Hike-NH.com
http://forum.hike-nh.com/

mt carrigan
http://forum.hike-nh.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3979
Page 1 of 2

Author:  allan86 [ Wed Jun 22, 2011 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  mt carrigan

thinking of hiking up signal ridge trail and camping out near fire observatory platform---any thoughts : :)

Author:  scooter [ Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:47 am ]
Post subject: 

It's within the Pemi wilderness.

Long time since I was last there, but IIRC, Signal Ridge would be in the alpine zone; not sure of summit area.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_m ... wasset.htm

http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_m ... es_web.pdf

Author:  IQuest [ Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:05 am ]
Post subject: 

The summit of Carragain is not within the Pemi Wilderness. The boundary is just a short distance down the Desolation Tr. About 1/4 mi before the summit alongthe Signal Ridge Tr there is a spring at the site of an old camp. There should be some level ground there. I believe that Signal Ridge I believe is an alpine zone, so unless there is two feet of snow, you can not camp there legally.

Author:  bikehikeskifish [ Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:12 am ]
Post subject: 

There are "illegal" campsites just below the summit, off to the left as you are approaching. I have seen people camp there before, as well as signs of recent activity. I have also seen a ranger heading up there presumably to give the campers a slap on their wrists, or whatever it is rangers do to illegal campers.

Tim

Author:  scooter [ Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:25 am ]
Post subject: 

IQuest wrote:
The summit of Carragain is not within the Pemi Wilderness. The boundary is just a short distance down the Desolation Tr. .


Interesting. My MapAdventures map shows it clearly in the PW, but the AMC map shows it is not.

Even without the AMC map I would defer to your better trail intel though, thanks!

I'll probably never go there again but nice to know :)

Author:  IQuest [ Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:49 am ]
Post subject: 

bikehikeskifish wrote:
There are "illegal" campsites just below the summit, off to the left as you are approaching. I have seen people camp there before, as well as signs of recent activity. I have also seen a ranger heading up there presumably to give the campers a slap on their wrists, or whatever it is rangers do to illegal campers.

Tim


Why are the ones below the summit illeagle? Othe than being too close to the trail.

Author:  IQuest [ Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:52 am ]
Post subject: 

scooter wrote:
IQuest wrote:
The summit of Carragain is not within the Pemi Wilderness. The boundary is just a short distance down the Desolation Tr. .


Interesting. My MapAdventures map shows it clearly in the PW, but the AMC map shows it is not.

Even without the AMC map I would defer to your better trail intel though, thanks!

I'll probably never go there again but nice to know :)


I would bet that the summit is outside of the Wilderness area. Imagine the controversy that the observation deck would cause. I also believe that I have see the boundary sign at the start of the Desolation Tr.

Author:  bikehikeskifish [ Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Too close to the trail is reason enough, is it not? The Wilderness boundary is in the shadow of the tower, at the top of the Desolation Trail:

Image

Tim

Author:  IQuest [ Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yes, too close to the trail is reason enough. What is the rule, 200 feet? IMO it should be at least out of sight from the trail.

Author:  Walrus [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 4:12 am ]
Post subject: 

There is no 200 foot rule for that area, though the open part of Signal Ridge would probably be classified as alpine zone and prohibited entirely. FS camping guidelines say to camp at established sites(not the same as designated sites) that have already been heavily impacted as long as they are legal. If there is no established site, then you go 200 feet off the trail. Unless the trees are shorter than I remember, or the information provided by the FS is inconsistent with the law, I say the sites below the summit are legal.

Also is the Wilderness boundary any closer to the summit of Carrigain than to the summits of Lafayette, Flume, Hancock, etc.?

Author:  bikehikeskifish [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:20 am ]
Post subject: 

From http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_m ... 008-09.pdf:

TRAVEL AND CAMP ON DURABLE
SURFACES
Stay on the trail while hiking. Camp at
sites which have already been heavily
impacted, (but be sure it’s a legal site); or
200’ from trails and water sources. Avoid
moderately impacted sites where your
visit could create more damage.


I think the interpretation (mine) has always been "just because the site is impacted doesn't make it legal. Impacted sites closer than 200 feet from the trail were illegal to start with and may be illegal still." The spots in question are not 200' from the trail.

Since I am not a camper/backpacker, I'm not certain.

Tim

Author:  JustJoe [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:12 am ]
Post subject: 

I had a conversation with a ranger about sites like this which I stumbled across while looking for a stealth site. It is in a wilderness area and met all distance requirements. But as you can clearly see does not meet the "leave no trace".

Image

He said they have 2 schools of thoughts on these sites. This one is obviously heavily used and may clearly be lessening the impact of other spots in the area. So maybe it's best just to leave it so it will continue to minimize impact to other ares. And just to cover his butt, he could not say that it was legal in the respects of leaving a trace. I did describe the site but did not tell him where it was. He did not ask either. :wink:

Author:  Walrus [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:01 am ]
Post subject: 

[quote="bikehikeskifish"]
I think the interpretation (mine) has always been "just because the site is impacted doesn't make it legal. Impacted sites closer than 200 feet from the trail were illegal to start with and may be illegal still." [/quote

The 200 foot rule is not universal. It only applies to the Pemi, Dry River, and GG Wilderness areas, a few bodies of water, and a handful of trails(other places like water, trailheads, shelters, and roads can have a quarter mile rule though)

more recent regs http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/white_m ... es_web.pdf

Author:  Granite Guy [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:15 am ]
Post subject: 

I didn't realize that they had changed the regs either. Might come in handy to know at some point.

Without knowing where Joes mystery site is it could still be legal. I don't even know if LNT was ever actually a rule/law or just an ethics guideline. I always thought it was the latter.

Author:  scooter [ Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:24 am ]
Post subject: 

bikehikeskifish wrote:
...I have also seen a ranger heading up there presumably to give the campers a slap on their wrists, or whatever it is rangers do to illegal campers....


I heard a rumor that our current free state legislature is drafting legislation to arm the rangers and make shooting illegal campers mandatory ;)

Granite Guy wrote:
I don't even know if LNT was ever actually a rule/law or just an ethics guideline. I always thought it was the latter.


Yeah, I thought / think so too. Hard to be sure from the pamphlet what is recommended vs what is required ...

JustJoe wrote:
But as you can clearly see does not meet the "leave no trace".

That picture looks like one of those 'how many things can you find wrong with this picture' puzzles :roll:


we seem to have walked in a circle ;)

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/