Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Is it just me...

But there are a lot of "secret" beautiful places left. All you have to do is pick right time to go. Whitney Portal can be a secret beautiful place in the winter. Over the Sierra Crest in late September or early October you are liable to see more wildlife than people. I've been up the MR to LBS Lake in February without seeing a soul.

We were at Chicken Spring Lake in June and all we saw were a few Thru Hikers.

Heck, I regularly find solitude at Icehouse Saddle in the dead of winter.

Picking a time and a place can make the old and tired, new and fresh.

Hi I drove by mammoth lakes last year, didn't go any where but thought maybe could suggest how the area looks to me and what they could do to fix it but then again I just was driving and went by a bunch of places and maybe I could help with the avalanche danger or the turn into the Bodie or get the cafe open again at Sherwin summit, really I just thought I could fix alot of stuff ,then the few that come to do the North Fork would have a nice day if we could fix that also , See you at the clean up at the BLM site this Sat. 9-11 , 1/4N MILE UP THE WHITNEY PORTAL ROAD , we also have National Trail Days every year and Public Lands day so if you miss this clean-up we have more. Thanks Doug

Ken,

Cherry stemming the MMWT would solve a lot of problems here but it will never happen. As you said, forest management would never go for it and Sierra Club and like-minded groups would mobilize to see it would never happen.

What is happening here is Mt. Whitney is being loved to death and there is nothing that can be done about it short of restrictions that meets the funds available for maintainence of the trail and Portal.

Mt. Whitney will always be a magnet. Nothing is going change. You can sell Mt. Langley, the southern most 14'er or White Mountain, the highest peak in the Great Basin but it alway going to be Whitney. You can't force someone into a Yugo when they want a Benz.

So what is the future? Based on the increased moans and groans here about cleanliness of the Portal and the WAG bags on the trails, there will be further restrictions, mostly likely these restrictions will affect backpackers, not day hikers.

We exclude people all the time when it comes to public property. We charge various rates for seating at state supported university sporting events, which excludes some. We exclude the incompetents at our elite universities. I can't run at the track at the high school behind my house, which is public property. All this is hikers, ox being gored and they don't like it all that much.

I guess what I had in mind was something more like having two sets of quotas for the main trail, with the current lottery and day pass system applied above Trail Camp, and a more modest quota for everyone else who didn't plan on summiting Whitney. Leave the existing wilderness designation in place, as I agree, that could open a whole can of worms that only off roaders and their ilk would endorse. I'd also like to see the overnight quota on the NF raised to something like 25/day, like it is on many other popular trails in the Sierra.

I think that perhaps your idea is approaching the idea of getting fewer people who are not "real" hikers in the Whitney Zone without deciding who is a "real" hiker and who isn't.

Right now, many, many "real" hikers avoid Whitney (which is one reason why the Whitney Zone has such a high percentage of people who are not "real" hikers). Right now, my desire to hike more pleasurable trails, and to explore new trails, outweighs my desire to go up Whitney again in its present condition. There are probably enough trails in the Sierra to keep me exploring new ones until I either die or am finally too old to go hiking anymore, so why repeat Whitney when it is so crowded and, in certain ways, spoiled? These days, I only hike Whitney to go along with a group of people I would enjoy hiking with who have decided to do Whitney whether I am going or not and might benefit from my experience. And if I can dayhike Whitney, there are so many other long dayhikes in the Sierra that are amazing and that can get me a wonderful wilderness experience with much greater solitude than Whitney, in some instances where I can see almost no one else.

On the other hand, there are other reasons to be on the Main Trail, or to be in the North Fork, besides climbing Whitney. There are many beautiful things to explore in the area. I am far more inclined to go places in the Whitney Zone other than the summit these days (and any desires for 14,000 foot peaks can be easily satisfied elsewhere). Set more limited quotas for those who are going to the summit, and have other quotas for those not going to the summit, and you will find virtually no one who is not a "real" hiker asking for a permit to do anything besides summit. In doing that, we don't by some rule exclude those who aren't "real" hikers, but almost by definition, those who aren't "real" hikers don't have much interest in exploring the Whitney Zone other than to get to the summit. And there are so many beautiful things within the Whitney Zone that are not the summit of Whitney.

I'm not sure, however, that having two sets of quotas is a practical idea. What is the cutoff point for a "summit" permit, and how does that get policed? And if we're talking overnight permits, I suspect that there won't be enough "real" hikers to use up the quota numbers very often (presumably the summit quota numbers would still be high enough so that the Whitney Zone would not be a good place for "real" hikers who want a wilderness experience, and the "real" hikers who would otherwise love the Whitney Zone for things other than the summit are likely to be getting their overnight permits for other places with a better wilderness experience).

But I do think it is a great idea for the Forest Service to chew on.

And BTW, I don't think that people who are not "real" hikers necessarily spoil the experience for those who want to enjoy the wilderness. It is the people who don't respect the wilderness (and if we define "real" hikers as people who enjoy hiking for things other than just bagging a significant peak, some "real" hikers don't respect the wilderness), and the people who get into trouble because they aren't prepared and cause others to have to help them (and this can include "real" hikers, too), that, along with the raw numbers of people, help spoil the wilderness experience and make the Whitney Zone less desirable than it should be.

Unfortunately, there is no way for the Forest Service (or the NPS) to make everybody happy and to properly preserve the land, but I think that they should be constantly looking at whether they can improve things over the way they are and be willing to experiment with potential solutions.

I'm not sure why we are worried about other systems for permits, when it is clearly documented that there are permits to burn, for going into the whitney zone.

However, here is a more disturbing thought: I can't help but notice the complaints about the odor, wag bags, and fecal matter being experienced.

One of the things specifically stated in the EIR, was that if there was contamination, the quotas would be reduced.

I've been impressed by the new availability of data on Permit usage. It's not like the FS has a lot of time to do this....why is this new data being collected??

Do I need to draw a map?

I see a reduction in quotas, justified by the waste issue, and further justified by the fact that an ave of 15/day are not being used.....look for a reduction in permits by, say, 15 a day, in the near future....

Bob T.

I think you are getting what I have in mind, though I would definitely not characterize it as seeking to deny access to those who are not "real" hikers (or perhaps I misunderstood you).

I think a reasonable cutoff for the Whitney Zone would be Trail Camp. Maintain the existing wilderness designation, and continue to use the same system of permit allocation (day and overnight) and yellow tags. The rangers would police it the way they do now, except that they would hang out above TC looking for miscreants. Have a small quota for overnight usage below TC, and no restrictions on day use below TC. That's my idea for the main trail. I still think that they need to increase the quota for the NF--it's awfully low compared to other popular trails on the East Side.

With regard to people not using all the permits (no-shows, I assume), I think that's typical for all trailheads--people just cancel their trips without notifying the FS. I've certainly done it on occasion. I'm not aware of that sort of thing being used elsewhere as a justification for reducing quotas. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the FS has actually built a no-show factor into the setting of quotas. If they do try to reduce the WZ quotas, I'd bet it's because they realize they've already set it too high to protect the wilderness character of the area. Whatever story they come up with may or may not have much to do with the underlying motive. Of course, I might just be a bit cynical.

Richard, are you related to Grandma Gatewood (who hiked the AT that way wearing Keds sneakers)?

So don't designate any wilderness, just eliminate the quota on the main trail and take whatever steps necessary to keep it clean, including setting whatever fees are necessary to do so. A couple real toilets would be a real solution to the human waste problem that won't go away no matter how low the quota and how much we ask Whitney-seeking non-hikers to use wag bags.

I'm a "real hiker" and I like bagging peaks!!!

I agree with wbtravis5152 that you can avoid the crowds by going off "peak season". When I hiked Whitney June 9th/10th, it wasn't crowded at all. During "peak season", it is wise to hike the more remote trails.

MC

I hiked the north Fork trail monday Aug 6th to Iceberg Lake. I had expected more people but was happy to see so few. I am in it for the backpacking experience not the peak bagging. I spend every day surrounded by the "public" and long for the opportunities when I can escape to a quiet beautiful place.
Last year due to a pinched nerve I stayed at trail camp while the others summitted. This year I wanted the seclusion of the North Fork trail and trained diligently to enjoy it. I made camp and was greeted pleasantly by others (6 total) that were also camping there. One gentleman that was very familiar with the area gave me an excellent route to ascend the chute. One of which I followed with ease and made the climb very safe. If he reads this I thank you very much. When I returned from the summit Aug 7th there were only 2 others, a third arrived before sunset. It was truly a wonderful wilderness experience. The camp conversation was delightful with sharing of outdoor stories.
I saw very few people until I ascended the North slope onto the West slope of Mt Whitney and encountered the Main trail hikers. I was solo from Iceberg Lake to there. It was a wonderful experience. Although on the summit some were drinking champagne and two others were huddled on the downwind side of the hut smoking a joint. I wondered if they were the reason I heard the helicopter later when I had returned to Iceberg Lake. Just remember that we go into the wilderness for our own reasons and so do others. Our experience can only be spoiled if we allow it to be spoiled. I planned and trained very carefully for this trip and it was mroe than I expected. I knew it was not going to be easy, I trained with a 50 lb pack in the gym. My pack weighed about 65 lbs. Ok so not so smart there. But I carried it fine up and down the trail. I can't wait to get out again. Thanks for all your information and keep it coming. There are those of us that use it wisely.

Hi Arkin's Dad

Congratulations on your summit and what sounds like a phenomenal trip! I too, enjoy the peace, solitude and beauty of the mountains and it is always nice to meet like minded people on the trail. I really liked your post; thanks for sharing your story.

MC

Thanks I will try to post a picture of the rockfall that I shot. It occurred south of the drainage coming from Iceberg Lake.