Rule of groups of ten-new phrasing on kiosk sign

[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.