Bushwhack Rating System

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Brownie said:
Up front:

But here in New England, under a drove of outdoor enthusiasts and limited resources, I would expect more conservation efforts.
Bushwhacking isn't exactly "leave no trace".


Brownie

One possible constructive bushwack: monitoring corridor lands. I've been a corridor adopter for Green Mountain Club for 12 years. Each year I'm supposed to check all property boundaries, preferably twice (spring and fall "leaf-off"). We're looking for unauthorized or illegal use. The obvious are logging and ATVs, but we've spotted semi-permanent camps, dumping, even the building of an unauthorized snow-mobile trail.

As needed, we repaint blazes along the propery boundary. Sometimes these lines are trimmed, but not as for a trail. Rather, just enough to see the paint blazes on the line.

Any trails, shelters or campsites on the parcel are checked by the corridor adopter annually. This is in addition to the visits by the Trail or Shelter adopter.

Other info requested includes observed changes in flora and fauna anywhere on the parcel. This means visits to the remote interior, i.e: bushwack.

Somebody has to look after our prreserved lands. Anyone who enjoys bushwacking but feels that it may be detrimental may find this necessary volunteer work will satisfy the urge. Contact local maintaing clubs for more info.
 
Brownie, I noticed that on another thread about techy climbing you openly talk about alternative routes up the Huntington Ravine headwall, and other such places, using ropes and gear. Isn't that fragile alpine zone? You seem to have no problem with driving pegs(whatever they're called) into the headwall, and dragging your body and ropes all over the fragile alpine zone. These are not official trails.

I've never red-squared anyone, never will. I'm glad you respectfully shared your relevent opinion. While I appreciate your reverence for the forest, I oppose the idea that the forest is a museum; look but don't touch. I'll hike where I want to. I'll avoid cinquefoil and mountain daiseys that thrive by the millions right inside the trailbeds just as much as I'll avoid them while off-trail.

If an area is specifically signed or roped off, I'll stay away. Other than that, I'm enjoying the forest.

Happy Trails!
 
Last edited:
Brownie, I'm glad you don't drive things into the rock.

What is the difference between an "established" route by the "climbing community" and a herd path established by the hiking community? These established routes you speek of are established by anyone who wants to make a route. You're still talking about humans going through alpine zone off official trails. Hikers, too, try to avoid mosses and plants, etc. So what's the difference between techy climbers and hikers?
 
Brownie said:
Forestnome, why are you hammering this issue?

...because you started it by hammering people who hike off-trail. Then, you narrowed it down to people who hike off-trail in the alpine zone, even though you spoke of technical climbing in the alpine zone. Since this involves humans leaving the trail in the alpine zone, I saw a contradiction.

It seemed obvious that to get to a bare rock wall, say in Huntington Ravine, you must hike off-trail through stunted spuce. You conceed this in your last post, calling it the "approach" instead of a herd path. I've also noticed climbers at the top of the ravine, walking around in the area where the ropes are anchored. But it now seems that you have no issue with off-trail hiking, so all is fine. :)

I appreciate your concern for the forest, I really do. But this is a hot topic for me because there are those who would like to see off-trail hiking illegal. I understand that there are some national parks where this is the case. My whole life is centered around the WMNF, and I enjoy being in the forest. Being in the forest far from the trails is special. The idea that I'm hurting anything is ridiculous, but there are those who think so, and they want to make it illegal. That would mean no hunting, no fishing, no technical climbing,
etc., as well as no bushwacking. I'll fight hard for our right to stroll through our forest if I must, and I'll always take issue with anyone who suggests that bushwacking is bad for the forest. It's too important to take lightly, so I don't care if I sound nit-picky. ;)

Happy Trails, freind! :)
 
Last edited:
forestnome said:
I'll fight hard for our right to stroll through our forest if I must, and I'll always take issue with anyone who suggests that bushwacking is bad for the forest.

How did I miss this thread?


So much to consider here....

Is humankind a legitimate part of creation? We collectively seem to be in disagreement on this. One extreme says that humanity is the pinacle of creation and all things should be measured by human utility. Another extreme sees humanity as a cancerous growth on the living earth (Ghia). There are lots of other positions that may (or may not) come down somewhere in the middle.

In terms of what is and is not acceptable on USFS lands, I think we might make better headway if we distinguish between multi-use Forests, recreational use Wildernesses and Preserves. The Wilderness Act seems to be in the muddled middle regarding human presence and use in Wilderness Areas. The ideal of no permanant mark of human activity is present but so is the presumption that humans can be in the Wilderness Area. This seems to beg the questions of Can we really leave no trace and how many folks do you need to have in order for trace to appear.

I think Pete Hickey nailed it earlier in this thread. The nub of the issue is frequency of use. Bushwacking may be ok in someplace but not in others, depending on frequency.
 
Brownie said:
Someone please lock this thread!

Locking threads never ever brings closure to issues. Just wait a month and somebody else will bring it back up in another context.

The best we can hope for is to discuss the matters in a civil tone. Avoid flames. Accept differing points of view politely. Try to express opinions carefully and in non-inflamitory tones.

This will not prevent disagreements. But it helps if we agree on how to disagree with civility.
 
Ahh, the nebulous world of wilderness travel... Part of the disagreement, I would assert, comes from the myriad of terms that tend to blur into gray areas very easily. What exactly is hiking on a trail vs. cross-country vs. bushwhacking vs. whatever other nomenclature we tack onto it? What about 'lost trails'? Are they trails or bushwhacks?
My point is simply that this discussion could devolve forever b/c it is so difficult to precisely define what constitutes the differences in all these terms. There are many factors involved, of course.
Part of me wants to echo Brownie's concerns, and part of me realizes that it's a slippery slope (no pun intended) when we consider lost trails, cross-country, rock hopping, etc. Not to mention the impossibility of regulation of bushwhackers.
FWIW, I do a lot of backpacking/hiking in Colorado, where there aren't that many trails, but a lot of "routes"--especially to the higher peaks.
 
blacknblue said:
Ahh, the nebulous world of wilderness travel... Part of the disagreement, I would assert, comes from the myriad of terms that tend to blur into gray areas very easily. What exactly is hiking on a trail vs. cross-country vs. bushwhacking vs. whatever other nomenclature we tack onto it?

Studies have shown that 87.4% of internet forum disputes are a result of lack of agreement on semantics. (doing my best Dennis Leary impression) Ok, I just made that up but you get my point. :)

blacknblue said:
FWIW, I do a lot of backpacking/hiking in Colorado, where there aren't that many trails, but a lot of "routes"--especially to the higher peaks.

I think this is great thing to point out, especially given the eastern bias on this board. Hiking in different areas is very eye opening in terms of understanding how different rules should be applied differently in different areas.

While definitions are hard, if not impossible, to craft well, this is precisely where land managers and other policy wonks need to do their work. The better we (citizens) think through this stuff, the better we can engage in the process, or so I niavely believe.
 
I think this has been a very stimulating discussion and one rational that I think someone could use in red marking brownie is that he states his opinions as fact and produces scant evidence that some of his key assertions are factual. However, I don't plan to rate him either way and certainly not for his opinions which strike me as rather overblown extrapolations of the leave no trace ethic.

One area of factual misrepresentation is the assertion that a rescue of a bushwhacker will result in a reckless charge. There is nothing either in the law nor the hikers code of ethics to suggest this. There are bushwhackers who are among the best prepared and equipped hikers. Now, if a bushwhacker were to get lost because of sole reliance on a GPS and no navigation skills other than that, then that could be a case of recklessness. But bushwhacking and breaking an ankle does not automatically make it reckless.

An opinion that I don't share is the animal worship that subordinates humanity to the animal kingdom. brownie asserts this as if it were commonly accepted. I think most of us recognize the importance of conservation and balance in nature and enjoy the biology of the wild. It is laughable to think that humans treading in the same forests on foot and reasonably dispersed, as we have done since the beginning of our existence, will destroy nature.
 
Brownie said:
Forestnome, I have taken this issue with you to PM.

Someone please lock this thread!

Regards.

Brownie

As you may or may not have noticed, I'm not set up to accept PM, so whatever you sent I didn't get it. Not sure why this thread would be locked since it's respectful and unpolitical. Hope you don't suspect me as the anonymous red-square doner. :) To add to Dave M.'s excellent points about the forum, these threads are about the subject matter, and not the posters. I don't know you as anyone but an anomynous concerned citizen who has respectfully stated relevent opinions. I saw a double-standard, one for climbers and one for hikers who should never leave the trail in alpine zones. Now I can't go back and reread what you've erased.

Agreed, practically everyone agrees that trampling alpine vegetation is wrong. However, there are those who would like to illegalize off-trail hiking. That would eliminate your recreation(climbing) and deminish mine(hiking and photography). Wherever I see this idea I will oppose it strongly because it's easy to convince people of a viewpoint when there is no rebuttal, no matter how senseless the idea.

Happy Trails!
 
Brownie,

Discussing the relative merits of boots or skis is one thing. As you are finding, discussing issues that are rooted in our deepest held personal beliefs is another.

Here are a few things I try to keep in mind when entering such discussions. I can't say I always succeed, but I do find these rules to be helpful.

DEBATE IDEAS, NOT PEOPLE - None of us is really expressing new ideas. We are really mouthpieces for traditions and lines of thought that have been handed down to us. Unfortunately, ideas need people to express them and people are clumsy. Old joke: How do porcipines mate? Carefully. Focus on the ideas, not the quills. When you a post, look for the idea that is being expressed. If you see personal attacks, you have lost focus.

NEVER, EVER PERSONALIZE - Electronic communications is turbo charged with emotion. Just the nature of the beast. Work very hard to avoid making personal assertions about other posters but recognize that no matter how hard you try, somebody somewhere will take personal offense to what you wrote. Going the other direction, ignore personal attacks made you against you at all costs. You find when you meet over beer/coffee/whatever that most of the personal attacks weren't meant. People type and read without the aids of body language and feelings get hurt easily.

LET YOUR IDEAS DEFEND THEMSELVES - The only times I've seen people's minds changed on deeply held beliefs based on internet discussions is small, non-public forums and even then, these changes take years to evolve and are very, very rare. Resist the urge to convince others to join your point of view. At the same time, be confident that the ideas you express have a power of their own that will make them capable of defending themselves. It is helpful to remember that while the person with whom you are discussing/debating ideas with won't change his or her mind, others who read and lurk will be considering the merits of your ideas. CS Lewis said that you defend God like you defend a lion. You unlock the cage and let the lion defend itself. The principle of HYOH (Hike Your Own Hike) applies here.

DON'T TAKE THE DEBATE BACKCHANNEL - IMO, it is folly to think that anybody will change their mind based on direct confrontation over electronic communications. Resist the urge to take debates to PMs, feedback quips and e-mail. This cuts both ways. 99% of the time, negative PMs, e-mails or feedbacks that you receive are motivated to get you to change your mind. Ignore the bait.

BE WILLING TO TAKE ONE FOR THE CAUSE - When you step into discussion of ideals, you can be guaranteed that somebody will disagree. When you do this on electronic forums, you can also pretty much guarantee that somebody will disagree with you in an inappropriate manner. This is simply the cost of doing business. You have 2 choices here. First, is the idea you hold dearly important enough that you are willing to voice it while knowing that others will disagree? Second, can you sleep at night and ignore inappropriate personal attacks made against you in public? Different people will have different answers.

NEVER WRESTLE WITH PIGS - It is amuses the pig and makes you look bad. No matter how polite and tactful you try to be and no matter how hard you try to avoid personalization of attacks, you will occasionally run into people who will just be totally unreasonable. My best suggestion is to ignore them entirely. Never respond to their posts.

I should close by repeating that these are rules that I try to follow. I don't always succeed and you would have to be a robot or saint to be entirely dispassionate in these situations.

I hope some of this is helpful for you. You've given voice to some important ideas.
 
Driven outta here!

OK, I have had enough REDS for life! ;)
Why, is this the "drive" for others to abuse a well intended post?
What is wrong with the folks here on this forum?
Thanks DoubleBow and Spencer you guys have nothing to worry about here!
Make a guy feel real welcome! :rolleyes:
Consider me just another one of your "sacrificial" members!

I have had enough abuse here and make my departure for good!
I will be deleteing ALL prior posts and informing Darren to remove my presence.


Thanks again though for ALL the kind words and feedback by everyone else sent PM and via Rep system. :)
Moving on to "higher waters"
 
Last edited:
For the record, what my esteemed fellow hiker is referring to here is the fact that I gave him negative feedback for complaining about getting reds. In the comment field I wrote "You KNOW it's against site rules to complain about getting red squares". From what I understand, this was appropriate circumstances for issueing negative feedback.

If I have misinterpreted the site rules, please let me know what IS the
proper circumstance for giving a red square. :confused:
 
It's a pity when an impassioned member packs up his tent and leaves in a huff. I liked Brownie and have had several pleasant exchanges with him via PM. He cares and is not mean.
I noticed lots and lots of views on this thread, kinda like everyone running to watch a fight in the school yard.
I love the forums and have no use for exchanges that get ugly. They serve no purpose whatsoever.
 
is it against the rules to talk about ex-members too? ;)

yeah I liked brownie. he seemed like a cool guy and always had something interesting to say. too bad.
 
I agree he had some good posts! In this one, I gave him a red for being constantly argumentative and harassing (I gave FN one, too). He flamed me back in a PM and after I tried to explain my constructive criticism, he threw F-bombs at me.

Was he serious? Who throws F-bombs over a red square???

spencer
 
Top