Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board If You Were the King of the MMWT...

what would you chance...the exit permit, issue the permits at the Portal, etc.

The first thing I'd do is at least double the permit fee and add SAR insurance surcharge. With the proceeds of the former I build a kiosk at Whitney Portal to take care of the permits and find way a way to do away with the WAG system and get the solar latrines in working order. The latter would be used to mitigate the costs of rescues on the mountain. If you choose not to take the insurance you get to pay for your rescue.

A real pet peeve of mine is the exit or Trail Crest permit for backpacker coming to Mt. Whitney from the west. The Inyo should issue X amount of permits a day for Mt. Whitney from the satellite trailheads...period. My guess is it will all come out in the wash. An extra couple people one day, a few less the following day. The current micromanagment system is just stupid.

The MWT is not a wilderness experience IMO, remove the MWT from the wilderness area. (Cherry stem it.) Dump the quotas and charge Disneyland prices for access. Use the fees to pay for real toilets to solve the sanitation issue and increased rangers for safety and education.

Yeah, I know, not what a lot of us want to hear. But think about how many people climb Whitney and will never climb another mountain or sleep on the ground again in their lives. No more hassling conniving and scheming to get permits. We still have all the rest of the Sierra to ourselves.

I really agree with Bill (AsABat), in reality is it not only not a wilderness, they truly miss the opportunity for tremendous wilderness education of the masses that that go up, who not versed in such things. But that would require signs, rangers, etc.

I think the point is missed, that what thousands of people see and learn every year, is that Whitney is what the USFS means by wilderness. And that the FS, as an obvious conclusion, are not serious stewards of wilderness.

What a loss.

Ken, I've heard you state in the past that management of the various regions (?) is not consistent. (And that seems to be a problem throughout government. In my cuurent position, I hear all the time "well, they don't do it that way at...")

Maybe it's time to limit the amount of freedom that regional administrations have throughout all govenment agencies.

What a concept! Consistency!

Consistency…surely, you are joking – right. How can you write one consistent FS or NPS policy that governs the entire Sierra, yet allows for the uniqueness of individual sites…and still maintains that all are considered as ”wilderness”?

Let us accept that the Whitney Main Trail (in the summer months anyway) cannot truly be considered wilderness – at least not the highway portion of the trail from the Portal to Trail Crest. 200 individuals a day pass by on a good weekend, taking advantage of its distinctive aura. Whether it is the easy access, (only a few hours drive from LA)….it being the highest…the benevolent climate….the good roads/trails…the personal triumph…or the burger, putting that many people on one 8-mile trail is not possible without special considerations being put in place…considerations not consistent with the usual mainstream Sierra wilderness policies.

I agree with AsaBat here…maybe it is time to take away the wilderness designation of this one trail and take advantage of its special circumstances. Opportunities of public education, perhaps a Sierra SAR training center, adequate restroom facilities, and a permanent permit office; all could be helped financed by increasing user fees along this small corridor. I hate to advocate increased fees…a slippery slope for sure…but there are some things about this trail….sanitation, education, and safety…that need to be addressed…soon.

Mt. Whitney Trail not a wilderness? Maybe the trail itself on a busy summer day, that relatively small piece of real estate, but the surroundings seem to be. And maybe it would be good to leave the trail in some places and explore the surroundings, out of sight of the trail and away from the highway of people and the sight of people to get a better feel of the wilderness, to find time to explore and stop and smell the rocks and plants and water.

Away from the help of others, in a state of mind that is different from the usual, separated from the herd. It's a choice that depends on a person's temperament and is possibly discouraged by a need for conformity, among other things. Just before I summitted a couple months ago, I considered turning around a hundred yards from the summit before reaching it, just for the helluvit.

AsABat,

BobR proposed that during when they were working on the Human Waste issue a few years ago and I agree with it totally. The MMWT trail is not a wilderness experience by any sense of the imagination between 4th of July and Labor Day.

I said double the fee because I think it is doable, especially now that it cost about $120 to $140 in gas from SoCal for the weekend. However, I think the fee should be a couple hundred bucks and it should be for walk-ins as well as those make reservations.

Another thing that should be considered are much lower quotas on the MMWT for backpackers while increasing the quotas for the satellite trailheads and as mentioned do away with the terminally stupid "exit" permit. If you are in any kind of shape you can enter at either Horseshoe Meadow Trailhead and be drinking a beer at Whitney Portal on day 3, on day 4 from Onion Valley.

Just informational notes: Remember that the fees are for the *reservation*, not for the permit. I don't know, but I suspect that it is illegal to charge for the permit, itself.

I also think that the reservation fee is actually a part of "Fee demonstration project", which those of us in SoCal know as the "Adventure Pass".

Richard, I'm sure that a de-designation would have to come out of Wash, DC. I'm positive that local or regional officials would not have that authority. Might even require an act of Congress, tho I don't know.

In talking to wilderness managers, specifically on this issue, they both agree that the main Whitney trail is not wilderness, and that there is NO WAY that any of them would support de-designation, because they fear a slippery slope.

wow you guys are realy something.it's like that old saying " if you don't like what's on T.V. then just turn it off" i've lived in these mountain's a long time (pollock pines ) and weather i'm at portal or on heart lake catching huge "bow's" i'm still in awe & still hav'in fun. big brother is'nt going anywhere soon so i just do'nt worry about it and go and have a blast, love them mountain's.

Ken,

Its most likely the land managers would want to put up the form letter protests from the Sierra Club and other like minded groups more so than slippery slope argument. I really don't think the slipper slope argument hold an ounce of water. We are talking about less than 10 sq. miles of designated wilderness out of hundreds of thousands.

I hadn't heard the fee for reservation argument from anyone at the INF only the cost argument, which doesn't wash because it cost them to write your permit at any ranger station. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

anglerdan,

Your analogy just doesn't work, which is just to ignore the problems as they exist today at Whitney Portal and The MMWT. Many here want to see something done here before something draconian is foisted users of this area.

Another thing I'd like to see done...In all reservation packets for May 1 through July 30 and 9/15 through November 1 there should be detailed warning about coming prepared with snow skills and of outfitters providing classes for the acquisitions of these skills and suggestion to pick of a copy of Freedom of the Hills.

I, for one, am very tired of reading about the same accident year after where only the names change.

It is really interesting to see the development of the "country club mentality" in regards for the useage of everyone's Mount Whitney. As we try to limit the access to the "selected few" we reduced the protection of the resource. Giving a wide range of people an opportunity to experience the same joys, pains, and personal victorys of the mountain will translated into continued public support. Yes we may not like the current system. As we limit those who don't have the means that others may have we disenfranchise the larger public who will argue than that protection of Mount Whitney and the surrounding areas is unimportant. As young teen I made several trips to the Mountain with my family and Scouts, as a young adult I went with a smaller group of friends, and today after a twenty-five year absence, while nearing fifty, I reintroduced myself to the Mountain along with the next generation of its caretakers. To continue a forced reduction of the numbers of hikers on the hill will adversely effect the local community of Lone Pine, while the "exclusive" group proclaims their victorys and conquests over nature. The current levels of hikers on the mountain are reasonable, not perfect, yet resonable. The current fees which should be charged all users are reasonable. I work in a school in SOuthern California which most children live at or below the poverty line. Each past four years I bring a few of these kids with me along with some old friends. If the costs were to increased dramatically I could not afford to bring them along. Fundraising within the community would be difficult and take time from mt own family. Most importantly, it our mountain and it is their mountain too.

For those who think in terms of simple answers and approaches, it is definitely worthwhile to read the EIR for Whitney waste management:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/projects/whitney/whitneytoiletEAdec03.pdf

There is a tremendous amount of "background" info, that puts a lot into perspective. Also, what the USFS contemplates happening in several scenarios.

Thanks for the toilet EIR link, Ken. It got me thinking, buildings are not allowed in wilderness, so the MWT is not wilderness. Hmm. I do understand the slippery slope problem of removing land from a wilderness area. Consider, however, that comments have been made in the past that one day people might be allowed just one visit to Mt. Whitney in their lifetime. Hmm.

p-1hiker,

What is a country club attitude? You have resource that is going to be limited by forest management. The question is how to best impliment the restrictions.

How is anyone disenfranchised? As mentioned earlier in this thread, it now costs $120 to 140 in fuel for a round trip from SoCal, plus food, lodging, gear, training and permit costs. In other words, access to Mt. Whitney in particular and the Sierra in general, is going to limited by income or access to funds. If it is important for you to climb Mt. Whitney and you have limited resources you are going to be forced to make some economic choices that others may not need to make.

One of the things mentioned in the EIR, a comment by Forest, is if WAG system does not work they are going to further restrict the trail quotas. By making making the MMWT "profitable" or at least break even, the forest service can install a workable waste management system which will allow as many people as possible between 4th of July weekend and Labor Day weekend...the bulk of the traffic through Whitney Portal, to enjoy the trail, as we all have.

From the LA area, one can meke it to Whitney Portal and back while spending less than $50 on gasoline. By camping out and packing the same food one would be eating anyway, other travel costs can be minimized. A couple of kids could do the Whitney hike while spending no more than they might on a typical weekend's entertainment. Pretty much what I did 30-some years ago.

I don't know where the "country club mentality" verbiage comes from. Whitney is certainly not exclusive. When I was up there on August 3, 100 people must have come and gone at the summit while we were there. Any more and people will be falling off from lack of room.

p-1: If their were to be a fee increase, I'd be in favor of a lower "student rate" and how about a rebate if they summit, get their permit validated at the top and bring their wag bags back down. Seriously though, you must know that the "exclusivity of Whitney, whether by location or permit fees, has saved it from some amount of human abuse. Been up to Baldy lately? How about San Antonio Falls? The "under privileged" youth have made that a great demonstration area for grafitti and trash! I think Whitney has all the accessibility it can handle.

Just so folks are clear, the "slippery slope" argument is not mine, but I've heard it, independently, from the wilderness managers of three different national forests.

I am certain that to de-designate a wilderness area, it probably does require an act of Congress. I think the fear is, that the USFS could propose such a "Cherry Stem" for Whitney, but in the conference, or in the back rooms, a whole bunch of other stuff could be thrown into the bill at the last minute, and poof, the President signs it, and the next thing you know, a WHOLE BUNCH of wilderness has been de-designated, because local economic interests want it. This can happen in the middle of the nite, it can happen with no debate.

So rather than deal with that possibility, the USFS managers would rather live with the current situation.

The slippery slope problem of de-designating wilderness certainly is a big problem. Maybe that doesn't need to happen. The existing and proposed toilets are already beyond what is normally permitted in a wilderness area. Therefore, Whitney must have some special status to warrant an exemption. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the Wilderness Act that requires trail quotas. (Yes, a general concept that wilderness should prevail, etc., but, again, there are already toilets.) So, keep it "Wilderness" but remove the quotas and increase the fees sufficiently to manage the area (and the toilets).

And therein lies the wonder of it all....we're NOT kings of the MMWT. And that is probably a good thing. The whole point of designating the area as a wilderness and allowing a government agency to manage it is to protect it for the good of ALL who go, not just a few people who have their own specific views on how to make the experience better.

Cherry stem the trail...what a bunch of CRAP! Increase the toilet maintenance? I was very pleased when I got there and they said that the toilets were out of order, and they are talking about getting rid of them. COME ON PEOPLE! Pack it in, pack it out, remember? LEAVE NO TRACE! I can't believe I'm reading people talking about INCREASING the service to the solar toilets, the eyesore that those monstrosities are. How difficult is it to pack out your feces? If you can't even do that you need to quit hiking and find another recreational pursuit.

I wonder how much of the ranting and raving going on here is coming from people who have actually been UP the mountain. I was there on Monday morning, and the experience was glorious, nothing short of it.

Considering the sheer immensity of people that climb Whitney, I was amazingly surprised at how much wilderness it still feels like. I spent many hours hiking completely by myself, punctuated by running into a few people here and there. Hardly a steady stream of people. Perhaps it helps that I picked the weekend AFTER Labor Day.

Maybe you folks who have such a hard time with the rules and the lack of solitude should go off and climb some other mountain. There are plenty of them, hundreds really, with very few rules. Some of them you don't even need a permit, EVEN IF YOU STAY OVERNIGHT! Imagine that! The White Mountains are a good example, not far off, with very little rules and great solitude.

Just a few hundred yards off the Sierra crest and you'd be in as much wilderness as you could ask for. Or maybe you should be a little more creative with which days you plan on going up. The weather was glorious this weekend, absolutely glorious. As nice as anything in August I would imagine...if just a bit windy on the summit.

You want to talk about a steady stream of people...I was on the John Muir Trail in Lyell Canyon in Yosemite doing my acclimatization. Horse/mule feces, and the trail splitting off into three separate tracks in various places, what a mess. I think the Yosemite NPS could learn a few things about limiting access to that section of trail from the INF. I split off from Lyell Canyon and went up to Ireland Lake. I didn't see a soul for over 24 hours when I returned back to Lyell Canyon.

Myself, I give the INF a big nod for a job well done. 20.7 miles is a long way to spread out 160 people, even if all the permits are used since not everybody climbs at the same rate.

A little bit of effort and planning is all that it takes to enjoy solitude WITHIN the rules in the Sierra Nevada.