Does the Giant need a break?

[shadowcat]

Giant was the 1st mountain I ever hiked after moving here to NY from Michigan. It was the mountain that got me hooked - I never knew NY looked so beautiful. But the trail reviews each year seem to show the trails to this very popular hike are really in bad shape & getting worse. It's too bad, but maybe it's time Giant got a rest? Even 1 summer with some work on the trails & no hikers might prove worthwhile. I hate to see the trails getting trashed so badly & on a popular hike such as this I don't know if they could ever really repair them unless they stopped hiking for a period of time. Has there been any discussion among the "powers that be" in regards to this? I do know you will see postings asking hikers to stay off certain trails during times of the year but has a trail like Giant ever been shut down for a whole season? Certainly there must be some game plan as hiking gets more & more popular on how to preserve these trails yet meet the demands of the hiking folks? Just curious. Currently I'm staying off the trails until they dry up a bit. Do some road biking, rollerblading & mt biking (on dry trails..) that will keep me busy!

 

[shadowcat]

Hello????

Hey doesn't anyone have any input on this? Am I way off base or something? I haven't been up Giant in a bit but trail reviews lend that the trail there is pretty beat up. So that got me thinking about the future of our Daks. I'm kind of surprised no one had any comments. do I have the plague or something, that's just not like you guys to not say anything...

 

[Pete_Hickey]

Been away for a while, and didn't see this.

Giant, Algonquin, and Cascade are popular peaks, because they are short hikes. They are seeing a lot of traffic these days.

I don't think the DEC would ever close a trail. 'we' just met with the DEC a couple weeks ago, we talked about trails in bad shape, and Giant did not come up at all. I'm away now, and don't have my books, but I think Giant's trails are maintained by ATIS. Tony, you around any more???


There are only a few solutions when trails get overused:

Fix them (Costs money)
Close them (Lots of people will be upset, and how do you enforce it?)
Limit number of users

The last one, with one or two exceptions, does not work in the NorthEast, but is quite common in the west. For the peak I climbed yesterday, I needed a permit, for which I applied over a month ago.

I know you're not talking about the North trail to Giant, and I haven't climed the others (non-winter) in quite a few years. Which trail, and where? I would guess you're talking about the ridge trail, since that is the easiest one.

 

[masshysteria]

SC, i agree with your ideas, but I'm not sure how it could ever be implemented, or even enforced, as Pete stated. Much like you, Giant was my first, and the one that set the hook in me. The problem as already stated, is the relative ease of climbing Giant. It's a short hike, the trailhead is on one of the main arteries into the HP area, and the view versus effort ratio is high. I think that this is a price we have to pay for our hobby, unfortunately.

What are the options for the DEC? That's a tough one. They've implemented limiting group sizes, but does that really help? Perhaps posting more warnings about reducing negative impacts while hiking? Lets face it, there's enough signs at trailheads to begin with. I also believe that the people who care enough about the conditions in the Daks are a limited minority. Most of the people who hike those trails are not 'hard core' hikers, they're just out to try something different, and frankly, I don't think they give a damn about what the trails look like after they leave. It's a tough question, perhaps education is the only answer.

 

[Rik]

I'd rather see the time/resource spent on something like the trail to Bradley Pond.

Most of the people who hike those trails are not 'hard core' hikers, they're just out to try something different, and frankly, I don't think they give a damn about what the trails look like after they leave.

This reminded me of a funny experience I had on Sunday. Sorry if I'm taking the thread off course. I was on Upper Wolf Jaw enjoying the day when a group of three joined us on the summit. After a few minutes the woman in the group asked me "what mountain is this?". Well I wanted to say Whiteface but I thought they might say they had been there so I just bit my tongue and said Upper Wolf Jaw. Now curious and a little concerned I asked them where they had started. The answer "the golf course"! I stiffled my chuckle and eventually after a couple follow-up questions we determined they had come up the Beaver Meadows trail over Armstrong to UWJ. They were planning to go down the Wedge Brook trail which they saw on their map. Their map of course was the pamplet distributed by the Ausable club which shows the Lake Road and surrounding mountains. I hope they made it down ok.

 

[TCD]

Maybe if DEC saved some of the $ they pay lawyers to dream up unenforceable UMPs, they could allocate a little more to education and trail repair. I do volunteer trail maintenance, but there's a limit to what we accomplish compared to a full time professional crew. Things like rock steps work great and last a long time, but they are a LOT of work to create.

Closure is not really going to help. A lot of the muddy and eroded areas are not going to repair themselves just sitting there, unless you close the trail for ten years or so. These areas need rock steps, boardwalk, gravel cribs, etc., which take hard work and money to build. That's what the state should be doing with its resources, rather than dreaming up more ways to keep people out of the Wilderness we "own."

 

[ADK4Life]

I really wish we could just shut that area down for a couple years and research the results.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

Closing a trail for a number of years WOULD work.

Getting pro crews to do rock work is EXPENSIVE!

The UMPs were written with a LOT of public input. If you don't like them, were you there to give input when they were being written?

I think the best thing for the trails would be to have daily quotas. Really. They work great. How would people like having to reserve in advance. OK, given the way that trails are all over the place, along highways, it would be tough to enforce.. at least at first.

Bradley pond trail??? It is being investigated. It isn't the resources, it's the legal side of it.... private land, and hte owner does not want any work done.

 

[hardrain]

what do you mean specifically?

But the trail reviews each year seem to show the trails to this very popular hike are really in bad shape & getting worse

Huh? Are you talking about the Zander Scott trail? I was just up there last week and it seemed pretty darn nice to me.

What is there about the conditions of this trail that would make you want to consider shutting it down?

 

[ADK4Life]

This would have to be the Giant via Rocky Peak Ridge trail they are speaking of, its was in pretty bad shape last time I was on it.

 

[Rivet]

Could they use sections of rope to keep people on the trail and from making it wider or cutting switchbacks?

 

[ADK4Life]

Last time I was on the trail there was a group of at least 20 people from quebec it was like trying to pass a school trip. One of the parties had 2 dogs with them to add insult to injury. The summit was so packed it was beyond belief it made me want to try one of the slides to descend. On a side note I ran into a group of 5 people that had made it to the very first outlook of chapel pond on the trail and asked if they were almost to the summit..those poor souls.

 

[rhihn]

Last time I was on the trail there was a group of at least 20 people from quebec it was like trying to pass a school trip.

The last time we were there, we ran into a crowd of about 10 or so. Then, along came a venture scout group. One of the leaders remarked, rather proudly, that there were 30+ kids (or so...I forget the exact number but it was in the 30's), doing a variety of mountains. He said he was chewed out by a ranger at one point on their trip, and seemed ticked off that it was an issue. We (two of us) could barely find a place to sit.

 

[ADK4Life]

The answer is simple (not so simple) impose a quota on most trails (algonquin,marcy,giant,cascade) that see high traffic. I would assume that most high mileage peaks that require a hard trek would keep the type of people that do not respect the trail off due to difficulty.

 

[Rivet]

The longer trails hiked by the supposed "hard-core" or "elite" hikers are just as bad.

It's a numbers thing.

 

[ADK4Life]

You will generally find more people that respect the outdoors on a 20 mile hike compared to someone that decides to hike 3 miles beside a road at chapel pond. Its about the level of commitment needed on a longer hike.

 

[anita514]

I think quotas would be a good idea. They seem to be working on Mt. Whitney in California...

What about enforcing the use of self-issuing tickets? Say there are a limited number of tickets at each trailhead. Hikers sign the register and keep a ticket until there are none left. No ticket = no hiking, and if you get caught, say they fine you or just ask you to go back. The only problem with this idea is that you'd need people out on the trails asking hikers to see their tickets. UNless they are volunteers, this will cost more money. BUT since these trails will see less (ab)use, perhaps it will be worth it?

Two summers in a row we've met the same old lady who spends her summers at Sharp Bridge campground. She's been hiking in the Adirondacks for over 70 years and every time we see her, she complains about the trail conditions and all the people in the park, and thinks the park should be closed down for a few years. This seemed like a good idea to me, but then I realized all the hikers would just start going to Vermont and/or New Hampshire, thus putting even more wear and tear on those trails...

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a simple solution to this problem.

 

[RoySwkr]

I think quotas would be a good idea. They seem to be working on Mt. Whitney in California...

The problem with quotas on Whitney or Katahdin or anywhere is that they encourage people to hike in bad weather since you had to pick the day a month in advance and can't just wait till tomorrow. This is both more dangerous for the hiker and harder on the trail because the wet trail erodes worse.

It would be possible to close one particular trail up Giant (like the shortest trail up Camels Hump was closed permanently because it was steep and erosion-prone), just fell enough trees across it and put a big sign at the bottom giving alternate routes. This might divert some novices to Cascade but the peakbaggers would just put more wear on other trails and it might not be any better for the environment overall.

 

[TCD]

I think I've ranted about this topic a few times before. Sorry, here I go again:

Let's be careful to sort out "environmental damage" and "aesthetic concerns."

All the hiking we do does insignificant environmental damage. It's essentially invisible from the air. Go to Terraserver.com and try to see a hiking trail, even at the finest resolution. The extra erosion from heavy use just doesn't amount to anything in the big picture. The DEC's plan to build just one trail (up Iron Mountain) will do more damage than all our walking. (yes, I have filed my comments on the UMP during the comment period...) A mile of road does more damage than all the hiking that has ever taken place in the Adirondacks.

Heavy use definitely creates an aesthetic concern. Heavy use can turn a pretty pine bark path into a muddy rut. But if it's closed, no one's going to see it anyway, so why does it matter. If you don't like the way it looks, go hike in another spot.

But then there are the folks who want to close to MOST people (like Canadians, or the inexperienced, or the "uncommitted", or...), so it will look pretty for them...examine your motivations carefully, everyone...

 

[Pete_Hickey]

The problem with quotas on Whitney or Katahdin or anywhere is that they encourage people to hike in bad weather since you had to pick the day a month in advance and can't just wait till tomorrow. This is both more dangerous for the hiker and harder on the trail because the wet trail erodes worse.

Yes to the first, but 10 hikers in bad weather will probably do less damage than 200 hikers in good weather. You just have to set your numbers low enough.

With respect to voluntary limits? See how well the voluntary spring trail closures work? It works somewhat well, but there is a significant amount that either do not care, or do not know about it.