:45 PM
I would like to express my concern for the limited public comment opportunity for this important decision. The Statemen Journal did not report on this opportunity until June 28 and later it was re-posted by OPB. This did not provide me with enough notice to create a fully formed opinion of the proposed plan.
It is difficult to discern how the persons-at-a-time (PAOT) limit in the draft documents differs from current usage. However, I assume that PAOT limits are substantially lower than current usage.
I support the use of advanced permits for overnight excursions into the Wilderness areas in this study. Backpackers are already planning their trips well in advance and obtaining a permit can be incorporated into their planning process easily. I support web system to obtain permits similar to the Deschutes River permit system rather than in-person check-in requirements.
Day trips into Wilderness areas, however, should be unpermitted. The National Parks system is striving to increase diversity among visitors. I believe that the Forest Service should do the same. Advanced permitting and fee structures can serve as constraints to access and affordability for low income or minority populations. Until the use of Wilderness becomes equitable or all, I believe that new barriers to use should not be enacted.
Thank you, Jasmine Zimmer-Stucky 30134 E Woodard Rd. Troutdale, OR 97060 From: Jason Hamilton To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Changes Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 10:02:30 PM
I just wanted to take the time to voice my frustrations with the proposed changes. This land is supposed to belong to all of the people and now we are being told that only the affluent can go. With a family of 5 what used to be a inexpensive trip will now cost upwards of 100.00 including parking pass to access this land of ours.
I believe opening up more trails instead of restricting them would be a better solution and also give a new generation an appreciation of the wilderness.
Thanks for listening.
Jason Hamilton https://jasonhamilton.wfgopportunity.com/ From: Jason Medina To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits for Three Sisters Wilderness Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 7:40:25 AM
I have resided in Bend for 5 years. I completely agree that we should issue permits for people to enter the Three Sisters Wilderness. I feel many of the trails are becoming overlooked, overused and disrespected. I, along with my wife and three young kids (who all love to hike the Three Sisters Wilderness) would gladly reserve and pay a permit fee in order to maintain and sustain the beauty and desired solitude of the wilderness.
If further feedback is needed, I would gladly provide more.
Jason Medina 855 NE Locksley Dr. Bend, OR 97701 From: Jason Perkins To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited Entry to Oregon Wilderness areas/Permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:19:22 PM
Hello,
I have lived in Central Oregon for 36 years One of he things that has kept me here is the ability to hike into the various wilderness areas, camp, backpack and enjoy the landscape If the Forest Service invokes a permit plan to prevent access through limited permits and price gouging through additional permit fees, I and many others, will find other areas to recreate I am more local than not any more and to read about this kind of land control is ridiculous If the intent is to have people move to other areas of the country in order to play control games, then you are on the right track The bureaucracy of this measure is mind blowing These are public lands for public use I already pay for a forest pass every year and to have to pay a per use visit is ridiculous And then to limit how many people can go is just plain ludicrous
I am not an activist, but I guarantee I will be one of the most vocal if this government regulation proceeds It is not right for the community I could understand a limit of “passes” available for hiking South Sister, but the amount of regulation is astounding The people should not need to plan ahead and buy permits to hike Three Finger Jack, camp in the Jefferson Wilderness area, or many of the other areas listed for regulation
This I bad business and bad for Oregon
Sincerely, Jason Perkins Central Oregon outdoor enthusiast
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: jay_F To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 4:28:08 PM
This idea simply won't work for a single visit to a particular trail-head. What would work would be an annual permit for hiking any trail-head. This would be similar to the existing seasonal Forest pass and winter snow-park pass. Or even an add- on to the forest pass requiring added fees. From: Jean Drayer To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limiting Wilderness Permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 2:36:13 PM
I’ve visited Bend since the late 1960’s and have lived here since 1999. I’ve hiked a lot in the Three Sisters Wilderness over those years except for the past five years when I’ve been disabled by Lyme Disease. I’m getting much better and hope to hike (slowly) when the trails thaw this year. I expect to find a changed experience due to the increased local population and tourists caused by over promotion by the tourist agencies, realtors, and the City of Bend’s contributions of our tax dollars to those agencies.
I know you have to do something to save the wilderness but I’m very unhappy that I won’t be able to just get up and go for a hike when I feel like it without first getting a permit. I’m assuming you’d have to have the permit before getting to the trailhead to control numbers. I don’t know the details of your plan. I hope you can give precedence to local residents.
Besides reducing numbers what you want is to change bad behaviors. Maybe requiring people to view a short video stressing good behavior in the wilderness before issuing a permit should be required. That could also reduce numbers.
I’m very disappointed it’s come to this. It will only get worse as the area’s over promotion continues. That’s the problem and what needs to stop but probably won't. I don’t blame the forest service for having to take these measures to deal with it. Thank you for caring for the wildernsess.
Jean Drayer Bend resident From: Jeff Gent To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: rule change to require permits for all wilderness areas Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 10:09:31 AM
I am writing to object to the proposed rule change to require permits for all entry into wilderness areas of the Willamette and Deschutes National Forests. As a long time regular visitor to these wilderness areas I agree with the concern that some of the areas withing the wilderness are being over used. However, as one of those who leaves no trace, typically goes to areas far off the beaten path, and has been doing so for decades I am very frustrated that you would choose to restrict my use of the truly remote areas of the wilderness because others are destroying popular areas. Those areas are only as popular as they are because you actively facilitate people's easy access to those areas by building and maintaining trails into those areas. If you don't want people destroying a particular area then stop maintaining the trials into it. Restricting my access to some other unpopular area can not have any impact on the abuses taking place in popular areas. Reducing the number of parking spots at trial heads into those popular areas would have an impact or you could get serious and eliminate the trail head altogether. Or, you could reduce the size of the groups allowed in. Those who belong in the wilderness don't need or want trail heads or trails. From what I can tell those trails are illegal anyways since a wilderness is suppose to be "untrammeled". Nothing violates the 'leave no trace' ethic worst that a blazed trail and saw cut logs. The quality of my wilderness experience is definitely reduced every time I come across one of your trails, some of which are like highways. I'm guessing you would argue that those trails are needed to facilitate peoples enjoyment of these areas but aren't you now saying that these areas are being over used? Why then would you not see the simple logic in removing the trails people use into those areas? Rather, you are proposing a system that will create a result where the majority of the people will be prevented from entering any part of the wilderness no matter how remote it is. This is analogous to the way hunting tags are issued on a lottery basis. The result is that many people never get a tag for an area they want to hunt or if they do they have to wait for years between tags. Is this the result I'm facing now, where I may have to wait for years before I have an opportunity to re-enter a wilderness area that I've been visiting all my life? Why? Because you made it trivial for those who don't belong there to get there.
Also....I am a hunter who managed to pull a special tag this year that Oregon has for hunting in the wilderness areas. Do you have any plans on coordinating your permits with that hunting tag so that if a person gets a tag they will also be allowed to enter the wilderness areas during the period of that hunt? If not you're creating a problem.
Jeff Gent 28955 Sheep Head Rd, Brownsville OR, 97327 From: Jeffrey Kozimor To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: trail access Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 1:48:02 PM
Please note my strong opposition to requiring permits to hike the proposed areas.
Fees and permits would eliminate anyone who's in the area to spontaneously go for a hike. Not cool.
Permits are more bureaucratic barriers to using resources the public owns and has long had access to. Fees are just another way to raise money. Would fee revenue be used to enhance the resource, or would it go to the general fund? If so, the permit fees would just be a tax.
Enforcement would mean people being written tickets if they chose to hike with permits not being available or sold out. Not cool.
This would be a big inconvenience to the public. Please embrace these comments.
-- Cell From: Jeffrey To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Rant on limit access to Oregon wilderness Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 8:34:38 AM
Warning, this is a rant.
I have a couple problems with this plan closing down the number of people into high use area:
1) HOW THE HECK DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT PUBLIC LAND IS? This is not private land we are talking about this public land. You are discussing keeping people out of the land that is for their use.
2) This locking up public lands by permit only is illegal, you can not do whatever you want and not expect people to be mad at you. Look there are massive anti government sentiments going around and the violence is rising do not be an idiot and make yourself a target. I rather keep you guys safe and you are making it harder for me by doing dumb things I cannot protect you at all times.
3) Overpopulation of trails is easily solved, just open back up the trails that you shut down and the roads that you blocked off you open. This action of opening up the trails will naturally disperse the people. Horse packers naturally clear trails, they should be your best friends of the forest but for some reason you have made them your enemy.
4) You are simply being prejudiced against people of the military or people with jobs that do not allow them to plan months in advance.
5) You pulled the outhouses, what the heck did you expect would happen? People would stop pooping and nobody follows the stupid rule of having to carry out their poop, fyi poop is a very good and natural fertilizer.
6) Big government is greedy, what gives you the idea that they after seeing your increase of cash that they would not make some rules that the cash you are getting go to the general fund and you would not see a cent of it?
7) You are being a jerk to me who I pick up trash and clear trails for free and now you are wanting to stick us with fees? Story time: my dad and I cleared a trail that had a lot of trees that had fallen down on the trail. While we were in the back country some ranger walks on that freshly cleared trail and sees my dad's horses are too close to a stream as the horses are grazing. The ranger gave my dad a ticket for incorrectly parking his horse in a meadow. What then makes you think we want to go back and clear that trail again if some dick is going to walk down the trail and find something slightly wrong with what we are doing and give us a extortion fee? From: Jennifer Carley To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed permit plan for Wilderness hikes Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 8:24:11 AM
I am writing to comment on the proposed plan to limit access to Oregon's Wilderness areas. It is too broad and permits are too expensive. I like the way the permit system has been implemented for places like Obsidian trail. It takes planning to go, but is still free and there are alternative hikes in the general area that do not require permits. The proposed plan is too broad and sweeping. It should include permits for only specific hikes rather than the whole Wilderness area. Permits should still be free. Trail passes are already required, it is unfair to impose another fee. I would not mind an increase in the cost of an annual trail pass. I live in Oregon because I can spontaneously go hiking in beautiful places and I can take my visitors to wonderful places for the price of a Trail pass and gasoline. I hate it when places are crowded, but I hate more the thought of not being able to go to ANY of those areas without a hassle and extra expense. We need to expand our Wilderness areas, not make the entire areas exclusive. There will not be support for Wilderness areas if they are inaccessible to the general public. I support coming up with a plan, but I don't support this one. Sincerely, Jennifer Carley
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID From: Jeremy Mitchell To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments - proposed limited entry permits to wilderness areas Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 8:15:36 AM
Hello,
I wanted to let you know that I oppose the limited entry permit system to the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness. I would prefer to see the USFS focus time, money, and other resources on education and outreach regarding the importance of our sensitive wilderness habitats rather than limiting those who can enjoy them. I propose the USFS limit the maintenance of popular trailheads and other access points into the wilderness in an effort to deter day use in the wilderness and simultaneously save costs.
The USFS already does not have the resources to enforce current permitting system regulations and experiences both a high rate of violators and high recidivism from those contacted in the past about violations. More permits and/or fees only affect the honest visitors and truly detracts from the wilderness experience.
I don't have all the answers and I empathize with the challenge you have as land managers to meet the needs of so many conflicting interests. I don't think a permit system is the best option.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Mitchell Former Willamette National Forest employee/wilderness enjoyer/citizen/tax payer/and much more From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Additional comment Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:05:14 PM
Additional comment about proposed access restrictions to Oregon forests (Jefferson, Washington, 3 Sisters, etc.)
Consider putting some type of toilets at campsites that get heavy use like Jefferson Park. I have seen these used in North Cascades National Park (places like Boston Basin). They are very simple and unobtrusive toilets with no enclosure but reduce buried or unburied poop and paper in popular campsites.
Thank you.
Jerry Croft 457 Sanrodee Dr SE Salem, Oregon 97317 From: J Spetz To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments on paid permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 11:53:21 AM
Forest Service management,
When I read the article in the Bend Bulletin, I was surprised. The final opportunity to comment closes on Monday July 3 in the middle of a holiday weekend? And I certainly missed other advertised offers to submit comments, as this was the first that I knew of it.
My wife and I and quite a few friends attended an informative evening session in mid-March. It was hosted by the Forest Service and talked of a long term plan to assess trail congestion and to propose various solutions. I don't recall mention of a short term comment period with this sort of deadline. And no mention of fee based permitting as the primary solution.
The Bulletin article mentioned quite a number of trails where permits could be required. I hike regularly and I am familiar with many of those listed. In my experience there are only a few of those trails that I would call impacted by excessive and growing numbers. Notable examples of congestion are the Green Lakes trail and the route up to South Sister peak. And not overused are other trails out of the Devils Lake trail head to the Wickiup Plain, Sisters Mirror Lake, and others. It seems to me that if the Forest Service is determined to reduce impacts of crowds and abusive use there are better alternatives that blanketing many trains with the burden, complication, and expense of paid permits or even free preregistration.
Suggestions for you ...... Do not discourage use of most trails. Rather spread out the load by permitting only a very few of the worst impacted trails. Give people the free unrestricted opportunity to hike elsewhere. Surely your data must show that this approach is working on the Obsidian Trail. We never have trouble getting a permit there, as people apparently have mostly gone elsewhere to avoid the permit hassle.
Second, educate the hiking public with various methods. At the Forest Service meeting in March we were invited to vote on ways to help preserve the wilderness. A leading response was education. I am not an educator, but I know that some techniques work with some people and other techniques with others. At trail heads and on the trails, your rangers and volunteers should be well educated on the issues and should use positive and cordial ways to deliver your message. We have encountered rangers with this positive approach and another with a distinctly obnoxious demeanor. And off the trails, consider delivering the wilderness preservation messages in schools, in periodicals, with presentations. Maybe develop a clever, persistent, and consistent message, like the Smoky the Bear that I grew up with.
I find your approach, as described in the Bulletin, to be aimed at discouraging people from using our nearby wilderness areas. Isn't really better in the long run to encourage responsible use of the great outdoors of Oregon, not hanging up our hiking boots to avoid hassle and expense?
Respectfully,
Jerry Spetz Bend, OR From: jessica beauchamp To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Agree! Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 9:02:12 AM
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From: James Sellers To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed wilderness-area fees Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 12:42:32 PM
This is my comment about proposed fee-supported wilderness permits in six Oregon wilderness areas.
My comment applies to day hikers, of whom I am one; although I have hiked in all six wilderness areas that the proposal affects, my greatest knowledge is about the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness.
I am suggesting this compromise: Initiate the fee-supported permits on weekends only, deferring action on weekday users while seeing whether weekend-only permits have the desired impact.
During the past 10 years my hiking experience on weekdays is that I see few – sometimes no – other hikers. On those rare occasions that I hike on a weekend, the numbers are far greater. That observation is purely anecdotal, of course, whereas you have the actual numbers from the current wilderness-permit system. (A variation of that would be to defer fees for Monday through Thursday, recognizing many backpackers begin their adventures on Fridays -- the day my friends and I usually hike.)
Bottom line: If the Forest Service elects to adopt fees for all the proposed trails, weekends and weekdays alike, that will have my support. However, I believe it would be sad to have fees keep low-income people out of wilderness areas altogether because they have more critical uses for the money.
Jim Sellers 685 Eisenhower Ct., NW Salem, Oregon 97304 [email protected] From: Jim Spitz To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Fees and Reservations Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 12:16:40 PM
I am writing to oppose USFS proposals to require paid permits and to limit access to five wilderness areas in Oregon. This feels schizophrenic. On one hand the FS is actively promoting tourism through “welcome centers”, Discover Your Forest, etc. On the other hand the FS is proposing to limit and charge for access. This feels like empire building at the expense of public enjoyment. Fees and reservations greatly change and diminish a wilderness experience. Yes, there is no doubt that impacts need to be reduced in some portion of wilderness areas, but there are more appropriate ways to reduce impacts at this time. Not promoting tourism and relocating trails and other facilities to better disperse recreations would be a good start.
Jim Spitz 60045 River Bluff Trail, Bend, Oregon 97702 Voice: Email: [email protected] From: Joan Martelli To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Forest Service Plan for paid entry permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:30:50 PM
Hello,
I just read about the Forest Service plan to implement paid entry permits to Oregon Wilderness areas. I believe the permit system is a good idea ... I have been hiking and backpacking in the Oregon wilderness areas since 1978, and I have seen first hand the way they have become overused. However ... I do not like the idea of a paid entry permit. Why would this be implemented, and what will the money be used for?
While I'm at it ... I've heard that there is a bill in the works that will attempt to allow mountain bikes into the wilderness. Want to ruin the wilderness experience? Allow mountain bikes, and you will do just that. Keep bikes out of the wilderness!
Joan Martelli
Virus-free. www.avast.com From: Jm Miller To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits for Three Sisters Wilderness Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 10:22:07 AM
Sadly, I have to agree that it is time to have paid permits on the trails to The Three Sisters Wilderness hiking trails. Over-use and mis-use necessitates this step.
Hopefully, this will mitigate the number of users and the fees will help with the clean- up.
- Joan Miller Bend, OR From: Chambers, Joe Austin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Area Changes Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 3:41:36 PM
It would be interesting to see the number of visitors per day now vs. proposed. Numbers can be misleading when they are presented on an annual basis. You also can’t just divide the annual numbers by 365 to get a daily reference as it is obviously quite different between the summer time and winter time.
Limiting any of these areas to only 30 day hikers would seem to be an extreme measure.
Best Regards, Joe Chambers
Joe Chambers, Associate Director, Enterprise Computing Services Oregon State University | Information Services |
From: Joe McCormick To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited entry permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:19:21 AM
As an avid climber of all the peaks in the wilderness areas proposed for limited access permits, I am concerned about the impact such regulations will have upon the wilderness experience of the climbing community. I would propose that any such permit system allow people to pass through lower elevation areas if they doing so solely to gain access into the high alpine areas and summits well above tree line and off of any established trails while climbing. Pamelia Lake is a great example of what I fear from a one-size-fits-all entry permit system. Although the SW ridge of Mt. Jefferson is outside the permit camping area, I've been told that I cannot hike through the permit area to gain access to that climbing route without obtaining a permit. This unnecessarily limits my freedom to access and experience a part of the wilderness that is by comparison very lightly used, difficult to access and a true joy to be in. The problem with a permit to enter for climbers is that responsible climbers can now choose to go into the high mountains only when the weather and route conditions allow them to do so safely. Weather and snow conditions are fickle in the cascades and can change rapidly, even during our summer months. In essence, we can safely climb when the mountains and weather allow us to do so rather than when a schedule or access to an available permit allow. Weather windows to climb can be short, so a climbers scheduled entry into the high alpine environment must be flexible. A likely result of a limited entry permit system is climbers attempting routes primarily when they can get a permit, rather than when conditions make it reasonably safe to climb. Indeed, making the wise and carefully considered decision of when to climb is a huge part of the mountaineers wilderness experience and essential part of their "freedom of the hills". Please don't take this away from the local climbing community in your very necessary and appreciated efforts to protect the more readily accessible and impacted lower elevation areas of our wilderness.
Joe McCormick From: J Odden To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits for OR NF Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:16:06 PM
Thanks for taking proposed action and comments.
I think that the proposed plan is a really good idea: http://www.kgw.com/news/local/sweeping-plan-would-limit-entry-to-5-popular-oregon-wilderness- areas/452875089
With as popular as Oregon has become lately for tourists and new residents, I hope you will expand this to include other areas especially near Portland and continue to monitor impact - e.g. Mt Hood National Forest and areas around the Gorge. Parking and environmental impact is abysmal, and it's sad to see once beautiful spaces like Oneonta Falls succumb to "must-see" tourist lists when it is a non-traditional hike that poses serious risks to the underprepared and has trashed the local ecology.
Having used Washington State's Enchantments lottery system and failing 3 years in a row, I hope you will be smart about how you implement the limited passes. If somebody wants to go several years in a row, there should be some kind of wait list or "returning pool." Other than that, having a small permit fee (assuming it is granted) is reasonable to cover administration costs.
Thank you and keep up the good work, Joe Odden Mount Hood Parkdale OR 97041 From: JOHN & ANNETTE GERARD To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Permit System for the Deschutes National Forest Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 9:58:27 PM
Dear Beth -
We'd like to offer our support and encouragement of a permit system for those areas of the forest where overuse has occurred such as the Green Lakes, Tam McArthur Rim, Broken Top / 370 area, etc. However, we'd also like a permit system which would allow for people less fortunate than ourselves to be able to visit these beautiful areas.
Sincerely,
John & Annette Gerard
1945 SW Knoll Ave. Bend, OR 97702 From: JOHN BLANCHARD To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: paid permit Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 5:56:08 AM
This is a very short sighted idea. If the BLM’s example on the Deschutes River can be used as an example, once you go to a paid permit system, the whole agency effort in the area shifts to collection enforcement. The protection of the scenic resource always falls short. Fee funds are gobbled up for enforcement salaries and red tape. This makes public lands accessible to the affluent primarily. John Blanchard From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 12:02:31 PM
Permits are a good idea. However, enforcement will be impossible. What is needed is a campaign to try to get people to respect the wilderness.
The "Access" article is a good start. Articles on "pack it in-pack it out" would be good. As well as how to do that articles. We did that 20 years ago with home made "Poop tubes".
First people have to care. Then they have to know how.
Jon Andersen (retired backpacker) From: Evenboer, Jonathan David To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: RE: Advance Permit Proposal Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 10:52:43 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
While I mostly agree with the proposal to require an advance purchase of a permit when entering Wilderness areas from certain, more popular, trailheads, I think the requirement of an advanced permit for backpacking from any trailhead is too much. I find the proposed backpacking permit requirement to be "too much" for the following reasons:
1) The possibility that people will buy permits for longer durations of time than they will actually need. People with "money to burn" might buy a week long backpacking permit, but may only spend half a week in the Wilderness they purchased a permit for. This means certain people miss out on a backpacking trip because someone with more money overbought. In a sense, this creates a type of economic discrimination favouring people with more time and money. Discrimination of this type is against the policy of the US Wilderness and its ruling bodies.
2) It eliminates the possibility of a spontaneous trip into the wilderness. Part of the joy of camping in the wilderness (for me, at least) is saying "Hey, I've got a few days off, it's the middle of the week, crowds will be low...I think I'll go have a Wilderness camping adventure!"
3) It will (possibly) disperse crowds who can't get permits into the proposed Wildernesses into other, currently less popular Wilderness areas. This will/would create the same problems in those areas, and eventually all Wildernesses would have to adopt a "limited number of permits" policy.
If I could offer an alternative suggestion to adopting the permit policy, it would be to increase the number of park Rangers patrolling Wildernesses to ensure proper usage of Wilderness areas.
Best Regards, Jonathan D. Evenboer From: JONWELDON FICKES To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid Wilderness Permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 12:16:49 PM
To Forest Service Managers
From Jon Fickes
I do NOT want to Pay for Wilderness Permits
You are, by charging, punishing; the poor, spontaneous people and the 99% that take care of the forests when they visit.
You have already made the parking lots so small that a large number of people are parking along side of the road. Some of this is because of the already too expensive trail head permits.
I see both of these permits as a fast growing way to balloon the number of new employees and managers needed to sell and oversee who is carrying these permits.
I do not see these permits solving any problem. We will always have to pick up after the 1%.
The eternal rule is still true, if you want a true Wilderness experience, the farther from your car you go the better it will be. From: Julane Dover To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 9:12:01 PM
I would ask you to please NOT require paid permits for the proposed trailhead areas. A big part of living in Central Oregon is impromptu recreating. We try and go when we think it may be less crowded, but we often can't plan our trips in advance. If I offered one suggestion, maybe at least let locals get a free pass that doesn't require a reservation, and would also let us take friends.
The campground reservation system has already negatively changed how we can camp. Impromptu camping is much more difficult, and we noticed many sites were paid for and not being used. I really dislike the thought of tourists reserving spots, and essentially "blocking" us out and then not using their permit. These are a few of my concerns. Please let us hike when we can. I was born and raised in Central Oregon, and I hope you will please continue to allow us to hike up to Green Lakes if we happen to have the afternoon free, and the weather looks good. Thanks for listening! -Julane Dover [email protected]
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone From: Justin Cox To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 9:42:53 AM
....really? I will never pay. You have lost even more respect from me at this point. How can you not manage the monies that you already have? You are a disgrace to public service. If you ever find shit smeared into a fee sign, it was me.
J C Construction From: Karen Daniels To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 2:36:29 PM
To whom it may concern:
I'm writing to oppose the requirement for limited permits, paid or free, for the wilderness areas in central Oregon. I spend a lot of my free time in the outdoors hiking, mountain biking, river kayaking and rafting. I have seen first hand the negative impact of increased users to our public lands. I believe that attempts to educate the public on leaving no trace and enforcing existing regulations should be stepped up.
If you do limit access to these areas, where are all the people going to go? Probably to areas that are also already overcrowded such as the lower elevation mountain biking trails, Tumalo Falls, Smith Rock and Newberry.
Most tourists aren't going to realize that they need to apply for a permit months in advance. I really resent having to plan my whole summer months in advance and to pay the fees to recreation.gov. I lose money if I need to cancel because there's a forest fire or other events that prevent me from following through on a plan that I had to make months in advance.
As much as I would like to ship half of Bend and all of the tourists back to where they came from and would enjoy a more "wilderness experience", I don't think that it's realistic given the rapid growth in our region.
Some ideas:
People seeking backcountry permits should be required to go through an orientation before being given a permit, like in Denali National Park.
People seeking backcountry permits should be required to show that they have the necessary equipment (like a shovel) before being given a permit, like I do every time I raft a permitted river.
Install composting toilets at popular areas like Green Lakes. Perhaps Visit Bend could finance this project since they're a big part of this problem.
Put large signs at the trailheads instructing people on how to shit in the woods.
Educate horse people about how they can avoid damaging wet trails and meadows. Having them remove their horses manure would be a great step in the right direction. Why are we required to remove human and dog manure, but not horse?
I'm not naive. I know you have funding issues and that you can't fix human stupidity. I just don't believe that permits are the answer.
Sincerely, Karen Daniels Bend, OR From: Kasey Zimmer-Stucky To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permit comment Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 12:35:52 PM
I support the use of advanced permits for overnight excursions into the Wilderness areas in this study. Backpackers are already planning their trips well in advance and obtaining a permit can be incorporated into their planning process easily. I support web system to obtain permits similar to the Deschutes River permit system rather than in- person check-in requirements.
Day trips into Wilderness areas, however, should be unpermitted. The National Parks system is striving to increase diversity among visitors. I believe that the Forest Service should do the same. Advanced permitting and fee structures can serve as constraints to access and affordability for low income or minority populations. Until the use of Wilderness becomes equitable or all, I believe that new barriers to use should not be enacted.
Thank you, Kasey Zimmer-Stucky 1215 nw 21st Ave apt 4 Portland, OR 97209
Sent from my iPhone From: Kate To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments on proposal to require paid permits for Central Oregon wilderness areas. Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:51:17 AM
July 1, 2017 I am writing to comment on the proposal to limit access to the Three Sisters and nearby wilderness areas to permits purchased in advance. While I understand the need to reduce the “wear and tear” on the wilderness there are several aspects of this proposal that bother me. Easy access to beautiful mountains is what makes Bend special. Any proposal must take both parts of this equation into account.
When I previously read of the proposal for permitting, it seemed to be narrowly focused on the Green Lake and Devils Lake trails. Now it has broadened to include many trails in 5 different wilderness areas in Central Oregon. The first I read of this broadened effort was on June 30 in the Bulletin - but the comment period ends on July 3 and this is a holiday weekend! From searching on the internet, I see that the proposal has been out for almost a month. However, since a permitting system would have a huge impact on Bend, if the end of June is the first that others in Bend have heard of it as well, I suggest that a larger conversation over a longer period of time would be a fairer way to proceed.
I think this proposal needs to interact with the Visit Bend tourist effort. If one keeps bringing more and more tourists to central Oregon and advertising the beautiful hikes in the nearby wilderness, then more and more people will be out hiking on the trails, and based on my observations, many of these tourists are not familiar with the etiquette of wilderness use. I suggest that Bend Tourism use some of its money to support back country monitors, who educate about wilderness use and administer fines. And it is not only visitors - I have been shocked every time I am at Todd Lake to see people trampling across the meadows for a picnic. If a large part of the problem is the way people are behaving in the wilderness, then education coupled with fines seems a more direct way to solve the problem than restricting access for everyone at all trail heads. And adding outhouses to popular destinations also seems like a good idea - burying anything in the rocky Central Oregon soil is challenging.
The plan as I understand it also dramatically reduces the ability of people who live here to get up on a sunny day and decide to go hiking - one would have to schedule one’s summer in advance or hunt through the websites before starting the hike to see what’s open. Visitors know when they are coming and can schedule their hikes. Retirees generally have time to peruse web sites and find a hike and usually have fairly flexible schedules. But is there a way to preserve some access for the working families of Bend? This proposal seems to lead Bend further down the path of becoming a large theme park for visitors to play in.
It also seems odd that at the same time that Central Oregon is discussing restricting access to the wilderness, other parts of the country are discussing opening up wilderness areas to bicycles, which would likely lead to trail erosion and trail use conflicts. Taking away people and adding bicycles sounds like a bad idea.
I have no issues with the fees associated with permits, as long as the money is spent directly on maintaining the wilderness land in which the fees were collected rather than going into some general budget. But what will the fines be for going without a permit and will there be enough personnel to enforce this? Will permits be required in the fall, after the number of tourists has diminished? In the winter for ski touring? It seems like a drastic solution to go from open access with free permits to a system with paid access and permits that must be obtained in advance. Has an intermediate solution been considered? One that charges trail fees for all users, with permits available at trail heads, and then spends the money for personnel to enforce (with fines) the rules for the wilderness. And one that adds permits that must be obtained in advance to only the busiest of trail heads. I also think it is important to save a sizable percentage of the permits for next day/same day use, and that they should be available in any forest service office as well as online.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Kate Loughney Bend OR From: Kathleen Eisenbeis To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Three Sisters Wilderness permit plan Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 5:03:17 PM
Bad idea to require new permitting system. Kathleen Eisenbeis PO BOX 362 Sisters, OR 97759
Sent from my iPhone From: Kathy Graves To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limit Public Access Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 2:37:01 AM
I agree in regulating public access to overcrowded public lands. Something must be done. Please do continue to include equestrians in the planning process. Sent from my iPhone From: Kathy Moerschell To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: trail limits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 8:40:35 AM
I agree that there should be permits required on the heavily used trails off the Cascade Lakes Hwy. However we should not have to pay more for a wilderness experience. the NW Forest Pass should be enough. Handle it like Obsidian Trail. Kathy Moerschell 3028 NW Craftsman Dr Bend, OR 97703 From: Katie Bien To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Ideas to help the trail crowding problems in bend Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 1:24:04 AM
I'd love to provide input on your upcoming decisions on how to take care of popular trails in Bend.
We've lived in Bend since 1998 and I run at green lakes and many other trails every summer.
My suggestions for trails are:
1. I strongly think horses should be banned at the very popular trails (or limited to once/month if there is a specific reason that they must be allowed). Horses cause more damage than hikers; they cause damage to areas around the trail (most hikers have to move off of the trail to allow them to pass); they affect local wildlife; they leave considerably more excrement than others and the potential for conflict increases with horses on trails that are as populated as green lakes.
2. I think large groups should require an advance permit and should be limited in number per day. There are many groups using Green Lakes and other popular trails. With a van/bus driver, they are able to drop off large groups even when parking isn't available and large groups tend to cause more damage than individuals.
3. Significantly increase the fines for littering (or not disposing properly of human waste). From what I read, these are the underlying problems with increased trail usage. I would be strongly in favor of a $200 fine or whatever you feel you can enforce. The community and visitors should be protective of our beautiful trails.
4. While I would hope it's not necessary, not allowing dogs on the most popular trails between July and September would reduce the impact on the trails while still allowing users to enjoy the wilderness.
5. There is a lot of work that goes into maintaining these trails and enforcing the rules. I would be in favor of increasing the parking and annual pass fees if that is a need rather than limiting access to users.
6. But I really, really hope that you won't require advance purchase or a limited number of passes for day trips to green lakes and other popular sites. Bend is such an amazing place to live because of the ready access to beautiful trails. People learn to protect the wilderness when they are able to experience it and recognize how amazing it is. Limiting access would change the scope of the Bend experience.
Access to the wilderness is what truly makes our area one in a million.
Thank you so much for everything that you are doing to protect our trails.
Sincerely,
Katie Bien From: John To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trail permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 6:57:22 AM
More government overreach. We want our country back. This is why we elected trump. If there is trash being left, put receptacles out there. If more camp sites are needed, create some. I see more Gov. Owned vehicles (brand new trucks) riding around out there with sometimes two people in the vehicle. How many people does it take to ride around all day on the taxpayer dollar. The forest service buildings look like mansions. We don't need more than a block building or a mobile. No more gov. Control, please. Thanks
Make it a great day! From: Kim McCarrel To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 8:12:30 PM
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project.
You have done an excellent job of documenting the increase in visitor use that is occurring in these five wilderness areas. As an equestrian trail rider and frequent visitor to the five wilderness areas in question, I have seen these changes firsthand and agree that steps must be taken to preserve their wilderness character. I support the Purpose and Need for Action that you have identified.
I often camp with my horse at the horse camps that will be affected by the proposed permit system. While I have no objection to getting a permit if needed to ride in these wilderness areas, I am concerned about how such a permit system might affect horse campers.
It’s clear from your comments that permits would be based upon which trailhead the visitor is departing from. I assume the permit system will be managed much like the permits for the Obsidian area. That is, visitors would have to specify whether they will be accessing the wilderness during the day only, or staying overnight. If the equestrian is planning to ride from a multi-use trailhead, this approach makes sense. If, by chance, hiker and backpacker requests have already taken all the permits for that trailhead, the equestrian will simply have to find another place to ride.
However, this approach needs some modification when the “trailhead” is a horse camp. Horse campers typically ride into the wilderness during the day and return to the horse camp at night. During a stay at the horse camp, they might do day rides into the wilderness on several days. The permit system for the Obsidian area does not contemplate this. Under the Obsidian system, horse campers would have to obtain a separate day-use permit for each of the several days he or she plans to ride into the wilderness.
In the interest of making it as easy as possible for horse campers to obtain their permits, I would suggest the following:
1. Designate the horse camps as “trailheads” for purposes of the permit system. Since hikers don’t usually access the trails from horse camps, this approach would essentially earmark a specified number of permits for equestrian use. I would hope to avoid a situation where people who are camping at a horse camp are unable to access the trails because of heavy permit demand by hikers.
2. Allow horse campers to obtain a package of day-ride permits that would allow them to ride into the wilderness on specified days during their stay at the horse camp.
3. Reserve enough permits for each horse camp “trailhead” for the equestrians that the camp can accommodate.
4. Reserve additional permits for each horse camp “trailhead” to allow day-riders to access the wilderness from the horse camp’s day-use parking area, if it has one.
5. At horse camps where reservations are required to secure a campsite, make it possible for equestrians to easily reserve a package of wilderness permits at the same time they make their horse camp reservations.
I would expect that the Forests have historical visitor usage numbers for the horse camps in question, so it should be easy to determine how many permits need to be available to accommodate current (and if the area can support it, future) equestrian use.
I would also like to see a day-use trailer parking area established at Quinn Meadow Horse Camp. Parking for trailers is virtually non-existent at nearby multi-use trailheads, so equestrians find it very difficult to access the Three Sisters Wilderness Trails for day rides in the northern Cascade Lakes area. Creating a day-use parking area at Quinn would give equestrians access to the nearby trails, assuming they are able to obtain a permit.
I would hope that volunteers who are working to maintain the trails would be exempt from the requirement to obtain a permit.
Finally, horseback riders can be very effective volunteer trail ambassadors, and I would hope that you would include equestrians in your outreach activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts and concerns.
Kim McCarrel
64495 Old Bend Redmond Hwy.
Bend, OR 97703 [email protected] From: Krayna Castelbaum To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed change to wilderness access Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 6:54:19 AM
I am writing to comment on the proposal to limit access to the Three Sisters and nearby wilderness areas to permits purchased in advance. While I understand the need to reduce the “wear and tear” on the wilderness there are several aspects of this proposal that bother me. Easy access to beautiful mountains is what makes Bend special. Any proposal must take both parts of this equation into account.
The first I read of this broadened effort was on June 30 in the Bulletin - but the comment period ends on July 3 and this is a holiday weekend! From searching on the internet, I see that the proposal has been out for almost a month. However, since a permitting system would have a huge impact on Bend, if the end of June is the first that others in Bend have heard of it as well, I suggest that a larger conversation over a longer period of time would be a fairer way to proceed.
I think this proposal needs to interact with the Visit Bend tourist effort. If one keeps bringing more and more tourists to central Oregon and advertising the beautiful hikes in the nearby wilderness, then more and more people will be out hiking on the trails, and based on my observations, many of these tourists are not familiar with the etiquette of wilderness use. I suggest that Bend Tourism use some of its money to support back country monitors, who educate about wilderness use and administer fines. And it is not only visitors - I have been shocked every time I am at Todd Lake to see people trampling across the meadows for a picnic. If a large part of the problem is the way people are behaving in the wilderness, then education coupled with fines seems a more direct way to solve the problem than restricting access for everyone at all trail heads. And adding outhouses to popular destinations also seems like a good idea - burying anything in the rocky Central Oregon soil is challenging.
The plan as I understand it also dramatically reduces the ability of people who live here to get up on a sunny day and decide to go hiking - one would have to schedule one’s summer in advance or hunt through the websites before starting the hike to see what’s open. Visitors know when they are coming and can schedule their hikes. Retirees generally have time to peruse web sites and find a hike and usually have fairly flexible schedules. But is there a way to preserve some access for the working families of Bend? This proposal seems to lead Bend further down the path of becoming a large theme park for visitors to play in.
It also seems odd that at the same time that Central Oregon is discussing restricting access to the wilderness, other parts of the country are discussing opening up wilderness areas to bicycles, which would likely lead to trail erosion and trail use conflicts. Taking away people and adding bicycles sounds like a bad idea.
I have no issues with the fees associated with permits, as long as the money is spent directly on maintaining the wilderness land in which the fees were collected rather than going into some general budget. But what will the fines be for going without a permit and will there be enough personnel to enforce this? Will permits be required in the fall, after the number of tourists has diminished? In the winter for ski touring? It seems like a drastic solution to go from open access with free permits to a system with paid access and permits that must be obtained in advance. Has an intermediate solution been considered? One that charges trail fees for all users, with permits available at trail heads, and then spends the money for personnel to enforce (with fines) the rules for the wilderness. And one that adds permits that must be obtained in advance to only the busiest of trail heads. I also think it is important to save a sizable percentage of the permits for next day/same day use, and that they should be available in any forest service office as well as online.
Sincerely, Krayna Castelbaum
-- Krayna Castelbaum, Dedicated Poetry Instigator www.clearlenscoaching.com |
Clear Lens Coaching: Uncommon Conversations for Couples & Individuals Poetry Playshops & More for Groups
"My teachers were the sun, moon, stars, dirt, wind, trees, and the critters. All of them were preaching the truth..." Mike Snider From: Kreg Lindberg To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 1:19:56 PM Attachments: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies project comments.pdf
Greetings,
Below and attached are my comments on the proposed Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies project.
Kreg
Greetings,
The following are comments on the Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project proposed action.
Restoring wilderness trail conditions
The proposed action involves implementation of limited entry to address concerns relating to high use levels in wilderness. There are pros and cons to every access rationing system, including limited entry. I recommend the Forest Service restore wilderness trail conditions to the Green Lakes trail as an alternative (or complement) to limited entry on that particular trail. Specifically, I recommend the Forest Service remove the upper two log bridges.
There are three log bridges on the Green Lakes trail between the Cascade Lakes Highway parking area and the Green Lakes basin. I understand the rationale for the first one given the high water flow at that location; that bridge truly serves a safety function. However, the upper two bridges are unnecessary, as the water flow is modest at those locations, and the creek easily can be forded once people remove their shoes. I have hiked on trails in many countries, and one would expect to remove shoes and ford the creek in similar situations outside the United States. It is entirely possible for people to do that here.
The Wilderness Act refers to “undeveloped Federal land” that retains “its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements.” On page 3 of the proposed action, the Forest Service mentions its regulations and policy, which includes managing wilderness to promote, perpetuate, and restore physical and mental challenge and primitive recreation. Bridge removal would restore some very limited challenge and wilderness-type primitive recreation in the context of undeveloped land retaining primeval character without improvements. Put simply, have people walk across the creek where and how horses currently walk across it.
Bridge removal also is consistent with other Forest Service management guidance. In the trails section of the Three Sisters Wilderness component of the Willamette National Forest Plan (page A- 22), it is noted that “[e]xcessive numbers of visitors are being drawn into [w]ilderness areas by … trails being constructed and maintained to higher than necessary standards.” The Green Lakes trail bridges are a perfect example of this, and a reminder that high use levels are partly a result of past Forest Service decisions to “develop” wilderness trails.
An analogy that comes to mind would be the Forest Service converting a dirt road to a shiny new asphalt road and then deciding to limit how many people can drive on that road. Return the road to dirt. Those people who value undeveloped experiences in natural environments will still drive the dirt road. Those who simply want a scenic tour will go elsewhere. Fortunately, it’s a lot easier to remove a small log bridge than an asphalt road.
Bridge removal would be consistent with M6-26 in the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan, page 4-106), notably: “Remove or reduce any facilities contributing to concentration of use beyond capacity” and “Decrease or reduce accessibility.” It also would be consistent with M6-54 (constructed to the minimum standard) and M6-59: “Bridges and culverts will not be installed for visitor convenience, but may be installed for safety or resource protection needs.” The upper bridges seem clearly designed for visitor convenience, as it is quite easy to safely ford the creek in those locations; indeed, if there are mishaps, the safety consequences are less dire when fording the creek than when walking on a log several feet above it. Fording the creek would not noticeably damage resources beyond the very localized and limited level due to existing horse fording and the inevitable impacts that occur along the entire trail length.
The proposed action includes the following passage (page 10):
The Forest Service wants to engage with the public to refine these ideas. We are interested in hearing alternative strategies for addressing the purpose and need of the project. A preferred strategy will be one that preserves opportunities for solitude, maintains the natural conditions of pristine areas, reduces natural resource impacts, and prevents further degradation of wilderness values, while preserving opportunities for unconfined recreation.
Every access rationing system favors one type of user over another, with limited entry favoring those who have the ability and inclination to plan their recreation experiences far in advance. In my experience Obsidian Trail permits book out a couple months in advance for “prime” summer weekends, and any meaningful reduction in permits for the Green Lakes and South Sister trail likely would lead to similar or greater advance booking requirements.
Given the Forest Service decision to change existing conditions, wouldn’t it be better to favor those who seek a genuine wilderness experience, rather than those who simply seek a trail experience in an appealing environment?
Lastly, though I’ve not seen any research on it, bridge removal may reduce the human waste issue, as those who are comfortable removing their shoes for wilderness creek crossings also may be more comfortable and knowledgeable than others about proper disposal of waste.
I encourage the Forest Service to restore wilderness conditions, and at least partly address its “high use problem,” by removing the upper two bridges on the Green Lakes trail. Indeed, the Forest Service could follow an adaptive management approach involving bridge removal first, then implementation of unpopular limited entry only if / when bridge removal does not lead to conditions that are consistent with the agency’s goals for the area.
Providing “solitude or primitive and unconfined” recreation
The Wilderness Act states that wilderness should provide “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” As the Forest Service notes (Landres et al. 2008:9, reference below), application of this concept means “freedom from management regulations” and “freedom from societal or managerial controls.” The need for some managerial control is understood, but “agencies need to show restraint in fulfilling their administrative responsibilities so that the primitive and unconfined quality of wilderness does not slowly erode over time.”
The current process provides the opportunity for the Forest Service to restore such restraint and to meet public recreation and public health needs in the process. In 2003, the Deschutes National Forest imposed leash restrictions on all the high quality trails near Bend along the Cascade Lakes Highway, with high quality relating to water access and the ability to reach areas above tree line in a reasonable day hike. These restrictions apply from July 15 to September 15. The trails typically are at least partly snow-covered until July 15 each year, while most of the period between September 15 and the return of snow overlaps with hunting season. Thus, off-leash recreationists have very limited ability to access these trails.
The impact of these management regulations is great given the large number of people who seek to recreate with their dogs in Central Oregon and the lack of substitutability between off-leash recreation and the alternatives (on-leash or non-dog recreation). Implementation of leash restrictions is in effect the banning of an activity, as on-leash recreation is a fundamentally different recreation activity than is off-leash recreation. The fact that many people risk expensive fines reminds us that on-leash or non-dog recreation is not a substitute for off-leash recreation.
There is a demonstrated need for off-leash trail recreation opportunities in Central Oregon, beyond the obvious need seen while on the trails themselves. As noted in the state trails plan (http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/Trail Programs Services/Pages/Trail-Plans.aspx, tables 20 and 21), off-leash walking and running trails are the second-highest priority for additional trails both inside and outside one’s community in Region 8, which includes Deschutes County. The only priority that ranked more highly is walking / hiking trails in general.
The Bend Park and Recreation District recently conducted a “community needs survey.” Out of the 40 recreation opportunities evaluated, off-leash dog trails was the highest unmet need, with almost 9,000 Bend households not having their need for such trails met (Table Q6-3 in the ETC Institute report to BPRD).
From a public health perspective, off-leash recreationists engage in their activity more often, for longer periods of time, and at higher levels of physical activity than do on-leash recreationists (see figures 53, 55, and 56 of the state trails plan). The Forest Service Region 6 sustainable recreation strategy stresses the public health and other benefits of outdoor recreation; these benefits can be achieved only if the Forest Service allows legal and high quality opportunities.
How does this relate to the Central Cascades wilderness proposed action? As noted in the March 2017 “Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project” PowerPoint (slide 19), “as recreation use increases people can experience more conflicts between different types of recreational use.” Conversely, the Forest Service’s reduction of use through limited entry would provide the opportunity to reduce conflict and restore off-leash opportunity on one or more of the high-quality trails along the Cascade Lakes Highway.
The Obsidian Trail illustrates this opportunity, as use is limited on that trail and off-leash recreation is allowed. I have taken multiple day and overnight trips on that trail and not experienced off-leash conflict.
The Soda Creek trail and the Broken Top trail are perhaps best suited for restoring legal off-leash access. I do not see specific visitor estimates by trail in the proposed action or related documents, though one of the maps shows ranges of trailhead use. In the case of Soda Creek, the range includes Green Lakes, with Soda Creek representing a small fraction of the combined use in my experience. In the case of Broken Top, the range presumably includes visitors hiking to the Green Lakes basin and to the tarn. In my experience, very few of those visitors are hiking to Green Lakes. Most are hiking to the tarn, and those high numbers are due in part to leash restrictions on the Green Lakes, Soda Creek, and Todd Lake trails. That people drive a greater distance on a challenging road is a reminder of how much off-leash recreationists value engaging in their activity with access to water and in areas above tree line.
The provision of a legal alternative, combined with provision of appropriate information and education, can reduce conflict on other trails. A decade ago, I offered to then-district ranger Phil Cruz to volunteer in the Green Lakes parking lot to direct off-leash recreationists to the Soda Creek trail if he would restore off-leash on that trail. He did not do so, though he did restore it to the Broken Top tarn trail.
Visitor education
The proposed action refers to expanded visitor education, including required viewing of educational information before receiving a permit. Education can be useful in some cases, but there are two important considerations in this context.
First, the potential benefit of education must be balanced with maintaining freedom and avoiding unnecessary regulation. One way to reduce the burden of mandatory education programs is to exempt people who already have gone through the education program within a given time period, such as within the past two years.
Second, education should be balanced and should serve to engage – not alienate – the public. All humans have biases, and this includes Forest Service staff. It is important to engage with diverse user groups to develop educational messages that are respectful of the activities people engage in while promoting restraint that is appropriate. With respect to any educational message involving off-leash recreation, I encourage the Forest Service to work with DogPAC and other relevant groups (see, for example, the off-leash education conducted by the OSU College of Forestry at its college forests, including the McDonald Forest on the edge of Corvallis).
I would be happy to discuss any of these topics further in person, by email, or otherwise.
Sincerely,
Kreg Lindberg Bend, Oregon
Reference
Landres, Peter; Hennessy, Mary Beth; Schlenker, Kimberly; Cole, David N.; Boutcher, Steve. 2008. Applying the concept of wilderness character to national forest planning, monitoring, and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-217WWW. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
From: Kyle Miller To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes; [email protected] Subject: Permit plan, does it exempt a active duty military service members Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 6:27:01 PM
Does your permit plan for the Oregon Wildernesses exempt active duty military service members? Having to obtain a permit in advance will make visiting the Wildernesses nearly impossible for my son who is in the Air Force as his days off and leave days change constantly, so he can't plan in advance. Kyle Miller From: Kyle Miller To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 4:36:58 PM
Why doesn't the USFS clear more trails to spread people out? For example the trails on the east side of MT Washington have been abandoned! The trails into the east side of the Jefferson wilderness are either being abandoned or negliented. Kyle Miller of OET From: Kyle Miller To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: limited entry/paid permits for wildernesses are a bad idea Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:25:02 PM
Your proposal to limit the entry throughout the wilderness is unnecessary. Limit the high use areas of Green Lakes, Jefferson Park, South Sister, sure, those places are over- crowded. But to limit the entry throughout the wilderness is over reaching and counter productive. 1) You don't have the man power to enforce the system. 2) We need more people using the wilderness throughout the thousands miles of trails. So why are you putting up a "not welcome sign" with this proposal. 3) What about the Oregon hunters who wait years through ODFW's hunting permit/preference point system? Are you going to deny them access to the wilderness via a limited permit system? 4) What about the off season when few if any people are in the wildernesses, why tell people they can't go because of a bureacratic permit system? 5) What about the poor people in our state not being able to afford permits? Sounds to me like you are turning the public wilderness into a private exclusive club of rich people from Portland. 6) I use my vacation time each year to clear down trees in these wildernesses, so now you are going to charge me to donate my time? What an insult! 7) You are going to make the your forest rangers extremely unpopular with the wilderness users. This proposal is going to create a backlash of hostility towards your quality rangers and make their jobs much more difficult. You will catch more flys with honey, than vinegar. Sincerely, Kyle Kyle Miller
[email protected] From: leann hamblin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Input on trail permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 6:49:43 PM
I think it's a great step towards the crowd control. I would gladly pay for a permit to hike if it meant that I wouldn't have to deal with a huge crowd.
Would it be like a capacity situation? Say, you have to book your hike for a specific day like a campground? I think that would be great! Then you would be able to control how many hikers are on the trail each day! From: Lee Heckman To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Public comment - paid permits 3 sisters wilderness Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:52:55 PM
I would like to take a moment to comment on the proposal to require paid permits in the 3 sisters wilderness. I am a long time Oregon resident, and have lived in Central Oregon for years. I think it is a terrible idea- and my comment is an emphatic and resounding No! I buy my Forest Pass every year. I pay taxes. I am also a volunteer for COTA, and do trail work every year. I use the trails here, and I love Central Oregon. I understand the the wilderness gets a lot of visitors, but that is because it is amazing. We need to have free pedestrian access to these areas. I often will head up for a hike on a whim. That is one of the reasons we live here. Maybe just increase the Forest Pass fee by another 5 bucks (or even 10!) or something- I would be fine with that. But limiting access with such a draconian measure is quite uncalled for. I mean really- I live in town but I can’t drive up to go for a hike after work without scheduling, paying for and picking up a permit? That’s absurd! Yes the area is growing, but this is not the right way to deal with this issue. Please, please, do not punish Central Oregon residents by implementing such a bad plan. If you need to raise more money, please find another way to do it. Thank you- from a concerned citizen.
Lee Heckman RHIT, CCS [email protected] From: Leonard Volland To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: Volland Len Subject: Permits for wilderness area entry Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 12:08:18 PM
Sir, An article in our local newspaper, The News-Review, indicates you are seeking public comment on a proposed wilderness permit system. I am a retired Forest Service employee who worked as a plant ecologist for Region 6 from 1966 to retirement in 1992. During a portion of this career I spent about 10 years sampling vegetation within the Mt. Jefferson Wilderness with the goal of developing a plant community guide and some management prescriptions for that wilderness area. As careers go I wasn't able to finish the job but the data was eventually converged with sampling by other researchers to produce a publishable document. I was traveling the Mt. Jeff wilderness in the late 1970's through the mid 1980's. Even at that time portions of that wilderness were being loved to death and the managers were attempting to pull back camping along certain lake shores. Traveling across the Region as I did, I noticed the same tendencies in the Three Sisters, the Goat Rocks, and up north in Pasayten wilderness areas. So in some respects I think your permit proposal is long overdue. One management situation that was problematic for me then, and continues to this day, is allowing horses, and now, llamas within the meadow ecosystems. I realize they are to carry their own feed, but they still graze the fragile meadow ecosystems. As a result, the moist and dry meadows were becoming more dominated by perennial weeds rather than tufted hairgrass, oatgrasses, redtop and perennial sedges. If you follow the original management criteria for wilderness areas, i.e., human beings are but visitors on the scene, this generation of wilderness managers will think wilderness ecosystems first when evaluating the impacts of human encroachment. Leonard (Lenny) Volland From: Les Joslin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed Wilderness Visit Reservation/Fee Program Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 7:59:04 AM
As the person who pioneered in the field regularly-scheduled wilderness trailhead information and education for the Three Sisters Wilderness (at the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station staffed daily during summer season by trained and uniformed volunteer Wilderness Information Specialists) and the first fee system affecting access to Three Sisters Wilderness trails (Northwest Forest Pass in the mid 1990s followed by successive federal recreation passes), I recommend determination of how the Forest Service would appropriately and effectively fund and staff the education about and enforcement of the proposed wilderness visit reservation/fee system in a manner acceptable to and understood by the citizen-owners of the National Forest System as well as international visitors and sustainable by the Forest Service to the extent it will not have to back down and be perceived as a paper tiger.
There are so many issues to be addressed. For example:
-- Visitors are attracted to Central Oregon by advertisement of the very wilderness resources that the proposed system would ration.
-- If implemented, would reservations be made and fees be paid through an entity such as rec.gov?
-- If implemented, could the system be operated without resort to contractors which would tinge it with "commercialization" of wilderness recreation?
-- If implemented, could the Forest Service employ sufficient appropriate and capable seasonal field personnel to make it work?
-- If implemented, could the Forest Service additionally adequately maintain the wilderness trails and designated campsites affected?
-- If implemented, what would be the displacement effects on currently lesser-used wilderness trails and resources?
Les Joslin
Adjunct Instructor, College of Forestry, Oregon State University (Forestry 352: Wilderness Management) (2001-2011) Supervisory Social Scientist/Community Relations Team Leader, Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest (2003-2005) Forestry Technician/Wilderness Ranger, Bend/Fort Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest (2000-2003) Wlderness Educator (Deschutes National Forest-Central Oregon Community College Partnership) (1992- 1999) Editor, OldSmokeys Newsletter, Pacific Northwest Forest Service Association (2006-Present)
2356 N.W. Great Place Bend, Oregon 97703 From: Leslie Koc To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments on Trail Limits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 3:40:14 PM
Hello. Thank you for asking for feedback. I’ve lived in Bend for ten years. The hiking opportunities was one of the reasons that my husband and I bought a home and moved here. Through these ten years we have both done quite bit of hiking, including leading hikes with local groups. The increased usage of the trails being considered for trail usage limitations has been an ongoing concern and the past two years our concerns have accelerated with the overuse and damage we’ve seen.
How do we manage this situation and yet continue to provide the same wonderful experiences we’ve had and would like to continue to have?
I’m in favor of: 1) The immediate enforcement of illegal parking. When the lots are full, the hiking is limited. 2) Implement an online reservation system similar to what we are used to for Obsidian Trail. It works. 3) Include hiker trail education with the receipt of the online reservation. Simple points make for a safer hikes and maintained trails. 4) Implement a shuttle service from the welcome center on Cascade Lakes Highway to take hikers up to and from the main trails. 5) If volunteers are continued at the trailheads, have a cooler of water bottles to sell to those novice hikers who don’t understand the importance of hydration.
All the best, Leslie Koc [email protected]
Coaching What’s Next 2071 NW Glassow Dr, Bend OR 97703
“Do what you can, where you are, with what you have.” ~ Squire Bill Widener From: Lexi Stickel To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments on Permit Entries Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 3:37:02 PM
As 4 Oregonians, enjoying central Oregon over a long weekend, we read articles about the permits in the Bend Bulletin and online within our local paper - Statesman Journal. We were disappointed that the local media outlets covered this important outdoor news with so little time to provide public input. We must wonder how many people are enjoying a long holiday weekend and not paying attention to the news and thus not able to comment or provide public input to this important decision.
That said, we felt the need to put a pause on our holiday weekend to provide input. My apologies for the short sentences, but I'm attempting to capture the thoughts of four people on my phone:
-Seems socially regressive - how do you make public lands publicly accessible when there are permits? What about people with limited-incomes and abilities? How will you communicate the change with the people in advance? We hope there will be an effort to make these beautiful public lands accessible for all? Such as those with an active Oregon Trail (EBT/food stamps) could get free permits.
-While we have seen the crowds grow over the years in Oregon, we can't help but wonder if all of these locations really need permits? Currently there are so few permits that it seems like a such a tough transition for Oregonians and it will benefit the highly education and middle-to-high income folks.
Please excuse for typos & brevity, this email was sent from a smart phone From: Linda Fava To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: proposed permits for popular wilderness areas Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 10:12:29 AM
Hello,
I am an avid user of the trails in Central Oregon. I have used the permitting system for Obsidian and Pamelia limited entry for a number of years. The number of trail heads that have been proposed for permitting is too extensive. I agree that the South Sister trail is overused and the permitting system is appropriate there. Jefferson Park and Green Lakes/Fall Creek are used often and a weekend permitting system would be helpful there. But the other trails are not a problem on a weekday. Also, there are lots of visitors to Todd Lake itself, but we rarely see anyone beyond Todd Lake going up that trail towards Crater Ditch.
It is a personal observation that the day hikers are not the ones who leave the trash. It appears that the overnight visitors are more likely to leave trash, smoldering fire pits, toilet debris.
I suggest that overnight visitors be required to obtain permits. Since the weekends see the most visitors, I suggest that hikers during the weekdays not need to obtain permits. When we hike during the week, we see very few other hikers at most of the proposed trail heads.
For seniors on a limited income, where our physical activity involves getting outdoors in the beautiful wilderness areas, where we hike during the week when it is less busy, the proposed permitting would be burdensome and excessively expensive. It would be unfortunate to punish the majority of the visitors who abide by the "Leave No Trace" principles due to the negligence of the few. many thanks, Linda Fava From: Lisa Cutter To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trail permit comments Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 3:14:12 PM
Regarding permits to hike into sensitive areas:
I agree, permits are needed in a few places to minimize human impact, such as the summit of South Sister (lots of trash and human waste up there). But please do not charge a fee for the permits. We already pay federal taxes (not enough goes to fund USFS but that's a separate issue) and we also buy NW Forest Pass annual permits.
As long-time Bend locals (since the 1970s; we grew up here) we hike and camp and hunt frequently in the nearby wilderness areas and we would end up paying a lot of extra fees. We have paid fees to camp in the Obsidian Cliffs limited entry area and I would not want to do that for all the places we go. Some people may be priced out, not fair.
Could the crowds of visitors be persuaded to use other trails and lakes? There are less-used trails in Newberry National Volcanic Monument, and along Cascade Lakes Highway (Doris Lake, Blow Lake, Horse Lake), as well as along forest road 370. I realize Crater Ditch road is hard to maintain but it opens up some great hiking spots, if only there were trailheads and trails.
Thank you.
Lisa & Matt Cutter 22055 NE Butler Market Rd Bend, OR 97701 From: Lisa Romano To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 5:40:05 PM
Thanks for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. I'm worried about what seems like drastic measures that will create barriers to accessing some amazing places. While I agree that some parts of these wilderness areas are being loved to death, I don't agree that the strict and limited permit system you are proposing is the right solution.
I would support limited overnight access to some of the most critical areas, with buffers to prevent spillover. I do not support prohibiting all overnight use without a permit and in limited quantities. There is still solitude to be found in all of these wilderness areas, and many of us would still like the opportunity to go find it, without advance planning and competition for permits.
I have concerns about limiting access to day hikers, as such limits may interfere in the ability for enterprising backpackers to find their solitude when doing so requires traveling some common corridors. Also, by limiting day hiking, you're restricting access to what is for many an entry-level outdoors experience. If we want to entice young people and people from all walks of life to get outside, we shouldn't make it hard for them to do so.
Before taking drastic measures, I would like to see these forests try more creative approaches. Working with partners and stakeholders, getting creative with technology and other tools, and using social science, there may be ways to address some of the resource concerns while not limiting access so much. Innovate first! You've got lots of stakeholders out there who want to be part of the solution, but if you're not working hard to engage them in collaborative problem solving they won't be on board.
Thanks, Lisa Romano Corvallis, OR From: Lorie Whitson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trail Passes Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 4:01:17 PM
I do not want to see any changes to the trail and hiking passes. Trying to limit the everyday use is futile. I have seen the overuse first hand and do agree there is a lot more people using our National forests. The more we advertise for visitors the more we get. The people that do not care about, leaving it as you found it or pack-it-in-pack-it out approach will not get or pay for passes anyway. Because they just do not care or follow the rules. I liken it to the use of cell phones while driving. There are laws but some people just won’t follow them no matter what. You could charge what ever you want for a pass but it won’t stop people who just don’t care.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Mandy Dalrymple To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 7:30:07 PM
Hi, love the idea of permits but would really like to see a higher proportion reserved for locals. There's a high cost to live here now. I grew up in Bend and am in my 30s. It's been hard to watch all the place I love get overrun with tourists and losing access would be difficult. I believe we need to limit it, but want to ensure that those living here will have a better chance at gaining a permit.
Thanks, Mandy From: Margaret To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trail permit system-Three Sisters and Mt. Jefferson Wilderness Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 1:23:48 PM
My opinion can be best expressed by this statement: It’s about time!! Enchantment Lakes out of Leavenworth, WA established both a permit and a limited entry system years ago. Demand had forced that approach and the system has worked well. I have been using local Wilderness areas for 68 years and have watched resource degradation with sadness. Green Lakes, Broken Top, and other areas no longer meet wilderness criteria because of user volume. The huge number of humans increases the chances that misbehavior will increase proportionately. (from garbage and poop to search and rescue) User established trails abound as has erosion produced by same.
There will always be a public outcry when permits and entry limits are discussed. “I pay my taxes people shout!” Well, sorry, that money doesn’t make it to agencies for trail and resource protection. “It’s a free country and I have the right to go as I please!” Is also a public response by many. Well, sorry, you don’t have the right to affect other’s experiences by crowding the back country. Actually, the back country is no more. It is now the FRONT country. I worked in Recreation Management for the USDA on the Mt. Hood and also on the Rogue River. While on the Hood a meeting was held at the SO in Sandy where I lived. A permit system was discussed. The strong opposition to a permit system was expressed. So, the agency declined to implement one. The Mt. Hood, an Urban Forest so close to Portland, caved in to naysayers and the resource has suffered and will continue to do so. It is very difficult to impose limits in a so-called ‘Free Society.” Sometimes, however, it is necessary and required to maintain both the land and controls on human impact. The Deschutes is also an Urban Forest and is becoming even more URBAN each day.
I just hope that the Deschutes and also the Region will agree and have the courage to do what, in my opinion, is right, both for humanity and the resource.
Waivers will be necessary for PCNST travelers and also an opportunity for individuals to obtain day use permits on limited basis. It looks like the Forest has done well to establish designated camp spots for overnight use.
Now, with all this in place, REALITY sets in. How will it be administered? Fees will help, but money should stay with Recreation and not be siphoned off to the General Fund or to the Fire Budget. The present Congress and Administration does not seem engaged to support trail or recreation programs. I guess that would make it even more compelling to establish user fees for admission to Wilderness Areas experiencing crowds. That seems like an oxymoron! Wilderness . . . Crowds??!
I guess that is enough input. I heartily support a fee and user limit for the aforementioned areas.
Margaret Holman 996 SE Centennial St. Bend, OR 97702 From: Mark Dreiling To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited Entry Wilderness Response Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 11:43:38 PM
To whom it may concern,
I have read the proposed plan of a limited entry in Oregon Wilderness. Although it did not specify all wilderness would be subject for this proposal. The wilderness that the article included, I have spent time backpacking in each of those wilderness listed. I have been backpacking for 15 years and is a big part of my life.
I have noticed that solitude is harder to come by and human influence on the wilderness is having an impact. It bothers me to no end to see litter, improper disposal of human waste, and poor wilderness etiquette. Every time I go out on a trip I am making the place better than I found it. I have mixed feelings on the matter of limited access.
I feel the government is has a duty to it's tax paying citizens that more jobs should be created to help the demand of the people. There are too many people using the same wilderness area. Forest Service does not have enough funding to keep up with the crowds. There are numerous trails that are not maintained. Forest Service employees are going to turn into a police.
The government will be charging per entry which is not a good look. This sounds like a money making opportunity that you will be charging people. People are already having a difficult time as it is paying for everyday life. There has been multiple time I could not go backpacking because I could not afford to go. Between food, gas, and supplies the cost adds up. Adding on to the usage of the land would make it more difficult to go.
A lot of people will not pay to go in the wilderness. You will have a lot of people who have been using the public protected lands for years without paying. Why should they now? Whey should they be hounded by government out in the sanctuary of solitude. There is a lot of people who have been using the wilderness with respect that have not been an issue.
There is now social media, internet, technology, great outdoor gear, marketing towards the outdoors. It is easier than ever to find a wilderness destination. With the growing populations moving to the cities, you will see more people visiting the outdoors. I understand and appreciate finding ways to limit the problem. I feel by making the whole wilderness a charged limited entry is the wrong way to go.
I feel places such as Jefferson Park, Paradise Park, Green Lakes, etc should be limited entry with charges. Those places definitely need it. I feel more trail maintenance needs to happen along with public education. Unfortunately there will still be people disregarding the etiquette and rules. Harsh fines and education need to happen when poor decisions are made.
I understand that the problem is getting bigger and decisions will need to be made. I hope that the wilderness stays pure and not made a business by our government. I hope that we can limit some access areas and get more funding towards our Forest Service to make the wilderness better. I would like to know how I could get more information on this issue?
Thank you, -Mark Dreiling From: Mark and Beth To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comment on paid permits to access Wilderness areas Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 11:34:04 AM
Dear Forest Service,
A plan to require paid permits to access USFS wilderness areas ???
NO !!!
US National Forests belong to the Public. US National Forests are NOT the private property of USFS bureaucrats.
NO PAID PERMITS REQUIRED TO ACCESS USFS WILDERNESS AREAS !!! Period.
I would be happy to participate in follow-up comments.
Sincerely,
Mark Mniszewski Bend, Oregon From: Mary Ellen Collentine To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Oregon Wilderness Management Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 12:35:50 PM
Dear Deschutes NF,
I have been using Deschutes NF Wilderness areas for more than three decades, and have observed the increase in usage first hand. In particular I have seen the overuse of popular east side trails into the Three Sisters with increasing resource damage. It is sad to have go from a system that accommodates anyone wanting to enter the wilderness areas, but the time has come to set limits. The Three Sisters are being loved to death. I support a permit system that attempts to limit usage in order to protect the resources. However, with that statement of support the “devil is in the details” as the saying goes. The next level of study needs to look at and balance the need to protect wilderness with the demand for a wilderness experience, and not unnecessarily limit access. Daily access numbers will need to be justified and not set too low. The permit system implemented needs to be at the minimum cost to support the system and fees need to be kept as low as possible. If Rec.gov is going to be used, permit fees need to be scrutinized and Rec.gov needs to show that fees are justified. Permits need to be able to be reserved both ahead of time, and an adequate amount reserved for the day of entry. Permits need to be able to be obtained online. It would also be convenient if permits could be downloaded or stored on a mobile phone and be completely paperless. The requirement for a permit should be suspended fall through spring when usage is low.
I have also observed the increasing numbers of hikers who bring their dogs. In some cases the number of dogs equal or exceeds the number of hikers in a group. People seem to leave dog poop bags along wilderness trails and fail to bring them out, adding to the trash problem. If humans are going to be limited in access, the issue with increasing dog numbers also needs to be reviewed.
I look forward to participating in the next phase of this project to protect Oregon wilderness areas. The amount of usage shows that Oregon needs more wilderness, as demand has exceeded the limited supply. regards,
Mary Ellen Collentine From: Mary Fuller To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 10:52:48 AM
I am totally in favor of the permit system for the trails in the Deschutes forest. I have lived in the area for 41 years & was the progressive increase of visitors & subsequent deterioration of the terrain. While the trash left behind is a problem the greater problem is the destruction of our forests.
Mary Fuller From: matt nauman To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 3:21:33 PM
Hello,
I am writing to comment on the proposal to require paid permits for trails in the Central Oregon wilderness areas. My wife and I hike and backpack regularly in all the areas mentioned by the Bulletin. We are very aware of the crowding and associated problems. But I also believe that this is a short-sighted and misguided approach. I wonder why this was not discussed as the preferred solution at the meeting we attended to discuss problems earlier this year.
It seems to me that a beginning approach is to enforce existing rules. If you can afford to enforce the paid permit solution surely you can afford to enforce the rules that are in place. Instead, this will punish people who abide by the rules and care for the forest. The people who cause so many problems will just continue to do so. Why would they start following rules now? Or, will the Forest Service just say they have done something to solve the problems and turn your back on whatever happens?
In light of all the complaints about lack of funding for the Forest Service, I don't understand how you can develop a paid permit program. It will be expensive to develop, administer and enforce this program. It is also likely to bring on a storm of protest and bad publicity. Once again it appears that you will alienate those who should be your friends and allies.
One of the great things about living in Central Oregon is the ability to go for an impromptu hike. Taking this away from people won't go over well. The problems we are all seeing in the local wilderness areas are complex and vexing. Let's get a group of citizens together to work on a solution that helps the forest yet doesn't freeze out well-meaning citizens. I should also add that I am not adverse to paying - just to a system that makes access difficult.
Thank you.
Matt Nauman Bend, OR Mount Jefferson and Three Sisters Wilderness Changes Comment – July 3, 2017
To whom it may concern, I have spent much of my life hiking in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness, starting at age 9. I love this area so much I was compelled to write a hiking guide to the area which I titled 101 Hikes in the Majestic Mount Jefferson Region, and which was published in March 2016. Over the years I’ve watched this area become more and more popular; as Oregon’s population has steadily increased, as nature-based tourism has become increasingly popular, and as hiking has become a popular activity, the demand on trails has led to a changed, and in many ways diminished natural experience. Some hikes are now so popular that I don’t do them much anymore; to quote Yogi Berra, “no one goes there anymore, it’s too crowded”. We need to find solutions to deal with overcrowding and environmental degradation in our most sensitive areas before they are damaged beyond repair. I have major reservations with the changes proposed by the Willamette and Deschutes National Forests, however.
Of all the proposed changes, I have four primary problems: 1) The fees: Charging a fee to use public land is sometimes a necessary evil. But these fees are not to use the land – they are to pay a contractor to manage the permits. They money goes to the contractor, not to the respective ranger districts and national forests. These are supposed to be free permits, correct? Why is a contractor allowed to charge whatever they wish for hikers to use public property? Shouldn’t the government be able to manage a website for permits? I think many people would feel better paying for a permit if they knew the respective ranger districts received the money to use as they saw fit. Furthermore, the fee is prohibitive for lower-income hikers. $12 to go hiking is a lot to ask of people, on top of gas and food. Hiking and backpacking are perhaps the best of all low-cost outdoor activities, and asking people to pay $12 to use public land is a bridge too far for some people. Would this fee go on top of the Northwest Forest Pass, which is already $30 a year? We should have the right to know why this amount was chosen, where the money goes and whether the respective ranger districts and national forests will receive any of the fee money collected. 2) Needing a permit in advance: How are people supposed to plan for a day hike six months in advance? In some places this is easy, as many hikes are open and easy to access year-round. But for some of these areas the season is short and the weather potentially dangerous. For a place such as Jefferson Park, you could easily have people putting in for permits in early July, regardless of whether or not it is safe to access this area at that time. In most years Jefferson Park (and Green Lakes, Canyon Creek Meadows, and a few other high-elevation locations) is not even reasonably accessible in early July. Furthermore, how are people supposed to make decisions on where to go months in advance? It is fine to ask for a limited-entry permit if the location in question is fragile, but a six-month standard is frustrating and makes it difficult for people, particularly those with blue-collar jobs who don’t have the luxury of advanced planning, to access some of our most beautiful areas. The permits, if they are to be required, should be available no more than a month in advance. There should also be permits available at ranger stations or someplace in the area in question (such as at Mountain High Grocery in Detroit or REI in Bend) so people can pick up a small quantity the day of their hike. 3) The access: Limiting access for every wilderness trailhead is a recipe for disaster that is guaranteed to backfire. While I assume it will be easier to get permits for the more obscure trails in the area, the demand will result in more hikers spreading out across the wilderness area in unfamiliar areas after they get shut out of a permit for the more popular areas. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it will spread the use more widely across the respective wilderness areas, lessening the burden on some of the most overcrowded destinations. For the most part I am strongly in favor of this, and I routinely advocate for more obscure trails in my books. It will, however, likely result in some areas that were once obscure and very remote becoming more popular destinations. Is this what the national forests want? Say for example 500 people put in for a permit at Green Lakes and only 100 get a permit, where do the other 400 people go? Many will stay home or go elsewhere, but many will choose to go somewhere else in the wilderness, making for a diminished wilderness experience for those who seek solitude as a necessary element of their outdoor experience. Many of the trailheads in question have no need for a permit at all. In all honest, how many people choose to do obscure hikes like Cheat Creek or Minto Mountain (both in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness)? Why bother requiring a permit for such obscure places? It doesn’t make any sense at all, particularly for Minto Mountain, which doesn’t link up to any other trails in the wilderness. Last but not least, I am troubled by the selective nature of an overall limitation: while all trails on the west side of the Mount Jefferson Wilderness are included in this proposal, all eastside trails are not. Where is the logic in this? Canyon Creek Meadows at the base of Three-Fingered Jack is perhaps the most crowded destination in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness and is inexplicably NOT included in the proposal, at least at the current time. Where is the logic in keeping these trails out of the proposal? Also not included here are the trails on the west side of the Three Sisters Wilderness, none of which are crowded but many of which eventually lead to the more crowded destinations deep in the wilderness. If you’re going to institute a blanket prohibition, it has to actually include every trail and trailhead. Or at least, it has to include Canyon Creek Meadows. 4) The enforcement: How do you plan on enforcing these prohibitions? There are only a small handful of rangers for each ranger district. How can you enforce limited-entry permits at every trailhead without hiring many additional rangers to enforce the prohibitions? Some people choose to not bother with limited-entry permits even when they are required – I know, because I’ve talked with people in places in which they are required. If you only have a few rangers, how can the Willamette and Deschutes National Forests expect to enforce this new program? It doesn’t make any sense at all.
I think USFS has many options available to help limit damage, and they range from doing nothing to doing a great many things. Any of them are in some ways more appealing than what is proposed. 1) First of all, I do not approve of the way limited-entry permits are handled as stated above; requiring long-range planning and fees that do not actually go to the various ranger stations and national forests is not something I can get behind. However, if you are instituting limited-entry permits, why not just expand the program you already have to a handful of high-use areas instead of instituting a blanket prohibition? In my experience, the most crowded destinations have become almost unbearably popular, while the obscure destinations are still quite obscure. So why not just focus on the following trailheads and leave it at that: a. Triangulation Peak b. Jefferson Park (all four trailheads – but especially Whitewater and Breitenbush Lake) c. Marion Lake d. Duffy Lake e. Canyon Creek Meadows f. Carl Lake g. Lava Camp Lake h. Tam McArthur Rim i. Todd Lake j. Green Lakes k. Devils Lake / South Sister l. Sisters Mirror Again, let me stress that I do not like the limited-entry permit system as it currently works. The need to get a reservation six months in advance requires a level of planning many people cannot do, getting a permit means that people are willing to venture out in bad weather so as to not waste their permits, and the fee is exorbitant; but if the plan is to limit entry to protect sensitive areas, it is imperative to start at the most sensitive areas and see what happens. 2) Maintain the trails you already have! How can you expect people to pay a fee and make a reservation to hike a trail in poor condition? There are many trails on the list of proposed limited-entry permit trailheads that are in rough shape and need more care. Among these is the Cheat Creek Trail, which has several very rough, rocky and brushy spots. I know if I had to pay $12 to hike this trail, I would be upset at the poor shape the trail was in even though it is also quite beautiful. If you’re going to institute a system like this, you should make sure you are able to offer well-maintained trails at each trailhead. Or is the idea to keep people away so you don’t have to maintain these trails? I hear over and over again from ranger stations that there isn’t even the money to maintain the trails you have; well, how can you expect people to pay a contractor for the right to hike on a trail that may not have been maintained in five or more years? 3) Build new trails: To piggyback on the last comment, another way to help spread out crowds would be to reopen some old trails and build some new ones. I like to hike abandoned trails, and I have hiked many of the abandoned trails in the Mount Jefferson area. There are several that could be resurrected, and would add greatly to the experience for hikers and backpackers; it would also help spread out the use at some high-impact destinations. Among these, the Crag Trail in the Mount Jefferson Wilderness is in decent shape for the most part other than a few problem spots that could be easily fixed with some effort, and serves as a fun and rewarding connector between South Breitenbush Gorge and Triangulation Peak. Another such trail is the old Newport Driveway Trail that leads to the meadows on Minto Mountain. Rebuilding this trail would offer a difficult but rewarding loop over Minto Mountain, and would be a cool destination for hikers who love that area. Obviously my area of expertise is the Mount Jefferson Wilderness, but there are many more trails in all of the proposed Wilderness areas that could be resurrected with some effort. Furthermore, there are a number of trails that could be built to help spread out the use in high-impact areas. For example, it would be great to have a connector trail from Canyon Creek Meadows to the Pacific Crest Trail, making it easier for people to visit the area from different directions. A trail could easily be built from Tam McArthur Rim to the lake in Broken Top’s crater, as one mostly exists already. Beyond these useful connector trails, it would be great if the old user trail to Soap Creek Meadows was reopened. It’s been years since the Pole Creek Fire; the meadows were a great destination for the solitude seeker, and it would be nice if a trail could be blazed back into the meadows. I am aware that more trails means more money that the Forest Service doesn’t have, and more destinations makes it harder to enforce the limitations that would have to be put in place. But one solution to the overcrowding issue should be a construction of more trails and the construction of useful connector trails to help facilitate longer loops – all of which will help disperse people into more places. This would also offer more variety for hikers, giving those who have visited these areas routinely over the years a chance to go someplace new. I would be happy to help assist in such a project, and would be happy to bring in volunteers to help assist through my work with the Mazamas, a Portland-based outdoor club. 4) More rangers and more patrols: Overall, one way to combat the problems associated with overcrowding is to have more rangers on patrol on trails. People are less inclined to act badly if they know that rangers are out there, on patrol, with the ability to write tickets and remove people from the wilderness. I would strongly support calling for more volunteer organizations to help with trail maintenance, trash cleanup and other similar tasks. I know that this happens already, but it should happen more, and be more public.
Overall, I am against the changes as they are proposed now. I think you should strongly adjust your expectations and plan to make it more accessible, more democratic and more just to everyone involved. Above all, I hope that this process is transparent and the changes are subject to more public comment before they become a reality. Sincerely,
Matt Reeder Author 101 Hikes in the Majestic Mount Jefferson Region From: Matt Trager To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 7:02:20 PM
To whom it may concern,
My name is Matt, I have been a Bend resident since 2009. As an experienced climber, hiker, mountain biker, skier, backpacker and much more, I strongly oppose to permit system that has been proposed for the wilderness areas surrounding Central Oregon. While I do not dispute the increase in traffic into these area's I think adding a permit system will completely degrade the quality of access to these areas. As a local resident, I don't plan days, weeks, or months in advance that I would like to go hike the Broken Top trail or the Green Lakes trail. It is very easy and convenient to decide the day of that we would like to go hiking in one of these areas. After driving from town it would be hard to imagine turning around and going home because a permit was unavailable. While again, the numbers of people in these areas has increased, not having access to the area at all does not in my mind preserve the wild nature because I will more than likely no longer be able to access it. I also strongly oppose having to pay to access these areas. These areas were designated wilderness areas for the people to enjoy and we should not have to pay any more than we already do to access them. In the summer we are forced to buy a Northwest Forest Pass, in the winter a snowpark pass. Regardless of which agency the money goes towards, the end user still has to pay to access the area. Adding another fee on top of that would be ridiculous.
I believe that the Forest service should enforce current regulations more closely. A great example of this is parking in the Broken Top Trailhead area. There is currently completely inadequate signage, as well as no barriers preventing people from parking illegally and expanding the parking area unintentionally. If you take a very popular trailhead and don't create a defined parking area, people will inherently find places to park. If you put up a simple barrier that defines the parking lot very clearly, and makes it impossible to park outside of that designated parking area, the parking itself helps to regulate how many people will be able to use that trailhead. If I drive from town and the parking area is full, I have the choice to wait a few minutes to see if someone comes back and opens a parking space, or to park somewhere else close in another pull out or parking area nearby and hike a bit further.
There are many more prime examples of ways to improve what you describe as problems without implementing a permit system.
Thank you very much,
Please feel free to reach out with further questions or comments. Matt Trager [email protected]
To: Beth Peer, Deschutes National Forest 63095 Deschutes Market Rd., Bend, OR, 97701 [email protected]
From: Adam Baylor, Mazamas Date: 7/3/17
Re: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project Proposed Action, Deschutes and Willamette National Forests, U.S. Forest Service, May 31, 2017
Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments to the proposed Central Cascades Wilderness Strategy. The Mazamas is a Portland-based nonprofit mountaineering organization founded in 1894 on the summit of Mt. Hood. We have a long history of climbing and hiking throughout the central Cascade Range and specifically in exploring our federally-designated Wilderness Areas.
We understand that the Forest Service has a great responsibility under the law to protect and manage Wilderness areas. We also recognize that public pressure on the Agency to get more people outside is steadily increasing. We applaud your efforts to do both at the same time. It is difficult to strike a balance between the demand for Wilderness recreation and long-term habitat protection.
Ultimately, we view the mechanism of a new wilderness permit system with skepticism because it often leads to unnecessary access issues, inequitable fees, and very little improvements to the area. If a new permit system is implemented for the Central Cascades, we hope it will do a better job than similar systems throughout the Western states.
Based on the proposal, it appears that this permit system will limit the number of group-led climbs especially on moderate routes such as South Sister. As part of our membership requirement, to be a Mazama one must reach the summit of a glaciated peak. Many people choose to start with South Sister as their first Mazama-led climb. If we see a decline in our ability to lead climbs on South Sister due to a new permit system, we will probably experience a decrease in membership and subsequently life-long public lands stewardship.
We believe that the South Sister is a key climb in not only building our nonprofit organization but ultimately in educating the public about glaciers, alpine environments and the importance of ecosystems and watersheds. Please consider building into this proposal a component of Climber Stewardship and a credit system that would ensure adequate access for facilitated recreation.
We share the concern that the USFS does not have the capacity or budget to administer a new permit system in Region 6. As stated in the proposal, “Forest Supervisors will consider implementation methods based on: legal authorities, feasibility, and US Forest Service physical and financial capabilities and contractual obligations (USFS, 2017)1.”
If the proposed permit system is implemented by 2019 in phases as capacity allows, will the proposed trailhead quotas and increase in visitor interaction and
1 Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project Proposed Action, Deschutes and Willamette National Forests, U.S. Forest Service, May 31, 2017
education be conducted by wilderness rangers or volunteers? If the public does not see a direct increase in USFS staff managing new permit systems and implementing fee collection, the wilderness strategy will most likely fail and shift the burden of management to nonprofits. Any increase in regulation and fees should result in more on-the-ground interactions with paid USFS staff.
Also the proposal states that “any permit system would be administered through “Rec.gov” since this is the one-stop shop for federal lands- based recreation.” While we appreciate the modernization efforts by the USFS, the overall management and public contracting of “Rec.gov” is incentivized by more permits and fees. We hope that this centralized website does not become a reason to charge the public more for recreation because it is a convenient, “one-stop shop.” Rather, the website, “Rec.Gov”, should be a tool that supplements an on-the- ground increase in USFS personnel.
Finally, the proposal recognizes that “Implementing a fee would require a secondary public process in accordance with Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA).” Region 6 does not currently have a "Recreation Resource Advisory Committee" in place to approve recreation fees. It is our understanding that the pending re-authorization of FLREA has caused the Agency to place RecRAC applications on hold.
This executive decision to suspend the RecRAC has caused a gap in public participation not just around fee increases or site development but it has severed a tie between the USFS and potential funding sources. The USFS should work to create RecRACs with the expanded purpose of helping secure diverse revenue streams other than fees for forest-level recreation planning and programming.
Overall, the Mazamas supports adaptive management of our Wilderness areas and a permit system with trailhead quotas may be necessary. However, there are many moving parts to this strategy and we hope that the USFS makes a concerted effort to explain and educate the public before a final decision is made.
We look forward to working with the Forest Service especially in the Central Cascades. Please feel free to contact, Adam Baylor, for clarification or further comments.
Sincerely,
Adam Baylor Mazamas Stewardship & Advocacy Manager
From: Melissa Barton To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permit plan comment Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 5:04:13 PM
As an Oregon resident, I tentatively support the Forest Service proposal to require and limit permit numbers in sensitive wilderness areas so recreation can be kept at a sustainable level. However, I am unclear on how the USDA FS plans to enforce such permit requirements.
I am undecided about charging for permits. On the one hand, the money could be used to pay for additional administrative and enforcement costs, and perhaps for trail maintenance, etc. On the other, if the amount is more than token it may present a barrier to lower-income visitors, and if it is a token then it may not be worth collecting.
I encourage the FS to carefully study the outcomes of similar permit and cap programs in other states and develop an implementation plan with public input before committing to major changes to wilderness recreation rules.
Best,
Melissa Barton
7350 SW Sharon Ln Portland, OR 97225 From: Guerrilla Outfitters To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Hiking permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 1:50:46 PM
If permits will be required to access wilderness areas, local residents should be able to purchase an annual pass. If every member of a hiking party has to have a permit, coordination with friends and family will be difficult. In that case, family passes should be available. It might be best to limit permitting to busiest months, so that local populations can access the areas at will in less busy times.
Hunters who need to use these trailheads to access their permitted hunting grounds should not also have to attain a hiking permit.
I understand that the wilderness areas need to be protected, but I would hate to see the original residents of an area prohibited from accessing Oregon wilderness because of an influx of people from other areas.
Thank you for all you guys do to protect our Oregon wilderness.
Thanks,
Michael Montgomery From: Mike Barber To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Access Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 10:21:28 AM
Good Morning,
In response to the proposed wilderness limiting access proposal. I understand that during certain times of the year when they're is a greater influx in visitors to these areas i.e. Spring and summer. Would these fees and access also be applied during fall and winter months when the access is much less? I'm thinking specifically during hunting seasons.
Thank you,
Mike Barbe La Pine, Or
Sent from my iPhone From: Mike To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Requiring permits in Jefferson Wilderness Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 5:58:06 PM
I so have some thoughts or queations about this possible change in how we access the wilderness. In regards to accessing it to hunt are you still going to limit access? If that is the case then you must be going to routes of lumber companies by charging access to hunt and limiting who can access it. Which also means that non hunters can purchase the permits and keep hunters out of public land. How are you going to handle that if this happens?
Mike Fawcett From: mike litherland To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:29:51 PM
I read the articles on you limiting the amount of people who would be allowed in our forests. This is morally and constitutionally wrong. I personally go up in to those forests for my own needs after being disabled. I can't afford the costs and if there's too many people I can't go. I pay my taxes and served honorably and you restricting my access is very very wrong! Michael Litherland
That's the whole challenge of life- to act with honor and hope and generosity no matter what you're drawn. You can't help when or what you are born, you may not help how you die; but you can- and you should- try to pass the days in between a good man. -Anton Myrer
To stay with a broken heart, with a rumbling stomach, with the feeling of hopelessness and wanting to get revenge—that is the path of true awakening. Sticking with that uncertainty, getting the knack of relaxing in the midst of chaos, learning not to panic—this is the spiritual path. Pima Choron From: Mike F. Testerman To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: requiring permits for wilderness areas - three sisters Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 3:50:27 PM
I agree visitors need to be limited especially on the most popular trails that getting “loved to death”. I do not agree with charging a fee. Registration should be simple and 24/7/365 – ideally online. I would like to see enforcement of proper backcountry camping rules for fires, camping only in designated areas, and violators should be prosecuted and can avoid fines by doing trail work or other volunteer work.
Mike Testerman Commercial Services Director Post Office Box 6749 Bend, Oregon 97708
Commercial Services Direct - Mike eFax Commercial Services Mobile- Mike [email protected] (recommended) [email protected] (Mike only) For security, upload your sensitive information through our SECURE email system
______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______From: Wilson, Miles S To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Permit $ and Limitations Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 11:40:29 AM
I camp off-trail in the Mt. Washington Wilderness (access at Benson Lake) and rarely see anyone. This proposal is totally unwarranted for the Mt. Washington Wilderness.
Miles Wilson From: M Teresa Lawrence To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comment on Proposed Permit System for Three Sisters Wilderness Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 7:32:44 AM
I have lived in beautiful Bend, OR for 17 years. One of my greatest joys is taking day hikes in the Three Sisters Wilderness. I understand that you are considering going to a pre-paid permit system for the use of certain trails off of the Cascade Lakes Highway. I think that for groups larger than 4 people, out of state visitors and tour groups such a requirement would be helpful in maintaining trail integrity. However, for residence of Deschutes County who have enjoyed the freedom of using these trails whenever the day’s fancy and weather draws them there, this would be an intolerable restriction to their pursuit of happiness. Find a way to preserve the trails and to preserve the access local residence of Deschutes County have so long enjoyed. Thank you for your time and consideration. From: Mitzi Putney To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: paid permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 7:19:40 AM
I am very much in favor of paid permits, and perhaps limitations on daily usage for those areas and trails mentioned in the article. It has become a not very pleasant experience to have many of those trails become as a freeway. Yes, there are many more people in the area, and many ore trying to access the trails, but there MUST be a way to have some control over usage and upkeep. I am in favor of “user fees” . M Putney From: Nancy Merrick To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: paid permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 1:22:25 PM
My comment is that I strongly object to the idea of restricted use and pre-purchased permits to access trails in the Three Sisters Wilderness. These are public lands and should be freely accessible as such. Already we have to purchase Forest Service Passes and Sno-Park Permits. In this age of income inequality, are our public lands only going to be available to those who can afford to pay to use them? There has to be a better way for the Forest Service to manage these lands on our behalf. Also, I think you need to better publicize the comment period on this issue. From: Nancy Tyler To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trail permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 8:40:07 AM
Definitely support permit requirement for the most used trails: Green Lakes, Tam McArthur, Sisters Mirror. Perhaps others. This is long overdue.
Also support a fee associated with the permit, but keep it reasonable. Suggest no more than $5.00.
My strongest argument for restrictions goes to traffic and parking. Strongly suggest a SHUTTLE SYSTEM. Park at Visitor Center, shuttle bus run with stops at Todd Lake, Green Lakes, Elk Lake, Cultus Lake. Have a small fleet of busses. Check for permits (where applicable) when boarding. Use travel time to talk about water, foot gear, weather gear, other safety.
Look at the shuttle systems employed by some of our National Parks (Zion, Yosemite, Bryce). Think of our Cascades Lakes Highway as a geographical/environmental entity--like a large park.
Nancy Tyler From: Nathan Bennette To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 10:54:55 PM
Dear Ms. Peer, I am writing to ask for more information regarding the proposed plans for instituting a permit/quota system for access to the Central Cascades Wildernesses. I live in Sisters OR, volunteer with Jefferson County Search and Rescue (Camp Sherman Hasty Team) and am active in the Three Sisters, Mt. Washington, and Mt Jefferson Wilderness areas year round. Access restrictions would have a significant impact on my outdoor activities.
I grew up in the Cascades and still live in this region specifically because of the access to beautiful and unique mountain landscape. Good land stewardship was a value instilled in me at an early age by my grandfather and my father, both of whom also grew up hiking, camping, and fishing in the Cascades. Today I am raising my children - another generation - to appreciate the land and care for it the same as I do.
I oppose restricting access to the Wilderness Areas - if the problem is that some users are irresponsible and cause damage to the environment then I suggest that the proposed solutions focus on identifying violators and enforcing the regulations. Restricting access for all users because of some peoples' carelessness is not just and it makes it more difficult for me to teach that culture of good stewardship to the next generation.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards, Nathan Bennette Sisters, OR From: Neil Marchington To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trailhead permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:10:22 AM
Summary: Do permits for hikers to Green Lakes Basin, South Sister, Moraine Lake, Tam Rim and Broken Top Tarn. Leave most other destinations alone at this time (e.g. Broken Top Summit is not the same as Green Lakes).
Getting a reservation is not much of a wildernesd experience. Trailhead permits are more important some areas than others. While a few destinations like Tam, South Sister and Green Lakes Basin are slammed, Pole Creek leads to a dozen places, and is rarely used by more than a few cars. Elk Lake has multiple trails to hundreds of lakes. It is not a crowded spot. Mirror Lake also leads to many areas and is not used much. I'd favor leaving uncrowded trails open at this time.
Also, trailheads like Green Lakes and Broken Top lead to multiple areas, some in common. Permits should link to destinations, not trailhead. If 100 people start at Broken Top and 100 at Green Lakes, and all go to Green Lakes Basin that is a crowd. Many folks use these trails top access Broken Top summit or the tarn lake. The permit pools should not lump different destinations together because of a common starting point.
Neil Marchington Bend OR
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From: Nick Williams To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Re: Wilderness Permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 1:45:49 PM Attachments: IMG 1509.PNG here are a couple of pictures:
On Sunday, July 2, 2017, Nick Williams
Nick Williams
From: Pamela McFadden To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Special hiking permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 11:40:57 AM
Regarding the idea of needing special permits for hiking in the Deschutes National Forest is not very practical for many of us. The joy of going on a hike should not require having to plan in advance. Having crowded trails is the unfortunate price we are having to pay for the huge increase in our population and the added tourists. We already pay for an annual permit and should be able to go hiking whenever we can. I just wish the thoughtless hikers would stay home, but that's not going to happen, either. It's just not the same wonderful place it used to be. So, I see the pros and cons of special permits.
Thank You, Pam McFadden From: Patricia Berman To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited entry Jeff Park, etc Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 9:38:59 AM
Re the proposal to issue paid permits for all use in the Three Sisters, Jefferson Park, etc: Overcrowding and overuse are issues that do need attention, to protect solitude, and for ecological preservation. As a 36 year Oregon resident, avid hiker and member of the Willamette Valley chapter of the Great Old Broads for the Wilderness I DO support actions to address these problems in all of the areas included in the proposal. However I have concerns about the current draft for several reasons: 1) People apparently purchase multiple permits to in advance and don't use them, but rendering it virtually impossible for most people to obtain permits, and for spontaneous hikes. There must be some built in mechanism to prevent this. The proposed expense of the permits may do so, but is also prohibitive for many.
2) Limiting day hikers seems a much lower priority than limiting overnight use, but the proposed plan doesn't differentiate. I have hesitations about limiting day use for the present.
3) As noted above, the proposed permits are expensive, an economic barrier to use of the Wilderness, which must be kept available for all. My observation is that some of the increase, especially in day use, is to a more diverse population of users, which is a positive development.
4) Far better publicity and signage are necessary for limiting camping to permitted and designated areas, and about dispersed use. When I last day hiked to Jefferson Park it was clear many late arriving backpackers were caught unaware and camped wherever they could find a patch of ground.
Thank for your thoughtful attention to this problem.
Pat Berman Corvallis, 97330 From: Pat Hunt To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGE TO WILDERNESS ACCESS Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 12:23:40 PM
I have read the following letter and agree with all it says. Please reconsider these limits. Pat Hunt, Bend Oregon
July 1, 2017 [sent to: [email protected]] I am writing to comment on the proposal to limit access to the Three Sisters and nearby wilderness areas to permits purchased in advance. While I understand the need to reduce the “wear and tear” on the wilderness there are several aspects of this proposal that bother me. Easy access to beautiful mountains is what makes Bend special. Any proposal must take both parts of this equation into account. When I previously read of the proposal for permitting, it seemed to be narrowly focused on the Green Lake and Devils Lake trails. Now it has broadened to include many trails in 5 different wilderness areas in Central Oregon. The first I read of this broadened effort was on June 30 in the Bulletin - but the comment period ends on July 3 and this is a holiday weekend! From searching on the internet, I see that the proposal has been out for almost a month. However, since a permitting system would have a huge impact on Bend, if the end of June is the first that others in Bend have heard of it as well, I suggest that a larger conversation over a longer period of time would be a fairer way to proceed. I think this proposal needs to interact with the Visit Bend tourist effort. If one keeps bringing more and more tourists to central Oregon and advertising the beautiful hikes in the nearby wilderness, then more and more people will be out hiking on the trails, and based on my observations, many of these tourists are not familiar with the etiquette of wilderness use. I suggest that Bend Tourism use some of its money to support back country monitors, who educate about wilderness use and administer fines. And it is not only visitors - I have been shocked every time I am at Todd Lake to see people trampling across the meadows for a picnic. If a large part of the problem is the way people are behaving in the wilderness, then education coupled with fines seems a more direct way to solve the problem than restricting access for everyone at all trail heads. And adding outhouses to popular destinations also seems like a good idea - burying anything in the rocky Central Oregon soil is challenging. The plan as I understand it also dramatically reduces the ability of people who live here to get up on a sunny day and decide to go hiking - one would have to schedule one’s summer in advance or hunt through the websites before starting the hike to see what’s open. Visitors know when they are coming and can schedule their hikes. Retirees generally have time to peruse web sites and find a hike and usually have fairly flexible schedules. But is there a way to preserve some access for the working families of Bend? This proposal seems to lead Bend further down the path of becoming a large theme park for visitors to play in. It also seems odd that at the same time that Central Oregon is discussing restricting access to the wilderness, other parts of the country are discussing opening up wilderness areas to bicycles, which would likely lead to trail erosion and trail use conflicts. Taking away people and adding bicycles sounds like a bad idea. I have no issues with the fees associated with permits, as long as the money is spent directly on maintaining the wilderness land in which the fees were collected rather than going into some general budget. But what will the fines be for going without a permit and will there be enough personnel to enforce this? Will permits be required in the fall, after the number of tourists has diminished? In the winter for ski touring? It seems like a drastic solution to go from open access with free permits to a system with paid access and permits that must be obtained in advance. Has an intermediate solution been considered? One that charges trail fees for all users, with permits available at trail heads, and then spends the money for personnel to enforce (with fines) the rules for the wilderness. And one that adds permits that must be obtained in advance to only the busiest of trail heads. I also think it is important to save a sizable percentage of the permits for next day/same day use, and that they should be available in any forest service office as well as online. Thank you for considering these comments. Kate Loughney Bend OR From: fred To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: AGAINST PAID PASSES FOR WILDERNESS ACCESS Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:11:15 AM
We already buy Forest Service passes, plus pay large amounts of Federal income tax which ensures our use of public lands. To charge for passes to hike the wilderness trails penalizes low income citizens. Many people cannot afford to buy skis and ski passes, kayaks or other expensive outdoor gear, but they can, at least at the present time, go for a hike. Don't make it any more difficult and expensive to take a simple hike.
Pat Nielsen [email protected] From: Patrick Belding To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Oregon Wilderness Permit proposed changes citizen input Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 1:15:43 PM
From: Patrick Belding, 69442 Ox Yoke, Sisters Oregon 97759 541 699-7675
Comments: In general I support managing designated Wilderness areas per the 1964 Wilderness Act as: “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”
Having had the opportunity to visit and experience Oregon Wilderness areas for many hundreds of days since the 1950’s I have empathy for the Wilderness Rangers observations that certain areas (like Obsidian Trail, Jefferson Park and Green Lakes) have become more like urban parks than the intended Wild Areas of this Act. Cells Phone and Sat Phones appear to be having a terrible impact on people traveling in Wilderness Areas believing they will be rescuing quickly and not being prepared for a Wilderness Experience including being self-reliant.
Nonetheless, my major concern is having new rules and fees that are too general and too far reaching!
Example: Controlling Obsidian Trail access in the current Special Use Area has been generally good for the area in the summer. I see no need for permits or controlled access from October through May. Very few people access this area during the late fall, winter and spring. Same applies to Jefferson Park, Black Crater, Mt. Washington and most other Oregon Wilderness areas.
Regarding Human Poop: I am not a believer that the Wilderness Act prevents the use of seasonal backcountry composting toilets. Yes this means additional expense to manage but has been highly successful in both National Parks like Rainier and State Parks such as Smith Rock in Oregon. Putting these mitigation resources into highly stressed areas should be a priority to reduce or eliminate human impact to our alpine meadows and wild areas.
Regarding Horses and Dogs, Horses have long been used in Oregon Wilderness Areas. Like climbers, backpackers and hikers some Horse people responsible and follow the rules and some do not. Nonetheless, restrictions should be on Horses first in overused areas not people. The most difficult issue with dogs in Wilderness areas is simply people not being responsible for their animals and coming into the wilderness unprepared.
Regarding Fees: The USFS and BLM are faced with constantly diminishing budgets. However, our country and citizens are at great risk of losing FREE access to public lands across the country. This means we are giving up our freedom for unregulated exploration, learning, adventure and Wild experiences to those who have the money and resources to pay. THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA!!
The current Special Use Permit of $10 per visit is outrageous to those of us subsisting on limited incomes. A simple day trip costs $10!!! Not Acceptable!! Day trips should be Free to the public! Commercial Groups like Outward Bounds (universities and other organizations also) should have extremely limited access to public lands permits.
Charging fees and adding new regulations may be but the first step in eliminating citizen access to public Wilderness Areas without expensive insurance, paid guides and other requirements such as in the European Alps which will lead to only the most wealthy people having access to these public common lands and experiences.
New approaches to managing these areas should strive to provide free access for as many people for as many days as is appropriate to meeting the goal of preserving the wilderness environments and human experiences within those boundaries.
I urge you to use restraint in setting regulations and fees to access our public common Wilderness Areas. Yes, I agree we all need to control access and protect the Wilderness environment and Wilderness experiences for our citizens. Finding a balance that is flexible, innovative and constantly monitored will insure public support.
Any attempt by the Government to unduly restrict access to Wilderness Areas that leads to essentially a playground for the wealthy will certainly create more public criticism and an outcry similar to the 1950-1990’s for Wilderness Expansion like French Pete and changes to agency policies that infringe on citizen rights to free access to public lands.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns,
Patrick Belding From: Patrick Campbell To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limiting access to wilderness areas Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:22:41 AM
I support the proposal for changing the policy to issuing a limited number of permits. From: Patrick Eckford To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposal to require paid permitting for access to multiple wilderness location in DNF Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 12:44:01 PM
Re: Considerations of whether to require permitting/paid-permitting for public access to various DNF wilderness areas.
To Whom It May Concern:
As a resident of Central Oregon, frequent volunteer with the US Forest Service and partner organizations, and avid visitor/user to both wilderness and non-wilderness public lands within the DNF, I would like to offer the following bullet-pointed comments and concerns about the proposal to require paid permits for access to some wilderness areas.
Givens:
Heavy and growing levels of use are a reality and increasing problem for some DNF wilderness locations. Over-crowding at some popular trailheads and parking areas is a problem. Inappropriate user behavior in the wilderness is sometimes a problem. The presence of too many dogs in fragile areas is a growing problem. The USFS has the responsibility to address these issues in a reasonable and proactive way. Our public land is after all, “public”, and it is treasured by millions of outdoor enthusiasts. Therefore any consideration to restrict or narrow public access must be carefully deliberated and demonstrably necessary.
Cautions:
Other non-permit solutions should be adequately explored before applying permits and/or fee requirements? Enforcement of existing laws and regulations. Public education and PR. Opening up of other/additional access routes to popular and less-used wilderness area to spread out user traffic. (Note: Recent initiatives by the USFS to close down less-used or hard-to-maintain wilderness trails in the area only exacerbates the problems and this policy should be reconsidered.) Separation of user types (separate hiker and horse trails) Revised/additional regulations other than requiring permits: Group size limitations Prohibiting of pets Increase of fines for violations More aggressive parking citations and enforcement
Multiple issues related to permits should be considered both separately and jointly. Rationale for requiring permits at all – is it sound, fair, practical, effective? Strict limitation the number of locations requiring permits (only require in the most necessary situations). Necessity of charging for permits - why not free permits? (Is it really necessary to charge? Do fees inadvertently favor the wealthy and or discourage other important user types?. Is this actually a fundraising scheme or protection initiative?) Minimal date ranges for requiring permits in all but the most heavily impacted spots (for instance, only require permits from Memorial Day to Labor Day in most locations). Reserve of a percentage of permits for first-come-first-served, same-day issuance. Not all permits should bookable in advance! Incorporate into the booking system a capability for users to cancel their permit reservations so that unused permits would become available to impromptu last minute users (to encourage this there would need to be a refund capability) Differentiation of day users versus overnight users. Ensuring the ease and efficiency of obtaining permits if required (flexible efficient online capabilities, etc.)
It will be a sad day when, say you have unexpected out-of-town guests arrive, but you are prevented by a fully-booked permit system, from taking your friends on one or more of your favorite and iconic Central Cascade hikes!
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick K. Eckford
PO Box 396 (288 West St. Helens Ave.) Sisters, OR 97759 [email protected] From: PAUL JEANI ENGSTROM To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Permits Comment Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 4:58:41 PM
Hello,
I'm a retired Forest Service Employee. My last assignment was on the Sisters Ranger District where I was a Recreation Planner and Wilderness and Trails Manager for eighteen years. During my tenure ending in 2003 we were seeing the effects of increased use in areas like Canyon Creek Meadows, Wasco Lake, Park Meadow, Mattheu Lakes and Tam Rim. We began using management tools like designated campsites, rehab and closure of some campsites, one way loop trails and increased presence for education and enforcement. We knew that the day might come when we would need to implement a reservation type system. My feeling is that with the ever increasing use and degradation, it is time to implement a permit system that regulates use, especially in heavily used areas. With decreased budgets it will also be necessary to charge a fee, and hopefully, the income generated will come back to the forests to cover the cost of implementation. I would like to see lesser used trails kept open and maintained so displaced users can disperse to other areas. There has been effort to close some trails on Sisters RD, and I'm not sure that is a wise decision when dispersal is needed.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Paul Engstrom 62808 Montara DR Bend, OR 97701 From: Shawn & Paul Jacobsen To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Proposed permit system for Orehon Wilderness Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 5:29:15 AM
Dear Sir or Madam, After reading your proposed plan to require permits to access some Oregon wilderness areas, allow me to express my concerns: I am generally against requiring permits, but could tolerate a free system. I am vehemently opposed to ANY FEE that would be charged. These are lands we already pay taxes for, and it is wrong to charge any fees to access them. Thank you. Paul Jacobsen Corvallis From: Paul Seglund To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:10:07 AM
Hate to see over regulation of public lands so maybe an educational initiative could start the process. If it becomes too unwieldy you probably have no choice. I just want to see continued public access for all users including mt bikes and plated dirt bikes. Sent from my iPhone From: Peer, Beth -FS To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: conversation record re: wilderness strategies Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 8:51:17 AM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png
I spoke with Paul Whittles who had some thoughts on the wilderness project. He visited Green Lakes trailhead last year and was surprised at the crowds, as previously thought the ranger was exaggerating when she suggested he might not find a spot, so sees a need to do something. Likes system in Wenatchee area – focus on the high use areas for permitting, and other areas don’t require a permit. Concerned with people having to wait a very long time to draw a permit if it’s a lottery system. Suggests a point system for that situation. Would like to see a permit system piggy-back on existing permits that Forest Service issues. Also, used to hike Olympics, where they had toilets that were packed out or flown out by helicopter, although recognizes that’s a huge cost.
Beth Peer Special Projects Coordinator Forest Service Deschutes National Forest p: 541-383-5554 c: 541-416-1100 [email protected] 63095 Deschutes Market Rd. Bend, OR 97701 www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
From: Peder Bisbjerg To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited entry proposal in wilderness areas Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 7:10:14 PM
Dear Sir/Madam,
Re: Limited entry proposal in wilderness areas
As an avid hiker and outdoors person, I am of the opinion that the limited entry proposal is ill- thought out for a number of reasons.
1. Limiting access to some areas will just increase pressure on trails elsewhere. The number people enjoying the outdoors has exploded over the past 50 years, meanwhile relatively few new trails have been established. The obvious solution would be to build more trails. 2. There is already a Forest Pass "fee" at many trail heads, I can live with that. To add a second fee is very discriminatory toward the less affluent portion of the population, especially if it is per person. A family of four could easily end up paying $32 to go on a small Sunday hike (Forest Pass $8 + 4 * $6) plus obviously the "agent fees" to purchase the permits! Are you planning that the wilderness should only be for the affluent? 3. Selling permits that define what day a mountain such as South Sister should be climbed by an individual is inherently dangerous. This is well illustrated at Mt St Helens where permits are sold for $22 and the 100 permits per day are pretty much sold out for the season within the first couple of days after going on sale. This means that "rain or shine," a number of people will attempt the mountain on a specific date, as they already have invested in permits ($88 for a family of 4 plus the required parking permit!), so every year some hikers get into trouble due to adverse climatic conditions. It can be noted that, as I see it, the Mt St Helens permit system does not really serve a purpose. It does not do much to protect the environment and anyhow snowmobiles are allowed on the south side of Mt St Helens to go right to the crater rim. So you have 100 hikers all following the same itinerary and meanwhile snowmobiles are zooming all over the landscape, something that must surely disturb the wildlife to a much higher degree.
I understand the need for (FREE) permits for overnight camping; that is reasonable in sensitive areas. Limiting day access in certain areas does not solve any problems, except maybe create a revenue stream for the FS and for the "agents" selling permits. It certainly does not serve the majority of Americans. Therefore, I suggest that you abandon this idea.
Thank you for you attention.
Peder
Peder Bisbjerg 1651 Woodland Ter Lake Oswego, OR 97034 From: Pete Aldrich Haglund To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: New restrictions. Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 11:28:36 PM
I disagree with the current plan to limit entry to our amazing local land. As a leave no trace backpacker and outdoor school instructor I believe this plan would hurt our youth by hindering their ability to see our wilderness that we are trying to protect. Sent from my iPad From: Phineas Brownsanders To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 6:20:03 PM
I think anyone should be able to backpack for free. I can understand charging for parking vouchers but I think that charging backpackers a fee is absurd. You could raise the littering fine or even parking fee, but if you're on foot I think all national forest should be free to access by the public, we as humans need to stay connected to the earth, and what better way than hiking through beautiful forests. From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits in 3 Sisters Wilderness Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 8:58:35 PM
I think Green Lakes is too crowded. I would go for a permit there. But not all of the other trails. I live in Bend and based on the list of trails I could never go for a hike on the spur of the moment. What is the point of living in Bend if you can't ever go for a hike without getting a pass. Could you have a special pass for Bend residents?
-Priscilla Elder From: Ralph Castain To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Three Sisters Wilderness Permit Proposal Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 8:19:50 PM
Dear Forest Service
I’ve studied your proposal and the rationale behind it. Having hiked the wilderness in many states, I deeply appreciate the magnitude of the problem you describe and definitely appreciate your concerns.
From what I have seen and the issues you describe, it would appear that the primary problems are things normally associated with uncontrolled camping. My family has seen this quite strongly in the California and Colorado wilderness areas prior to controls being put in place there. In those instances, the problems were helped by (a) restricting camping to designated established sites, and (b) requiring permits for camping in order to restrict usage. The latter also aided in enforcement by providing a means of assigning responsibility for violations of trash and waste regulations.
I would certainly support instituting something similar here in Oregon. However, I would urge you to not apply this to day hikes. Day hikers are not usually associated with the problems you describe, although they certainly can contribute to the trash problem. I am definitely not saying that day hikers are saints! I simply speak from prior experience that controlling camping alleviated the majority of the problems.
This does not, however, address the trail forming issue. One thing I have seen is that the trails in some of these areas are poorly marked. For example, once you crest the last rise into the Green Lakes area, there is little trail definition - I myself have found it confusing, and I’m trying hard to follow the trail. Broken Top is easier to discern, but parking is problematic and the location of the trailhead is very poorly marked - I have encountered several parties cutting their own trail/road in an effort to locate it. I know that trail marking costs, and that funds are tight (and reportedly about to get tighter), but better marking of trails and trailheads may be a solution worth considering.
Finally, I would make one further suggestion. We couldn’t do it in California because the numbers were just too large, but we have an opportunity here to try a middle path that might prove both less burdensome and create a more engaged public. In northern Colorado (Fort Collins), we had a volunteer program that was truly outstanding and of great service to the FS. This program involved pairs of trained volunteers regularly hiking the “problem” trails, providing advice to users and picking up trash where needed. They were -not- enforcement and had no legal authority, and they were trained to avoid any confrontation. Rather, they were there to help people who encountered problems and/or weren’t sure of the correct path, and advise people on the rules and the rationale behind them when they saw something not right. There was a required annual training for all volunteers, and new members were always paired with experienced partners.
In combination with the camping regulations/permits, this program resolved the vast majority of the problems. I’d encourage you to look into it.
You are welcome to contact me to discuss my input.
Ralph Castain 2803 NW Three Sisters Dr Bend OR 97703 From: Randy Wald To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments on wilderness permit proposals Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:33:23 PM
Hello,
I'm from Bend - moved here 12yrs ago from Michigan - similar size town and region as CO - for work. I'm now 57, not retired.
I have immensely enjoyed the Deschutes and Willamette national forests; much hiking, some tent camping in the wonderful FS sites...mostly in 3 Sisters, Washington and Jefferson wildernesses.
Over the last 3, maybe 4 years I have found these experiences decreasing in quality - largely due to on- trail crowds and dogs (some places), and garbage, dog, human waste. And off trail rutting.
My view - there are seemingly less respectful crowds, esp groups 3 and larger. But maybe it is on us - FS and locals - for not assuring the culture of don't disturb, observe/enjoy is expected of every resident and visitor to C.O. Previously it was an ingrained cultural, regional respect - it was so clear to visitors this area was special, natural, clean/crisp; now it needs to be instilled by locals, visitor promotional sites/literature, businesses, guided group recreation, FS etc...and then again at trail-heads. CO culture, NFS requirement.
I don't even consider the cascade lakes trails (Green, Devils, Elk, Lava etc and even Tam Mcarthur). Weekdays, maybe, if I'm out there by 5:30-6:00am. But this means vacation time. Frustrating for us working Central Oregon residents.
As far as the future - first, I'm extremely pleased to see the FS recognizing and taking actions. Kudos for what I think is impeccable overseeing and caretaking of trails; the lack of human evidence and the monumental efforts for forest maintenance is second only to the natural beauty of the forests and wildernesses.
My votes are for the following - minimally a 2yr pilot program: 1. implement a permit system numbers control. Hopefully you can find a system that has flexible and responsiveness for predictable demand/capacity but also cycles due to weather/climate...and explainable demand/capacity. 2. implement a paid permit system; if this can directly fund the maintenance and enforcement. Implicit here is my supporting increased permit and "7 LNT principles" enforcement. Have the permit purchases read and sign to commit to the principles. Education. 3. incorporate a reasonable prioritization for local residents for obtaining permits. No need to prorate the fees. 4. Include Black Butte trail (the upper one, not yet the longer newer one down closer to Camp Sherman...that's not yet overused imo.
Thanks for considering,
Randy Wald 2442 NW Hemingway St Bend, OR 97703
From: Rebecca Karlson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permit system Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 11:52:17 AM
Hello. I am a member of Oregon Equestrian trails, a non-profit riding group that opposes contentious and impractical permitting in wilderness.
I speak up to say I oppose this permitting plan.
If you are NOT PREPARED TO STAFF all the trails and prosecute violators, all this will do is create ill will/bad feelings in hikers and visitors. It hurts those who pay (and/or wait their turn) while the non-paying people go ahead and hike anyway! This is neither logical, right or FAIR. Worse, IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM, JUST CREATES A NEW ONE!! Our nation has become driven by angry, suspicious, trigger-happy aggressors and aggression--leading to violence as we are seeing daily. We will end up with civil war in the mountains as now everyone looks with suspicion on those there, to the point of attacking others over whether or not they have a permit! THIS DOESN'T HELP! The wilderness is where we go for Peace and renewal. Please don't bring unnecessary and painful conflict here, too!
PLEASE DO SOMETHING TO AVERT THE CONFLICT, NOT EXACERBATE IT. Brainstorm something that will work without confrontation and burdensome regulation that will bring us together to protect and enjoy the wilderness-- a truly POSITIVE ANSWER.
Thank you. Rebecca A. Karlson From: Rebecca Loveman To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trail limits/permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 8:57:18 AM
To whom it may concern, I am homeowner here in Bend and understand the concern for increase numbers and impact on our local trails and forests. Increasing enforcement of leave no trace would be a good step if this is a possibility. As a local I don't mind paying a fee to support this. As far as limiting the numbers my suggestions are: 1. Have people with a local address be able to buy a pass to be able to access trails without restrictions. 2. Limit the amount of hiking permits to out of towners. 3. If the backpacking situation is still too many people with negative impacts make backpacking to popular spots permit only for everyone.
One of the most amazing things about living here is the spontaneous run up to green lakes before or after work, or the ability to get off work and throw a pack on to go sleep outside at night. I realize we have a lot of options, and understand if the really popular backpacks may need to be permitted but maybe this number can be adjusted to help the local community maintain accessibility and access to these trails.
Rebecca loveman 1143 ne 10th st Bend, or 97701
Sent from my iPhone From: Rex Billingsley To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Green Lakes trail permitting Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 1:37:19 PM
I appreciate much of the good management practices and work the forest service does to keep our forests healthy on our behalf. However I am always concerned when proposals are made to limit access to our lands or require some form of permitting, which generally includes a surcharge of one kind or another. I am adamantly opposed to any form of limited access or surcharge to the Green Lakes trail or any other limitation to our lands. If more funding is required to properly manage the citizens resources, a business case should be presented to the Secretary of Agriculture for resolution.
Best regards,
Rex Billingsley From: Dick Spray To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: Dave & Helen Whistler; Cathy & Greg Jensen; Donald Nisewanger; Dave Dunahay; Pat Hunt; Lee Blake; Jean Taylor; Fred DeCook; Dick & Bette Spray; Daniele Nisewanger; Joel Bennette; Martha Bibb; Bob Timmer; Jacquie Prestidge; Sandy Dunahay; John & Elina Harper; Bill Logan; Lloyd Corliss; Dave & Helen Whistler; Carol Stevens; Kaj Nyberg; Beverly Gaskins; Dave Hunt; Kate Loughney Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 2:25:55 PM
The Forest Service has lost a lot of face-to-face contact with their constituency. You have outsourced public contact jobs that should be done by the Forest Service. This is somewhat understandable because you are operating with only about 35% staffing compared to my last year before retirement. I think this new authoritarian heavy law enforcement job you are planning to take on in the Wilderness will be beyond your capabilities given the additional huge budget cut you are facing next year. In fact the comments I had prepared have been deleted because I don’t really want to burden you with more work on what looks like a dead fish.
° Whatever you do don’t turn over permit issuance to a computer contractor. If you can’t do the job yourself, just don’t do it. You can’t afford to lose more constituency. You should be working toward taking back your contracted campgrounds and other recreation sites. Congress finally gave you permission to use receipts from charge sites for recreation management. You could probably turn a profit on those former contract campgrounds to pay your costs and have enough left over to do other jobs.
° Your data is suspect. If Tam McArthur Rim had an increase in use of 878% since 2011 then the trailhead parking should have increased by the same amount. I was there several times in 2011 and since, and parking was as scarce then as it is now. However, you might consider using the idea of restricted parking to minimize overuse instead of this proposed permit system. Check your data for possible errors and imagine other possible methods to manage overuse.
° Take into consideration the displacement of hikers on trails out of Wilderness as a cause of the increase in Wilderness visits (examples: Deschutes River and McKenzie River Trails, hiking displacement by mountain bikes).This is a serious displacement which results in hikers being forced into Wilderness whether they like it or not. It certainly is a factor in my choice of places to hike. I’m sick and tired of being pushed off of trails by mountain bikes.
° Remember that one of the big products produced by Wilderness is the "wilderness experience" for our citizens. This is the composite of all things related to a wilderness visit including the planning and the bureaucratic hassle of of obtaining a permit. The permit and the enforcement thereof is a big negative to the experience. Even now I go out of my way to avoid a conversation with a Wilderness Ranger. Too often they are playing a game of “gotcha.” In that vein follow the recommendations in Hendee, Stankey and Lucas “Wilderness Management” book and do your human management and law enforcement at the trailhead or before and not inside the Wilderness. If Wilderness Rangers are used inside the Wilderness they should be for observation and help to guests who request it, not law enforcement.
° I want to emphasize, please understand that even the sight of a uniformed Forest Service officer inside the Wilderness is a negative impact on Wilderness’ experiences. They don’t fit in. I wish you survival in the next few budget years. The current administration seems to have the National Forests and the Forest Service in their crosshairs for elimination. You will need all the friends and supporters you can muster. Now is not the time to stir up trouble with a relatively minor Wilderness issue. You have a lot of friends here. Please work to keep them on your side.
Richard Spray, 28 years retired, USFS
R6 Wilderness Management 1963-1966, Portland. R3 Recreation, Wilderness and special areas Program Manager, 1974-1989, Albuquerque Bend Metro Park & Rec. District Outdoor Leader, 1994-2009, Bend From: RICHARD WININGER To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Cc: RICHARD WININGER Subject: Wilderness Area Permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 8:39:53 AM
To the USFS,
I am writing to give you some input for your review to determine whether the USFS should go to a permit system in some of the Deschutes wilderness area trails. I love hiking in the wilderness areas and have seen firsthand the crowds, parking in areas that should have no parking (when the trailhead lots are full, and garbage (and worse) along the trails. It’s a shame that it has come to this, but something has to change.
So I support a permit system with a limited number of permits per trail/area. I also support that this is a fee system. I think you should do it in a way that allows people to plan major trips in advance and limit the number of permits any individual (or organization) can get in a season. I would suggest that trailhead parking be limited to those with valid permits, it might make enforcement a little easier.
On a different but related topic - mountain bikes. There should be no mountain bikes in wilderness areas. Further, I know biking is getting more and more popular, but let’s limit them to designated trails. It is miserable to try to hike on trails with heavy mountain bike use, and if you have horses it is one panic alert after another.
Thanks for listening.
Regards,
Rich Wininger 60374 Arnold Market Road Bend, OR 97702 From: Rick Anderson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Trail Permits - NO! Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:11:57 PM
Don't charge and don't permit ! Just keep the peace and leave the people to enjoy.
Rick Anderson
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone From: Rion O"Grady To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permits and access Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 9:28:41 AM
To whom it may concern,
I live and work in Bend, Oregon, and I recreate in The Three Sister's Wilderness year round. I too have been appalled by the senseless destruction left behind by crowds unfamiliar with wilderness etiquette. However, my concern with a limited and paid permit system is that it would unduly limit access to folks with little money, locals who visit frequently, and locals who visit late in the day after work.
I think it's worth noting that a restriction on the number of permits would not stop people from pooping next to their illegal fire, nor would it stop people from littering. What I think would be more valuable is increasing cost on the parking pass, and use it to fund a greater FS presence in those trouble spots. Education will go much further towards protecting our resources than turning people away.
The issue of heavy usage in these beautiful areas will only increase as Oregon's population grows. It is far more beneficial to have an educated public to act as responsible stewards.
Rion From: Robert Clements To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Support For Limiting Access to Identified Oregon Wilderness Areas Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 8:20:19 AM
Hello,
I am writing to express my support for limiting access to Oregon Wilderness Areas with a pay to enter permit system.
I am an Oregonian and have visited multiple Wilderness Areas in Oregon over the years. Though I have not gone for a visit is several years, I have always been comforted knowing that these identified Wilderness Areas are protected and waiting for my next visit.
Several weeks ago a couple of my friends invited me to visit Russell Lake in the Mt Jefferson Wilderness Area for the Solar Eclipse. As I started to read up on Russell Lake, and learned about the huge increase in visitors to the area and the negative impact that people are having on the area, I have decided not to go. I am also encouraging my friends to find another area to view the eclipse but, to my dismay, they are inviting even more people to go with them into this area.
Not too long after making the decision to not go on this trip, I hear the radio piece on OPB about the possibility of limiting access to five Wilderness Areas in Oregon. This reinforced my decision not to go.
The Oregon Wilderness Areas, like other recreations areas, are becoming increasingly over crowded. While the public should be allowed to visit these areas, the Wilderness Areas need to be protected from its visitors. The public has demonstrated that, while we have the best of intentions, if left unsupervised, we will damage these areas beyond repair.
The first time I ran into a cougar was in the Badger Creek Wilderness Area. I was alone with a day pack and fly rod. There was no one else around. This was over 20 years ago and it remains a vivid memory for me that I cherish. Over crowding of the Wilderness Areas will prevent moments like this from occurring for future Wilderness Area visitors.
Please let me know how I can contribute to the protection of these areas that we are to be visitors to, and have a minimal impact on.
Thank you,
Robert Clements
-- Bob Clements [email protected] From: Robert Jamieson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness trails in Central Oregon Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:41:57 AM
Sirs/Madam, I have been hiking the trails in Central Oregon for more than 30 years. It is disappointing to see theFforest Service use the forest as a fee commodity. We pay taxes to support the Forest service for the generally outstanding work that they do. Hopefully you will have some public hearings where we the public can voice our views. I understand there are cost factors in terms of cleanup and that should be budgeted from the tax structure that exists. Perhaps an educational handout to those wishing to hike illustrating the fact that they cannot leave their trash behind and respect the forest as we know it. As the population increases and the visitor count increases, a suggestion might be to have a numbered pass system where one can pick a time and day to make the hike and the FS issue a pass based on the numbers who are hiking the trail for the day. We all hope for what is best for our forests.
Sent from RJ From: bob To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:14:17 PM
I am providing my initial thoughts about your assessment of proposals to limit (restrict) and charge for access for hikers in the Forest Service-managed wilderness of Central Oregon.
I moved to Bend several years ago to enjoy an active lifestyle in the city and the surrounding mountains and high plains. I'm an avid hiker, spending 1-3+ days per week hiking...spring, summer & fall. Sometimes it is just two of us hiking, sometimes a small group and every Thursday I volunteer as a "sweep" with a Parks & Recreation hiking and snowshoeing group. I have hiked most of the trails in the National Forest (wilderness and non-wilderness) between Bend and the Mckenzie/Santiam rivers. I also spend 1 day per week on trail maintenance, snowshoe trails in the winter and hiking trails in the summer.
Yes, I've found a few trails being crowded during a few weeks in the summer and fall; specifically the Green Lakes and the South Sister climbers trails. I will admit that I tend to avoid them on the weekends in the summer; instead, heading out on other trails. I'm not troubled by this; rather I am encouraged by how many folks are hiking in the forests. How many families with young children are hiking; hopefully "infecting" them with the love of hiking and the love of the outdoors. It is many of these folks that will pay their taxes to help support the trails and forests and will choose whom to support as their elected representatives.
First and foremost, I would hope that there would be an assessment of the expectations for a "wilderness experience" throughout these areas; especially for the Green Lakes and Sisters Climbing trail. I would rather see a reduction in the "wilderness expectations" for certain areas versus a significant restriction in access.
I'd hope the area can be managed for the middle; not for the extreme levels of preservation or for access.
How many places can one climb a high Cascades peak....I'd hate to see access to South Sister greatly restricted.
I favor paying for increased trail management; rather than applying a quota.
If paying for access becomes necessary, I would favor the option of purchasing an "annual trail pass".
Some wilderness policies should be relaxed; such as installing a composting toilet at Green Lakes and at Moraine Lake to handle the "poop" problem.
If parking at the trailheads is such a problem, why not provide shuttle service and overflow parking from Kapka Butte and Wanoga?
The permit money collected for each trail should be 1) reported for that trail and 2) be allocated back to support that trail; not just sent into a "general fund".
The permit should be a source of revenue to support the trail; not a system to restrict access. Permits for equestrians should be more expensive than for hikers; reflective of their inreased impact on the trails. Should they be required to "bag their poop"?
Thank you, Robert Timmer Bend, Oregon From: russ mack To: Peer, Beth -FS; Nelson-Dean, Jean A -FS Cc: russ mack Subject: Wilderness Strategies 2017 - My input Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 10:35:47 AM
July 1, 2017 Dear Ms. Peer, I recognize the value of designated Wilderness Areas and the importance of maintaining them in good condition. I have experienced high use levels in some portions of the Three Sisters Wilderness in particular when my travels have taken me near the South Sister climbing route, Green Lakes and Park Meadow. I have also used the permit system for the Obsidian Cliffs area and thought it worked well. I am concerned that efforts to manage the high use in some parts of the wilderness areas may restrict my access to the wilderness areas. In light of that I offer the following comments:
· South Sister and other popular climbing routes – Try a system such as that used on Mount St. Helens. Heavy day use can definitely have an impact on the natural environment and solitude. Day use on the climbing routes should definitely be limited to less than the use levels in recent years.
· If there are concerns about specific areas such as Jefferson Park and Park Meadow (3 Sisters) I suggest the Forest Service consider implementing a limited entry system such as that at Obsidian Cliffs.
· I suggest the Forest Service avoid instituting area wide restrictions that limit the access of people who travel in less used parts of the wilderness areas. Please also avoid limiting the access of experienced trail users who have the skill to travel cross country and get away from the heavily used areas. In 20+ years of visiting the Three Sisters I have travelled through Park Meadow many times but have not spent more than a few hours total in Park Meadow itself. Our longest “stay” in Park Meadow was on the first afternoon of the Pole Creek Fire when we lingered there for an hour because we thought we might have to stay in the meadow to avoid the fire. I usually just pass through Park Meadow and have NEVER camped there because I want to avoid impacting it and I prefer to find an isolated, off-trail campsite.
· By starting with use limits in specific parts of the Wilderness Areas you can maintain the freedom to visit other parts of the areas while also keeping open the management option to go to broader, wilderness-wide use limits if needed in the future. I appreciate the challenge you face in managing Wilderness Areas with limited budgets and staff. However, I hope the Forest Service does not become as restrictive as the National Park Service’s backcountry regulations. Thank you for your consideration and for your public service under a challenging Presidential administration. Enjoy your next trail adventure, Russ Mack Portland, OR. From: russ p To: Peer, Beth -FS Cc: russ p Subject: Wilderness management - My Input Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 11:00:57 AM
July 3, 2017 Dear Ms. Peer, I would like to submit some comments re: the Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017.
· Day use on popular climbing routes should definitely be reduced to protect the resources.
· While I support overnight use limits in some key areas such as Jefferson Park, Green Lakes and perhaps Park Meadow I urge the Forest Service to NOT implement Wilderness-wide overnight use limits. Based on many years of experience I do not think that is needed at present.
· I encourage the agency to work actively to educate wilderness users about Leave No Trace and other skills for travelling in the wilderness without impacting it.
· I encourage the agency to work actively with outdoor equipment retailers, in the Willamette Valley and Central Oregon to educate wilderness users. In my experience it is best to inform people before they leave home so they can take a stove or other required equipment. It’s rather late to find out at the trailhead that a stove is needed – there’s not much you can do at that stage to comply with the regulation. The stores that profit from the sale of equipment have a responsibility to aid the management and protection of the public lands their businesses depend on.
· I would support more widespread, enforceable limits on campfires. Fires are no longer needed in an era when lightweight, reliable stoves are readily available. During our wilderness trips we always naturalize fire rings that we come across while travelling off trail or in lightly used areas. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Russ Pluff Sandy, OR. From: Ruth And Denny Douglas To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: wilderness Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 5:56:18 PM
I am only familiar with Green Lakes and Three Sisters Trails in the Wilderness areas. I firmly believe a permit system has been needed for a long time. It is absolutely true that it is NOT a wilderness experience when hundreds of people are in such close proximity. My last hike into Green Lakes was 2009, didn’t know it was last one at the time, and even then many people were passing. The trail had been degraded in several areas. From other reports, I simply abhor the thought of trash, illegal fires, and human waste.
In 2004 I began to hike the new Nature Trail on Pilot Butte, which was absolutely beautiful with at least two dozen wildflowers growing alongside the trail. There are now places in which that trail has been eroded 4 inches and is down to bare rock, and of course people and dogs have trampled both sides of the wildflower margins. It now is almost dangerous and a sad reminder of what had been.
Many people seem to think that exercise is the whole reason to use these trails, and perhaps the Forest Service needs to work with exercise experts to build trails for those who want to run, especially with their dogs. It really doesn’t need to be in the designated wilderness.
When I began hiking in the late 50’s, there was a trailhead where three cars would fit. There were many times the hike was totally silent and solitary. I am so grateful for this memory, and wish others could experience such peace and beauty. It is still a beautiful area and my little hometown of Bend has grown; it is a gracious place and needs a bit more planning and management to keep it kind.
Thank you, Ruth Douglass 655 NE 11th St. Bend, OR 97701
To Whom It May Concern:
Through this message, I am submitting my comments on the USFS Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 Project.
Why is the USFS taking on a multi-wilderness limited entry permit system that will (1) include a costly NEPA process that may be subject to numerous objections, appeals, and litigation and (2) be costly and complex to administer? Would it not be much simpler and less costly to limit wilderness area entry by designating and enforcing a finite amount of parking at each trailhead?
“No Parking” signs and/or physical barriers such as boulders and bollards can be used to control trailhead parking at a relatively low cost. My understanding is that some trailheads are already managed this way, such as at Todd Lake. Where trailheads are located adjacent to busy highways, overflow parking along the highways can be prevented by placing concrete shoulder barrier for perhaps 0.5 to 1 mile each direction from the trailhead. Although more expensive than other measures, concrete shoulder barrier is virtually vandalism-proof and would provide effective long-term parking control for a one-time cost. An added side benefit of shoulder barrier is that roadway departure crashes would be less severe in those areas.
A wilderness limited entry permit system would create conflicts in parking areas that are shared between wilderness trailheads and non-wilderness recreational uses. Todd Lake and Devils Lake are two examples. In both cases, the lakes that adjoin the trailheads are popular non-wilderness recreation areas not subject to limited entry. It is well-known that these parking areas quickly fill up daily during the peak recreation season. So if a person obtains a permit to enter the Three Sisters Wilderness through Todd Lake, they are likely to show up at the parking area only to find that available parking is taken up by Todd Lake day-users. Under this scenario, the wilderness permit becomes effectively useless to the holder. Limiting wilderness entry by designating a limited number of parking spaces seems to be a more implementable option at multi-use sites, because this approach would avoid creating parking conflicts between wilderness permit holders and non-wilderness visitors. The limited parking area would simply be occupied by a mix of users who enter the wilderness area and those who do not and both types of users would have the same probability of finding or not finding a legal parking space.
If limited law enforcement capability is a concern for a limited parking alternative, the same limitation would apply to a limited wilderness entry permit system. If USFS law enforcement is too short-handed to regularly enforce parking regulations at trailheads, they would also be too short-handed to enforce limited entry into the wilderness areas. Again, physical barriers and signage to control parking seem to be the more feasible option. The permanent physical barriers would act as “law enforcement” that would be on- duty 24 hours per day every day.
Limited wilderness entry by limiting parking at trailheads should be fully analyzed as a separate alternative in this NEPA analysis.
Limited entry at some trailheads would likely create additional risk to users and strain on search and rescue (SAR) resources. Based on the popularity of mountain climbs such as South Sister, limited entry
1
permits are likely to be claimed well in advance of being able to predict weather conditions. Owing to this difficulty, on days that inclement weather occurs, permit holders are more likely to attempt their climb anyway because they would not have the option to wait a few days for the weather to improve. However, limited wilderness entry by limiting trailhead parking would likely not add to the current risk of visitors attempting mountain climbs in inclement weather.
The increased risk of people attempting mountain climbs in inclement weather under a wilderness limited entry permit system needs to be analyzed as an effect and mitigated in the NEPA document.
Nature photography is another recreational use that would be adversely impacted by a limited entry system. Cloudy days without precipitation are best for waterfall and stream photography. Stormy days with mixed clouds and sun are best for mountain landscapes. Rare lenticular clouds on the mountain peaks are highly prized for photography. During the summer months, the above weather events are rare. A limited wilderness entry permit system would make it nearly impossible for nature photographers to enter wilderness areas during these events, as these ideal conditions only become known on short notice. Clear, low-haze days are less preferable than the weather events described above, but are still good conditions for photography. Owing to (1) frequent wildland and prescribed fires and (2) weather patterns that bring out-of-area haze into central Oregon, clear days are also somewhat uncommon and cannot be predicted very far in advance. Limited wilderness entry by limiting trailhead parking would maintain opportunities for photographers to enter wilderness areas on short notice to take advantage of ideal weather conditions.
The adverse effects to nature photographers under a limited wilderness entry permit system need to be analyzed and mitigated in the NEPA document.
As mentioned in the May 31, 2017 Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project Proposed Action document, there is a proposal to require day and overnight users to view on-line wilderness educational information prior to obtaining permits. With or without a limited entry system, I support this educational approach. However, the chosen educational program needs to be set up so that users cannot bypass the information by quickly scrolling down and clicking the “accept” or other button. There needs to be a reliable process for verifying that the user read and understood the information.
I think that the USFS should consider a wilderness ethics certification program for all wilderness users. This could be an at-your-own-pace on-line course with quizzes and/or a final examination to ensure that the user demonstrates proficiency in wilderness ethics before obtaining a certification card. Users could then be required to carry this card on their person when in wilderness areas. Maybe require recertification every five years as a refresher. I think that this would better get at the “wear and tear” that is occurring in wilderness areas. Without a certifiable level of education, the same people who are abandoning gear, depositing human waste above ground, littering, damaging trees/vegetation, braiding trails, etc. will likely continue to do so, even with a limited entry system.
2
Summary
Before jumping to a limited wilderness entry permit system, the USFS should strongly consider managing wilderness access through limited parking at trailheads for the following reasons:
• Limited parking appears to be a relatively simple alternative to administer compared to a complex limited entry system. • Nearly indestructible and immobile barriers such as large boulders, bollards, and concrete shoulder barrier could be used to effectively limit parking with minimal active law enforcement. • A limited wilderness entry permit system would create parking conflicts between wilderness permit holders and non-wilderness users at sites where parking is shared between wilderness trailheads and adjoining non-wilderness recreation sites. • The chances of visitors attempting risky mountain climbs in inclement weather would be lower and they would have the opportunity to try again for a parking spot when the weather improves. • Nature photographers would have continued opportunity to take advantage of weather conditions that only become known on short notice.
I believe that the wilderness “wear and tear” that has become the purpose and need for this project can be best addressed by a wilderness ethics certification program because limiting entry will not modify behavior. And this shouldn’t be a one-click bypassable accessory requirement for users obtaining a wilderness permit. It should be a card certification that is only obtainable by demonstrating proficiency in wilderness ethics through passing an examination. There is plenty of precedent for this approach, as other government entities at all levels administer examination-based certification programs in the interest of ethics, public safety, and environmental protection.
It is my understanding that the USFS prefers public education and that restrictive regulation is treated as a last resort. Based on the above, I believe that there is room for a robust educational certification program that can be tried before placing more restrictions on the freedoms that all of us enjoy. Maybe the Deschutes and Willamette National Forests can lead the way by developing a wilderness certification program that can ultimately be adopted by other national forests and maybe the BLM.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Ryan Franklin 19475 Apache Rd Bend, OR 97702
3
From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes; Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 11:55:32 AM
Please do not require permits to hike in all of Mount Jefferson, Mount Washington, Three Sisters, Diamond Peak and Waldo Lake wilderness areas. The reason I live it this state is to freely hike where ever I want and to have the sense of freedom that I can do that with the consent of the state. Please don't ruin the only thing that is appealing here.
Oregonians enjoy a spirit of freedom. Please allow Oregonians the freedom they've always enjoyed by keeping the land free to hike on. There are plenty of light usage trails that are not maintained at all. Why should I have to pay to hike these trails?
If you are going to require permits, why not wrap this into the annual parking pass that you can purchase for $30. Having to pay $6-12 per hike is unreasonable. I'm sure I'm not the only one who hikes on a weekly bases.
Another thought: Why not require permits for those who are visiting from out of state only?
If you don't want people leaving garbage and such behind, why not provide more services like bathrooms with flushing toilets, sinks with soap for hand washing and trash receptacles at trail heads?
I'm not sure how this would be enforce, since the state barley employees enough people to keep outhouse bathrooms cleaned and trails are maintained by a lot of volunteers.
Just some thoughts... From: Sarah Kailin To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: permit system Three Sisters Wilderness Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:29:51 AM
July 1, 2017
I would like to comment upon the proposed trail permit system for the Three Sisters Wilderness and the Jefferson Wilderness area. While I recognize that there are areas that are being overused and need conservation I would like to see a hybrid system. For those planning a trip ahead of time they could apply for a permit and be assured that they can go on their hike. I would also like to see perhaps half of the permits be a 'same day' or perhaps ' day prior and same day' type of system. This would allow for a spontaneous visit to some of the most beautiful spots on the planet. This would make it more reasonable for those living in the area and decide to day hike to have a way of doing so. The permit should be able to be purchased at any Oregon forest service office. For example I should be able to get a next day permit in Corvallis for my trip into Green Lake.
I have experienced such systems in Washington State and while I would love to be able to just go and register at the trailhead I also know that places are getting trampled.
I also wonder if there is always a need every day of the week? Have there been studies to show that weekends are when it is needed and weekdays are okay? Or are there particular trails such as South Sister that need it all the time and others that could be weekend only permit with some same day permits available.
I think the $6 cost is more reasonable than a $12 cost for families and retirees.
I also think a conversation with the Bend Tourism Department is needed. Bend is overflowing and many of the people coming may not know backcountry etiquette. Should there be payment from the tourism department for more staff for back country rangers to monitor the areas, educate people on use, and fine them if they don't comply? Advertising to bring more and more people to the area is going to magnify the problem!!
I hope that there will be information gathering from other systems that have been tried in other areas to see what works the best. Having ONLY a book ahead system would be very sad for the local residents and Oregonians who have been going to those areas with great respect for the environment for years.
Sarah Kailin
Corvallis OR Thanks for your consideration.
Sarah Kailin
3040 NW Taft Ave
Corvallis OR From: Sarah Swaney To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited entry to wilderness trails Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 10:53:13 AM
I do agree that some sort of limits need to be put in place, especially in the Green Lakes / Broken Top / Devils Lake areas.
I’d like to see the limits in place during the peak of tourist season, such as June 20 through Labor Day. That way, locals can do spur of the moment trips during the lower season of Labor Day until the first snow. I live in Bend and would still like to have the opportunity to wake up in the morning and decide to head for the mountains for the day, at least during some part of the year.
I don’t favor, as an initial implementation, a broad stroke of all trails requiring paid permits. I’d like to see the permit system just start with the heaviest used trails (mentioned above and maybe a few others). Then an evaluation could be done to see if that helped spread out use. If it needs to expand, expand it in a second or third year.
Also, if we are going to require permits for Broken Top, can we consider improving the road to the trailhead some time in the near future?
Thank you for all your hard work on this.
Sarah Swaney
From: Sean Carden To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: public land and wilderness fee Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 3:24:42 PM
You do have a choice. And my suggestion is that you err on the side of freedom. That land is our land, not yours. If you want to test Americans, go ahead. I'm fairly sure you'll regret the day you even thought of it. I'm a peaceful man so I'm just a dude telling you what he can see happening. But a lot of Americans and Oregunians aren't and I don't see it ending well for whatever army you bring to the fight. Keep in mind this is the land of the free. I'll stay tuned to the news for the fallout if you decide against liberty. Could be entertaining. From: Stephen Talley To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: My Thoughts on New Permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 3:42:49 PM
I am writing to comment on the proposal to limit access to the Three Sisters and nearby wilderness areas to permits purchased in advance. While I understand the need to reduce the “wear and tear” on the wilderness there are several aspects of this proposal that bother me. Easy access to beautiful mountains is what makes Bend special. Any proposal must take both parts of this equation into account.
When I previously read of the proposal for permitting, it seemed to be narrowly focused on the Green Lake and Devils Lake trails. Now it has broadened to include many trails in 5 different wilderness areas in Central Oregon. The first I read of this broadened effort was on June 30 in the Bulletin - but the comment period ends on July 3 and this is a holiday weekend! From searching on the internet, I see that the proposal has been out for almost a month. However, since a permitting system would have a huge impact on Bend, if the end of June is the first that others in Bend have heard of it as well, I suggest that a larger conversation over a longer period of time would be a fairer way to proceed.
I think this proposal needs to interact with the Visit Bend tourist effort. If one keeps bringing more and more tourists to central Oregon and advertising the beautiful hikes in the nearby wilderness, then more and more people will be out hiking on the trails, and based on my observations, many of these tourists are not familiar with the etiquette of wilderness use. I suggest that Bend Tourism use some of its money to support back country monitors, who educate about wilderness use and administer fines. And it is not only visitors - I have been shocked every time I am at Todd Lake to see people trampling across the meadows for a picnic. If a large part of the problem is the way people are behaving in the wilderness, then education coupled with fines seems a more direct way to solve the problem than restricting access for everyone at all trail heads. And adding outhouses to popular destinations also seems like a good idea - burying anything in the rocky Central Oregon soil is challenging.
The plan as I understand it also dramatically reduces the ability of people who live here to get up on a sunny day and decide to go hiking - one would have to schedule one’s summer in advance or hunt through the websites before starting the hike to see what’s open. Visitors know when they are coming and can schedule their hikes. Retirees generally have time to peruse web sites and find a hike and usually have fairly flexible schedules. But is there a way to preserve some access for the working families of Bend? This proposal seems to lead Bend further down the path of becoming a large theme park for visitors to play in.
It also seems odd that at the same time that Central Oregon is discussing restricting access to the wilderness, other parts of the country are discussing opening up wilderness areas to bicycles, which would likely lead to trail erosion and trail use conflicts. Taking away people and adding bicycles sounds like a bad idea.
I have no issues with the fees associated with permits, as long as the money is spent directly on maintaining the wilderness land in which the fees were collected rather than going into some general budget. But what will the fines be for going without a permit and will there be enough personnel to enforce this? Will permits be required in the fall, after the number of tourists has diminished? In the winter for ski touring? It seems like a drastic solution to go from open access with free permits to a system with paid access and permits that must be obtained in advance. Has an intermediate solution been considered? One that charges trail fees for all users, with permits available at trail heads, and then spends the money for personnel to enforce (with fines) the rules for the wilderness. And one that adds permits that must be obtained in advance to only the busiest of trail heads. I also think it is important to save a sizable percentage of the permits for next day/same day use, and that they should be available in any forest service office as well as online.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Stephen Talley Bend OR From: Steph Spencer To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments/permits for Three Sisters Wilderness Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 2:00:33 PM
Thank you for accepting my comments.
One of the key steps in minimizing impact is education. Yet, the managing entities of some of Oregon's best places, often take a back seat approach to providing key information on outdoor ethics & responsibilities. USFS being one of them.
Tumalo Falls is a perfect example. Not one bit of information about what to do with human waste/dog waste, cutting trails, etc.. Leave No Trace has worked incredibly hard & has it all layed out perfectly. Yet, many of our most favorite places & trailheads do not present this information.
Additionally, that rather large summer use permit-perfect place to at least list a reference/link to the information. Snow Park Permits, Day Use Permits, payment &/or sign in kiosks. This, to me, is the basic step in providing many of the under educated the opportunity to get educated!
I suppose it will become a permit situation, and I don't mind that. That is, as long as off season months are not effected. I am in the back country when others are not. Late evening, early early morning, week days. I hate to think that non-peak use will be effected. I hope it can be considered to limit the permit requirements to peak hours & peak months only.
There also should be volunteer days to help with realigning trails, rehabbing meadows, closing off cut-through trails, trash clean up, illegal campground disassembly, etc.. Getting people invested in these special places is also a great way to prevent some of the b.s. that happens in the front & back country.
Cheers & thanks for all your hard work-
Steph Spencer Bend, Oregon From: Steve and Cindy Higginbotham To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness Permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 4:33:04 PM
There is a group of us that hike into eight lakes basin (Mt. Jefferson Wilderness) every year. We are responsible and always leave our campsite in better condition than when we got there. I can understand going to a permit system. One year we found a campsite that looked like the people had just left all of their camping gear (it was at least a year old). Sometimes it is very difficult to "plan ahead" on hiking trips. The weather in the high country is hard to predict, even in the summer. I think fees should be refundable if hikers need to cancel so that campsites can be put back into the system so that other people have a chance to enjoy the experience. It is a tough situation having spent many days and nights in the Wilderness. Please make the right decision. There are many people that are passionate about the wilderness (myself included) that would hate to think that they will not have the opportunity to spend time with the nature of the wilderness.
Thank you
Steve Higginbotham
Virus-free. www.avast.com From: steve manners To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comment Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 11:53:34 AM
I feel the US Forest Service is taking the wrong approach. I would like the US Forest Service have a Full time Host at every major Entrance to educate the public regarding maintenance and cleanlyness.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID From: [email protected] To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Fwd: Permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 1:28:53 PM
Susan Huseonica
I think the idea of pre-purchased permits for hiking trails is horrible. Yes for camping and climbing Sisters or Jefferson but the freedom to just decide to take a hike on a gorgeous day would be taken away. We moved to this beautiful location for many reasons, mainly to enjoy the great hiking available here. Most people plan camping trips but not day hikes ahead so this would just be impossible to determine. Yes weekends get busier but certainly during the week the trails that I normally hike are seldom busy at all. Why take this freedom away from us? Please forget this idea for the love and enjoyment we day hikers love about Oregon!
Susan Huseonica
Susan Huseonica From: Susan Keith To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 6:56:36 PM
I am from CA; hiking in the Bay Area is beautiful, but there is a lot of trash. When I moved here 5 years ago, I was so impressed with how pristine the trails are. The thought there is over use as well as trash is distressing.
I think it is a good idea to have the permits and limit the use. We want people hiking the trails that respect what they are experiencing. From: Susi Klare To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: limited entry to wilderness areas Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 2:57:27 PM
One responsible response to overuse of our precious wilderness areas is to designate more wilderness by adding new areas and expanding the boundaries of what we have wherever possible.
I support limiting entry, but in addition to limiting numbers, the agencies need to do a better job of educating users in Leave No Trace practices. Every trailhead and campground should have a sign about fire etiquette, especially not creating new fire rings. Even seasoned outdoors folks still don't know how to build a fire that won't drop coals outside the ring. Hence we have scars that extend several feet outside the fire ring. It's a simple fix, but requires a bit of education.
The land agencies should have public service announcements with educational content on TV, radio, social media. People need to pack out their toilet paper, not bury it (animals dig it up). They need to be educated to tread lightly and not to walk in certain places (springs & fragile alpine vegetation).
I strongly oppose charging money to enter wilderness. Fees are an elitist idea that excludes those of limited means. Please don't make people pay for the basic human right to experience wild nature.
Susanna DeFazio 87805 Walker Creek Road Walton, OR 97490 From: Susan Lucas-Wittwer To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: support for permit system in Three Sisters Wilderness Area Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 8:17:25 AM
To Whom It May Concern:
I have lived in Bend, Oregon for 40 years and grew up camping and hiking in the Three Sisters Wilderness. I support a paid permit system (with a nominal fee) on the trails in the wilderness. The charges should be the same on any trail used, so as not to overpopulate the lesser used trails. We should also ban dogs from trails. They disturb wildlife and leave waste behind. We need to protect this area for future generations. With the growing population, human activity needs to be managed.
I also support banning dogs at Todd Lake. Very few people obey the leash laws there. It has become a de-facto dog park for the City of Bend.
Thank you for taking my comment. I look forward to hearing from you.
Susan Wittwer 20802 Glenn Maroe Ct. Bend, OR 97701 From: Terry & Keith Mischke To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness fee Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:06:48 PM
Having volunteered many hours in the Deschutes NF we understand the problems of having too many people on the trails. However we cannot support the proposed fee for hiking into the Wilderness areas. The FS already has the NW Forest Pass and this new fee would just add the cost to those who can least afford it!
A better way would down size the trail head parking lots. With sign saying if the lot is full go somewhere else and enforce it. Since most of the crowds occur on the summer week ends have more rangers and volunteers on the trails.
Terry and Keith Mischke From: Terry Wood To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Fees, fees, fees Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 8:53:35 AM
Permits? OK. But why impose such lofty fees? You're locking responsible but not wealthy users out of public lands. Better we should educate people about old-school principles of backcountry behavior such as pack it in, pack it out. I do agree we now have a high lunkhead population infiltrating wilderness lands. No one has taught an entitled generation that it needs to clean up after itself. From: Leahy, Thomas S To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness area permit comments Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 5:59:25 PM
I’d like to provide one rather site-specific comment, although perhaps applicable to more areas.
As noted in one of your own reports on the current conditions (http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/nepa/105465_FSPLT3_3992862.pdf ) , the parking areas for the Green Lakes and Devils Lake trail heads are completely beyond capacity with many people parking along the Cascade Lakes Highway. I observed that myself last September, quite late in the month too. Hiking the Green Lakes trail felt a bit more like a day at the Multnomah falls trailhead ! Folks in flip-flops etc out on the trail ! One thought I had at the time was this : why not prohibit parking along the highway like that ? Once the parking lots are full, they are full and that’s it. If some-one would like to hike the trail and they drive around the parking lot and it is full, then they’ll have to just go somewhere else to hike that day. I suppose there would be some expense to enforcing that, but if a couple of hikers had to hitch-hike back to Bend because their car was towed for being illegally parked ( assuming it was well signed and advertised that this would happen ), then I think word would soon get around to “don’t do that” ! Maybe issuing parking tickets / citations would be less harsh than towing the vehicles away and would also get the message out. It may not solve all the problems you are trying to address with the permit system under review currently, but it seems like a potentially easy fix to some of the over-crowding at very popular trail heads.
Best regards
Thomas Leahy Gaston, OR
From: Tim Gibbons To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comment on Wilderness Access Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 4:48:36 PM
Dear Deschutes National Forest Leaders:
The increase in population and the increase in tourism numbers in Central Oregon over the past 10 years has certainly negatively impacted the physical surroundings and social experience in nearby wilderness areas. Can you limit numbers on the most popular trails (i.e. Green Lakes) for the most heavily traveled part of the season. For example, July 1 - September 15 and then open up the trails (no permit required) after the peak season when trail usage drops significantly? Also, can you leave some trailheads open (not requiring special permit and fee) during the peak season that are less traveled? A mixture of open and permit trails may help disperse use. I feel strongly that some of the less traveled trails should be open and not require a special permit and fee.
Thank you,
Tim Gibbons
-- "The mountains are calling and I must go." - John Muir
Tim Gibbons 60830 Currant Way Bend, OR 97702 From: Timothy Dragila To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permit system in Central Oregon. Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 3:01:21 PM
I am in favor of a wilderness permit system in Central Oregon for the excellent reasons stated in the recent Bend Bulletin article.
Thanks,
Timothy Dragila
63338 Brightwater Dr.
Bend, OR 97701 [email protected] From: Todd T To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permits Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 6:34:50 AM
While I understand that increased use of wilderness areas, combined with reductions in funding for management, may require a system of permits to control crowds and protect the territory, I am opposed to establishing a permit by fee due to its bias towards those with means to pay. I personally know those who waited years to be able to use a short cash windfall to afford pizza for a celebration. Capable people with a passion for outdoor activities, a fee structure for access to public land immediately proclaims them second class citizens, and is in direct conflict of maintenance of public lands for all the people.
Thank you, Todd Teicheira DC From: Thomas Lancefield To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Comment on Proposed Limited Entry System Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 7:54:00 PM
Hello, Ms.Peer. My comments are as follows:
1) I am not big on permits. I don't do a lot of hiking in the Wilderness areas that are under consideration for reducing crowding and other impacts, but (call me spoiled?) I like to be able to go own day hikes on the spur of the moment. I don't do backpacking; am 68 years old. I'm happy to pay trailhead parking or other fees to enjoy hiking in wilderness or other areas.
2) I have visited some of the areas (trails) that would require permits under the proposal, such as Crown Lake (last year) and Waldo Lake and Triangulation Peak (20-plus years ago). I hiked to Pamelia Lake a couple of times before permits were required, but haven't since.
3) This is a 'name your poison' set of choices. I prefer that if permits are required, that they be required under the most limited circumstances practicable. For example, if impacts from overnight campers are the biggest concern, then require permits only for overnight campers, not for day hikers. If excessive numbers of day hikers are the concern, consider requiring permits only for weekend and holiday day hikers. My wife and I have hiked to Crown Lake and (earlier this week) on the Elk Lake Creek trail in Bull of the Woods Wilderness area and encountered no other hikers on the trail, possibly because we were hiking on a weekday, not on the weekend, and perhaps also because we didn't start hiking until fairly late in the day. (I know that Bull of the Woods is not part of the proposed permit implementation area - I'm just using it as an example.)
4) I think the language in the federal 1964 Wilderness Act, "untrammeled," is unfortunate in that it is an obscure usage, one that is easy for people to read their own interpretation into. It does not translate to "untrampeled," for example, but rather to being unimpeded or unobstructed. I will admit that at some point, it could be annoying to wait repeatedly while many groups of oncoming hikers pass on the same trail one is using. By my reading of the Act's language, solitude is not a mandated benefit of being in a wilderness; but it is a quality that people expect, to some degree.
5) Removing fire rings is silly, unless all traditional campfires are forbidden in a wilderness area.
Thank you.
Tom Lancefield 313 Ewald Ave. SE Salem, Ore. 97302 From: Travis Eno To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Unconstitutional Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 9:34:47 AM
What happened to fostering and nurturing the idea of exploring, all the marketing bullshit telling people to climb their mountains, enjoy the outdoors, drop the cell phone... and this. Restricting the flow of travelers and forcing people into a life of handouts and a new welfare state. The people have the power and the government protects our rights and liberties, not restricts them. This is unconstitutional and I won't stand for this, be prepared to fight for that land because I will.
Travis Eno From: Tyler Deboodt To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited entry wilderness permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 8:55:57 PM
Hello,
Thank you for addressing there is a big issue with the use of the wilderness areas in Oregon. It is unfortunate that this discussion has to come up, but it is important that our wilderness areas do not become damaged and irreparable. With that said, I strongly disagree the proposed method to solve this issue is correct. This proposed method seems to be a knee jerk reaction without much thought. As an avid climber it is important to keep the flexibility open to climb when conditions and weather permits. If climbers are forced to climb on a set date, many will take unnecessary risks to summit on date or dates they may get to be in the wilderness, thus leading to more injuries and likely deaths. The proposed area will limit access to some of Oregon's premier climbs, and this one time shot to get it right may not work in the future. It is important to get this right and done quickly, but this may only be a temporary problem, and it would likely to never get changed once implemented.
I've climbed all the high Cascade volcanoes in Oregon many times over and hiked thousands of miles both in and out of the wilderness areas, and I have only interacted with one Forest Service employee while hiking or climbing in the last 8 years. After chatting with him for 30 minutes, it was obvious he was overwhelmed with the amount of work and people to deal with in the wilderness, as well as all of their other tasks. As I understand, the Forest Service is severely understaffed and can not keep up with all that is requested of them. I do feel that in this prosperous economic time that people that are not accustomed to being out in the wilderness are exploring, and are in need of some education and etiquette training to fully understand that we all need to work together to preserve our wilderness areas. I hope the Forest Service thinks long and hard and does not come to a knee-jerk reaction to this problem. Please keep free access to the wilderness, and not punish all of us for a few bad apples.
Best, Tyler Deboodt From: Tyler Wilson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Protect the Wilderness Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 2:41:03 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to urge you to protect wilderness areas. As the Wilderness Act originally stated, a wilderness is “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” It did not say that a wilderness is an area where you are allowed to trample wildflowers, widen trails, and leave your dog’s poop in the middle of the trail. I support stronger regulations in the most popular wilderness areas in Oregon. I think that, if people can’t regulate themselves, then regulations should be put into place. I support limiting the number of overnight campers in specific areas through a camping permit system. I also support allowing wilderness rangers to fine visitors who do not pick up after their dogs or dispose of their own trash or human waste properly.
Thank you for your commitment to our most precious ecosystems. Present and future generations will benefit from your hard work and perseverance.
To the wild, Tyler Wilson From: Val Gerard To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Project Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 9:40:27 AM
I have lived in Central Oregon for 18 years, and I have hiked many of the trails in the Three Sisters Wilderness with my dogs. When I first moved to Bend, the trails were not crowded, and there were no leash restrictions (or required trailhead passes). The leash restrictions imposed in 2007 prevented me from using those trails during the summer, as I have an arthritic shoulder and cannot walk two Labrador Retrievers on leashes in the forest. Walking them on leashes in town is a totally different situation: in town, they are satisfied to stay by my side and walk at my pace; in the woods, they want to run and explore. As a 45-year dog owner and trainer, I understand that those behavioral differences as healthy and normal. Off-leash recreation is important to my dogs and to me. And judging from the several thousand members of DogPAC (I am a board member), off-leash recreation is important to many people in Central Oregon, residents and visitors alike.
Crowded trails create opportunities for user conflict – whether dogs are involved or not. Dog owners are usually the first group to be impacted by high user density, because the Forest Service uses crowded trails as an excuse to restrict off-leash access. If the proposed permit process reduced the density of users on specific wilderness trails, summer leash restrictions could be lifted on some trails with water access, which is very important to summer hikes with dogs. In that case, I might be in favor of permits. If the new regulations further reduced access for off-leash dogs, I would definitely be against those regulations.
Regarding both human and dog waste, I think education, peer pressure, and enforcement are key. DogPAC educates its members regarding responsible dog ownership, including appropriate use of leashes and poop bags. We give out around 50,000 free poop bags in the Deschutes National Forest, each year. We also provide (and empty) cans for disposal of the full bags. Although there are always some piles of dog poop near popular trailheads, the number has been reduced by around 50,000! Our success proves that people can be educated. Peer pressure works, too: when I see someone else’s dog pooping, I ask them if they need a poop bag. And it is important to note that requiring a dog to be on a leash does not guarantee that the owner will clean up after it. On the other hand, there is no excuse for unburied human feces (festooned with toilet paper or not). If permits are deemed necessary, I would like to see a lightweight trowel, biodegradable TP, and a free copy of “How to shit in the woods” handed out with every permit.
Humans, not dogs, leave garbage in the wilderness. This is a situation that demands improved enforcement. There are steep fines for having a dog off-leash on a leash-restricted trail. Why not impose even steeper fines for littering? Just as National Forest campgrounds often have campground hosts, why not have hosts at wilderness campgrounds in high-use areas? Required check ins and check outs with the host would demonstrate that campers are “leaving no trace.” In case of a problem, the host could call a ranger, who could intercept the “criminal” at the trailhead. If word spread of even a few people caught and fined, compliance would increase.
In short, if new regulations are determined to be necessary to reduce crowding and abuse of wilderness trails and campsites, I would probably not complain about permits and fees, but would fight against expansion of leash restrictions.
Thank you for your attention.
Val Gerard Bend, OR
From: Victor Chudowsky To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness area closures Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 4:33:49 PM
Dear Friends:
Please do not limit access to any natural areas in Deschutes National Forest. Instead, why not hire more temporary staff during the summer to maintain these areas? If you can afford to expand parking lots at Phil's, why not hire some young people for the busy season? You just spent a good sum of money to open a welcome center to the forest, and now you are telling people they are in fact not welcome in certain parts of the forest. Better management is the answer, not restriction.
Thank you,
Victor Chudowsky Bend,OR.
Sent from my iPad From: Wendie Vermillion To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Paid permits Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 7:55:46 PM
Please consider a trial period of 18 months with the top five listed before including so many! Who would be checking and ticketing? Idea needs reinforced or folks won't respect the rule regardless. STA members know the problems!!! Thanks so much.
Wendie vermillion
Sent from my iPhone From: Wendy Rodgers To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Public Comment for Limited Entry Proposal Date: Saturday, July 01, 2017 7:06:59 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
I would like to comment on The Deschutes and Willamette National Forests proposals to reduce usage in Wilderness areas through the use of a permit system. I am a hiker who has been hiking in these National Forest for 12 years and I am opposed to many aspects of this proposed new system.
Considering hikers already pay for the $30 yearly Forest Pass I do not think it is appropriate to ask people to pay an additional $6-12 per hike in order to hike in the Deschutes and Willamette National Forests. For citizens who live close to these National Forests this is a huge impediment to access. If you hike on an every weekend basis like I do this could add up to hundreds of dollars a year. Considering the National Forests are supposed to to be for the people and generally accessible to citizens, I do not see this as fair. If you must implement a permit system please consider making it free or lower cost. $0-3 per permit seems much more appropriate. Surely processing/implementation fees cannot be that high! $6-12 seems ridiculously expensive.
The other completely problematic situation with this proposal is that is forces people to plan out their recreation months in advance when they have no idea what the weather might be like in the future. I myself have wasted permits to Pamelia Lake because it was pouring on a weekend in July. This allows zero flexibility to hikers. Not to mention if permits cannot be accessed onsite or nearby and can only be purchased online or in advance it severely limits spur of the moment camping/hiking trips that the average person does all the time. I love to plan trips but I don't want to plan out every hiking trip of my summer in February!
While I agree that overcrowding is an issue I do not think it is necessary to apply this policy to every trailhead in the cited Wilderness areas, and I do not think it should apply to day hikers. If you must apply a permit system I urge you to select 3-4 of the highest usage sites as you have done with Pamelia Lake and set permits only at those sites. I also think that using a limited entry permit for overnight/backpacking only would make more sense than limiting day hiking. The majority of the impacts you are seeing, are much more likely to be coming from backpackers than they are from day hikers.
Despite having hiked in The Deschutes and Willamette National Forests at least 30-40 times over the last 3-4 years I have personally not experienced the overcrowding that you seem to want to decrease other than at Jefferson Park and Canyon Creek Meadows. I have heard that many of the South Sister Climb access points are extremely overcrowded as well. However many, many of the trails I have experienced in both National Forests such as the Cheat Creek Trailhead, Maxwell Butte, and the Woodpecker Ridge trailhead see minimal usage and there is no need for them to be permitted. A targeted approach seems like it would be much more effective and fair.
This proposed policy would severely impact the free access and ability of citizens to enjoy these two National Forests. Please reconsider the severe impact this policy will have on hikers and other outdoor Wilderness users.
Thank you, Wendy Rodgers From: WILLIAM I CALHOUN To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: paid permits Date: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:56:31 PM
Dear Sirs,
I am opposed to charging permit fees for access to the peoples Deschutes National Forest. I have seen this sort of thing happen in California where Ticketmaster managed to insert themselves as a middleman between the people and their forest to skim off a nice profit and significantly raise the price under the guise of providing a service to the forest service.
It also limits access to those who can afford the fee.
Sincerely,
William Calhoun From: Zac Anderson To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: No to limits or pay passes Date: Monday, July 03, 2017 4:59:02 PM
Please do not begin using limits and payed permits for the three sisters wilderness area. Thank you. -Zac Anderson, Bend Oregon. From: zach cochrane To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Outrageous Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 8:36:21 AM
Greetings,
This is only an answer to a non-problem that was created by an accountant. You make it sound like there are thousands of people out in the forest all at once in the same spots in order to fleece the flock of more funds in a sneak attack taxation. This is so obvious. Look in the mirror and you will see a Nazi staring back at yourselves. Your papers please! This is our land and we don't need to pay anyone to use it. This will never limit damage, which is just a fictional talking point utilized in a weak attempt at propagandizing the situation. You are transparent as hell. Get your fees out of our lives!
Kindly,
Zach Cochrane From: Joe Petrik To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness permit comment Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 1:23:49 PM
Hello,
I saw the article in the Bulletin and wanted to give my two cents. I am a Bend resident and photographer. I love having this amazing wilderness in my backyard and would like to see it preserved for generations to come. I understand that heavy usage requires additional maintenance and I'm in full support of paying a fee to hike very heavily used trails in the Three Sister Wilderness. I do not support a permit system that would limit the number of permits distributed on any given day or would require a reservation / lottery months in advance.
Thank you for all that you do, Joe Petrik
Sent from my iPhone From: Peer, Beth -FS To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: conversation record: John Gilmore Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 1:08:39 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png
I received a voicemail message from John Gilmore re: the wilderness strategies project. Mr. Gilmore’s comment was that no one in his HOA is interested in permits. He suggests that we put trash containers out where trash is a problem; that we use adopt-a-trail system to help manage situation; and that if more campsites are need then we should add them. He commented that with new rules, fewer people will enjoy the forest.
Beth Peer Special Projects Coordinator Forest Service Deschutes National Forest p: 541-383-5554 c: 541-416-1100 [email protected] 63095 Deschutes Market Rd. Bend, OR 97701 www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
From: Juliet To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes-bend-ftrock Cc: Libby elizabeth Subject: wilderness permits Date: Sunday, July 02, 2017 9:16:05 AM
I have lived in Oregon nearly my whole life and have spent much time in the high Cascades. I understand the need to limit the number of users in some areas and a permit system of some sort seems like a logical step. However, given the fact that we already pay to park at the trailheads, it feels highly offensive to then again be charged for an access permit. There needs to be a limit to how much we have to pay in order to just be in the forests that already belong to us all. And I also think that there needs to be some way of keeping spontaneity as part of the process, especially considering that many forest service stations are closed on holidays and weekends. Perhaps there can be a certain number of permits available on a first come basis at the trailhead and then another batch of permits available ahead of time for those who are better able to plan their schedule. This issue means a lot to me and I would like to be kept apprised of any future decisions that may be made regarding this problem. Thank you, Juliet Robertson From: Peer, Beth -FS To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: conversation record: Paula Hyatt Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 1:05:41 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png
I spoke with Mrs. Hyatt today regarding visitor use management in the wilderness. She had been involved in the planning effort of the early 1990s and worked as a volunteer at Obsidian trailhead. She felt that permit system worked very well. She also feels that designated camping at Green Lakes is helping. Her comments on the proposal are that a permit system may be a good idea, for some trailheads anyway- maybe not for all of them, but no fee should be charged to hikers. There shouldn’t be a cost to hiking.
Beth Peer Special Projects Coordinator Forest Service Deschutes National Forest p: 541-383-5554 c: 541-416-1100 [email protected] 63095 Deschutes Market Rd. Bend, OR 97701 www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
From: Peer, Beth -FS To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: conversation record - Tom Andrade Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 1:10:08 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png
I received a voicemail message from Tom Andrade re: the wilderness strategies project. He commented that he is highly opposed to the proposal. The remedy should be to hire more wilderness rangers. He does not feel that there is a use problem in our area, and that there are options available such as more rangers and trail crews.
Beth Peer Special Projects Coordinator Forest Service Deschutes National Forest p: 541-383-5554 c: 541-416-1100 [email protected] 63095 Deschutes Market Rd. Bend, OR 97701 www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
From: Kris Myers To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 8:23:14 PM
Beth Peer Deschutes National Forest All Units 63095 Deschutes Market Rd , Bend, OR, 97701 Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578
Hi Beth,
First, let me say thank you for the opportunity to speak on this subject of limiting traffic and impact on the land through the Central Cascades Wilderness. This is a great subject to be brought up. I spend a lot of time in the Wilderness all throughout Oregon and Washington hiking and backpacking with friends, family and most importantly Boy Scouts. I am a trainer of the Leave No Trace Principles and a huge supporter of the Outdoor code.
I would fully support the idea of charging and limiting hiking, backpacking in the area, and much more. As an observer, it saddens me that people do not educate themselves or respect the beauty of our landscapes. We have a beautiful opportunity to see these areas, and I think by charging to see them, they will limit the impact and give it some time to restore itself to its original beauty. I would love to see some of the money that is made by charging go towards education to the community in the Leave no Trace principles and the Outdoor Code, so that people understand what happens to our wilderness. I truly hate to think someone should have to pay to see some of our beautiful landscapes, but after spending time on the trail, I think this is the only way in educating people and preserving its glory.
I know this will have an impact on our Boy Scouts who spend summers doing service projects in our area, restoring trails and earning merit badges while seeing Oregon/Washington's beauty, but I think they would be willing to pay the fee to help make a difference. I know I would and to be honest, I would be happy to pay their fee to get to see Jefferson Park, which is one of our favorites. A few years ago we did a service project at Jefferson Park blocking trails, cleaning up trash, and removing Cairns. The boys felt so honored to get to do it, as they fell in love with the area. I know the group that I led that year would be happy to help again in preserving that area if they could.
Thank you for all that you do in maintaining and providing the amenities we experience on the trail. If you are need of help that you think Boy Scouts could handle please reach out to us. We love to backpack and we love service projects, and Jefferson Park is near and dear to our hearts.
Kris Myers BSA Cascade Pacific Council, Thunderbird District, Merit Badge Coordinator BSA Troop 586 Committee Chair, Merit Badge Counselor & most importantly Scout Mom Yoga Instructor E-RYT, Functional Movement Screening, Schwinn Cycling Instructor, TRX Trainer, Myofascia Release, Outdoor Fitness www.empoweredyoganw.com My Yoga Facebook Fanpage From: Hill, David Foster To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Comments on Permit Proposal Date: Thursday, July 06, 2017 10:39:59 AM
Hello.
I understand you are considering a permit system for Three Sisters Wilderness (and maybe other areas). And, I understand that the rationale for this proposal has much to do with perceived ‘overuse’ (fire rings, use trails, human waste, garbage, etc.) of the area.
Overall, I support efforts to minimize impacts to wilderness areas. However, I would urge you to move forward slowly, deliberately, and with a clear vision of what you are trying to accomplish.
Is the purpose of the permit to raise revenue? If so, then please be clear about what the revenue will be used for. If the purpose of the permit to limit use? If so, the please consider ways that will allow ‘spontaneous’ use. In other words, having a permit system (like Mt. St. Helens) that books out for the ENTIRE summer in a matter of a few days (when permits open) is very unfortunate. Having a system where some permits are held back for walkup (1st come, 1st served) allows local to access nearby lands on short notice.
Oregon is poised to have a potentially confusing system of permits. Right now, there are some controls on ‘where you can camp’. Moraine Lake / Green Lakes, etc., have designated campsites only, with no controls at the trailhead. This seems like an odd system, as it leads to too many people showing up on busy weekends with too few campsites. And, that is how new unauthorized campsites get established. Now, at Jeff Park, I understand they are actually ‘reserving’ those designated campsites. So, that’s great for people who get a reservation, but, again, too many people show up, and they just camp wherever.
Places like California tend to issue quota permits at the trailheads (access points), but typically say nothing about where to camp. So, that is completely the opposite approach from Oregon. So, if you now issue trailhead quota permits, we will have both controls on access, and controls on camping? It seems very complicated and confusing.
I would like to make one final point. I STRONGLY FEEL that the best step you can take is more education and enforcement. Try to educate people to not be idiots in the backcountry. That is what is needed. It’s not complicated (leave no trace ethics). But, there is very little good educational material out there. Along with this is enforcement. I have NEVER seen a backcountry ranger in Oregon. They are very common in the Sierra, on the other hand. I understand that this requires resources. There NEEDS to be enforcement. Also, consider requiring ‘blue bags’ for human waste. They are used on Shasta, Rainier, and other places. Google ‘New Zealand Poo Pot’ for another great example. Human waste is a huge problem. Solve it! Don’t let people in the backcountry if they are not willing to pack it out!
Thank you. Dave Hill Corvallis, OR From: Jason R. Killian To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited entry permits Date: Thursday, July 06, 2017 11:39:00 AM
As an avid climber of all the peaks in the wilderness areas proposed for limited access permits, I am concerned about the impact such regulations will have upon the wilderness experience of the climbing community. I would propose that any such permit system allow people to pass through lower elevation areas if they doing so solely to gain access into the high alpine areas and summits well above tree line and off of any established trails while climbing. Pamelia Lake is a great example of what I fear from a one-size-fits-all entry permit system. Although the SW ridge of Mt. Jefferson is outside the permit camping area, I've been told that I cannot hike through the permit area to gain access to that climbing route without obtaining a permit. This unnecessarily limits my freedom to access and experience a part of the wilderness that is by comparison very lightly used, difficult to access and a true joy to be in.
The problem with a permit to enter for climbers is that responsible climbers can now choose to go into the high mountains only when the weather and route conditions allow them to do so safely. Weather and snow conditions are fickle in the Cascades and can change rapidly, even during our summer months. In essence, we can safely climb when the mountains and weather allow us to do so rather than when a schedule or access to an available permit allow. Weather windows to climb can be short, so a climbers scheduled entry into the high alpine environment must be flexible. A likely result of a limited entry permit system is climbers attempting routes primarily when they can get a permit, rather than when conditions make it reasonably safe to climb. Indeed, making the wise and carefully considered decision of when to climb is a huge part of the mountaineers wilderness experience and essential part of their "freedom of the hills". Please don't take this away from the local climbing community in your very necessary and appreciated efforts to protect the more readily accessible and impacted lower elevation areas of our wilderness.
Additionally, as a member of Corvallis Mountain Rescue Unit, I fear that those who fail to secure permits will enter the limited use areas regardless - and be reluctant to call for help for fear of fines and legal action if they become lost or injured and are discovered to be in the area without permits. This result has been shown in many other limited permit access areas, where it needlessly complicates rescue operations and prolongs searches, increasing the risk to both the subject and the rescue workers.
- Jason Killian From: Tim Hall To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: restring access Date: Thursday, July 06, 2017 7:35:06 PM
Can you please not restrict access to our public lands! If you do please don’t charge $6 (or $12) for entry. Please don’t make this a way for the state to raise funds!
Thank you!
-Tim Hall
From: Peer, Beth -FS To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: FW: WWW Mail: Central Oregon Wilderness Proposal Date: Thursday, July 06, 2017 10:12:01 AM
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2017 1:08 PM To: Hopkins, Shannon S -FS
I am highly opposed to the wilderness management proposal, it is far too broad, is based on limited data, uses examples of damaged sites that could be easily prevented if the Deschutes utilized wilderness rangers (which they do not) There are over used areas; Green Lk, Mackenzie pass, manage those instead of effecting the entire system. I used the Jefferson, 3 Sisters and Mt Washington (a lot) And do not see the the need now or in the near future. I worked for 25 years in R-5 (Desolation Wilderness specifically) R-6 is nowhere near the uses figures of Ca and thus do not need the heavy handed approach proposed. Calm down, visit your wilderness areas in person, hire wilderness rangers, hire trail crews, do your job to encourage public use and not always gravitate immediately to a public restriction model. There are many management options available to you before adopting this highly restrictive plan. Tom Andrade . Territorial Riders Chapter Back Country Horsemen of Oregon
July 6, 2017
Tracy Beck Forest Supervisor Willamette National Forest 3106 Pierce Parkway, SuiteD Springfield, OR 97477
Dear Mr. Beck:
I am writing regarding the Central Cascades Wilderness Strategy. We understand the need to do ‘something’ to protect the Wilderness experience in the five Wilderness areas that are being affected by heavy use in the Deschutes and Willamette National Forests. We also understand that the model you will create with this effort will most likely be applied to other Forests’ that are experiencing heavy use. We sincerely hope that the proposed solution can solve the problem without penalizing users who are not causing the problem.
We believe the heavy use in these Wilderness areas is currently primarily by hikers, and if they are granted Wilderness access the number of mountain bike users will also be an issue. Equestrian use over the years has either been declining or remaining flat in most cases. We believe any solution to this issue should not penalize equestrians since equestrian use is both historical and is not causing issues with the Wilderness experience.
One solution to this problem would be to separate out the different user groups and issue permits based on user group rather than lumping all permits together on a first come-first serve basis. With this solution you could institute control without penalizing a user group that is not causing the over-population problem.
While we believe it is important to protect the Wilderness experience, we also believe it is important to protect equestrian access to the resource as well. We believe a blanket limit on all users without distinguishing between user groups will hurt equestrian access substantially and disproportionately. We sincerely hope you consider this when developing the rules you will put in place to protect the resource.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Tim Lagasse
Territorial Riders BCHO President
28012 S Baurer Rd, Colton, OR 97017. Phone: 503.314.7712 . [email protected] From: Beck, Tracy B -FS To: "Tucker, Will"; Peer, Beth -FS Cc: Riley, Bruce (SO); Lindsey, John; [email protected]; Jewkes, Holly -FS; McHugh, Judith P -FS; Cross, Darren M -FS Subject: RE: Update on our Proposal for managing visitor use in the Cascade Crest Wildernesses Date: Thursday, July 06, 2017 2:26:10 PM Attachments: image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png
Hi Will, please keep in mind this is only the five Cascade Crest Wilderness areas on the Willamette and Deschutes NF’s. We are just starting NEPA and the planning process and are still accepting comments/concerns. Beth Peer is the team leader for this planning effort, so your comments below have been captured. I see a lot of this situation the way you do and am favor of increased public access to their forests. Wilderness is different than the rest of the Forest and we are seeing some unacceptable impacts from substantially increased use in the most popular areas. We need help in figuring out the best path forward and generate a number of alternatives to consider and analyze in the Environmental Assessment.
I would be glad to setup a meeting with you and any other folks you feel should be there, to talk about where we are at with Wilderness Visitor Use Planning and the timeline we are striving to meet. Please let me know if I should get Wes on this? Thanks,
Tracy Beck Forest Supervisor Forest Service Willamette National Forest p: 541-225-6312 f: 541-225-6222 [email protected] 3106 Pierce Parkway Suite D Springfield, OR 97477 www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
From: Tucker, Will [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 1:36 PM To: Beck, Tracy B -FS
Hello Tracy,
Thank you for the note. I had not heard of the proposal to manage (limit) visitor use of the forest until I heard it this weekend out of a radio station from Portland, reporting $12/$15 fees to register to hike in our local Forest Service managed lands.
My first thought was that managing the number of people in an area by fees and limits is the opposite of what we should be doing with our public lands. Somehow it feels backward, don’t we want more people to see the beauty and be exposed to nature. Then wondered about the amount of patrol, search, rescue and recovery we (Lin County) in dollars as assist with in the areas management and if you plan on sharing/contracting for more help. I also wondered about the actual numbers of visitors, and if they could be spread out over a larger area by developing more access, with less impact on any one site before we start to require registration/fees and setting limits.
I have a call into my Sheriff, Bruce Riley, to understand their involvement over recent years and the impact he is seeing on his team. As you understand revenue from SRS, PILT or stumpage has continued to drop off these lands.
Given I don’t know enough about the proposal, and even about the current “Fee Use” trails maybe our first conversation is one about that history and the successes. I am not sure, but it sounds like the proposed fees are NOT for low elevation trails, but is that next?
So I keep wanting to go off on tangents, I see it as our duty to make public lands available to visit. Yes, I want to protect the sites. But I don’t want to lock-up (Santiam Lodge) where it is out of the public view while it falls apart. I don’t want to over use some of our lands, where we have no management and we abuse the forest. I see my job as striking the balance, and I think you do as well. So, I do want to meet soon on this, before I have the public/press ask my opinion, for at the moment, I would be opposed to any additional fees/limits/restrictions being put into place.
So I would like to understand the problem statement, the alternatives being evaluated so I can understand and hopefully support your teams proposals. Somehow I need to connect people with public lands. Limiting them defeats some of the purpose. How do I connect to this effort?
Will
From: Beck, Tracy B -FS [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 2:46 PM To: Tucker, Will Subject: Update on our Proposal for managing visitor use in the Cascade Crest Wildernesses
Hi Will,
I hope you had a good Fourth of July. As you may know, we have seen a tremendous increase in visitors and subsequent impacts to several locations in our Cascade Crest Wilderness areas over the past few years. On the Willamette side of the divide, our greatest numbers and impacts are in the Mt Jefferson Wilderness – specifically Jefferson Park, a meadow/lake complex below Mt Jefferson itself. On the Deschutes side, they have several locations that have been heavily impacted, most notably the Green Lakes and South Sister area. Our intent is to manage these wilderness areas for their unique character and for future generations to enjoy the same unspoiled experience our forbearers gave us.
The two forests are working together to design a management system that will work well for our four shared wilderness areas, as well as Waldo Lake Wilderness area (entirely within Willamette NF boundary). You may know that we have 20 years of success in limiting use and managing impacts at Pamelia and Obsidian trails (Mt Jefferson and Three Sisters Wilderness areas, respectively). Based on that experience, we sought public input on a management plan that may include a similar limited entry permit (with or without permit fees). We began the scoping period the first of June with notifications and press release.
On June 28th the Salem Statesmen Journal published an article about the proposal that drew robust response and has spawned lots of local and now national coverage. Overall, the responses include understanding about impacts at many locations but the potential for permits, and especially paid permits is generally unpopular. We continue to welcome public comment and track the issue. Alternative means of managing visitor use in the wilderness areas will be considered and analyzed in an environmental assessment over the winter, to be released for public comment in February.
Please contact us if you have any questions.
Thanks - Tracy
Tracy Beck Forest Supervisor Forest Service Willamette National Forest p: 541-225-6312 f: 541-225-6222 [email protected] 3106 Pierce Parkway Suite D Springfield, OR 97477 www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately. From: Clifford Hartman To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited access permits Date: Sunday, July 09, 2017 9:15:44 AM
1. Limit parking rather then funding an expensive internet permit system. Trailhead parking would be on a first come first served basis. Parking areas for be clearly designated with signage. Cars parked outside of the designated area’s would be subjected to parking fines.
2. Limit commercial trail guided access through a permit system.
3. Limit access by decreasing trail maintenance, increase difficulty of trail by increasing the number of fallen trees that need to be transversed. From: JANE LUSSIER To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Wilderness trails in Central Oregon Date: Friday, July 07, 2017 8:27:45 PM
I just want to add my comments concerning trail limits/permits/paid permits in the Three Sisters Wilderness. I think the Forest Service should focus more on enforcing existing laws and regulations instead of forcing trail limits/paid permits. I am a forty-seven year resident of Bend and the locals are getting shut out of the things we have enjoyed for so many years. As an example, we used to take off on a Thursday to go camping at one of the local lakes/campgrounds. Now that so many of the camp sites are reservation based, it means we can't enjoy our backyard camping without making a reservation far in advance. Is the Forest Service mainly interested in revenue from the camp sites without considering the impact on the local citizens? It is disappointing to drive through a campground with "reserved" marked on the camp site, but nobody is camped there. It is easy for people coming here on vacation with unlimited incomes to make these reservations in advance, but it is harder and harder for the long-time resident locals on fixed incomes. From: Joyce To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Limited access Date: Sunday, July 09, 2017 1:03:53 PM
This is disheartening. I love Oregon because I have access to such beautiful places. Issuing permits would prevent many from taking advantage of a beautiful day by spontaneously going on a hike. Will you really be able to monitor such a big area? You won't stop the rule breakers from entering just those of us who follow the rules and help maintain the trails when we do. Other solutions? Such as---Only limit access on the busiest weekend and holidays. Regulate parking, creating a first come scenario. Having user fees at the trailhead like state parks. Require uses to volunteer once a year at a national park so they have a higher respect for the area. Huge fines for littering or other misuse of the land. If you do go with permits Consider giving senior passes as they are least likely to abuse the areas and most likely to help maintain the trails.
Joyce
Sent from my iPhone From: Lyndell Wilken To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: central cascades wilderness strategies comments Date: Saturday, July 08, 2017 4:40:01 PM
1. As a High Cascade Forest Volunteer who scouts the trails for trail maintenance, has adopted Lakes and back country Cabins and also Coordinates the Willamette Pass Winter Trails Program which does work on the trails in the fall, I am wondering if we will be given a special permit that allows us to get into the forest without having to reserve on line and pay a fee every time we plan to work in the forest. Many volunteers will do 30 plus trips related to trail and other maintenance work all on their own resources? I'm sure you have already thought about this but just in case this is a reminder.
2. For hiking clubs it would be difficult to have hikes if they have to have anyone that wants to sign up having to go on line to the reservation system and paying a fee on top of the club fee? Will there be plans for those situations. The Obsidian hiking club has close to 500 people in the Eugene area that hike weekly. They are very concerned as to how the permit will be implemented without being detrimental to club activities which are actually very good for creating an awareness of our forests and wild areas.
I am all for the permit system as I know it is needed after watching the usage increase over the 37 years I have been in the area. Hopefully it can be done in a way that supports the volunteers and outdoor clubs.
Lyndell Wilken Eugene, Oregon From: jeremiah jenkins To: FS-comments-pacificnorthwest-deschutes Subject: Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies Comments Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:16:45 PM
I am in favor of permitting in the wilderness. I am concerned with overcrowding. I would love to see more enforcement of regulations!
Jeremiah Jenkins 3537 NE 81st ave Portland, OR 97213 From: Jason Boucher To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: Comment on Central Cascades Wilderness Strategies 2017 #50578 Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 6:00:29 PM
Hello,
As someone who has made repeated use of the Three Sisters, Mt. Jefferson, and Diamond Peak wilderness areas over the last several years, I would like to express my views on the proposed changes to access for these areas.
First of all, I want to express my support of the forest service for their efforts to reduce the impact of visitors to these areas. I recognize that many public lands in the state are not held to the same standard as wilderness areas, and so having more heavy restrictions for these areas is sensible and of course required under existing laws. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the proposed action will have minimal impact aside from limiting access for the most conscientious users while doing little to deter those who already ignore the established guidelines for limiting environmental damage.
To that end, I believe that any regulation needs first and foremost to be enforceable. It would go a long way to proving efficacy of any proposal to the public if the forest service can provide evidence that current restrictions (for instance, in the obsidian wilderness) are actually being enforced and have had a measurable impact on the number of users and degradation of the wilderness. Since day use limitations are also being proposed for some areas, I would also suggest that a limited number of parking permits could be issued since these are more easily enforceable. Secondly, the impact of hunters does not appear to be commented on in the proposed plan, and in fact I have little knowledge of the regulations on hunting in wilderness areas. It seems to me that hunting activities could have more of an impact since they are not as confined to established trails, and moreover at least one news article on the proposed action suggested that hunters will be exempt from the regulations if they purchase a hunting tag. This seems rather unfair to day hikers and backpackers who follow leave-no-trace principles and would be required to buy permits for each trip they intend to make.
I would also suggest that, if permits are in high enough demand for a given area (likely the south sister/devil's lake trailhead), they be decided by lottery rather than a first-come basis so that applicants do not need to log into the online system at the precise moment that permits become available. I also support the availability of walk-in permits given out by lottery since this rewards the most determined visitors.
My final comment is that I have most often accessed these areas during winter and spring months when most of the travel off road is done over snow, and thus (as far as I know) has minimal impact on the landscape. The forest service should consider whether it is necessary for the fee permit system to be year round, or whether free permits might be issued for the winter and early spring months (this is the system employed, for instance, at Mt. St. Helens in Washington).
Regards, Jason Boucher From: pamela mcgarry To: Peer, Beth -FS Subject: possible limiting of numbers on trails. Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 5:56:56 PM
Dear Beth,
I think its a wonderful idea to limit the numbers of people on trails except for those of us locals who live in Bend or within a few hours of the trails. Many of us bought properties and moved to the area so we could access the trails and also support Parks and Rec in many supportive roles and be part of the consciousness here.
I think you might like to consider something to accomodate the locals visiting trails that give them a priority or allow them on without charge or otherwise those coming into town for just a few days will be the ones who benefit more than those of us who pay local taxes to support various local communities. I am all for protecting the trails and maintaining them but I certainly don't think visitors should be the ones to benefit over locals.
Kindest Regards, Pamela McGarry