Great photos, Kevin! Tuttle Creek valley looks skiable pretty far down.

Michael Graupe wrote:I have been up George Creek twice (dayhikes of Barnard and Trojan), both times hiking the lower few miles in the dark, and had almost no problems with bushwhacking. I have no idea why these guys had so much difficulty. If I remember correctly there are only three creek crossings necessary.

I believe that this valley will never see as much traffic as the NF route to Whitney. I think it should be kept untouched initially to see if erosion problems even develop and only if so, start to build some trail.

Agreed with Michael. We didn't spend too much time thrashing around last spring, mainly because thrashing led to bleeding. (Ouch! Shit! Thorns!) But I'd hate GC to go the way of the MR and devolve into a brainless slog marked by cairns big enough to sacrifice goats... (wait, isn't that what got us here to begin with?)

I would think the condition of the road leading into the "trailhead" would keep most of the lookie-loos away. It's kinda like an epic Red Lake trip. I know the TOF won't be headed in there anytime soon.

And when this is at the end of the rainbow, I can see why Vittles is drooling...

Vitaliy M wrote:Have no idea why...probably because they are skiers (skiers suck! ).

OK, little man, it is so ON. I've wanted to ski the NE couloir of Langley since I climbed it two years ago. All you gunna see is the glow of the orange pants as they fade into the trees of the lower Tuttle Creek...

More droolage:











Other pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/moosepics6 ... 481387587/

-L

MooseTracks wrote:

Vitaliy M wrote:Have no idea why...probably because they are skiers (skiers suck! ).

OK, little man, it is so ON. I've wanted to ski the NE couloir of Langley since I climbed it two years ago. All you gunna see is the glow of the orange pants as they fade into the trees of the lower Tuttle Creek...

Michael Graupe wrote:I believe that this valley will never see as much traffic as the NF route to Whitney. I think it should be kept untouched initially to see if erosion problems even develop and only if so, start to build some trail.

Apparently you do not know how the Lone Pine USFS Sup works. She is very "Proactive" and disdains any reactive measures when it comes to any enviro issue. Especially trails and human impact on the area fauna. She has already hinted that a standardized trail up GC would be very appreciated. She does not want to see the fiasco that occurred on the NFLPC.

Allow me to remind you that up to ten or so years ago, the NFLPC was hardly frequented. After the boom of getting on and doing the MR in a day and all the routes on Russell became the hey day in the late 90's, there were well over 20 different rogue trails going all sorts of ways. That is why Dave Kirk got on the ball some five years ago and started standardizing the trail. Many do not approve of what he and his crew have done, but it needed to be done.

Approaching Williamson from the south via GC, will become a venue for many in the next couple of years. Trust me. A single standardized trail will show the LP SUP that the climbing community as a whole, are willing to put forth the effort to take care of our impact and keep the area as untrampled and as pristine as possible.

MooseTracks wrote:

Vitaliy M wrote:Have no idea why...probably because they are skiers (skiers suck! ).

OK, little man, it is so ON. I've wanted to ski the NE couloir of Langley since I climbed it two years ago. All you gunna see is the glow of the orange pants as they fade into the trees of the lower Tuttle Creek...

More droolage:

VM - That's it, I'm also in. Moose's photos just put me over the edge. On skis, with a 2am full moon start.

The Chief wrote:

Michael Graupe wrote:I believe that this valley will never see as much traffic as the NF route to Whitney. I think it should be kept untouched initially to see if erosion problems even develop and only if so, start to build some trail.

Apparently you do not know how the Lone Pine USFS Sup works. She is very "Proactive" and disdains any reactive measures when it comes to any enviro issue. Especially trails and human impact on the area fauna. She has already hinted that a standardized trail up GC would be very appreciated. She does not want to see the fiasco that occurred on the NFLPC.

Allow me to remind you that up to ten or so years ago, the NFLPC was hardly frequented. After the boom of getting on and doing the MR in a day and all the routes on Russell became the hey day in the late 90's, there were well over 20 different rogue trails going all sorts of ways. That is why Dave Kirk got on the ball some five years ago and started standardizing the trail. Many do not approve of what he and his crew have done, but it needed to be done.

Approaching Williamson from the south via GC, will become a venue for many in the next couple of years. Trust me. A single standardized trail will show the LP SUP that the climbing community as a whole, are willing to put forth the effort to take care of our impact and keep the area as untrampled and as pristine as possible.

I haven't been hiking around the Sierra long enough to have seen the changes, so I can see and appreciate your point of view. Believe me, all I want is to keep the place as pristine as possible. I am fine with a trail but feel that this will attract even more people to the area. Let's just make sure the horses and mules are not getting in there.

Michael Graupe wrote:Let's just make sure the horses and mules are not getting in there.

CAN I GET AN AMEN FOR BROTHER MICHAEL???
AMEN!!!! NO CRITTERS!

Ok. A trail back there will never become the Whitney Portal. Look at the development at the Portal. Now, compare that to Shepherd Creek (hereafter SC). I think a trail up GC would be very similar to SC. Primitive-style parking, maybe an outhouse, a map of the region and thats it. What, are folks planning on a burger joint, pack station, laundrymay, etc? If that canyon (GC) was turned into a mindless slog, the trailbuilders should be crucified. The terrain in that canyon could easily (ahem, with a LOT of hard work and CREATIVITY) have a world class trail with some via-ferrata style features that would be a blast to hike up.

However you slice it, GC will still be a challenging hike. Is Baxter pass easy? No. Is Taboose pass easy? No. The list goes on. I have spent the majority of my life on multi-use trails using them in the multitude of ways that they are designed for. When the population of users can and does increase, problems will arise unless planned for. If you let a problem show itself before planning for it, it will quickly get out of control and permanent damage will result in a net loss of ecosystem function before far more time and money is invested to remedy the issue or just barely control it. This highlights the ignorance shown by those who think we should assess erosion later (And yes, I realize that I am ignorant in my own multitude of ways, but this is one area I have expertise in ). It is clear those who feel this way do not hold higher degrees in Earth or natural resource sciences and thus have a concept of geomorphology, hydrology, montane ecology, and recreational land use management and the nonlinear couplings of these processes at multiple timescales that act upon landscapes. We don't want GC to become another "Tragedy of the Commons" (see Hardin 1968). In this day and age, it is unacceptable to forego future planning.

These physical processes are incredibly important to take into account when building a trail. But by no means do you have to be a ph.d to make a sweet trail; experience certainly offers tremendous value. However, to take a laissez-faire attitude to trails and land use will only result in net degredation. Just cuz you only snapped over three branches on your hike doesn't mean that the next group didn't crash on fifty others on the other side of the creek a day later. Multiply that effect out over time and space on ecosystem function versus losing a small percentage of total vegetation to build a proper trail that directs runoff back into the creek. Why do you think we have a clean air and clean water act????????????????????? Because we didn't visualize that a problem would exist and if it did come about we could fix it. It only took the Ohio river to catch on fire. Only then did we start taking things a little more seriously.

I would prefer GC not be stomped, I would much prefer a flowing sinuous trail through an awesome part of the Sierra. I totally agree with Mr. Graupe in that we want to leave it as pristine as possible. What better way than to keep any and all traffic in the same 15 inch wide path?
Want to thrash? Sure, try Williamson Creek from the bottom and send the N.Rib and all the other N.face routes in a single push. Then you will get some credibility. Ha, even better reason for a trail, it allows you to push your limits sooooo far on real technical terrain (not fourth class scrambles, we're talking legit 5.10 and harder) that you can still stumble back to the car after 36 hours of gnarly sends. Thats why the Euros are so burly, they can take a tram up, sprint up giant hard routes until they can't anymore, then wander back down trails. Go to Chamonix and see!
*edit for clarity

Michael Graupe wrote:...On skis, with a 2am full moon start.

That has to perhaps be one of the most romantic things I've ever heard...

Ah, the Tragedy of the Commons. A work far ahead of its time and the foundation for modern environmental policy and land use theory.

Let me just go ahead and begin by stating that obviously everybody here wants access to this area, hence the now 11 pages and growing relative to the subject.

There is a very large difference between responsible access and irresponsible access. Hence the quotas in the aforementioned zones, hence the bear cans and other bullshit that makes things a pain in the ass for climbers, scramblers, and hikers alike. In the end we all just want to be able to access nature's beauty and enjoy the land. With that being said some of the arguments being utilized in earlier responses utilize a strange mindset insofar that they primarily intend to utilize any of the previously mentioned activities one can do, among others, on the multiple-use trails, as a form of "conquering" something it seems. This adolescent mindset of wanting to "dominate" a mountain or a trail, or endow the characteristic of one as being audacious simply because they have thrashed their way up a drainage, is highly counter intuitive to the prevalent mindset of the outdoor community. That prevalent mindset, that of the post-adolescent individual, typically dictates that as long as one is having a good time, being safe, having good style, being honest about their activities, and leaving no trace of their passing, they are generally cool. To quote Warren Harding,
"As I hammered in the last bolt and staggered over the rim, it was not at all clear to me who was the conqueror and who was the conquered. I do recall that El Cap seemed to be in much better condition than I was."


Back to the primary point, the use of common lands by large groups. Large groups as defined by the quantity of individuals using the trail over an extended duration of time.

The initial stage of the issue is that one must make a distinction between the common good and the resource. (Young 1999) The common good in this instance is prolonged access to the resource. The resource being the greater GC drainage in this particular case.

Secondarily, we have precedent in this arena, insomuch that we have a good trail system up most drainages of the Eastern Sierra, with well established, in most instances, use trails or climbers trails to other areas. Thus, this becomes highly applicable: "In the end, building from the lessons of past successes will require forms of communication, information and trust that are broad and deep beyond precedent, but not beyond possibility" (Ostrum 1999)

This type of discourse, however, is extremely healthy, and further proves Ostrum's point, insomuch that those who utilize the lands and resources can successfully manage the resources without governmental intervention or privatization (Ostrum 2006) (IE: the USFS did not dictate to create a trail, or not to in this instance, yet it appears Chief has a nod of approval for this project) .

Lets go ahead and prove that mode of thought correct and get this trail started this spring. Count me solidly in. Not only does having a trail reduce ecological impact, it makes access more efficient and (Jah forbid!) "easier" (easier being a relative term insofar that all areas of Williamson require considerable walking) so that people can get on the tough stuff back there and most importantly have fun.

Let's just make sure the horses and mules are not getting in there.

Unfortunately, we have no control over that as they have the same right to access to this area as we all do.

But, as NFLPC, the grade and terrain will most likely keep them out of there and put them over onto the Shepherds Pass trail as the Domestic Animal Closure has expired as well.

Don't be surprised seeing the horse/mule folks there this spring and making the trail more accessible for their animals.

Vitaliy M wrote:

WML wrote:Let me just go ahead and begin by stating that obviously everybody here wants access to this area, hence the now 11 pages and growing relative to the subject.

8 pages of this thread is Chief yapping about his climbing abilities, FAs, 5.10-5.11s, and how anyone who doesn't climb as hard is a nobody
Congratulations on new tools!

Jealous? Your reply seems to say so.

Vitaliy M wrote:Regarding MULES etc...100% I don't want those there. Mule shit on dusty trail is last thing I want to see there..What I think may be the next on Chief's list of RIGHT things to do is to work on developing some kind of limit on horses/mules.

The Horse/Mule folks have just as much right to be there as you and I. As a matter of fact, they have been there far longer than any climbers/hikers, have a long standing history here in the Eastern Sierra and pay dues/fees to use the trails. They have done so for over 100 years.

Oh yeah, they live there as well.They have done so for well over 5 generations if not longer.

I can't stand em myself. But, I respect and tolerate them just the same.

Rick, congrats and big thanks for your work on getting access to Williamson!
Now, I'll have to add Williamson to my plans for 2011.
Considering how rarely I happen to be on the East side, I might not be able to help much with the trail. I do think having one trail is a good idea.
Do you guide on any 5.8-5.9 BC routes? What are the must do classics in this range? I think I would want to do one or two as 2011 might turn out to be my last year in CA.
Vlad.

Vitaliy,
Let me know when you are planning Langley trip. I might have free weekends in February. Always wanted to do Langley from that side!
Skiing from Shasta after doing Sargent is another good idea. Keep in mind that Sargent is not in every year. Do you want to do Sargent all the way or Green Butte/Sargent?
Vlad.

Vitaliy M wrote:If there is a limit, than it is fair. If there is no limit, I think there should be (on numbers of people, horses, mules). Also, you can bring your horse up the trail, but not a dog...what a joke (and I don't own a dog!).

There is no Day Use limit/quota on any trail for anyone other than the Whitney Area, within the Inyo Nat Forest.

The Packers pay an annual use fee for selected dates for over night use/access as do local climbing guiding services.