High Sierra Topix

Basically when trees fall, they can be fairly hazardous to cut up. Trees that are bent by other fallen trees snap back violently when the fallen tree is cut, trees fall & roll in weird ways. Basically getting deadfall chopped up for (official) trail maintenance takes a long time because often you need some level of expertise, rather than just a dude with a chainsaw.

Thanks for the explanation.

Basically when trees fall, they can be fairly hazardous to cut up. Trees that are bent by other fallen trees snap back violently when the fallen tree is cut, trees fall & roll in weird ways. Basically getting deadfall chopped up for (official) trail maintenance takes a long time because often you need some level of expertise, rather than just a dude with a chainsaw.

Exactly, The languaged used is that you have to identify the energy in the log, and determine where that energy will be released. In some cases, it's pretty darn imporessive.

And in wilderness areas, no motors are allowed, so this is all done by two guys with a bucksaw. Great fun. Using a bucksaw also requires that you understand the tool itself. They are devilishly hard to sharpen, and you can quickly dull the teeth by using it wrong. For example, bark on a tree tends to collect dust and dirt that will dull the bucksaw. So you always remove the bark with a pulaski or axe/hatchet before cutting the log. Getting the saw's teeth into the dirt, even a little bit, is a cardinal sin. So you can to dig out under every log to make sure you won't run the saw into the dirt.

A dull bucksaw on a week-long trail crew is a very bad thing.

Wandering Daisy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 02, 2025 1:19 pm I am more concerned if we will even be able to use the trails (NP and FS wilderness closed) or the opposite- a free-for all with no permits, no rangers.

Your concerns are getting closer to reality. The New York Times reports on an internal memo in the Forest Service here in California that indicates many facilities will be closed this summer. I'm attempting to share the article from my subscription with the following link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/05/clim ... =url-share

-Phil

Lenier wrote: ↑Tue Mar 04, 2025 9:31 am Places like SEKI have been losing trails every year. Some have been officially abandoned. This will only continue to make the problem worse. As the final cherry on top, SEKI has a severe competence issue when it comes to volunteers, and some people within the park have been openly hostile to locals doing their own trail maintenance.

There hasn't been a trail of significance built in SEKI since the 1940's, and in that time span over 200 miles of trail have been lost. Granted many of these trails were in the poison oak addled mid-elevations, but plenty of well-traveled and optimal trails have gone by the wayside as well. For instance, the abandoned Alta Meadow to Moose Lake trail would go a long way towards decreasing the size of the ever increasing Emerald/Pear Lake refugee camps.

But ultimately SEKI still has 800 miles of trails, and lends itself well to cross-country travel. Our nation's long-running abandonment of our trail system has had a much larger negative impact on other sites. Arches comes to mind. It gets about two million visitors a year,has gotten so popular that it uses a timed entry system, and yet the entire park has only 21 total miles of trails. Unless you're good with getting up at the crack of dawn or exploring unmarked washes and canyons, this congested system of trails leads to a nightmare visitor experience, endlessly waiting in traffic, trying to find parking, and sharing a trails with hundreds of others.

But alas, it doesn't look like it's getting better any time soon.

I used to have a hobby of sorts.
I had some FS maps from the 1940s. I looked for trails that existed on the old map but no longer on the current one. Then tried to find the old trail.
Mapped it, made notes, and gave it to the local Forest Recreation Officer in case there was any interest in resurrecting the trail.
Many were not possible as it was now a forest road, or went nowhere interesting. But a few showed potential.
AFAIK none were ever rebuilt, but I had fun exploring the old routes.
Got pretty good at recognizing the old grown-over tree blazes and finding where the tread used to be.

Another point to bring up is a portion of the revenue (10%) from FS timber sales were kept by the Forest earmarked for roads and trails. Back in the timber heyday a significant amount of the trail maintenance was funded by timber sales.
Now with the new push to increase harvest levels, that funding may rise again.

creekfeet wrote: ↑Thu Mar 06, 2025 9:33 pm

Lenier wrote: ↑Tue Mar 04, 2025 9:31 am Places like SEKI have been losing trails every year. Some have been officially abandoned. This will only continue to make the problem worse. As the final cherry on top, SEKI has a severe competence issue when it comes to volunteers, and some people within the park have been openly hostile to locals doing their own trail maintenance.

There hasn't been a trail of significance built in SEKI since the 1940's, and in that time span over 200 miles of trail have been lost. Granted many of these trails were in the poison oak addled mid-elevations, but plenty of well-traveled and optimal trails have gone by the wayside as well. For instance, the abandoned Alta Meadow to Moose Lake trail would go a long way towards decreasing the size of the ever increasing Emerald/Pear Lake refugee camps.

But ultimately SEKI still has 800 miles of trails, and lends itself well to cross-country travel. Our nation's long-running abandonment of our trail system has had a much larger negative impact on other sites. Arches comes to mind. It gets about two million visitors a year,has gotten so popular that it uses a timed entry system, and yet the entire park has only 21 total miles of trails. Unless you're good with getting up at the crack of dawn or exploring unmarked washes and canyons, this congested system of trails leads to a nightmare visitor experience, endlessly waiting in traffic, trying to find parking, and sharing a trails with hundreds of others.

But alas, it doesn't look like it's getting better any time soon.

I'm forever thankful that I did all of the Zion NPs extensively before 2015. It's a totally different experience there now.

I have mixed feelings about trails. I do not think a wilderness area should have a lot of trails. I am fine with letting some of the older or less used trails alone. It is always a quandary, the "access vs preservation" of wilderness, if limiting trails and well maintaining them is environmentally better (limit the area of the damage) or spread out the use so each trail has less damage.

I have spent much time in the Wind River Range where they have much more of a "hands off" approach. No permits needed for individuals; permits needed for organized groups or for-profit trips. Limited trail maintenance. High horse use and outfitters do a really good job of taking care of the trails that they use. A few volunteer groups work on some specific trails. The CDT is very heavily used. As are a few very popular destinations. The FS maintains fewer trails, but really do a good job on the ones they do work on. The wild animals do a great job too! Half my travel has been on game trails. If you can track game, you can find trails.

The Wind River Indian Reservation simply does not maintain trails- it is up to the one tribal outfitter who works out of one trailhead. He maintains two trails. It really feels like wilderness when you get off the few trails that are maintained. I kind of like that. Yes, it is kind of rough to get around in places. They require a permit that costs about the same as a Wyoming Fishing License - you get free fishing but you have to have it as your "crossing permit".

Each mountain range is different. Different local attitudes. Different use patterns. Different distance from population centers. There is no one-size fits all solution.

Totally agree about Zion- we used to go there a lot. Have avoided it form more than ten years. It has been over-run by organized tourist groups. There are tons of nearby desert canyonlands that work as well without the crowds and restrictions.

The BLM Wilderness in the SoCal desert have no trails. Not a need. The vegetation is light enough route finding is easy. Water is the issue. Even in winter water sources are not common. Digging a hole in a wash and waiting for it to fill is about the only way. That is what the burros do, and the burro holes become water sources for other animals.