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

I seriously doubt that many people climb Cirque via the Rockwell route, a dayhike. I like Mt. Muah, south of there. Also, Siretta Peak, or Taylor Dome, both dayhikes. Or Crag Peak. Or hiking in to Beer Keg Meadow. Or Albanita Meadow, where I ran into a guy who knows BobR! (apparently everyone in Ridgecrest does!) I've never seen more than 2 people on the South Fork Lakes Trail in many trips. Owens Peak, Mt. Jenkins, Spanish Needle, Lamont Peak, Sawtooth Peak, Smith Mountain, Jackass Peak....all day hikes that virtually no one does, all wonderful hikes.

Redarding flip-flops:
I was on Maui last year staying with friends who were building a house. When the crew showed up to work (with power tools and big heavy things moving about) they were all wearing flip flops. Even the landscapers showed up in flip flops and they were digging with shovels.
When we went to hike the volcano flow my friends wore flip flops. The lava flow is razor sharp and very rough, they did just fine and said it is always how they do it. I had boots on, and was glad for it.

Hiking is an endangered pastime, especially with Neaderthals like Dubya at the helm. I want people to hike in the Sierras in order to stimulate interest in trails and this wonderful activity. If interest in hiking dies, then the trails die and our wilderness experience gradually becomes extinct. Just a few seasons of disuse will see a fabulous trail erode and disappear. Koip Peak pass above June Lake is suffering this fate, so is Convict Lake to Lake Dorothy. The trails have been washed away and there isn't even foot traffic or interest to maintain them indefinitely. The CCC is stretched thin as it is.

People who hike Whitney one time and never hike again are not likely to care if hiking trails disappear or if entire sections of Wilderness are preserved or maintained. They've done their hike, crossed it off their list and moved on with their next goal. Very few of these people would ever be on this board, which is populated almost exclusively with active hikers.

Adriana, in answer to your question about great hikes in the Sierras... a good question! Here are some fabulous ones:

1. Mosquito Flat trailhead above Tom's Place-- some of the most beautiful scenery anywhere, you can pick your hike and its duration.

2. The Palisades at Big Pine trailhead above Big Pine... more incredible scenery. You'll pass actor Lon Chaney's 1925 cabin which is a treat.

3. Sunrise trailhead in Yosemite to Happy Isles trailhead: 21.7 miles over the JMT and then Half Dome trail. Stay overnight in Curry Village and then retrace your steps the next day. WOW!

4. Mt. Tallac in Lake Tahoe -- beautiful hike, nice views.

5. Clouds Rest in Yosemite in the high country. Arguably the best view of the park.

6. Dusy Basin, on the 168 above Bishop. Go over Bishop Pass for some beautiful vistas and views.

7. Purple Lake: Coldwater campground trailhead in Mammoth. 16 miles RT, partly on the JMT. Tremendous views!

8. Hoover Lakes: the trailhead is on 395 above Lake Lundy. This is a 12 RT hike with wonderful views and great lakes.

Also, many of the hikes above Mammoth from Reds Meadow or Agnew Meadow are mind-blowers: Thousand Island lake and Lake Ediza come to mind.

Try any of these, you won't be disappointed.

What she said. I took my wife up there weekend before last for her first peak bagging trip ever (she summitted Banner Peak). I chose that place because I wanted her first trip to be as memorable as possible. She couldn't stop talking about how beautiful it was. Mission accomplished.

Endangered? Care to offer substantiation for that assertion?

Bush's fault? Wow, he must be really diabolical to destroy people's will to go for a hike. Amazing.

I think this board is full of an attitude that only a "privileged" few have the right to be on Whitney. I think everyone's tax dollars and permit fees pay for OUR wilderness. That alone, should be reason enough to allow everyone their own experience on Whitney for whatever reason. The “real hiker” comment and implication is a typical elitist point of view that says “I know better and I will decide who deserves the RIGHT”.

Also, I’m very curious and would like just ONE very specific, detailed, example of how George W. Bush is endangering hiking as a pastime? P.S. I’d like it to be based on fact not opinion.

I know Bush and Chaney can create killer hurricanes and direct them to strike at will, they can collapse bridges, create global warming and it goes on and on. But this is the first time I’ve heard that they endanger hiking.

Thanks.

I spoke with a park employee at T. Meadows in Yosemite two weeks ago and they said visitation had been down the last 6 or so years, don't know if that reflects hiking trends or not.

I would rather give blood with a spoon than debate politics here, so I'll just say that hopefully everyone can agree that the point is more awareness = more support for wildlands protection.

I will substantiate my "elitist" attitude comment. It's the same as:

Gore telling me to conserve, but uses enough energy to cool just one of his homes in a month that equals 22 "average" homes in an entire year.

Robert Kennedy Jr. telling everyone to use wind power, but he's suing to prevent a wind farm from being built off the coast of the Kennedy compound.

It's everyone who flies private jets around the country and world "i.e. Gore and Kennedy" using more gas in one trip than the average family uses in an entire year. But they tell us we should walk to work, don't use air conditioning, etc. But they can abuse the earth their share X's a few thousand and they are heros.

P.S. I'm flying a commercial airline from Florida in Sept and renting a car to drive to Whitney for my chance. And I won't feel guity. I guess since I live in a non-mountainous area, that by your definition I'm probably not a "real hiker".

Thank you, Candace, and the others who suggested beautiful hikes. They sound intriguing and I will definitely look into these suggestions!

to anyone interested in expanding there hiking -
recommend Secor's "Peaks, Passes, and Trails of the High Sierra"

I can understand how some people might think that there is an elitist attitude on the part of some on this board. I'm probably a little bit guilty of it myself.

I do lament the fact that so many are drawn to Whitney that it's difficult for people like myself with little interest in Whitney per se, but plenty of interest in other things the area has to offer, to get access. I think there is a legitimate public safety aspect to the matter. I also think that folks don't have an absolute right to "have their own Whitney experience". People who go up unprepared and end up getting rescued are doing so on my tax dollar, so I think I've got a right to complain.

But my biggest grievance is probably with the way the Forest Service manages the area. They are using the trail quota model that is used everywhere else in the Sierra, and it just doesn't work. It's been overwhelmed by the sheer numbers involved. I think they need a more sophisticated model that would allow for a small number of people interested in something other than the Whitney summit to use the area without having to put up with all the restrictions. For example, if a party interested in day hiking or climbing Thor Peak were able to go without a permit, as they are everywhere else in the Sierra, that would go a long way towards fixing the problem. Redrawing the Whitney Zone so that only those at Trail Camp or above needed them might help a lot, at least from my perspective. Changing the rule that forces you to spend an extra day trying to get a walk-in permit would also help. I would really appreciate being able to phone in a permit request the morning before, and then pick it up in the night box.

Steve,

I think if you viewed the permit process as a management tool for the Whitney Zone instead of the Whitney summit, you might see things from another perspective. The summit just happens to be the bulls eye in the middle.

I was glad to see someone else ask for rational for the "Dubya" comment. I was so incensed I went for a hike.

I think that's the perspective of the FS, and I think they've got it backwards. At virtually every other trailhead, backcountry users are dispersed over a larger area, and have many destinations. Because Whitney summiteers so dominate use of the Whitney zone, the zonal approach doesn't really work. The needs of people who aren't heading for the summit get pushed aside.

As usual, a select few twist the words of a prior post to indulge themselves in their own private diatribe.

A refresher course: Original description of "real" (in quotations) of "real hiker":

By "real" I mean that they hiked many hikes year-round, loved hiking and got out into the mountains whenever they could.

Can anyone who it wringing their hands over a supposedly elitist post possibly disagree with this? If you believe a "real hiker" is someone who hikes two hikes in their lifetime and never hikes again then obviously we diverge. In my view, someone who reads a article in Travel magazine and decides, "Boy, I'm gonna do this Whitney thing!" is not a hiker unless they continue to hike. I lamented that so many of these types don't continue with the activity and make it a life-long pursuit.

What is the inflammatory part of that opinion? If I flew a plane once in my life, it does not make me a "real" pilot. If I scaled El Capitan once in my life, it doesn't make me a "real" rock climber.

Steve L,
If Main Trail Summit hikers stay on the trail and only camped at Trail Camp or Outpost Camp, they really don't impact the rest of the zone. Maybe if they managed the Main Trail using a different approach, a zone of none wilderness within a wilderness zone? Consider the Main Trail a high use corridor, charge fees, provide facilities to maintain it and then manage the rest of the zone as is done elsewhere?

Candace, context is everything. We are discussing access, and you bring up the issue of "real" hikers. Whatever could you possibly bring that up for, except to define a group. Why, in the context of access, could one want to define a group?

The only reason that most would see, is to start to discuss limiting access in some way, to that "real" group.

You may have had a totally different intent. However, because of the context in which you brought this up, it really has the feel of the first step in defining who gets, or who should be allowed, or who should, be allowed to go.

The other issue is setting up a definition in that context, by a person who belongs to the group, which you appear to be. This, then, has the feel of one of those exclusionary country clubs, where you have to be voted in, if you are a "real" member, of "their type of people".

Many people are offended by this sort of exclusionary process, particularly when it applies to public property.

I doubt that was your intent, but perhaps this explains the reaction which seems out of proportion to what you wrote.....

The issue of redesignating part of the area as non-wilderness comes up often, and I've often thought it a reasonable approach.

I've had the chance to discuss this with several wilderness managers, and have gotten a consistant response: never.

What is required is an act of Congress, and would be requested by the USFS or the Admin. However, as with all bills, once you start talking, everything is on the table. The USFS might have the intent of a small cherry stem on Whitney. By the time the bill is finished in the middle of the nite, and voted on by a Congress where no one has actually read the bill, you may have de-designated all the wilderness, say, within 10 air miles of a road.

Doesn't sound bad, eh? The furthest that any point in the Sierra is from a road, by air miles, is about 12 miles, I've read. Oops! We just lost 90% of the wilderness in this state.

So, the managers consider it a slippery slope that is highly dangerous, with unpredictable results. They will never, never support any de-designation, ever.

I think you are missing the point of the people that don't agree; I don't think anyone is arguing with your definition of "real." Only the point that "real" hikers have any more right to use the area than "unreal" hikers is a little bothersome. Just because you don't have the same interests as others on the trail, they are detracting from your experience. The truth is, if the only people that were at Whitney were "real" hikers, there probably wouldn't be enough interest, bodies, or funds to keep the Portal Store open or many other services that even the "real" hikers enjoy.

I do agree that separating out the Whitney Summit hikers and others for permit purposes would be great even if a byproduct was that Summit Baggers/unrealers ended up on other trails in the days before their summit permit.

One more thing you guys forgot about the president: "George Bush doesn't care about mountain people."-Kanye West

I have not seen, at least in this thread, anyone advocate that access to Whitney, or an other wilderness area, be restricted to "real" hikers. I think we all understand that the rights of whatever group we think we belong to do not supercede the rights of some other folks to visit the mountain. Since no one is advocating trampling anyone's rights, perhaps we can agree that that angle has been beaten to death.

Candace,

What he said.
Let it die...

CaT