Glen Boulder short-cut

[Snowflea]

"The AMC is now educating the "Forbidden Tundra" at Huts each night and for the "Junior Naturalist" program. They specifically talk of which types of vegitation are "Forbidden Tundra" to step on and how its OK to walk around on the surrounding rocks."




...But then you contemplate the locations of Madison & Lakes of the Clouds Huts and you marvel at the irony of it all...


Timmus... your cartoon... Oh MY!!!!!!

 

[sapblatt]

Right on Giggy. Here's my thinking about all this : Cartoon by Jul

I don't know about anyone else, but I am voting for Julie (timmus) to be official VFTT "Artiste in Residence"

Stinkyfeet - great point - the AMC is just so full of irony - and somehow they never see it...

 

[David Metsky]

Trails here look fine to me and have for the last 10 years - what did they look like in the 1960's - I don't know. Humans have an impact everywhere and the mtns are no different.

I highly recommend Backwoods Ethics by Guy and Laura Waterman. They talk about their efforts to restore the Franconia Ridge trail with scree walls and hiker education. The trails along the ridge were 20-30' wide in places, with lots of dead vegetation and erosion.

You could easily argue that over the course of a million years our actions make no difference, and I can't disagree. But I'm up there now, and my experience is much more pleasant then it used to be because the environment looks less devistated. In the span of 20-30 years the actions of a small group of people have made for a more pleasant experience for 1000's of hikers. I feel that the same thing can operate in reverse.

The photos of Franconia Ridge may also be in Forest and Crag.

-dave-

 

[David Metsky]

Stinkyfeet - great point - the AMC is just so full of irony - and somehow they never see it...

I don't think this is fair. The huts in question were build over 100 years ago, before anyone had any consideration of preserving the wilderness. They've taken great strides in the past 20 years to lessen the impact of the huts in the sensitive alpine areas, with fewer helicopter trips, Clivus Multrum toilets, solar and wind power generation, and massive hiker education programs. From a historic standpoint, the huts probably contributed to the creation of the WMNF in a big way.

The huts would never be built there today, but they have over a century of history that isn't going away. You could easily argue that paving the Kanc or building I-93 has done far more to damage the alpine tundra than the huts since it allows more people to access the areas. Some things aren't going away; it's best to make the most use of what exists.

-dave-

 

[Neil]

Right on Giggy. Here's my thinking about all this : Cartoon by Jul

As long as they're on rock I guess it's OK for them to rock on, eh?

Makes me want to go hiking....

 

[bill bowden]

Above treeline hiking and ethics

The Watermans wrote a second book on the same topic with the title of "Wilderness Ethics" to go with "Backwoods Ethics" both are valuable for presenting issues and opinions and emphasizing that each of us makes our own decisions about how much or little we are going to impact the NE woods and tundra. Both are very worth reading, the more so if you tend to disagree with them.
It's clear from finding trails as deep ruts in the alpine zone that continued foot traffic has a huge impact on the plants and only the least traveled trails show any plant beyond the sandwort in the treadway. But... the Davis Path where the "bushwack" was mention is one such place (another is the Great Gully Trail), so is it OK? I'd personally say no because we don't know very much about the cumulative impact of hikers and it is far easier to preserve alpine tundra than it is to regenerate it. I suppose my own hope is that folks will understand the issues and make educated rather than uneducated decisions.
Wilderness with "Keep off the Grass" signs isn't really wilderness or even back woods, it's a park.

 

[sapblatt]

I don't think this is fair.
-dave-

I hear you Dave - and yes, I have stayed at the huts (self-service only), and god knows I like the trails that the AMC has built. I was not attempting to bash, I was just agreeing with the irony of it...getting a nature talk about the tundra plants while sitting in a hut built on the tundra is like listening to multibillionaire singer that records for CBS griping about the ills of corporate America.

The AMC does far more good than bad, and I do not want to see the huts or the history go away. - and I will take a Clivus Multrum over a hole in the forest any day.

FWIW - I avoid the plants at all costs...of course, I have never had a situation like the one timmus painted occur to me i if that happens, well, all bets are off.

 

[Jeff-B]

...But then you contemplate the locations of Madison & Lakes of the Clouds Huts and you marvel at the irony of it all...

I don't think this is fair.

-dave-

I could not agree more!

This is not rocket science we are talking about.
Here is a simple approach:
If you went over to your friends house, they had an extensive flower garden, would you trample through the garden or find the stepping stones through it?


The AMC alpine huts are situated in the middle of this "garden tundra" however there are designated foot paths, stone walls, ect to keep folks in the immediate surrounding hut area to a minimum impact.
Then they educate, "if" you choose to go off trail where NOT to step.

I honestly beleive the AMC and hut system has done more to provide education and alpine protection than if there were NO huts at all.

Case in point:
You won't find too many "herd paths" in the alpine regions of the Presidentials....but go check out what kinds of new trails have been popping up in the Pemmi region, even though it is a "protected wilderness"....by law.
I have seen a lot of changes over the last 30 years of hiking, wider trails, more trails, more illegal campsites and fire pits.


Jeff

 

[Kevin Rooney]

The subtext of this thread is rapidly turning into the debate between those who think the AMC is the best thing to protect the Northeastern forests vs. those who regard the AMC as hypocrites. The usual suspects are posting their opinions, pro and con.

Maybe it's time to lock this thread?

 

[--M.]

If you went over to your friends house, they had an extensive flower garden, would you trample through the garden or find the stepping stones through it?

This gets at the heart of it: These areas are now much closer to "park" than "wilderness," given the sheer numbers of visitors. Viewing each visit as a one-time thing that the area can then recover from is to ignore the thousands who will walk by that very area in the next year or two.

Individual cases are just that, and I'd be the last to tell someone they couldn't, or even shouldn't, walk there. But to say no one will notice is probably not true.

Last week on Algonquin, I was wondering if it would be okay to throw my banana peel as far off trail as I could get it. To my low-grade shame, this is what I did. Probably, no one will ever see it. But during the year or more it will take to fully decompose, there it will be. And, in the unlikely event that a bushwacker goes through where I threw it, they may see it, and I will have impacted their day. Big deal? No. But what if everyone did the same? It's not my sandbox alone, and I've got to admit that next time, it'll be the guilty feeling that gets me to wrap that thing up in something and pack it out.

I think Jeff-B is getting at the core issue.

--M.

 

[Greg]

Dave beat me to it.

The Watermans books "wilderness ethics" and "backwoods ethics" should be required reading for all who love the mountains. Lets leave it the way we found it.

 

[Jeff-B]

The subtext of this thread is rapidly turning into the debate between those who think the AMC is the best thing to protect the Northeastern forests vs. those who regard the AMC as hypocrites. The usual suspects are posting their opinions, pro and con.

Maybe it's time to lock this thread?

Lock it, WHY?

I never said the AMC was the "best thing to protect the NE", rather stating that they are one institution that does perform outstanding stewardship.
I also support the efforts of the Randolf Mt Club (RMC) and the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF).

I would support all those efforts rather than the bashing of such.



EDIT: Actually this post has gone way beyond initial topic, but is still for the better good of discussion, perhaps a new thread is in order

 

[Suebiscuit]

Hey Julie - Excellent cartoon. Is it titled "Forbidden Tundra"?

 

[David Metsky]

Actually this post has gone way beyond initial topic, but is still for the better good of discussion, perhaps a new thread is in order

[mod hat]
If folks wish to continue this discussion (and I think it's been good without any bashing) it makes sense to start a thread dedicated to the topic. Please keep any further posts in this thread on the subject at hand, which is the Glen Boulder short-cut in question.

-dave-
[/mod hat]

 

[timmus]

Hey Julie - Excellent cartoon. Is it titled "Forbidden Tundra"?

How about ''Licking on the lichen''

 

[SAR-EMT40]

Here's how I've learned it (I know you're dying to hear how I've learned it):

Hiking rules are like golf rules. They're numerous, difficult to learn, sometimes difficult to understand. And any given one can be ignored and not destroy the game. But they're usually there to improve each other's experience.

Having done so once, I'll never step on another's lie on the green again. It screwed up his shot and made me feel childish.

The mountains and their plants will likely be here in a thousand years. These suggestions teach us how to enhance the experience, both for the plants' sake and the sakes of other hikers. It's not cataclysmic to step on a cinquefoil, but it is poor form, and given the educated choice, most would choose to help.

Just another $0.02,

--M.

Holy S--t. Someone gets it. I wish everyone read this. Worth far more than $.02 IMHO. If it is posted I won't step there period. I trust that the person who put up the sign has studied this enough to know what he is talking about so I will listen. If I need or want to and it isn't posted I will step carefully so as to minimize my impact at much as possible. Simple.

The only caveat to this is that only important areas are posted. If everyone posts all areas it starts to have less and less meaning and would tend to get ignored more and more.

Keith

 

[dr_wu002]

I think people shouldn't step on the grass above treeline.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Neil]

I think people shouldn't step on the grass above treeline.

-Dr. Wu

Nice and concise Wu.
Speaking of vegetation I'd give ya some green but I'm fresh out. I think we go past "Go" at midnight.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Nice and concise Wu.
Speaking of vegetation I'd give ya some green but I'm fresh out. I think we go past "Go" at midnight.

I also agree w/ you, Wu.

Technically speaking, I don't think you can step on grass above treeline as I don't think it grows that high up (am talking about the kind your mow, not the kind you smoke). I think it's actually sedge, but same difference.

 

[Double Bow]

Technically speaking, I don't think you can step on grass above treeline as I don't think it grows that high up (am talking about the kind your mow, not the kind you smoke). I think it's actually sedge, but same difference.

Wait... we're smokin' sedge now????