Rule of groups of ten-new phrasing on kiosk sign

[Archer]

Under the wilderness implement plan a group limit is ten. In the past this was not exactly heavily enforced but since it is being inforced there are issues arising such as what to do with more than ten. At first everyone was told you could not split up and leave at different times, it had to be "different trailheads, different times and don't meet up". This was not always possible on some hikes.
There was a new piece of paper on the Randolf trailhead kiosk saturday that stated "Group limit is ten. Groups having more than 10 must split up into groups of 10 or less and must not join up in a group larger than ten in the wilderness." I'm paraphrasing here, but that's basically what it said. You may want to get a copy directly from the Forest Service.
I think this is fair to all, including large organized groups or say a club or other group that happens to have one or two extra folks show up.
I thank the folks who have made this a simpler and more user friendly policy.

[Cuffs]

Now if they would post it and enforce it in Cheaha, Dugger and all NF areas...

[Firedog]

What's everyones opinion on this rule and its impact on the trails/forest? Due to the BSA Youth Protection Training guidelines, this limits a Scout Troop activity to 8 boys to 2 adult leaders without the ability to meet up at a designated point. Does this only apply to "Wilderness Areas"?
 

[shhQuiet]

Not sure what problem they are trying to solve here.  I mean, there is a world of difference between a group of dayhikers from the Sierra Club and a gang of rednecks carrying their coolers into the woods for a party.

[weathermansam]

What's everyones opinion on this rule and its impact on the trails/forest? Due to the BSA Youth Protection Training guidelines, this limits a Scout Troop activity to 8 boys to 2 adult leaders without the ability to meet up at a designated point. Does this only apply to "Wilderness Areas"?
 

I'm 100% behind it, and it ONLY applies to wilderness areas.   

[Cuffs]

Trail erosion from too many treads is the problem. Not just people toting coolers. Large groups decimate large areas to make a camp site for the entire group.
Too many people on one day hike cause untold trail erosion. Heaven forbid there's a blowdown and 35 people go off trail around it.

People need to educate themselves and try to adhere to LNT as best they can. (for the record, I disagree with some LNT principles.)  when it comes to keeping trails in good condition, limiting group size is seriously needed. If everyone went out and maintained a mile or two of trail they'd have a better grasp if the problems caused by large groups whether they be scouts, dayhikers or others...

[weathermansam]

Trail erosion from too many treads is the problem. Not just people toting coolers. Large groups decimate large areas to make a camp site for the entire group.
Too many people on one day hike cause untold trail erosion. Heaven forbid there's a blowdown and 35 people go off trail around it.

People need to educate themselves and try to adhere to LNT as best they can. (for the record, I disagree with some LNT principles.)  when it comes to keeping trails in good condition, limiting group size is seriously needed. If everyone went out and maintained a mile or two of trail they'd have a better grasp if the problems caused by large groups whether they be scouts, dayhikers or others...

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

[squidbilly]

I agree with the rule on group size limits too, even though there are times it might actually inconvenience me.

I also agree that more enforcement of the regs are needed at the other wilderness areas too.

[sipseygypsy]

In addition to lessening the impact on trails and off trail, limiting group size also helps to maintain the quality of solitude that so many of us go the wilderness for.  The noise made by a large group can blow your wilderness bliss in a heartbeat.  Small group size benefits not only wilderness users, but, most importantly, the wilderness area itself. 

[Uncle Wayne]

What's everyones opinion on this rule and its impact on the trails/forest? Due to the BSA Youth Protection Training guidelines, this limits a Scout Troop activity to 8 boys to 2 adult leaders without the ability to meet up at a designated point. Does this only apply to "Wilderness Areas"?
 

The first thing that comes to my mind is a line from a Bruce Hornsby song: "Did you really think about it before you made the rule?"

I was a scoutmaster for 14 years and when I retired our troop had been on 128 consecutive monthly camping trips, most to the Sipsey Wilderness. I knew the wilderness "rule of ten" but never let it change our selection of a camping trip just because I had more than 10 sign up for the outing. A little common sense has to come into play here.

Have you ever been to the Big Tree and not seen someone else there?  Very few times will that ever happen. What makes the impact on the Sipsey so great is it is so small and so popular.  We're loving it too death but that's okay.  I can remember when the Wilderness was cut out of the Bankhead Forest the popular school of thought was "no one will ever hike that far to see the Big Tree again."
Instead of that, I'll bet the Big Tree has more visitors now than ever simply because it's in a "wilderness".

LNT certainly has its place in the Sipsey but I think it is misapplied when applied to limiting the size of groups.  jmho

[Cuffs]

I can say that in over 3 dozen hikes to the tree I may have encountered a dozen people total. And most of them were in groups of 3-4. The tree is popular. But if you go when the weather is not so perfect, bugs are around, it's a nice quiet hike.

When you have groups if more than ten total, there are options. Two different hikes. Start at different trailheads with different destinations.

Two groups, but go on different days. We are doing just this for my Venture crew. They're all in different school systems and get spring break at different weeks. One group is going hiking on the Pinhoti before Easter one is going the week after. No one misses out on the hike or school.

Large groups do more harm than good. They simply cannot (and most do not) leave it better than they found it.

[blisterbob]

The first thing that comes to my mind is a line from a Bruce Hornsby song: "Did you really think about it before you made the rule?
 
So far this comment expresses my thoughts best.

I was going to leave this controversial subject alone, but where's the fun in that?

There are plenty of cops on the highways with plenty of laws and people still act stupid and kill each other.

I am against over regulating and giving authority to someone with a power hungry ego to enforce the rules.

Maybe the key word is overuse and as with the AT, more use, more abuse.

[elbowman]

Even a good rule is not necessarily good in all circumstances. There needs to be some sanity to blanket regulations. There can't be "zero" impact from people in a wilderness area without a 100% people ban. So we all agree that some level of impact is acceptable, it's a function to manage that impact, while at the same time provide for the public at large to have access to the wilderness area.

Certain groups by default are unable to work around a 10 group rule; ie boy scouts. Some provision needs to be made for a group of people who do not have the ability to obey an arbitrary group number rule.

I mean think about it for a moment, not only can't the scouts or royal rangers camp together, but they can't even do a day hike as a group. Why alienate a generation of boys that could be come the guardians of the same wilderness area in the future? The majority of these boys will not experience the Sipsey through their parents. It will be the scouts that introduces them to it.

If you think through the group impact rule and the logic behind it, i would argue that the tornadoes last year did more impact to the wilderness area than every person in Alabama tromping over the trails at the same time.

Worst case scenario, what percentage of the entire wilderness area comprises trails and camp areas? 4-6% out of all the 1000's of acres? It seems to me there can be exceptions made.

Eric

[Archer]

IMO 206 and 209 are getting beat to death, not by large groups but by the "Big Tree" crowd. I've seen as many as 65 people in the tree area, counted them. I encourage people to see other areas as most have only heard of the big tree. I wish there were some 1 to 5 mile loop hikes along the northern side of the management area as there are fabulous overlooks up there. I wish 210 was routed by more water to get people to use that side of the forest  to take some wear off the river trails, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I've started looking for places I went back in the 70's and 80's before there was many organized trails. Found many of the old spots with the exception of two and i must say some of the greatest sights aren't on a trail.

The trouble with the old 10 rule as it was enforced was what happened to Jay. When he ask them if they could split up he was told no and the policy was different trailheads at different times. The new phrasing make sense to organized groups that may have a few more than 10 show up. I see nothing wrong with splitting a group and leaving 30 minutes apart and camping in two areas rather than one huge campsite. I thank them for rewriting this to a more usable policy.

[Cuffs]

Even a good rule is not necessarily good in all circumstances. There needs to be some sanity to blanket regulations. There can't be "zero" impact from people in a wilderness area without a 100% people ban. So we all agree that some level of impact is acceptable, it's a function to manage that impact, while at the same time provide for the public at large to have access to the wilderness area.

Certain groups by default are unable to work around a 10 group rule; ie boy scouts. Some provision needs to be made for a group of people who do not have the ability to obey an arbitrary group number rule.

Unable to work around the 10 rule?  I call BS on that one.  They CHOOSE not to. And they DO have the ability to obey a rule, again, they CHOOSE not to.

I mean think about it for a moment, not only can't the scouts or royal rangers camp together, but they can't even do a day hike as a group. Why alienate a generation of boys that could be come the guardians of the same wilderness area in the future? The majority of these boys will not experience the Sipsey through their parents. It will be the scouts that introduces them to it.

They can hike, just do it in smaller groups. At different locations. Wouldnt Advising the kids as to why they have this rule help them to 'become the guardian' with more understanding?? Teaching them it's ok to break the rules and be a bigger impact on the wilderness is counter productive. And not to mention wrong.

If you think through the group impact rule and the logic behind it, i would argue that the tornadoes last year did more impact to the wilderness area than every person in Alabama tromping over the trails at the same time.

You're comparing a natural disaster / act of God to a man-made deterioration?  Apples and oranges there bud.

Worst case scenario, what percentage of the entire wilderness area comprises trails and camp areas? 4-6% out of all the 1000's of acres? It seems to me there can be exceptions made.

Eric

I'd like to know where you got your figures, just for the record. Or did you just pull them out of... A dark place?
If you start making exceptions, where do they end? I can't wait to see a group of 50+ camped out at the Borden trailhead area... because an exception was made.

Let's make an exception to dogs on leashes. My dog minds me. Most of the time. I'll just laugh it off when she runs amok and steals your food. But it's ok, they made an exception for me.

[weathermansam]

IMO 206 and 209 are getting beat to death, not by large groups but by the "Big Tree" crowd.

I encourage people to see other areas as most have only heard of the big tree.

some of the greatest sights aren't on a trail.

I whole-heartedly agree. 

[Uncle Wayne]

Even a good rule is not necessarily good in all circumstances. There needs to be some sanity to blanket regulations. There can't be "zero" impact from people in a wilderness area without a 100% people ban. So we all agree that some level of impact is acceptable, it's a function to manage that impact, while at the same time provide for the public at large to have access to the wilderness area.

Certain groups by default are unable to work around a 10 group rule; ie boy scouts. Some provision needs to be made for a group of people who do not have the ability to obey an arbitrary group number rule.

I mean think about it for a moment, not only can't the scouts or royal rangers camp together, but they can't even do a day hike as a group. Why alienate a generation of boys that could be come the guardians of the same wilderness area in the future? The majority of these boys will not experience the Sipsey through their parents. It will be the scouts that introduces them to it.

If you think through the group impact rule and the logic behind it, i would argue that the tornadoes last year did more impact to the wilderness area than every person in Alabama tromping over the trails at the same time.

Worst case scenario, what percentage of the entire wilderness area comprises trails and camp areas? 4-6% out of all the 1000's of acres? It seems to me there can be exceptions made.

Eric

Amen Brother Eric. Well said.

[Uncle Wayne]

Let's make an exception to dogs on leashes. My dog minds me. Most of the time. I'll just laugh it off when she runs amok and steals your food. But it's ok, they made an exception for me.

In light of what we're talking about in this thread, that's an excellent example of comparing apples and oranges.  No offense meant.

[Cuffs]

You want exceptions. Start making them for everyone. You can't break the rules for just one set of people because they believe theyre too special.

[blisterbob]

You want exceptions. Start making them for everyone. You can't break the rules for just one set of people because they believe theyre too special.

FINALLY, something we all can agree on (with the exception of a few Cleburne County homefolk)

No redneck nekkid swimmin groups of more than 10.   LOL!