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!

[Firedog]

I'm with Blisterbob on this one.

[weathermansam]

I'm quite happy I've never come across a redneck skinny dipping party out there.  I hope to keep it that way. 

[McDowra]

Why not cure the problem instead of worrying about the symptoms?  Build some trails outside Sipsey in Bankhead and let groups larger than ten such as Boy Scouts use it. You have to many people in Sipsey thin them out some by building trails elsewhere. Most people think that all the wilderness has to offer is Kinlock Falls and the Big Tree. We could put up a trail of geocaches and pretty soon you would have well defined trails with no money or labor needed from the Rangers.

[weathermansam]

There's the 25 miles of Owl Creek and 16 of Flint Creek to play with.  They can go off trail and camp anywhere there if you want to avoid the horses/atvs...explore Key Mill Branch or upstream on Brushy, that's where the Birdman Glyph was.  I believe there was once a push to get the Brushy Creek backcountry listed as Wilderness.  I've seen almost nothing online about this area photo-wise, but I've heard there's roughly 40 waterfalls out there.  There's the old road down into Payne Creek that's easy to access, Caney Creek, Sougahoagdee Falls area, you could march 600 kids into Indian Tomb Hollow if you so desired, teach 'em some history, see waterfalls, stills, sinkholes, mortar stones, and tall bluffs, there are plenty of options out there. 

[camel]

I arrived at the Thompson trailhead 5 years ago earlier than my 3 longer distance hiking group. I was soon able to count 47 backpackers with different troups  heading over the bridge . When we set off we were met by a ranger that asked where we were going as she had split up the groups ahead - i asked her if she could point us to where they were not going and while she had transfered from the Talledega region a year earlier - she had never actually hiked a trail as was not sure

Thinking you get a good wilderness experience with 37 scouts and/ or them adjacent to you is not what we need . Leave that to State Parks or areas like Savage Gulf that are set up for such.

We do need more funding for trails and sites that can be on the edge of the wilderness to allow large groups to stay and use the trails. We also need more rangers that actually can assist others in the woods.

Flip side is that in the last 4 years i know many more areas of the Sipsey that do not contain these groups.

The larger groups - over 10 should consider Walls of Jericho - Savage Gulf- Cheaha - Oak Mountain -Pinhotti - Pine Mountain that are better designed for such. The Sipsey is much more limited in its area's.

This is almost as good as the discussion that was had 7 years ago about carrying a handgun on the trail!

Camel

[weathermansam]

The handgun thread I remember from a few years back wasn't fun at all;  I recall everyone at each others throats more or less.  This has at least been civil. 

Funding is non-existent, that's why the volunteer ranger program exists.  By data gathering, we hold some hope that future funding may be secured, but we've got to show there's a demand/necessity for it.  And if anyone's interested, they're expanding the program come April.  Email Mark or Janice for more info.

I patrolled yesterday with two others on 207.  The trail is easy to follow, and anyone wanting a good look at the tornado damage should take that trail.  I thought Thompson was bad, but this is a lot worse. 

[JustADude]

I think the rule is nonsense. If I take my two daughters, their husbands and their 7 kids that makes 12 people. So how will the forest or trail be affected differently if we walk as one group or two groups separated by 100 feet?

[Archer]

Saw another new sign. The old sign about Kinlock said "No camping withing 1/2 mile of Kinlock shelfter."
New version is "No camping withing 1 mile radius of Kinlock Shelter, Kinlock Falls or Kinlock Sprngs."
One problem there, if you ask a ranger where the Shelter is, they won't tell you (every one I have talked to) and it's not on a map. So you can't camp within 1 mile of an area we can't tell you about or where it is.
I thought a half mile was good enough myself. The FS thought it was more than enough as they graded an old road bed, built a creek crossing and ran log trucks through it at less than 1/2 mile.

[Archer]

Sam, I thought the contractors were clearing 207.
Did you mean the trail is torn up of just the area in general, but the trail is pretty much passable?

[weathermansam]

Sam, I thought the contractors were clearing 207.
Did you mean the trail is torn up of just the area in general, but the trail is pretty much passable?

Oh, the trail is clean as a whistle.  The area surrounding the trail in one section looks like a bomb went off.  It's a lot worse than Bee Branch or Thompson.  Usually I'd have a link to a photo to throw in here, but I'm behind on getting things uploaded. 

Saw another new sign. The old sign about Kinlock said "No camping withing 1/2 mile of Kinlock shelfter."
New version is "No camping withing 1 mile radius of Kinlock Shelter, Kinlock Falls or Kinlock Sprngs."
One problem there, if you ask a ranger where the Shelter is, they won't tell you (every one I have talked to) and it's not on a map. So you can't camp within 1 mile of an area we can't tell you about or where it is.
I thought a half mile was good enough myself. The FS thought it was more than enough as they graded an old road bed, built a creek crossing and ran log trucks through it at less than 1/2 mile.

Yeah, that's weird, I don't see what the problem is camping downstream or upstream from the falls, and I'm not sure why you can't camp near the spring, other than there's no real good spot there.  I understand maybe not camping in the shelter or on the edge above the falls for historical preservation/safety reasons.  However, as far as the safety reason thing goes, they'd have a problem with me camping on the edge of Kinlock when I can go lots of places in Sipsey and camp on bluffs a lot higher up with a fall that'd split my head open on rocks instead of drowning me?  I'm sure there's a backstory/reason for this, but I've not heard it. I'm not sure I ever knew there was a radius you couldn't camp in there, either.  I've seen a few no camping signs here there and around the falls and on one of the carto craft maps.  When I camped on Hubbard a few years ago, at least I was a mile and a quarter downstream. 

[Joshua Szulecki]

Saw another new sign. The old sign about Kinlock said "No camping withing 1/2 mile of Kinlock shelfter."
New version is "No camping withing 1 mile radius of Kinlock Shelter, Kinlock Falls or Kinlock Sprngs."
One problem there, if you ask a ranger where the Shelter is, they won't tell you (every one I have talked to) and it's not on a map. So you can't camp within 1 mile of an area we can't tell you about or where it is.
I thought a half mile was good enough myself. The FS thought it was more than enough as they graded an old road bed, built a creek crossing and ran log trucks through it at less than 1/2 mile.

One mile?!? That eats up a decent chunk of the wilderness! And I agree, if is a little odd to reference a site that "doesn't exist" as a location marker. The old sign just said falls, if I recall correctly.

[Joshua Szulecki]

I don't see a new occupancy order...just the 2007 one at:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/In...UMENTS/fsbdev3_002581.pdf

It said one-half mile from the falls, including the shelter and spring, but referenced the falls. It was supposed to be in effect until June 2012. Maybe the sign is a goof? Maybe it reflects the new policy, to be issued this summer?

[Archer]

Guys, I read it twice. As I said the old sign said Kinlock Shelter with no mention of the other Kinlock features. It was at the Braziel trailhead Kiosk and the signs were different than the Randolf trailhead kiosk. There was no mention there of the new 10 person rule phrasing. It's like there is no consistancy in sign posting. I pointed out the sign to someone and he said he had heard no mention from any FS people he had talked to.
The one mile radius of Kinlock Falls also takes in the Parker Falls area doesn't it?

Sam, thanks for the info on 207. I saw the SWHC was doing 203-207 next week  on their website. Thought they might need a heads up.  I know the contractors camp was gone from the Gum Pond trailhead last Saturday.

[squidbilly]

Regarding camping around Kinlock shelter:
Apparently somebody didn't get the memo,  judging from the fire ring and trash I saw there yesterday.
( they probably can't read anyway)  It seems like there is more vandalism too.  
If the FS is trying to protect the area somehow, they are doing a terrible job. It's way too late for that.

[weathermansam]

Archer, you don't happen to have a photo of that sign do you?  I'd like to pass the info along, but it'd carry more weight if I had a pic to back it up. 

[canyonman]

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

With all due respect to Uncle Wayne, for whom I have profound admiration, federally designated wilderness has much more limited management priorities in relation to recreational use than other public lands. As part of the National Wilderness Preservation System, the Sipsey Wilderness is managed first and foremost to protect the untrammeled, undeveloped, and natural qualities of wilderness character. The other quality of wilderness character mandated by federal law to be protected is "unique opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation."  The USFS has been given direction by the USDA in how it should implement the requirements of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation.

Federal wilderness managers must perform an often complex balancing act in protecting all the qualities of wilderness character. Certain management activities can degrade certain aspects of wilderness character while enhancing others. The goal is to see that wilderness character overall in an individual wilderness area does not decline. The very act of building trails in a wilderness area is a compromise, since it decreases the natural and untrammeled qualities of wilderness character, while it enhances the opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation by making the wilderness more accessible and localizing user impacts, so that the wilderness is not overly transected by myriad social trails.

The USFS National Forests in Alabama has determined that the threat posed to overall wilderness character by large groups of visitors in the Sipsey Wilderness is serious enough to issue the Occupancy and Use Order limiting the size of groups. This applies only to the Sipsey, not Cheaha or Dugger Mountain Wilderness Areas. It is recommended that visitors limit their group size in those areas, but not mandated as it is in Sipsey. It is unfortunate that this order interferes with the education of scouts by limiting their localized numbers, but it would be much better to seize it as an opportunity to educate them about LNT and the National Wilderness Preservation System, rather than allow them to think that these rules are somehow arbitrary and that exceptions are okay.

In closing this comment, I would like to point out that the real problem is the lack of developed trails and back country camping opportunities in the Bankhead outside of the Sipsey Wilderness. I would strongly suggest that all Bankhead visitors, who want to experience the forest with groups larger than ten consider other areas outside of the wilderness, such as Tedford Creek (already designated in the back country recreation management prescription) or the north fork of Caney Creek. Both these areas are adjacent to the wilderness, and if the truth be told, are more conducive to a true wilderness experience than the overused Sipsey Wilderness.

Please let us all work together with our federal management agencies to protect America's enduring resource of wilderness for this and future generations. Rules are there for a reason, and exceptions defeat their purpose.

[Archer]

I didn't get a pic of the sign, sorry. Forgot the camera that day.

It's on the Braziel trailhead on the end of 223/210. Maybe someone else will be up there and take a look.

[buttermilkmeeks]

I have to say that canyonman's post - as well as some other recent conversations with hikers that love the Sipsey - has really changed my attitude on leading groups of hikers off-trail in the Sipsey.

I have been leading hikes with BAG for over a year and have yet to violate the group size limits - but I have taken several groups of hikers to the Big Tree and down Quillan Creek. I even have two more group hikes scheduled that are bushwacks in the Eagle Creek/Little Ugly area - but I will cease taking any groups off trail in the future.

I saw the damage to East Bee Canyon last April and have now seen just how much impact foot traffic has had on that canyon - its easier to access the Big Tree now than anytime in the past five years. The outlaw trail from White Oak Hollow to the Big Tree is in better shape - for now - than many other trails around the state. Of course since this trail was not designed or built by anyone who knew what they were doing, it won't be long before sections of this trail will wash out and become impassable. (The creek crossing in the initial descent into West Bee is becoming a dangerous spot - it wont be long before someone will be badly injured here.) The trail to Parker Falls from Kinlock Road is also worn slap out once you descend into the canyon.

That being said, I will continue to take groups to the Sipsey - we will just stay on official trails. I will continue to explore off trail areas on my own or with one or two other hikers tagging along. I also plan on taking groups to some of the other trails in the Bankhead such as Owl Creek and exploring the Brushy Creek area. 

I have really enjoyed reading this thread - and thank you canyonman for your eloquent post on why it is important to have these regulations on the Sipsey...

[Archer]

On the one mile radius of Kinlock thing-I saw the sign again and it says one mile.(have pic) A buddy called USFS and they  advised it's 1/2 mile of Kinlock Shelter. The problem apparently came about when the new sign was made. The person that made the sign misunderstood a policy the USFS has in place, ie "no camping within one mile of organized recreational site". They thought that Kinlock Falls was a USFS site sooooooo anything named Kinlock was surely included so the phrasing on the sign. The USFS admitted the sign is wrong and wanted to now where it was as they were planning to change it.

The ten person rule is being adhered to by larger groups There was a large group of Scouts that came in and broke up  into small groups and dispered in different directions. I think the individual groups may actually be better for scouting. It will give the Scouts a higher leader to scout ratio and allow for closer mentoring. I never really cared for giant large groups back in my RA/Scout days.

With regard to off trail, to be honest I off trail and plan to do it for a while. I go to the wilderness to get away from people. I avoid 209 and 206 like the flu. There are tons of spots that can be used without showing much if any wear. Two or three people 20-30 days a year in an off trail spot doesn't hurt anything. I won't take a large group (6-10) on a bushwhack trip.