are the white mountains getting more crowded?? [Archive]

peakbagger

07-25-2016, 21:09

I have been around the whites since 1987. I find the easy routes to the 4Ks and the 4Ks themselves busier than in the past but the backcountry is less used. When I first moved up, the Great Gulf parking lot would be close to full every weekend, these days 8 or 10 cars is typical. All the designated sites would be full and there would be overflow camping. Whenever I head into the area on a weekend there are open spots at designated campsites that used to be stuffed with tents. In general I see far less folks heading in for multiday backpacks.

Where I find the major increase is winter. When I first did my winter list, we would end up breaking substantial sections of trail every 3 or 4 hikes even on a weekend. For the past 5 winters, its rare to every need to break trail and usually its just due to wind drift.

The Maine section of the National Forest gets a lot less use with the exception of the Baldface Circle trail.

I think cheap gas and the higher speed limit on I 93 also helps. Looks like most troopers wont raise an eyebrow until a car exceeds 80 MPH so getting up to the whites is quicker and cheaper.

Once you get north of RT 2 the use drops down substantially. Nash Stream has a couple of nice summits with very little use. The Mahoosucs has a stretch of above treeline similar to the northern presis that most folks haven't even visited. The loop up the Notch Trail, thru Mahoosuc Notch, up Mahoosuc Arm and down the Speck Pond trail is a loop that is hard to match in the whites. There are also four original NH firetowers up in the north country, two with trails and two without trails (Signal and Whitcomb).

Tipi Walter

07-25-2016, 23:19

The "trails parking" lot (primary trail head for Madison and Madison Hut) has been spilling out into the road for 1/4 mile either side on a regular basis this summer. There have been nearly 200 cars parked there on some weekends. Pinkham had a "Lot Full" sign out when I drove by at noon time today and all the other trail head parking lots looked full to overflowing. Ton of traffic on the road too. (I had to go to N. Conway to see an Oral Surgeon). So, yea, I think there are a lot of people out right now. I'm afraid they will start to discover the more obscure places to visit and no where will be safe!

The solution is beyond stump simple---Close the approach roads and parking lots and require tourists to hike in from a much further distance. This will weed out the "goats" and those who don't really want to be there.

Easy car access in the backcountry is a problem everywhere and not only in the Whites. As some scientist wrote, walking has been engineered out of American society.

tdoczi

07-26-2016, 06:32

I don't know if it's just me, but it sure seems that the White Mountains (particular the 4000 footers and especially on peaks along the AT) seem to be more crowded now than 10-15+ years ago. I hiked up Mount Moosilauke on Sunday July 24, 2016 and found people everywhere on the summit with more hiking up from all directions. Now yes it was a Sunday and the weather was gorgeous. But still, I remember in years past just a few folks on the top. I have similar impressions on other peaks.

Do you notice more crowds now than in years passed when you hike in the Whites (or other places for that matter)? Maybe it's time to "get off the beaten path" and hike less known hills!

DavidNH
i havent been there in a few years and havent been there that many times, but most times ive been on any 4K in good weather it was crowded, even on a weekday. moosilauke in particular i hiked on a saturday in july and there was easily 75 people on the summit. this was in 2010.

Engine

07-26-2016, 06:56

The solution is beyond stump simple---Close the approach roads and parking lots and require tourists to hike in from a much further distance. This will weed out the "goats" and those who don't really want to be there.

Easy car access in the backcountry is a problem everywhere and not only in the Whites. As some scientist wrote, walking has been engineered out of American society.

This is nowhere more true than in the Smokies. It's the most visited national park in the country, but hike a few relatively easy miles into the backcountry and even now you can still go for a few days without seeing anyone else.

colorado_rob

07-26-2016, 08:19

It was sure crowded in the whites when we were there in September 2015, but it was our only time there, so hard to compare. I do know our highest Colorado mountains have become mostly packed with peak-baggers, growing like crazy over the last 37 years (since I moved here), so it seems like peak-bagging lists have gained popularity all over the country. We became interested in those 4000ers as well, so.... we'll be back!

Good thing or bad? Mixed emotions; I love the fact that more and more folks are getting up into our mountains for their own sake, and since we finished the 55 CO 14ers a couple decades ago and are working on the much less crowded 13ers (about 600 of them), we can avoid the crowds just fine.

We have a huge, still mostly wide-open country, it's still very easy to enjoy ourselves in solitude!

Tipi Walter

07-26-2016, 08:54

We have a huge, still mostly wide-open country, it's still very easy to enjoy ourselves in solitude!

While it's true we can find solitude (on my last 21 day January trip and 18 day February trip I didn't see a single person), human interference (i.e. noise pollution) is always present in the Southeast mountains where I backpack. The below pic gives a hint of how many airline jets pass overhead and over the wilderness areas I travel through. And they are loud!!!

I call them Metal Tube Potatoes (like couch potatoes at home or rolling couch potatoes in cars). I can be comfortably camped in the most remote place in the mountains of TN or NC and right above me a couple thousand feet 200 people pass by on our sky interstates. So we are never alone. And there's no real solitude. (The pic was taken on a backpacking trip to Bob Stratton Bald in TN).

https://photos.smugmug.com/Backpack-2014-Trips-152/Halloween-Snowstorm/i-5TCkT2r/0/L/TRIP%20160%20324-L.jpg

colorado_rob

07-26-2016, 09:06

While it's true we can find solitude (on my last 21 day January trip and 18 day February trip I didn't see a single person), human interference (i.e. noise pollution) is always present in the Southeast mountains where I backpack. The below pic gives a hint of how many airline jets pass overhead and over the wilderness areas I travel through. And they are loud!!!

I call them Metal Tube Potatoes (like couch potatoes at home or rolling couch potatoes in cars). I can be comfortably camped in the most remote place in the mountains of TN or NC and right above me a couple thousand feet 200 people pass by on our sky interstates. So we are never alone. And there's no real solitude. (The pic was taken on a backpacking trip to Bob Stratton Bald in TN).

https://photos.smugmug.com/Backpack-2014-Trips-152/Halloween-Snowstorm/i-5TCkT2r/0/L/TRIP%20160%20324-L.jpgTrue enough about those damn airplanes, but get up to Alaska sometime and see how many you see. Even in CO or other western states, you're generally far enough from their takeoff/landing place (ie: they are high enough) that at least you don't hear them, only see them shredding the sky. And, sometimes not even that if the humidity is low enough, a common thing out here, they don't even have contrails.

But I hear ya.

Tipi Walter

07-26-2016, 09:25

colorado_rob

07-26-2016, 09:36

Yes, we are circled by airports in Atlanta (VERY BUSY), Chattanooga, Knoxville and Asheville. All my backpacking occurs near or between these nasty and useless Hubs. And they never stop roaring overhead until between 2am and 8am, then they're back in hateful business.So, given that I'm sure you won't ever fly anywhere because of your hatred for airlines, maybe drive (or hitch!) elsewhere sometime and add some diversity to your backpacking locations? Just a silly thought.

Tipi Walter

07-26-2016, 10:22

colorado_rob

07-26-2016, 10:46

Well, I spent 4 years in the USAF so I created my own noise karma and am now getting justified payback. We flew everywhere in C-130s and they are loud.

But currently I see most all airline flights as frivolous travel in a country with a lot of bored people with too much money on their hands (to buy tickets). Ergo Noise pollution. Air pollution.Yeah, I worked at WPAFB for three years right next to the flight line and listened to those C130's and KC135's.... the military has different noise standards on their planes. I don't blame them; performance is important.

Anyway, guilty as charged on that last point, not TOO much money though, nor really bored because we hike all the time, but airfares are so damn cheap these days, why not see the entire USA vs. hiking the same place over and over again? Seeing and enjoying the whole country (and world) is what you call "frivolous"? Fine, bring on the frivolity! Life's way too short to spend the rest of it in a 100 mile radius.

This all being said, we prefer road trips, whenever practical. Getting ready for a 4000+ mile one here real soon, with a bunch of multi-day backpack loops all over the upper Midwest. And we'll use much more fuel and create much more pollution than we would have flying. Good thing our air is much cleaner these days than it was 40 years ago, makes me feel less guilty.

Tipi Walter

07-26-2016, 11:03

Life's way too short to spend the rest of it in a 100 mile radius.

This all being said, we prefer road trips, whenever practical. Getting ready for a 4000+ mile one here real soon, with a bunch of multi-day backpack loops all over the upper Midwest. And we'll use much more fuel and create much more pollution than we would have flying. Good thing our air is much cleaner these days than it was 40 years ago, makes me feel less guilty.

Regarding your quote, "Life's way too short to spend the rest of it in a 100 mile radius"---I think of this quote from Ramakrishna, holy man of India---

"Travel in all the four quarters of the earth, yet you will find nothing anywhere. What ever there is, is only here."

As far as traveling and backpacking, well, I have several friends who do the same and want to explore vast areas not available in the East. Think Glacier NP and the Sierras and Tetons. I even once hitched to Nevada City Calif from NC in '89 and pulled a 20 day backpacking trip near the Yuba River. Flew home from Sacramento after hitching out of Nevada City. Walked up to the airline ticket counter with nothing except cash (and a fully loaded North Face backpack) and paid $500 for a one way flight east. Had a 20 hour wait.

But I think you're wrong about car pollution vs jet. A single jet on a normal flight produces the equivalent exhaust of 3,000 cars driven during the same time. Thing is, an airplane cannot hold 3,000 people.

Further, backpacking in a 100 mile radius encompasses a huge amount of territory and I should know as I've backpacked all of it. Thing is, every trail is new no matter how often it is hiked, and it's different in one direction and new in the other. And it's different in 12 different ways depending on the 12 months of the year.

It's more of an attitude-change whereby we change our headgear and find newness and nourishment in whatever backcountry we visit no matter how often. I am easily pleased by Miss Nature. Heck, I used to enjoy stealth camping in town cemeteries and behind grocery stores and near towns in bushes. As long as I'm out and getting my bag nights; consider me a Bag Knight.

colorado_rob

07-26-2016, 11:35

But I think you're wrong about car pollution vs jet. A single jet on a normal flight produces the equivalent exhaust of 3,000 cars driven during the same time. Thing is, an airplane cannot hold 3,000 people.Not sure where you get your numbers, a quick search here:

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-math-of-flying-vs-driving/

shows that the total pollution from driving vs. flying is very close in terms of passenger miles. Basically, BTU's (energy use) per passenger mile is slightly lower now for jet planes, but pollutants per BTU is slightly higher, the net result, pretty equal, it seems. Only a first look, but completely dispels your 3000-person-equivalent assertion. I feel better now about our big upcoming road trip!

I want to be glad for you that you are content in you own little tiny world, but I'm sorry, it just makes me sad to see a fellow outdoor lover so constrained to one little spot on our big, wide wonderful world. I project my ideas of what is a good time on others, a character flaw to be sure. Prime example of HYOH if ever I saw one! I do look forward to visiting your little world again (I passed by once on the AT); a recent post you mentioned some wilderness area that we plan on checking out some fall/winter (I can't deal with your summer heat!).

OP: sorry for the big thread drift! I'll stop now.

rickb

07-26-2016, 12:18

One thing great about the Whites (still) is that you can have a completely private camping experience (with a least a feeling of real wildness) by walking a couple hundred feet away from most trails.

Of course that is a bit harder along stretches of the AT but its a big forest.

Most people tend to feel compelled to sleep within sight or earshot of others, but you certainly don't need to do so in the Whites.

If you want a feeling of solitude while hiking on even the most heavily travelled sections, you can still have the mountain all to yourself for several hours at least-- just so long as you start walking at 5 AM or so.

peakbagger

07-26-2016, 13:18

My standard rule is plan to start hiking to land up on the summit prior to 11:00 AM. Most folks plan to summit for lunch so by heading out early you are ahead of the crowds. The animals also seem to schedule their days around the crowds, I have had early hikes on Lincoln Woods trail and encountered lots of wildlife in the early AM. Early hikes also gets me off the summits in the afternoon when showers or thunderstorms form. The trade off is the inevitable "excuse me" as I am headed down the trail to pass folks heading up. I also end up answering "how much longer" queries and usually double my time heading down the mountain. I end up extending the multiplier as its gets later in the day.

The parking lots usually have plenty of spaces in the early AM. At the lots that service AMC huts, folks going to the huts tend to start later in the day to be at the hut before supper. The lots al already full with day hiker cars so the hut folks end up parking 1/4 of a mile down the road. This leads to phenomena in the evening where the parking lot is near empty with all sorts of cars parked 1/4 of a mile away.

Deadeye

07-26-2016, 14:32

It's more everywhere. Combination of more people, more awareness and participation, etc. In the 70's, you could climb many places in the Whites & Greens & Adirondacks in winter and be breaking track all the way. No longer. Get used to it, or start taking lesser known trails to lesser known peaks, or no trails at all, if solitude is part of your reason for getting out.

Puddlefish

07-26-2016, 14:59

I far more enjoy hiking the smaller mountains and trails outside the Whites. I won't head up the Rte 93 corridor on a weekend for anything. I hate crowds.

rafe

07-26-2016, 20:01

For sure (more crowded.) But then again, there are 3x as many people on the planet now as there were when I was born. Population of the USA grew by about 100 million people in that time.

The Signal Ridge trailhead (ascent of Carrigain) was full-up on Sunday. We were slow as usual so we were passed by several dozen folks during the day.

Slo-go'en

07-26-2016, 21:27

There are people everywhere! Went on an easy day hike to what turned out to be a very popular spot. On a Tuesday. I suppose in a way, it's a good thing.

Tipi Walter

07-27-2016, 07:22

For sure (more crowded.) But then again, there are 3x as many people on the planet now as there were when I was born. Population of the USA grew by about 100 million people in that time.

When I was born there were 2 billion people on the planet, now there are 7+ billion. And look what we've done. It seems we can have either wilderness areas or high human numbers---and not both. The more humans, the less wilderness.

Starchild

07-27-2016, 12:15

The solution is beyond stump simple---Close the approach roads and parking lots and require tourists to hike in from a much further distance. This will weed out the "goats" and those who don't really want to be there.

Easy car access in the backcountry is a problem everywhere and not only in the Whites. As some scientist wrote, walking has been engineered out of American society.
Solution? That implies there is a problem, which there is none indicated.

Tipi Walter

07-27-2016, 12:36

I don't know if it's just me, but it sure seems that the White Mountains (particular the 4000 footers and especially on peaks along the AT) seem to be more crowded now than 10-15+ years ago.

DavidNH

Starchild---DavidNH lays out the problem---crowded conditions.

Solution? That implies there is a problem, which there is none indicated.

See above. Ergo: Solution is indicated, i.e. close the dang roads offering close access to popular spots. Make it harder for rolling couch potatoes to reach.

Impossible? Unrealistic? Aghast! Does it go against our love affair with the holy automobile?? Solutions? We used to have several drivable roads in my mountains and adjacent to various wilderness areas---one went up Sycamore Creek, another went from Mud Gap to Whiggs Meadow, another was a 35 mile long Upper Tellico River track---all these were closed by the forest service and turned into long-approach foot trails. It can be done. It's all about human choice.

Slo-go'en

07-27-2016, 13:06

Starchild---DavidNH lays out the problem---crowded conditions.

See above. Ergo: Solution is indicated, i.e. close the dang roads offering close access to popular spots. Make it harder for rolling couch potatoes to reach.

In these part, that would require closing some major highways. Like I93 through Franconia Notch, RT2, a major E-W artery and RT16, a major N-S artery.

Tipi Walter

07-27-2016, 13:15

In these part, that would require closing some major highways. Like I93 through Franconia Notch, RT2, a major E-W artery and RT16, a major N-S artery.

It's the nature of a skyrocketing population to cut in more roads. I guess it's inevitable. Projected pop. growth of 450 million by 2050 (much of this from immigrants). Meaning? More roads, less backcountry.

peakbagger

07-27-2016, 16:18

The roads (or their predecessors) were here before the WMNF was built. It was a heavy tourist area long before the Weeks act that formed the national forests, the only difference was the roads were secondary to the railroads. There were daily trains to several tourist towns in the forest from Boston and Portland and numerous grand hotels (most long gone) and even more secondary tourist houses that usually were occupied for the summer by Boston residents trying to get away from the cities. There was local train that ran from the western whites to the Berlin Gorham area with stops every hour. The trail network is a combination of old logging railroads from late 1800s to early 19teens and trail networks centered around the grand hotels. The trails for the grand hotels were built so the summer residents had something to do.

The convenient thing for locals is that the tourist pretty well stopped at US Rt2 and the paper companies owned the vast majority of land north of RT 2 so there is still some wild land. Rather than expand the WMNF, the us government created two wildlife refuges, the Lake Umbagog NWR and the Silvio Conte NWR, they both are pretty aggressive at buying land and they really don't manage for tourists.

Berserker

07-28-2016, 12:43

I don't know the answer to the question, but I do know that there were some college students doing a survey related to this subject matter on top of Mt. Lafayette when I hiked over Franconia Ridge a couple of weeks ago. I mean no disrespect to them as I actually filled one out, but that kind of detracted from my overall experience in hiking to the top of that sucker. Maybe they should have been hanging out soliciting input somewhere other than one of the peaks.

And for full disclosure I know I could have just said no, but I hit the top of that thing over heated feeling like doo doo and of course the...ummmmm how should I put this...not hard to look at young lady came over and talked to me...so yeah...I filled it out :o.

Slo-go'en

07-28-2016, 16:49

Just back from climbing Star King with a small group from the RMC. In addition to us, we meet 10 other hikers, all going to summit Waumbek, a 4000 footer. Not bad for a Thursday and threat of afternoon thundershowers (which are now here).

greensleep

07-29-2016, 09:14

It's the nature of a skyrocketing population to cut in more roads. I guess it's inevitable. Projected pop. growth of 450 million by 2050 (much of this from immigrants). Meaning? More roads, less backcountry.
one solution---probably too late; quit breeding.

DavidNH

07-29-2016, 09:35

Tipi.. are you suggesting that America could have 450 million people by 2050? just 34 years from now? that scares the heck out of me!

Tipi Walter

07-29-2016, 11:33

Tipi.. are you suggesting that America could have 450 million people by 2050? just 34 years from now? that scares the heck out of me!

According to recent news sources, most of this growth will come from immigration---new arrivals projected to be between 150 to 180 million in the next 30 years. Kiss what's left of America the beautiful and America the wild away. Overnight backpacking will become obsolete---Dayhiking only will prevail.

peakbagger

07-29-2016, 11:45

The actual population trends in northern NH and much of maine is consistent outmigration. Coos County in NH is losing population in every category except the elderly.

johnnybgood

07-29-2016, 12:39

Last Wednesday I pulled in to the Appalachia lot along Rt.2 at mid-day to find every spot taken. I counted 52 vehicles plus 2 school buses . Parking had spilled along the shoulders of Rt.2 on both sides of the parking area .
It was this crowded mid-week at noon ! Taking into account this trailhead has many trail connections , including the trail to mega popular Mt. Madison but still in awe of the timeframe aspect of it.

On the flip side of the busy Rt.2 N.H. trailhead was parking at a lot off the beaten path.....huge difference.
Hiking a section in Vermont (Cloudland Rd Trailhead) , small pull off was empty at 10 am on a Sunday Morning.

Scrum

07-29-2016, 12:44

... I find the easy routes to the 4Ks and the 4Ks themselves busier than in the past but the backcountry is less used. ... In general I see far less folks heading in for multiday backpacks. ... Where I find the major increase is winter.

The Maine section of the National Forest gets a lot less use with the exception of the Baldface Circle trail.

Lots of wisdom in PB's comments. WMCF has always been heavily used. I generally find the numbers to be growing during day hikes along the more popular routes up the 4Ks and other well known destinations. I also find it relatively easy to get away from the crowds by hiking early in the morning, taking less popular routes, starting out early, hiking in less favorable weather, and going during the week. I am a big fan of the Evans Notch area.

I think fewer people go back into the Pemi and Wild River wilderness areas. Part of it may be that the wilderness areas are less well maintained, shelters have been removed, and there is some confusion about the back country camping rules. I think another part of it is that right now a lot of people are discovering the Whites by doing easier day hikes, staying at AMC lodges and huts, and bagging the 48 4K footers. My guess is that eventually this will spill over into the more remote areas and multi-day backpacking. Lodges, huts and 4K footers are a gateway drug of sorts for shelters, backpacking, camping, and longer stays in the backcountry.

While being on a peak with 50+ other people can be less than thrilling, I suggest that those of us who love the Whites and other wilderness areas should embrace and be thrilled by the growing interest. It means more people with a vested interest in preserving these areas, and helping them to thrive. This broader group of people have, for example, played a positive role in preservation efforts such as resistance to the Northern Pass power line project.

Those of us with more experience should consider taking on some responsibility for helping the newer and less experienced folks, and for minimizing the impact of the growing number of visitors by: (i) doing trail maintenance; (ii) becoming a hike leader for the AMC or other regional hiking clubs; (iii) learning wilderness first aid to be able to better assist people who run into difficulties on the trails; and (iv) contributing financially to organizations that help look after the Whites and other wilderness areas.

Just my 2 cents.

Tipi Walter

07-29-2016, 12:55

WMCF has always been heavily used.

I think fewer people go back into the Pemi and Wild River wilderness areas. Part of it may be that the wilderness areas are less well maintained, shelters have been removed, and there is some confusion about the back country camping rules. I think another part of it is that right now a lot of people are discovering the Whites by doing easier day hikes, staying at AMC lodges and huts, and bagging the 48 4K footers. My guess is that eventually this will spill over into the more remote areas and multi-day backpacking. Lodges, huts and 4K footers are a gateway drug of sorts for shelters, backpacking, camping, and longer stays in the backcountry.

Thank god for not having shelters in the wilderness areas as this apparently weeds out most of the tourists and "goats". Thank Odin for having trails that are less well maintained; this too will keep out the Done In A Day types---the car tourist-dayhikers. If lodges and huts are gateway drugs, well, let's get rid of them.

My opinion is jaded after years of living in America and seeing its backcountry (and frontcountry) getting divided and fenced and paved and surveyed and developed and bulldozed to the point that real wilderness is disappearing. Why make it easier for people to get everywhere decent? As human civilization surrounds the Whites like a cancer, (or the Yellowstone or the Cohutta), we need to do all in our power to make these last wild places NOT human-friendly.

peakbagger

07-29-2016, 13:05

If I want to get away from the crowds I head up to Baxter State Park and avoid the three dayhiker lots that go up the mountain. If I head into the rest of the park it rare to see more than a few other folks out on the trails. Last Labor day weekend on a Sunday, my friends and I were staying at Chimney Pond, we signed out early and saw no one. We hiked up Hamlin then headed north on the Northern Peaks trail for a couple of miles of above treeline and then dropped into the woods finally ending up at Russell Pond where we met the first person we had seen all day. Folks complain about the reservations but it so worth it when you get there. I just made reservations for labor day week, one night the Abol trailhead parking lot. I expect to see lots of folk on Mt Katahdin when I climb it but will be heading to the north end of the park the next two days and don't expect that crowds will be an issue.

rafe

07-29-2016, 20:11

My opinion is jaded after years of living in America and seeing its backcountry (and frontcountry) getting divided and fenced and paved and surveyed and developed and bulldozed to the point that real wilderness is disappearing. Why make it easier for people to get everywhere decent? As human civilization surrounds the Whites like a cancer, (or the Yellowstone or the Cohutta), we need to do all in our power to make these last wild places NOT human-friendly.

Utterly elitist. Only the fittest should have access! If you can't go to the woods for a week or a month at a time, don't go at all. Phhht.

Tipi Walter

07-29-2016, 20:33

Utterly elitist. Only the fittest should have access! If you can't go to the woods for a week or a month at a time, don't go at all. Phhht.

Sounds like an apologist for human sprawl. You'll probably be happy to see more and more of our land becoming accessible to everyone on wheels.

But of course, many wild places on the planet can only be reached on foot, or not at all. Are proponents of wilderness areas therefore all utterly elitist?

Should the most unfittest among us be granted access into every last square mile of America? If you say yes then let's pave the AT and let in ATV riders. Why walk when you can ride?

I like this quote by David Brower---"Without wilderness the world's a cage."

rafe

07-29-2016, 23:59

rafe

07-30-2016, 00:32

A lot depends on weather, season, day of the week, etc. Slo and I walked fifty miles of southern NH last summer and saw about five hikers in fifty miles, if that, and all of those were within a mile or two of either terminus.

On most fair-weather weekend days, Mt. Monadnock gets many hundreds of visitors. But the day we went over it we had the mountain to ourselves. It was a weekday. Summit was socked in, wind was howling, but hey, we had solitude.

If you're the least bit clever, resourceful, etc. you can usually find less-traveled trails and real solitude. One way is simply to hike in less-than-perfect weather, or off-season, when others stay home.

johnnybgood

07-30-2016, 01:37

If your love of wilderness causes you to disdain humans, or to desire that humans (especially the "unfittest") never sully your pristine wilderness, then yeah, we disagree.

You put wilderness on a pedestal and seem to feel most humans just don't deserve it. Particularly those less fit than you, or something.

The reality is that people will seek the wilderness they want according to their means, desire, fitness, imagination, free time, etc. And yeah, I'm OK with a few bits of AT here and there being handicapped-accessible. There's something very nice about that. It's a public path, paid for at least in part with tax dollars.

I'm not blind to your point of view. But having more humans spending time in the woods -- how can that be a bad thing? How else will they learn to appreciate the woods?

Well said . There are still less traveled forests to enjoy if you loathe sharing your experience with the masses.
The White Mountains have gained immense popularity due to tourism dollars spent on marketing which in turn helps drive New Hampshire's economy.
Also our low gas prices this Summer and fairly robust economy have been good for getting people out more . Add the fact the allure to hike the Whites has always existed simply because of their majestic beauty.

egilbe

07-30-2016, 05:31

Wilderness areas should have to be earned. Part of that payment is staying fit. Screw the couch potatoes who don't have the backbone to put away their forks. They don't deserve to be in the back country. Yeah, I'm an elitist, too.

Traveler

07-31-2016, 09:10

When I was born there were 2 billion people on the planet, now there are 7+ billion. And look what we've done. It seems we can have either wilderness areas or high human numbers---and not both. The more humans, the less wilderness.

Its all in perspective, you can actually fit the population of the world into the State of Texas, with everyone having a bit over 1,000 sqft (call it a townhouse) and the balance of the world could be wilderness. The problem is more in where people want to locate, which are usually areas that have access to food and water (think fertile valley or coastal locations for the most part).

Malthus in the 1800s had some solutions to population increase which he predicted the ability to feed the population would max out in 1890. His recommendation that the Have's kill off the Have-Not's lest the Have's run out of food through a number of means, none of them pleasant if you were a Have-Not. Fortunately these views were not widely well received. Since then, this solution has been proposed repeatedly, here in the US as recently as 1968 (Paul Erlich) who advocated doctors not treat/cure diseases, and similar tactics. This point of view rolls out periodically by those who get frightened easily, then has to be pushed back into a box by those who are a bit more responsible.

Fact of the matter is, we have more wilderness today, especially in the 48 contiguous States than we did in the 1920s when the global population was 2 Billion people. We have more people using these wilderness areas certainly, but there is more acreage to be used.

jeffmeh

07-31-2016, 10:38

Thank you Traveler. The Malthusians have always been wrong, and will always be wrong. Human ingenuity is the ultimate resource.

Tipi Walter

07-31-2016, 11:51

Its all in perspective, you can actually fit the population of the world into the State of Texas, with everyone having a bit over 1,000 sqft (call it a townhouse) and the balance of the world could be wilderness. The problem is more in where people want to locate, which are usually areas that have access to food and water (think fertile valley or coastal locations for the most part).

Malthus in the 1800s had some solutions to population increase which he predicted the ability to feed the population would max out in 1890. His recommendation that the Have's kill off the Have-Not's lest the Have's run out of food through a number of means, none of them pleasant if you were a Have-Not. Fortunately these views were not widely well received. Since then, this solution has been proposed repeatedly, here in the US as recently as 1968 (Paul Erlich) who advocated doctors not treat/cure diseases, and similar tactics. This point of view rolls out periodically by those who get frightened easily, then has to be pushed back into a box by those who are a bit more responsible.

Fact of the matter is, we have more wilderness today, especially in the 48 contiguous States than we did in the 1920s when the global population was 2 Billion people. We have more people using these wilderness areas certainly, but there is more acreage to be used.

Using the 1920s as example is a bad choice as the Eastern United States was ravaged during that time with unbridled logging and clearcutting. And of course in those days there was zero wilderness because wilderness wasn't designated as such until 1964 with the Wilderness Act. And you say we could fit everyone on the planet into the state of Texas but you're forgetting about our human BOOT PRINT. With these humans comes millions of automobiles, resource depletion, asphalt highways, bulldozed homesites, coal plants and nuclear plants, mountaintop removal, constant jet traffic overhead and the usual air and noise pollution. To ignore these facts is to be living in the 1950s.

The solution is a lowered birthrate over time. It's a human choice. America the beautiful is MUCH more developed than it was in the 1920s and has been totally transformed since 1500.

Anthropocentrism aka human supremacism, is the current mindset of the world's humans. I interpret as We Are As Gods and so every other creature and landform must bow before us. The result? Anthropocene---destruction of the Earth's ecosystems due to human activity. Study it well because it'll be the most important topic in the next 100 years, especially for us backpackers.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Backpack-2015-Trips-161/SNOWBIRD-PRETRIP/i-tzhWWs4/0/XL/TRIP%20167%20107-XL.jpg
Here's a placard I found on a recent backpacking trip in the Cherokee National Forest blatantly explaining what we did to the forest in the 1920s.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Backpack-2015-Trips-161/SNOWBIRD-PRETRIP/i-RSxzW5n/0/XL/TRIP%20167%20171-XL.jpg
Read it and weep. And this logging and bulldozing has not stopped. Study deforestation, study Washington state logging. Look at the pictures.

Thank you Traveler. The Malthusians have always been wrong, and will always be wrong. Human ingenuity is the ultimate resource.

Human ingenuity is the ultimate resource?? If you think we're so smart study the policy of MAD---Mutually Assured Destruction---

Mutual assured destruction or mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.

And you're putting your trust in humans? The ultimate resource in my opinion is unbridled nature, or wilderness. Wild Earth is a pinpoint in a Milky Way galaxy with around 200 billion stars, each of these stars probably having planets. There are around 200 billion galaxies in the universe. THIS is unbridled wilderness. It's a very wild place. Windy, hot, cold, dangerous, gaseous, incredible. Too wild for us. The creator therefore must love wilderness. The earth is also wild but humans are doing everything in their power to tame it. To no real avail as once a big meteor hits . . . well . . .

Traveler

07-31-2016, 12:12

Using the 1920s as example is a bad choice as the Eastern United States was ravaged during that time with unbridled logging and clearcutting. And of course in those days there was zero wilderness because wilderness wasn't designated as such until 1964 with the Wilderness Act. And you say we could fit everyone on the planet into the state of Texas but you're forgetting about our human BOOT PRINT. With these humans comes millions of automobiles, resource depletion, asphalt highways, bulldozed homesites, coal plants and nuclear plants, mountaintop removal, constant jet traffic overhead and the usual air and noise pollution. To ignore these facts is to be living in the 1950s.

I didn't use the 1920s as an example, you did. That was the period of time when the population reached 2 billion people.

The fact that wilderness was not fully protected until 1964 sidelined your claim that we have less wilderness with more people. I only pointed out its not true, we do have more wilderness.

I point out these things because you certainly have passion for this issue, but your argument(s) are not persuasive if they are not factually sound.

Tipi Walter

07-31-2016, 12:35

I didn't use the 1920s as an example, you did. That was the period of time when the population reached 2 billion people.

The fact that wilderness was not fully protected until 1964 sidelined your claim that we have less wilderness with more people. I only pointed out its not true, we do have more wilderness.

I point out these things because you certainly have passion for this issue, but your argument(s) are not persuasive if they are not factually sound.

You didn't use the 1920s as an example?? Check it out---

Fact of the matter is, we have more wilderness today, especially in the 48 contiguous States than we did in the 1920s when the global population was 2 Billion people. We have more people using these wilderness areas certainly, but there is more acreage to be used.

You used the 1920s as an example of a time when we had less wilderness. But it depends on how you define wilderness. If you mean undeveloped land, we certainly had much more in the 1920s, just look at city sprawl in 2016 compared to what these cities (and their suburbs) looked like back in 1920. Las Vegas in 1920 vs 2016? Much more rural land in 1920.

Plus, wilderness as we know it today has been ravaged land (see logging pics above) and then purchased by the govt to either sit idle to heal or clearcut again in due time. All the wilderness areas I hike still have tremendous sign of narrow gauge railroading and dynamited rock logging tracks. In fact, 90% of all the trails I hike in the mountains of TN and NC are old bulldozed logging cuts. These roads won't heal in 10,000 years. I call it wilderness and you call it wilderness but it really isn't wilderness anymore.

And if you really want to see drastic change, read the accounts of the early explorers into North America. They said a squirrel could hop on a tree branch in NC and end up in Texas without touching the ground. What has changed? Human population growth.