How could there be 800 "constructed" campsites in this area? What materials did they "construct" them of mostly above treeline without wood to build with or to burn and no campfires permitted. What could these "campsites" be other than rock windbreaks? No ropes dangling from trees. Something isn't adding up and I'm wondering what we're accomplishing with these tax dollars for moving rocks around.
I can't speak to that exact number, but I don't find it at all surprising. Once again, it depends on what you're willing to accept as far as wilderness experience goes. People love constructing stuff from rock. It's some sort of primal urge. So you come to a place like Guitar Lake where everyone wants to build a wall of rock to define their campsite. It looks, as one ranger commented, like Machu Pichu. Would you get more of a sense of an isolated, wilderness experience if those walls weren't there and so visible? I like to think so.
From the mid-1970s to the mid-90s, thousands (literally) of these types of developed sites were removed from the wilderness parks. They included fire pits and garbage in amongst the charcoal; nails in trees; boards between trees for shelves; stoves; camp chairs made out of stumps and boards; rock walls; tables (up to 4 feet high) made out of piled rocks and can dumps hidden amongst the willows and rocks.
A survey was just completed comparing both the number and size of campsites since that effort started in the 70s. There are significantly fewer campsites and those that still exist have a smaller "footprint" (less bare ground; fewer if any "improvements"; recovered vegetation).
Doing so -- and continuing to do so -- gives visitors a sense that it's a wild place and that few have been there before them. That's the idea when you boil all this stuff down. It's partially illusory, of course, but it's why there's trailhead limits, minimum impact regulations etc.
It's also worth noting that for individuals, wilderness experience is a moving target and changes with time and experience. The first few trips you don't notice a lot of these intrusions or people -- it's all great (one hopes...). But as you travel more (and that's not "you" personally -- kind of the universal 'you') that bar is often drastically reduced. People notice garbage; large groups traveling together; developed campsites etc.
So, yes, supporting "moving rocks around" using tax dollars seems like a pretty good effort to me (of course, I'm a beneficiary of those tax dollars but I like to think the wilderness public is as well).
George
PS: Moose. The Lamarck trail from the east side was constructed (I think) by Art Schober, a packer who was trying to establish a trail just before it became a park in 1940. He assumed it if was already there and "established" he could bring people in that way. Didn't really work but a good try. There's even the remnant of a couple of switchbacks on the park side but no farther.
